Showing posts with label Star Parker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Star Parker. Show all posts

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Degradation of cultural standards, religion, tradition, and moral decency are always at the heart of cultural decline…

When I was young, we heard over and over again that America was on its way to going down the path of all great empires, like Rome, and the degradation of cultural standards, religion, tradition, and moral decency are always at the heart of cultural decline.   Star Parker and Rush Limbaugh addressed two aspects of our journey down that road and a look at what needs to be done to turn America around.

Reprogramming our destructive culture

Star Parker, author of Uncle Sam's Plantation touts pregnancy centers that actually give women a 'choice'

With the convictions in in the case against abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell – three counts of murdering live babies and one count of involuntary manslaughter – abortion is back in the national discussion.

It’s pretty clear from the Grand Jury report that, during Gosnell’s 30-plus-year career, he likely murdered hundreds if not thousands of babies. But because of the difficulty in documenting it all, he was just convicted of three.

Reports now are coming in from around the nation indicating that more Gosnells are out there.

The abortion lobby claims that as long as we have tight regulations on abortion, a black market will exist. Abortion, they argue, is like any product or service that consumers want and government prohibits or over-regulates. If they can’t get what they want legally, they will get it illegally.

We also hear that we get Gosnells when government refuses to pay for the abortions of poor women. The Hyde Amendment, they say, which prohibits Medicaid compensation for abortion, makes unsafe abortion inevitable.

Poor women, according to this reasoning, desperate because of an unwanted pregnancy, pressed because regulations and costs make abortion difficult to get, turn to sleazebag doctors, who will do it cheaply, with no regard for the woman, the law, or safety.

But it is ironic that those who call themselves “pro-choice” argue that the only alternatives facing low-income women are unsafe abortions done by sleazebags or government-subsidized abortions.

There is another choice, but those who call themselves “pro-choice” don’t want women, particularly poor women, to consider this option.

This option is called birth.

When conservatives talk about a culture of responsibility, we’re not just talking about the personal responsibility of the individual in trouble. We’re talking about the personal responsibility of the rest of us toward that individual.

There are now thousands of crisis pregnancy centers operating nationwide. Over 2,000 are affiliated with either Care Net or Heartbeat International. I maintain a regular active speaking schedule for and consult with these centers.

They work with pregnant women in trouble and provide them the services they need to have their child. They provide ultrasound, parental counseling, life management counseling, help with the physical needs of the mother and child, and, if need be, help with adoption services.

Unwanted pregnancies often are the result of loneliness, fear and lack of information. Crisis pregnancy centers deal with all this.

The left, so called “pro-choice” activists, have an interesting concept of a culture of responsibility. That is to promote a culture that detaches sex from love and responsibility, that minimizes the central importance of family, that justifies youth sex, promiscuity and the “hook-up” culture. In short, a culture that encourages people to relate to each other in the same callous way as it encourages women to relate to the unborn children that often result from it all.

Then they want taxpayers, other people, to foot the bill.

Is it any wonder we live in a country in which we are drowning in debt that’s the direct result of this culture of entitlement?

Planned Parenthood, which rakes in hundreds of millions in the abortion business, actively discourages women from going to crisis pregnancy centers.

On the Planned Parenthood website, they call these centers “fake clinics … that have a history of giving women wrong and biased information.”

These crisis pregnancy centers are financed and run by committed Christian Americans where often women, for the first time in their lives, experience love and meaning.

The information they get, that Planned Parenthood calls “wrong and biased,” is that life should be chosen over death and that responsibility is a community affair.

It is not a given that we must live in a country of promiscuity, unwanted pregnancies and abortion. We do have choice.

We can reprogram the destructive culture we have created and in which we now live.

Rush Limbaugh ran the following segment on his radio show this week: Social Media, the Hookup Culture -- and the Insidious Quest for Fame

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: As you know, ladies and gentlemen, I constantly use the phrase "on the cutting edge of societal evolution." One of the things I mean by that is that if you are a regular listener to this program, in many cases, you will hear things discussed long before they reach the mainstream, long before they reach the popular culture. One of those areas that I have been -- I don't know if "warning" is correct, but at least I've been -- highlighting, is the phenomenon of social media.

One of the things that always bothered me about it was the pop culture's temptations. People, young kids are desperately wanting fame, doing anything they can to get noticed or to become famous, thinking that it's glamorous, that it's fun, that it will make them rich. It has, in fact, given rise to all kinds of gossip networks, television newspaper columns, you name it. Even though gossip's been around for a long time, it's now become mainstream.

Entertainment programs, starting actually with Entertainment Tonight and Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, were programs that created an impression that if you became famous, that the world was your oyster. Everybody wants to be noticed and everybody wants their life to matter, and everybody wants to be cool, and everybody wants to be hip. So with the advent of social networks on computers and mobile devices, it became possible for young people to start connecting in any which way they wanted to.

It was a phenomenon I noticed many years ago. Young people were just giving up every bit of information about themselves they could. They were violating their own privacy, seeking fame, wanting everybody to know everything about them, publishing nude photos of themselves, lewd photos, you name it. As one that's concerned about the overall culture, I happen to believe that a society's culture is a harbinger of what kind of country you're going to be.

Now, I've always had to avoid and be cognizant of the fact that as people grow older and then look at other generations, they think, "Oh, my God, this is horrible! It has never been this bad, this raunchy, this debauched. The country's finished." You have to avoid that because every generation looking at young people thinks that. So you have to be constantly vigilant that you don't become an old fuddy-duddy when looking at these things. At the same time, you have to be honest about it.

I really am governed here by love as I do this show each and every day. When I say these things, I mean them. I want a great country. I want people happy. This has got to be a great country if we are to continue to provide the opportunity, both economic and spiritual, for freedom that this country has always provided, more so than any other country ever. A great country is only as great as its people, and at some point people have to get serious.

At some point when they grow older and mature, they have to get serious, and certain things have to be revered, including certain cultural things. There have to be "guardrails," to borrow a term that I once saw on a Wall Street Journal editorial about just out-of-control pop culture. Morality, the sense of right and wrong, personal responsibility, all of those things are fundamental. Who teaches that? The schools are not.

Social media is, of course, obliterating those concepts. It's just exact opposite. The role is more important now than ever, and it's really up to parents. If you happen to believe, for example, that the culture is out of control, and if you would phrase it in a way to say, "The genie is out of the bottle," how do you put the genie back in the bottle? You don't. You never can put the genie back in the bottle.

But what you can do is start anew with a certain generation and try to raise them/educate them in ways that send them in different directions than the temptations that exist now. And they're always there. I don't want to be misunderstood. This kind of thing has gone on as long as the country has. But, however, there are factors now that exist that didn't. I've always been... Without being able to put my finger on it, I've been worried about what is going to happen to people who just dive head first into this anything-goes, no-judgment culture where there is no more privacy.

There is no concern for it, and people just want everybody to know everything about them every minute of the day -- what they're doing, what they're thinking, where they're going, when they got there, how long they're gonna be there, when they're leaving. There are apps for such things for people's mobile devices, and one of the things that has been around for a while (I first heard of it way back in the nineties) was the notion of "hooking up," something that scared particularly mothers like crazy.

It's just the notion of having meaningless sex -- and not even for the sex, not even for the enjoyment. It's just to say you've done it, just to be able to brag about it and so forth and taking meaning out of it. These kinds of things take place when you're young, and as you get older and grow up, everybody looks back on things when they were younger. Some people get embarrassed. Some say, "Gee, I wish that didn't happen. I wish nobody knew that." That's gonna be tougher and tougher for people to pull off. Because as young kids get exposed to all the social media, they're telling everybody everything they're doing.

I mean, we're getting to the point now where I think it's gonna be common that candidates for political office will have posted nude photos of themselves (or worse) on social websites. The first known example of that that I can recall is a woman that's now a cohostette on MSNBC. Her Name Is Krystal Ball. She may not be the first but she's the one that comes to mind. She ran for office. She lost, but there are nude photos (sic) of her that she had posted. Her opponent decided to use them and she was outraged that such things would be used.

Anthony Weiner --- who, by the way, is gonna run for office again. He's gonna run for mayor of New York, and you ought to see the New York Post. Their Web app, if you have an iPad and you get the New York Post... This is not on their website, and I don't know that it's in the newspaper. I don't read newspapers. It may be in the printed edition, but I know it's in the iPad version. There's a column by Andrea Peyser on Weiner, who is the husband of Huma Weiner. Hillary's Huma.

She just rakes him over the coals as most everybody's doing, and then there's a sidebar called "the Twitterati Response," and it's people on Twitter issuing comments about the potential reemergence of Weiner. It's hilarious, some of these comments. I didn't print it out. I'll do it; I'll share some of it with you. Well, the reception is all across the gamut. He's getting a warm reception in some places. Everybody's happy. "Weiner's rising again!" All the typical things.

But the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, is lamenting, "Oh, my God! Woe is us if this guy wins. Oh, it's our bad if this guy wins." Why is he saying that? Anthony Weiner is a perfect liberal. Anthony Weiner is an ideal liberal. He's a combative liberal. He will take conservatives to the back alley and beat 'em up every day. If he hadn't posted the nude photos of himself and his member to the babes, he'd be right in there. He'd be on the ladder cruising to the top of liberalism.

But why do they care? This is the kind of thing that normally launches liberals to great heights. This kind of embarrassment or failure is a resume enhancement for these people. But it isn't, you see? This is my point. Even for liberals it isn't. He's gonna have his problem here. Krystal Ball had hers. It's gonna become more and more frequent. Folks, look, I'm not an old fuddy-duddy. It just concerns me, only from the standpoint that you want serious people.

You want at least 5% of the population being serious. That five, 6% of the population carries the rest of the people. You've heard that old axiom: 5% of the people pull the wagon; 95% are in it. You need five or 6% of the population serious about things: Their jobs, their careers, the country, understanding it. You need that. I'm just all for anything that continues to teach that, and cause people to respect it and to revere it. I cringe... I mean, I laugh, too, but I cringe when I see videos of these man-on-the-street interviews that Leno does. People are clueless. They don't know diddly-squat about things.

Anyway, I've gotta take a break here.  I have a couple of sound bites I want to play because this is finally now reached mainstream media.  My point about being on the cutting edge of societal evolution.  I've been warning, talking about this for at least 20 of the 25 years that I've been doing this program here at the EIB Network.  I bring to it a certain experience.  I have lost my anonymity.  I know what it's like to lose your anonymity and I know what it's like to have no privacy.

I know what it's like to not be able to go anywhere and do anything anonymously.  And I'm telling you, when you lose that and you can't get it back, that's a huge regret, and there are a lot of people that want that.  And I don't think it's healthy, and I think it leads to distorted values and distorted decisions that people make about their lives and a number of other things that are not healthy for them and the country the large.  Now, again, do not confuse me with an old fuddy-duddy like my parents who thought the world was coming to an end because the Beatles had long hair.  That's not where I'm coming from here.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: A minor correction.  And this, by the way, feeds into my point.  I got it wrong about Krystal Ball.  She did not pose nude.  The Krystal Ball photos were not nude.  The photos depicted her doing sexually suggestive things at a party.  Well, my memory was that the controversy was over nude photos.  This is how things get wrong or made wrong, and then amplified as wrong and then, "No, no, it wasn't a nude photo, gosh, can't anybody get it right?" You people that want all this fame, get used to everybody being wrong about you.

At any rate, just a correction here.  They were not nude photos of Krystal Ball on her website, for her blog, whatever it was.  They were just photos of her doing sexually suggestive things.  I have no idea if they're still online.  Literally no idea.  You know what?  I'm not interested.  This is my point.  What, are you sitting in there all excited now to find the pictures?  Well, I'm not the least bit inspired to go try find them.

At any rate, this morning on Fox Martha MacCallum had a guest who has written a book about this phenomenon called hooking up, and the guest was Donna Freitas.  And I think that's how she pronounces the name.  Her book is: "The End of Sex: How Hookup Culture is Leaving a Generation Unhappy, Sexually Unfulfilled, and Confused About Intimacy." And Martha MacCallum said, "Where do we go from here?  How does this affect, or does it affect these kids' relationships as they go through life?"

FREITAS:  One of the things that I think we really need to talk about as a culture is what is the meaning of sex, given hookup culture.  You showed those words that students will use, "regretful" and "empty" and "ashamed," you know, that 41% of students, you know, and how they respond to hooking up.  But there's another middle group, about 30% of students, who are really ambivalent.  And I think that group is getting bigger because I think students are getting much better at hooking up, which means they're getting better at having ambivalent sex.  The sex isn't about fun or even really about pleasure.  It's about getting it done and being able to say that you did it.

RUSH:  That's right.  And that last part is the key.  What are you frowning at?  Snerdley said, "So what? What's wrong with this, people having sex, who in the world could be upset with that?"  Is that what you're saying?  Well, she went out there and she did surveys of these students.  She talked to the students, I guess. (interruption) Well, I don't know, she did a book on it, Snerdley. She talked to the students and the students told her, and that's what she based her book on.  Any, here's what Martha MacCallum said in response it.

MACCALLUM:  That's the whole thing, just documenting, 'cause we live in this media culture where it's like, you know, the numbers and just doing something just to say you did it or to take pictures of the event and then put it out there online so you can prove to everybody that you're having a great time.

FREITAS:  They're getting better at hooking up.  You know, when they're better at being able to walk away and say, "You know what, I don't feel a thing. I don't want to see that person again. It didn't really mean anything to me."

RUSH:  Now, this has been going on, this hookup business, for years, folks.  And it is meaningless, and it is just a belt notch.  But you know one of the most dangerous things about all this social media is?  And I think it's gonna be a big challenge for anybody that has to deal with kids and young adults.  It's not just this quest for fame and giving up all the privacy.  Most kids are insecure, it's safe to say.  And when they read all of this social media, what they are really seeing is all the stuff they are not doing.  They see all the stuff other people are doing and they say, "I'm not doing all that," and they're gonna get inferiority complexes over this, which creates its own set of problems.  They're gonna set out trying to fix this.  It's a snowball effect.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  I tell you, all this stuff is not good, folks.  Look at what feminism has done for women.  Look what feminism's done for everybody.  It's just confused everybody and made most people miserable.  We got more.  We'll be back.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, I want to close the loop here on the hooking-up business, but for me it's much more than that. The hooking up is just one characteristic of the phenomenon that's happening. The hooking up business has been going on a long time. Tom Wolfe wrote a nonfiction book called Hooking Up in 2000. He said a lot of kids that are hooking up don't know each other's names. So it's not just this babe that talked to the students, Snerdley. It's Tom Wolfe. Are you gonna tell me Tom Wolfe doesn't know what he's talking about?

I do think that it's a phenomenon. I don't question that it's happening. Look, Bill Clinton didn't ask Monica her name 'til the sixth date. This hooking up can happen. It's happened throughout. I know. The sixties, the free love and the free sex. But look what that begot us. That's my whole point. I mean, we are living some of the trash that happened in the 1960s, and some of those people -- many of them -- assumed office, political office, high power in the Clinton years. It's demonstrably problematic. There's no question that it is.

The disintegrating values? The idea that the IRS, all these institutions can be used to intimidate political foes? That stuff has roots in the sixties. That's actually a very good point about this. But I want to bring it down even more locally than that, and not just tie it to what happens when people end up into politics from this. I'm actually more concerned just about their lives in general. I'm telling you, this willingness that these kids have to just vomit everything about themselves to everybody and give up their privacy, and give up their anonymity...

It's not so much just that; it's why they're doing it. This quest for fame, I'm telling you, it is insidious to me. It's copycats. You know, fame by itself is how you get Kardashian. Now, people who become famous after having done something -- a major achievement, major accomplishment -- that's one thing. But fame for its sake is a pursuit that is empty, and it's endless, and it's never satisfying. But the big problem with all of this social media in addition to the obvious, and I think one of the most dangerous things about it...

Look, I don't have kids, but I've got nephews and nieces. More than that, I really do care. All of this concern for me is about country. When I tell you that I want a great country, I mean I want self-reliant, rugged individuals taking care of themselves and their families. That's how you get Norman Rockwell communities and neighborhoods and towns. That's how you get decency and respect and a common, valuable culture. I think that you have that crucially important.

Yeah, it may sound old-fashioned and it may sound like I want to go back to the fifties and the Donna Reed shows. No, no. That's not what I'm talking about. The stuff I'm talking about is timeless, and these characteristics are the things that used to be commonly taught. Honor, valor, honesty, integrity. That's all I'm talking about. It's things like this that people laugh at today, but people are just willingly abandoning any hope, any chance of having those characteristics about themselves.

The debasement of the language is part of that; you see that now in prime time TV. The debasement of the language is happening really quickly. Taken in isolated chunks it isn't any big deal. But the cumulative, year-after-year impact of this is not good for the country. That's always been my concern. It's my concern with politics: Its effect on the country and the people. The people of the country are what matter to me. Having the continued opportunity to do what they want, to fulfill their dreams.

Have the desires and dreams be things of importance and substance, rather than fleeting, fly-by-night things that really don't offer any substantive satisfaction. It's a real change for parents today, I would think. I'd think it would be a real challenge, especially for parents of young girls. I just think it would be an absolute nightmare out there today, constant concern, worry. You start talking about hooking up stuff, just one thing. But the biggest danger, I think -- or one of the most dangerous things -- about all this is not just this quest for fame and the giving up of all privacy.

Add to this that most kids are insecure, and then add another human characteristic, and it is this: The grass always looks greener. Everybody. I don't care who you are, you always think everybody else is happier. Everybody else is more normal. Everybody else doesn't have the problems you do. It's just a natural thing to think. A lot of people think this way. And when you start reading social media or watching television shows and you see depictions of people in certain ways, and you know that that doesn't in any way depict you?

Then what does that make you feel like if you're not emotionally secure? I think that all the social media just adds to this. You add up this natural insecurity that everybody has, particularly amplified in kids, and this idea that the grass is always greener and that somebody else's life -- everybody else's life -- is more fulfilling and better than yours or whatever. It's just a fact of life for most people. When young kids read all of this social media... There's tons and oodles of it out there.

When they read all this stuff and they see all the stuff they're not doing... My dad used to tell it to me this way. He said, "Son, all your friends bragging to you about all the things they're doing are lying to you. All they're doing is telling you the things they wish they were doing, and they're just trying to impress you," and that's social media. How many people are lying about where they are every night going to these clubs or whatever it is they're doing that they think is fun.

You've got these kids sitting at home not do all this stuff, reading about it -- and, man, all they're seeing is things that they're not doing. Compared to everybody else who seems to be really having a ball out there. "Gosh, my life is boring at hell! Look what all these people are doing!" What's it gonna make 'em want to do? Kids lie about their social achievements like everybody else lies about their social achievements: To impress everybody.

You've got this wild collection of insecurity and kids reading all this. In addition to the complex they could develop, because they think they're missing out on all this cool stuff, that creates its own set of problems. Either depression or a madcap desire to catch up and experience all these things that they think are cool, that people really aren't doing but they think they are. Now, none of this is new in a psychological sense. I'm not saying any of this is new and hasn't been the case before, but the sheer volume of all this stuff that they can expose themselves to could be overwhelming.

I've always had a bad feeling about it.

I don't even have any kids, but I've always had a bad feeling about it, knowing in my own limited way what losing your anonymity means, what it really means, and whole business of fame. Nothing is ever what you really think it is. When you're young -- when you're any age -- and you're imagining a promotion at the job or you're imagining new place to live or whatever? When you finally get there, it's never really entirely what you think it is. There are always things about it you didn't consider. It's just... I don't know. It's a problem for parents, and I think it just becoming more and more intensified.

In fact, I have call. Let me grab a call on this. This is Jeff in Goshen, New York. Hi, Jeff. I'm glad you called. Welcome to the program, sir.

CALLER: Hey, Rush. Thanks so much for having me on.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I heard your comments on social media, and I had to call in. You hit the nail on the head. These kids have no idea what they're giving up in way of their privacy when you put this stuff out there. I'm actually the director of the IT department for a manufacturing group. So I've done a... I thought I did a good job at educating my kids. I have four kids: Two girls, two boys. The girls being the oldest. One's a teenager, and she dabbled in social media.

She kinda went around my back a little bit to dabble in it, and when I found out, I showed her with just her e-mail address all the information I can pull up -- on her Vines account, her Instagram, her Ask.fm -- and I said, "If I can do it, anybody can do it." These days kids don't know what they're giving up, and I think what's worse is the parents don't know what their kids are doing or what their kids are giving up. And we're doing a terrible job in the schools. They're not educating kids.

RUSH:  Well, that's another aspect because the kids are so far ahead of parents on what you can do online.  Parents have no concept.

CALLER:  No.  And Facebook, I know a lot of the teenage kids today, they don't want Facebook 'cause mom and dad are on it.  So they're finding other things, and my only advice to parents is, "Know what your kids are doing. Talk to them about it."  You know, I use the stuff.  I like social media for its positive aspects.  But Rush, you and I know, you can take the best tool in the world that's made for good purposes, and turn it for evil things.  And that's what happens with the social media sites.

RUSH:  That's a good point.  I'm not preaching.  I don't want anybody to think I'm preaching, and I don't want anybody inferring that I think this stuff should be shut down.  Far from it.  That's not at all a possible solution, not even something I contemplate.  It's a reality that has to be dealt with.  You're right, it's a challenge for parents in raising kids.  It just gets harder and harder to do.  There are just more and more distractions. More temptations, and do what you can to provide a solid moral foundation.  And after a certain point, you're done. There's not much you can do, and then, it's true, people have to live. They have to live their lives. They have to make mistakes to learn from 'em, and you hope that the foundation you gave 'em is sufficient that when they do screw up, have embarrassing things happen or whatever, that there is a foundation from which they can learn from it and not repeat it.  Anyway, Jeff, I appreciate the call.  I really do.

When we come back, folks, I just wanted to get into this because it's finally reached the pinnacle here of the pop culture, the mainstream culture, talking about this, and you've been on the cutting edge. We've been talking about this for many, many moons now.

END TRANSCRIPT

Related:

You Cannot Honor What You Don’t Know Or Miss

Americans 'snapping' by the millions

FOXNews: 'Shame on Us': New York Gov. Cuomo Rips Anthony Weiner Comeback Bid

FOXNews: The "Hook-Up Culture": Dates Are Dead, Sex Is Alive?

Weekly Standard: Weiner: More Lewd Photos Might Come Out

New York Post: Anthony Weiner Hides from the Tough Questions and Serves Up Pizza for Reporters

Impeachment: Rush is wrong this time

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Democrats’ History of Racism

clip_image001

by B. Christopher Agee   -   Western Journalism

Here's a bit of American history guaranteed not to appear in any government-approved history book. The Democrat party has, throughout its existence, represented the bigotry and racism they seek to project onto Republicans.

The informed readers of this article are likely familiar with the racist roots of the political party aptly portrayed by a jackass, but much of the general population, especially outspoken Democrats, are woefully ignorant of any such facts.

Ask the nearest Democrat about Republicans and race and even the mayor of a substantial American city might just respond with, "They are racist."

In reference to their own party, Dems will likely say they led the fight for civil rights throughout the years, though a cursory review of the party will prove this assertion wrong. For instance, this was the party that established the Ku Klux Klan as its enforcement arm. Powerful Democrat politicians have appointed klansmen to high-ranking positions in American government for a century, yet have somehow convinced the vast majority of blacks that Republicans are the bad guys!

The KKK was used to intimidate voters, black and white, into voting Democrat - or not voting at all.

Through violence, property damage, rape, and murder, Democrats were able to secure a huge majority of the black vote comprised of those afraid to cast an alternate ballot. Disgustingly, they have somehow been able to maintain that death-grip on the African-American community to this day.

When these reprehensible strategies, though unquestionably effective, did not satiate their need to keep the black population down, Democrat-supported legislation such as Jim Crow laws made sure these minorities would remain second-class citizens even after the ratification of the 13th Amendment. There are plenty of examples of heralded Democrats, including Presidents LBJ and Truman, expressing disdain for blacks in their own words.

Republicans, thankfully, emerged as the pro-freedom, anti-slavery alternative to the juggernaut that was the Democrat party. Despite the fact that significantly more Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act than did Democrats (and the fact that Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first to initiate the legislation which finally passed and was enacted under Democrat Presidents JFK and LBJ), the party of the left has somehow hoodwinked much of the black community into thinking they are its savior. In fact until the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Martin Luther King was a Republican, re-registering as a Democrat as part of the negotiations, and so were most blacks Republicans (the party of Abraham Lincoln) until that time. Facts like these are part of the reason the Progressives consistently fight to re-write and edit the history that is taught and skew media productions.

Of course, today's Democrats will say, if they concede these points at all, that this is all ancient history, but I respectfully disagree. In much the same way that it did in the late 1800s, the Democrat party needs the black vote and, increasingly, the Hispanic vote to pull heavily for their side in order to win elections.

While paying them mere lip service, liberals pass legislation such as a broken welfare system rewarding poor mothers for having out-of-wedlock children and punishing them for getting married, thus keeping minorities at the mercy of government handouts. This makes them beholden to a party that represents views, such as support for abortion and gay marriage, that are diametrically opposed to those of many in the black community.

Democrats know they cannot intellectually compete with a party that, at its core, simply wants to provide individual liberty, encourage strong families and reduce abortions (which equal approximately the death toll of the 9/11 attack every two days in the black community alone), so they continue to repeat the old diatribe that Republicans are the real racists.

The GOP, which was the first to name a black Supreme Court Justice and Secretary of State, must defend itself against accusations based purely in the imagination of Democrats, often with figurative or literal blood on their own hands.

Each February, Democrats promote Black History Month with a vengeance, hoping to stoke the race war embers and elicit even more loyalty from the black community. I would promote a the study of accurate black history, not just during the shortest month but year round, and it's relationship with a Democrat party that has been patronizing at its best and deadly at its worst.

Unfortunately, I feel that would be the only chance Republicans have of attracting a voting bloc that has continually been misled into hating the wrong political party.

NAACP Furthers Mission of KKK

Black Pastors’ ‘Amen; Turning to ‘Oh My!’

Black Pastors Launch Anti-Obama Campaign to Convince African Americans to Withdraw Support for the President

Republicans: Black America's true friend

The Left’s Race Card

Race and Religion in Obamaland…

MLK’s Niece, Dr. Alveda King to Stand (Stood) With Glenn Beck at ‘Restore Honor’ Event in DC and Against Hate and Racism

GB: Liberation Theology… And How It Affects You – Important to Read and Watch!

Beck’s Founders Friday: African-American Founders

A black man: the progressives' perfect Trojan Horse

Is Obama Socially Rigging 2012?

Political Correctness…

Related Reading:

Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It, Revised and Updated Edition

Bamboozled: How Americans are being Exploited by the Lies of the Liberal Agenda

Liberating Black Theology: The Bible and the Black Experience in America

Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal - America's Racial Obsession

White Guilt

Giants: The Parallel Lives of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Race and Religion in Obamaland…

Blacks' Dilemma With Obama

Election of our nation's first black president is delivering an unexpected message to our black population.

Blacks are discovering that what a man or woman does -- their actions -- is what matters, not the color of their skin.

It seems ridiculous to point out that this was supposedly the point of the civil rights movement. Purge racism from America.

But blacks themselves have been the ones having the hardest time letting it go.

It is not hard to understand why black Americans were happy that a black man was elected president of the United States. It was kind of a final and most grand announcement that racism has finally been purged from America.

But for the highly politicized parts of black America this was certainly not the only message. Because for the highly politicized parts of black America, the point has always been to keep race in American politics.

For black political culture that dominated after the civil rights movement, the point was not just equal treatment under the law, but special treatment under the law. Plus the assumption that more black political power -- defined by more blacks holding office -- would mean that blacks would be better off.

In other words, post-civil rights movement black political culture embraced an agenda exactly the opposite of what the civil rights movement was about. Its agenda was to get laws and policies that were not neutral but racially slanted and to put individuals in power based on their race and not on their character and capability.

So, according to the script of this political culture, election of a black man as president meant more than an end to racism. The conclusion had to be that if the man holding the highest political office in the nation was black, it must follow that blacks would be better off.

Now blacks have a dilemma. We have a black president and blacks are worse off. Not just a little, but a lot worse off.

In the words of longtime Congressional Black Caucus member Maxine Waters, D-Calif., "Our people are hurtin'.."

Blacks now grapple with two possible conclusions.

One, our black president is a traitor to his race. Our struggles put him in power and now he's not taking care of his folks. He's become, in the words of left wing professor and activist Cornel West, a "mascot" of Wall Street.

Or, two, that the man's performance reflects his views and his capability, not his race. He's not delivering for anyone. Blacks are hurting more because they were already in worse shape when Obama got elected. Bad policies hurt the weakest the most.

And it happens that the bad policies that have always failed are the big government liberalism that has defined modern black politics.

With further thought, blacks might realize it's this same flawed idea -- that growing government and electing black politicians would make blacks better off -- that explains why blacks have remained disproportionately "hurtin".

Take the Congressional Black Caucus itself. The average poverty rate in Black Caucus districts is almost 50 percent higher than the national average. Yet, these black politicians have 100 percent re-election rates.

Maybe a real bonus that will have come from electing a black president is that blacks will take seriously Dr. King's dream that we judge men by their character and not their color.

The Civil Rights Movement took blacks to the edge of the Promised Land. But political activism can only remove barriers to freedom.

It's up to the individual to embrace freedom and take on the personal responsibilities that go with it.

Maybe blacks will realize that they should blame Barack Obama. Not because he is black, but because he is a liberal. And because he has grown government to the point where the oxygen necessary for freedom and prosperity is being squeezed out of our nation.

Star Parker

Star Parker  -  founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It  -  Posted at Townhall

 

Black Tea Party Leader Demands Apology from Maxine Waters

Contact: 323-556-2623

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 23, 2011 /Standard Newswire/ -- South Central L.A. Tea Party Founder and President, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is demanding an apology from Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), for her remarks that the "tea party can go straight to hell." Rep. Waters made her comments last Saturday at a forum in Inglewood, Calif., while vowing to push Congress to focus on creating more jobs. "I'm not afraid of anybody," said Waters. "This is a tough game. You can't be intimidated. You can't be frightened. And as far as I'm concerned the 'tea party' can go straight to hell." According to reports, Waters comments were met with cheers from the audience, which included SEIU members. Newly released figures indicate that California's unemployment rate last month went up to 12%, from 11.8%. California now has second-highest rate of unemployment in the nation, trailing only Nevada at 12.9 %.

"Scapegoating the tea party for the wasteful liberal social policies which are destroying the U.S. economy is wicked and irresponsible," said Rev. Peterson. "On behalf of millions of patriotic Americans we demand that Waters apologize! The tea party is the solution, not the problem. I'm sure Maxine Waters would like her attacks on the tea party to distract from her failures and serious ethics issues."

The House ethics committee is investigating Congresswoman Waters for allegations that she improperly tried to obtain a federal bailout for a bank where her husband owns stock. Last week, the committee announced that it has named Washington Lawyer Billy Martin as an outside counsel to investigate the embattled California lawmaker. Waters, a senior member of the Financial Services Committee, has denied wrongdoing.

Rev. Peterson said, "Maxine Waters helped cripple the U.S. economy by pushing home loans to people who couldn't afford them." He added, "Waters rant damning the tea party is an attempt to fire up her base and shore up support since the committee will not dismiss her case."

The South Central L.A. Tea Party (SCLATP) motto is "Power to the People!" It is open to patriotic American men and women of all races. SCLATP was formed in 2011by Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, who is the Founder and President of BOND Action, a 501 (c) (4) nonprofit organization dedicated to "educating, motivating, and rallying Americans to greater involvement in the moral, cultural and political issues that threaten our great country." The SCLATP recently held a successful rally to expose NAACP lies about the Tea Party, click here to watch report. For information visit www.bondaction.org.

EDITORIAL: Obama: Whites need not apply

The White House issued an executive order on Thursday titled “Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce.” The purpose of the order is “to promote the federal workplace as a model of equal opportunity, diversity and inclusion.” In other words, it would be better for the government if public-spirited white workers sought employment elsewhere. Lost amid all the politically correct box-checking is the principle that the most qualified person should be hired for a job.

President Obama’s new order instructs federal agencies to design new strategies for hiring, promoting and keeping workers of “diverse” backgrounds. The diversity the government is seeking is not diversity of ideas, outlooks or work experiences. In contemporary political parlance, “diversity” refers primarily to the color of one’s skin and not the content of one’s character. The executive order says the federal government “must create a culture that encourages collaboration, flexibility and fairness to enable individuals to participate to their full potential.” In the name of “fairness,” however, the government will intensify programs that discriminate against white Americans by extending special privileges to everyone else. The order also says that “attaining a diverse, qualified workforce is one of the cornerstones of the merit-based civil service,” though merit and ability are not the metrics of choice when measuring success in diversity-driven career programs.

The order states that by law, the federal government’s recruitment policies should “endeavor to achieve a workforce from all segments of society” and that “as the nation’s largest employer, the federal government has a special obligation to lead by example.” In that respect, the government could largely declare mission accomplished. A quick look at the demographic breakdown of the federal payroll shows that “diversity” goals have been more than met. According to the Office of Personnel Management, federal employees in fiscal 2010 were 66.2 percent white, 17.7 percent black, 8 percent Hispanic, 5.6 percent Asian and Pacific Islander and 1.8 percent American Indian. Compared to the general U.S. population, the federal force is a bit too diverse. Blacks are overrepresented by 6.9 percent compared to the civilian work force, Asians and Pacific Islanders by 1.2 percent, and American Indians are more than double their proportion of the population at large. White Americans, who make up about 70 percent of the work force, are underrepresented by around 4 percent. Hispanics are also underrepresented despite the Clinton-era executive order 13171, “Hispanic Employment in the Federal Government.”

During the 2008 presidential campaign and in the initial months of the Obama presidency, there was great enthusiasm for the concept of post-racial America. Mr. Obama’s historic election was viewed as a watershed for the issue of race relations. People thought that finally a national dialogue could be commenced on the issue free of guilt and recriminations. This promise stumbled with the July 2009 Rose Garden “beer summit” between Mr. Obama, black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., and white Cambridge, Mass., police Sgt. James Crowley, who had arrested Mr. Gates for disorderly conduct. At the time, Mr. Obama called it a “teachable moment,” but that White House photo-op was the last anyone heard about the national dialogue on race. Mr. Obama has squandered his chance to lead America away from the divisive racial politics of the past. This executive order tells America that in the Obama administration, race-based preferences are still business as usual.

FBI list: You might be a domestic terrorist if . . . You Are White and or a Christian

· Ridiculous FBI list: You might be a domestic terrorist if . . .

...Sadly this is part two and not a You-Might-Be-a-Redneck-If-type joke as there is more proof that you might be a domestic terrorist if you actually believe your Constitutional Rights, or if you express concerns about Big Brother, or even if you have ever discussed the apocalypse online and your 'radical' Christian beliefs. When it comes to disasters, if your plan is to "be prepared" like the Boy Scout motto, then guess what? Be prepared to be suspicious and end up on a watchlist as a domestic terrorist...

You might be a domestic terrorist if you pay cash or if you "insist" on privacy when, for no reason, you are asked to show your identification. Sadly this is part two and not a You-Might-Be-a-Redneck-If-type joke as there is more proof that you might be a domestic terrorist if you actually believe your Constitutional Rights, or if you express concerns about Big Brother, or even if you have ever discussed the apocalypse online and your 'radical' Christian beliefs. When it comes to disasters, if your plan is to "be prepared" like the Boy Scout motto, then guess what? Be prepared to be suspicious and end up on a watchlist as a domestic terrorist. Prepared Girl Scouts are not safe either.

Oath Keepers posted [PDF] a "communities against terrorism" brochure that the Colorado FBI handed out as a potential indicator of terrorist activities to military surplus stores. The alarming list suggests that suspicious activities includes insisting to pay with cash or if the "suspect" demands "identity privacy." If you went into a military surplus store previously, don't alter your appearance such as by shaving, changing your hair color, or your style of dressing because that too may make you a domestic terrorist. Don't go buying items there as an intended gift because possessing "little knowledge of intended purchase items" makes you a potential extremist to be reported. Better shower well or use cologne/perfume because if you smell strange? You guessed it, you potential terrorist you.

That's not nearly all the "suspicious activity" that might get you labeled as a domestic terrorist. What if you are trying to follow disaster preparedness guidelines as suggested by other government agencies like DHS or the CDC? Not too long ago, the CDC compiled a "Zombie Apocalypse" disaster preparedness list that was such a viral social media hit that it crashed the servers. Well you might be suspicious and a domestic terrorist if you purchase meals ready to eat, weatherproofed ammunition or match containers, night vision devices, night flashlights or gas masks. Examiner journalist Kurt Hofmann pointed out that purchasing such items makes you a "suspected terrorist" but not purchasing the CDC's survival preparedness items means you will be devoured by zombies? Hofmann also says that ironically Homeland Security suggests that citizens have disaster preparedness supplies on hand.

It began when the White House announced a community-based approach to fight domestic terrorism and published "Empowering local partners to prevent violent extremism in the United States" [PDF]. The strategy is to strengthen cooperation between law enforcement, communities and the federal government. Among other things, it will help "communities to better understand and protect themselves against violent extremist propaganda, especially online." No big deal, you aren't an extremist? In what seems almost to be talk out of both sides of the same mouth, the document states, "Though we will not tolerate illegal activities, opposition to government policy is neither illegal nor unpatriotic and does not make someone a violent extremist." That is, it's not yet officially rubber-stamped to get your name on a watchlist. While it recommends peaceful means, and I'm all for peace, we've seen how officially or not, members of peace groups have ended up on watchlists like they might be terrorist scum because domestic spying is nearly at Cold War levels!

Another White House proposed community-based strategy is a comprehensive gang model, but law enforcement has long been hunting for gangs and terrorists who utilize Xbox and PS3 and warned the gaming realm like World of Warcraft is allegedly used to recruit and to plan chaos. Also, now the NYPD has formed a new social media unit to data-mine Facebook and Twitter for mayhem.

"Under the logic of this most recent handout, the Boy Scouts should be reported as 'suspicious',"wrote Oath Keepers. "Funny thing is, who exactly do the authors of these handouts think they are talking to when they ask gun store and military surplus store owners and staff to spy on their customers and serve as a network of government snitches?"

The flyers have also been handed out in Wyoming and similar brochures were passed out in gun stores from Utah to Connecticut. Authorities in Denver confirmed the suspicious activities document is "going to surplus stores, hotels and motels, farm supply companies that handle fertilizer and gun shops," Oath Keepers reported. "The answer to the government's silly lists is to make the lists so damn long they end up including every able bodied American (who is supposed to be the militia anyway), and thus the damnable lists become useless."

According to WND, a DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis included "right-wing extremism" in the U.S. as "divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

You might be a domestic terrorist if you are supporter of Ron Paul for president. Missouri law enforcement has been encouraged to report such suspicious behavior as having a bumper sticker that supports Ron Paul. A Missouri Information Analysis Center report also "warned law enforcement to watch out for individuals with 'radical' ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes."

God help you if you are a hacker, in the sense of modding whatever it is you plan to buy, cause that too is suspicious, you potential terrorist you. Although I'm joking so that I don't cry, I'm angry about all these &$#%*! ridiculous lists of what I consider innocent behavior being treated like it allegedly equals suspicious behavior. Guard your privacy and you are suspicious enough to be reported as a potential domestic terrorist? Why should a person be required to show identification if what they are purchasing is with cash and does not require ID? Homeland Security already has massive databases of secret watchlists! I'm a bit afraid to ask what's next? That online articles disagreeing with such asinine lists could be construed as civil unrest needing squashed?

Sadly my friends… this is the hope and change…

People Are Reporting Mass Military Movement Around Country & Ron Paul on FEMA Camps

Also: Check out MLK Memorial Made in China

Monday, August 15, 2011

The Left’s Race Card - Updated

Thomas Sowell: Liberals are now playing race-card fraud

By: Thomas Sowell | 07/21/10 3:00 AM

Credit card fraud is a serious problem. But race-card fraud is an even bigger problem.

Playing the race card takes many forms. Judge Charles Pickering, a federal judge in Mississippi who defended the civil rights of blacks for years and defied the Ku Klux Klan back when that was dangerous, was depicted as a racist when he was nominated for a federal appellate judgeship.

No one even mistakenly thought he was a racist. The point was simply to discredit him for political reasons- and it worked.

This year's target is the Tea Party. When leading Democrats, led by a smirking Nancy Pelosi, made their triumphant walk on Capitol Hill, celebrating their passage of a bill in defiance of public opinion, Tea Party members on the scene protested.

All this was captured on camera and the scene was played on television. What was not captured on any of the cameras and other recording devices on the scene was anybody using racist language, as has been charged by those playing the race card.

When you realize how many media people were there, and how many ordinary citizens carry around recording devices of one sort or another, it is remarkable- indeed, unbelievable- that racist remarks were made and yet were not captured by anybody.

The latest attack on the Tea Party movement, by Ben Jealous of the NAACP, has once again played the race card. Like the proverbial lawyer who knows his case is weak, he shouts louder.

This is not the first time that an organization with an honorable and historic mission has eventually degenerated into a tawdry racket. But that an organization like the NAACP, after years of fighting against genuine racism, should now be playing the game of race-card fraud is especially painful to see.

Some critics of the Tea Party have seized upon banners carried at one of its rallies that compared Obama with Hitler and Stalin. Extreme? Yes. But there was nothing racist about it, since extreme comparisons have been made about politicians of every race, color, creed, nationality, ideology and sexual preference.

Some Obama supporters have long regarded any criticism of him as racism. But that they should have to resort to such a banner to bolster their case shows how desperate they are for any evidence.

Among people who voted for President Barack Obama in 2008, those who are likely to be most disappointed are those who thought that they were voting for a new post-racial era. There was absolutely nothing in Obama's past to lead to any such expectation, and much to suggest the exact opposite. But the man's rhetoric and demeanor during the election campaign enabled this and many other illusions to flourish.

Still, it was an honest mistake of the kind that decent people have often made when dealing with people whose agendas are not constrained by decency, but only by what they think they can get away with.

On race, as on other issues, different people have radically different views of Obama, depending on whether they judge him by what he says or by what he does.

As Obama's own books point out, he has for years cultivated a talent for saying things that people will find congenial.

You want bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington? He will say that he wants bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington. Then he will shut Republicans out of the decision-making process and respond to their suggestions by reminding them that he won the election. A famous writer- Ring Lardner, I believe- once wrote: "'Shut up,' he explained."

You want a government that is open instead of secretive? He will say that. He will promise to post proposed legislation on the Internet long enough for everyone to read it and know what is in it before there is a vote.

In practice, however, he has rushed massive bills through Congress too fast for anybody- even the members of Congress- to know what was in those bills.

Racial issues are more of the same. You want a government where all citizens are treated alike, regardless of race or ethnicity? Obama will say that.

Then he will advocate appointing judges with "empathy" for particular segments of the population, such as racial minorities. "Empathy" is just a pretty word for the ugly reality of bias.

Obama's first nomination of a Supreme Court justice was a classic example of someone with "empathy" for some racial groups, but not others. As a Circuit Court judge, Sonia Sotomayor voted to dismiss a case involving white firefighters who had been denied the promotions for which they qualified, because not enough blacks or Hispanics passed the same test that they did.

A fellow Hispanic judge protested the way the white firefighters' case was dismissed, rather than adjudicated. Moreover, the Supreme Court not only took the case, it ruled in favor of the firefighters.

Obama's injecting himself into a local police matter in Massachusetts, despite admitting that he didn't know the facts, to say that a white policeman was in the wrong in arresting a black professor who was a friend of Obama, was more of the same. So is Obama's Justice Department overlooking blatant voter intimidation by thugs who happen to be black.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything post-racial about Obama, except for the people who voted for him in the mistaken belief that he shared their desire to be post-racial. When he leaves office, especially if it is after one term, he will leave this country more racially polarized than before.

Hopefully, he may also leave the voters wiser, though sadder, after they learn from painful experience that you can't judge politicians by their rhetoric, or ignore their past because of your hopes for the future. Voters may even wise up to race card fraud.

Examiner Columnist Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, one of the most respected voices or our time and is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate,  Author of The Housing Boom and Bust

Many American, if only subconsciously, voted for Barack Hussein Obama in the hope that his election would finally put an end to the racial tensions in America.  Instead racial tensions have not been higher in decades than they are now with Obama at the helm.  And the reason for that is Obama and the Progressive left’s consistent use of the race card since he had been in office. Obama and his minions are the ones who have been divisive and derisive… not white main street America, not the tea party and not republicans.  Here is just another example:

O L P 1

Sheila Jackson Lee’s question and insane if you use any logic and facts at all and her insinuations are race driven.  Nancy Pelosi’s support of Lee’s statements and ideologically driven, for she is one of the most ideologically left politicians on the Hill.  The left is obsessed with race and using it as a tool to control and divide people for their purposes and they are rewriting history to serve their purposes.  The race card, divide and conquer, multiculturalism and political correctness are all tools of the division and of the left!

Video:  Pelosi Backs Lee Claim Obama is Debated Because He's Black

The reason Obama’s and buddy Geithner’s latest debt ceiling increase request was such a fight has nothing to do with the fact that Obama is half black, but rather that he has doubled our national debt in 18 months and is bankrupting our country with his spending and ideology.

Star Parker, a black author, former GOP Congressional candidate, and political activist, radio personality and speaker, who used to be a welfare recipient, will tell you (and often does) that the whole divide and conquer philosophy and keeping minorities on the government dole is part of the progressive left’s plan and ideology and we all bought into it…. blacks and whites!

Star Parker: Devil in the Details:  How America is Aborting Its Future  &  Why do Blacks Let Obama Off the Hook

And an even more heinous is this example:

‘A SLAVE HOLDER NAMED THOMAS JEFFERSON’: IS SMITHSONIAN‘S NEW ’RACE’ EXHIBIT - FAIR TO FOUNDING FATHER?  HARDLY!!!

Which major government-funded U.S. museum currently features an exhibit that classifies Thomas Jefferson as simply “a slave holder”?

The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History currently features an exhibit titled "Race: Are We So Different?"

That would be the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, located in the heart of nation’s capital.

Developed by the American Anthropological Association, “Race: Are We So Different” offers “an unprecedented look at race and racism in the United States,” according to the Smithsonian’s website.

The Blaze visited the exhibit and found a couple of things that might surprise you.

A five-minute video at the front of the hall sets up the visitor’s experience, which in addition to describing Christopher Columbus as someone who only “colonized and conquered” the natives he encountered, refers to Jefferson merely as a “slave holder”:

“Race,” the narrator says, “is a powerful idea that was invented by society.”

“Many of the ideas we now associate with race originated during the European era of exploration. Europeans like Christopher Columbus traveled overseas and encountered and then colonized and conquered peoples in Africa, Asia and the Americas who looked, talked and acted much differently from them.

“In the American colonies, the first laborers were European indentured servants. When African laborers were forcibly brought to Virginia beginning in 1619, status was defined by wealth and religion, not by physical characteristics such as skin color. But this would change.

“By 1776 when “All men are created equal” was written into the Declaration of Independence by a slave holder named Thomas Jefferson, a democratic nation was born with a major contradiction about race at its core. As our new nation asserted its independence from European tyranny, blacks and American Indians were viewed as less than human and not deserving of the same liberties as whites.”

A display in another part of the exhibit features a historical timeline of slavery. The entry for the year 1784 states: “Thomas Jefferson, future U.S. president and likely the father of at least one of the slaves he owned, publishes ‘Notes on the State of Virginia.’” It quotes Jefferson’s writing, where he posits whether blacks are a distinct, inferior race from whites and if that would be an obstacle to their emancipation.

Jefferson did of course own slaves — hundreds throughout his lifetime. But his feelings on slavery were also much more complex than the exhibit suggests — in other writings he called it “an abominable crime” and “moral depravity.” He drafted Virginia’s 1778 law banning the importation of enslaved Africans and separately proposed slavery be outlawed in the new Northwest territories.

But “Race: Are We So Different?” does not cover any of that. None of the exhibit’s written displays examines these nuances; the only other details offered are on a looped video with a historian who says Jefferson knew it was “a massive contradiction” to both own slaves while professing the “lofty ideals” of America — a brief distinction that is easy to miss.

When contacted by The Blaze, Kelly Carnes of the Natural History Museum‘s press office said she could not speak to the exhibit’s content because it was not created by the Smithsonian. Damon Dozier of the American Anthropological Association did not respond to requests for comment.

At the end of the day, a casual Smithsonian visitor is likely to come away from one of the nation’s preeminent museums thinking that one of the Founding Fathers was truly nothing more than a racist slave owner — and remember, since it’s a government-funded museum, you as a taxpayer are paying for it.

Other features of note:

  • A display titled “Racism’s effects on health“ says ”numerous studies have linked the stress of racism on African Americans to high blood pressure, adding evidence to the claims that racism contributes to the high rates of hypertension among them.“ It adds that racism may also affect health through ”limited access to nutritious food and safe environments for exercise; increased exposure to environmental toxins; reduced quality of health care.”
  • A display about the history of affirmative action in the U.S. declares, “The legacy of white privilege still runs far ahead of efforts to compensate for it.” It features a note about two 2003 Supreme Court affirmative action rulings, which it says upheld “the limited use of race as a factor in reviewing student [university] applications.” While Grutter v. Bollinger did uphold the use of race for admissions, the ruling in the second case, Gratz v. Bollinger, actually held that the use of simply assigning “points” to someone based on their race was unconstitutional. Beside the display’s text is a photograph of the 2003 court, including Clarence Thomas, the sole African American justice. Thomas has long maintained his views opposing affirmative action, something nowhere to be found on the display.

You can take a virtual tour of the exhibit here. “Race: Are We So Different?” will be on display at the Smithsonian through Jan. 2. 2012

Update:  08.15.11 5:06PM ET

Lloyd MarcusLloydMarcus.com  -  Posted by Lloyd Marcus on August 15, 2011 at 10:51am 

 

They Who Live by the Race Card Die by the Race Card

Due to Obama's declining poll numbers, Democrat tongues loosened by cocktails at parties are quietly suggesting,"Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could primary Obama out with Hillary?  Darn it, we can't because Obama is black!"

I say, "Hallelujah -- a perfect example of divine justice." They who live by the race card die by the race card.

Almost three years ago, the Democrats offered their equivalent of a Trojan Horse to America in the form of a shiny, new, extremely well-crafted, beautiful black man.  Its mega-internal speakers broadcast a hypnotic message, heavily reverbed to create a godlike effect and looped 24/7, promising "Hope and Change."

A "perfect storm" of circumstances led to America's enthusiastic embrace of the Democrats' ebony idol Trojan Horse: white guilt, black racism, and perhaps even the popularity of the American Idol TV show.  Obama was the first "rock star" American Ebony Idol presidential candidate.

Democrats were elated by their good fortune.

Obama would be the key to implementing all of their liberal-academia, utopia-producing theories, his black skin insulating him from any and all opposition.  Oppose Obama?  You're racist!

The Democrats keep their R-for-racist branding iron red-hot and ready to apply swift retribution to any feisty, uppity conservative or Republican who dares challenge Obama.

Basking in their tactical genius, Democrats thought, "We did it! We pulled off the perfect exploitation of race to implement our socialistic agenda; a liberal black man in the White House."  Someone at the DNC even broke out their old Commodores record as they partied: "Ce-le-brate good times, C'MON!"

As America slept, one night under the cover of darkness, a hidden door in the ebony idol opened; out rushed an army of vicious liberal minions, freedom-killing mandates, and socialistic policies.  Their mission: destroy our capitalist system and massacre America as we know it.

Totally unexpected and to the horror of the Democrats, We The People rose up.  Patriots, via divine inspiration, formed the Tea Party.  Patriot freedom-fighters began winning skirmishes around the country -- governorships in New Jersey, Virginia, and Florida -- and defeating the tyrannous teachers' union in Wisconsin, to name a few.  We took the House.  We will take the Senate and are predicted to take the White House in 2012.

The Democrats' ebony idol, their so-called gift to America, has been exposed for the fraud it truly is -- a hollow, soulless shell of empty liberal ideology, its internal recorded message malfunctioning and distorted, stuck repeating the phrase, "I blame...I blame...I blame..."

Seeing the handwriting on the wall via polling, the Dems wish they could abandon their disastrous ebony race card for Hillary, their gender card.

But alas, they cannot.  After spending the last three years, assisted by their media minions, convincing Americans that any and all criticism of or opposition to Obama is racist, Democrats find themselves victims of their own trap.  Fearing the repercussions, Dems do not dare display the slightest abandonment of Obama.  I love it!  They who live by the race card die by the race card.

Despite the media's relentless attempts to brand us otherwise, the Tea Party has never been about race.  Our focus and sole desire have been to uphold the Constitution and restore our freedom, liberty, and culture.  The Tea Party's goals are much higher than the Democrats' bottom-feeding agenda of exploiting race for political gain.  This is why it is so sweet that they are stuck with their loser black candidate.

You leftists, do not try to spin my comment as being racist.  I, along with millions of my white Tea Party brothers and sisters, would gladly cast a presidential vote for blacks such as Herman Cain and Col. Allen West in a heartbeat.  So don't even go there.

Ironically, the Democrats who claim ownership of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shamefully dishonor his dream.  The Tea Party, vilified by the Democrats, fully embraces MLK's dream by judging and selecting their candidates by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.  Thus, the Tea Party, much-hated by Democrats, is the realization of MLK's dream.  And for the record, MLK was a Republican.

Lets us not forget that MLK’s Niece, Dr. Alveda King to Stood With Glenn Beck at ‘Restore Honor Event in…

Dr. Alveda King Spoke on Whether Her Uncle Martin Luther King Jr. Would Stand with Glenn Beck or NAACP on Aug. 28th 2010

Sarah and Alveda 8.28.10

Photo:  Sarah Palin and Dr. Alveda King, both speakers at GB’s Restore Honor Event on 8.28.10, on the Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s… instead of walking with opportunist Al Sharpton

The Democrats played the ultimate race card -- an incompetent affirmative-action president, and now they are stuck with him.  The faux finish on their once-shiny ebony idol is rapidly deteriorating, peeling off daily.  Come 2012, Obama is a sure loser.  "Ce-le-brate good times, C'MON!"

Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American  -  Co-Chairman of The Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama

Please help me spread my message by joining my Liberty Network.
Lloyd is singer/songwriter of the
American Tea Party Anthem and author of Confessions of a Black Conservative, foreword by Michele Malkin, author of Culture of Corruption

Ask Marion~

Political Correctness – The Revenge of Marxism