Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Is it 1912 or 2012? A Rally Cry for Black Conservatives

When slavery ended in the United States there was a party that was very angry, upset, and terrified of what would happen if all men were created equal, treated fairly, and had the ability to pursue their own happiness free from tyranny. This party was the Democratic Party. The party that did not want Native Americans to be free, so their President, Andrew Jackson, sent them on a trail of tears and watched thousands of them parish as they were stripped from their natural rights as human beings. The party that didn’t believe in state rights and therefore fought to ensure states could not decide for themselves if they wanted to return men and woman that escaped the south for freedom. Yes, even this same party in the 20th century during WWII sent other minorities to camps in the name of “national security” simply because they didn’t look right. This same party, after the civil war, fought long and hard to ensure the progress made by the Republican Party in collaboration with the Freeman’s Bureau would be wiped out and forever forgotten. How did they do this? Well in the years after the civil war, black Americans were making great progress---without special government accommodations. We elected representatives---black men once slaves were now representing whole states; college and universities were developed, schools built, and free markets opened to allow former slaves—with great skills from agriculture, machinery, etc. to acquire their own wealth and take care of their own families; and legislation was introduced to help black families obtain land—but the Democratic party made sure that couldn’t happen.
Using the same violent tactics the left uses today, the democrats of the 19th century began rioting, terrorizing black families (and white families that were Republicans), destroying businesses and making threats.  The GOP, which sadly still bends over to this day when these tactics are used, decided to pull out of the south in the name of “peace,” and what came of this? The KKK. The KKK was THE original terrorist organization---the ORIGINAL organization that was 100% sponsored by the state---the Democratic Party. See, blacks were starting to get out of place: they were not victimized by slavery, but victors in their struggle: they were the people of our nation that understood more than anyone the importance of individual liberty, the value and meaning of our constitution, and the importance of property rights, human dignity, and value for ones labor. This of course, like today, scared the Democratic Party. But they no longer controlled the plantations, so they had to find a new way to control blacks—fear.  

When fear didn’t work they turned to humiliation—they had to find a way to break the pride, workmanship, integrity, and strength of black people---enter Jim Crow, the Democratic Governors, and of course, the left’s appointment of former KKK members to the United States Supreme Court (the left’s favorite president, FDR).  Colored and white water fountains, segregation on buses, unions refusing to promote black employees, prohibiting black boys and girls from attending school (the DEMOCRATIC Teacher’s Union recently did this to black boys in Milwaukee, opposing a new charter school. Now, black boys are still forced to attend failing school where over 40% of the children fail)—all part of the Democratic Party’s strategy to “keep them in their place.” (oh, and don’t forget the bombs in black churches and school houses). 

When it became politically incorrect to wear a white sheet over your head and take pictures with you and your kids standing next to a black man hung from a tree because a white woman accused him of rape, they turned to a new tactic: progressivism. Instead of trying to control and enslave people directly, and instead of trying to terrify them into compliance, they turned to inward destruction—victimization. Everyone knows that the biggest factor for ones success in this country is your mental mindset: convince a whole group of people they are victims and you don’t have to worry about them getting uppity and wanting better for themselves; keep telling a people they are incapable of achieving success because the system is against them and you never have to worry about them trying to actually succeed.  (This is much cleaner and less work then lynching a man or building a cross and posting it on his front lawn).  

The rules of the plantation are the same rules of victimization: get other people to do the dirty work. See, on the plantation, many times the owner never interacted with slaves—he had an overseer. Today the Progressive arm of the Democratic Party has overseers—the black liberal elite.  It is such a better PR game to hear a black man run his mouth about racism and white guilt than it is for a white limousine liberal to address these issues. This is a much better strategy than having a white person do it—and much better than the whole burning crosses thing.  Who are these overseers? These black overseers of the modern day plantation have been around for over a century.  As Booker T. Washington (what the left would call the original sell-out) once said of the black liberal elite:

There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs – partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.” --Booker T. Washington. 

Today we call them “race pimps” or “poverty pimps” or “The Congressional Black Caucus” or just simply  Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton.  Although the physical plantation is gone, the KKK is seen by a majority of Americans as an absolute joke, and the thought of separate accommodations based on skin color just strikes 99% of us as silly; the left is still hard at work doing whatever it can to get us black folk (especially conservative blacks) “back in line” and the consequences of stepping out of line—lynchings from trees or water hoses---now turns into smears, personal attacks, and character assassination of hating one’s race or my favorite, “pandering to the white man”—just ask Herman Cain. 

So to my conservative friends, especially the minorities (I thought the left would like it I referred to you all as “minorities” and not individuals), this is nothing new.  The black conservative of today may not be facing a lynching, but his treatment is just as disgusting. Unlike many, the black conservative is one of the few willing to sacrifice themselves for all of us to be free.  Like our ancestors before us, we can either live free or die trying—there is no compromising.  

I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.”Harriett Tubman

Thursday, August 25, 2011

The Void in the Abortion Debate

The 2012 elections have produced two ideologies: That which economics and social issues are separate and that which believes our social policies are paramount to fixing our fiscal problems. I am with the latter group; I believe our social policy is a direct reflection of our moral void in American culture and as a result, a direct link to our fiscal woos. But what are the left, right and center doing about it? The left for example, is all about the social policy; from welfare to entitlements to housing they claim to have the social policy arena in the bag. The right on the other hand, we tend to only focus on economic issues—unless of course it is gay marriage or abortion, then we are all over the social policy platform.
This is a huge mistake. Separating social issues from fiscal issues only adds to our problems, it doesn’t address them and it surely does not resolve them.  If the GOP wants to win 2012, and more importantly get America back to our moral values of hard work, personal responsibility, and love of country, we have to take a stand on social issues (and not just cater to certain sects on religious grounds when needed for an election).  If the GOP wants to win, they are going to have to develop more than just bumper sticker slogans and actually develop some comprehensive policies if they ever want to be taken seriously in the national social policy arena.
Abortion is a perfect example of a major void in social policy. I bring up abortion because a majority of the GOP Presidential contenders describe themselves as “pro-life” but none of them have yet to articulate how they would implement a “pro-life” agenda.  As a Constitutional Conservative this terrifies me.
 Both sides are quick to produce slogans, “keep your hands off my ovaries” and “abortion is murder” but neither side actually takes the time to develop a comprehensive strategy; and the consequences of half-assing this important issue are devastating regardless of where you stand. As a Constitutional Conservative, I strongly believe our social and fiscal matters are intertwined, and if the GOP is smart, it will actually tackle these issues head on. 
The following is my analysis of the abortion debate and what I would propose to address the abortion symptom in our nation. I don’t expect many people to praise this—in fact I am assuming since this is such an emotional issue I will more likely get insults and maybe a threat or two—but at least I am attempting to do SOMETHING.  My purpose in writing this article isn’t to have heated debates and arguments over abortion, but to force all of us to look deeper into this issue, address the real problems, and develop a comprehensive strategy that will not only end the practice of abortion, but eliminate the causes and reasons many women choose to have them. This may seem like a radical idea, and I apologize that my policy can’t fit on a bumper sticker or your status update on facebook, but there is a void in our abortion policy and it must be addressed sooner or later.
The Constitutional Conservatives Concern over the Abortion Issue
As a constitutional conservative, I base my public policy positions first and foremost on the United States Constitution--not religion. I know we are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values, but we are not a theocracy and our public policy can’t be based solely on the bible. When it comes to the peculiar institution of abortion, I look at it specifically from a Constitutional perspective and my fear of government control.  Unlike many “pro-lifers,” I don’t see abortion as a problem, but a symptom of a greater problem. In fact, I see most of our issues in this country, from our economy, finances, and entitlement programs the direct result of our severe moral void in American culture today.
The Pro-life sect of our society, in my opinion, has the right moral argument on abortion, but has failed to produce any comprehensive policy to address the abortion symptom and does not do a good job of articulating why it is constitutional for the federal government to control this aspect of society but not our health care system, our business decisions, or anything else politicians feels they have a “moral” obligation to control.
Yes, I hear the same line from the pro-life sect of our nation: “The Declaration says “life” and it is the government’s job to protect it.” I also hear scripture to “prove’ they are correct on “when life begins.” That may be all true and accurate—but is it Constitutional? And if so, how exactly will this “pro life” policy be implemented? What are the unintended consequences? If the federal government controls this, then what does this mean about the limits of federal power? Are their limits? These are the questions I ask myself as a Constitutional Conservative. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and my biggest concern from the pro-life right is that our greatest fears may come true: a federal government with ultimate control over every aspect of our lives.
The left is no better. They stand proud defending “woman’s rights” but are quick to dismiss all our natural rights when it comes to taking more of our money, mandating we enter into private health care contracts, robbing our grandchildren of any possibility of wealth creation, and forcing our children to attend failing schools. When it comes to abortion, the left may have the “realistic argument” but it does not have the moral argument, and their current policy—or lack thereof is anything but logical. With all the supposed “good intentions” the left sadly, has also forgotten that with every “right” comes responsibility and with “equality” also comes accountability---but you can’t fit that on a bumper sticker now can you?
Let’s Keep It Real About Abortions
The truth is, for many women, abortion has turned into another form of birth control. The vast majority of abortions are not performed on poor, victimized women that were forced into a situation. For the most part, these are women with brains and the ability to keep their legs closed but chose to enjoy a few minutes of sexual gratification without condoms or birth control knowing full-well the consequences of their behavior. These are women who choose to sleep with men they know are not ready to be fathers. Women that make bad choices and then instead of taking responsibility for them run to a clinic in the name of their “right” to do what they will with their bodies.  Simply put, these are women that have decided to act like the “deadbeat” dads of our society—only they neglect their child all together by destroying it.
Now of course there are exceptions to every rule. For instance, there are women that are forced to have abortions because their health is in danger (either an ectopic pregnancy or some other health risk outside of their control) or were victims of rape or incest, but for the most part, sadly, it is women behaving badly.
The Women’s Movement: Void in Responsibility
Now before I start in on the “women’s movement’ let me first say “thank you.” Yes, I am appreciative of all the women before me who took a stand to ensure I could vote (my grandmother was born before she had this right), dream, accomplish my goals, and make a difference in the lives of women all over the world. 
But the women’s movement also did women a huge disservice—in the fight to prove we were “equal to men” we forgot one small thing: we aren’t equal to men—especially in the reproductive field. Regardless of what Constitutional protections of equality we have, women and men are not equal—and we can never be equal. Women still have the ultimate ability to plan when to have children, how many children to have, and in today’s society, the ultimate “choice” to keep or terminate their pregnancy. But missing in these new “rights” were our responsibilities to our bodies and our responsibilities as sacred carriers of life.  
At the end of the day the decision to have children should only be my choice and I salute the women before me that ensured I could tell my husband “no” and have full autonomy over my body.  But there is one thing the women’s movement has neglected, and something women of today must call each other out on: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!
I think we can all agree that the staggering number of abortions has proven one thing: the feminist movement has taken all personal responsibility and accountability away from women. Women today are schizophrenic when it comes to our place in public policy; we want the “rights” of men, but we don’t feel we need to be held personally accountable for our reproductive system—for some reason; we revert back to victims who are too dumb, weak, pathetic, or powerless to say, “I will not have sex because I am not in a position to take care of myself and my child.”
As a person in the federal policy arena, I can tell you, the words “personal accountability” when talking about women and abortion are usually met with evil stares---as if I just said women should be burned at the stake or something. Interestingly, these same women that are offended by the words “accountability” have no problem attacking men for being deadbeat fathers, pushing for legislation that rewards irresponsible women but punishes irresponsible men, and seem to have no problem clinging on to their ovaries when it comes to abortion, but are quick to dismiss their ovaries when the issue of fatherlessness , poverty, or welfare reform is mentioned.
Our country loves talking about our “rights.” Our rights as minorities, rights as women, rights as illegal’s (yes, we are now at a point in our political history where those that break the law and have no rights magically have rights just because they say they do, but that is a whole new topic) but what about the second part of that?
 I remember growing up in my grandfather’s home, for every new “right” I obtained I got a huge list of responsibilities added to the mix (which sometimes made me question if I really wanted this new “right” to begin with). For example, when I turned 16 and got my driver’s license, I now had a “right” to drive. But as my grandfather pointed out (and reminded me on a daily basis) I also had a responsibility to my fellow drivers, the rule of law, and of course, my grandfather’s car. The day I got in that car for the first time without parental supervision I thought I was free, but then my grandfather reminded me that I had to return the car with the same amount of gas in it, I had to clean the car after every use, and I had to pay for my part of the insurance---all of a sudden having a “right” to drive wasn’t so freeing as I once thought it was. Even when I bought my own car, I still was not completely “free.” I still had to follow the rules of the road, not drink and drive, and of course, I couldn’t be on my cell phone gossiping with my girlfriends while behind the wheel.  Who knew?
Where is this sense of responsibility with today’s women in regards to our reproductive system? All of our women’s groups fought to ensure birth control is covered “for free” under ObamaCare, but still have not connected the dots on how offering free birth control makes women personally accountable for their bodies. (My argument being if birth control is covered for free now, then why on earth are abortions—except in cases of rape or health of the mother—still legal?) Now that women have full, “free” access to contraceptives, what is the excuse now for aborting a baby because you are not ready to have children? It is a shame NOW has not addressed this issue, and instead distract with cries of racism, sexism or victimization (i.e., the liberal playbook).
The Pro-Life Void
But the Social Conservatives are just as void.  For instance, most conservatives that are pro-life are also dead-set against welfare programs, housing subsidies, and subsidized child care. What the pro-life sect fails to understand—or they just ignore—are the fact these children are by definition unwanted and therefore someone must step up and take care of them.
When confronted with this problem, I usually get this response: “People need to be responsible for their children.” I agree with you—hence why I don’t have them yet; but the majority of our population is no longer “accountable” for anything—abortion is just the most in-your-face example of this.  For instance, we now have insurance companies mandated (by the federal government, of course) to cover the health care of 26 year old “children” on their parents insurance; we have 50% of the population paying 0% in federal taxes but receiving earned income tax credits and utilizing any and all government programs they can get their hands on without paying a dime towards them. We have families expecting the government to take care of their elderly parents, teach their children, and give them homes---no personal accountability there either.
So what is the solution? Is the pro-life community really leaving the abortion debate at “be responsible” and “no exceptions, even if you are going to die.”   There has got to be more than that.  What social services is the pro-life wing developing if Roe v. Wade is overturned? We can’t have more unwanted children in our current family law systems or our foster home systems. (For those of you not aware, these systems are a disgrace); and we can’t have raped victims forced (again) against their will (again) to go through with something they never asked for simply because a few people believe they are morally superior. But sadly, the pro-life sector hasn’t even had this conversation—they’ve left the accountability for taking care of life outside of the womb strictly in the hands of the very people that don’t respect life while it’s in the womb! And what are the consequences if the pro-life sect wins this fight with no comprehensive strategy? Well, it will be just as morally void as it is now, but instead of a void in personal accountability we will have a void of what to do with a bunch of unwanted (by definition) children in our society; the direct result of those that cared so much about these lives while in the womb, but don’t want to have their taxes raised to take care of them OUTSIDE of the womb!
The Pro-Life Void: How Far Does Your Abortion Policy Reach?
Many pro-life conservatives—just like many of the GOP Presidential contenders (except Pawlenty that did have this exception but is no longer in the race) have one general policy they would apply to all women regardless of the situation: too bad, have the baby. They make no exception for rape or when the woman’s health is in danger or even if the child is diagnosed with a horrible, debilitating, painful disease. Meaning, the federal government would mandate which options are available for a patient and her doctor (sounds an awful lot like that “individual mandate” in ObamaCare so many on the right are angry about, doesn’t it?) .
How exactly would a “pro-life” policy work? That’s the problem, currently, there is no policy; it just stops at the baby being born. The pro-life sect doesn’t even address how we get through those nine months. If the woman wants an abortion and it is outlawed, what does the government do? Do they now have the right to keep her locked up for nine months to ensure she doesn’t hurt the baby? Does she get a trial or do all Due Process rights go out the window since it is a “moral” issue and they’ve won the moral argument?
What is the extent of the federal government’s power to make sure the woman follows through with giving birth? Is it just live births for women who want abortions, or can the federal government use this new power to lock up women that smoke or drink excessively since drinking can lead to miscarriage? Is the father locked up too since it takes two to make a baby? Is the federal government now a parent in these cases? Meaning, is the tax payer now on the hook to ensure the children brought into this world are cared for? And if they are abused or neglected who is held accountable?
These are important questions. Every time we give the government more power we have to worry about how far they will push it—because it is the government and they are always looking for a way to push it. We’ve already seen the government get involved in end-of-life decisions; do we really think the federal government involved in this issue will be any better?
The Comprehensive Abortion Policy
I believe abortion should be legal, but it should be severely limited. For example, abortions should only be allowed during the first trimester and only performed in cases of rape, the life of the mother, or for other medical reasons as determined by the woman and her doctor—not some federal bureaucrat at HHS.
But in my opinion, before we can just outlaw all abortions—or even outlaw abortions that have no gray area (those women that use abortion as birth control) we must first develop a long-term strategy to address the entitlement/lack of personal accountability problem we have in this country. Why? Well this isn’t the 1970’s anymore.  The morals we held forty years ago we don’t have today.
If Roe was overturned tomorrow, I would establish a policy that outlaws the practice severely except in cases of rape/health in ten years. This would give us time to address the real problems that lead to abortions while also giving us time to revamp our social welfare programs to ensure these unwanted children brought into the world have not just a life, but a safe life where someone can love and care for them.
Prior to Roe, women were still having abortions, and some of these women died or were severely injured. I remember my mother telling me a story about one of her friends when she was at a private high school in New York. Her friend got pregnant. She was terrified to tell her parents and she felt trapped. My mother came home from school to find her friend in the bathtub bleeding between her legs with an iron hanger sticking out of her. She tried to terminate her pregnancy and almost lost her life.
Although there were relatively few numbers of these types of incidents, I believe these types of incidents will rise today if abortion is outlawed outright without a comprehensive policy for the simple fact that in the early 1970’s we still had some morality in this country. People still felt obligated to take responsibility for their lives, men still felt obligated to marry a woman if he got her pregnant—now the only thing we feel obligated to do is live in the moment, sacrifice nothing, and entitled to everything.  
The Abortion Policy
The fact is, women are sleeping with men they shouldn’t be sleeping with, and men aren’t doing what they should be doing: being men and taking care of their damn kids. Sadly, our government creates programs and policies that push men out of the picture and make it almost impossible for any father involved with “the system” to be involved in their children’s lives.
For example, take TANF and WIC. Although both programs are open to mothers and fathers, they are not marketed at all towards fathers and workers are even trained to tell mothers to NOT list the father’s name on the application for benefits so they can receive MORE benefits! It is truly a disgrace! Our federal government encourages father absentness—and until this policy is changed, you will continue to have either more children growing up without daddy in the home (which won’t help reduce abortions later down the road), or more abortions from women that feel they have no alternative.
The Void in Male Identity
And what about jobs? I hear every GOP candidate—as well as those on the left—complain about the lack of manufacturing jobs in this country. Well, there is a deeper issue here than jobs—there is also a VOID in the American male identity. How is a man supposed to take care of his family if he has obstacles in front of him at every turn specifically because of our current federal policies? For instance, look at our federal education policy. We continue to pour money into Title IX even when women are in higher education at double the rate of young men.
We ship “manly” jobs overseas and we spend more time ensuring women can do the jobs men do, but our country never took the time to ensure men still had jobs to go to.
How is a man supposed to be a man if he can’t be a man? A man with no job has no pride, and that lack of pride is reflected in our inner-cities and in our children growing up with no men in their lives. 
Conservatives would reduce the NEED for abortion if they focused on long-term policies that encourage father involvement and reform our family law systems that takes all accountability out of father’s hands (unless of course the legal matter is child support) and allows the mother, for the most part, to control the child’s relationship with their father.
Pro-lifers would do more for protecting the life of the unborn if they addressed the male identity void in our country. A woman’s right to choose has taken men completely out of the conversation. A man knows the moment he sleeps with a woman it doesn’t matter if he is a good man or not—will step up or not—it isn’t his decision, so why care at all? If you are held accountable for a baby only if the woman wants you to, well what does that produce? A lot of confused men! 
Our public school systems sex education curriculums are a perfect example: Boys are expected to take sex education, learn about condoms and birth control, but in the same breath they are told they have no say in the decision making process of keeping or terminating an unintended pregnancy.  What is this teaching our sons? What is this teaching our daughters?  It surely isn’t teaching both sides personal responsibility.
Quite frankly, men today have become completely irrelevant in all matters of society, and specifically reproduction. Men don’t have a say in the lives of their children because we don’t even expect them to be there. We support sperm banks where men become nothing more than donors, and then get mad at them when they act like—well donors! A man that is responsible and wants to be a real man has no rights or a voice in the matter at all---but best believe the state will come after him if the woman (who also made an irresponsible decision but now has sole power over whether to bring the child into the world) demands he pay for her choice to keep the baby. 
Void in Adoption Promotion
As stated above, the truth is, there are many women in this country that have abortions simply because they chose to put themselves in the situation and then feel they have a “right” to undo their bad choices by terminating their pregnancy. But there are also many women who feel trapped and feel it is more humane to terminate their pregnancy than to have their child grow up in “the system,” which many of these mothers know about because they’ve experienced it firsthand.  I spoke to one young woman that’s been in foster home after foster home; abused over and over again, and when she turned 18 was put on the street with no help our guidance from our government-run child welfare system. When she was 19 she became pregnant. She knew she could not care for her child, but the thought of having her baby and placing it in the system was too much for her. She compared her decision to have an abortion to the film Amistad: “Remember that scene when they are on the ship and the mother grabs her baby and then falls overboard? That’s how I felt. I’d rather have my baby with Jesus than in a foster home, that’s just cruel.”
Our current child welfare state is tragic—immoral to say the least. For instance, after aging out of foster care, 27% of males and 10% of females were incarcerated within 12 to 18 months. 50% were unemployed, 37% had not finished high school, 33% received public assistance, and 19% of females had given birth to children. Before leaving care, 47 percent were receiving some kind of counseling or medication for mental health problems; that number dropped to 21% after leaving care.[1] And this is supposed to be a “better” alternative?
How can we tell women to have their babies when the children we already have in our care (the governments care) are treated so poorly? What exactly is our plan to change “the system” so young people don’t feel abortion is the better alternative?
Our adoption procedures must be updated and we need to make it easier for mothers to find parents and parents to find children. But with all our new technology, from in vitro fertilization to sperm banks, we’ve made it harder and harder for children that are already here to find homes.
Until recently, more American families were adopting foreign babies than American babies.  Although this trend is changing and more Americans are now adopting American babies, this sadly has nothing to do with our domestic policy, but because of changes to China’s and Russia’s international adoption laws.
And when we put race in the mix the results are even more depressing.  For example, in the United States, Caucasians and Hispanics are consistently preferred to African-Americans in adoptions. The probability that a non-African-American baby will attract the interest of an adoptive parent is at least seven times as high as the corresponding probability for an African-American baby.[2] Sadly, the statistics are the same for same-sex couples who also prefer white babies over black.
So what are we doing about this? Years of “diversity” training and “cultural sensitivity” has yet to affect the racial disparities in adoptions.  
Well, here is my solution. No disrespect to people out there that want children, but why do we allow people to pick and choose a gender and race of their baby? Our adoption procedures should completely illuminate racial and gender categories and instead, only ensure children with special needs or abusive backgrounds are matched with families that can adequately take care and love these children.
Believe me, as a mixed woman (black to all of you that still follow this one-drop rule) I was raised by my white grandfather, and he loved me to pieces—and I loved him. Color was the last thing on both our minds. So why does a white family need a white baby? Or a black family needs a black baby? Most of us are mixed anyway—and the statistics show that more and more people are either marrying different races or could care less. So if people really want to be parents, well, be parents!
We also must update our adoption regulations. Of course it is still important to ensure people adopting children should be good people, but the amount of paperwork, length of time, and money that families must spend is ridiculous. A family that wants to bring a child into their home should be encouraged not discouraged by red tape and the runaround.
Void in Education Policy
Lastly, we all know our public education systems in this country MUST change. If a young person feels they are nothing, can contribute nothing, and are expected to be nothing, well guess what? They won’t be responsible for their bodies or their futures and won’t think twice about becoming pregnant or getting someone pregnant—at least then they are no longer nothing.
Although we are beginning to address this issue—calls for school choice, increased voucher programs, etc., there is still much more to do. Although education should mainly be a state issue, I do believe there should be some general national standards to ensure all children are held to high expectations and school districts receiving any federal aid whatsoever should in no way be able to produce children that can’t read, do basic math, or compete in the real world.  This of course, is a very complicated issue and is another in-your-face example of what happens when our morals are completely erased from society. Public school teachers are expected to be teacher, counselor, shrink, nurse, social worker, and parent and those that do a great job of it receive little or no recognition for their service because our teachers union care more about protecting the bad than defending the good.
There are multiple other social factors we can discuss to address the abortion symptom in our nation, but I think the four I named above are a pretty good start. At the end of the day, if a woman feels she has no other choice but to terminate her pregnancy than as a nation we’ve all failed. 
As crystal clear as the pro-life morality aspect of abortion is, morality alone does not address the constitutional, social, and real-life factors that affect the abortion issue. Both sides, in my opinion, do a great disservice to their cause by failing to admit the holes in their own policy and/or avoiding the complicated issues surrounding abortion altogether. For the GOP, the 2012 elections and beyond, I believe it is imperative we address all social issues head-on, and how we address them must come from something more than a few quoted texts or emotional bumper stickers.  Just as the left must come to terms with the personal accountability aspect of social policy, the GOP must come to terms that there is more going on in social policy than abortion and gay marriage, and they must understand that to adequately address these issues; they must actually address the real problems.

[1] “What are the Outcomes for Children in Foster Care?”

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

What Happened to the American Soul?

As the United States celebrated its 235th birthday on Monday I immersed myself in all the traditional activities: fireworks, grilling, the History Channel, watching the movie “Independence Day” and my own personal tradition, reading a book on a great American to remind me of our nations character and strength. This year, I re-read Frederick Douglass’ “My Bondage, My Freedom.” The first time I read the book I was eight years old and to my young mind, the book represented evil in its worse form: the brutalities of slavery, the moral void that plagued society. I can still remember the fear that struck through my young heart when I realized I was the same race as Douglass and only by the grace of God I was blessed to live and die (hopefully) free.  

Yet, something stronger than fear grasped me when I read his book. I also remember a strong sense of pride. I had pride not because Douglass was “mixed like me” but because with everything Douglass experienced—born a slave, losing his mother, starvation, racism-- he still accomplished such amazing things and changed the course of history for our Nation and the rest of the world. There are very few people with a life-story that makes Constitutional Conservatives think, “Wow, yea, they definitely have a reason to just throw in the towel and give up”---Douglass had one of those stories. No one would blame Douglass, for example, if he never tried to run away, or if he escaped to Canada and was never heard from again—but he didn’t. He sacrificed his freedom to not only share his story, but to end slavery and force America to look evil right in the face instead of turning its back on our founding principles.

Between reading Douglass I also read articles and blogs about Independence Day. Sadly, there were too many articles discussing why the holiday is irrelevant to most minorities, especially black Americans. To my readers, this is nothing new; we’re use to this idiotic idea that black people are supposed to be separate from everything and anything that celebrates America’s history, our exceptionalism as a nation, or freedom. Usually when I find myself in these situations it always ends the same way: with America the hypocrite, blacks the victims, and nothing resolved.

I’ve never looked at our history or myself for that matter, as a victim. Regardless of which label you choose; as a woman, a minority, or any other category that would allow me to use the victim status. Instead, I give credence to the philosophy that “what does not kill you only makes you stronger.” As a spiritual person, I believe in God and I believe things happen for a reason. As a person that has been through hell and back, I can tell you that my worst experiences have built my character, helped define my morality, and ensured that “the buck stops with me.” Case and point: Growing up without a father has shown me how damaging it is for an individual, a family, and a community to live and thrive without a father in the home. I’ve seen the epidemic of fatherlessness convince women that men are an optional accessory to raising a child—especially if the State will help you out; I’ve seen men completely lose their identity and standing as men, and I’ve seen men leave their children with no ounce of shame from their friends, their families, or themselves. Because I know how damaging it is to grow up without a father, I refuse to bring another generation of children into the world without one—like I said, “the buck stops here.”

So, you may be asking, “What does this have to do with the role of Black people in America?” EVERYTHING! Just as a person needs adversity to build character, a nation needs adversity to build its own character, morality, and soul. Let’s face it, what makes America unique is our shared ancestry with those that, for the most part, got the raw end of the deal and the short-end of the stick out of life and came to America for a better life. If Americans were the product of people that never suffered, never faced adversity, and never knew the value of hard work, would we be the greatest, wealthiest, most free nation on the face of the earth (knock on wood)? Of course not!

Black people are the soul of America. Not because we were victims of humanity's worst evil, and not just because of our music (they call it soul music for a reason) but because our adversity, struggle, and empowerment reminds all people how fragile freedom is, the horrible consequences of man controlling man, the diligence we all must have defending freedom and liberty for future generations, and most importantly—that attacks on individual freedom will not be tolerated because it stops with us!

Webster defines the soul as the “immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life; the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment; a spiritual or moral force.  Black Americans are the soul of America because we are the descendants of a people that turned in-action into action; stood on principle even in the face of danger; and had—and this continues to this day—an unremitting faith in a spiritual, moral force. (Just look at our history from Lemuel Haynes to Martin Luther King).

Black Americans are the descendants of men and women that had nothing—and wanted nothing, but freedom. Robert Elliott, for example, was a slave, taught himself to read (even at the risk of death) and then became a member of Congress. With freedom our ancestors went from property to business owners; from chattel to political leader; from victimized to victors—but never victims!

In recent years though, we have lost this. We didn’t start it, but we’ve allowed it to grow like a cancer latched tightly to our soul. (It started under the Democratic Party. Woodrow Wilson, along with the progressive movement, literally erased our black founders from history, kicked us out of the federal government (except one, of course), and re-segregated the military). Instead of embracing our role as the “Knights Templar of freedom”, we’ve allowed our role to be manipulated by liberals. Instead of embracing our role as the “Neighborhood Watch” of government control, too many of us have left our post to cash in on our perceived victim status.

Black Americans are the soul of America, not victims. We are the people that have been through hell and back and still we rise! We don’t have the luxury to sit back and complain—what would our ancestors think? Furthermore—and this needs to be said—it is insulting to say we don’t have a place at the Independence Day table because of our history as slaves. Our ancestors fought for the ideals of freedom in the American Revolution and every single battle the United States has ever engaged in.

When we weren’t at war, we were the Paul Reveres of liberty—writing books, publishing newspapers, meeting with Presidents, marching, protesting, debating—forcing America to take a stand. When the Jews needed help in WWII, blacks didn’t play the victim card, they didn’t say it wasn’t their fight, and they didn’t say, “Well we have our own problems here.” They enlisted, they fought, and then they came back home and fought some more! To say we aren’t a part of America’s founding is a slap in the face to Americans, but especially to those men and women that risked their lives so maybe, just maybe, we could be born free.

The role of Black people in America is to be the “Great Communicator” of the blessings of Liberty. No other group in America can speak on the preciousness of freedom and the need to always be vigilant to defend it than black Americans.  (If you don’t agree, just listen to the cries from the gay community, women, Muslims, or illegal immigrants who fight to prove their “struggle” is comparable to the history of blacks in America and can’t wait to have their “civil rights” violated as they race to cash in on the liberal victim prize).  Our story is unique. We therefore have an obligation—a duty—to defend liberty. The role of Black people in America is to remind our nation how truly fragile our liberties are and ensure our nation is living up to its moral contract with God.

It is time for Black people to get back to our post. It is time we speak out loud, call out immoral behavior (even if that behavior is right next door or in our own families). It is time we did some soul-searching of our own. America is on a moral decline because its preservers of morality—of liberty—have allowed the liberal agenda to convince far too many of us that we are a separate section of American history, that we are nothing more than an asterisk placed next to the line “All men are created equal.”

Enough is enough. If we don’t speak out on liberty and freedom, if we don’t educate the masses on the consequences of more and more government control in our lives, then America will eventually turn its back on these principles altogether. Why? Not because black people understand freedom better than white people, but because a nation is just like a person. If a person never experiences heartache they can never truly embrace love. If you’ve never had to work for anything you will never appreciate what you have. This, to me, is God’s role for blacks in America. He allowed slavery to happen so America, like the individual, would truly appreciate how precious freedom and liberty are.  

Our role today is to ensure every man, woman, and child appreciates the blessings bestowed upon us from God. It is time to get to work, people. If we don’t get back to our role as the moral conscience of America, the people that hold all Americans accountable to our ideals of liberty and freedom, who will? The buck won’t stop with government—it will only stop with us. Without black America, freedom becomes a political talking point, a slogan used to sell fireworks, and a soulless endeavor until it ultimately becomes nothing. If black America continues to let the left define our role in America, freedom will become out of sight, out of mind—and that is exactly what the left wants. So, it is time to reclaim our history and take back our role as the soul of America. Because as we all know, if you don’t have soul, you have nothing.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

. The Founding, the Constitution, and Slavery

I was disappointed, but sadly not surprised, to see yet again, another person take something at face value instead of actually looking into the matter before posting it.I I've been on CNN, MSNBC, radio-one (black entertainment radio), etc. and all of the stories on Cain/Bachmann are pretty much the same...something along the lines of:     

"They say they support founding principles and the constitution...that must mean they support slavery....women not being able to vote..."     

This game of equating the United States Constitution with pro-slavery, discrimination, and whatever evil crap those on the left can come up with is getting really old. So, I thought I would take the time to explain the Constitution, specifically the 3/5 clause and other mechanism put in place to slow, stop, and eliminate slavery from the United States of America. 

No, I don't expect the majority of people to care, but for those of you out there who are SICK of the DNC pandering to you over "racism" and using slavery as the justification to ignore the Constitution, this I hope gives you some quick facts, some balls to stand-up to idiots, and the courage knowing others' are just as smart as you!! 

Here are the facts on the United States Constitution that Stephanoplus and Matthews always seem to forget when they attack Constitutional Conservatives, the relevance of our Constitution, and the truth about slavery under the 3/5 Clause.  

Fact #1 The United States Constitution is an anti-slavery document  
The founders, unlike our leaders today, actually had the balls to do stuff. Not little stuff either like living within your means, paying your bills, or passing budgets--big stuff like forming a more perfect union by promoting the blessings of liberty, securing property rights, and changing the course of history. They were smart guys--smart guys that got to the point. They created a governing document that specifically spelled out what the Feds couldn't do and made sure--just in case they missed something--that "anything we missed here is for the people and the states to decide." (for those of you who are lost, I am referring to the 9th and 10th Amendments, respectively).   

I promise you, one of the things they didn't "push to the side" or "kick down the road for later generations to deal with" was the issue of slavery. They knew they couldn't end it in September 1787, but they knew it could never survive along side their vision of a Constitutional Republic based on rights bestowed upon us from God above.  

So, they setup a structure of government that would systematically eliminate slavery over time. I will put this in a modern-day example to help better illustrate this point: Today,  Constitutional Conservatives like West, Ryan, Rubio, Paul, Bachmann, Cain--are creating plans that won't pay off our debt over night; decrease unemployment numbers in a week, or kick our addiction to entitlements with a pill--they (for example, the Ryan Plan) have created a system that once implemented, over time will get our spending under control and tame our need to be taken care of by Big Daddy Government.    

Jon Jay, writer for the Federalist Papers, said the following in 1786:      

"It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."   

The men that fought for the United States Constitution understood what the issue of slavery represented. They knew in their hearts it was wrong, but just because something is wrong doesn't mean it is easy to get rid of--just ask any of the smart Americans today how much work it is going to take to undo Obama policies--he's enslaved generations!  

Fact #2: The 3/5 clause was created specifically to PUNISH southern states for owning slaves, the Constitution was the incentive to end it!
In order for the south to gain adequate representation in the House they would of had to free their slaves. See, for those of you that don't know, during this time, there were actually more slaves in some states than actually "free" people.  In South Carolina for example,  43 percent of the population was slave. In Maryland 32 percent, Virginia, with the largest slave population, had 39 percent of its population made up of slaves.  The north, which did have slaves but not a significant amount for Representation matters, had two sects within their ranks: those that were opposed to slavery for purely economic reasons (hard to compete if you have to pay for labor but others' don't); and those that opposed slavery for moral reasons (there were also white southerners that opposed slavery for moral reasons, i know this goes against the trend, but it is true..not all white people in the south were racist slaveholders in 18th century America).  

So, in order to compromise between zero representation for slaves (which is what the north wanted) and full representation for slaves (which is what the south wanted) they did compromise. But contrary to liberal belief and indoctrination, this "compromise" was to punish--not benefit the south, and also as an incentive to the south to end slavery in exchange for political power in the House of Representatives (for those of you confused again, "power" in this case means more seats--more seats you have the more voice you have the more power you have).   

And the 3/5 Compromise was formed. The point of this was to force the south, using the power of representation,  to eventually set slaves free if they had any hope of earning enough seats in the House to protect their "southern interest." This was a great plan because all though the Founding Fathers couldn't predict the future, they could easily predict mans need for power, the Constitution put the south, and all those on the side of slavery, on notice, slavery will NOT be tolerated in the United States of America!  

Oliver Ellsworth, one of the signers of the Constitution wrote, a few months after the Convention stated:   
"All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves."   

See, the same way Ryan is trying to ween us off entitlements, the Founders were weeining the southern states off slavery.They couldn't do it all at once (the democrats/libs of their day would have called this "catastrophic" "radical" and probably "racist"  

Fact #3: Article 1, Sec. 9 Effectively ends the Transatlantic Slave trade. 

The 3/5 Compromise worked along side another creative tool the Founders used to make it more difficult to acquire slaves, earn representation in government, and continue the existence of the slave trade---they eliminated it! The Constitution called for the end of the United States slavetrade within 20 years--by 1808:      

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.                                                 
                                                                         --Article 1, Sec. 9  

And I don't know if you caught it, but they prepared themselves for the definition of "property" problem by defining those that were being imported as "persons."  

Fact #3: The Moral Authority of the People of the United States 

Liberals like to paint the picture that every white person in the south was a racist slave owner, all white people in the north were passive racist, and only black people and women had any moral authority whatsoever. This just isn't the case. Remember, we are the ONLY nation in the world that fought a war--in part--over the elimination of slavery. We are the first nation to have a political party created (the Republican party) over outlawing slavery, and contrary to popular belief, the majority of Americans did not own slaves. The same way the Civil Rights Movement succeeded--because MLK took the issue of discrimination to the American people (white people specifically, especially in the north), slavery never stood a chance, and the Founders knew it!  The Constitution of the United States of America was founded under the idea that our Rights come form God--not from man and not from government. This simple idea alone made slavery impossible to continue. The mechanisms they put in place only sped up the inevitable.   

The Founders v. the Modern Political Establishment
Like many modern Americans, I would like to envision I am the product of a perfect human race of perfect human beings that smelled like cookies and everywhere they stepped rainbows shot out of the ground--but they weren't angels, and they weren't perfect--they were men. So, before you get all uppity about their "failure" to end slavery--take a look at the people you've sent to lead in our nation over your lifetime. One party hasn't created a budget in two years, spent more money than ever in human history with nothing but high unemployment to show for it;  and the other one hasn't had a backbone or a platform to stand on since Reagan--they may not have been perfect, but at least they setup a system that actually DID something...even if it didn't happen in 24 most liberals should know by now, "hope & change" ain't easy!  

I leave you with this quote; remember, there is a reason they want you to think the constitution is irrelevant. 

"If the Negroes were granted the opportunity to pursue the Constitution, they might learn to contend for their rights therin guaranteed...and no Negro who gives attention to such matters of the government is tolerated...the [learning] of government, or the lack of such instruction, then, must be made to conform to the policy of 'keeping the Negro forever in his place'.""
                                   --Carter G. Woodson "The Mis-Education of the Negro

Monday, June 20, 2011

Great article by Bernie Goldberg--the infamous race card!

Read this article, share with your liberal race-baiting friends, and then call them racist!!

Great article!!

what would the left do if Herman Cain was the REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVE ELECTED by the evil racist American people??

You tell me, share your thoughts below.