I really tried to stay out of the Trayvon Martin case. But people are writing some really dumb things online –particularly about his choice of attire: a hoodie — and my outrage at the truly ignorant and, frankly racist, remarks I’m seeing online prompted me to spout off on the comment threads of these posts, and on Facebook among my friends. But the fire in my belly still burns, so I really need to process this here, with you.

Two things really set me off:

The first was this article about Geraldo Rivera’s remarks equating a hooded sweat jacket (commonly called a hoodie) with “gangsta” clothing. **

Since when does a hoodie translate into full on “gangsta” apparel? Hoodies refer to the hood attached to the top, not where they are purchased and worn! It’s a sweat jacket…and people of all colors wear them for warmth, exercise, and yeah, a relaxed clothing option (like jeans & a t-shirt). Where has it ever been reported that this kid wore “saggy pants?” It’s a hoodie! A common item sold just about everywhere. Further, one of the comments mentions “gang colors.” As far as I know the hoodie was black, and he was not in known gang territory, but rather an affluent gated community where his father’s fiancee had a home. Nor was there any evidence that Trayvon Martin ever had any sort of gang affiliation at any point in his life. Maybe it’s still my simmering anger, but, the incident itself, and the subsequent commentary about it, seem to imply, by extension, that Blacks cannot be wealthy or live wherever they want…the whole reason George Zimmerman found Trayvon Martin’s presence “suspicious.”

The second catalyst for my “day of rage:” Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson the NAACP, ACLU, athletes and celebrities alike are all harping on the fact that it’s taken a month for all of this to trickle out to the press. Just like Bristol Palin questioned when she might receive a call from the President in the wake of “Fluke-gate,” I ask: Why aren’t all these civil rights “heroes” converging on California and sounding the media alarm about Shaima Alawadi? Since the media is largely ignoring the story, I’ll tell you that she’s the 32-year old Iraqi mother who died after being brutally beaten and left for dead, only to be removed from life support and succumbing to her injuries days later.

Whereas the jury is still out on whether the Martin/Zimmerman case was racially motivated (facts are still being uncovered), we do know the Alawadi murder was. Mrs. Alawadi recieved a letter days before the incident, stating, “Go back to your country, you terrorist.” The assumption is, because Mrs. Alawadi was Iraqi and ostensibly wore a hajib (I say that because her daughter does), she is somehow a member of al-Qaeda — the Trayvon Martin equivalent of automatic “gang” affiliation? Just as with Trayvon Martin, isn’t that a stereotype? Is now the hajib the Middle Eastern equivalent of a “hoodie” (now redefined as “gangsta” apparel?).

I have often said that the last three years of all this “conservatives are racist because they disagree with the President (who happens to be Black) must be racially motivated” ca-ca would result in desensitization of — and confusion about — true instances of racism…and here we are. The Alawadi murder is a case of racism, and the Martin case is being pursued as one.

I really do hope that reason, evidence, hard-cold facts and cooler heads prevail in following wherever the trail leads in the Trayvon Martin case. But, as with most things that get stuck in my craw, I had to point out the hypocrisy in the outrage in one instance (Trayvon Martin’s case) and the utter silence of the other (justice for Mrs. Alawadi). I want justice for all crimes — including hate crimes — and without regard to the color, race, religion or orientation of the victim or the perpetrator. Now that’s the real  definition of “post-racial!”!

** I think Geraldo’s words were ridiculous in the extreme. But to say that these comments cost him his “credibility” is equally ridiculous….He lost that years ago with Al Capone’s tomb.

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement

Newt Gingrich was the only presidential candidate to make an appearance at the California Republican Party conference (CRP) this weekend in Burlingame, CA.

With introductions by Michael Reagan, Herman Cain, and Callista Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House refuted point by point President Obama’s speech on energy given this past Friday.

Blessed to be onstage with such political luminaries was African-American Conservatives’ Co-Founder, Marie Stroughter.

President Obama’s speech on energy at the University of Miami

Speaker Gingrich’s rebuttal at CRP

AACONS Co-Founder, Marie Stroughter onstage listening to Michael Reagan

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement

Conservatism, when it moves forward, does not dash out like a sprinter from starting blocks, but rather it stumbles forward like a prizefighter, weary from the blows he’s received, dreading the blows to come, yet determined to press ahead.

Recent elections speak to the resiliency of Conservatism. In 2008 – the year of the economic collapse, Bush stimulus, TARP, and bailouts – Conservatism suffered as great imaginable, yet it managed to climb up from the canvas.  2008 saw the emergence of the Tea Party, and with millions of people protesting for lower taxes, smaller government, and Constitutionalism we soon saw the largest number of Conservatives elected to Congress since 1992.   Republicans picked up 6 Senate seats, 63 House seats, and 6 governorships in 2010, but more important than the sheer number of victories won by Republicans was that the Republicans who won did so by running on Conservatism. The Republican Party seemed to be moving away from being a party of Arlen Spector and becoming the party of Pat Toomey, Allen West, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, and Marco Rubio.

In 2011 we saw how Conservatism could endure being bloodied and battered without being beaten particularly in Wisconsin, where its newly elected Conservative governor Scott Walker became a national punching bag for progressives. In protest of the Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill; which required public union members to pay more for their health benefits and pension plans while limiting their union’s ability to collectively bargain; Wisconsinites, fueled by union money and the leftwing media, particularly MSNBC,  unleashed a storm of protest against Walker. They occupied the State Capitol and college campuses, shadowed and heckled Walker at every public event, and eventually began a recall campaign that has succeeded in forcing later this year. One talking point circulating on the liberal blogs and MSNBC was that “Walker betrayed Wisconsin values”, which is extremely odd considering that Walker did what he promised to do while campaigning and eventually winning a majority of Wisconsin votes.

The expected and easiest course of action for Walker would have been to work out a compromise or to shelf the Budget Repair Bill indefinitely, or to attempt some sort of trickery to make it appear that he was conceding without actually doing so (much like the “compromise” Obama used to escape the “Catholic contraception controversy”).  Yet Walker endures, the Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill stands, and the recall effort goes forward.

It is worth mentioning the plight of Governor Walker if only to contrast his courage with the often perverse vision of Conservatism and timid leadership shown by the current crop of presidential candidates.

Almost every candidate who has campaigned for the presidency since 1980 has attempted to appear to be Conservative. Even, incredibly, Barack Obama, who saw to it that 2012 State of the Union address hit several Conservative notes, such as tax cuts and energy independence, attempts to appear Conservative when campaigning.  Yet even for Republicans, it is easier it seems to run as a Conservative than to serve as a Conservative.

This is especially evident with the leading candidate for the GOP nomination. It is the onus of the Mitt Romney campaign to convince voters that Romney is a Conservative despite the fact that Romney has held a liberal position on almost every conceivable position- including illegal immigration, global warming, cap and trade, and even abortion. Today Romney says he is “severely Conservative”, whatever that means, but even his 2012 presidential platform is one of a Moderate. It is easily the most liberal platform of any of the remaining candidates.

Take corporate taxes, for example. At 39.2% American corporations pay the second corporate tax rate in the world and will soon pay the highest rate, which discourages job creation and investment. The average corporate tax rate of the 34 countries that comprise the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is 25.5%.  Newt Gingrich wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 15%, Santorum to 17.5%, and even President Obama (running as a Conservative, remember) wants to cut the corporate tax rate to the high 20s. Mitt Romney wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 25%, only .5% lower than the OECD average, and still significantly higher than the corporate tax rate of many other nations, including Canada.

Also, Romney has reaffirmed his support for a linkage between the minimum wage and the inflation rate. As Dr. Thomas Sowell says, “to people who call themselves Conservatives, and aspire to public office, there is no excuse for not being aware of what a major social disaster the minimum wage law has been for the young, the poor and especially for young and poor blacks.”

Romney explains away the liberalism of his administration by pointing out how heavily Democratic a state Massachusetts is. Yet Massachusetts is that much more of a blue state than Wisconsin. Instead of complaining about how many liberals are in Wisconsin and using that as an excuse to campaign as and govern as a liberal, Walker has remained a Conservative.

As someone who supported McCain in 2008 over Romney, it is really surprising how the so-called Conservative media has turned on Romney in 2012. I remember being battered for voting for a “liberal” over a candidate everyone – people like Mark Levin, Jim DeMint, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and even Rick Santorum – was telling me at the time was the real Conservative, a portrait of Romney I found strange, given the Governor’s record. It seems that now, in 2012, all of these people are agreeing with me, though I don’t know what happened in the interim that the 2008 Real Conservative is now the 2012 Massachusetts Moderate. Now many of the very same people are telling me the real Conservative in the race is Rick Santorum.

Another politician who was previously considered to be a Conservative but is now generally perceived to be a Moderate by Conservatives is George W. Bush, due to his record on spending and increasing the size of the government. Yet if Bush is a Moderate, how then can a candidate who voted with him 97% of the time be considered a Conservative? Yet Santorum has been labeled as such, and he carries that perception despite of, rather than because of, his record.

Does a Conservative support earmarks or giving felons the right to vote? Would a Conservative support Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey? Would a Conservative have supported the spending under the Bush Administration, including Medicare Part D? Would a Conservative against NAFTA and for tariffs on steel? Would a Conservative vote against the flat tax? Would a Conservative have voted for raise the minimum wage six times?

Would a Conservative vote against a National Right-To-Work Act? Santorum did, and the reason he gave is “When I was a senator from Pennsylvania, I didn’t vote for it because Pennsylvania’s not a right to work state, and I didn’t want to vote for a law that would change the law in Pennsylvania, number one. Number two, what can unions do? They can do training. They also do a lot in the community. I work with a lot of labor unions in Philadelphia and other places to do a lot of community involvement work and they try to participate as good members of the community like the business does.”

In other words, Santorum did not want to stand up to the unions. Again we see a candidate for the presidency failing to show the courage of leadership and adherence to Conservative principles that we witnessed from a freshman governor of Wisconsin.

Santorum’s chief argument for being The One True Conservative left in the race, besides his stance on social issues, is his record against the individual mandate, which he uses to bludgeon both Romney and Gingrich during every debate. But how pure is his stance against that mandate? Yet the 1994 Santorum-Graham bill called for ““Any individual with family income exceeding [100%] of the official poverty line . . . but who fails to purchase [the required] coverage . . . within 1 year of the date of the enactment of this Act, shall not be eligible for the insurance pool program under title V of this Act.” Also, ““No provision of Federal, State, or local law shall apply that prohibits the use of any statutory procedure for the collection of unpaid debts for medical expenses incurred by [these] individuals”  As Bradley Latino continues in Health Reform Watch, under the Santorum-Gramm bill, not only would the person who does not have health insurance, s/he would  “suffer the same tax disadvantages in the similarly-structured Stearns bill, but noncompliance at any point apparently nullifies whatever bankruptcy protections that would help relieve medical debt. “

More clearly, The One True Conservative’s plan imposed financial penalty upon those who could afford but did not buy health insurance. That makes sense, in my opinion, yet the line between an individual mandate and imposing a financial penalty upon people who don’t buy health insurance is a thin one.

More troubling to me is Santorum’s view on Libertarianism. I, as someone who considers himself a Reagan Conservative, agree with his famous quote that

The very heart and soul of Conservatism is Libertarianism. I think Conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called Conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of Conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what Libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that Libertarianism and Conservatism are traveling the same path.

I also agree with Senator Jim DeMint, who says “I’d like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas.”

But this is very different than how The One True Conservative sees Libertarianism. He says “I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the Conservative movement. I don’t think the libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution is all about. I don’t think they have it right as to what our history is, and we are not a group of people who believe in no government… I’ve got some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement to sort of refashion Conservatism, and I will vocally and publicly oppose it.”

Nor is Newt the perfect conservative. Newt has an enduring belief of the potential positive power of government which I do not share. Another Reagan quote – “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” – comes to mind.

At CPAC, Sarah Palin corrected stated that “our candidate must be someone who can instinctively turn right. It’s either there or it isn’t.” Unfortunately, the politicians who best demonstrate this Instinctive Conservatism are in places like Madison or Indianapolis; or are junior senators from South Carolina, Utah, and Florida; or are representatives from Florida’s 22^nd District and Wisconsin’s 1^st District.

Romney lacks this instinct. By his own admission he came to conservatism late, and it is questionable if he yet arrived at conservatism. Santorum clearly has an instinct towards social conservatism, yet on other matters he has displayed an instinct towards Big Government Conservatism, which is a problem for us who do not want a government that more powerful and more intrusive. As Eric Erickson of RedStateUpdate.com pointed out, Santorum is a “prolife statist.”

I believe Gingrich has an instinct towards Conservatism, though, perhaps due to his academic training, this instinct is muddied with an addiction to senseless intellectual exercises. Look at his experiments on issues like global warming and cap-and-trade. Witness his pointless determination that life began at implantation rather than at conception, which undermined his exemplary prolife record and needlessly irritated his fellow Catholics. Or recall his unfortunate attacks on Romney’s record at Bain, which made it appear that he was against capitalism.

Even his energy policy, though pro-growth, is encumbered by “the helpful hand of government.”  In fact, during one his interviews on our show, we challenged him on his views about on tax credits and investments in alternative energies.

Yet I would argue that while neither Romney’s nor Santorum’s records are as Conservative as their rhetoric, Newt’s record is the inverse. His record is one of a solid Conservative, despite his bad habit of saying things that make it seem otherwise. His proposals are anchored in Conservative principles, even if not as libertarian as I would prefer.  It may also be worth noting that the American Conservative Union’s lifetime rating for Newt Gingrich is 90, a bit higher than that of The One True Conservative, which is 88.  I’d hate to think what Romney’s ACU rating would be if he had been a congressman.

The election of either Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney would change Conservatism. Santorum would crush Conservatism’s ‘libertarian heart and soul’, while the election of a candidate so moderate as Romney may effectively end the Conservative movement. Newt might create a Conservatism more active than should be but, of the three, I believe Newt has the best ideas and the best record on issues like economic growth, energy independence, and foreign policy.  Most importantly, he has demonstrated the best instincts towards Conservatism. And it is hardly a surprise that the politician who best epitomizes that Reagan-esque Instinctive Conservatism mentioned in her CPAC speech has given Gingrich her tacit endorsement as well.

It’s just too bad Scott Walker isn’t running.

–DK

Image credit

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement

African-American Conservatives Co-Founder, Marie Stroughter, appeared on today’s episode of To the Point on KCRW, an NPR affiliate. Ms. Stroughter spoke to the conservative viewpoint, with panelists Dr. Peniel Joseph, Walter Rhett and Mikki Taylor espousing the liberal perspective. Click the hyperlinked show name above to listen in, and share your thoughts with us!

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement

On the eve of the primary in South Carolina, the Obama administration is invalidating a voter ID law in South Carolina. Attorney General Eric Holder invoked the race card to justify his stance. Today SC governor Niki Haley has vowed to fight back.

“South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said Tuesday that federal officials are waging war with South Carolina over laws the people want, like new voter ID requirements that she and other leaders pledged to defend from challenges by the U.S. Justice Department.

The Republican governor said ‘the will of the people was we wanted to protect the integrity of our voting process and if you have to show a picture ID to buy Sudafed; if you have to show a picture ID to get on a plane – you should have to show a picture ID to do that one thing that’s so important – which is that right to vote.’”

S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson on Tuesday said the state will file suit against the U.S. Department of Justice, which last month rejected the state’s new Voter ID law requiring all voters to show a valid state-approved photo ID in order to cast a ballot.

Voter fraud’s old friend ACORN is also involved: New records courtesy of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch on August 19, 2011, detail communications between the DOJ and Estelle Rogers, a former ACORN attorney currently serving as Director of Advocacy for Project Vote. These documents leave no doubt that a suspiciously close relationship between Project Vote and the DOJ is developing behind closed doors.

A CALL TO ACTION
The rally in SC is sponsored by the Houston-based True The Vote, a grass roots voter integrity project staffed by volunteers. True The Vote is a nation-wide organization that has affiliates across the country, every day citizens interested in the integrity of the elections in their home district.

After a successful rally in Austin, Texas to protest the intrusions of the DOJ, True the Vote and Anita MonCrief are calling all black conservatives to SC on 1/20/11 to wave their photo id’s and prevent those who wish to divide us from using the race card. Previous actions have shown that when there are black willing to speak for themselves they tend to disavow the rhetoric of race coming from the left.

It is especially painful to see an organization like the NAACP, after years of fighting against genuine racism, now playing the game of race-card fraud.

The rally is open to all citizens and the goal is to spur citizens to get involved. Democrat or Republican voter fraud is unacceptable but it is up to us to stop it.

We would like to hold the rally on Friday during a break in SRLC events but before the dinner starts. We hope to pull in the governor or other speakers for a screening of former NAACP chapter head, CL Bryant’s “Runaway Slave” and hold a roundtable discussion on race and how to remove the race card from being used as political theater.

http://www.islandpacket.com/2012/01/10/1922288/sc-leaders-to-talk-about-fed-voter.html

– Anita MonCrief

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement

Allen West – a man who, having served over 20 years in the military, and is now currently serving as one of the most outspoken voices of Conservatism in Congress, has certainly seen his share of enemy fire – said recently “You know, we have a saying in the military: You don’t receive flak unless you’re over the target.”

We have seen this play out in the 2012 GOP presidential primaries as well. Candidates who have been saddled with the bull’s-eye “front runner” have been hit with flak from the MSM, the Democratic Party and, of course, rival candidates, usually involving some position and action the candidate held years, or even decades ago;; and often we have seen these campaigns collapse because of it.  We have seen it happen to Bachmann, Perry, and Cain; and Newt has seen his support halved by attacks by a constant barrage of negative ads being aired against him.

Ron Paul is no stranger to this truism. In fact, when it comes to firing upon his rivals, Ron Paul is the Red Baron. He has shown deftness at hitting his opponents with harsh criticisms. Paul has hit other frontrunners with attacks, such as calling Rick Perry, whose campaign was much more successful at the time, “Al Gore’s Texas cheerleader.” Paul has also said of Michele Bachmann “She hates Muslims. She wants to go get them.” (Obviously Paul isn’t above harsh but unfair criticisms as well.)

Paul also flooding Iowa with anti-Gingrich ads as well as even saying during one debate that Gingrich’s “influence peddling” for Freddie and Fannie set us upon a path to fascism : “He has a different definition of the private sector than I have, because it’s a GSE, a Government Sponsored Enterprise. It’s completely different. It’s a government agency…If it’s government-sponsored, it’s a mixture of business and government. It’s very, very dangerous. Some people say that if it goes to extreme, it becomes fascism, because Big Business and Big Government get together”.

Yet now, thanks largely to Iowan Democrats who relate strongly to Paul’s “bring them home” message, Ron Paul is finding himself to be a front-runner. According to the latest polls, he is leading in Iowa, or close to it. Paul is over the target, and he is taking flak.

Much of the incoming Paul is receiving is due to his publication of newsletters that many find offensive, racist, homophobic, and/or anti-Semitic. For example, one such newsletter claimed that homosexuals were planning to engage in a sort of mass donation of blood in order to infect the American blood supply with AIDS.  Regarding Blacks, the newsletter urged its readers to “know how to use a gun in self-defense. For the animals are coming.” Paul – or the newsletter –called the end of apartheid in South Africa the “destruction of civilization.” Paul – or the newsletter – also claimed that the Mossad (which is sort of the Israeli version of the CIA) had ‘tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing for work for it,’ as well as speculated that the Mossad may have been responsible for the first World Trade Center attack.

In 1969 Kübler-Ross published On Death And Dying in which she chronicled the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Politicians caught in controversy usually go through similar stages.

The first stage is usually denial, whether its denying having sex with that woman, claiming one’s Twitter account was hacked, or saying that one simply has an extra wide stance in a men’s room stall.  Barack Obama attempted to overcome his Jeremiah Wright problem by claiming he sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years – allowing Wright to marry him and Michelle, baptize their children, and consider Wright to be a family member – without ever hearing Wright make the sort of incendiary remarks.

Ron Paul’s embrace of denial in regard to the newsletter controversy has been grander than most, but still somewhat unfulfilling. He claims that he did not read and was unaware of what was being published in his newsletter, and does not even know who wrote them. Rarely has anyone made a more specious claim than that.  The newsletters were eponymous. Paul was the publisher.  The publishing company was M&M Graphics, run by Mark Elam, Ron Paul’s congressional campaign manager. Paul earned money from the newsletters, according to some reports as much as one million dollars a year. Members of Paul’s family worked for the newsletters.  Paul is shown on video promoting his newsletters, telling his audience the sort of information he puts out in them. A solicitation letter that warned of the “Israeli lobby,” “the federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS,” and “the upcoming race war” has been re-released, featuring Ron Paul’s signature. And in 1996 Ron Paul admitted to writing at least some of the most controversial passages, such as saying that 95% of Black men in Washington, DC were “semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” Paul continues to ally himself with White Supremacist groups.  One would have to work very hard to accept that Paul did not even read or write his newsletters.

Paul and especially his supporters has also often shown a willingness to show anger when confronted with the newsletter controversy, as evident by his recent CNN interview in which a journalist pressed him on the issue (though he did not storm out, as CNN tried to portray it). But this anger is more typically expressed as outrage that he would be considered a racist, as he believes he is incapable of racism: “Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea. You see people in group. A civil libertarian like myself see everybody as an important individual. It’s not the color of their skin that is important. As Martin Luther King said. What is important is the character of the people.”

This sounds great until one realizes the author of the following quote from one of Paul’s newsletters – whether it be Paul or some other person – is someone who considers himself or herself to be a libertarian: “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” It seems as though the color of skin can be important to civil libertarians after all.

Paul also resorts to a crude form of bargaining to African Americans, essentially offering a bargain to Blacks that in return for their vote and their silence on the issues of racism he will reward them with a more coddling judicial system: “I am the antiracist because I am the only candidate, Republican or Democrat who were protect the minority against these vicious drug laws.” While we can hold a good debate on the benefits of drug legalization, it does seem odd and offensive that Paul would choose this issue, and not for example a more equitable educational system, to emphasize. Is the freeing of the Black drug criminal really the primary concern of the Black community?

The depression phase of a politician’s response to scandal is the most difficult to identify as it is usually the least likely to be displayed in the public eye. Typically however one can see it in the expression of the view that one has become a victim of a conspiracy, whether it be a “vast right-wing conspiracy” or conspiracy of some other sort. Paul clearly feels hounded by being asked repeatedly about the newsletters, blaming the continuing questions about them not on his unsatisfactory and sometimes contradictory responses but rather on an effort to get him: “Maybe this is part of the ‘knock down Ron Paul’ (effort) because he’s gaining grounds with the blacks. I’m getting more support right now, more votes from the blacks because they understand what I’m talking about and they trust me.”

As in Kubler-Ross’ model, the last phase of a politician’s response to scandal– acceptance – is the healthiest.  It in this stage where the politician finally realizes that s/he has done or said things that are unacceptable to his/her electorate, and that s/he will not be able to make the issue just go away. Some do. President Clinton did. So did Barack Obama. But this requires the cooperation of the media and one’s party. Paul enjoys neither luxury.

This will ultimately be the most important thing Paul can do in response to Newsletter-gate if he is to be our next president. Reluctant and hesitant confessions under duress from Ron Paul that he ‘may have had some responsibility for what was being published in the Ron Paul newsletters’ and that he did write for the newsletters but ‘only the good parts’ are not enough. He has to move away from his specious disavowals of the regrettable portions written within the newsletters, admit to writing and being aware of what was being written by others – and say what many of his supporters have been longing to hear, that those views are no longer his.

Once we at AACONS interviewed Virginia’s George Allen, and Marie Stroughter confronted him about some of his past racial comments, including the allegations that he regularly used the word “nigger” while in college. Allen didn’t try to deny it or blame someone else for it. He instead spoke of his growth as a person since his youth, even quoting Muhammad Ali in saying “Anybody who looks at the world at age 50 the way they did at age 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.”

This is an approach Paul should mimic. While it is a good thing to say that Martin Luther King is your “personal hero”, as Paul has made a habit of doing recently, but without a confession that Paul approved a characterization of King in his newsletter as a “pedophile”, Paul’s praise of King rings hollow, regardless of how much support Paul claims he is getting from “the blacks”.

Paul must also acknowledge the support his campaign receives from KKK, Neo-Nazi, and White Supremacist groups, and firmly denounce them. Paul is not a member or supporter of any of these groups, but they are inspired by Paul’s rhetoric, particularly his stance on Israel, which, according to attendees of the last CPAC, led to swarms of Paul supporters to, quoting David Horowitz, “vent their spleen against Israel as a Nazi state”, simply saying ‘these people support my ideas, I do not support theirs’ does not go far enough, especially when he continues to accept their campaign donations. One example of this sort of Paul supporter is Jules Manson, who claims that “Ron Paul is my god” and adds of our president that we should “assassinate that nigger and his family of monkeys.” Other Ron Paul supporters include Don Black of the American Nazi Party, former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke (whose gubernatorial race was endorsed by one of Paul’s newsletters), and, of course, Lew Rockwell, the supposed author of many of the newsletters.

Paul’s weaknesses are his views on foreign policy, which many see as isolationist and naïve, and, I would argue, his character, as revealed by both his newsletters and his inability to accept his role in the publication of those newsletters.   His strength is his ability to articulate the libertarian arguments on issues on our ever increasing and ever encroaching size of the government.  Though Paul has become synonymous with the libertarian movement, the movement could and would survive on the power of its ideas, without such a shady figurehead whose flaws would ultimately endanger the success of both the Libertarian and Conservative movement.  Hopefully Ron Paul will soon falter from his current high perch and will allow other, more worthy speakers to succeed him as a spokesman for Libertarianism; perhaps it will be Paul’s son, Rand.  Until that day, libertarians of conscience should look for others who would better lead this country in a better direction, and many are undoubtedly already doing so.

To that last point, let me point out that one of the premier libertarian intellects alive today is Dr. Thomas Sowell. Recently, Dr. Sowell has endorsed Newt Gingrich.

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement

On January 23, 2012, Congressman Allen West is sponsoring a Conservative Black Forum. The event will be moderated by Star Parker. It is a free event, held in the Capitol Building from 10am to Noon.

I am making an appeal to all Black Conservatives who can attend to do so. As our President said in a recent interview, this is a “make or break moment” for America. The problem is, his administration is breaking us. We must do all we can to reverse the tide in Washington. It will mean banding together, creating solutions, and working, working, working to educate our communities, and effect change.

Please contact Reginald Darby, Senior Legislative Assistant, for more information and to register!

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement

Yesterday, two of African-American Conservatives’ co-founders, Sebastian & Marie Stroughter, were privileged to attend a private fundraiser for Congressman Allen West. Representative West was honored with a reception hosted by The Frederick Douglass Foundation of CA, an organization for which Marie serves as Communications Director.

Marie with Congressman West

Sebastian, Marie & family with Rep. West

The Congressman with The Frederick Douglass Foundation of CA Executive Committee

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement

A nationally known sandwich chain has a franchise across from the recreation center my children attend. Thus, on an almost weekly basis, because we have Bible study on that weeknight almost immediately after the rec class, we often stop by to pick up sandwiches for dinner.

This particular venue used to have terrific customer service. In fact, one of the shift supervisors had our order on file because we had something akin to a standing order. However, a few months ago, things began to change, and the store got our sandwich order wrong at least 50% of the time, but often more.

Because my “day job” is in social media, I decided my time, my money, and my patronage were valuable assets, so I posted a comment on the company Facebook page. It was polite (not, “hey you filthy capitalist pigs….”), and within an hour or two, I got a personal response saying my experience wasn’t what they wanted for their customers, and invited me to write them a more detailed summary of my experience.

I did. And, a few days later, I got a response that was not a form letter, but an actual personalized response, just like their Facebook note. It said they had reviewed my issue, found it fell short of an acceptable consumer interaction, and they wanted to make it right. They were going to follow up with the location in question to affect long-term changes, but, in the short-term, they wanted to send me a gift card.

I didn’t picket the store. I didn’t poop on a delivery truck. I didn’t write/shout/use profanity. Nor did I accuse them of “not caring about the little people.” I didn’t demand a gift card, or “free sandwiches for life, you slimy corporate weasels!!” with fists shaking mid-air! I merely realized my dollars meant something to me, and surely, any business in this economy worth their salt is going to realize they can’t afford to hemorrhage customers if they get lax about customer service. No one had me over a barrel. I am a steward of my own dollars and I invest them as I see fit.

Case study #2: My daughter is on a swim team. The coaches have failed to communicate with parents in a timely manner on a consistent basis. I won’t even go into detail here, but you can believe I noted it with this particular swim school. Again, I was polite, specific, and I offered solutions to what I saw as the problems, rather than just contributing to the noise. I got back a compilation of snarky one-liners, and before you could say, “where’s the cardboard for my protest sign?” I had contacted one of the other reputable area schools and sent “Coach Snarky” our two-week notice. I didn’t poop in the pool. I didn’t picket. I didn’t even call a parent meeting or demand a parent pow-wow. Again, realizing my dollars meant something to me, I put my money where my mouth was.

Unless you live under a rock, most readers will be aware of the Netflix/Qwikster debacle as a textbook case of “what not to do.” They doubled the price, lost a million customers, introduced a new service and abandoned it….all in the span of a month or so.

Customers said “enough” with their money, and went to competitors. Yes, nasty comments were posted all over the corporate blog by angry customers. But no one picketed, that I am aware of, no one pooped on Reed Hastings’ vehicle. And while many lambasted the company for their “corporate greed” many industry analysts said it was more the way Netflix communicated (or rather, did not communicate) that was the problem, and their “flip-floppiness,” not that they were making changes to their corporate model, as is the right of a company to do (though usually a little more thought goes into it — including making sure the Twitter name is available first — but I digress!).

Consumers are angry at Bank of America for charging a fee to use their own money. Yes, moving your bank account and changing linked debit cards is tedious, but it allows the consumer autonomy, and lets the bank know they are not the only game in town….more than pooping in the doorway of the ATM ever could.

As a consumer, the contract goes both ways. If you don’t like a certain big-box store often noted for allegations of wage issues and gender bias, you do not have to shop there! Take your dollars elsewhere, or shop online if you live in an area without a lot of choices. I boycott companies I don’t like, not because I think the absence of my money is going to ring some CEO’s big red phone. But because I am free to spend my money where I please.

Yes, we have a constitutional right to assemble and protest. We can even burn a flag as a legal form of expression (though why that is baffles me). Since pooping on property necessarily involves dropping one’s pants, I see how that could get you strung up on indecency charges…and it is nasty, gross, and doesn’t make me hate the corporation you are defecating upon, rather, it makes me hate that you seem to have the manners of a barnyard animal.

As in my last post, I wonder why people fail to realize that companies behave in unacceptable ways because we, as consumers, allow them to and because our government is in bed with half of them. Your vote, like your dollars, means something. Poop is free, albeit ineffective and pretty worthless. If you want to spank corporate America, hit them in the wallets and in their regulatory oversight, not their latrines.

–Marie Stroughter

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement

I am the mother of three (bias alert: adorable) children. If I were to allow them to, they would stay up all night, subsist on an endless supply of food from McDonald’s, and never do schoolwork or clean their rooms. If I were to subject you for very long to children accustomed to this anarchy, you would most likely label them “brats” and me a “bad parent.” You would employ those labels, because you would (rightly) assume that as one of the two authority figures in the home, I should parent my children with the understanding that there are rules and boundaries for acceptable behavior.

We all understand this, from the foregoing analogy.

Why is it then, no one understands the same principle applies to all of this “Occupy Wall Street” madness? These corporations are the naughty children, allowed to “behave badly” while our government has — in the best case scenario — turned a parental blind eye.

Going back to my original premise of the three naughty (yet adorable) children: what if I allowed my son’s teen friends to come over and drink beer? Or allowed a co-ed sleep over because, we all know,” they will do this stuff anyway.” Great gravy! I hope you would report me, not picket their school (which actually is my house!) with signs about my kids’ behavior!

But again, when it comes to Big Business, we can’t connect those dots. I’ve discussed the “best case” blind eye scenario. The worst case scenario is when the parents aid, abet, enable, condone, assist, and/or are complicit in the behavior.

We’ve let these companies stamp their collective feet, hold their collective breaths, and capitulated and cooked yet another meal when they wouldn’t eat their food because they swore up and down they would “starve” if we didn’t.

Bailouts, crony-ism, favoritism, payback. Solyndra, automakers, banks….Both parties, both sides of the aisle. Any dots being connected? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Yes, I know there are some greedy, unethical companies out there. I boycott them selectively, and so what if they never feel it….my conscience feels better. Yes, I know I can’t boycott every company I have a beef with, but my dollars matter to me, and I try to be a good steward when I can.

But I also know that this manufactured outrage is kicking the dog when you are mad at your boss. If you really hate what is happening on Wall Street, take a look at what happens on Pennsylvania Avenue or Capitol Hill, and use your vote, like your dollars, very wisely.

– Marie Stroughter

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement