My Thoughts on Election 2012: This World is Not My Home

Those who know me well know I am rarely silent about anything! However, the events of the last two weeks have temporarily rendered me speechless. Not because I don’t have anything to say — I do, and plenty of it — but because I need to process it in such a way that I can discuss it without losing my “Christian cool.”

I have said that I am a Christian first, and whatever else I am politically, ethnically, occupationally or otherwise, is secondary.

I had a long talk with Stacy Swimp today, and vented quite a bit as friends do with friends. Then, a couple of hours later, Congressman West confirmed that the race in St. Lucie County had been certified for his opponent, Patrick Murphy.

That sent me over the emotional edge for a few minutes, and I had to really think long and hard about a few things. I will still most likely go back and finish the many blog posts I’ve started and stopped during this period, because I do think I’ve got a lot to say before I can move on to The Next Big Thing.

The point of this blog post, however, is to expand upon something I said to my husband right after the election was called in favor of President Obama, and what Congressman West and I discussed today when he told me of the situation in FL: God’s got this.

In Bible class at church, we’ve been studying the prophets. They warned the people time and again about straying from God, and often God allowed them to “feel the burn” from their rebellious choices. He allowed them to have the king they begged for in order to be “like the other nations” (1 Samuel 8). Further, He allowed them to be carried away into captivity, allowing the Israelites to suffer famine or adverse weather conditions, etc. when they chose to disobey Him.

Am I saying that’s what He’s doing today with us and this election? I don’t have a Special Red Phone that rings, but I do know that God places people in positions of authority. He places the leaders we like and those we don’t. And we are called to be mindful of their positions (Romans 13).

I know that if Mitt Romney had won, I would be doing the Fairly Happy Dance, instead of the “Icky Shuffle” (with all due respect to the iconic Elbert “Ickey” Woods and his Shuffle of many years ago). I would probably not be focusing as much on the spiritual as I am now, because I have probably prayed more often and more fervently for this nation than ever before.

Now with Congressman West’s race decided (I refuse to say “defeated,” for my opinion is that he was robbed), I again turn introspective and prayerful. As I wrote to Representative West today, I said that I am learning to focus on the bigger picture, which is this world is not my home, so I shouldn’t be “snuggling in” getting comfortable.

Though I was at home this morning with sick children, my husband shared today’s lesson at church with me. Our preacher mentioned that it was when he was at his lowest that he felt the strongest spiritually. He said that we need adversity to remind us of our priorities.

Those of us of faith have read the end of the book. We know how it ends. Good triumphs over evil. God wins, and the bad guys lose. Until then, I have a job to do: continue to talk about spiritual things in the hopes that more eyes are opened to the Truth. As that wise philosopher, Peter Parker once quoted, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

–Marie

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Attacks from the Left, DNC/Democrats, Elections, GOP/RNC, Spiritual | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Black Conservatives, Black Progressives, and ‘Uncle Tom’

Back in the day, we used to call someone like that, and I want to remind you when this incident occurred, I was really struck by a front page picture of this guy, which we called Negro, I mean that we call him a Negro in the fact that he works for not for our people but against our people.
In the old days we called him an Uncle Tom.

These words were spoken by Zaki Baruti, the president of an organization called the Universal African Peoples Organization, whose mission, as it is stated on their webpage, is to “do all we can do to uplift and empower our people throughout the world,” at a NAACP rally in support of two members of the SEIU who were charged with assaulting a street vendor named Kenneth Gladney while calling him a ‘n****r’. While there is some debate as to what happened the night of the assault between Mr. Gladney and the SEIU members – the unionists were eventually cleared, despite eyewitnesses collaborating Mr. Gladney’s testimony – I found it much more interesting why Mr. Gladney should be called an “Uncle Tom” at a NAACP rally. As Ron Christie wrote in his book Blackwards: How Black Leadership Is Returning America To The Days of Separate But Equal, it would seem that the NAACP now finds it necessary, before it works toward the ‘advancement of colored people’ to check that colored person’s party affiliation:

In the face of an apparently racist even where a black man is seemingly beaten, and berated due to his political beliefs that run counter to those of many African-Americans, Clyburn and other supporters of the president cowered, rather than led. They failed to denounce a vicious assault on a black man at a health care rally; assaulted both because of his affiliation with the Tea Party and called a n****r’ because he was black. For all its calls for equality, equal rights, and justice for all under the law, the Congressional Black Caucus failed to stand up for someone who was black because the gentleman in question was from a differing political and ideological perspective than their own.

Mr. Baruti defended his charge on The O’Reilly Factor, by saying that it was okay to call Mr. Gladney an “Uncle Tom” because Mr. Gladney was selling anti-Obama merchandise at a Tea Party rally. A Black man selling anti-Obama merchandise is apparently all it takes to be labeled as someone who is “nor for our people but against our people” by someone who is ‘doing all he can do to uplift and empower our people.’

Mr. Gladney is not alone. Representative Allen West, a man who, with two master degrees and over 20 years of military service, would seem to be someone African-Americans could look to as a role model, nevertheless is called “Uncle Tom” and “House Slave” regularly, especially in the Black Progressive press. The same press also regularly dismissed Clarence Thomas as an Uncle Tom, much to the chagrin of Professor Patricia Turner, who said “It was a really rough time for me during the Clarence Thomas hearings because it was very common in the Black community to refer to Clarence Thomas as an Uncle Tom. And my understanding of Justice Thomas, you know, he wasn’t good enough to be the real Uncle Tom. I couldn’t imagine him being someone who would have let himself be beaten to death rather than reveal where these two Black women were.”

Even Drs. Thomas Sowell and Walt Williams, African-Americans who escaped poverty to become two of the most respected economic thinkers alive today, were called “a new breed of Uncle Tom [and] some of the biggest liars the world ever saw” by Benjamin Hooks, former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. If that’s considered advancing colored people…

If someone of Dr. Sowell’s accomplishments can be called an Uncle Tom, then what is an Uncle Tom? Clearly Mr. Hooks did not mean the term to refer to the actual Uncle Tom from Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, who sacrificed himself to a death by beating at the hands of a slave master rather than betray two escaped slaves, as Dr. Turner did. The term as Mr. Hooks and others use it, is, according to dictionary.com, a “disparaging and offensive” term for “a Black man considered by other Blacks to be subservient to curry favor with Whites.”

Generally, this definition comes as much from White Liberal Elite as it does from Blacks. In fact, often the White Liberal Elite seems to be leading Blacks by the hand on issues of race, defining for us what is racist and who are the Uncle Toms, and often using Blacks to promote Progressivism, regardless of the ill effect this Progressivism may have on the Black community. This is generally true today as it has been true historically. Margaret Sanger for example, founder of Planned Parenthood, once said that “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Nonetheless, if this is the definition of an Uncle Tom, then why should it used against African-American conservatives? Is Conservatism anti-Black, and its opposite, Progressivism, pro-Black?

Who, for example, African-American Conservatives or African-American Progressives, has a more pro-Black view on an issue that affects the African-American community as dramatically as abortion? Interestingly, until relatively recently, there was no distinction between the two. The Reverend Jesse Jackson, for example, as late as 1977, until he needed White Liberal Elite support for his run for the presidency, stated flatly that abortion was “Black genocide”. When one looks at the raw data it is easy to see why he came to this conclusion. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are more Black abortions than the number of Blacks lost to the seven leading causes of death combined. Blackgenocide.org reports that from 1973 to 2011 there have been over 13 million African-American abortions, which is 174% higher than the number of deaths Blacks have suffered from AIDS, violent crime, accidents, cancer, and heart disease combined. Further, it is estimated that over 1,800 Blacks have abortions each day.

Yet, despite these tragic and incredible numbers, there seems to be no African-American Progressives who seem willing to speak out against abortion, even as it relates to the Black community. Certainly not Barack Obama, who has made his support for abortion – even partial-birth abortions and born-alive abortions (the killing of a child that is delivered after he or she survives an abortion attempt) – a centerpiece for his reelection campaign. Representative Emanuel Cleaver, like most of the Congressional Black Caucus of which he is the chairman, has a perfect 100 percent rating from the pro-abortion group NARAL. Tellingly, a billboard from thatsabortion.com that featured a Black child under the statement: “The Most Dangerous Place for an African-American is in the Womb” had to be removed after facing pressure from Black groups led by Al Sharpton who found it to be “racist.” One of the few prominent African-Americans to support this billboard was Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, a woman who though I believe is essentially a Progressive though a Social Conservative, who said “This billboard should be posted in every city of the country.” For this statement and for many others like it, Dr. Alveda King has of course been called an Uncle Tom.

Another issue in which one can compare African-American Conservatives and African-American Progressives is economics. Surely, if Conservatism is antithetical to the well-being of the Black community, then under a conservative administration, Blacks will suffer disproportionally, while conversely, Blacks will disproportionally thrive under a progressive administration. But this has not been the case.

African-American columnist Joseph Perkins took a look how Blacks fared under the Reagan administration and found that “on balance, the majority of Black Americans made considerable progress in the 1980s.” Among the facts he listed include:
• Total Black business receipts increased from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987, translating into an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent (compared to 5 percent for all U.S. businesses.
• Upwardly mobile cohort grew by a third under Reagan’s watch, from 3.6 million in 1980 to 4.8 million in 1988.
• the middle class constituted more than 40 percent of Black households by the end of Reagan’s presidency
• Between 1982 and 1988, total Black employment increased by 2 million, a staggering sum. That meant that Blacks gained 15 percent of the new jobs created during that span, while accounting for only 11 percent of the working-age population.
• The Black jobless rate was cut by almost half between 1982 and 1988. Over the same span, the Black employment rate – the percentage of working-age persons holding jobs – increased to record levels, from 49 percent to 56 percent.
• The number of Black professionals increased by an astounding 63 percent.
• Black college enrollment increased by 100,000 between 1980 and 1987
• The 1980s saw an improvement in the Black high school graduation rate, as the proportion of Blacks 18 to 24 years old earning high school diplomas increased from 69.7 percent in 1980 to 76 percent by 1987.

How have African-Americans done under the progressive administration of the first Black president? Not nearly as well. As Antony Davies and James Harrigan wrote for the Triblive.com, “

The median black income was $28,000 (in today’s terms) versus a $35,100 median white income when Bush left office. By 2011, the median black income had fallen to $23,600 while the median white income had increased to $35,300.

This is due, in no small part, to unemployment. Here blacks have fared considerably worse than their white counterparts as well. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the official unemployment rate for blacks rose from 10 percent in 2008 to 14.5 percent today, while unemployment for whites increased from 5.2 percent to 7.2 percent over the same period.

But the official unemployment figures understate the reality. When workers are unemployed so long that they stop looking for work, the government stops counting them as unemployed. Adding back those discouraged workers shows that the actual unemployment rate for blacks rose from 10 percent in 2007 to 17.7 percent today, whereas white unemployment increased from 7.2 percent to 10.4 percent during the same period.

If unemployment paints a bleak picture, incarceration rates make matters considerably worse. Blacks today are imprisoned at almost seven times the rate at which whites are imprisoned. The majority of these people are imprisoned for nonviolent drug offenses.

In perhaps the most telling metric, the poverty rate for blacks rose from less than 35 percent in 2008 to almost 39 percent in 2011, according to the Census Bureau.

Yet, despite these numbers, if you are an African-American who prefers the Reagan administration to the Obama administration, guess what that makes you?

One can hardly fault those African-Americans who tend to have to knee-jerk association of Conservatism and racism, and therefore Black Conservatism and Uncle Tom-ism. Much of that is the result of the White Liberal Elite dominance of the media, and their willingness to exploit this dominance in order to fashion a narrative to make Conservatives seem racist. The typical mainstream media reporter will search for a racist on the Right with the same desperation with which I search for the free sample tables at Costco. And if one cannot be found, then one can be created, by way of either planting one at, say, a Tea Party rally (how difficult is it to have some guy stand with a placard of Obama with a bone through his nose?), or by labeling some Conservative as a racist.

Remember the “Journ-O-list” scandal, the set of emails between prominent Progressives in the media that was leaked a few years ago. One such email came from Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent, who emailed to his colleagues his advice that they should “take one of them–Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares–and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a Black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.”

This tactic is used most noticeably as of late in the voter ID debate. Advocates of laws that would require voters to show some form of ID do not request that the bar be higher for African-Americans. I as an African-American would not have to pay any special tax, take any special test, and so on beyond the normal requirements of obtaining a government ID such as a driver’s license. It is difficult to see the discrimination against me here. Almost all Americans, even African-Americans, have an acceptable form of identification or can easily get one. And the minute minority of people who would find the task of getting an ID too burdensome – usually some indigent elderly person whose birth certificate was long lost – should be able to get one by way of special government assistance. Yet despite the lack of discrimination in Voter ID requirements, the White Liberal Elite,– including President Clinton – compare Voter ID laws to Jim Crow. I even channel-surfed past MSNBC recently long enough to hear some pundit for The Nation – a favorite sounding board for the White Liberal Elite – say that Republican support for voter ID comes because ‘suppression of the Black vote is the core issue for the GOP’.

With over-the-top, hyper-partisan rhetoric such as this taken as gospel by many, is it any wonder then that Black Conservatives are seen as betrayers of their race?

To a large degree, the belief that Black Conservatism equals Uncle Tom-ism is also based on the belief that Conservatism has been historically been against civil rights. Yet this belief is based upon myth. There are obvious facts that even Progressives admit to – that the Republican Party was born out of the abolition movement, that Republican president Lincoln ended slavery, that the KKK formed out the Democratic Party. But what is not widely acknowledged it that it was the Republican Congress with a Republican president who passed the 1957 Civil Rights Act over Democratic objections, or that 94% of Senate Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Let’s look at the records of the two administrations most responsible for making African-Americans such loyal Democrats: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. It is interesting to note that while it was the Republicans who supported federal anti-lynching laws, including Alfred Landon, FDR’s 1936 Republican opponent, and President Calvin Coolidge, President Roosevelt opposed such legislation. President Roosevelt also appointed known KKK member Hugo Black to the Supreme Court, named segregationist Jimmy Byrnes as a top advisor, and picked former KKK member Harry Truman as a vice-president. President Roosevelt was so hostile to African-Americans, or so afraid to irritating the racist element of his party, that he refused to meet with Jesse Owens after Mr. Owens won four gold medals, though he happily met with other White Olympians.

President Roosevelt was no Woodrow Wilson in terms of racism however. Nor was he a Lyndon Johnson. According to Pulitzer Prize winner Robert A. Caro, who has written extensively about President Johnson, “never supported civil rights legislation—any civil rights legislation” until 1957. His first speech as senator was to complain that President Truman’s proposed civil rights legislation “for depriving one minority of its rights in order to extend rights to other minorities”, meaning deprive White Southerners the right to discriminate against Blacks in hiring, and the right to lynch. He revealed his motivation for reversing his view on civil rights as senator by saying “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness.” When he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act he told two Democratic governors that “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” Similarly, when he appointed Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, he told a staffer, “Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a nigger.”

Yet, despite this, for any Black to oppose the presidency of either man would have one labeled an “Uncle Tom” in the African-American community.

It is difficult to avoid the temptation to call Black Progressives the true “Uncle Toms.” Black Progressives not only are advocates for policies that harm the Black community in deference to the White Liberal Elite in my view, but are extremely hesitate to criticize a member of this White Liberal Elite for racial speech or actions. (Yeah, let’s call Sarah Palin a racist for writing “Obama’s Shuck and Jive Ends with Benghazi Lies”, but let’s not say anything when Harry Reid praising the “light skinned” President Obama for having “no Negro dialect except when he wanted to.”)

But I, like most African-American Conservatives, prefer to presume that both Black Conservatives and Black Progressives want what is best for the Black community. Unfortunately, thanks to a White Liberal Elite that continues to manipulate our perception of history and current events for their own ends, it seems difficult for Black Progressives to agree.

–DK

Image Credit

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Attacks from the Left, Cultural, Race/Racism/Race Relations, racism, Tea Party | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Marie Stroughter – Mitt Romney’s Presidential Air in 3rd Debate

African-American Conservatives Co-Founder, Marie Stroughter, sums up the last of the Presidential debates for the iVote section at iVillage.

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Current events/topics, Elections | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Marie Stroughter at Stand Up For Religious Freedom Rally – October 20, 2012

African-American Conservatives Co-Founder, Marie Stroughter, speaks at the Stand Up For Religious Freedom rally in San Francisco on Saturday, October 20, 2012:

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Abortion, Activism, Activism/Advocacy, Attacks from the Left, Current events/topics, DNC/Democrats, Elections, Healthcare, Media & Media Bias | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

View From the Right: Last Night’s Vice-Presidential Debate

Marie’s assessment of last night’s first and only Vice-Presidential debate, written for iVillage is now live! Chime in!

(NOTE: Though normally I don’t refer to people by last name only, the piece has been edited for length, thus no disrespect is intended –M.)

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Attacks from the Left, Current events/topics, DNC/Democrats, Education, Elections, GOP/RNC, Media & Media Bias, Taxes | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Political Correctness Gone Amok

DISCLAIMER: In this rant, I discuss Conservative politics. If you are not a Conservative, you may be deeply disturbed. I also discuss my faith from a Christian perspective. Whereas, I am sharing my opinion only, you may read something into it not intended, get offended and take your little yellow wagon and go home. That is certainly your right. I discuss being a mother. Fathers, I am not bashing you nor trying to make you feel inferior for your lack of reproductive equipment. Nor am I advocating that you poop on anything in protest so that the government will formally recognize your lack of childbearing apparatus and cover it under any mandatory health care system. If you have struggled with infertility, it is not my intent to intentionally bring you pain by mentioning my children, it’s merely part of the story I may never get to after all these disclaimers take up all my time and space allotted for this entry. If you have basic common sense, I may offend you with my obvious “well, duuuuh” statements; you have my apologies in advance. If you are a human with opinions and emotions, I am directing this toward you with apologies in advance to life on other planets that may not be human, and certainly our Artificially Intelligent (AI) friends (as in “robots” and I am sorry if that is the equivalent of the “N” word or something). The use of the term AI is not a jab at our friends who we may have ideological issues with and thus no inference is intended that you are somehow less intelligent. AI implies Intelligent Design, so there’s that to dislaim, yada, yada, yada (tm – Jerry Seinfeld). I think that covers any group I may offend with this post, but if not, let me offer you a blanket, generic disclaimer (Note: I am not singling out people who may be named Blanket, with all due apologies to any member of the Jackson family). Tax and license not included, subject to credit approval as not all will qualify (sorry to those with lower credit ratings), may cause oily discharge, and in the event this rant lasts 4 hours or more, you may need to seek medical attention (if I’ve made you feel bad because your mom (there I go with the parenting references….ack!) wanted you to go to medical school and you didn’t, I am not implying a conspiracy with her, nor am I saying, “nanny, nanny, boo boo”). If you are a nanny and/or are named Boo Boo (with apologies in advance to Honey Boo Boo and Boo-Boo Stewart)…sigh…..

Clearly, I am being intentionally clever and humorous. At least I think I am clever and humorous, but last night I was anything but. You see, this rant is derived from the fodder that is my real life.

As far as I am aware, America has this little “thingy” I like to call Free Speech. It means that, basically, I get to say pretty much whatever I want. You can agree with me (which I’d like, and could quite possibly offer you a virtual latte in solidarity….unless you do don’t like lattes….but there I go disclaiming again, and thereby digressing). So you can agree with me or not. Guess what? That is your right under this “free speech thingy.”

Though perfectly legal, it would be exceptionally bad form for me to post something on one of your social media properties, let’s say a Facebook wall, that is of a contrary nature to something I know you strenuously believe in or that is a personal attack (I don’t work for Facebook, I disclaim and absolve Facebook of anything real or imaginary….sigh). For example, I have been called a “dumb Negro” and “neo-con wh*re” on Twitter (yep, another trademark there for Twitter. Consider yourself disclaimed). However, if I post something on my very own wall, I think this “free speech thingy” gives me that right. Facebook (and okay, Facebook, this is a dig at you!) has many complex and ever-changing privacy settings, to control what you can see or don’t want see. I use them (not an endorsement of Facebook or any social network), and, thus, don’t see many things that I might find objectionable. I actually do have friends who hold other political and religious beliefs, and knew that when I chose to “friend” them (trademark, Facebook?) or grant them “friend” status. I knew I might see some things I didn’t agree with and set my privacy settings accordingly (or adjusted after the fact…like “hide this story” or “mute” on G+ (I’m not affiliated with Google….another trademark….sigh…and if you are an individual with mutism, please take that up with Google, I’m just using their term…..while hoping to finish this rant today….sigh).

Last night, my 14 year-old shared a quote attributed, correctly or incorrectly, to George Washington:  “It is impossible to govern a nation without God and the Bible.” Mind you, my 14 year-old child (sorry, teenagers, my 14 year-old teen), posted this on his very own wall. Actually, it was a picture of a t-shirt with the quote on it, with the attribution to Washington. As a new Christian, and as a high-schooler interested in politics and government, he often posts things like this….along with incredibly random things…and musical bits via Spotify (trademarked…move along already!).

Not long after the quote was posted, an adult made a comment. This is the same adult that recently raked me over the coals on stuff I posted on my own wall after expressing hurt and outrage after being told once again, that as a conservative of color, I don’t exist. When I explained that, (and normally with this person, I would have just let it go after a couple of innocuous pushback comments), this person kept posting, ending with how usually I am respectful and this time I wasn’t, blah, blah, blah. I did push back and hard. I said I was marginalized and had the right to express it on my own wall, as this person often does on their own wall (along with many items I totally disagree with, and use wisdom and discretion in not responding to because of that whole “freedom of speech thingy” in their own space!).

My son wrote a very respectful comment in return, that in essence said, though it aligned with his belief system, clearly everyone has the right to choose for him- or herself*. End of story, right? Not by a long shot. Almost instantly, another comment appeared. This time, in essence, accusing a 14 year-old of making this adult a “second-class citizen.” After deleting, I immediately wrote a private message saying this was not cool by any stretch of the imagination. On and on they went about the second-class citizen issue. I countered with Black Conservatives being treated poorly and reminded this person of their recent tirade and less-than-sympathetic posts on my wall when I expressed these same sentiments. This person then took it to their own wall, as is their right to do (and, frankly, where it should have gone in the first place, not frying a 14 year old publically). The version that was posted, of course, omitted that it was a quote that a kid posted. Just that “these people” and “their beliefs” yada, yada, yada….When my husband pointed this out to the adult in question on the thread, not one person said, “Really? You went after a 14 year-old over a quote?” No, context didn’t matter, and often it doesn’t. If you want to play out your inferiority complex on the wall of a 14 year-old, well, apparently, bully for you. Literally. Bully. I have no disclaimers for bullies.

Let me say this clearly: As an American (who, by the way, had ancestors who fought in the war for our independence), I have the right to free speech, so does my teen…and so do you! And, though my views may clash with yours, I still have the right to say them. I have the right to get in your face about it, and burn a flag, my bra or any number of stupid things to get my point across. I usually try to be humorous (as with this offering today), and I try to soften things and part on good terms. But, that isn’t always possible. I am a Christian first, and whereas I try to adhere to Romans 12:18  and “be at peace with all men” (that means “mankind,” feminists!), I also “am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ.”

This was a week in history when a political party tried to take God out of their platform. Newsflash: He’s on record as not being a party to most of your platform, but I digress. Thus, clearly, many people had feelings about that (again, apologies to our AI friends who may not have feelings, and if you are a really advanced AI and you do, double apologies)!

Bottom line: I live my faith out loud. I try to be respectful, but at the same time, I am not going to soft soap everything with blanket apologies (there I go again with Blanket!). Put the Big People Panties on and realize we are many, thus our opinions are going to be varied. Live your own beliefs out loud. But if I choose, in my own space, to state something clearly not meant as a direct attack on you, and you see it as such, maybe question yourself first, before lashing out….or just click “delete,” “ignore” or “hide.”

Is this what our society has become? That in order to engage in civil discourse, one must disclaim everything? Or — cover your dead ears and eyes, Jane Austen — have we become a society steeped in incivility? In dear Jane’s time, after the evening meal, the men withdrew to one room, to discuss topics “not fitting” for ladies to participate in (probably including religion and politics!), while the women separated to their own area (discussing some of the same stuff without “manly interference” and young girls learned about childbirth and all sorts of juicy stuff!). I’ve tried to re-create my beloved Jane’s time, by co-founding African-American Conservatives. A “drawing room,” if you will, for people of like mind to gather privately and discuss issues of concern to us. But the space is often crashed by others insistent upon inserting themselves into conversations not intended for them, and being offended that it’s not intended for them, and offended that, get this, it’s contrary to what they believe when…uh….it’s clearly stated in big bold letters at the top of our Facebook page.

My personal space is much that way, too. If I have invited you, I intend to be a gracious hostess. But, it is my home, and you will see glimpses of my personal life. I’m not going to disclaim my life. And if that’s what you need from me, clearly, you were never truly my friend.

DISCLAIMER: If you know me in real life or from our many discussions online, feel free to find me online and “circle” “follow” or “like” me. Warning: Religion and politics will be discussed…and tread lightly around my kids, as I do go from zero to full bore “Mama Grizzly” in about a second flat!

* They, their and other plural forms incorrectly used per grammar rules to mask the gender of said individual

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Attacks from the Left, Social Media | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Marie Stroughter – 5 Things I Loved About Ann Romney’s Speech

African-American Conservatives Co-Founder, Marie Stroughter, is one of the newest contributors to the iVoices and iVote projects at iVillage.

Her article and accompanying video were featured on the site, and linked here for your enjoyment! Please head over there and comment, letting them you want more!

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Current events/topics, Elections, GOP/RNC | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Black Conservative Candidates for 2012

In response to readers who have asked us, we are sharing The Frederick Douglass Foundation’s comprehensive list of Black GOP candidates running during this election cycle.

Several of these candidates have appeared on our radio show. Get to know the candidates and their positions better by taking a listen:

Allen West (numerous interviews: Look for the AACONS icon here)

Mia Love

Tim Scott (here and here)

Brian K. Hill

Wayne Winsley

EW Jackson

Vernon Parker

Michael Williams (here and here)

Robert Allen Mansfield

Do your “due diligence” in listening to us vet these candidates, and check out the Frederick Douglass Foundation candidate page for contact information for each campaign.

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Cultural, Elections, General, GOP/RNC | Leave a comment

The Monarch Presidency – Obamacare and the Individual Mandate

Actually, I have not been an opponent of an individual mandate. It seems to me intuitively correct that the state should not have to pay for the healthcare of a financially secure individual who for whatever reason has decided not to buy healthcare insurance, then finds himself or herself in an emergency room.

Furthermore, I am not opposed to an entitlement program that would aid those who cannot afford health insurance, either through the extension of Medicare or by some sort of welfare supplement program. I don’t see it as a “right”, simply an entitlement program. People on food stamps, for example, receive a card that pays a large percentage of their monthly food bill. The indigent can receive healthcare insurance aid much the same way.

People who have pre-existing conditions can also receive such aid even if they are well above the poverty line and wouldn’t qualify for Medicare, since obviously the cost of someone with cancer who is just now applying for healthcare insurance would be exorbitant.

However, supporting the individual mandate is not the same as supporting Obamacare, which accomplishes remarkably little of the positive ends it claims to set out to achieve. It does provide ‘universal healthcare insurance’. In fact, it leaves about 30 million without healthcare insurance. Nor has it lowered the premiums for those of us with healthcare insurance. 2011, a year with an average inflation rate of 3.2%, saw healthcare costs rise 5.8%. Yahoo News reports that “Most consumers can expect to keep seeing increases in premiums and co-payments because the underlying cost of health care is expected to rise. The law contains a few mechanisms to curb premiums, but it also requires that many insurance providers make their benefits more generous, which will raise their cost.”

What Obamacare does accomplish however is to socialize America’s healthcare system, trampling over individual and state rights. Obamacare gives the president, by way of Department of Health and Human Services, almost unchallengeable power. It is hard to be determine just what the limits of the federal government will be, as Obamacare is sprinkled over two dozen times with the phrase “to be determined”, meaning that if something comes up, suddenly Obamacare grants the executive branch to power to decide upon it.

We recently saw that power exercised with the mandate that Catholic institutions pay for contraception, including aborticides. We saw it as well in the granting of numerous waivers to Obamacare, granted by Obama to his cronies. That’s not a power in the original language of the law, but Obama’s cronies wanted waivers so…there it is. Anything Obama – or any future president wants to do – he or she can, especially if it can be couched with phrases like “social justice” or “fairness.” As Charles Krauthammer wrote, “The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy.”

Obamacare also sets up what Obama and his allies truly desire, the single payer option. Why else would the penalty to employers for not providing healthcare insurance to their employees be so much less than the cost of actually providing such insurance but to push more to government-issued insurance? Why else would Obama attempt to have TRICARE costs rise so dramatically but to push veterans into government issued insurance of his liking?

Obama has also limited the rights of people who want to buy healthcare to shop for it nationally by way of the Internet – live in New Jersey but see an insurance plan in Utah that will save you and your family thousands? Sorry – and has blocked tort reform, not only to appease his lawyer lobbyists but to further discourage the purchase of private insurance by keeping prices unnecessarily high. This is also the major motivation behind the Catholic mandate. Obama knew that many Catholic institutions would simply stop providing healthcare insurance rather than comply with the HHS’s edict that it provide free contraception, which will force many more onto the government’s plan.

But it gets worse. The executive branches power has also increased immeasurably recently with a The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that the EPA can categorize carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. We now have cap-and-trade, despite the minor fact that Congress never passed cap-and-trade legislation. Thanks to this ruling, the president, by way of the EPA, now has the means to continue his war on the 85% of the economy that uses fossil fuels. Killing the Keystone Pipeline was barely a warm-up.

Furthermore, thanks to the Supreme Court’s Arizona ruling, the president can limit a state’s right to defend itself against an influx of illegal aliens, even if the state is simply enforcing federal law.

Even when the Reign of Obama ends in four years or a few months, these powers will still exist. Republican candidates may run against these powers, but what politician once elected in office has ever requested less power? Not many.

Ed Klein was recently on our show discussing his book, The Amateur. Smart guy, great book – but Obama is no amateur. He has succeeded what consolidating power to the executive branch in ways even some of his most progressive predecessors could only imagine.

What will a president to do with so much power that cannot be checked by Congress or the voters? That’s hard to fully comprehend. Logic classes teach that slippery slope arguments are a fallacy. Tell that to New Yorkers who saw little harm in their mayor’s war on cigarettes, or even his war on trans-fats or salt, until there was a proposed ban on 16 ounce sodas, and talk of bans on movie theatre popcorn and bacon cheeseburgers. There may be no slippery slopes, but some slopes are a lot steeper than others.

–DK

Image credit

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Current events/topics, Government, Healthcare, Small/Limited Government, Taxes, US Constitution | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Marie Stroughter at Stand Up For Religious Freedom Rally

On June 8, 2012, African-American Conservatives (AACONS) Co-Founder, Marie Stroughter spoke to a crowd of approximately 700 at the Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally. **

** The emcee attributes the BigGovernment.com website to Marie, however, she has contributor status only. The late Andrew Breitbart was the genius behind the formation of BigGovernment.com, now part of the Breitbart.com family of sites.

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Activism, Activism/Advocacy, Community, Current events/topics, Small/Limited Government, Tea Party | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment