By Michael Filozof: The Origins of Leftist Racial OrthodoxyIF "diversity" is good, why do liberals congregate in lily-white enclaves like Vermont (the whitest state in the Union, according to the Census) and Marin County, California? White liberals hector others incessantly about the need for "diversity," but most have no interest in living in neighborhoods with large numbers of blacks. The ideal society in the liberal mind always seems to be a Scandinavian socialist one (which is to say that liberals strive to make the U.S. more like some of the most uniformly white nations in the world).
The liberal enforcers of racial correctness are quick to decry the evils of racism, yet they are quite willing to practice it themselves in the form of affirmative actionand they are strangely silent when blacks engage in "hate crimes" against whites. Conservatives have been increasingly willing to point out these and other hypocrisies of our racial orthodoxy, but they invariably fail to understand its true origins.
What drives our contemporary racial orthodoxy? Many conservatives mistakenly believe that liberals obsessed by race are afflicted with "white guilt." Not so. The truth about racial matters in the U.S. is this: racial issues are not actually about race. In the hands of the progressive left, race is a tool used by powerful whites against other whites; specifically, race is a weapon used by liberals to bludgeon conservatives and delegitimize conservative, patriotic values.
But it has not always been so.
Prior to World War II, progressives and leftistslike Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sangerviewed blacks as inferior human scum who should be eliminated through eugenic hygiene. But after World War II, "progressive" thinking about race underwent an astonishing metamorphosis. The American left forged a strategic alliance with blacks, using race to attack the core values of an American society they had now come to despise as the ultimate evil.
The dominant theme of the literature of the postwar erawhich 76 million Baby Boomers absorbed as the first generation to attend college en massewas the moral equivalence between the United States and the totalitarian regimes it had just fought.
In The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan, the founder of the modern American feminist movement, wrote that the American suburb was a "comfortable concentration camp" for women. (Friedan, a Jew, wrote this in 1963, less than 20 years after the liberation of Auschwitz.)
In The Catcher in the Rye, J.D. Salinger's protagonist Holden Caulfield (narrating the story from an asylum after having been driven insane by the "phoniness" of American life) says of his brother D.B., a World War II veteran, "I really think he hated the Army worse than the war ... [h]e said the Army was practically as full of bastards as the Nazis were."
In Kurt Vonnegut's semi-autobiographical novel Slaughterhouse-Five, the real enemy is not Adolf Hitler or the Nazis, but the American military, the American officer corps, and American society. Vonnegut's character Billy Pilgrim is a WWII vet who survives the bombing of Dresden as a POW; after the war, he becomes a respected citizen and a financial success. Pilgrim absorbs conservative American values right down to the "Impeach Earl Warren" bumper sticker on his carand goes insane, just as his fictionalized son patriotically heads off to Vietnam.
In the early 1960s at Edinburgh, Mailer along with Mary McCarthy began the process of legitimizing Burroughs. Mailer opened the back door and let Burroughs in. Literally. One of Burroughs’ most ardent supporters for admission to the Academy of Arts and Letters was Mailer. This recognition was very important to Burroughs, and he wore his Academy pin proudly. From what I can gather, Burroughs was grateful for Mailer’s support. Jed Birmingham
But the author who provided the direct link between left-wing America-hatred and race was Norman Mailer, also a disillusioned WWII veteran. In his 1957 essay "The White Negro," Mailer equated the atomic bomb with the concentration camp and urged whites to identify with black social outcasts as a means to escape the "totalitarian tissues of American society." The "hipster" should encourage the "psychopath" within himself and "absorb the existentialist synapses of the Negro." The white "hipster" would follow psychopathology-as-liberation "along the road of the homosexual, the orgiast, the drug-addict, the rapist, the robber and the murderer..."
"[W]hat makes [the "hip" ethic] radically different from Socratic moderation with its stern conservative respect for the experience of the past[,]" Mailer wrote, "is immoderation[.] ... [T]he nihilism of Hip proposes ... that every social restraint and category be removed[.]" (Emphasis mine.)
The White Negro is perhaps the most important work of literature in postwar America. It provided a blueprint for the cultural revolution of the 1960s, and in hindsight, it explains nearly all left-wing, anti-conservative behavior since. If blacks were social outcasts in American life, then the white enemies of traditional American values would align with them. An immoderate drunk like the late Sen. Edward Kennedywho was kicked out of Harvard for cheating, then killed a young girl he was presumably cheating on his wife with, and got away with itcould not possibly point the finger at blacks and tell them to be honest, chaste, and sober. He could, however, falsely accuse Judge Robert Bork of wanting blacks to "sit at segregated lunch counters" to deflect attention from his own behavior. And it worked. (Today, following the same "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy, leftists align themselves with Islamic terrorists and radicals, under whose rule they would never actually want to live.)
When white Americans finally began to see the justice of Martin Luther King's cause and the injustice of Jim Crow, leftists pushed harder and harder to include items under the rubric of "civil rights" that King, a preacher of the Gospel of Jesus, would never have approved of. "Civil rights" became a foot-in-the-door that leftists used to attack and destroy all "social restraints and categories" in American society.
Left-wing racial rhetoric about "fairness" and "equality" and "non-discrimination" has been used to conceal a subterranean leftist agenda of anti-Americanism and anti-conservatism for over fifty years. Conservatives persist in stupidly taking this rhetoric at face value; hence, they always find themselves on the racial defensive.
Want to kill your unborn baby? That's a "civil right." Marry another man? "Civil right." Dress in drag and use a woman's bathroom? Another "civil right." (It is hardly a surprise that while King remains a revered figure on the left, his Christianity has been airbrushed from his legacy. He is almost always referred to as "Dr." King todayrather than "Rev." King, a Man of God.)
The anti-conservative alliance between the left and blacks as described by Mailer neatly explains why Tea Party whites who admire the likes of Herman Cain and Allen West are nonetheless tagged as "racists" by the left. It explains why Democratic Party leftists welcomed former KKK member Sen. Robert Byrd into their fold while slandering former Sen. Trent Lott as a "racist." It explains why the Republican Party, founded in 1854 as an anti-slavery party, routinely loses 95% or more of the black vote; it explains why the conservative Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas is the most hated man in black Americahated more than the reprehensible O.J. Simpson.
It explains the virulent left-wing racial demagoguery surrounding the Trayvon Martin shooting. Everyone knows that blacks are not being profiled and victimized by white "vigilantes," as the politically charged indictment against George Zimmerman alleged. But the shooting provided a perfect platform for white liberals like Michael Bloomberg and Charles Schumer to attack the traditional, conservative American institutions of gun ownership, the National Rifle Association, and the right of self-defense by smearing these things as "racist."
We accept the proposition that human relationships are simultaneously strong but fragile, that human notions of familiarity are natural but confining, that competitive divisions existing due to culture, class, and individuality are not insurmountable when the push and pull properties of each axis is properly cherished and protected according to natural forms. We insist that deep friendship and brotherly love exist among and across all the races and peoples, made possible most notably in the context of free men and free women behaving towards each other in a spirit of compassion and respect whenever the measurement and surety of common goals and individual interests is put to the test.
Diversity is a beautiful concept, one found in nature itself, but diversity cannot, or should not be coerced, or engulfed in political struggles for which its players are ill-equipped and ill-advised to condone, even though the eco-political whip and needle is often indeed the primary social thrust governments prepare to inject diversityof every kind and unkindinto the populations at large. Even then, every vector of cultural inertia should be allowed to insinuate its own organic passage into the social soup without the centralized authority of governmental quotas handicapping the game, a tactic which both complicates and falsifies the vaguely apotheosized experiment of diversity for its own sake.
ON SHAMIAN ISLAND IN Guangzhou there is a hotel called The White Swan Hotel. This hotel is easily one of the best if not the best hotel in Guangzhou and is famous in Guangzhou and Guandong for it's opulence and so rightly so. The decadent consumerism would make any capitalist proud. It would also probably make Chairman Mao spin in his grave. lol As with most things in life however there are two sides to this coin. The White Swan Hotel is also famous for a far more important reason.This is the hotel adoptive parents of Chinese children stay at while waiting for the finalization of their children's adoptions. The hotel rolls out the red carpet for these parents and indulges them with the Royal treatment. The vast majority of these parents are Americans although not all there are some other Westerners.
From my admittedly unscientific research into this adoption phenomenon I've been able to conclude a few things that I'm confident would be borne out in a more scientific investigation and I know for a fact are true of the three families I will be speaking about momentarily. The vast majority are committed Christians and I do NOT mean Kumbaya Christians, these folks actually talk the talk AND walk the walk, home schoolers, Conservative, Caucasian and probably TEA Party supporters. The vast majority also have more than one adopted child and quite often of varying races. They are also truck drivers, Doctors, Nurses, teachers , mechanics, factory workers and clerks. In short they come from all strata of American society.
Wouldn’t it be nice to see the N.A.A.C.P. honor one of these families in their “Image” award shows? Wouldn’t it be nice to hear the radical FemiNazis condemn China’s policies regarding female babies? Wouldn’t it have been nice to see one of these families honored at the recent state dinner for Chinese President Hu Jin Tao? Wouldn’t it have been nice and brilliant P.R. by the way for Chinese President Hu Jin Tao to have had an audience with these families and honored them?
This past week I've had the opportunity to speak with three American families that are in the process of adopting Chinese children. The families were from Oregon , Mississippi and Kentucky. The families from Kentucky and Oregon adopted baby girls. Their new daughters were abandoned because they were female and had health problems. One of the girls was left on a street corner in a big city in Shandong all by herself at THREE years old. Her parents didn't want her because she was female and because she had a hole in her heart. The other little girl was abandoned also. I didn't get a chance to ask of the specifics of her abandonment but it's always the same in China with these cases . The children are either female or have health problems or both. The family from Mississippi adopted a little boy that was abandoned because he had spinal health problems. Although these situations are nothing new to me and the parents reactions were all the same and not a surprise to me when I expressed my shock to them I think you all may be surprised.
"Life is cheap in China," they all said.
After being in China for ten years I can certainly attest to the validity of that fact. Well thankfully life isn't so cheap to these committed Christians. They opened their hearts and not insignificantly their wallets to give these kids a home and a chance in life.
Why is it that all we ever hear about from The N.A.A.C.P., the "Rev. Jessie "Hymie Town" Jackson, the Rev. Al "Tawana" Sharpton, The " Reverend "Calypso" Louis Farrakhan and the rest of the Poverty Pimps and political hucksters regarding these folks is that they are ignorant, racist, hayseeds from Podunk? Wouldn't it be nice to see the N.A.A.C.P. honor one of these families in their "Image" award shows? Wouldn't it be nice to hear the radical FemiNazis condemn China's policies regarding female babies? Wouldn't it have been nice to see one of these families honored at the recent state dinner for Chinese President Hu Jin Tao? Wouldn't it have been nice and brilliant P.R. by the way for Chinese President Hu Jin Tao to have had an audience with these families and honored them? Wouldn't it be nice if just once our Usurper In Chief could mention these Americans on his World Apology Tour?
Well I think we all know when that will happen. These folks you see do not answer to The Chief Community Organizer they answer to a higher authority. There are no votes to be gotten by honoring or emulating these folks. There is no cheap labor to be gained by honoring and emulating these folks. There is no cheap political victory to be won by honoring and emulating these folks. There is good news to be told however.
Long after the Hope and Change of the current political system has passed into the outhouse of history these folks will still be doing what they do because their boss, The King Of Hope tells them to. When their children grow up they will most likely do the same as their parents and also most likely spread The King's Message Of Hope. Won't it be a glorious day when America is ruled by The King again instead of The One?
There is a promise coming down that dusty road. We ought not be building toll booths.
God bless Americans. I've never been more proud to be American.
We salute you Paul Stanner for a well-versed reminder that little is what it seems, but most is what it is. You put your finger on the pulse of good folks working for good and seek not the glory that the world parcels out as long as it gets a bilker's share, and again, we applaud you for giving us this peek at a more aptly tuned reality...
WRITES WALLACE, A STRIDENT FELLOW, choosing his words carefully, as he outlines his recent travail:
"Now I don't want to sound like a racist, but I was shocked when I moved to England and discovered that my new neighborhood was majority Muslimmosques, hijabs, halal shops, etc...
"I am all for diversity, but if you want me to be tolerant, I expect the same in return. Don't get me started on this topic. Anyway, when I walked to the marketplace and realized I was the only one NOT wearing hijab, and was being ogled by stall keepers who claimed they didn't know EnglishI made a comment later about feeling like I had wandered all the way to Pakistan, and my Pakistani ex accused me of being racist for saying that, so tell me, am I a racist based on this simple remark? or was I merely observing the obvious?
"Pfff... I don't think any race is better than anotherits oppressive cultural and religious practices I have a problem with... "
I don't know where that fellow had originally lived before taking off to England, but he should consider Dearborn, Michigan in the good ole USA. The blighted streets lined with hourly-rental motels that lead from Detroit into the suburb of Dearborn gradually give way to busy avenues dotted with mosques and thriving small businesses. Arabic signs advertise attorneys and physicians, passers-by speak Levantine and Gulf dialects of Arabic, and on the sidewalks women wear the colorful headscarves of hijab.
Dearborn is a microcosm of the Middle East planted in the Midwestern United States. The roughly 40,000 of Dearborn's 100,000 residents that are Arab American defy the myth many Americans hold of a unified Muslim world, filled with parading masses bearing the likeness of Ayatollah Khomenei. While there are some radical Islamists, Dearborn's growing Muslim population runs the gamut from international traders to educated professionals to local business owners.
Every Arab nationality and religious sect is found here, from Yemeni traditionalism to secular modernity. The development of Dearborn seems like that of any other American city in which there has been a large influx of immigrants. The development of the mosques tells another story.
After a series of conflicts and scandals traced to radicalized leadership in the mosques, tensions have escalated and continue to poke holes in the fabric of an integrated Dearborn. Race isn't the issue, the issue is the forced accommodation to Muslim customs. Earlier in the 20th Century, Muslims attempted to moderate and integrate, to forge a community uniquely both Muslim and American, but the effort was sabotaged by extremist elements.
Muslims have been establishing themselves in western countries for at least 35 years. The terror plot in England to blow up planes was not among native Pakistanis but among youths who were born in the west. The spreading of the jihadist problem is much worse than most in the west believe, as some polls indicate that 70% of Muslims worldwide support Hezbollah and Hamas. They are not all extremists or fascists, but most rank and file Muslims certainly sympathize with them.
That's a problem. Why did Nasrallah apologize for killing Arab children in Nazareth? It wasn't because they were Israelis, it was because they were not Jews. If every Jew in Israel would convert to Islam, there would be no more war with Israel so it is definitely not about land. The issue is religion. The holy war is a religious war. Mainstream media hates to see it characterized this way, but it's the raw, unvarnished, politically incorrect truth. But of course we all know the media cares nothing for the truth.
There is concern on the wires that every time someone of a certain stature has the gall to speak out against this Muslim usurpation of Western generosity "big oil money will take over and flood the air with propaganda" against this person. Or if a book critical of Islam is published, both this book and its author are routinely ignored by the media powers.
Britain is a right mess in places. According to one Brit, writing on the Apostates of Islam BBS, there are no white zones in Oldham and one can't find a English corner shop hardly anywhere in the cities nowadays.
He goes on to lament that there are "no pig ornaments in windows, and Brits are not allowed to say Christmas holidays (instead it's winter fest), and Easter is almost non existent. Whites [historical Brits] can't fly the Union Jack and if you dare speak out you may get arrested.
Well, I don't know anything about pig ornaments hanging in the windows, but there is a strong odor of political correctness in sublimating traditional Western holidays while simultaneously the apotheosis of Muslim ones jar local sensitivities worldwide, even here in America.
"When will they realize it's not about the color of their skin (unless they already do) but their religion and culture. There's a big difference in being a racist and being anti-religious and they are just playing on the fact they have a different skin color and now are trying to make out that anyone who speaks against Islam is a racist and inticing religious hatred and the whites have fallen for it, too. I think that if white people became Muslim they would never be fully accepted and if Islam does take over I would not have any sympathy for the whites who joined them. They've had plenty of warnings."
Sounds like the boiling point is getting closer.
Sadly, even should public opinion shift considerably the civil rights laws protect Muslims in jobs, government positions, and our militaryand the prisons are a veritable recruitment center for them.
The first amendment is construed by most as a blanket right to this religion by most lawmakers today. It's a sacred cow on both the right and the left.
Areas like Dearborn, Lodi and large areas of most big cities have large populations of them; as they know they can coerce their brethren more easily in this land of "sin". It's also foolhardy to openly wear a t-shirt that has one of those cartoons of Mohammed upon it in those areas and Canada, where 40,000 this past year were made citizens. A Muslim with former ties to Nation of Islam is in a run for Congress representing a large Islamic constituent in Minnesota, where in the year 2000 only 9% of the population classified themselves as non-white. People change. Maybe. Maybe not.
But population changes are natural and vital, yet the sheer speed of the population surge, and the forces behind these swift changes are the disturbing factor for many observers, including this humble blogger. And that forcein a phraseis illegal and unchecked immigration of all sorts of people, changed and unchanged.
US college towns are swamped with foreign students and most major universities are given huge endowments to basicly bribe the academics to speak highly of them; with the attendant online student associations and web sitesoften paid with government money. Georgetown University, a prestigious Jesuit school in Washington, DC is the latest to sell its soul to the Muslim invaders.
Sounds like the boiling point is getting even closer.
There is concern on the wires that every time someone of a certain stature has the gall to speak out against this Muslim usurpation of Western generosity "big oil money will take over and flood the air with propaganda" against this person. Or if a book critical of Islam is published, both this book and its author are routinely ignored by the media powers.
Deepening the mistrust is the notion that once the West does awaken from its slumber, all religion will be persecuted, particularly Christianity, as if this were not already the case. The Left has long waged war against Christianity, and now seems to have found a temporary ally in Islam, strategic for the moment, until the time arrives to execute its final solution: have all religion either abolished or amalgamated into a single world religion.
Sounds like the boiling point is getting even closer.
Another voice pipes in: "Only a few of the major editorialists actually give Islam any negative attention, Malkan, Charon, Coulter, Buchanan and some off them are nutsmost others compromise shamelesslyeven that mouthy bastard O'Reilly on the "No Spin Zone" hasn't either the brains or guts to say Islam has a problem&151;even though he claims he's on a hit list from Al Qaeda. And neither Hannity or Colmes is much better. It makes me wonder who the major shareholders are."
I'll tell you, my friend. Saudi Arabia is the 4th largest shareholder in Fox News. Yep, feels like the boiling point is getting even closer, too.
IN THE WEST THERE ARE NO organized groups that will side with Muslims or organized groups that will oppose Islam. No such groups exist at the moment. The only organised group at the moment are Muslims, organised around the mosques. It was instructional to see Muslim gangs from London driving the distance to Windsor to help their brothers.
Leaving America aside for the moment, consider what will happen if right wing parties like the BNP and UKIP in Great Britain or the DVU and NPD in Germany take power and start getting really tough with Muslims. Muslims will not sit back and take it. What if Denmark and other tough-minded European nationals finally rise up and take a stand against the destruction of their cultural heritage by the steady invasion of outsiders who appear to be on the move not just in the West, but globally, just as their mullahs have instructed them to do?
In all likelihood, mimicking the civil unrest in France last year, these already radicalized agitators will quickly resort to bombings and shootings to register their demands for more cultural appeasementsthey are preparing for this type of warfare, for they know that it is how the Jihad is carried into susceptible foreign lands where they are easily outnumbered. Westerners will continue to act surprised, confused, accommodating and fearing confrontation, will choose to leave the matter to the authorities. The left-wing media will muddy the situation with its blind allegience to the foreign and ever slowly will the population decide on a tactic and which side to support.
Some will decide that fighting against these Muslim insurgencies is the best way to defend freedom, tolerance and democracy, and others will decide those same virtues are best defended by supporting the underdogsMuslims, who invariably will be stressing that they are being victimized.
Note how quickly the West acquiesced to the lies of Izetbegovic and the KLA. The West, a slow learner with a genuine drive for cultural inclusion, is now dealing with the result a thirty year flood of Muslim immigration. The Muslim agenda will be less easier to dodge, as many Muslims are now born and brought up in Western cultures, speak the language fluently and have learned how to exploit the local mores.
That is why none should wish a civil war. The thing when it comes will be messy. Predicting the outcome of war is difficult, particularly if it is a civil warthere are far too many variables.
Except for the part where the Jews of pre-Nazi Germany weren't rioting or blowing things up. And how they never tried to impose their religious law on the larger populace. And how they had no problem with free speech or pluralism. Except for that.
Here's a report from a young soldier who served in Ireland with the Queen's Lancs. Having once patrolled UK streets with an SA80, he had this to say:
"It's not too far-fetched to imagine a future Tory government that would not rule out putting troops on the streets of London or Bradford, if the Muslims are allowed to plunge the country into ghettos of violent insurgency. It was not long ago that the SAS was heavily involved in Ireland. If a Prime Minister as recent as Thatcher was able to deploy the SAS on UK streets then why would a future center right leader feel unable to deploy the same force in defense of the homeland?
"There does seem to be an assumption that the left wing lunacy will continue unabated unless it is replaced by a far right monster that will tear up the country in a frenzy of foreigner hate. But I don't think that as to be the case. The Tories are in limbo at the moment. They pledged to give soldiers tax relief and Labour stole their idea. I am sure that they meant for Labour to steal that idea but it does illustrate the futility of making firm policies for labour to attack for another two years. But the Tories are in a good position. They are ahead in the polls and the press has stopped ignoring them and are now lambasting them for not giving enough policy meat for the papers to chew on."
And while apologists from the Left and Muslims themselves plead innocense, news stories are beginning to surface that paint todays's Muslims as pre-WWI Jews, suggesting that any protectionism by Westerners is simply a reflection of 20th century fascism except that the Jews have been replaced by the Muslims and that eventually the Muslims of Europe need to organise and fight back before they land up in the twenty-first century equivalent of concentration camps and a new holocaust begins.
Others take exception to the characterization of their honest desires to protect their homelands from hateful invasion, claiming, "Except for the part where the Jews of pre-Nazi Germany weren't rioting or blowing things up. And how they never tried to impose their religious law on the larger populace. And how they had no problem with free speech or pluralism. Except for that. Wasn't a crowd of Muslims protesting in downtown London just the other day at Westminster Cathedral clamouring, "Rome Will Fall! Rome Will Fall!"
Face it. Conservative DNA is patriotic and when the thief is at the door, most Westerners become conservatives.
DATELINE JULY 17, 2003. Linda Chavez's article deserves a spot here. Her new book: An Unlikely Conservative is rising up the charts, and pleasures me, and frankly I'm happy to report, she's no David Horowitz, whose flipside conservatism at first thrilled me, but now chastens me, as I realize to what lengths he wishes to mimic the opposition, merely to win a political football game. Fight boldly, fight wisely; use every muscle available, but keep it honorable.
Whatever happened to the idea that righteousness is its own reward? But back to the article at handhow did Chavez, a former liberal, become "the most hated Hispanic in America"? According to Townhall book reviewer Sherri King, it's because "she is an Hispanic who has rejected the politics of ethnocentrism for the unifying power of old-fashioned liberal democracy and made good on the promise of the American dream." Chavez' book is "part political memoir and part autobiography," and you'll eat up her tales of working in the Reagan White House.
Chavez in her own words (mine in italics): The NAACP is America's oldest civil rights organization, and for years stood as the moral conscience of the nation, fighting for the rights of black Americans to equal treatment at the polling booth, in the schoolhouse, in the courts and in the marketplace. How sad, now, that this venerable institution has been turned into a caricature of its former self.
Absolutely scary, isn't it? I'm damned grateful that clear thinking Americans in MY generation have learned to discern the difference between pride and prejudice, racism and identity, slavery and competition, hard work and hardly working. I am proud of the miles most Americans have moved past the shackles and lunch counter era, but for some people, the past is always nostalgic, and their reasons are legion.GT
Its leaders are stuck in a time warp, imagining they still live in a world of pick-ax-wielding bigots and lynch mobs. NAACP chairman Julian Bond, a veteran of the civil rights movement and a former Georgia state legislator, has been reduced to ugly name-calling in order to attract media attention. At the NAACP convention meeting in Florida this week, Bond accused the Republican Party of "appealing to the dark underside of American culture. . . . Their idea of reparations is to give war criminal Jefferson Davis a pardon. Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side," he told a cheering crowd.
Mister Bond, also from Georgia, also nearby, in my present neighborhood. Taller than I imagined, yet also decidedly more lifeless. Yes, I have met the man on two occasions, briskly handsome like new steel in his expensive university letterman's jacket and chisled stone expressionless face, he seemed to exude the promise of, not of vacuous ambiguity but of bold paradox, a mixed signal to those outside his running crowd. His palor of warm, even comforting awareness and of a distant, indifferent unapproachable engagement, a silent preditor, or perhaps one marked for his troubles with the stain of Cain (see trash DNA)GT
The group no longer has an agenda, other than to "uproot the bigger 'Bush' in 2004," as Bond promised. But the putatively non-partisan group may run into problems fulfilling that goal, given its declining status. The NAACP has become so irrelevant that even Democratic presidential aspirantsnone of whom could hope to be elected without winning 90 percent of black votes nationwidecan afford to boycott the group's annual meeting. Senators Joe Lieberman and Dennis Kucinich and former Missouri congressman and House minority leader Dick Gephardt all had "other commitments" that prevented them from attending the convention.
With the stability of the world in jeopardy, who has time for the rantings of a man mad on the hope that old symbols still work new miracles? In an era of massive illiteracy, why is the only history some folks recall is the history of the losing side of the war most have agreed was fought and finished nearly 150 years ago without a hint of recognition for the preceding 150 and the 150 since, thus filling them with admiration for the social progression which continues to this day as a beacon to the nations, for where else do as many cultures and races intermingle and have such a strong degree of power in the running of that nation, but HERE, HERE IN AMERICA, nowhere else, my friends.GT
Bond’s race initiative crudely deforms the very face of common decency. Somehow, each radicalized liberal seems to think that victims of crime (innocent or otherwise) are criminal, and criminals (guilty or otherwise) are mere pawns in a parlor game being systematically crushed by the race-oiled wheels of justice. Nonsense of the lowest order.
Bond may not recognize it, but racism is no longer the major problem facing American blacks. For the minority of black Americans23 percentwho lived below the poverty line in 2001, discrimination isn't to blame. What is? A list of likely culprits would surely include the collapse of the black family, the failure of the public schools and black-on-black crime.
Indeed, as written somewhere else in this SWORG manifesto of voices, the poor in this country have mostly themselves to blame for their continued sorry state. It's all in the attitude, or spirit. Where the flesh fails, often the spirit succeeds. Where the spirit fails, not even the flesh can succeed for long. But the blame game, now THAT seems to last forever, doesn't it?GT
National Center for Health statistics indicate that with two out of three black babies born to unwed mothers today, black children are far more likely to grow up poor than youngsters from any other group. And according to the Census Bureau, black children in single mother households are nearly five times more likely to live in poverty than are black children born to two-parent families; 47 percent of black youngsters under 18 who live in female-headed households are poor compared to only 10 percent who live with two parents. The problem of illegitimacy has plagued the black community for nearly 40 years, but goes unaddressed by the NAACP or any other major black organization.
Unfortunately, throughout this past century, the least financially and psychologically prepared populations always seem the most eager to reproduce, thus increasing the misery of that unpreparedness or poverty exponentially. There are a myriad of reasons driving this irresponsible behavior, even a few, if not completely valid, somewhat understandable defenses dealing with social-preservation at some deep-rooted level. But then self-justification at the expense of favorable results has just about run its course, and should be replaced in social policy by greater considerations and better execution of the rewards of self-reliance, self-inclusion (not the "self-exclusion" of race-based biases and dependencies), and self-awareness, the latter whose absence creates not a colorblind society but merely a blind one.GT
Julian Bond did talk about education in his convention address, but most of what he said took the form of vicious attacks on both Gov. Jeb Bush's and President Bush's education reform efforts. "Gov. Jeb Bush's notion of school reform is going to send black children to reform school," Bond said of Florida's efforts to put an end to promoting kids from grade to grade even if they haven't learned anything. So-called "social promotions" have resulted in schools graduating black high school seniors whoon averageread at the eighth-grade level.
Case in point. Not much to add beyond what I pointed out in the above characterization.GT
Bond also talked about crime -- but his sympathies were directed exclusively to the criminals. He bemoaned the sorry fact that 12 percent of all black men between the ages of 20 and 34 are incarcerated, and the NAACP has made voting rights for felons one of its top legislative priorities in recent years. But what about the black victims on whom these criminals prey, the men and women who work hard everyday, only to be beaten, robbed, raped and murdered, not by Ku Klux Klansmen but by predators in their own communities? If the NAACP were truly concerned for the plight of black Americans, wouldn't it be pushing for more police and tougher sentences for violent offenders, not worrying about whether it can deliver more jailhouse votes to the Democratic Party?
Indeed. Bond's race initiative crudely deforms the very face of common decency. Somehow, each radicalized liberal seems to think that victims of crime (innocent or otherwise) are criminal, and criminals (guilty or otherwise) are mere pawns in a parlor game being systematically crushed by the race-oiled wheels of justice. Nonsense of the lowest order.GT
There is much work left to be done if the lives of America's poorest blacks are to improvebut the NAACP seems to have little interest in tackling the really tough issues, unlike the late great Reggie White. Instead, its leaders would rather blame latent racism and Republicans, and look to government to solve the problems of a community whose only hope is to heal itself as dignifies any free people.
Back to the basics, folks, back to the basics. Yet, as for the Republican Party, let's let these other companies fail WHEN they fail. Yes, Virginia, The playing field IS slanted, toward powerful corporations and against the insignificant man, no matter what his color or proximity to God.GT
WORD IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL eligibility of one Barack Hussein Obama to hold the highest office in our land is being raised in Town Hall meetings all across the country. This should prove interesting. We have no final answers here. We can only read what we read, distill the 2nd and 3rd hand information, only to speculate wildly about what we think is true and what we think is not. However, we're not stupid (apologies to Judge Scalia), and we are not cowed enough to believe that candidate and now President Obama has been in teh least bit properly vetted, despite the useless flow of air issuing from the grit-filled mouths of many our finest men and women who were sent to Washington to represent its citizens in what is, or once was a strong constitutional nation. Among the statements from members of Congress:
U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock: “The Constitution is the starting point for determining eligibility to serve as president. The Constitution requires that to be eligible to serve as president an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old, and have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least 14 years.” He said candidates are vetted both inside the government and out, and Obama has passed all of the hurdles.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said, “In the run-up to the 2008 federal election and in its aftermath, many Texans have written to express their thoughts and concerns about the electoral process. Some have even raised concerns about the eligibility of candidates to serve in elected office under the Constitution. The courts and the Federal Elections Commission play a central role in determining the eligibility of candidates to serve in the offices they seek. You can be certain that I will continue to be vigilant in making sure that these institutions perform their critical role in overseeing fair and transparent elections.”
Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., The “Constitution of our nation requires natural born citizenship in order to serve as President of the United States of America.” But then she explains that the “Office of Vital Records within the Hawaiian Department of Health has confirmed the birth and citizenship of President Obama.” Nowhere in the letter to her constituent does she explain why the confirmation of “citizenship” equates to meeting the requirement for “natural-born citizenship.”
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., “I believe that President Obama has met all the requirements of citizenship as set forth by the U.S. State Department, and therefore is eligible for the office of the presidency.”
Rep. Leonard Lance, R-N.J., said concerned citizens need to go to court over Obama’s eligibility, even though courts ranging up to the U.S. Supreme Court have refused in dozens of cases already to hear arguments on the merits of the dispute:
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: “Thank you for your recent e-mail. Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by Snopes.com, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors.”
Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.: “Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president.”
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio: “President Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United States citizens. In addition, the Hawaii State Health Department recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate.”
U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla.: “The claim that Barack Obama is not a citizen of the U.S. is false. This rumor is simply election year politics.” She referred questioners to Snopes for documentation.
Based on these documents, most members of Congress from both parties appear satisfied that the president is a U.S. citizen. That would preclude any effort to remove him through the impeachment process, which requires a majority in the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, on the basis of his constitutional eligibility for office. -Lamar Alexander
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.: “The courts have held that President Obama is a natural-born American citizen. Moreover, in December 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, concurring with three other federal courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Washington. The courts have confirmed the determination of state officials in Hawaii that health department records prove that Barack Obama was born a U.S. citizen in Honolulu.”
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.: “President Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”
Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa.: “I am confident that Mr. Obama meets all the constitutional requirements to be our 44th president. Mr. Obama has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his campaign website and submitted an additional copy to the independent website FactCheck.org. The birth certificate demonstrates that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961, thereby making him a natural-born citizen eligible to be president.”
U.S. Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.: “As you know, some questions were raised about whether President Obama is a natural born citizen. There was a recent lawsuit arguing that he is not eligible for the Presidency for this reason. I understand that the Supreme Court considered hearing this lawsuit, but it ultimately turned down the request to have the case considered before the full court. I further understand that the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health recently confirmed that President Obama was born in Honolulu and has personally verified that her agency has his original birth certificate on record. As you know, the U.S. Congress certified his election on January 8, and he was sworn into office on January 20, 2009. While I may disagree with President Obama on a multitude of issues, he has been elected as President of the United States through a fair process and has shown sufficient documentation, via a state birth certificate, that has been verified as being authentic. In short, therefore, I do not believe sufficient evidence was brought to light to conclude that President Obama was ineligible for the office.”
U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H.: “President Obama publicly posted his birth certificate on his campaign website which confirms that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. This birth certificate confirms that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, above the age of 35, and is therefore qualified to be President of the United States of America. If you would like to view President Obama’s birth certificate, I encourage you to go to the Fight The Smears website .”
We learned from Clinton that lying, even under oath, probably doesn’t rise to those standards … so I’m looking for the crime. Perhaps his violation of the war powers act? It’s something my colleagues and I are considering. - Blake Farenthold
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, “The Constitution and federal law require that, among other things, only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both American citizens) may be President of the United States. In President Obama’s case, some individuals have filed lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging that he has not proven that he is an American citizen, but each of those lawsuits have been dismissed. This includes a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court to not review an “application for emergency stay” filed by a New Jersey resident claiming that the President is not a natural born citizen because his father was born in Kenya. Furthermore, both the Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health and the state’s Registrar of Vital Statistics recently confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and, as such, meets the constitutional citizenship requirements for the presidency. If contrary documentation is produced and verified, this matter will necessarily be resolved by the judicial branch of our government under the Constitution.”
Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa.: “On June 13, 2008, the Obama campaign released a copy of his birth certificate after numerous claims were made about his eligibility to hold the office of President. The released copy created additional questions, because it contained a blacked out department file number and was apparently missing a seal, and it was impossible to detect raised text, a common characteristic of official documents. There were satisfactory answers to such questions, however: the department file number had been blacked out to prevent hackers from breaking into the Health Department’s system, and the State places the seal on the back of the certificate. The website Factcheck.org investigated the matter and provided high-resolution photos taken at multiple angles that revealed the raised text and the seal on the back of the document. … Accordingly, it has been concluded that President Obama has met the constitutional qualifications to be President of the United States.”
U.S. Rep Vic Snyder, D-Ark.: “According to State of Hawai’i officials, the Hawai’i State Department of Health has President-elect Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with that state’s policies and procedures.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.: “The U.S. Constitution is our nation’s supreme law and cannot be circumvented for any reason. It is my understanding that state officials in Hawaii have attested to the validity of President Obama’s birth certificate showing that he was born in that state, which would make him a U.S. citizen. I also have read that both of Hawaii’s major newspapers ran birth announcements in August 1961 documenting President Obama’s birth in Honolulu. Based on these documents, most members of Congress from both parties appear satisfied that the president is a U.S. citizen. That would preclude any effort to remove him through the impeachment process, which requires a majority in the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, on the basis of his constitutional eligibility for office.”
Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., “As a senator representing Colorado, I want to speak very clearly on this issue. President Barack Obama is a ‘natural born’ citizen of America, and he is eligible to be our nation’s Commander in Chief. The legality of his birth certificate has been verified by numerous federal agencies, third party investigative groups, national media outlets, and primary source documentation. The United States Department of State and the Hawaii Department of Health have both verified the legality of the ‘Certification of Birth’ document provided by President Obama. In addition, highly regarded ‘fact check’ websites such as factcheck.org, snopes.com, and politifact.com support the findings of the federal agencies through their own independent investigations.”
Sen. Mark. R. Warner, D-Va., “The facts have consistently shown that President Obama was born in the United States. As a natural-born American citizen, he is fully eligible to serve as president of our country.”
Tim Walberg said he’s taken on many other urgent issues and then suggested a repair of the Obama presidency is coming soon, in the 2012 election.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., “Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifies the qualifications for this executive office. It states that no person except for a natural born American citizen is eligible to run for President of the United States. Also, the candidate must be at least thirty-five years of age and have resided in the United States for at least fourteen years. President Obama meets these constitutional requirements. If you were not already aware, on April 27, 2011 the White House released a copy of President Obama’s long form birth certificate. He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in the United States are considered citizens of the United States. Under these criteria, President Obama, a 47-year old U.S. citizen, who has resided in the United States for longer than fourteen years, is eligible to be President.
Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., “Independent and official investigations as well as legal proceedings have validated President Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States. The Health Director and Head of Vital Statistics for the state of Hawaii (an official source) has also examined and declared the authenticity of the birth certificate and most recently President Obama released his full birth certificate. If change is to take place it’s likely to come in the form of an election. This is part of the reason everyone needs to make sure we vote for the people who will represent our views correctly. This is also why we must continue to talk to our friends and relatives in other states about their own elected officials and encourage them to let their voices be heard.”
There have been a few who have expressed concern over the situation:
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., in a posting on Canada Free Press by Dean Haskins, “I believe that there should be a more formal process of review and validation as a matter of routine certification of candidates. The office of the presidency is undermined if Americans don’t have confidence that the candidates for the highest office in the land are qualified for the position as required by the Constitution.…“
Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., did not tell a questioner the issue of Obama’s eligibility was settled by the April release of the “Certificate of Live Birth” image by the White House. “Regardless of whether the license that he showed is true or fake, I’ve not seen it other than what was portrayed in the news,” Walberg said. But he said he’s taken on many other urgent issues and then suggested a repair of the Obama presidency is coming soon, in the 2012 election.
Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, “Many of the issues, like the birth certificate, are within the jurisdiction of the courts, not Congress. Our power over the president is impeachment for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ We learned from Clinton that lying, even under oath, probably doesn’t rise to those standards … so I’m looking for the crime. Perhaps his violation of the war powers act? It’s something my colleagues and I are considering.”
MORE FROM TODAY'S Project archives...
THE VOTING HABITS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC are hardly static, but stunningly dynamic. They must be won like territory in a hot war, but through persuasionthrough explanation, argument, rhetoric, reason, the parsing of life itself sometimes. One must fight for ground; one must be bold; one must penetrate into hostile territory, awe the opposition, and seize what he holds dear. The one thing one should not and can not do effectively is to fight from a holding position. That is, and has been the anemic strategy of the GOP leadership for decades.
As Sun Tzu put it, "If the enemy leaves a door open, you must rush in."
The constitutional side is far too busy trying to find ways to surrender. But it can not be that way; the once significant GOP of Ohio stalwart Robert Taft is philosophically distinct from the Obama/Alinsky nouveau socialists. We must give the America public a clear distinction between failed policies and wishful policies! Constitutional patriots and global Marxists and their sordid friends. And most of all, don't be ashamed of who you are, because ultimately, that steadfastness, that personal command of the tough but honest truth, is what will meaningfully rally people to your side. Are not apples and oranges both fruits? Fruits hanging from a family of trees, fruits falling like perfect guests of planet earth when ready for the harvest?
NEED A FIGHTING CONTRAST between Romney and Obama? The next time someone says that battle ready Mitt Romney is the same as Barack H. Obama...
* Ask them to produce a list of mad terrorists foreign and domestic that squeaky clean Mitt Romney has befriended (and no, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld don't count, for rather obvious reasons).
If they can produce answers to all of those—we’ll procede to round 2. Having gotten that out of our system, we continue to shout, “We’re Impressed! Gingrich/West 2012!”
* Ask them to name an occasion where Mr. Romney has bowed to anyone in a foreign land as a Representative of the United States of America.
* Ask them to produce evidence that Mr. Barack H. Obama's business experience even after four years in the White House is comparable to Romney's.
* Ask them to produce proof that President Obama's charitable contributions are as significant as Governor Romney's.
* Ask them to name a radical anti-American Church or other religious establishment that Romney has attended for over 2 decades.
* Ask them to produce proof that Mitt Romney has illegally used cocaine and marijuana.
* Ask them to name an occasion that Mitt Romney criticized the proper actions of a police officer from high office.
* Ask them to name any associates of Mitt Romney that have been active practicing subversive members of the Communist Party.
* Ask them to produce the identities of any illegal alien Romney family member that he is protecting from deportation.
If they can produce answers to all of thosewe'll procede to round 2.
Meanwhile, all earnest political junkies worth their stars and bars should grab up a Tasty Granny or a Juicy Navel and head over to American Thinker for some of the best American political writing and short commentary on the Internet.
Having gotten that out of our system, we continue to shout, "We're Impressed! Gingrich/West 2012!"