A session at the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) focused on the GOP reaching out to minorities descended into chaos Friday afternoon after a male audience member asked what Frederick Douglass’s former slave master had to be sorry for: “For giving him food and shelter?”
“It seems to be that you’re reaching out to voters, in the method and program that you’re offering us, at the expense of young white Southern males like myself — my demographic,” 30-year-old Scott Terry of North Carolina said during a question and answer session during a discussion called, “Trump The Race Card: Are You Sick And Tired Of Being Called A Racist When You Know You’re Not One?”
The broad brushes are out on the left in an effort to paint all conservatives and especially Republicans as holding the same racist opinions as Terry. We don't. The Blaze notes that [emphasis added]:
Terry was accompanied by Matthew Heimbach, founder of the White Student Union at Towson University. TheBlaze spoke to Heimbach Friday to verify the statements were in accurate and in context. Terry is also a member of the White Students Union at Towson.
This past Wednesday, the White Student Union's website included this announcement [emphasis added]*:
As close to two dozen of us prepare to head to the Conservative Political Action Conference labeled as independent, Towson College Republicans, Campaign for Liberty supporters, and other conservative organizations we will do our best to engage the issue of preservation of the European-American population and a strong stance against immigration.
Simply put, Scott Terry, Matthew Heimbach, and the other gate-crashers they brought with them are neither conservative nor Republican.
Perhaps some good can come of this. Last year, I shot video of K. Carl Smith--he was the presenter at CPAC who's presentation was disrupted by Terry. Smith had one of the best speeches at the Rally for Common Sense. Here's what I wrote about it at the time:
This past Tuesday I interviewed Star Parker. This telephone interview is in the two part YouTube playlist above.
In part 1 we discuss Martin Baker's candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives and the politics of race. I asked Parker about the racial epithets thrown at Baker during a recent Tea Party rally in St. Louis. I also asked Parker what Baker needs to do to press on with his candidacy.
In part 2 we discuss the politics of race in America. I asked Parker what steps we can take to mitigate racial tensions and move us toward a more unified nation.
[Lonnie Rashid Lynn] has also been a vocal opponent of mixed race relationships and believes black men and white women should not date. In one rap he says, “I don’t know what it is / but white girls gettin’ ass / I know what it is / It’s cash.”
Interestingly, Jill Scott, who will also join the White House celebration, opposes interracial relationships, as well.
Really? I wonder if President Obama thinks that Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided. It appears that some of his friends may. Weird.
Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan used a recent speech at Howard University to berate Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman for what Farrakhan said was his poor treatment of President Barack Obama.
'Here's the president of the United States,' Farrakhan said. 'He makes a statement about people losing their homes and whatnot, gambling, and then his flight, his plane stops in Las Vegas. And the little Jewish mayor wouldn't even come out to greet him.'
'How you gonna greet a (expletive) president?' Farrakhan continued. 'Yes I used the word, because that's the way they think. You are nothing to them.'
Farrakhan delivered the remarks April 2 during a Howard University Student Association lecture titled 'Channeling Our Intelligence & Creative Energy to Save Ourselves.'
The Blaze has video of Farrakhan's speech. Watch the whole thing if you want to hear a defense of Helen Thomas's anti-semitic rant, learn how Donald Trump is a gangster, be informed about the "stupid, Zionist Congress," and hear some praise for the Tea Party Movement (really, it starts at the 7:15 mark). Here's my transcript of the Tea Party bit:
Now the Tea Party got in. I'm happy because the Tea Party is not a part of the old crowd. The tea party is forcing these Republicans to be strict fiscal conservatives. Plus, they're not under the control of the Zionists, so once they get in and see... see revolution is inside the House.
...Farrakhan defended Libyan strongman Moammar Khadafy during a speech on Friday in which he also blasted U.S. involvement in Libya.
The 78-year-old leader of the Chicago-based group said his pal Khadafy played an important role in the country that emerged from a colonial past. He also said America lacks the moral authority to assist rebel forces against Khadafy.
Interesting: "his pal Khadafy". That may well be true, but it trivializes the role that money plays in their relationship. Khadafy has given generously to Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. The Blaze reported on those ties last February:
The Libyan dictator has been a strong supporter of Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam and heavily financed the controversial group. In 1985, Gaddafi affirmed his solidarity with Farrakhan with a $5 million interest-free loan.
In 1996, officials in the Clinton administration worked to block Farrakhan from receiving more than $1 billion in donations from Gaddafi.
”We are not terrorists,” Farrakhan said at the time. ”We are not trying to do anything against the good of America. What we want to do is good for our people and ultimately good for our nation.”
That same year, Farrakhan traveled to Libya and received Gaddafi’s International Prize for Human Rights, a $250,000 “honor” also bestowed on the likes of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega and “the children of Palestine.”
According to reports from Libya’s news agency in 1996, the Farrakhan-Gaddafi alliance was aimed at mobilizing “oppressed blacks, Arabs, Muslims and Red Indians” in the United States to help reshape U.S. foreign policy. Until he allied himself with Farrakhan, Gaddafi reportedly characterized Libyan foreign policy as a “confrontation with America” he likened to “a fight against a fortress from outside.”
But once he asserted his alliance with Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, Gaddafi claimed to have “a breach to enter into this fortress and confront it.”
You have to wonder whether the Libyan stongman is really your friend when he describes you and your "ministry" as his very own Trojan horse.
Move-on-Up.org is a nation-wide network of black Americans working to bring conservative principals to the African American community. The video above poses the question: "Are these our values?" and contrasts the statements of prominent blacks with the traditional values of most black Americans. From the YouTube discription:
This is the first in a series of videos based on Move-on-Up.org's founding principles:
Renewing our Economy - Our goal is to empower the African American people by expanding employment and entrepreneurial opportunities.
Health Care Reform - Health care is a personal issue, and informed individuals can make better decisions about their own care than government.
Securing our Borders - We need to gain control of our borders and enforce our immigration laws while encouraging legal immigrants who come seeking the American Dream.
Education - Education, while a national priority, is a local responsibility. We believe that parents, teachers, and local school boards are the key to true education reform -- not big government. We support school choice initiatives such as vouchers, charters schools and homeschooling.
Strengthening our Families - We uphold and respect traditional institutions such as marriage between a man and a woman. We are committed to protecting the life of innocents from conception through the infirmities of age. This value must be nurtured in both our culture and our laws.
Our mission is simple: We will connect the 10% of Black Americans who are voting conservatives, and together we will increase our numbers to affect positive, life affirming outcomes in the Black Community and our nation at large.
Ed Martin wins in a close one. I haven't seen any polling, so this is little more than betting on your favorite team to win.
For the past decade or three, only 1 in 10 blacks have voted Republican. I think that will change Tuesday. My conservative estimate (based on a PJTV poll) is 1 in 4 blacks will vote Republican. This will be the news story Tuesday evening and will cause significant problems for the Democrats over the next two years. Depending on where that 25% is distributed—it wont be evenly distributed and I think there will be areas of Georgia where Republicans get 33% or more of the black vote—depending on the distribution, Republicans may pick up some seats in close districts. Missouri's Third Congressional District (Ed Martin vs Russ Carnahan) might be one of them. About 9% of MO-3's population is black.
As I've said before, I don't think the GOP has done a very good job courting the African American vote. The establishment changes slowly, but if Republicans net 25%+ of the black vote on Tuesday, the Republican Party will notice and, hopefully, change faster.
Here are a couple of videos I've put together for fellow conservatives who happen to be black. The simple message is: "We want your vote. Vote Republican."
Republican candidates of all races need and want blacks to vote for them. The video above intertwines photos of a few black Republicans from our country's history, with is of the fourteen black men and women who are seeking election to Congress this coming Tuesday. On one level, this video is a repudiation of President Barack Obama's statement: "They're counting on young people staying home and union members staying home and black folks staying home." But the real aim is to inspire blacks to leave behind a Democrat party that has failed them and "vote republican for the very first time."
Update 2: In addition to Kevin's suggestion, I got some good feedback from Chris who wrote in part: "I love it except for the references to Frederick Douglas and Black's history with the Republican Party. The Republican brand is in the tank when it comes to African Americans and it's been like that for a long time - and will continue to be in my opinion." In response, I've posted Take 3 above. This version does not include any of the historical figures. The second version is online here.
The thing I struggle most with in producing a video like this is knowing what to cut out. I always start with a basic concept. In this case, that concept was sketched out on October 1st in National Review and two days later at RealClearPolitics. The video earlier this month of Obama saying that Republicans are counting on blacks staying home, really annoyed me because I'm counting on Republican candidates winning over blacks. As you can see, the "basic concept" is really multiple concepts that may be inter-related. The hard part is boiling that all down into (ideally) 60 seconds.
Chris's comment reminded me of two things. First, the weekend before an election, no one wants a history lesson. And, second, ironically, a history lesson about Tip O'Neill's only defeat:
[Tip O'Neill] ran for and lost by 150 votes election as North Cambridge city councilman, his only political defeat. Before the vote he was surprised when longtime neighbor Mrs. O’Brien said: Tom (he was called Tom at home), I will vote for you, even though you did not ask for my support.
Stunned, O’Neill said, “Mrs. O’Brien, I have lived across the street from you for 18 years, have cut your grass summers and shoveled snow from your walks winters. I didn’t think I needed to ask for your vote. Mrs. O’Brien said, “Let me tell you something, Tom–people like to be asked.”
O’Neill took this lesson to heart, the origin of his oft-repeated maxim he made famous: “All politics is local.” Tip learned early that a politician serves at the pleasure of his constituents; that voters have names, faces, minds, and opinions; that they have problems they want your help on; and that they expect you to ask for their vote. (Editorial 1995, Nolan 1994)
The video above hits this point harder than the prior two. I removed the history lesson and adjusted the score.
BTW, if you want the elephant I created for the video, you can download a black and white JPEG or SVG (Adobe Illustrator) version. Feel free to print up some flyers to handout to friends and family asking them to vote Republican! I've created flyers/business cards that you could hand-out at polling places (observing all local laws, of course). You could either tailor this MS-Word version to the races in your district or you could use the generic "vote conservative/vote republican" message on this PDF version.
This past Friday, Judge Rod Chapel issued his opinion in the case of Peace of Mind Adult Day Care Center vs. Department of Social Services (DSS), MO HealthNet Division, and Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS). His ruling excoriates those three bureaucracies for institutional racism. His full opinion is below.
Stephanie Patton, an African-American woman, opened Peace of Mind Adult Day Care in 1993. It was the first adult day care in the Show Me State to specifically cater to African-Americans. Most of Stephanie's clients are poor, so much of her funding came from Medicaid. She was driven out of business in 2009 by the combined forces of DSS, HealthNet, and DHSS. This entrepreneur employed ten people and the DHSS shut her down in the middle of a recession.
I spoke with Stephanie Saturday evening about the past two years.
In October of 2008, DHSS inspectors Cassie Blum and Sharon Buckner conducted a surprise inspection of Peace of Mind. During the inspection Blum asked Stephanie not to accompany them. The procedure during inspections is for someone from the day care facility to accompany the inspector(s). Blum asked Stephanie to not accompany them, but Stephanie insisted. The disagreement devolved from there. Blum called Stephanie the n-word, struck Stephanie, and ultimately called the police on her. When Stephanie asked one of the responding officers why Blum had been so out of line, he told her that he didn't know and added that it "seemed like [Blum] was out to get you."
Judge Chapel agreed. Here's what he wrote [emphasis added]:
Patton testified that Blum called her a "nigger" and said she was illiterate during the October 16, 2008 inspection. We consider this as a claim that DHSS's actions were the result of a racially discriminatory animus and that DHSS's actions deprived Patton of due process and equal protection of the laws, in violation of U.S. Const. amend. 5, 14 and 15, and Mo. Const. art. I, §§ 2 and 10.
The rest of Chapel's ruling reads like a 2x4 to the head, but we first have to return to Stephanie to understand the ramifications that her run-in with Blum would have.
Peace of Mind was operating on Olive in University City. Stephanie had moved her family out to Chesterfield a few years earlier. Her run-in with DHSS was about to get worse. In December of 2008, inspectors Niekamp and Shelly Williamson arrived for another surprise inspection. In their report, the inspectors noted that Peace of Mind did not have a nurse on duty; however, two nurses were present and on duty during the inspection. Apparently, the inspectors never asked if there were any nurses on duty.
License issues quickly ensued for Stephanie and Peace of Mind Day Care as a result of the false report. The net result of those licensing issues was that Peace of Mind was unable to get Medicaid funding.
By April of 2009 Peace of Mind was out of business. In June of 2009 Stephanie was trying to sell her house to raise money to pay a lawyer. She was worrying that she wouldn't have money to feed her children. One day, while showing the house to a potential buyer, two lawyers from MO Attorney General Chris Koster's office arrived at her residence. They gave her a large folder of documents and told her, in front of the potential buyer, that they were charging her with half a million dollars of Medicaid fraud ($487,462.08 to be exact).
This was devastating. Stephanie's home went into foreclosure, she had to sell her car, and she suffered severe depression. As Judge Chapel notes:
At the time of the hearing, [Stephanie] was emotionally distraught, but otherwise was able to testify.
While discussing the trial with Stephanie, I learned that the court reporter was so moved by what she heard that she too was crying during the testimony. The collapse of the business and with it Stephanie's life was precipitated by the false report that there wasn't a nurse on duty. As Judge Chapel notes [emphasis added]:
We have found that Peace of Mind had a nurse on duty at all times. There is not a basis for sanctions under Regulation 13 CSR 70-3.030(3)(A) 12.
DSS argues that Peace of Mind failed to maintain a license, as required for participation in the MO HealthNet program. DHSS granted a provisional license for a social model to Peace of Mind for a limited time. We have found that Peace of Mind had a nurse on duty; thus, there was no reason not to continue Peace of Mind's license as a medical model. We find no basis for sanctions under Regulation 13 CSR 70-3.030(3)(A)13 for failure to meet program requirements, such as licensure.
The judge also ruled that because Stephanie did not have any prior sanctions from DHSS, going after her for $487,462.08 of Medicaid fraud was not justified. He noted that DHSS never required provider education or other available remedies. With 15+ years of service, they decided to throw the book at her. From the ruling:
We also conclude that the sanction of termination of Peace of Mind's status as a MO
HealthNet provider was not warranted. There has been no allegation or showing that Peace of
Mind provided substandard services, committed any fraud, or failed to perform any service for
which she received payment.
...
We conclude that Peace of Mind is not subject to MO HealthNet sanctions.
As Peace of Mind was dealing with licensing issues in late 2008 and early 2009, they were still caring for patients. However, their Medicaid claims to the tune of $45,340 were denied. Without revenue to pay her operating costs, Stephanie had no choice but to wind down her business. The closing summary of ruling provides:
[Stephanie] is entitled to payment of$45,340 for services rendered from December 20, 2008,
through February 20, 2009.
During her ordeal, Stephanie reached out to leaders in Jefferson City, MO. She said that the Missouri Legislative Black Caucus was unresponsive. Jay Nixon did not return her calls. Margaret Donnelly Director of DHSS was unresponsive. Interestingly, Donnelly represented Stephanie before Stephanie moved to Chesterfield. Cole McNary, her current state rep, took the time to hear her story, was instrumental in setting up meetings, and sent a supportive letter to Judge Chapel.
Stephanie also reached out for support to friends and family. One of those friends is Jacque Ehrlich (the Missouri state chairmom for AsAMom.org). Jacque provided both moral and professional support including testifying on Stephanie's behalf. Stephanie was never able to raise money for a lawyer. As a paralegal, Jacque was able to provide some advice; however, Stephanie represented herself in court. She took on the system and their lawyers and with God's help she prevailed. While talking about her ordeal, the most poignant moment was when she told me: "I thank God for this affliction."
Congratulations to the editors at the Washington Post. Seventeen months after the Eric Holder Justice Department dismissed a slam-dunk case against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation, the Post gets around to printing a thorough vetting of the dismissal. The story is slated for Saturday’s print edition. While other media like Breitbart/The Bigs, Fox News, the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Investors Business Daily, Pajamas Media, and Drudge have had dozens of stories on the corrupt New Black Panther dismissal, the Washington Post at last is in the game.
The story is a shocker too. The shock comes from the middle of the road and factual nature of the story.
The NAACP has commissioned the report below. The St. Louis Tea Party is mentioned a couple of times. Here are the quotes and my $.02:
The St. Louis Tea Party passed a resolution which included language that: “The very term
‘racist’ has diminished meaning due to its overuse by political partisans including members of
the NAACP.”
Yup. That seems about right. And then there's this:
Further, almost three-quarters of Tea Party supporters (73%), told pollsters that government programs aimed at providing a social safety net for poor people actually encourages them to remain poor. In fact, more than a bit of anecdotal evidence shows hostility and resentment
towards the poor and the programs designed to help them. Hence, the signs such as one at an
early St. Louis Tea Party that read: “Honk if I am paying your mortgage.” Not every Tea party
supporter exhibited such feelings, certainly, but enough of it showed up in opinion polls to give
credence to the description of Tea Parties as mean-spirited.
Oddly, there's no mention of the St. Louis Tea Party's support of Circle of Concern and Operation Food Search. That's what we call selective reporting. Conservatives do resent the rampant vote buying with social programs and the fraud in the system that goes unaudited. The left would never ignore a conflict of interest between monied corporate interests and the voters, so why do they ignore the conflict of interest between public largess and the welfare recipients that receive it?
I have long thought that Congress should require all public buildings and other structures named for someone who was once a member of the Klan to be re-named in honor of notable American blacks.
During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that 'some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion.'
'Ironically, I've got a Chief of Staff named Rahm Israel Emmanuel. My top political advisor is somebody who is a descendent of Holocaust survivors. My closeness to the Jewish American community was probably what propelled me to the U.S. Senate,' Obama said.
That exchange sounds racially tone-deaf. It's not racist, but it's clear that President Obama thinks of Jews and Israelis as The Other and that means that this "Lightworker" may have taken leave of his own transcendence.
Instapundit has links to Roger Simon ("So what’s the deal with this clinging to racism – or racial accusations – on the part of some liberals? Well, I think it reflects a significant and growing insecurity that they are no longer the cool guys.") and Dan Riehl:
I’d bet money that were Zernike to hear similar rhetoric with the same dialect from a friend or colleague, she wouldn’t give it a second thought, let alone mis-characterize it as racist. One way or another, that is what they do to all of us on the Right. And whether they do it intentionally, or not, doesn’t matter. We can’t allow them to keep getting away with it.
And what if citizens left, right, and center realize that racial reconciliation will not come from a benighted leader, but that a step toward a more perfect union can be taken by we the people?
Years ago we were segregated by law. Today we are segregated by our choices—where to live, where to go to school, where to worship, who to spend our free time with. But, there is one thing which unites us: we are the American race. We need to crowdsource racial reconciliation because we all have contributions to make. The first contribution is to self identify to pollsters and the census as "American".
Over many years, probably decades, the data collected will show which communities have trended from racial animosity towards a united American identity and which haven't. At that point we will learn what drives racial reconciliation and what stymies it. What we take away from this racial introspection will drive policy, lifestyle, religious, and charitable decisions and take us, yes, imperfectly, toward that more perfect union.
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. — Mark 9:47
Fifty years ago we were segregated by law. Today, we're segregated by our own choices. We strive for unity, yet we have not found a means to achieve it. We have not grasped that which is common among us. That bit of shared humanity that will allow us to unify.
That shared humanity will not be discovered in the Ivory Tower and delivered in a lecture to the masses. It will not proceed from the minutes of a corporate board meeting to the shelves of Walmart. Government agencies will not dispatch bureaucrats to implement it. And it will certainly not be delivered from Washington by a president promising unity. Racial harmony requires a commitment from all of us to a common principal.
That principal, has a name: American. American is the shared identity that can unify us. One facet of being American is respecting the differences among the races and cultures that have joined in this great melting pot: E pluribus unum. That will always be foundational to what it means to be American. At its core, American is the pigment of the color-blind society and the scale by which the content of our character is measured.
Each of us must choose to be American. That is what is common among us. That is what can unite us at this time. The American race is not defined by skin color or genetics, but by shared values like liberty and tolerance. The American race is here, but we are unaware of its arrival.
We have been trained to think of American as a culture and to look at our skin to determine our race. But a color-blind society demands that we ignore one another's skin color and, to the degree we are able, our own. Each of us does this when we indicate our race: American.
What I'm saying is that each of us should take this simple step: on the upcoming census and when answering a pollster tell them your race: American. Here's why. As more and more of us self-identify as American, our collective awareness of the American race will increase. First pollsters and later the census will reveal which cities and towns are trending either toward or away from American. This will lead to introspection and we will learn over the years what it is that helps to build and break unity. Today, we learn of racial strife in our neighborhoods when a crime has been committed. Perhaps tomorrow we can find reconciliation before a crime is even contemplated.
In a much longer piece about his political disaffection, Dr. Kelley Ross, a former Libertarian candidate for office in California, debunks pro-secession libertarians:
One thus commonly finds libertarians, like Walter Williams again, holding that the Southern States had a perfect right to leave the Union, that the Civil War was an act of tyranny, and that the 600,000+ deaths of the War made Abraham Lincoln one of the great mass murderers of history (a favorite accusation of paleoconservative columnist Joseph Sobran). There is a certain logic to this, if one begins with the premise that government is a kind of "contract at will" from which any party can exit at any time for any reason. This, however, is not quite what the Declaration of Independence says:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing that Forms to which they are accustomed.
So exactly what "Evils" were being suffered by the Southern States that moved them to leave the Union? Well, the threat of the Abolition of Slavery. As Ulysses S. Grant said, this in fact was "one of the worse causes ever." The evils were being practiced by the Slave States, not suffered by them; and they wished to leave the Union in order to continue practicing their evils without opposition. This being the case, the libertarian arguments in relation to Southern Secession try to ignore slavery in favor of other motives, like protective tariffs, for secession....
Although Lincoln was an heir to Whigs and Federalists, and the defeat of secession did remove one of the threats that helped keep the Federal Government within its Constitutional limitations, the Civil War involved a noble cause and, especially through the Civil War Amendments (13th, 14th, & 15th), improved the Constitution. Focusing on the supposed evils of the Union cause, and ignoring that the cause was to abolish one of the greatest evils in history, slavery, not only conveys a message of perversity and moral confusion but, again, like the conspiracy theories, distracts attention from its proper focus, namely the outright destruction of Constutional government in letter and spirit by the New Deal. Franklin Roosevelt, despite building the Jefferson Memorial and putting Jefferson on the nickel, completely overthrew the Jeffersonian understanding of American government -- replacing it with the ideas, like unlimited Federal spending, that had been advocated by Jefferson's greatest enemy, the Federalist Alexander Hamilton. The New Deal undid the Jeffersonian revolution of 1800 and lodged a cancer in American government. The disease has grown steadily ever since.
Dana Loesch has a new post at blogher.com On Notre Dame and Life. While I agree with Dana throughout the piece, I think she let's her outrage get the better of her on the abortion debate. Here's part of what she wrote:
When President Obama said that we must find common ground I cringed a bit. This isn't Cap and Trade, it isn't an economic principle, it's not an opinion that either side holds; to find common ground one must back off a fundamental principle of what they believe.“The problem here is that we’re trivializing abortion,” said Rev. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life. It doesn't just trivialize abortion, it also trivializes the beliefs of either side to assume that they can just lay down fundamental beliefs for the sake of false political harmony.
I agree with the president that we should work together to find common ground on this issue. Perhaps I have a unique view, but I do not believe that we need to cede any ground as we work together with President Obama.
My first suggestion is that we strive for gender equity in abortion. This can be achieved by introducing legislation that makes gender selective abortions illegal. So, which is it Mr. President? Does a pregnant woman have the right to abort her boy babes or do you stand for gender equity?
Second, over 35% of abortions in the US are performed for black mothers while African Americans compose only about 13% of the population. Clearly, abortion dispropotionately effects the African American community. At the local and state level, zoning laws could be used to limit the number of abortion facilities in predominately black neighborhoods. While I do not support racial quotas, that shouldn't stop President Obama from voicing his support for legislation that places firm racial quotas on abortion. Surely, he wants to do whatever he can to end the Black Genocide (warning: some photos on that site are graphic).
As conservatives settle into their diminished role they need to articulate persuasive arguments that further their agenda. This means smaller, hopefully more achievable, goals. By chipping away at abortion with focused attacks on its more offensive aspects, we broaden our appeal. Confronting the appalling racial statistics of abortion will demonstrate leadership on a little known "social justice" issue. That in turn will burnish our brand.
President Obama has made a couple of hollow offers (yes, I doubt the sincerity of his search for "common ground" and his promise to sit down with Tea Partiers); however, by engaging those offers we are able to descern his true motives. If a bill is introduced in Congress to reduce the number of minority abortions, he's going to be asked about it. Michelle will also be asked. Maybe it will even pass.
Shelby Steele has an excellent article in the LA Times today. When reading that piece I got a sense of wistful sadness about race in America. You can see what I mean in the first couple of lines:
For the first time in human history, a largely white nation has elected a black man to be its paramount leader. And the cultural meaning of this unprecedented convergence of dark skin and ultimate power will likely become -- at least for a time -- a national obsession.
The same sense of despondence appears later:
The torture of racial conflict in America periodically spits up a new faith that idealism can help us "overcome" -- America's favorite racial word.
In my essay last week, American Awakening, I outline a couple of steps on America's long racial sojourn. Those steps will not "overcome" the issue, but they will inform our discussion.
Tea Party Conservative who began blogging at http://RebootCongress.NET when TARP passed. Email me: contact@RebootCongress.net. Help support my work: Donate Bitcoins
, went to the New Black Panther Party's Day of Action and Unity, April 23rd, 2011. He found some common ground with the folks he met there, but there are some significant policy differences too.
Posts
