Fairness and the Obama Administration

Posted on July 30, 2011 by DarkKnight3565

Let’s imagine two extreme economic scenarios: The first is an economy with 3% unemployment, 7% GDP growth, and a tax rate of 0% for those who earn at least a million dollars a year. The second scenario is the reverse of the first: unemployment at 9%, 1% GDP growth, and millionaires pay 100% of their income in taxes. Which would you prefer?

If you are a progressive you will undoubtedly prefer the second — an exaggeration of the Obama economy — to the first, an exaggeration of the Coolidge economy, because the goal of progressivism is not to create or grow wealth but rather to redistribute it in the interest of “fairness.”  And, to paraphrase an oft repeated applause line used by Democratic politicians, it is unfair that a millionaire pays a lower tax rate than his or her employees – never mind if that millionaire’s low tax rate allows him or her to afford to give those employees a job.

The progressive vision of an ideal economy is not one with the highest GDP or that produces the most jobs. These things are desirable, especially in order to sell their ideology to the unconvinced, but they are not the primary goal of progressivism. The ideal economy to progressives is one that most adheres to their version of “fairness.”

“Fairness” is paramount. It is the ultimate goal; the necessary end. And if such things as jobs need to be sacrificed in order to achieve “fairness,” so be it.

As an example of this, let’s look at the great act of fairness called Obamacare. Every defense of this act was riddled with the words “fair” or “fairness.” For example, The Baltimore Sun editorialized, regarding the individual mandate, that, “Fairness is the key to the new healthcare law requiring everyone to purchase healthcare insurance.” President Obama argued that it was necessary for the government provide competition to private insurers to order to make sure “Americans are getting a fair shake.” On the Health and Human Services website it states that, “In 2014, the Affordable Care Act requires large employers to pay a shared responsibility fee if they don’t provide affordable coverage…as a matter of fairness.”

Examples are numerous but the point is that “fairness” was, and is, the central argument for Obamacare, as a free-market oriented – and apparently always fundamentally unfair – healthcare system. It was deemed unfair in favor of the fairness of a government run system, regardless of evidence that it has likely stalled private hiring, created death panels, raised the cost of healthcare, and, according to the CBO, will cause the loss of nearly one million jobs. (Nevermind also how companies well connected to Obama or Pelosi managed to get exemptions from Obamacare.)

“Fairness” resonated during the debt ceiling debate as well. While the degree of negative consequences for US default may be debatable, no one would argue it would be pleasant. The Obama Administration, in fact, makes default seem apocalyptic, as this quote from Secretary Geithner demonstrates: “A default on Treasury debt could lead to concerns about the solvency of the investment funds and financial institutions that hold Treasury securities in their portfolios, which could cause a run on money market mutual funds and the broader financial system — similar to what happened in the wake of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. As the recent financial crisis demonstrated, a severe and sudden blow to confidence in the financial markets can spark a panic that threatens the health of our entire global economy and the jobs of millions of Americans.”

Wow! With consequences like this predicted by his own Treasury Secretary, one would think that Obama would do anything and everything to prevent default. Yet Obama, for months, refused to support any debt ceiling deal that did not contain the tax increases he desired. Remarkably, “revenue enhancers” – which is the DNC/MSM word for tax increases, (not to be confused with the enhanced revenue the country typically earns with tax rate reduction), were not desired because they were necessary or even beneficial. The ‘enhancement of revenue’ gained by eliminating the tax breaks for corporate jets is estimated to be only $300 million a year, hardly worth haggling over with financial crisis on the table. The tax increases Obama sought on one of his favorite targets, Big Oil, are also an insignificant sum, about $4 billion a year, at least when one considers that ending this break would cost us 155,000 jobs according to a study by LSU’s Professor Joseph Mason.  Yet the President insisted upon them because, he says, “I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up that tax break that no other business enjoys.”

Again, the argument isn’t that it will create jobs or grow the economy; but rather these taxes are necessary in the interest of fairness.

President Obama made his preference to fairness over economic growth clear to the nation as a presidential candidate. When asked by the moderator if he could support cuts in the capital gains tax if it might actually mean more revenue – essentially the question I began with – Obama said no:

What I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.

Fairness, quite clearly, takes precedence of gaining additional revenue with the increased economic activity a tax cut would generate.

Are you listening, Coolidge?

– DK

 

 

Join the forum discussion on this post

Posted in DNC/Democrats, Government, Taxes | 1 Comment

Where Are All the Black Kids?

Posted on April 1, 2011 by admin

A thought provoking article by African-American Conservatives Co-Founder, Marie Stroughter, posted on her personal blog, Mama-raphy.

Posted in Cultural, Education | 1 Comment

Should Michael Steele Be Re-Elected as RNC Chair?

Posted on December 5, 2010 by Marie Stroughter

You don’t have to cast a very wide net in and around the blogosphere to find that most conservatives bristle at the charge made that we disagree with President Obama based upon his skin color. It’s an absurd notion, yet we are still labeled “racists” unjustly.

Black conservatives, in particular, have it doubly hard: not only are we Right and “wrong,” according to the Left, but in our own communities we are pariahs, “sellouts,” “house negroes,” “Uncle Toms/Aunt Jemimas” and the like.

Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters are trotting out that old tired race card in defending themselves against ethics charges, stating the allegations stem from those who disagree with them because they are Black. From my vantage point, wrong is wrong, and is not the exclusive purview of any ethnicity.

So why is the Black Conservative blogosphere hopping with “I Like Mike” posts, in defense of Chairman Steele’s RNC chairmanship? Are we suggesting a “white man” (Saul Anuzis) is somehow The Man out to “get” Michael Steele, Black Man? And, why is much being made of Chairman Steele’s “blackness” now? Have we not said for two full years that we don’t care what color he is and that he wasn’t chosen as a “foil” to Barack Obama’s election as “First Black President?”

Anyone familiar with this blog knows I have long been openly critical of Chairman Steele and his “leadership.” I am openly critical of our President’s leadership. Both are Black men….Could there be some sinister connection between their skin color and my :::gasp:::: dissatisfaction? Am I one of them thar “racists?”

Three words: Lu-di-crous.

I do not support electing Chairman Steele to another RNC term for the same reason I do not support President Obama’s policies, and it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with a little thing I like to call Lack of Substance. Period. Before you trot out the Republican electoral landslide last month, please let me remind you it had nothing to do with the vast superiority of the GOP, a fact Marco Rubio pointed out quite clearly. It had everything to do with Washington’s arrogance, its deaf ears to the cries of the people, and the incredible juggernaut that is the Tea Party (and may I remind you that the Tea Party is non-partisan, made up of Republicans, Independents and Democrats). The Tea Party had conservatives whipped up into a frenzy long before Michael Steele ever donned a “Fire Pelosi” cap and rode around the country in a bus preaching (to the choir!) the dangers of another term under Speaker Pelosi!

In fact, rather than bucking the system and ushering a new era of Republicanism, Mr. Steele represents “establishment” Republicans during a time when the GOP failed to throw its considerable weight behind non-traditional candidates. Though he himself offered tepid support for candidates “of the people” such as Christine O’Donnell, Chairman Steele fell far short of the “Jim DeMint standard” in taking the GOP to task over this issue, and only issued the almost parental “stop it” to the squabbling sibs when it reached a fever point. That doesn’t meet my definition of leadership, and I am willing to look to others – regardless of skin color – to see who might heal any party rifts and advance the conservative agenda given the groundswell of opportunity granted by this political cycle.

America is fed up with two years of empty promises from this President and his administration. We are tired of hearing George Bush is to blame for global warming, Katrina, the oil BP spill and Haiti’s devastating earthquake — though he had long been out of office when these last two events occurred — and hearing he is responsible for my taxes (hello, who is currently mulling over extending the “Bush tax cuts?” Is it George Bush? Who has the power now?).

Similarly, some conservatives – of all colors – are fed up with “giving a pass” to someone who has not substantially lived up to the mantle of the title of Chairman. We decry “affirmative action” yet seem all too willing to discuss the race of the person occupying (or exiting) the office, and not the performance of that person.

Mr. Steele has made gaffe after gaffe, right up there with “gaffe-tastic” Joe Biden. I am not willing to give Mr. Biden another turn as Veep just because he is White…Why should I support Michael Steele just because he is Black?

Yes we have an amazing bumper crop of Black republicans who ran this election cycle and some will be taking office next month. Is that Michael Steele’s doing? Is it to Barack Obama’s credit? Or is it because Americans, who have long said we are not racists, are actually right, and are choosing to elect leaders who best represent our voices in our nation’s capital?

Image credit: GOP

Join the forum discussion on this post

Posted in GOP/RNC, Race/Racism/Race Relations, Tea Party | 2 Comments

Bowles-Simpson: Not As Bad As Expected

Posted on November 12, 2010 by DarkKnight3565

To many economists and business people, waiting for the results of the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission has been like waiting for lab results on a persistent cough in a doctor’s office. It was easy to fear the worse, especially when the doctor who ordered the lab test is not exactly known for his competence, experience, or for always having the best interest of his patients in mind.   However, when a draft of the lab results was announced, my reaction at least was “Whew!”

After all, many – including me, and I suspect, the President – were expecting a far different diagnosis for dealing with the debt. Namely, the suspected result of the commission was to call for, and to give cover for the President’s call for, massive tax increases. These tax increases would have most likely come in the form of a VAT tax, which would not have replaced the taxes we already pay, as some VAT tax advocates have called for, but would have been a tax in addition to the taxes we already pay.

So worried was some about this VAT tax that reporters began asking commission members about it months ago, and the commission did nothing to dissuade anyone from the notion that the VAT was coming.  Bruce Reed, the commission’s executive director, when asked about the VAT tax, said “We need to talk through all sides of this equation. We’re going to look at the discretionary spending, mandatory spending, tax reform … look at the issue from every angle. And also look at ways and making sure that the economy is strong and it’s growing faster than debt is growing.” Obama and White House officials gave similar answers, never saying a VAT or any such huge tax increase was eminent, but never ruling one out either.

Obama still hasn’t ruled out a huge tax increase, even on people who make less than $250,000 a year, despite his campaign promise. However, the fiscal commission notably avoided taking this route. It actually calls for tax decreases, a lowering of all tax rates, even for people in the highest tax bracket, who will see their tax rate drop from 35% to 23%, and for corporations, who will see a tax rate decrease from 35% to 26%.

These tax rate reductions will be paid for in large part by the elimination of key tax exemptions, even the home mortgage exemption (which has even some fiscal conservatives and deficit hawks howling) and the Earned Income Tax Credit.  But as much as the loss of these exemptions seem to hurt the lower and middle classes, it is important to remind ourselves that with the lowering of the bottom two tax brackets – the lowest rate falling from the projected 15% in 2011 to 8%, and the middle rate falling from 31% to 15% – the poor and the middle class should actually come out ahead. Add to this the proven stimulative effect tax rate decreases have on the economy, especially in comparison to the President’s $1 trillion dollar stimulus plan full of temporary tax cuts, earmarks, boondoggles, and money set aside for “shovel ready projects” that the President concedes never really existed.

Interestingly, the fiscal commission argument echoes the argument put forth by flat taxers. Steve Forbes, the chief proponent of the flat tax, calls for “a single-rate federal income tax and corporate tax of 17 percent,” and eliminates the mortgage deduction as well.

The commission also makes some recommendations – reasonable and necessary, in my view – on entitlement reform. And again it echoes some of the arguments being put forth by conservatives. Bowles-Simpson calls for raising the age of eligibility for Social Security, for example, to age 69 2075. Let me point out that in 1935, when Social Security became law, life expectancy was about 60, so essentially the government expected you to die five years before you were eligible to collect. By 2050 life expectancy has been predicted to run as high as 88 years, so retirees would be eligible to collect benefits for 25-30 years. Great for them, but imagine the taxes their children will have to pay to support this.

And how could a  conservative case be made for the Bowles-Simpson report be made without mentioning that it calls for cutting the money we pay to the United Nations by $300 million dollars a year, as well as eliminating funding for National Public Radio (NPR). High five!

Of course, I am not thrilled by everything I’ve read so far is the fiscal commission report. Its recommendations on the military – as summarized by David Dayen of Firedoglake, to “Add co-pays to the Veterans’ Administration and TRICARE, as well as pushing individuals covered by TRICARE into an employer policy. They also want to freeze noncombat military pay for three years. And, they want to end schools for families on military bases, instead reintegrating soldier’s kids into the public school system (because that’s so easy for a military family that moves every other year)” – strikes me as simply as offensive, perhaps even immoral, and hardly the sort of recommendations one should be making on Veteran’s Day.  I am not opposed to cuts in the military – even Rand Paul and the CATO Institute has argued for them – but these cuts should not come by a reduction on our national security, nor should it come on the backs (or the healthcare benefits) of the people actually risking their lives to protect us.

Also, I hate the idea of increasing the gas tax, which the commission proposes to do.  There seems to be few better ways for killing economic growth than by making energy prices more expensive, although in fairness I will concede that the commission’s plan to raise gas taxes one penny a month every three months beginning in 2013 until it reaches a maximum of an 15 cent increase hardly seems draconian, especially compared to some of the proposed tax increases I’ve seen out there. In fact, gas prices are increasing far more drastically due to the recent decision by the Fed to monetize the debt than it would under the Bowles-Simpson plan.

I wish the commission had hit upon some other areas as well; including the elimination of earmarks, ending Medicare fraud which costs the taxpayer at minimum $60 billion dollars a year and perhaps many times that, the expansion of our energy production markets including in ANWR, and so on. I would especially love to see the basic reduction in the size of government, including the elimination or reduction of the Departments of Education, Interior, Energy, and Agriculture – just to name a few. So many federal departments perform duties best left for the states, if they must be done by government at all.

Still, any plan that gets attacked by labor unions and Nancy Pelosi calls “simply unacceptable” is probably a pretty good one, overall. I’m just wondering how soon the President who appointed the commission will take to ignore it.

Image credit

Join the forum discussion on this post

Posted in Economy/Fiscal Issues, Government | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Conservative Summarizes the 2010 Midterm Elections

Posted on November 4, 2010 by DarkKnight3565

Historically, the 2010 midterm elections will probably be remembered as just a more than average election for the opposition party to the president during the second year of his administration, but hardly the Tea Party Tsunami for which many were wishing, and many experts were predicting. For example, Michael Barone, the esteemed political analyst for the Washington Examiner, was sending signals that the GOP could pick up as many as 100 seats in the House, and many polls indicated that 10 seats the GOP needed to win the Senate was within their grasp. Alas, it was not to be.

Still, picking up 61 seats in the House, 6 seats in the Senate, and taking about 10 governor’s seats from the Democrats, give or take, is not bad. In fact, it is good enough to explain why so many on the Right are celebrating midterm election results, while the Left are hanging their heads. President Obama himself even admitted to taking a “shellacking,” and has to console himself with a $200 million dollar a day trip to India. The GOP will hold the House, and will be a big enough minority in the Senate that the Democrats will no longer be able to ram their Big Government agenda down the throats of the American people

However, I am more impressed by the quality of the GOP wins than by the quantity of them. The new faces in the Class of 2011 are some of the most interesting figures elected into statewide and national offices since 1994, perhaps even longer than that. Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, Mark Kirk (who won Obama’s old Senate seat), and Rick Scott are among those who will have a significant impact over the next few years, not simply because they are Republicans, but because they are Conservatives.

However, even more significant than these wins are the number of wins by the Conservatives the Left hates and fears the most: minority Conservatives, or candidates who are continuing to contribute to what Ebony magazine described as “the browning of the GOP.” One almost feels sorry for the Congressional Black Caucus, who will no longer be able to enjoy meeting to discuss how dreamy Fidel Castro is without being interrupted by knocks on their door from Allen West and Tim Scott, demanding admission.  Nikki Haley joined Bobby Jindal as Indian-American Conservative governors.  Similarly, Hispanic conservatives did well yesterday too. Susana Martinez won New Mexico,  Marco Rubio’s star continues to rise with his win in Florida, and if Harry Reid is still wondering why any Hispanic would vote Republican, then he can now ask his governor-elect, the Republican Brian Sandoval.

Still, there were some sad defeats on Election night. For every AACON fave such as Jim DeMint, Jennifer Carroll, or Michelle Bachmann who won, there were others – such as Ryan Frazier, Isaac Hayes, Bill Marcy, Charles Lollar, and Bill Randall – who lost. I am especially disappointed by California voters, who actually had a chance to elect such truly impressive people like Star Parker and Chuck Devore, but instead stayed rooted the same progressive candidates, regardless of how hackneyed, incompetent, and even corrupt these progressives had already proved themselves to be. Six more years of Boxer? Four more years of Brown? Really?

Yet in these defeats lies one of the essential questions of the 2010 election: how seriously is the GOP going to take this whole “conservative” thing anyway? The question is an important one because the Republicans did have a legitimate shot at winning the Senate, but seemingly shot themselves in the foot by electing Tea Party candidates who lost election a more centrist Republican may have been able to easily win. Mike Castle of Delaware was expected to easily defeat Coons, but instead lost the primary to Christine O’Donnell, who proved to be a poor general election candidate. (Sharron Angle similarly may not have been as competitive against Harry Reid as some of her primary opponents, though given the reported machinations and manipulations of the voting process employed by Reid, perhaps no one could have defeated him.)

My guess is that the answer to that aforementioned question is “very.”  The nomination of so many Tea Partiers over moderates may have saved the Democratic majority in the Senate, but it is an ominous sign for the progressive agenda in both the Congress and the White House that voters would rather sacrifice a seat to a liberal, and ultimately control of the Senate by their party, rather than support progressivism from either party.

Go along to get along Republicans – who could sit in the clubhouse with the Democrats, and come to an understanding with them on some overreaching, Big Government legislation – perhaps in return for an earmark, or some positive press coverage in the mainstream media, or perhaps some perfunctory tax cut to sell to their supporters – are going or already gone.  I am not sure how well the Republican Party understands this yet, especially if they reelect Mitch McConnell as their Minority Leader, but it is a lesson they will be well served to study before the 2012 elections.

Image credit

Join the forum discussion on this post

Posted in DNC/Democrats, Elections, GOP/RNC, Government, Tea Party | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

I Will Not Settle: Why I am Not Voting For Whitman or Fiorina

Posted on October 15, 2010 by Marie Stroughter

I’ve been taking some flack from several conservative friends lately. Thus, maybe it’s time I clear up what must be so muddy about that “Independent” part of my “Independent Conservative” political label: I subscribe to no one’s “party.”

The crux of the latest issue with my fellow conservatives is that I have stated plainly and up-front: I will not vote for Carly Fiorina, nor will I vote for Meg Whitman.

I live in Silicon Valley, and have been well aware of both women long before campaign season, and long before either announced their candidacy. What I have seen and heard underwhelms me, and leaves me unenthusiastic.

Ms. Fiorina, despite how I feel about her leadership choices at HP (and you can color me “unhappy” with them), and what I believe to be her stands on some key issues (outsourcing jobs, for one), has still failed to impress me with her stance on life. She can state that she is pro-life, as can I. I can also state I am the Queen of England. But I have no birth certificate to show proof of any royal lineage to British aristocracy. In similar fashion, Ms. Fiorina has little to show on-record (where it matters) that she also holds an absolute pro-life view. I have been emphatic that I will not vote for a candidate that does not clearly espouse life, or can demonstrate it via their record. Thus, openly pro-choice Meg Whitman was never even on my radar, for that reason.

But, for me, this is a deeper issue than “just” abortion, although, for me, that alone is enough. It is indicative of a deeper and more pervasive issue: “Settling.” I am bone-tired of hearing we have to “settle” for Carly Fiorina because she is “the lesser of two evils.” Really? Why would I want to vote for even one “evil” albeit the “lesser” one?

I live in a Blue state. I know this. You know this. I don’t think this is a newsflash that will take anyone by surprise. Thus, change will come slowly. It may not be wrapped up with a pretty bow and delivered to my doorstep post-election, on November 3rd.

I am choosing to focus on long-term change. I am choosing to look at the bigger picture. I am absolutely sick and tired of people I vote for turning “Stepford” on me once my vote sends them to Washington or Sacramento (one word: Ahnuld). They promise me the moon, all with a “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” understanding that it’s “just politics.” It’s not just politics. It’s my life. It affects my family, my children, everything. I believe in a little word called accountability! Why would I say a candidate must be held accountable or else I will “vote them out” and then elect someone just like them? How is that any incentive to change the behavior I abhor? Politicians are currently running scared — and some have chosen not to run again, at all — for this very reason! We have them on the ropes, and can send a very strong, clear message! But, in order to do so, we cannot “settle.”

Yes, we have to take baby steps. But I am not marrying myself to a candidate for two, four, or more years, unless I have conviction that they will represent me as they said they would. Two words: Scott Brown.

Think of it in this way: If the person of your dreams proposed, and you sat talking about your vision of your future together and it was all glossy and rosy and beautiful….but you knew that the minute the ring was on your finger they would change into someone you never knew…who was unfaithful, who was not truthful, who just told you what you wanted to hear…would you marry that person? So, why is that acceptable to do that with candidates? Especially when we have the power to change things?

We have a problem people! This is why the Tea Party is such a huge paradigm shift in American politics today. Abraham Lincoln coined the expression “of the people, by the people, for the people” in his seminal Gettysburg Address. That’s the “hope” and “change” I am banking on. Not some fly-by-night candidate with the “right” letter behind their name on a ballot. It goes back to Dr. King’s statement about “content of character.” I am looking down the road. I am looking forward, not backward, and not really even at the present, though there are some candidates in the “here and now” who espouse what I am talking about: Allen West, Star Parker, Jim DeMint.

I am talking about taking this paradigm shift, and running with it. Fixing the political machine to work as it was envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Settling? That was for land, not people! We are taking action! We are making our voices, our wishes, our wants and our concerns known! I want a say in crafting that! I want a part in backing candidates who are “regular people” who will faithfully represent the will of the people. Not someone who takes my money, kisses my baby, and then follows a prescribed political dance.

So with all due respect to Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, and with kudos to breaking that glass ceiling, I envision another type of leader. And it’s not “pie in the sky” either. There are some folks out there who are tired of the “typical Washington politics.” Tired enough to “vote the bums out” (though I don’t like that disparaging remark), and tired enough to choose to serve by running for office themselves.

Whatever happens this November here in CA, I am committed to looking for real, true, long-term change. I’m tired of being seduced by rhetoric and waking up next to the “same old, same old.” Aren’t you? It does have to start somewhere. But for me that “somewhere” isn’t “settling” or voting for “lesser.” It starts by holding my leaders accountable, and saying that my vote is no longer going to just anyone. I can be a thermometer, or a thermostat. Being a thermostat takes longer, but it yields the greatest change and is worth working diligently for.

They say the definition of insanity is, “doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.” Well, to quote Susan Powter, “Stop the insanity!”

Image credit

Join the forum discussion on this post

Posted in Abortion, Activism, Current events/topics, Elections, Tea Party | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

My People Perish For Lack of Knowledge: The Cautionary Tale of Eddie Long

Posted on September 26, 2010 by Marie Stroughter

Fair warning: I may make a lot of people angry with what I have to say, but I have to say it. The Bible tells us we are to “preach the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15) and that after some of Jesus’ sermons, some said “this was a hard teaching” and “many followed Him no more” (John 6:60, 66). I invite you to pick up your Bible and study this for yourself, because in the Old Testament, God tells us through the prophet Hosea (Hosea 4:6) that, “My people perish for a lack of knowledge.” We still do.

The Black community is at a great cross-road in our evolution as a people. We’ve gotten away from some of the core issues that made us strong, and kept us strong throughout slavery, the civil rights movement, and other milestones in our history. If we are to progress, we must return to those principles. Through a series of blog posts, I hope to explore what I think are some of our most pressing problems, and what we can do to surmount them. I will begin with the foundation: our spirituality.

Today, in Atlanta, it was expected that a man named Eddie Long would “step down” as “Bishop” at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church amid rumors of sexual misconduct with young male congregants.

I have often stated that I do not like the term, “The Black Church” because Jesus purchased His church, and “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Further, Acts 10:34 says God is “not One to show partiality.” I only use the term to describe an historical and cultural institution, not a spiritual one. That is my first issue as I discuss the things that plague our community: We have to get back to our spiritual roots and stop putting men (and women) in the place of God.

It has been alleged that Mr. Long had these male parishioners call him “Daddy.” He is also called “Bishop,” but what does God call him? To be a “bishop” (note the small b), an office also translated “pastor, elder or overseer” (note that none have capital letters!), the Bible tells us:

“1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (1 Timothy 3:1-7).

5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. (Titus 1:5-9).

We entrust our souls to people who do not teach what the Bible says. We give them inflated titles that are not found in Scripture, or are a perversion of Scripture — such as capitalizing them to make some sort of “title” rather than an office held. This goes for titles such as:

Father: “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. (Matthew 23:9).

Reverend: 9He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name (Psalm 111:9). Please note that this is the only time the word “reverend” is used in the Bible, and it does not refer to a title, but rather an attribute of God Himself.

My point in this is: We have got to stop merely “showing up” to church and feeding off of what we are told by mere mortals. The Bible tells us:

21Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21; KJV)

11Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. (Acts 17:11, NKJV).

Study to show yourself approved to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15; American King James Version)

How many times have I heard in the Black community, “My Pastor said…?” Our salvation is not by osmosis (nor, as President Obama posits, is it collective). We will each be judged for our own works (John 12:48), thus, we have to study for ourselves and apply that knowledge to ourselves. We perish for lack of knowledge.

We must stop treating the church as a social institution, or a fashion show. Not that there is anything wrong with dressing our best for God, but when we put emphasis on the outward, we do so to our own detriment. 1 Peter 3:3-4 tells us:

3 Your adornment must not be merely external–braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.

We’ve got to stop just showing up for special “holy days” like Easter and Christmas — how would we like it if God only answered our prayers two days out of the year? — We owe Him our best service!

We have to get back to the word. We’ve got to talk our values, walk our values and vote our values. We cannot put mere men — Eddie Long, whether or not the allegations are true or [insert name of your favorite preacher or “Pastor” here] — up on a pedestal. My grandfather taught me that only One ever walked perfectly in this world, and He is the One who died for His church and He is the One we should emulate: Jesus.

Next up in this series: No Wedding, No Womb: Out of Wedlock Births in the Black Community.

Image credit

Join the forum discussion on this post

Posted in Cultural | 18 Comments

AACONS at EmergingCorruption.com – Dirty Tactics: The New Political Norm?

Posted on September 20, 2010 by admin

If you stopped by Emerging Corruption today, maybe you saw our post by African-American Conservatives Co-Founder, Marie Stroughter, entitled: Dirty Tactics: The New Political Norm?

Posted in Activism/Advocacy, Attacks from the Left, DNC/Democrats, Elections | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Politics of Character Assassination by LTC Allen West

Posted on September 19, 2010 by admin

NOTE: LTC Allen West writes a monthly column for Wheels on the Road Magazine. He has graciously furnished us an advance copy of his October essay:

Washingtoons

Sat, 18 Sept 2010

Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Ret)

“The Politics of Character Assassination”

“If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside”…..Eleventh Rule of Tactics

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”……Thirteenth Rule of Tactics

Greetings my fellow riders, South Floridians, and all Americans, it is time for our monthly political assessment. First, I just want to thank you all for your support during the August primary election….as well thanks for coming up and telling me how you appreciate this column.

The two quotes from above did not come from any brilliant military strategist. They come from the book written by Saul Alinsky entitled, Rules for Radicals; A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. This book was written in 1971 by Mr Alinsky, a Chicago native, and has been referred to by many members of the Democrat party, some rather senior. The book’s tone is set right from the beginning with its author’s ackowledgement to “the first radical known to man,” Lucifer.

I truly believe the major story which dominates this election season is that of character assassination. We are seeing less of an ideological debate on the prescient issues affecting our Republic between contenders. This has seemingly been replaced by the ever intensifying 11th and 13th rules from Alinsky’s book. The fact that many incumbents are using their vast campaign coffers, not to present their case, but rather demonize their opponents is becoming more apparent.

I hate to think that Americans are contributing to campaigns to see their hard earned money to be used in such a petty manner, something this [my] campaign shall never do.

As well, we witness daily the print, online, and televised media sources that have chosen their targets and in my estimation, fire volley upon volley of verbal artillery. Yes, this may have been the case all along, but I believe you would agree that this has become modus operandi in the current American political scene. It is as though the objective analysis of the issues has been replaced by hearty partisan cheerleading, especially where we had trusted our media to be objective.

In this current election cycle, I must admit that I am constantly amazed at the vicious attacks against the conservative American grassroots movement called, “The Tea Party.” I had no idea what the term “tea bagger” meant and when I was enlightened, well, I was appalled. This movement has completely restructured the political scene of the 2010 midterm elections. I find it interesting that most people who I meet that speak out against the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party has never attended an event….they just repeat media talking points.

In my 6-7 speaking engagements at Tea Party events I have just found concerned Americans who want to restore Constitutional principles and want leaders who will abide by those foundational principles. What is happening is that this movement is supporting candidates that they are willing to take a chance with regardless of their not having the approved “political establishment” credentials. I thought the Constitution was very clear on the requirements to run for political office in America.

However, what we find is the vehement attacks levied against this movement and candidates they support. We have seen the use of countless derogatory references, which often are proven untrue. But, if you tell a lie enough, eventually it can, or will, be considered the truth.

We saw this play out wholeheartedly in the GOP nomination of Christine O’Donnell in the Delaware primary. What was amazing for many who are also GOP nominees was the horrific response from the Republican party establishment to her nomination. When some were pressed they conceded that Congressman Castle was preferred because they felt he could win. It begs the question, is it more important to win with no principles than to stand for something? That is the question the Republican party had soon answer unless they seek to steal defeat from the jaws of victory.

This is where I ask the question, what is a moderate? What are the principles and values of a moderate? America cannot be led by individuals who awake each day and decide, based upon political winds, what their values are? My mother, Elizabeth Thomas West, had a great maxim she taught me, “a Man must stand for something, or else he will fall for anything.” The failures of “moderates” as leaders can be seen in California, and even here in our home state of Florida…..where unemployment just rose.

The lesson from the O’Donnell primary victory is that the people will take the risk that is principled, than a perceived victory that is not.

And then there is the vile means by which the liberal left has defined campaigning in this cycle. Early on DNC Chairman Tim Kaine made it clear this was not going to be about the liberal progressive socialist legislative agenda, truly indefensible. Instead it would be about attacking the individual and false branding, so instead of meeting on the battleground of ideological ideas this season has turned into a bad National Enquirer reality show. The negative TV ads, personal attacks based upon lies and half information, and the purposeful hiding of most incumbents are becoming the standard for this election cycle.

What this all evidences is a desperation among a ruling class of political elites who wish not to be challenged and certainly wish not to lose power.

This reminds me of a great quote from one of our Founding Fathers, “Nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his constituents as the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people, from whence he was taken, where he must participate in their burdens” (George Mason, 17 June 1788, Virginia Ratifying Convention).

The real impetus behind the politics of character assassination is control. Control by a group forming a new American “Politburo” who no longer find themselves willing to return to the general mass of the people. Control by a group of career political elites who feel they know what is best for all of us and are not willing to participate in our burdens. Control by a group that is certainly not compelled to regard the interest of their constituents, which has been replaced by their own personal interest and special interest.

The politics of character assassination in the 2010 midterm election cycle is about the DC political establishment feeling it slipping away. What was once referred to as “astroturf” is now having a recognized impact. What was once considered a playground for certain individuals is now open to us all. And what frustrates the pundits the most? They cannot clearly define this movement and attack it because of its loose decentralized nature….kinda resembles what frustrated the British back when 13 unorganized colonies stood up to them……led by Men of Principle.

In this election cycle, shall we stand with principled men and women who will risk themselves and their families? Or shall we believe the lies and politics of character assassination from the ruling masters of Washington DC?

Yes, I am currently experiencing the politics of character assassination but my response is a familiar one — “Give me Liberty or Give me Death” but I will not succumb nor surrender my Country, the United States of America.

Steadfast and Loyal,

Join the forum discussion on this post

Posted in Attacks from the Left, GOP/RNC, Tea Party | Tagged | 3 Comments

What Happened to the Party of Reagan?

Posted on September 18, 2010 by DarkKnight3565

They are a little strange. They’ve made a few wacky comments, held some controversial opinions, done some bizarre things, and have been shadowed by a scandal or two. They are not your father’s Republican Party. They were in your father’s Republican Party; but they were a silent and invisible minority. They are the Tea Party Candidates. The Extremists. Or, as I would describe them, the Conservatives. And suddenly, they are winning races many don’t want them to win, including Republicans.

The battle over GOP primacy being waged by conservatives and mainstream Republicans is not new, but it is news. This is especially so in the wake of Christine O’Donnell’s nomination as her party’s candidate for Senate. This nomination has created a bit of a civil tussle in the party, setting Sean Hannity against Karl Rove; Rush Limbaugh against Charles Krauthammer; and Mark Levin against just about everyone, even going so far as to attack some of the writers of the Weekly Standard.

The chief argument against Ms. O’Donnell, as it is with most Tea Party candidates, is that she cannot win, at least according to those Republicans who argued against her. Charles Krauthammer, a pundit typically deified by the Right — and rightly so — is the chief proponent of this argument, complaining bitterly about her upset of a candidate who “was going to win,” easily picking up a seat that Krauthammer says Republicans desperately needed. “I think it’s a huge mistake to jeopardize a seat in Delaware which was absolutely in the pocket, without almost any contention, and, to jeopardize it with a much weaker candidate, who may or may not win, and I think is overwhelmingly likely to lose,” Krauthammer said.

DNC Chairman Tim Kaine gleefully echoes this view, pointing to O’Donnell and others, and singing merrily that Republicans have become “too extreme” to win, ignoring that O’Donnell’s opponent in the general election – as a self-described “bearded Marxist” – might be considered a bit “extreme” himself. It has become the most recent meme of the Democrats, that the Republicans being nominated nowadays are too just too, well, Republican. Of course, during the 2008 campaign one of their favorite talking points was that Bush and the Republicans in Congress weren’t Republican enough. “What happened to the party of Reagan?” they would ask. To support this argument they nominated as many candidates as they could find to appeal to voters who were wondering the same thing; candidates who were Iraq war vets, pro-gunners, even some pro-lifers, and a presidential candidate who ran on tax cuts, the war in Afghanistan, and balancing the budget. Unfortunately, this effort to appear Republican by the Dems was quickly forgotten as they started pushing the most socialist agenda in American history as soon as they were sworn in.

However, if the problem with O’Donnell is her inability to win, then why did so many of the Republican attacks against her come after she had already won or was close to winning their party’s nomination. Karl Rove’s rant against her – “I’ve met her. I wasn’t frankly impressed by her abilities as a candidate” – came while cake was still being served at her victory party. And just days before the election, after polls began showing an O’Donnell surge, The Weekly Standard tried to sabotage her campaign with a September Surprise by publishing a piece listing every charge against her they could find in a last ditch effort to make her appear unstable. The argument against Rove and The Weekly Standard is not that what they said was false, only that a) their timing was suspect, much like the revelation just days before the 2000 presidential race that Bush was once arrested on a DUI charge, and b) they were employing a double-standard. How odd is it, we ask, that Rove and the Standard are so concerned by O’Donnell’s padding of her résumé and how long it took her to pay off her student loans, still have not, said a disparaging word against the more established Senator David Vitter’s love of hookers?

If the argument against O’Donnell and other Tea Party candidates is that they cannot win, then the argument appears to be very thin. True, she may not have the bipartisan appeal of Mike Castle, but as illustrated by her website the day after her victory — when O’Donnell asked for $750,000 in donations and raised $1.7 million instead — she and candidates like her have an advantage pundits like Krauthammer fail to factor in when they calculate their chances of winning – enthusiasm.

Voter enthusiasm matters in elections. Enthusiastic voters for conservative candidates donate money, put up yard signs, hand out flyers, knock on doors, and, spurred on by talk radio and the blogs, are also guaranteed to show up on Election Day. Establishment candidates like Charlie Crist tend to do better in early polling than their more “extremist” rivals like Rubio, but these polls can be deceptive. They do not take into account the Democrats who say they will support them but on Election Day remain faithful to their own party. Nor do they weigh how many Republicans, when faced with the choice of voting for a candidate with whom they disagree, and a candidate for whom they can only generate tepid support, will simply stay at home. As the more recent polls in Florida indicate, support of establishment Republicans tends to be a mile wide but an inch deep.

In 2008, when voters of both parties said they wanted change, and were promised change by politicians of both parties, Republican politicians apparently didn’t mean it. Unfortunately for many of them, the voters did. Thus the Tea Parties and candidates like O’Donnell. And Republicans should be grateful, for if not for the Tea Parties’ ability to purge the party of ranks of candidates like Mike Castle who vote against conservatism nearly as often as they vote with it, then a third party would be inevitable. We’d see how electable Republicans would be then.

As a conservative who has spent his life in the northeast – NJ and NY – it occurred to me last year while I was voting for Chris Christie for governor that he was the first (and so far, only) Republican I was able to vote for in a non-presidential race who was actually pro-life. As a Republican who tends to vote the party line, I would have voted for him anyway, as I have for many liberal Republicans in the past. My philosophy is that you vote for the most conservative candidate you can, even if neither candidate is truly a conservative. But that time was different. That time I was enthusiastic.

Join the forum discussion on this post

Posted in GOP/RNC, Tea Party | 1 Comment