News: Black Issues
>> = Important Articles
** = Major Articles
Supplemental Articles in a separate file (click here to read)
[KH: This article analyzes exactly what the main black problem is. We can witness so much blessings for those blacks who returned to the Bible, such as Star Parker who wrote many of the articles in this collection.]
WASHINGTON – African Americans are statistically likely to be religious, but their worldview is shaped by their race more than their faith, contends a born-again black author in her new book.
Long-standing social and political patterns in the African American community have molded black Christians to behave like secular black society, said former journalist Pamela G. Wilson in her book entitled, Finding Soul Brothers: Dismantling Black Christian Racialism.
Wilson defines the race-focused mindset, which is now expressed through political and social loyalties, as “racialism.”
On issues such as abortion and homosexuality, biblical principles are often sacrificed to support race agendas like social equality and economic justice, she contends.
“Most of the time, people (black Christians) are supporting a candidate for the sake of how they feel they will advance the race,” Wilson told The Christian Post.
“They want to put their support behind the candidates that will help the causes they’ve been fighting for over these last few decades – which there is nothing wrong with – but there is also a Christian standard and I don’t think you should support anything that makes you turn away from the Bible if you truly believe what the Bible says.”
Black Christians tend to be “stuck” in the civil rights mindset and not look beyond those issues even if they say they are a believer.
“People just jump on the black bandwagon at the expense of their faith,” Wilson said.
“There are examples after examples where Christians have chosen black unity over their Christian faith and I call that being unequally yoked.”
Wilson challenges fellow African-American Christians to stop focusing on their race and instead assume a faith-based agenda, which would more closely align with their spiritual beliefs. A faith-based agenda includes family values, morality, and spiritual authority – issues traditionally associated with conservative white Christians.
“It is very painful to say ‘if I let this go, what about my civil rights as a black person?’ But then you got to get to the point as a Christian to say ‘I can do all things through Christ and depend on God to be my deliverer and overcome injustice,’” advised the black born-again author.
Wilson’s book comes at a time when Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is vying to be the first black U.S. president. In December, his campaign unveiled a new committee of top African American religious leaders, which Wilson calls liberals and criticized for “turn[ing] their back” on biblical issues of abortion in exchange for a civil rights agenda.
“I believe as Christians, and definitely as leaders in the Christian community, they should be pointing people towards what the Bible says on these issues and then endorsing people who believe and want to support what the Bible says about that and other issues.”
She considers it problematic that Obama – who is ranked as the Democratic candidate that speaks the most about religion by Beliefnet.com – says he is a Bible-believing Christian but is pro-abortion and pro-gay “marriage.”
“Black Christians are more likely to focus on racial soul brothers than spiritual ones. This is a major hindrance to total unity within the Christian church,” Wilson said. “It has also forced black Christians to maintain loyalties based on racial tradition rather than the Bible.”
Wilson is among the growing number of black evangelicals joining the traditionally white social conservative movement. This group of black conservatives is led by their faith-agenda, often abortion and same-sex “marriage,” rather than by any political party.
Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr., who heads the socially conservative black pastors group called High Impact Leadership Coalition, has worked closely with conservative white leaders like Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins to fight abortion and gay rights legislation.
A Washington Post-Kaiser Foundation-Harvard University poll this summer found that more than half of blacks said they oppose both same-sex “marriage” and legal recognition of same-sex civil unions. Yet only five percent of blacks in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll responded that abortion, moral or family values issues were their top concerns for the upcoming presidential election.
Instead, the largely religious African American population said its top concerns are social issues such as the war in Iraq, health care and the economy and jobs.
The former “racialist” called on black Christians to adopt a “true Biblical view” and remove “racialist badges of victimization, abandoning the race card, and discarding secular views and practices.”
Wilson suggests multi-racial worship and for blacks to do service projects with other races to overcome racialism.
By Jeff Jacoby
At an event in North Carolina to mark Black History Month last February, Julian Bond, the chairman of the NAACP, unleashed a blistering attack on the Bush administration and the Republican Party. Among other discourtesies, he compared President George W. Bush’s judicial appointees to the Taliban and described former Attorney General John Ashcroft, not for the first time, as “J. Edgar Ashcroft.”
“The Republican Party,” Bond was reported as saying, “would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side.” (According to other reports, Bond said that the GOP’s “idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side-by-side.”)
Such partisan bigotry from the chairman of a supposedly nonpartisan organization makes it easy to understand why for five years Bush refused to attend the NAACP’s annual conventions. More of a mystery is why he changed his mind this year — and why, rather than attempt to refute Bond’s venomous caricature of his party, he seemed to accept it.
“I understand that many African-Americans distrust my political party,” Bush said (to shouts of “Yes!” and applause from the audience, according to the White House transcript). “I consider it a tragedy that the party of Abraham Lincoln let go of its historic ties with the African-American community. For too long my party wrote off the African-American vote, and many African-Americans wrote off the Republican Party.”
Republicans often take this rueful tone when talking about their party in the context of race. Democrats, who routinely get 85% or more of the black vote, never do. But the Republican rue isn’t justified by the facts. Neither is the willingness of black voters to be taken for granted by Democrats.
Look around. Black candidates are serious contenders for governor in three states this year, and two of them — Lynn Swann in Pennsylvania and Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio — are Republicans. The third, Democrat Deval Patrick, is running in Massachusetts, a quintessentially blue state that has managed to elect only one African-American to statewide office in its entire history: former US Senator Edward Brooke — a Republican.
Bush may have given short shrift to the NAACP for several years, but from his first day in office he has surrounded himself with a record number of senior black policy makers. Among them have been the nation’s first black secretary of state, Colin Powell — and its second, Condoleezza Rice.
Of course the Republican Party’s record on race is not without its blemishes. For example, at a 100th birthday party for Strom Thurmond in 2002, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi praised the former Dixiecrat’s segregationist 1948 campaign for president. Republicans were scandalized and forced Lott to resign as Senate majority leader.
Democrats, by contrast, have never moved to purge Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan who wrote in 1947 that he would never agree to fight “with a Negro by my side” and would “rather . . . die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels.” Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is the only senator to have voted against both of the black justices named to the Supreme Court — the liberal Thurgood Marshall and the conservative Clarence Thomas. While Byrd has said his racism is a thing of the past, that didn’t stop him from using the N-word twice in an interview on national TV in 2001. Remarkably, none of this has harmed Byrd’s standing within the Democratic Party, nor the party’s standing among black voters.
Bond may not share Republican principles or legislative priorities, but for him to cast the GOP as the party of fascism and racism is beyond surreal. After all, it was the Democratic Party that vehemently defended slavery, the Democratic Party that supported the Dred Scott decision, and the Democratic Party that opposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution. It was Democrats who founded the Ku Klux Klan, Democrats who repeatedly blocked anti-lynching bills, and Democrats who enacted Jim Crow segregation across the South.
Everyone knows that it was a 19th-century Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who issued the Emancipation Proclamation. But how many know that it was a 20th-century Democratic president, Woodrow Wilson, who segregated the federal government, appointed unabashed racists to his Cabinet, and endorsed “The Birth of a Nation,” D.W. Griffith’s celluloid celebration of the Klan?
Eventually — happily — the Democratic Party outgrew Wilson’s racism. By 1964 a majority of congressional Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act — as did an even larger majority of congressional Republicans.
Today’s Democratic Party is nothing like the racist stronghold it used to be; anyone who claimed otherwise would be trafficking in foul demagoguery. That is just what Bond traffics in when he speaks with equal foulness about today’s Republican Party. The NAACP is better than that, and perhaps Bush should have said so.
Walter E. Williams
[KH: black professor]
Christine O’Donnell, U.S. Senate candidate from Delaware, has faced considerable criticism and news media attention about her youthful association with witchcraft. Have we seen similar news media attention given to other politicians who have made bizarre remarks that border on gross stupidity — possibly lunacy?
During a congressional Armed Services hearing in March, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., expressed concern that stationing 8,000 Marines and their equipment on Guam, our Pacific territory, could cause the island “to become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.” Such a remark is grossly stupid but the liberal press didn’t give it anywhere near the amount of attention and derision that they gave Christine O’Donnell.
On the campaign trail in March 2008, then-presidential candidate Obama told his Beaverton, Ore., audience, “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.” Whether Obama misspoke or not, that’s a grossly stupid remark, but white liberals among the intellectual elite and the liberal news media all but ignored it. Of course, when former Vice President Dan Quayle misspelled “potatoe,” they pounced upon it and had a field day.
So what might explain the liberals giving Hank Johnson and Obama a pass whilst playing up the perceived shortcomings of Christine O’Donnell and Dan Quayle? The answer might be as simple as just looking at the colors involved. O’Donnell and Quayle are white and Johnson and Obama are black. That means the white liberal vision comes into play where to openly oppose, criticize and ridicule blacks is racist. The key term is openly. I bet that when alone, in trusted company, white liberals crack up over the things that some black people say and do. The white liberal vision holds one set of standards to which white people are obliged and another that’s lower for blacks. I don’t believe that white liberals are racists in the sense that Klansmen and neo-Nazis are; however, their paternalistic and demeaning attitudes toward blacks are far more debilitating.
There needs to be a bit of elaboration of the statement that to openly oppose, criticize and ridicule a black is racist. If the black in question is a conservative, possibly Republican, then any sort of criticism and treatment is acceptable. This was seen in the criticism and ridicule of Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. Garry Trudeau’s “Doonesbury” cartoon featured President Bush referring to Secretary Rice as “brown sugar.” Pat Oliphant showed her as a parrot with big lips and Ted Rall’s cartoon had Miss Rice proclaiming herself Bush’s “House nigga.” Don Wright’s cartoon depicted Justice Thomas as Justice Scalia’s lawn jockey. These cartoons were carried in major newspapers nationwide. Ask yourself what would happen to a nationally syndicated cartoonist, and the newspaper that carried it, depicting President Obama as a wide-eyed, fat-lipped monkey.
Racial double standards are nothing new. It has been the currency on jobs and college campuses where there is an acceptance of behavior by blacks that would be condemned if done by whites. Often misguided white liberal professors, in the name of making up for injustices of the past, give black students grades they didn’t earn. Being 74 years old, I have frequently told people that I’m glad that I received just about all of my education before it became fashionable for white people to like black people. That means I was obliged to live up to higher standards.
More blacks need to be bold and challenge the demeaning attitudes of white liberals. During the early years of the Reagan administration, I had a number of press conferences in response to a book or article that I had written. At several of them, I invited the reporters to treat me like a white person — just ask hard questions.
Justice official accused of saying: No more cases against blacks
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights today suggested it is expanding its review of claims that the Department of Justice has implemented a ban on prosecuting defendants who are black.
The comments came at a hearing in Washington at which commission members asked witness J. Christian Adams to provide the names of other Department of Justice attorneys who might shed further light on his allegation that the DOJ is afflicted by a “culture of hostility” toward prosecuting black perpetrators of voting-rights violations against white victims.
Commissioner Gail Heriot asked Adams to provide a “list of attorneys in the department who could corroborate” his testimony, indicating that the commission plans to expand its investigation of racial bias in the Department of Justice.
Also, Adams revealed that some DOJ staffers were disciplined for harassing other departmental attorneys because they held “evangelical religious views” and worked on a case brought against a black political activist in Mississippi.
Adams, until recently a top trial attorney in the voting section of the DOJ, testified that staffers throughout the department have subscribed for years to the notion that the DOJ’s primary responsibility is to protect the voting rights of minority voters, not whites.
He added that recent Obama administration DOJ appointees have reinforced this notion by making such racial discrimination a formal departmental policy.
According to the former DOJ attorney, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandez, an Obama appointee at the top of the department, announced at a policy meeting that “the voting section will not bring any other cases against blacks and other minorities.”
Instead, the department will focus on “traditional” civil-rights cases, was the suggestion.
Adams testified that Fernandez also said the department “has no interest in enforcing” the section of the Motor Voter law that requires local jurisdictions to purge the voting rolls of ineligible voters, even deceased voters, because “it has nothing to do with increasing turnout.”
Commissioner Peter Kirsanow asked Adams “to what extent” the department believes equal treatment before the law applies to all voters.
“That’s the problem,” replied Adams. “They assume Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act doesn’t apply to white voters.”
Adams pointed out that over the past 45 years, the department has brought hundreds of cases against whites violating the rights of ethnic-minority voters, but only two cases against blacks violating the rights of whites.
Commissioner Ashley Taylor observed, “The division’s policy can be found in the cases it brings.”
Adams said the DOJ’s attitude toward racial neutrality will be demonstrated in mid-July when the department has to choose a course of action in the next phase of a case against black political leader Ike Brown of Knox City, Miss. “If they don’t object to the submission, they will be [saying] that section 5 does not apply to white victims.”
Adams resigned from the department after he was ordered by his superiors to drop a case prosecutors already had won – the notorious New Black Panther Party intimidation of voters in a majority-black precinct in urban Philadelphia on Election Day in 2008.
Amateur videographers had caught New Black Panther Party activists on video wielding a baton, intimidating the elderly black man serving as the Republican poll watcher and calling for the murder of white babies in their cribs.
One of the four New Black Panther Party members charged in the case is also an elected Democrat holding a local office.
When they were ordered to drop the case, Adams and the team of DOJ lawyers had already won the case by default because the New Black Panthers declined to defend themselves in court. At that point in the proceedings, the DOJ team was simply waiting for the judge to assign penalties against the New Black Panthers.
Adams claimed that the decision to drop the case was made by Obama political appointees, and that the decision to drop a case that was already won was “unprecedented.”
Adams alleged that many DOJ employees, both career civil servants and political appointees, have told him that the DOJ “doesn’t have the resources” to enforce the voting-rights laws in a “race-neutral” manner by bringingcases against members of minority groups who violate the law. Others have refused to work on either of the two cases against black perpetrators, saying, “I didn’t join the voting-rights division to sue black people.”
Adams said one DOJ staffer told his former superior, Christopher Coates, then the chief of the DOJ’s Voting Section, “Can you believe we’re being sent down to Mississippi to defend white people?” He reported another staffer told Coates, “the Brown case has gotten us into so much trouble with civil-rights groups.”
According to Adams, some members of the DOJ Voting Section staff were “harassed” by other members “for working on the Brown case.” An internaldepartment investigation led to sanctions against some staffers for “badgering” others because they worked on the Brown case and held “evangelical religious views.”
According to Adams, Coates suffered humiliation and the gradual loss of his power because he supported the case against the New Black Panther Party. Adams repeatedly urged the members of thecommission to bring Coates in to testify about the department’s hostility toward bringing cases against minority members.
As WND reported, the Justice Department originally brought the case against four armed men who witnesses say derided voters with catcalls of “white devil” and “cracker” and told voters they should prepare to be “ruled by the black man.”
One poll watcher called police after he reportedly saw one of the men brandishing a nightstick to threaten voters.
“As I walked up, they closed ranks, next to each other,” the witness told Fox News at the time. “So I walked directly in between them, went inside and found the poll watchers. They said they’d been here for about an hour. And they told us not to come outside because a black man is going to win this election no matter what.”
He said the man with a nightstick told him, “‘We’re tired of white supremacy,’ and he starts tapping the nightstick in his hand. At which point I said, ‘OK, we’re not going to get in a fistfight right here,’ and I called the police.”
Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, filed a lawsuit seeking the government’s documentation about the case.
The 2008 election incident in Philadelphia has appeared on video on YouTube:
As WND reported, two men, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson, wearing paramilitary uniforms and armed with a nightstick, blocked a doorway to a polling location to intimidate voters. Shabazz is leader of the Philadelphia chapter of the New Black Panther Party.
The Justice Department’s complaint was under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 against four defendants: the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense and its leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz, and the two men who appeared at the Philadelphiapolling place Nov. 4, 2008. The complaint accused them of attempting to engage in, and engaging in, both voter intimidation and intimidation of individuals aiding voters.
A federal judge ordered default judgments against the Panthers after party members refused to appear in court. The Washington Times reported the Justice Department was seeking sanctions when Loretta King, acting assistant attorney general who had been granted a political appointment by President Obama in January 2009 to temporarily fill the position, ordered a delay in the proceedings. According to the report, the ruling was issued after King met with Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the department’s No. 3 political appointee, who approved the decision.
Even though DOJ lawyers had won the case, it was suddenly dropped. The case was dismissed May 15, 2009, Adams told Fox News.
“All the charges were dropped against three of the defendants and the final order against one of the defendants was a timid restraint.”
Only one of four defendants faced punishment: a temporary injunction against appearing at Philadelphia polls with a weapon. The department stopped at the injunction and didn’t call for criminal penalties, monetary damages or other civil penalties.
“We were ordered to dismiss the case,” Adams said. “I mean, we were told drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party.”
The Department of Justice said it made a decision based on the evidence that the case could not go forward.
Reacting to Adams’ statement the DOJ told Fox News:
The department sought and obtained an injunction against the Black Panther who had a nightstick at the polling station. After a thorough review, the facts did not support the case against the other defendants in the case. It is not uncommon for attorneys within the department to have good-faith disagreements about the appropriate course of action in a particular case, although it is regrettable when a former department attorney distorts the facts and makes baseless allegations to promote his or her agenda.
But Adams said high-ranking DOJ officials did not review the facts of the case nor the briefs before making that call.
In a commentary published in the Washington Times, Adams wrote, “Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers.”
He added, “If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls. Let’s all hope this administration has not invited that outcome through the corrupt dismissal.”
Why haven’t national media outlets reported on the vile and violent rants of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) thugs whose 2008 voter intimidation tactics got a pass from the Obama administration? Simple: Radical black racism doesn’t fit the Hope and Change narrative. There’s no way to shoehorn Bush-bashing into the story. And, let’s face it, exposing the inflammatory rhetoric of the left does nothing to help liberal editors and reporters fulfill their true calling — embarrassing the right.
This week, Justice Department whistleblower J. Christian Adams came forward with damning public testimony about how Obama officials believe “civil rights law should not be enforced in a race-neutral manner, and should never be enforced against blacks or other national minorities.” In the wake of Adams’ expose on how the Obama DOJ abandoned default judgments against the NBPP bullies for the sake of politically correct racial politics, a shocking video clip of one of the lead defendants in the Philadelphia voter intimidation case resurfaced on the Internet. It shows bloodthirsty King Samir Shabazz during a 2009 National Geographic documentary interview spewing:
“You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies!”
These NBPP death threats and white-bashing diatribes are nothing new to those who have tracked the black supremacy movement. In August 2009, nearly a year ago, I reported on a sign on display outside NBPP defendant (and elected member of Philadelphia’s 14th Ward Democratic Committee) Jerry Jackson’s home. It reads: “COLORED ONLY: No Whites Allowed.” In July 2009, I interviewed poll watcher/witness Christopher Hill, whom Shabazz and Jackson called “cracker” several times while Shabazz brandished his baton.
“They physically attempted to block me,” Hill recounted. He also saw a group of elderly ladies walk away from the polling site without voting while the duo preened in front of the entrance. “If you’re a poll watcher, you shouldn’t be dressed in paramilitary garb,” Hill said, as he wondered aloud at what would have happened if he had showed up in the same sort of costume.
In May 2009, I reported on the affidavit of civil rights attorney and poll watcher Bartle Bull, who witnessed the NBPP thuggery in Philadelphia and reported on billy club-wielding Shabazz’s election day boast: “You’re about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”
In the fall of 2008, just days before he showed up to hector white poll workers, Shabazz told the Philadelphia Inquirer:
“I’m about the total destruction of white people. I’m about the total liberation of black people. I hate white people. I hate my enemy... The only thing the cracker understands is violence... The only thing the cracker understands is gunpowder. You got to take violence to violence.”
The desire to kill, subordinate and demonize white people is a staple of NBPP propaganda. An NBPP Trenton, N.J., chapter “block party” music video posted on YouTube calls on black followers to “bang for freedom,” “put the bang right into a cracker’s face,” and “if you’re going to bang, bang for black power ... hang a cracker ... if you’re going to bang, bang on the white devil ... burying him near the river bank with the right shovel ... community revolution in progress ... banging for crackers to go to hell, we don’t need em.”
Chanting “Black Power,” Minister Najee Muhammad, national field marshal for the New Black Panther Party, and Uhuru Shakur, local chairman of the Atlanta NBPP chapter, issued a pre-Election Day 2008 threat to “racists and other angry whites who are upset over an impending Barack Obama presidential victory.” Said Muhammad: “Most certainly, we cannot allow these racist forces to slaughter our babies or commit other acts of violence against the black population, nor our black president.”
That’s rich, given that the only racists talking about slaughtering babies are the ones with New Black Panther Party patches on their puffed chests.
If a Tea Party activist threatened to kill the babies of his political opponents, it wouldn’t just be front-page news. It would be the subject of Democrat-led congressional investigations, a series of terrified New York Times columns about the perilous “climate of hate,” a Justice Department probe by Attorney General Eric Holder, a domestic terror alert from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and another Important Teachable Moment Speech/Summit from Healer-in-Chief Barack Obama.
But with the racism shoe on the other foot, Team Obama and its media water-carriers are exhibiting the very racial cowardice Holder once purported to condemn. Thanks to Obama’s feckless Department of Injustice, these black supremacist brutes are free to show up on the next national Election Day at polling places in full paramilitary regalia with nightsticks, hurling racist, anti-American epithets at those exercising their right to vote and at those protecting the integrity of the electoral process.
The reaction of our national media watchdogs: Shhhhhhhh.
Author condemns ‘policy’ against prosecuting black-on-white crime
WASHINGTON – Our “post-racial” president is actually our “most-racist” president, says the author of a blistering new book on race politics, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession.”
Lady Justice may be blindfolded, says Erik Rush, but the Department of Justice is operating with eyes wide open in its repeated refusals to prosecute crimes where the defendant is black and the victim is white, as a former Justice Department whistleblower recently testified.
“As reflected by the actions of the Obama-Holder Justice Department in the New Black Panther Party case, it is now clear that this is a racist president and a racist administration,” says Rush. “We are bearing witness to an instance of racism and racial double standard on the part of this president and his administration that surpasses the surreal.”
Rush refers to J. Christian Adams’ recent testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights alleging the department’s repeated “hostility” to cases with black defendants and white victims, admitting, “We abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens.”
Adams cited the Election Day 2008 case involving members of the New Black Panther Party who were videotaped guarding the entrance of a Philadelphia polling place clad in black fatigues and wielding a nightstick. The Obama administration at first followed up on the Bush administration’s initial prosecution of the case but dismissed it in May 2009 – a month after three members of the party failed to appear in court.
“To progressives and the establishment press, the contention that our president and this administration are racists is practically incomprehensible – but this is precisely the case,” says Rush. “This atrocity is abject racism. President Obama’s overt antiwhite, anti-Christian and anti-Semitic sentiments have been painfully evident to some observers, and suspected by others for some time.”
Rush sparked a national furor when he exposed the anti-American ravings of President Obama’s longtime minister and then “spiritual adviser,” the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. With “Negrophilia,” published by WND Books, charting in the Top 5 of Amazon categories on African-American Studies and Discrimination & Racism, Rush has adopted a Glenn-Beck-style blackboard approach toward revealing the intents and tactics of the “professional race-baiters who seek to manipulate, intimidate and subjugate Americans of every color – even and especially from the highest offices in the land.”
Race-baiters’ unseen tool is “negrophilia,” says Rush, “an undue and inordinate affinity for blacks,” combined with the “reflexive demonization of whites as inherently wicked.” It’s rooted in leftist tactics of division and aimed at advancing policies that keep blacks “obedient,” whites “silent” and “political control” secure.
Negrophilia is colorblind, says Rush, and is taking center stage in the boiling debate over amnesty vs. law enforcement regarding the violations of illegal immigrants.
“For months,” Rush says, “Americans have been treated to wanton accusations of racism in the public square regarding our wish to secure our border with Mexico, and misgivings vis-à-vis the Obama administration’s handling of the Islamic terrorist threat. We have also seen similar gratuitous and slanderous accusations leveled against those who criticize this president on any level.
“What could be more racist,” he adds, “than an administration that orders attorneys in the civil-rights division to ignore cases involving black defendants and white victims?”
‘Panther Party was trying to … level playing field’
Footage of racist rants and incitements to “kill crackers” and “their babies” made by the New Black Panther Party member who was accused of voter intimidation, then released from those charges, didn’t dissuade a leading Democrat from defending the radical organization.
Democratic strategist Michael Brown appeared today on Sean Hannity’s radio show opposite Erik Rush, author of “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession,” a new title by WND Books.
“The purpose of what the New Black Panther Party was trying to do was try to level the playing field so people of color felt safe going to the polls,” said Brown, citing a “pattern of and history of voter intimidation going on in certain places around the country.”
“I don’t understand why the New Black Panther Party thought they needed to be out there in the first place,” Rush countered. “This isn’t 1965.
“If you had a white paramilitary group out there saying the same kinds of things and doing the same kinds of things,” Rush added, “I think they’d be underneath the jail right about now if you ask me.”
On Election Day 2008 Samir Shabazz, also known as Maurice Heath, the New Black Panther Party’s Philadelphia leader, was videotaped alongside another party member guarding the entrance of a Philadelphia polling place clad in black fatigues and wielding a nightstick.
The Obama administration at first followed up on the Bush administration’s initial prosecution of the case as an incident of voter intimidation but dismissed it in May 2009 – a month after three members of the party failed to appear in court. The administration also got Shabazz to agree not to carry a “deadly weapon” near a polling place until 2012.
“These guys are criminals... How do you stand with people who will intimidate voters and incite murder?” Rush asked Brown. “If a guy who can spout that kind of stuff gets favor from the Obama administration, it’s surrealistic.”
Former Department of Justice official J. Christian Adams’ recently testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and cited the Shabazz case as indicative of the department’s repeated “hostility” toward cases with black defendants and white victims, admitting, “We abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens.”
Brown condemned the ravings on video released yesterday of Shabazz shouting, “You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies!
“I hate white people – all of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate ‘em,” Shabazz shouts into a megaphone on a crowded sidewalk. “Through South Street with white, dirty, cracker whore [expletive] on our arms. And we call ourselves black men with African garb on.”
But Brown accused Rush of “burying his head in the sand” to reports of voter intimidation by police during the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Mississippi where “people of color were intimidated.”
“People in the African American community know and in the Latino community know, that if you put a large force of police out there, there’s a perception of intimidation,” he said.
An incredulous Hannity remarked: “Police officers show up at baseball games, they show up at football games, they show up at concerts. They show up wherever they expect there’s going to be a large percentage of the town, the community, where they’re going to be congregating in one particular area. They do so for people’s safety.”
“It sounds to me like a very weird, very subjective and very convenient interpretation of the police being out there in the first place,” said Rush. “The perception is only going to be on the part of people like your guest here who think that white people wake up in the morning thinking how they’re going to get blackie.”
“People like (Shabazz) did not have that sort of motivation,” Rush said. “…They’re not out there so black people can feel safe.”
National Geographic describes the New Black Panther Party as “a militant hate group headquartered in Washington, D.C., that seeks to redefine the black struggle for equality and demand liberation from what it sees as white supremacy.”
The party has marched on Independence Day, dragging American flags through the streets, trampling the flag on the ground and setting it on fire. Members reportedly protested celebration of Independence Day at an event called “4th of U-lie” on July 5, 2008. Members say the day is not a celebration of independence for blacks.
Rush, who exposed the anti-American ravings of President Obama’s longtime minister and then “spiritual adviser,” the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, cited Obama’s “soft spot” for black liberation theology.
“Negrophilia,” published by WND Books, is charting in the Top 5 of Amazon categories on African-American Studies and Discrimination & Racism. Rush has adopted a Glenn-Beck-style blackboard approach toward revealing the intents and tactics of the “professional race-baiters who seek to manipulate, intimidate and subjugate Americans of every color – even and especially from the highest offices in the land.”
Race-baiters’ unseen tool is “negrophilia,” says Rush, “an undue and inordinate affinity for blacks,” combined with the “reflexive demonization of whites as inherently wicked.” It’s rooted in leftist tactics of division and aimed at advancing policies that keep blacks “obedient,” whites “silent” and “political control” secure.
WASHINGTON - At least 3 percent of residents in the nation’s capital are living with HIV or AIDS and every mode of transmission is on the rise, according to a report to be released Monday by D.C. health officials.
The findings in the 2008 epidemiology report by the D.C. HIV/AIDS Administration point to a severe epidemic that’s impacting every race and sex across the population and neighborhoods.
“Our rates are higher than West Africa,” said Shannon Hader, the administration’s director, who used to spearhead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s work in Zimbabwe. “They’re on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya.”
The report, obtained by The Washington Post, updates a landmark 2007 study that discovered the epidemic had moved from affecting a mostly gay population to a general one, and that it disproportionately affected blacks.
The study found that the number of HIV and AIDS cases jumped 22 percent from the 12,428 reported in 2006. Almost 1 in 10 residents between 40 and 49 are living with the virus, and black men had the highest infection rate at almost 7 percent, the report said. It added that 3 percent of black women in D.C. have HIV.
The virus was most often transmitted by men having sex with men, followed by heterosexual transmission and injection drug use, the report said.
“This is very, very depressing news, especially considering HIV’s profound impact on minority communities,” said Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Health’s program on infectious diseases. “And remember: The city’s numbers are just based on people who’ve gotten tested.”
The epidemiology report warns that the true number of D.C. residents infected with HIV “is certainly higher.”
Meanwhile, another study scheduled to be released Monday by city health officials looks at heterosexual sexual behavior, and attempts to dissect people’s choices before they are tested for or become infected with HIV. It was conducted by the George Washington University School of Health and Health Services with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The study found that three in five D.C. residents who had connections in neighborhoods with high poverty and AIDS rates were aware of their HIV status and that three in 10 had used a condom the last time they had sex, among other findings.
By Walter E. Williams
Dr. Thomas Sowell’s recent column, “Republicans and Blacks,” (April 10, 2008) pointed out the foolhardiness of Republican strategy to secure more black votes. He pointed out that it is a losing strategy to reach blacks through the civil rights organizations and black politicians. It’s like a quarterback trying to throw a pass to a receiver surrounded by a bunch of defenders. The second losing strategy is to appeal to blacks by offering the same kinds of things that Democrats offer — token honors, politically correct rhetoric and welfare state handouts.
Sowell suggests that Republican strategy should be to highlight the liberal Democratic agenda that has done great harm to the poorest of the black community. Among those he mentions is the environmental agenda where “tens of thousands of blacks who have been forced out of a number of liberal Democratic California counties by skyrocketing housing prices, brought on by Democratic environmentalists’ severe restrictions on the building of homes or apartments.” Since 1970, San Francisco’s black population has been cut in half.
Then there are the liberal judges and parole boards who have turned criminals loose to prey on black communities. According to Bureau of Justice statistics, between 1976 and 2005, while 13% of the population, blacks committed over 52% of the nation’s homicides and were 46% of the homicide victims. 94% of black homicide victims had a black person as their murderer.
The Democratic leadership gives unquestioned support of teacher unions that have delivered near criminally fraudulent education. Professors Abigail and Stephen Thernstrom’s book, “No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning,” reports that the average black high school graduate performs a little worse than white eighth-graders in both reading and U.S. history, and a lot worse in math and geography. Black education is the worst in cities where Democrats, both black and white, have held the reigns of political power for decades and in cities spending the largest amount of money on education. Washington, D.C., ranking third in the nation in terms of per-pupil expenditures, is a classic example. At 12 of its 19 high schools, more than 50% of the students test below basic in reading, and at some of those schools the percentage approaches 80%. At 15 of these schools, over 50% test below basic in math, and in 12 of them 70 to 99% do so. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which conducts periodic testing, defines “below basic” as not having any of the knowledge and skills to master a subject.
Both Democratic and Republican leaders give support to economic agendas harmful to poor black people. A particularly egregious example is New York City’s taxicab licensing law that requires that a person, as of May 2007, pay $600,000 for a license to own and operate one taxicab. Then there’s the Davis-Bacon Act that mandates “prevailing wages” be paid on all federally financed or assisted construction projects. The Davis-Bacon Act is a pro-union law that discriminates against non-unionized black construction contractors and black workers. In fact, that was the original intent of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931. During its 1931 legislative debate, quite a few congressmen expressed their racist intentions, such as Rep. Clayton Allgood, D-Ala., who said, “Reference has been made to a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. This is a fact. That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country.” While today’s supporters of the Davis-Bacon Act talk differently, its discriminatory effects are the same.
If a politician had the guts to take on these issues, it’s stupid to address them through the black civil rights or education establishment, or the black political structure. The reason is that blacks who are members of, or are served by, these establishments have an interest in the status quo.
By Thomas Sowell
If Senator John McCain needed to prove that he is a real Republican, he did it when he continued an old Republican tradition of utterly inept attempts to appeal to black voters.
Senator McCain was booed at a recent memorial on the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. In typical Republican fashion, he tried to apologize but the audience was not buying it and let him know it.
Why would Senator McCain choose a venue where his rejection was virtually guaranteed? Not only did he not get his message out, the message that came out through the media is that this black audience rejected him, which is readily portrayed as if blacks in general rejected him.
The Republican strategy for making inroads into the black vote has failed consistently for more than a quarter of a century. Yet it never seems to occur to them to change their approach.
The first thing that they do that is foredoomed to failure is trying to reach blacks through the civil rights organizations and other institutions of the black establishment. The second proven loser is trying to appeal to blacks by offering the same kinds of things that Democrats offer— token honors, politically correct rhetoric and welfare state benefits.
Blacks who want those things know that they can already get them from the Democrats. Why should they listen to Republicans who act like imitation Democrats?’
These are not the blacks whose votes Republicans have any realistic hope of getting. Nor do the Republicans need the votes of all blacks. If just 20% of blacks begin voting Republican, the Democrats are lost.
The question then is how to have a shot at getting the votes of those blacks who are not in thrall to the current black “leaders” and who on many issues may be conservative.
First of all, you don’t get their votes by approaching them from the left, when that is neither their orientation nor yours. Issuing stamps honoring Paul Robeson and Kwanzaa are not the way to reach those blacks whom Republicans have any realistic chance of reaching.
Trying to reach blacks through civil rights organizations that are totally hostile to your message is like a quarterback trying to throw a pass to a receiver surrounded by opposing defenders. That just leads to a lot of interceptions and touchdowns for the other team.
That is essentially what has been happening to the Republicans, as far as the black vote is concerned, for decades on end. Someone once said that a method which fails repeatedly may possibly be wrong.
The truth is something that can attract people’s attention, if only for its novelty in politics. There is no need for Republicans to try to pose as saviors of blacks. Democrats do that and they have more experience doing it.
A sober presentation of the facts— “straight talk,” if you will— gives Senator McCain and Republicans their best shot at a larger share of the votes of blacks. There is plenty to talk straight about, including all the things that the Democrats are committed to that work to the disadvantage of blacks, beginning with Democrats’ adamant support of teachers’ unions in their opposition to parental choice through vouchers.
The teachers’ unions are just one of the sacred cow constituencies of the Democratic Party whose agendas are very harmful to blacks.
Black voters also need to be told about the tens of thousands of blacks who have been forced out of a number of liberal Democratic California counties by skyrocketing housing prices, brought on by Democratic environmentalists’ severe restrictions on the building of homes or apartments.
The black population of San Francisco, for example, has been cut in half since 1970— and San Francisco is the very model of a community of liberal Democrats, including green zealots who are heedless of the consequences of their actions on others.
Then there are the effects of tort lawyers in raising prices, liberal judges turning criminals loose and other influential Democratic Party constituencies whose effects on blacks are strictly negative.
Where should these and other messages be delivered to blacks, if not through the existing black organizations?
That message can be delivered as part of televised speeches addressing other major issues facing the country. It can be delivered as part of advertisements in the general media and separately in advertisements in newspapers, magazines and television programs with a black audience.
Logistics are not the problem. Insistence on following a repeatedly failed game plan is.
By Ann Coulter
Is it just me, or does Kwanzaa seem to come earlier and earlier each year? The same goes for the Iowa caucuses — the early scheduling of which forced me to run an attack on a synthetic candidate, rather than a synthetic holiday, last week.
I’ve seen so few mentions of Kwanzaa this year, I was going to declare my campaign a success, but I see that President Bush issued another absurd Kwanzaa message in December, referring to millions of African-Americans gathering to celebrate Kwanzaa.
I believe more African-Americans spent this season reflecting on the birth of Christ than some phony non-Christian holiday invented a few decades ago by an FBI stooge. Kwanzaa is a holiday for white liberals, not blacks.
It is a fact that Kwanzaa was invented in 1966 by a black radical FBI stooge, Ron Karenga, aka Dr. Maulana Karenga. Karenga was a founder of United Slaves, a violent nationalist rival to the Black Panthers and a dupe of the FBI.
In what was probably ultimately a foolish gamble, during the madness of the ‘60s the FBI encouraged the most extreme black nationalist organizations in order to discredit and split the left. The more preposterous the organization, the better. Using that criterion, Karenga’s United Slaves was perfect. In the annals of the American ‘60s, Karenga was the Father Gapon, stooge of the czarist police.
Despite modern perceptions that blend all the black activists of the ‘60s, the Black Panthers did not hate whites. They did not seek armed revolution. Those were the precepts of Karenga’s United Slaves. United Slaves were proto-fascists, walking around in dashikis, gunning down Black Panthers and adopting invented “African” names. (That was a big help to the black community: How many boys named “Jamal” currently sit on death row?)
Whether Karenga was a willing dupe, or just a dupe, remains unclear. Curiously, in a 1995 interview with Ethnic NewsWatch, Karenga matter-of-factly explained that the forces out to get O.J. Simpson for the “framed” murder of two whites included: “the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, Interpol, the Chicago Police Department” and so on. Karenga should know about FBI infiltration. (He further noted that the evidence against O.J. “was not strong enough to prohibit or eliminate unreasonable doubt” — an interesting standard of proof.)
In the category of the-gentleman-doth-protest-too-much, back in the ‘70s, Karenga was quick to criticize rumors that black radicals were government-supported. When Nigerian newspapers claimed that some American black radicals were CIA operatives, Karenga publicly denounced the idea, saying, “Africans must stop generalizing about the loyalties and motives of Afro-Americans, including the widespread suspicion of black Americans being CIA agents.”
Now we know that the FBI fueled the bloody rivalry between the Panthers and United Slaves. In one barbarous outburst, Karenga’s United Slaves shot to death Black Panthers Al “Bunchy” Carter and Deputy Minister John Huggins on the UCLA campus. Karenga himself served time, a useful stepping-stone for his current position as a black studies professor at California State University at Long Beach.
(Sing to “Jingle Bells”)
Kwanzaa bells, dashikis sell
Whitey has to pay;
Burning, shooting, oh what fun
On this made-up holiday!
Kwanzaa itself is a lunatic blend of schmaltzy ‘60s rhetoric, black racism and Marxism. Indeed, the seven “principles” of Kwanzaa praise collectivism in every possible arena of life — economics, work, personality, even litter removal. (“Kuumba: Everyone should strive to improve the community and make it more beautiful.”) It takes a village to raise a police snitch.
When Karenga was asked to distinguish Kawaida, the philosophy underlying Kwanzaa, from “classical Marxism,” he essentially explained that under Kawaida, we also hate whites. While taking the “best of early Chinese and Cuban socialism” — which one assumes would exclude the forced abortions, imprisonment of homosexuals and forced labor — Kawaida practitioners believe one’s racial identity “determines life conditions, life chances and self-understanding.” There’s an inclusive philosophy for you.
Coincidentally, the seven principles of Kwanzaa are the very same seven principles of the Symbionese Liberation Army, another charming invention of the Worst Generation. In 1974, Patricia Hearst, kidnap victim-cum-SLA revolutionary, posed next to the banner of her alleged captors, a seven-headed cobra. Each snake head stood for one of the SLA’s revolutionary principles: Umoja, Kujichagulia, Ujima, Ujamaa, Nia, Kuumba and Imani — the exact same seven “principles” of Kwanzaa.
With his Kwanzaa greetings, President Bush is saluting the intellectual sibling of the Symbionese Liberation Army, killer of housewives and police. He is saluting the founder of United Slaves, who were such lunatics that they shot Panthers for not being sufficiently insane — all with the FBI as their covert ally.
It’s as if David Duke invented a holiday called “Anglika,” and the president of the United States issued a presidential proclamation honoring the synthetic, racist holiday. People might well stand up and take notice if that happened.
Kwanzaa was the result of a ‘60s psychosis grafted onto the black community. Liberals have become so mesmerized by multicultural nonsense that they have forgotten the real history of Kwanzaa and Karenga’s United Slaves — the violence, the Marxism, the insanity. Most absurdly, for leftists anyway, is that they have forgotten the FBI’s tacit encouragement of this murderous black nationalist cult founded by the father of Kwanzaa.
Now the “holiday” concocted by an FBI dupe is honored in a presidential proclamation and public schools across the nation. In Oregon public schools this year, Kwanzaa — but not Christmas — appeared on the official calendar.
Bush called Kwanzaa a holiday that promotes “unity” and “faith.” Faith in what? Liberals’ unbounded capacity to respect any faith but Christianity?
A movement that started approximately 2,000 years before Kwanzaa leaps well beyond mere “unity” and “faith” to proclaim that we are all equal before God. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). It was practitioners of that faith who were at the forefront of the abolitionist and civil rights movements. But that’s all been washed down the memory hole, along with the true origins of Kwanzaa.
By Rebecca Hagelin
“I wept beyond tears, slipping into the barren, rhythmic heaves of a body seeking something more.”
The poetic words of inconsolable grief were penned by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in his newly released memoir, My Grandfather’s Son. In this moving passage, he describes his agony in the days following the death of the man that came to be “Daddy”. The book is filled with magnificent prose in which one of the most powerful men in America repeatedly dares to bare his soul—dares to make himself vulnerable to the cold, hard world of cynics in which we live.
In a pin-striped town where pretending and pretentiousness are the status quo, it is startling to hear a man at the highest positions of power be so honest about his heartaches, fears, and painful memories. The result? My Grandfather’s Son has the potential to be the most life-changing book of our era.
Justice Thomas could have written the typical “rags to riches” story, with all the big publishing houses lined up to roll out the pontifications designed to impress and awe the Washington elite. But he didn’t do that. Instead, Clarence Thomas chose to speak from his heart, describing in a somber tone the truth about his own shortcomings, regrets and oppression. He tells the compelling story of his early life struggles with racism, abandonment, poverty and unrelenting work. He takes us through his journey all the way to a nomination for a seat on the Supreme Court, only to again be subjected to racism, the abandonment of truth, and a poverty of justice—this time at the hands of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
One “moral of the story” of My Grandfather’s Son is, in some ways, predictable (yet, still inspiring)—namely, that in America it is possible, through self-reliance and hard work, to triumph over even the worst of circumstances. But what makes this book remarkable is that Justice Thomas does not revel in the victory of having reached the pinnacles of power through the sheer strength of his own will and hard work. He does not stand up and shout, “Look at me! Look how I have overcome!” Instead of gloating in sweet victory over his tormentors when he was narrowly confirmed after a bloody perversion of the process, Justice Thomas is mournful over how such an austere institution as the United States Senate could become so corrupt.
For the thoughtful reader, what comes through loud and clear is Justice Thomas’ love of freedom and human dignity.
He describes the misery of growing up poor and black in the segregated South. Justice Thomas speaks eloquently and respectfully of the man who rescued him from the life of waste that so often claimed the souls of the young, black male in the 1950’s. His grandfather was the steel, emotionally distant “Daddy,” that taught the young Thomas how hard work, character, and loyalty could overcome even the worst of circumstances. A man who would not take “no” for an answer (from his grandson or society), Thomas recalls one of his grandfather’s favorite sayings: “Old Man Can’t is dead—I helped bury him.” Even the greatest critic has to admit that Clarence Thomas took that declaration to heart.
An early report about the book in The Washington Post describes the tone of My Grandfather’s Son as angry. “Justice Thomas Lashes Out in Memoir” the headline screamed; the first sentence says he “settles scores”.
Nothing could be a bigger lie.
Yes, Clarence Thomas’ writings show a bold, righteous indignation toward anything less than absolute justice and truth. He voices a clear disdain for bigotry—especially when it attempts to masquerade as intelligence—and the abuse of position and power. As a tragic victim of such abuse, his story is one which will, no doubt, cause some to squirm in discomfort at the shameful manner in which he was treated throughout his confirmation process. But to characterize the book and Justice Thomas with the shallow all-sweeping term of “angry” in an attempt to cheapen the value of the message and the man is to willfully ignore the foundational and numerous messages of hope, faith and beauty that are the soul of My Grandfather’s Son. This book is not about revenge—it is about the inoculating protection that hard work, faith and tenacity offer against the natural desire for revenge. If one man had justification for bitterness, it would be Clarence Thomas. Yet, he is not bitter for himself. He is heartbroken over a system that can destroy a man, his family and his reputation for the sake of politics.
Written for the common man, My Grandfather’s Son is anything but common. It should be required reading for every law student, every historian, every single person that truly seeks to be color blind, impart justice, or explore solutions to the inane policies and problems that threaten to strangle equal opportunity. Justice Thomas reveals how the ugliness of bigotry and racism still rob men and women of their dignity and the opportunity to thrive by the virtue of merit. Justice Clarence Thomas’ “rags to riches” story is unique in that it can enrich the soul and heart of anyone willing to take the journey with him.
By John Hawkins
If you look back through American history and find a black American being enslaved, lynched, railroaded, or persecuted, 99 times out of a hundred, you’ll find a Democrat behind it. The hated and feared KKK? Throughout most of its history, it was little more than a hooded, thuggish arm of the Democratic Party.
But in the 1960s, when the Democrats’ overt racism became untenable, they switched to a strategy they’ve used all the way until the present day. Instead of persecuting black Americans because they thought they were inferior, they decided to “help” black Americans because they thought they were inferior. Unfortunately for black Americans, the “help” they get from the Democratic Party is almost always perversely damaging.
Democrats cooked up the great society, welfare, food stamps, and all other manner of government goodies because they said they wanted to “help” people. What was the result of that “help?” The Democrats did something that they hadn’t managed to do when they enslaved black Americans, persecuted them with Jim Crow laws, or terrorized them with the Ku Klux Klan: they managed to nearly destroy the black family. According to Walter Williams,
“In 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 19%, in 1960, 22%, and today, it’s 70%. Some argue that the state of the black family is the result of the legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty. That has to be nonsense. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85% of kin-related black households had two parents. In fact, according to Herbert Gutman in The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925, “Five in six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents.”
The story is no different when it comes to education. Many black children are stuck in disastrous, failing schools. That’s why it’s no surprise that a majority of black Americans support school vouchers, just like the Republican Party. But, the Democratic Party, at the behest of the teachers’ unions, has worked ceaselessly to keep black children trapped in mediocre schools by killing voucher programs.
Look to black neighborhoods that are overrun with crime. In some of the worst neighborhoods, you have drug dealers on the corners, thugs breaking into houses, and people afraid to let their children play in their yards. The Republican solution to this is to get the criminals off the streets so that they can’t harm innocent people. The Democratic solution is to treat the cops like bad guys, the criminals like victims, and to try to put the gangbangers and psychos back on the streets. Newsflash: black criminals mostly live in black neighborhoods and prey on black Americans. Every time a black criminal is put back into society, chances are that he’s going to primarily victimize other black Americans.
Speaking of victimization, how many black Americans have lost their jobs to illegal immigrants or have money taken out of their pockets because illegals — who aren’t even supposed to be in this country — are depressing their wages? Yet, who’s sticking up for the Americans losing their jobs to illegals? Republicans. And who wants to leave the border open to millions of workers from South of the border who’ll be taking jobs from American workers, including black Americans? The Democrats.
Of course, we can’t forget about abortion. Like most black Americans, the Republican Party is staunchly opposed to abortion. But, Democrats don’t see it that way – and don’t kid yourself, part of the reason why Democrats are so rabidly pro-abortion is because they believe it helps lower the number of black Americans. Today, they won’t come out and say that, but Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was never so circumspect about her motives. From La Shawn Barber, “More controversial is Sanger’s ‘Negro Project,’ devised in 1939. The eugenicist set out to implicate black ministers and doctors in her efforts to spread her message of contraception, sterilization, and abortion in the black community. ‘The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it occurs to any of their more rebellious members,’ she wrote.”
Democrats have convinced more black women to kill their own babies via abortion than they ever managed to string up back when they hid their faces under sheets. Then there are the Left’s prize programs: Affirmative Action & racial preferences. Here’s what Walter Williams had to say about how these programs turn so many black college students into drop-outs by getting them into schools that are academically out of their league.
“You find the same thing at MIT. Black students in the engineering department, they score in the top 5% nationally in the quantitative portion of the SAT. However, close to 50% are on academic probation or flunking out at MIT. What’s the problem? Well, the rest of the students in the engineering department are in the top 1%, which puts the black students at MIT near the bottom of the student body. So those black students who are being turned into failures at MIT, if they’d gone to engineering school at the University of Pennsylvania or Cornell, they’d be on the Dean’s list.
So it’s kind of like you’re saying to me, ‘Walter, would you teach me how to box?’ Then, the first fight I get you is with Lennox Lewis. Now you might have the potential to be a good boxer, but you’re going to get your brains beaten out before you learn to bob and weave. So, the question for black people is, ‘Do we have so many youngsters who score in the top 5% nationally that we can afford to have them turned into failures at MIT in the name of diversity and multiculturalism?’ For me, my answer is no.”
When it comes to Affirmative Action in the workplace, how many black Americans really benefit from it? Very, very few. But, how many successful black Americans have their accomplishments diminished because everyone around them thinks they got to where they are because of Affirmative Action? It happens all the time. So, not only do racial preferences prevent a lot of young black Americans from succeeding, they cause people to question the legitimacy and worthiness of black Americans who have made it.
Then there are the race hustlers who make a living by convincing black Americans that they’re victims and that only the Democratic Party can fix their problems. They’re people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, and all the others who make a living by convincing black Americans to vote for the very people who are destroying them — and they do their jobs well.
Black Americans have been voting for the Democratic Party for 40 years and they may be voting for them for another 40 years the way things are going. This is despite the fact that the worst places for black Americans in this country to live are always run by Democrats. Marion Barry can get caught smoking crack, Ray Nagin can prove to be totally incompetent during Hurricane Katrina, and William Jefferson can get caught with bribe money in his freezer, but black Americans dutifully go to the polls and vote them right back into office. Know why? Because the race hustling poverty pimps have convinced black Americans that it’s better to vote for a crack addict, an incompetent, or a crook than to vote for a Republican. This has put black Americans in a position where Democrats don’t take them seriously because they know they have the black vote locked up and Republicans have written off black voters because they believe that no matter what they do, black Americans won’t vote for them.
Until that changes, the Democrats will keep systematically undermining black Americans with their “help” and telling them that it’s for their own good, because minorities just can’t make it without the help of white, liberal Democrats.
By Star Parker
Bruce Gordon, who has resigned as president of the NAACP, got a crash course in the difference between the world of politics and the world of business. The former is driven by power and control, the latter by markets and service. It’s why countries with more of the former and less of the latter tend to be poorer than those where it is the other way around.
And it is one particular irony that the NAACP, an organization born with an agenda to advance freedom, over time morphed into an organization defined in every dimension by the culture of politics.
Gordon, a businessman and corporate executive by career, made a bad business call. He assessed the situation he was getting into incorrectly and learned, as we say, the hard way. He thought they wanted him to solve problems and build a better organization. They, or maybe more precisely, Julian Bond, NAACP’s chairman, were looking for someone to carry their political baggage.
Meanwhile, it’s obvious that an organization where its president quits 19 months after he’d been hired to replace a predecessor who himself left under duress, is a troubled organization. If the NAACP was publicly traded its stock would be sinking.
It’s clear that the organization that Bruce Gordon decided to go to work for was not the organization he thought it was.
One reason may be that the NAACP today is not the organization it once was.
Founded at the beginning of the last century, the NAACP’s challenges then were clear. The legal and institutional barriers to equal treatment and due process under the law for blacks were real and tangible. It required no subtlety of thought to understand what the battle was that needed to be fought, although there were differences of opinion regarding how best to fight the battle.
With the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act in1964 and 1965, that battle was won. That’s not to say the struggle was over. Life’s struggles are never over. But it became a different battle. Once the chains are broken, the challenge translates into a human struggle of realizing one’s potential in freedom. The battlefield moves from outside to inside.
But the black political leadership didn’t want to let go. They wanted to keep the game political.
Today the NAACP has simply become a rote platform for left wing politics.
For reasons that I’ll leave to others to explain, the organization has become more highly motivated to promote this left wing agenda than addressing the many problems of its own community.
Discussing his departure in an interview with Tavis Smiley, Gordon observed, “...In business terminology we would argue that organizations that are no longer customer focused, who lose the heart of the customer, who lose the choice of the customer, will ultimately fail.”
Practically speaking, Gordon’s observations are born out by the following:
Barely one in four blacks support legalization of gay marriage. Yet, one would be hard pressed to find a lawsuit pushing for gay marriage in which the NAACP is not a plaintiff.
Black support for school vouchers is stronger than white support. Almost three out of four blacks between the ages of 26 to 35 support vouchers. Yet, the NAACP adamantly opposes vouchers and school choice. A great victory was just achieved in the state of Utah which will open the door to vouchers. NAACP opposition to Utah’s new law is posted prominently on the homepage of its website.
Similarly with personal Social Security accounts. Young blacks poll strongly in favor. The NAACP opposes.
Even moderate black journalists now recognize and write that the challenge in black America today is social. Aids, abortion, family breakdown, crime, poor education. These are problems of values and lifestyle, not politics.
Yet, like the old saw that to a man with hammer everything looks like a nail, NAACP leaders interpret the clear moral and social crisis in our inner cities as a political problem in need of government solutions. Ironically, and tragically, it was the invasion of government into family life, through the welfare state, that precipitated black family breakdown to begin with.
To Bruce Gordon’s credit, he wanted to transform the NAACP into an organization in which blacks take responsibility for identifying and trying to solve the problems in their own community.
This was obviously too much for an organization that wants to pursue “social justice” in a world in which most black babies are born with no father at home.
The NAACP has become a symptom of the problems in black America rather than a source for solutions. Perhaps this latest crisis will provoke some badly needed soul searching and change.
By Dennis Prager
I was recently shown a videotape of people reacting to radio talk shows. Organized by a firm that specializes in analyzing radio talk shows, the members of the listening panel were carefully chosen to represent all major listening groups within American society.
But I quickly noticed something odd — I saw no blacks among the selected listeners. I asked why. And the response was stunning.
Blacks had always been included, I was told, but no more. Not because the firm was not interested in black listeners — on the contrary, blacks are an important part of the radio audience. They were not invited to give their opinion about various radio shows because in its previous experience, the company had discovered that almost no whites would publicly differ with the opinions of the blacks on the panel. Therefore, once a black listener spoke, whites stopped saying what they really thought, if what they thought differed from what a black had said.
I believed that this was the reason — not some racist animosity toward blacks — since such companies are paid to give accurate reports on audience reactions to radio programs, and clearly their results would be skewed without input from black listeners. But I still needed to test this thesis. Do most whites really not publicly say what they believe, if what they believe differs from what a black believes — even when the subject has absolutely nothing to do with race (i.e., reactions to a radio talk show discussing other subjects)?
So I posed to this question to my radio audience, and, sure enough, whites from around the country called in to say that they are afraid to differ with blacks lest they be labeled racist.
I could not imagine anything more detrimental toward abolishing racism and to enhancing black progress in America than such an attitude. But apparently it is the norm in American life to so fear being called a racist that individuals as well as institutions react to blacks as they would to children — humoring them rather than taking them seriously.
This is another terrible legacy of the dominant liberal attitudes vis a vis America’s blacks. For the liberal worlds of academia and media, as for the Democratic Party, blacks are not seen as individuals, the way members of virtually other minority and majority groups are. In the liberal mind, blacks are an oppressed group — the ultimate oppressed group in America — and there is little more about black Americans that one needs to know.
Therefore, in a mind-numbing non sequitur, blacks are not be judged, talked to, talked about or hired as other human beings are. I write “non sequitur” because even if one were to agree that blacks are an, or even the, oppressed minority, why would that obviate the need to judge, talk to, talk about or hire black human beings differently than anyone else? It would seem that anyone with equal respect for blacks would judge and talk to them just as they would all other people. But high schools and universities, newspapers and television, the Democratic Party and other liberal institutions have made it very difficult to do so.
Anyone who argues that standards should be identical for blacks — in hiring and in college acceptance, for example — is likely to be labeled a racist. And if the person making that argument is himself black, he becomes a member of the group liberals most hate, black conservatives — “traitors” to fellow blacks.
This also explains why, if one differs with a black, one is not perceived as merely disagreeing with him, but as “dissing” him. That is what started the liberal hatred of former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers. After asking Harvard Professor Cornel West to engage in more scholarship and less rap music making and politicking (West was a major figure in the Al Sharpton campaign for president), Professor West announced that President Summers had shown him “disrespect.” Even a Harvard president doesn’t tell a black professor what to do.
After dismissing Cornel West’s books as “almost completely worthless,” the New Republic literary editor Leon Wieseltier was attacked in ways that made it clear that one should simply not attack a black professor’s literary output as one would a white professor’s.
Every time liberals force universities to lower standards for black applicants, and every time liberal activists force civil service exams to be rewritten so that more blacks can pass those exams, another person learns not to treat blacks and their ideas as he would anyone else’s.
That is why most whites won’t differ publicly with most blacks. And that is why liberals and Democrats will have to answer to history for the harm they have done to at least two generations of black Americans.
Many of the problems in America’s inner cities seem to me similar to Israeli-Palestinian problems as described by a scholar of an Israeli think tank.
It’s becoming increasingly evident to me that the theme of personal responsibility is crucial everywhere and transcends the particularities of different cultures and religions.
A recent column by this scholar concerned impact of the death of Yasser Arafat on prospects for near-term peace between Israel and the Palestinians. He talked about the summer of 2000 when President Clinton sequestered then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat at Camp David with the goal of achieving an historic peace accord. Barak agreed to the two-state solution that was the alleged goal of Arafat _ an autonomous Palestinian state next to the Jewish state _ and a good portion of the territorial concessions that Arafat demanded, and Arafat walked away from it all.
President Clinton thought he was on the verge of making history and wound up in shock that the Palestinian leader walked out. After years of suffering and bloodshed, how could Arafat reject a plan just a fraction less than 100% of his demands?
Following the rejection, the terror attacks resumed, with Palestinian children wrapping themselves in explosives, sneaking into Israel and blowing themselves up in crowded public facilities.
Most discussions I read today imply that in order to understand Arab terror we need to understand Islam and its nuances. The claims go on that we need to understand the cultural, historical and economic circumstances that produce this insane behavior.
I know very little about Islam and next to nothing about the Middle East. I do know irresponsibility when I see it. And frankly, this is what I see operating here, pure and simple. I’m sure this conclusion will not sit well with all the Ph.D.s. But guns, bloodshed and poverty are not unique to the Middle East. They unfortunately are very much part of life in our nation’s own inner cities and I do know something about this reality. I see similar themes in these two very different parts of the world.
The irresponsible person, the perennial victim, will always find a reason why it is impossible to get up in the morning, accept life’s burdens and quietly and peacefully build a responsible life. There will always be a piece missing from the perfect circumstances that supposedly needed.
If Yasser Arafat would have shaken hands at Camp David, he would have had to go home and go to work. He would have had to start doing the real business of constructing the legal, economic and political apparatus to build the country that supposedly all the violence and death was aimed toward achieving. To the extent that there might have been failures and setbacks, the option of blaming the Israelis would no longer have been available.
If Arafat would have done the deal in 2000, the last four years could have been spent building and moving forward. Instead, the Palestinian people have endure the same sordid circumstances that have defined their last 50 years.
Martin Luther King is someone who also had a dream for his people. Through hard work, done in strict accordance with nonviolence and Christian principles, he changed the world. Because of these efforts, legislation was passed in 1964 and 1965 that made equality for all, under the law and in the voting booth, the reality of this country. Black leaders could have delivered the message then that the task was to go home, go to work, build families, educate children and create a new prosperity.
But rather than seeing 1965 as the culmination of a political struggle, black political leaders defined it as the beginning of one. They built a consciousness among African Americans that regardless of the law, racism and a dominant white culture would leave them forever the helpless victims and that the only hope was continued political activism and political solutions.
Arab leaders taught their children that they are helpless because of the Israeli oppressors. African American leaders taught their children that they are helpless because of the white racists.
Arab children today volunteer for suicide missions. Better the next world than contending with the imperfections of this one. Forty-five percent of homicides in the United States today are black men killing other black men. Why go to work and raise a family when it’s all hopeless and pointless? Liberals call it the hopelessness of victims. I call it irresponsibility.
Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education and author of the newly released book ‘Uncle Sam’s Plantation.’
Armstrong Williams’ poor judgment in not revealing being compensated by the Department of Education to promote No Child Left Behind is unfortunate. With his stepping into the line of fire and acknowledging his errors, we’ll be able to get this behind us and move on.
What impact, if any, will this incident have on the ongoing credibility of black conservatism?
Liberals, particularly black liberals, will claim this incident simply confirms what they have known all along. For them, black conservatives by definition are individuals on the make and on the take.
In their view, liberalism is coded into black DNA. It is a genetic impossibility for a black to actually believe that government should be limited and that every person, regardless of circumstance, must take personal responsibility for his or her own life. A black espousing such views, according to liberal thinking, commits an act against nature and betrays heritage and family. The only possible explanation for any black talking like a conservative is that the person is being paid to do it.
What is worse, to continue with this line of thinking, only whites can really be conservatives. So, black conservatives outrage black liberals not just because they are supposedly sellouts, but also because they are selling out to whites.
This mindset is quite common, unfortunately, among the black political class.
I think Williams’ mistake will hurt a little as we try to make inroads in the black community with the conservative message. After all, trust is what carries the day in human relations, and trust is the biggest problem that conservatives have in winning over black hearts and minds.
However, I think the setback will be small because, in fact, the importance and relevance of the conservative message to the black community is real and more and more blacks are getting it.
An increasing number of blacks understand that their future lies in mending their communities, restoring traditional values, rebuilding the black family and helping inner-city black men get control of their lives and aspire to become husbands, fathers and breadwinners, rather than players.
The support for school choice is as strong in the black community as in the white community. As the national dialogue on Social Security reform proceeds, I am confident that increasing numbers of blacks will get the simple message that personal ownership rather than taxes and government will build black wealth and autonomy.
I am far more concerned with the ongoing destruction that occurs every day in the black community that directly reflects the politicization of African-American life that has been going on for the last 50 years.
The ploy of every political power broker is to deflect attention from real problems. We see it around the world every day as leaders of societies who live in poverty and illiteracy tell their populations that they suffer because of the Great Satan, America. If they didn’t do that, they would have to allow freedom and ownership, build schools and maintain a system of law.
Last week, Jesse Jackson led of band of several hundred protesters in Washington to make claims about supposed vote-counting irregularities in Ohio. George W. Bush won Ohio by over 100,000 votes. He got 16% of the black vote in Ohio, 4% more than his take of the black vote nationwide. John Kerry knows he legitimately was defeated in 2004, which is why he conceded the election in a timely fashion.
Yet, Jackson hangs on. The politics of blame takes the heat off solving real problems. He’d rather politicize the profound social problems in the black community by claiming that Republicans steal elections rather than doing the real work of fixing black families and black schools.
The politics of deflection and blame, for which Jackson can claim significant responsibility, has rooted itself deep in black consciousness and has made our problems many times worse. John McWhorter discussed in his book “Losing the Race” the cultural resistance in black kids to education because learning and studying is “white” behavior.
This week we remember and commemorate the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. We must remember that King’s message was that eternal truths and values transcend race.
Love, family, responsibility and education are values toward which every human being must aspire.
Armstrong Williams made a mistake. But the message that he received funds to promote - fixing our schools and system of education - was right.
I’m confident that the conservative message will continue to take root in the black community. It’s really our only option for the future.
Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education and author of the newly released book ‘Uncle Sam’s Plantation.’
Supplemental Articles in a separate file (click here to read)