Race and Roil: The Myth of Race War

As a Conservative reader of Conservative blogs I can tell you that there are many dangers to which Conservatives would like to alert you. There is the danger of the national deficit, which has reached $17 trillion dollars. There is the danger of the federal government ever expanding in power, as we see with the recent developments of Obamacare, Common Core, and an EPA that is developing almost unlimited power over the free market. There is the danger of Radical Islam, of illegal immigration, and of abortion. And there is yet another danger that is frequently mentioned, one that threatens the very fabric of our society, not to mention our very lives – and that is the danger of the upcoming Race War as evident by the sudden escalation of Black-on-White violence.

This is a very prevalent theme. WorldNetDaily (WND), for example, the fringe right-wing site previously mostly known for its incessant questioning President Obama’s birth certificate, posts stories about ‘Black mobs rampaging through out cities and killing Whites’ several times a week – always with the inevitable eye-roller that ‘no one else in the media to report this’. So frequent is their reporting of Black mobs terrorizing White people that one wonders how it is possible that there are any White people left.

WND frequently publishes Doug Giles, a writer who has dedicated countless columns to Black Mobs Terrorizing Whites. Recently Giles wrote a column titled “Another Black on White Beatdown: Why George Zimmerman Carried a Gun and Why You Should.” The “you” here seems to be White people. Giles advises not only concealed carry, but martial arts and traveling in packs as well. What has sparked Giles latest ringing of the racial alarm bell? Three teenagers – no, sorry, let’s quote him accurately , “three, weed-dealing black teenaged thugs” – beat up a White teenager on a school bus.

Another one of WND’s favorite columnists, Colin Flaherty, is ever busily promoting his self-published book, White Girl Bleed A Lot, which is essentially a scrapbook filled with anecdotes of African Americans committing crimes against Whites. Many of these crimes are horrific. Easy to see why this book has become the bible of the “Grab your guns, White America! Race war is coming!” crowd, especially after it received a favorable review from Dr. Thomas Sowell.

David Horowitz’s site, FrontPageMag.com, isn’t quite as alarmist as WND, but it isn’t certainly isn’t hesitant to exploit White fear by showing the pictures of Blacks accused of killing a White person. I emphasize the word “accused” because this site finds it difficult to wait until these accused murderers are actually found guilty of the crimes with which they are accused before they burn the youths in effigy. Perhaps this is because they are too eager to have their readers post their comments on the story – which are invariably along the lines of “these people are animals”, “I wish Zimmerman had killed more of them”, and, of course, “If Obama had a son, this is what he would look like” – to wait for an actual conviction.

Not all of these alarmists are the White right-wing fringe types. Victor Davis Hanson, the brilliant writer often read in National Review and a favored guest for us at AACONS, isn’t, and he wrote how he warned his sons to avoid Black people. Nor is African American American Thinker columnist Taleeb Starkes and he argues against the prospect of a continuing or future race war only because “A race war requires at least two engaging races, whereas the reoccurring black-white intra-racial violence is overwhelmingly one-sided (black).”

Bill O’Reilly recently reported while doing a segment on The Factor (“Killing White People”?) the “unbelievable” statistic that “in 2011 91% of Black Americans who were murdered were murdered by other Black Americans.”

I actually struggle to comprehend why O’Reilly finds this statistic so “astonishing”. But then, racial alarmists do not rely on actual facts as much as they rely on the fear and anger they can invoke from relating horrific yet anecdotal crime stories.

It has always been true that most murders are intraracial. As Ann Coulter wrote, and discussed with us on our radio show, “looking at the race of the victims is just another way of looking at the race of the murderer.” The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report that between 1976 and 1997, 94% of African Americans who were murdered, were murdered by African Americans.

This is also not unique to African Americans, of course. Murderers overwhelmingly murder those closest to them; meaning their spouses, family members, friends, associates, and neighbors. According to BJS, during the same 1976 to 1997 time period, 85% of White murder victims were killed by other Whites.

It is also worthwhile to point out that not all Black-on-White crime is racially motivated. They are not battles in a war against Whites. Nor are they acts of revenge for past sins. Many are simply robberies. In fact, according to the FBI, of all the crimes committed against White people in 2010, there were only 575 anti-White incidents.

Furthermore, not only is interracial murder, even Black-on-White murder, a small percentage the overall murder rate, this figure is also skewed by the frequent classification of Hispanics as White. This is significant because Hispanics also live in the same inner cities as Blacks, and are subject to the same outrageous crime rate as Blacks. And in some areas, such as Compton, reports are that racial conflicts and even gang violence have occurred between the two groups, much like when other groups such as the Irish Catholics immigrated in large numbers to inner cities.

Author Tim Wise has an interesting look at interracial crime statistics. He writes in an essay titled “Race, Crime and Statistical Malpractice: How the Right Manipulates White Fear with Bogus Data”:

Given the relative population percentages of whites and blacks, blacks are actually more likely to be interracially murdered by a white person than vice-versa. After all, as for homicides where the race of the offender is known, 447 B-W murders as a share of the white community is 2/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.0002) of all whites killed by blacks, which is 1 in every 500,000 white people who will be killed by a black person in a given year; meanwhile, 218 W-B homicides as a share of the black community is 5.5/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.00055).

So although interracial homicide is incredibly rare in either direction, any given black person is more than 2.75 times as likely as any given white person to be interracially murdered, with roughly 1 in every 180,000 black persons being killed by a white person in a given year.

Wise certainly seems to contradict Starkes’ claim about the one-sidedness of interracial violence.

This is not to excuse murder. Every murderer should be punished. There can be little in life more tragic than losing a loved one to the hands of a murderer, regardless of the race of the victim or the murderer. I can barely even imagine it.

But we should not listen to the exaggerated claims of race war by alarmists who do nothing to substantiate their claims. These alarmists do not us safer by roiling, exploiting, and heightening racial tensions between us. They do not make us wiser. Rather, they make us bigots.

–DK

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Cultural, Current events/topics, Media & Media Bias, Race/Racism/Race Relations | 6 Comments

Allen West RE: AB1266, CA Transgender Bathroom Law

allenFormer Congressman Allen West issued a statement exclusively to AACONS today, regarding CA 1266:

“There are many idiotic legislative actions emanating from the California State legislature and its misguided Governor Brown, drivers licenses to illegal immigrants most recently. However, most disgusting and reprehensible is this insidious idea into law allowing transgender children into opposite sex bathrooms and locker rooms without any verification. The law of unintended consequences abound, what about children who have been sexually abused? How is it that a small minority now threatens the safety and security of the greater number of our children. How did we get to this place where government subjugates the rights of parents? This law takes effect in January 2014 and represents another front for us to fight for our children.”

Note from AACONS: To help repeal this poorly thought out and biased bit of legislation, go to: http://bit.ly/CA1266Ref. CA is a heavily left-leaning state, so please help us by re-tweeting/re-posting! Thank you! –M.

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Activism, Activism/Advocacy, Cultural, Government, Media & Media Bias, Small/Limited Government | 2 Comments

Volitional Human Beings in the Aftermath of Trayvon Martin

This has been a good time to be a conservative. The aftermath of the acquittal of George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin has not only elevated Zimmerman to cult hero status, it has also freed Conservatives to express their fear and contempt of Martin, and of young Black men in general.

Anyone who has a conservative Twitter feed, follows the right-leaning blogs, watches Fox, and/or listens to talk radio has been inundated as of late with statistics on Black-on-Black crime. It is an important issue to be sure, and it is an issue AACONs has focused upon in the past as we undoubtedly will do so again. But the timing of this sudden onslaught of concern is suspect. Is it as Kirsten Powers says, “If conservatives are so concerned about black-on-black crime, it is concerning the only time I hear them talking about it is when they want to stick it to the Black community. And that’s what it seems like. Right now that’s the favorite topic. Topic A among conservatives is to talk about Black-on-Black crime. Black-on-Black crime is a year-round problem but now everyone is obsessing about it because they can make Black people feel bad about it”?

It seems so. Take a recent National Review column by Victor Davis Hanson for example. In it Hanson writes that he has told his sons to be wary of young Black men, which he did in response to a few incidents where he was victimized by them. This sounded familiar to me. My father, who was a successful business owner for most of his life, once told me when I was a boy that he felt he was cheated in some business dealings with Jews. Like Hanson, he warned me to avoid them whenever possible, because “their word don’t mean nothing”. No disrespect to Pop, but even then I thought that was crazy advice. I wonder how the Hanson boys responded to the advice they received. If it was heeded, what then would be their response if a young Black man was to come to them for friendship, or to shop at one of their stores, or to seek employment? How would the Hanson boys respond if they saw a young Black man walking through their neighborhood with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles?

Though Black Conservatives have been silent in responding to Hanson’s warning to avoid young Black men, they have hardly been silent on the response to Zimmerman’s acquittal. In fact, if this has been a good time to be a Conservative, it has been a great time to be a Black Conservative. There is no better time in general to be a Black Conservative than when the Conservative media needs a Black face to give it cover to denouncing the usual targets: Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, and the NAACP. Now that the target is the protests following the jury’s decision that Zimmerman would not be punished for killing Martin, Black Conservatives are in especially high demand.

With Black Conservatives, we now have Black-on-Black finger pointing aimed at the many self-inflicted wounds Blacks have been inflicting on its own people in an effort to trivialize the Martin protests. Who has been more widely praised in the Right media than Shelby Steele for his writing in the NY Times, “One wants to scream at all those outraged at the Zimmerman verdict: Where is your outrage over the collapse of the black family?” Again, many of Steele’s points are valid, but his argument is clearly along the lines of that made by many others, that with so many African Americans murdered each day, so many with broken families and living in poverty, then what difference does Trayvon Martin’s death make? I call this the Hillary Clinton Defense.

Funny though, when abortionist Dr. Goswell was on trial not too long ago, no one argued that since so many unborn are killed each day, many late term and by the same horrible methods Goswell used, then what difference would jailing Goswell make? Yet this is the argument they make in regard to the Zimmerman case.

Some Black Conservatives have been so eager to praise George Zimmerman that you would think that he had just rescued them from an overturned truck. We have seen them make straw-man arguments defending the right to self-defense, though that is a right no one is challenging, regardless of how we may feel about the Zimmerman acquittal.

We have seen even fairly mild and measured criticisms of the verdict attacked. Some even criticized President Obama for making the observation that “There are very few African American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were in a department store.” One does not have to be Malcolm X to agree with the president’s remark, so why then did Allen West respond by saying, “I don’t recall being followed in malls or shopping centers. I don’t recall car doors clicking locked when I walked across the street, And I definitely have not had women clutching their handbags and purses when I got on the elevator. I believe it comes back to being a respectful young man and maybe that’s something that was missing out of President Obama and Trayvon Martin’s life”?

There are maybe five people in politics I respect as much as I do Rep. West, and no one in politics I respect more, but I would bet the Lt. Col. that I could put him in a $2,000 suit and behind the wheel of a new BMW, and have him drive below the speed limit through certain neighborhoods not far from where I live, and he will be stopped by the police – regardless of what a respectful young man he may be.

True, some Black Conservatives legitimately agree with the verdict of the jury that found Zimmerman not guilty. But not all.  I doubt if even most do. So why then the near-unanimous timidity in speaking out against the verdict by Black Conservatives?  To paraphrase Ann Coulter, when did Black Conservatives stop being “volitional beings”?

The reason for this timidity is that Black Conservatives rely on the support of White Conservatives, and they are understandably very hesitant to offend their supporters. With an audience like that of Larry Elder’s or David Webb’s, or even AACONs’, one is simply better rewarded holding Guns-for-George drives than to cry “racism” regardless of how legitimate that cry may be.

It is unfortunate that so many prominent Black Conservatives seem unwilling to speak out against racism, because by not doing so they are not only poor representatives for Blacks, but are poor preachers for Conservatism as well, because Conservatism is the antithesis of racism. As Ayn Rand says, “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.”

–dk

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Attacks from the Left, Cultural, Current events/topics, Media & Media Bias, Race/Racism/Race Relations, racism | Tagged , , , | 16 Comments

Marie Stroughter Quoted on CNN Live

African-American Conservatives Co-Founder, Marie Stroughter, was quoted on CNN Live today, regarding parenting in the aftermath of the Zimmerman trial verdict.

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Cultural, Current events/topics, Media & Media Bias, Race/Racism/Race Relations, racism | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman and a Willing Suspension of Disbelief

It is about race.

Without race, there is no explanation for the Martin tragedy, or the reaction to it.

I admit my initial reaction to Martin’s death was based on race – at least in a sense. As an African American male I am well familiar with the circumstances that led to Martin’s death. Too often was I approached and stopped by George Zimmerman-types for having the audacity for walking into their stores, or through their neighborhoods. Like most Blacks and like Martin, I know what it is to be considered suspicious for no other reason than my skin color.

Whites, too, had a visceral reaction to the Martin tragedy. To many on the Left, it was an example of an all too familiar meme to them, The White Man’s Oppression of the Poor, The Weak, and The Minority, although Zimmerman is not White but a minority himself. It was Kunte Kinte being whipped into saying his name was Toby. It was the reason why so many Blacks are in poverty or in prison. It was the reason why some don’t support Obama.

To Whites on the Right, it was an example of another all too familiar meme, The White Man’s Prosecution by The Poor, The Weak, and The Minority. It was the Duke case. It was Paula Deen being tarred and feathered for calling someone a word 30 years ago that they hear every day on hip hop radio. It was Al Sharpton driving an innocent White man to suicide with false accusations during the Tawana Brawley scheme.

Worse, it was an opportunity for revenge against the Black Thug, who they see – not totally undeservedly, actually – as a threat and a societal cancer.

However, as evidence of the case began to be (honestly) reported, when it became time to put aside our emotional reaction to it, many failed to do so. The case – the crime and the reaction to it would always be about race.

Which makes sense, actually. What other reason could explain why Trayvon Martin was profiled and followed on the last night of his life, when he was simply walking through the neighborhood where his father’s fiancee lived, to be home with his father?

What other reason could explain why anyone would think that Zimmerman had a legitimate reason to believe that his life was in danger, when the medical examiner reported what we should have been able to easily observe from the pictures ourselves, that Zimmerman’s injuries were minor and not life-threatening?

What other reason would explain why anyone would think it was the armed Zimmerman shouting for help on that 911 tape, when the shouts ended the moment the shot was fired?

What other reason could explain why so many still believe Martin jumped out from behind bushes to attack Zimmerman, when those bushes were shown not to exist?

What other reason would explain why so many take as gospel Zimmerman’s story that he – despite being ‘grounded and pounded MMA style’ and ‘having his head bashed repeatedly against the cement,’  - managed the almost physical impossibility of being able to pull out a weapon that was holstered on his back and shoot the teen on top of him in the chest? Or why so few notice ”Mr. Zimmerman’s claim that Mr. Martin pounded his head on concrete in his final moments did not fit the crime scene, since Mr. Martin’s body was found on the grass a substantial distance from any concrete,” as Attorney Lisa Bloom puts it in the NY Times (http://tinyurl.com/k92r2kw)?

What other reason could explain why anyone, but especially conservatives, and especially by those in the conservative media, would so easily believe that Zimmerman’s story, when Zimmerman’s story was clearly not credible and often found to be dishonest?

What other reason could explain why Zimmerman was in fact canonized by the conservative media? Karin McQuillan for example in The American Thinker wrote how Zimmerman was “an outstanding race-blind man”, despite Zimmerman’s arrest record and that he posted on his MySpace page how every Mexican he ran into had a knife providing evidence that Zimmerman was neither “outstanding” nor “race-blind”. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh both entertained their audiences with their arguments that Zimmerman should not have even been tried. Ann Coulter, on hearing that Zimmerman was found not guilty shouted out “Hallelujah!” as if world peace had just been declared and the Son had returned to lead his flock.

What other reason could explain why Martin was so savagely attacked by conservatives who – when they weren’t too busy filling their social media pages with examples of Blacks attacking Whites and making apocalyptic predictions of Blacks rioting through the streets – portrayed Martin as a threat to civilization, based Martin’s love of pot, rap lyrics, and other examples of thuggishness?

Pat Dollard – a highly respected right-leaning journalist and columnist – has since the verdict gone beyond dancing on Martin’s grave. He has been using his twitter account to spit upon it too. His best-of tweets include such gems as “the racist criminal in this case got his justice the moment he was shot after assaulting George Zimmerman,” “Here’s what the black community needs to learn from the verdict: You will now be held accountable for your rampant violence and crime,” and “It is appalling & disgusting that the black community is so nearly uniformly despicable in its demand for GZ to be lynched because hes white.” His greatest hit however is undoubtedly “how many victims did George Zimmerman save that night” by killing Trayvon Martin?

Fortunately not every conservative favors such blatant racism. David Horowitz, author of many books on the Left, including the ironically titled Hating Whitey and The Race Card: White Guilt, Black Resentment, and the Assault on Truth and Justice, recently posted a very insightful column at FrontPage Mag, writing:

It is a fact that many, if not most conservatives have already concluded that George Zimmerman is innocent of any crime in connection with Trayvon Martin’s death and should be acquitted if justice is to be served. Indeed, this opinion was formed long before the trial began as a reaction to the outcry of liberals that Zimmerman was guilty — and guilty of being white – and that the crime was murder, and must be punished. But just because a lynch mob has formed to condemn Zimmerman in advance of the facts, does not mean one must conclude that Zimmerman is innocent of Trayvon Martin’s death.

The political melodrama that surrounds, and often overwhelms the judgments in this case reflects a culture war that has been roiling in this country for decades. It is a war in which the liberal ethos of “political correctness” requires that whites are bad and blacks are victims. Right-thinking individuals are justified in rejecting this poisonous standard. But in the interests of justice, the political melodrama should also not be allowed to obscure the reality of this trial: it is about the death of an unarmed 17-year-old, who was not a felon, who was on a neighborhood run to get Skittles, and whose life has been extinguished. Given that the young man was unarmed and that he inflicted very superficial injuries on his adversary during their scuffle, Zimmerman’s claim that he was in fear for his life has to be taken with a grain of salt, to say the least.

What we have learned through the process of the trial thus far is that the only surviving witness, Zimmerman, is not credible. He has lied on several revealing occasions. First about not having any money to post bail when he had $150,000 in his account. Second, about not being aware of the Stand Your Ground Law, when he had taken a class that discussed the law. Third, and most importantly, about Trayvon jumping out of the bushes to attack him — because those bushes don’t exist. So, one has to ask, did he also lie about returning to his vehicle and that only then was he attacked? Or was he still following Trayvon, provoking the alleged attack?”

Nicholas Wapshott, author of Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics, also provides lucidity on the Martin case, pointing out in a column on Reuters that “Young Martin’s death should cause us to stop and consider the broader principles of policing and justice. The reckless pursuit of an unarmed black boy in a hoodie by a vigilante inspired by suspicions based on race shows how dangerously unjust it is to use racial profiling as a means to detain suspected criminals.”

Wapshott also points out that the Martin case underlines that Stand Your Ground laws are “pernicious.” Given how these grounds were used by many to justify the killing of Martin and others like Martin, it is easy to see why he said this. This article from the Rolling Stone magazine http://tinyurl.com/knocsj2 relates the story of Jordan Davis, another unarmed Black Florida teen, who was shot and murdered by White 45 year old Michael David Dunn after a brief verbal argument when Davis would not turn his “thug music” down. As I write, Dunn is on trial pleading not guilty based on the Stand Your Ground law, saying he felt threatened when he fired upon the teen.

It has all been about race. Martin would not have killed if he was not Black. Zimmerman would not have been made a hero if he was Black. And it is impossible to come to this conclusion without also coming to the conclusion that this world is more racist, and more dangerous, than I had previously thought.

– dk

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Activism, Cultural, Current events/topics, Media & Media Bias, Race/Racism/Race Relations, racism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 42 Comments

An Evening with Rand Paul

398245_10151621406511072_543717110_nIn my last few blog posts, I’ve shared with our readers how I’ve struggled to articulate all I felt about November’s election. Of all the emotions I went through, from shock, disappointment…and a bit of anger, I think the overarching theme from my Monday morning armchair quarterbacking was one of a pervasive sense of, once again, sitting on the outside. Feeling like I didn’t belong on the inside, and after all Black Conservatives go through from our ethnic community, from the Left, and honestly, from some well-meaning but “wrong-headed” people on the Right, once again, a great opportunity was missed and I was left on the outside…..again.

Many in the Black Conservative movement immediately began venting: “leave the Party,” “Forget the GOP,” “Do our own thing…” and so it went. And, I can’t say their anger was misplaced. We’ve been offered lip service for many years, with nothing truly substantive or anything different from “business as usual” being offered to us.

If “Gafftastic Joe Biden” says something goofy like “they gonna put y’all back in chains!” well, then you will see Black Conservatives in droves on Fox, or various radio shows. Anything involving race, and there we are. But, I am more than race…and so are all the many brilliant Black Conservatives it has my privilege to interview over these past four years. We have conservatism running through our veins and it is the same as our conservative counterparts across all ethnic communities. We care about free markets, life, traditional marriage, and small government. But, it is rare to see us, other than on the sidelines, on TV or in the media. Why isn’t there someone of color on “The Five?” My thought in November — and still is — that until we are seamlessly integrated into conservative media, we will continue to be portrayed as “tokens.”

That’s not to say the mainstream media will embrace us. They won’t. But one of their favorite weapons will be neutralized: the race card. And with historical fact on our side, we can begin to provide solution-oriented approaches to the issues plaguing communities of color and society at large.

Thus, it was music to my ears to hear that Senator Rand Paul took the brave, gutsy and courageous step to speak before the students at Howard University, one of the Historically Black Colleges & Universities (HBCU). After being told by Pat Buchanan that, “we go where the votes are” and essentially thumbing his (and the GOP “elite’s”) nose at the Black community, I applauded Senator Paul’s effort to put himself out there and begin engaging the African-American audience — a largely Democrat one at that! He didn’t begin with an “easy” foray, like speaking to Black Conservatives, he chose Howard and, while they may not have agreed with him, he was praised for reaching out.

When we interviewed him on the show a few weeks back, and he enthusiastically discussed his speech at Howard, we made a connection with his team, and in short order, worked out a plan to have the senator meet with a group of Black and other conservatives of color on his trip to CA.

The fundraiser was held last night at the mansion of the President of the Frederick Douglass Foundation of CA (FDFCA), Kevin McGary and his lovely wife, Tracy. The event was well attended, and afterward, though exhausted after a grueling day of travel and other appearances, the senator held a private meeting with the Executive Board of FDFCA, a board upon which I serve as Communications Director. In our 45 minute to one hour private meeting, I perceived the senator to be most sincere in his desire to truly engage communities of color. Not mere outreach, but full-on inclusivity and engagement at all levels. I cannot tell you what it meant for me to be a part of this meeting and hear the sincerity pour forth from this courageous man who has bucked the Establishment GOP at every turn!

Though the values of the Black community are more aligned with conservative principles (look at the traditional marriage vote, not once but twice in CA, and know that had to be Democrats of color voting their values), will this inclusivity mean Black folks will immediately jump ship and join the Republican party? No. It’s going to take time, effort and repeated attempts. The Obama administration has done nothing for the Black community: our schools are still in dire decline, unemployment is double and treble that of other communities, crime is still high and the abortion rate is astronomical. But change is hard for some people, and so it will be for the Black community to see that efforts to thwart the policies of this administration are not “racist” but an attempt to put forth real solutions, such as school choice, free market entrepreneurship and other ideas to benefit all communities, especially those of color.

Senator Paul stated that should he decide to seek the presidency in 2016, his will not be the traditional campaign. He will go to HBCUs and pulpits across our country. He is already making plans for follow-up actions on some of the concerns raised at last night’s meeting. I have full confidence he will follow through and that he will engage all Americans in his pursuit of policies that benefit us all.

Senator Paul is a gracious, sincere, down-to-earth family man. His wife, Kelly, and their youngest son also attended the event. Wherever this all leads, I am truly thankful for the opportunity to meet them and share my concerns with them…and feel like I have been heard.

Senator Paul has not formally declared his candidacy, and I do not know all who may enter the race, thus I cannot say who I will support. But I will say this publicly: I will enthusiastically continue to aid Senator Paul in his effort to reverse the negative perception of conservatives in communities of color and applaud him for every effort made to this end.

If nothing else, I feel that I am closer to the goal that was the genesis for what we have created here at African-American Conservatives, and that was to bridge the gap between communities of color and conservative principles.

Photo Credit: Linda Cano Avila (I took a picture of the picture at the event so I could post…and the picture is still at the venue)

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Current events/topics, Elections, General, GOP/RNC, Race/Racism/Race Relations, Tea Party | Tagged , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

God and Marriage

photoI’ve read a lot of articles over the past several years, ever since my state voted against same sex marriage (twice). Now that the issue is before the Supreme Court, I see tensions running high on both sides, but few have articulated what I hope to be the definitive explanation on the matter, on behalf of those who object.

With all the love, respect and patience I have, I am going to try to explain why same sex marriage is an oxymoron.

Before commencing with the “no h8″ hooha, try to hear me out…it’s the only way to know what I am thinking. Which is one of many problems with my opinions in general…many on the other side of issues dear to me use hateful words because I think differently, rather than trying to get into my head so they can truly understand my perspective rather than just bash it.

I don’t hate gay people, so I’m not a “h8r,” nor am I afraid of them, so I’m clearly not a homophobe. These are words used to “emotionalize” an issue, rather than discuss facts; and to denigrate the ideology of those one disagrees with. I don’t call names: I use facts and there are plenty of them here. We just may not agree on them.

If you really, really just want to “get it” you are going to have to wade through some stuff that may make you uncomfortable, maybe even make you mad, but making assumptions about me won’t help us understand each other.

So often liberals tell me about the separation of church and state. My kids could not pray in a traditional school if I didn’t homeschool them, because, supposedly, their “free exercise of religion” violates “separation of church and state.” How currency with “in God we trust” offends (BTW, if you are reading this and are offended by that currency, you can hit that donate button up top and I will gladly relieve you of it!). Arguing that having the Ten Commandments displayed is a violation of this “separation of church and state” but peeing on religious symbols isn’t and is “art” protected by free speech. All of which goes to show me, very few understand the intent and true meaning of the term.

The government of England established a “state church.” Let that sink in. The government established a state sponsored religious entity. Not that religion itself was wrong, per se. But the government established a religion everyone had to follow. Not “everyone can find his/her own path” or “celebrate the god of his choice” or even the option to be an atheist, if one so desired.

Thus, some folks, after establishing independence from England, said (cue the Schoolhouse Rock music), that never again would the government tell them how to (or not to) worship God. Each person was to be free from the government telling them how to worship. Thus, “separating” the government from telling the “church” what to do.

Fast forward to now: the government is telling religious people that they must provide abortifacients contrary to their religious beliefs, even when they are commonly available elsewhere (and we are forced to fund those other ones as well, regardless of our faith). Yes, the government, once again, is telling the Church (used in a universal sense), what it must do, “or else.”

Liberals for so long have castigated Christians for “clinging to their Bibles,” yet now…..now!!!…now a group of people want in on something that was created by this very God they want out of their government…and out of their political party, by booing Him and trying to vote Him out of it.

God created marriage.

I set that sentence apart because you need to understand that in order to understand my objection to same sex marriage. God created marriage and you cannot “separate” Him from it. He created it, and without Him it did not exist before He established it. In the thousands of years since God created marriage, it has followed His exact precepts: one man and one woman. You cannot out-legislate God (He created law, too!). Gays and lesbians can create something else, but cannot take what He has created and strip it of the parts not liked! Marriage is God’s “intellectual property.”

Marriage does not exist apart from God.

Here’s where I get a lot more people mad at me: advocates of same sex marriage aren’t the only ones who have it wrong about who may marry. That’s right. There are conditions, only one of which specifies the sexes of the candidates eligible to be married. Matthew 19 talks about some other criteria: you can’t have been married before and have cheated on your spouse. That, too, creates an unscriptural situation that God nor His people are to recognize. The one cheated upon may remarry, but the “guilty party?” Hosed. That’s how seriously God takes this precious institution He created.

Many articles have touched upon the issue of creating children, something that only a male and female can do (yes, I am an adoptive mom, and understand the other methods of family-building). However, the need for a man and a woman in order to produce children is yet another fingerprint God placed upon His design for marriage.

When I gave birth to my oldest son, I said it was the closest I would ever come to understanding how God created mankind. By the same token, marriage is the DNA of God’s relationship with the church. It is through marriage we understand God’s love for His church. This concept is at the very heart of religion, because Scripture tells us that His church is His bride, He died for her, and that His love for us is like a man’s love for his wife (Ephesians 5:25ff). Note the masculine and feminine verbiage. You cannot alter that, thus, you cannot alter marriage.

You cannot divest yourselves of the “trappings” of religion and take something that is, by its very nature, religious. You can’t skip the “religion” part that forbids males to be with males and females to be with females and then insist upon being let into the inner sanctum of religion (Romans 1:24-27).

If someone wants to will something to someone else, get power of attorney, have hospital visitation rights….those are legal and/or contractual issues. And no one (at least no one that I know) is saying anything about those. We are saying leave religion out of this, and marriage is inextricably linked to God and His church.

By the same token, you cannot have “gay marriage” and have the First Amendment stand, too. By practicing the tenets I have outlined here, I cannot “recognize” a government issued same sex “marriage.” If I were a clergy person, I could not perform such a ceremony (and, yes, I do know of ministers who will not perform marriages for those unscripturally divorced (on behalf of the person who committed adultery)).

By trying to force me to provide abortifacients, to recognize a marriage that the practice of my religion tells me cannot exist because it does not meet the qualifications, or by forcing someone to perform such a marriage, that “separation” of government telling the “church” what to do ceases to exist, and thereby my constitutionally protected First Amendment right to practice my religion unfettered by governmental interference. You simply cannot have it both ways: remove all that “religious stuff” in government, but yet have government and its courts dictate the tenets of religion. Period.

Once we go down this slippery slope, as we are already with the HHS mandate, then you begin to have government encroach upon an area where there is a much Higher Law, and, again, where the government then subjugates people protected by the First Amendment to a group of people who want a piece of something steeped in religion without that religion itself.

Many will not understand what I’ve written here. Many will still brand me a homophobe or bigot (yet actually branding me one would actually make them the bigots…but I digress). I’m used to being called much worse. And I’m okay with that: “If the world hates you, know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” (John 15:18, 19 ESV)

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Activism, Current events/topics, General, Government, Healthcare, Spiritual, Supreme Court | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Race and Republicans

first-senator-and-reps_96759839a9_80ec6cdcde

I was honored to speak today on Arise.tv about the role of African-Americans in the Republican party.

There’s only so much you can say in seconds-long sound bites, particularly when many charges are being leveled at you with machine gun rapid fire. But the one false accusation still resonating with me hours later, one that still has me spitting mad, is that Allen West and other GOP minorities are somehow token poster children for “white guilt.”

On-air, I was (and still am) the first to concede that after “taking one on the jaw” as LTC West put it in his CPAC speech, the GOP is doing some much needed soul searching on a wide variety of issues with respect to its brand image. However, the Republican Party doesn’t need an infusion of “Roots,” it merely needs to reconnect with its (well documented) roots.

Those intimately familiar with the history of the Republican Party know that some of its first elected leaders were Black men. Men freed thanks to the Republican Party!

As this chart from Black Americans in Congress (BAIC) shows, there were no Blacks elected in the Democrat Party until 1935, some sixty years after the first elected Black Republicans:

Congress* Name State Party Service

41st (1869-1871) LONG,Jefferson Franklin GA Republican House
41st (1869-1871) RAINEY, Joseph Hayne SC Republican House
41st (1869-1871) REVELS, Hiram Rhodes MS Republican Senate

42nd (1871-1873) DE LARGE, Robert Carlos SC Republican House
42nd (1871-1873) ELLIOTT, Robert Brown SC Republican House
42nd (1871-1873) RAINEY, Joseph Hayne SC Republican House
42nd (1871-1873) TURNER, Benjamin Sterling AL Republican House
42nd (1871-1873) WALLS, Josiah Thomas FL Republican House

43rd (1873-1875) CAIN, Richard Harvey SC Republican House
43rd (1873-1875) ELLIOTT, Robert Brown SC Republican House
43rd (1873-1875) LYNCH, John Roy MS Republican House
43rd (1873-1875) RAINEY, Joseph Hayne SC Republican House
43rd (1873-1875) RANSIER, Alonzo Jacob SC Republican House
43rd (1873-1875) RAPIER, James Thomas AL Republican House
43rd (1873-1875) WALLS, Josiah Thomas FL Republican House

44th (1875-1877) BRUCE, Blanche Kelso MS Republican Senate
44th (1875-1877) HARALSON, Jeremiah AL Republican House
44th (1875-1877) HYMAN, John Adams NC Republican House
44th (1875-1877) LYNCH, John Roy MS Republican House
44th (1875-1877) NASH, Charles Edmund LA Republican House
44th (1875-1877) RAINEY, Joseph Hayne SC Republican House
44th (1875-1877) SMALLS, Robert SC Republican House
44th (1875-1877) WALLS, Josiah Thomas FL Republican House

45th (1877-1879) BRUCE, Blanche Kelso MS Republican Senate
45th (1877-1879) CAIN, Richard Harvey SC Republican House
45th (1877-1879) RAINEY, Joseph Hayne SC Republican House
45th (1877-1879) SMALLS, Robert SC Republican House

46th (1879-1881) BRUCE, Blanche Kelso MS Republican Senate

47th (1881-1883) LYNCH, John Roy MS Republican House
47th (1881-1883) SMALLS, Robert SC Republican House

48th (1883-1885) O’HARA, James Edward NC Republican House
48th (1883-1885) SMALLS, Robert SC Republican House

49th (1885-1887) O’HARA, James Edward NC Republican House
49th (1885-1887) SMALLS, Robert SC Republican House

51st (1889-1891) CHEATHAM, Henry Plummer NC Republican House
51st (1889-1891) LANGSTON, John Mercer VA Republican House
51st (1889-1891) MILLER, Thomas Ezekiel SC Republican House

52nd (1891-1893) CHEATHAM, Henry Plummer NC Republican House

53rd (1893-1895) MURRAY, George Washington SC Republican House

54th (1895-1897) MURRAY, George Washington SC Republican House

55th (1897-1899) WHITE, George Henry NC Republican House

56th (1899-1901) WHITE, George Henry NC Republican House

71st (1929-1931) DE PRIEST, Oscar Stanton IL Republican House

72nd (1931-1933) DE PRIEST, Oscar Stanton IL Republican House

73rd (1933-1935) DE PRIEST, Oscar Stanton IL Republican House

74th (1935-1937) MITCHELL, Arthur Wergs IL Democrat House

History speaks for itself: Republicans freed the slaves and Republicans championed Civil Rights. With the rise of the Tea Party, Conservatives are reconnecting with our historical legacy, and emerging from our ranks are strong men and women of color like Allen West, Mia Long, Star Parker, Tim Scott and Marco Rubio. These are not “tokens;” these are men and women convinced that limited government and free market solutions provide the best opportunities for all Americans, including those of color.

History has shown the GOP to be very different from the “bigots” the Left routinely paints them to be. Nor are they “anti-women,” as guest host Karen Hunter charged this morning, but rather champions of the rights of women from the womb, particularly Black women, who are more likely to be aborted than born, as a recent statistic out of New York shows.

Ms. Hunter went on to say that former RNC Chairman, Michael Steele was merely a counter-measure to the election of Barack Obama. Now, faithful readers know I have had my fair share of gripes about Mr. Steele, but being a “token” isn’t one of them. During Mr. Steele’s candidacy, did anyone from his party talk about his “Negro dialect” (that he could turn off “at will”) or call him “clean and articulate” (as opposed to what, I’d like to know — “dirty and inarticulate?”). Not only was then-Senator Obama called that, he went on to choose the author of that latter remark as his running mate! Only in the DNC could something like that happen, and yet the GOP is painted with the “raaaacist” brush!

Ah, facts (and the indelible memory of the Internet) – enemies of the Left. The next time you hear that “racist rhetoric” from your friendly neighborhood Lefty, please set them straight, or send them here!

* List does not include Joseph Willis Menard who was elected to the House of Representatives in 1868, but, in a contested race, was not allowed to be seated.

Photo Credit: New York Public Library

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Abortion, Attacks from the Left, Cultural, DNC/Democrats, Elections, General, GOP/RNC, Race/Racism/Race Relations, racism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Win a Copy of Madison Rising’s Debut Album!

As mentioned on our radio show this week, with Dave Bray, lead vocalist for Madison Rising, the band is offering copies of their debut album to a few of AACONS’ fans!

Get the details here [link disabled post-contest], and in the meantime, check out the interview with Dave and be sure to listen to Madison Rising’s inspiring rendition of the Star Spangled Banner as part of their mission to garner 5 million views by Independence Day, 2013!

[contest links removed post-contest]

Thanks, Madison Rising!

Congrats to our winners!
On-Air winner: Tom R.
Facebook winner: Laura B.
Twitter winner: Eric J.

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Tea Party | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Why Barack Obama is Nothing Like Jesus Christ

Despite anything a Hollywood “comedian” might tell you, or some common artist who paints the President as dying on a cross, newsflash: Barack Obama is not the Savior.

Comedian Jamie Foxx made remarks at a recent awards show that I can’t even repeat because the Christian in me cannot abide the blasphemous, but the basic gist was a deification of the utterly mortal Barack Obama.

Hypocrisy and blasphemy amongst Tinsel Town’s elite is nothing new. It is ironic that these liberal “celebrities” decry the uber-wealthy and say they need to pay their “fair share.” Yet these people, paid millions of dollars, are the rich that they seem to hold in such disdain. They hold fundraisers that you and I couldn’t afford to attend unless we were willing to give up a year’s salary (assuming we were employed, no thanks to this administration). However, even by Hollywood’s “standards,” Mr. Foxx’s declaration would appear to be a new low.

I’ve long warned family and friends who are Democrats, yet claim to be Christians, to be careful in their support of Mr. Obama. I’ve quoted Scripture. I’ve talked about the Bible’s admonition about those with “hands swift to shed innocent blood,” and how then-Senator Obama not only supported abortion, but voted four separate times to continue the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. I’ve quoted book, chapter and verse about homosexuality. I’ve expressed concern at the Democrat’s attempt to “vote God out” of their party, and how they booed Him at their convention. Now this.

Proverbs 6:27 says, “Can a man take fire in his bosom and his clothes not be burned?” Christians, with this devotion to a mere man, you are playing with fire!

Noah spoke for 120 years before the flood, and only 8 listened to him and were saved (1 Peter 3:20). When do people who say that they believe in God begin to show it and say “enough?” Nobody is saying you should run on down and register as a Republican, but can a person of “faith” in all good conscience remain a card carrying Democrat?

The contrast between the Son of God and Barack Obama could not be clearer:

Jesus was perfect and without sin, and was the only One in the history of mankind who could claim this.

Jesus was crucified. In Matthew 20:20-28, the mother of James and John came to Jesus seeking places of honor for her sons. Jesus said, ‘You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?’ (meaning his manner of death by crucifixion, one considered shameful and reserved for criminals).

Regardless of what you may think about the President’s treatment in conservative media, Mr. Obama is alive and well. He has not been physically beaten or flogged by angry people who then made him carry a wooden cross on his blood-stained back along a public pathway leading to a place where he had stakes hammered into his body, put up on display for all to see, hanging between two thieves.

Jesus has a church. Though I know many who worship at the “altar of Obama,” they are deluded. That brutal death I described above was that of Jesus Christ, and the resulting death of this perfect and sinless God-man is what purchased our freedom from sin, places us in His church, and offers the hope of eternal life.

Jesus can affect our eternal destination, whether that be Heaven or Hell. This blind devotion to Barack Obama might land you in Hell over stuff like the current foolishness in equating him with the Savior, but the President cannot grant you entrance into Heaven.

God condemns worship of any other. In the Old Testament, we have the command that we “have no other gods.” Note the “little g” ‘god’ in contrast to the “big G” God!

Growing up, many of us heard of great Bible heroes like Moses and Elijah. However, Luke 9:27-36 tells us that when Peter saw these two great men talking to our Lord, he wanted to build monuments to all three. God didn’t even let Peter finish expressing the thought, but put the kibosh on the idea by saying, ‘This is my Chosen One, hear Him!’

If you are willing to follow some human being, you really should follow someone who can remit your sins, and grant you an eternal home. And guess what, Left? It’s ….FREE!

–Marie Stroughter

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Abortion, Current events/topics, Media & Media Bias, Spiritual | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments