The Black Republican

Wow. It's a good thing Thomas Sowell is Black, otherwise the MSM would have labeled him a riacist, a bigot, and maybe even instigated a high-tech lynching protest for daring to say such things in public:

William F. Buckley’s wife once mentioned in passing, at dinner in her home, that she had been involved for years in working with a school in Harlem. But I never heard her or Bill Buckley ever say that publicly.

Nor do conservatives who were in the civil-rights marches in the south, back when that was dangerous, make that a big deal.

For people on the Left, however, blacks are trophies or mascots, and must therefore be put on display. Nowhere is that more true than in politics.

The problem with being a mascot is that you are a symbol of someone else’s significance or virtue. The actual well-being of a mascot is not the point.

Read it all. It's worth it.

Ironic, isn't it, that on authoring articles with subject matter such as this the MSM seems to have an unwritten rule... No Whites allowed.

Wow!

In early December the case of the "Jena Six"--the six African-American high school students in Louisiana accused of viciously beating a white classmate in 2006--collapsed dramatically with a felony guilty plea by one of the defendants. As something that was going to trigger "America's next great civil rights movement" (to quote National Public Radio) and grassroots protests against the "new Jim Crow" and the systematic discrimination against blacks in the criminal justice system, this was quite a letdown. The Jena Six were supposed to be the new Scottsboro Boys, the nine black youths railroaded to death sentences by all-white juries in 1930s Alabama on charges of raping two white women.

But the fact remains that the Jena Six case climbed to its rickety position as a national symbol of racial injustice largely because a lot of people, some professional activists and many members of the press, wanted it to do so.

Funny how those same brave race rats managed to run onto the ship with a screaming chorus so loud that was heard all across the country, but we didn't hear a word from the MSM about how fast the charges of racial prejudice in Jena from the the race-baiters "professional activists" Rev. Jessie and Rev. Al (and this Pastor Bean) fell apart. I thought this was going to be protested and made headline news for months. Isn't that what we were told? What happened to "no Justice, No Peace"? Where are the headlines now? Where are the protests? More importantly, why were you in Jena when you thought these boys had been wronged, but are nowhere to be found now that there are real lives and real racial tensions that need to be healed? How can any of you call yourselves Reverends when it seems that all you do is divide and never seem to have the desire or ability to unite. Or is there just no money in that?

I guess it didn't help that the center of the whole contrivance admitted that he is actually guilty, did it?

And to the media, where were the stories about how the citizens of Jena - both black and white - sought to come together, before this whole thing blew up, to resolve this issue themselves with civility and decorum? Seems that just didn't fit the narative you had already written, did it?

Don't you people think you owe the people of Jena an apology at least? Or do you think you have done no wrong here?

I am so sick of the efforts by these race-baiters and their MSM sycophants to foment division and anger between members of different races and religions. I wish you folks would just get a life, and dissuade yourselves from the notion that you are part of the solution, because you are not! You are, in fact, the biggest part of the problem, and actually are standing in the way of progress. If it weren't for the national media and these "professional activists" feeding the monster, us ordinary folk would have let racism die the starvation death it so richly deserves years ago.

Continue reading "The race rats were the first to abandon the sinking Jena ship!" »

I got the following in my email today, unsolicited, from someone named Andre Bright. I don't see anything previously in my email from this gentleman, and a check of the site indicates we've never gotten a comment from anyone named Andre. (I do delete a rare few comments, usually for vulgarity or racist remarks, sometimes for just being remarkably stupid - neither of which fits the style and tone of this email.)

Why are you not speaking out and challenging Mayor Giuliani, Senators Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney & John McCain to show up for the All-American Presidential Forum on September 27, 2007 at Morgan State University in Baltimore, MD?

This is why many African-American voters, myself included, do not take the Republican party seriously as a political option. In the words of Tavis Smiley, "how can we take them seriously, if they don't take us seriously?"

First the GOP presidential candidates fail to commit to Hispanic voters for a debate sponsored by UniVision, and now the top four candidates pull a no show for a forum geared at speaking to issues that affect African-Americans?

How can the Republicans continue to ignore the many Black and Brown voters of this country, and expect to be taken seriously as viable options by minority voters?

We can take this ad infinitum. Who wants to play the chicken and who wants to be the egg? To the tune of some 90% per presidential election, blacks have made known their opinion that the Republican Party doesn't care about them. Public opinion polls, boundless anecdotal evidence, and regular references in popular culture indicates most blacks (and liberals) think we're racists. And so Republican elected officials and candidates make no effort to fight the losing battle. When they dare to believe, despite the benefit of past experience, that they can try to fight the battle, and then go to a function sponsored by "black leaders", they're usually ambushed by left-leaning propaganda skillfully woven into "black-themed" issues. Worst of all, large portions of the Republican base, jaded by that past experience, sometimes look at such attempts as pandering to blackmail perpetrated by those who wish to perpetuate the cycle - which is, of course, what it is.

The email goes on to hint at a sad truism in today's society - the only people who can make efforts to resolve this are the people who don't have the power to resolve this.

This forum, by many accounts, has been regarded as the fairest and most balanced of all of the presidential debates. This was addressed by former Vice Presidential candidate Jack Kemp just a few weeks ago in an editorial he wrote for the Washington Times and on www.TownHall.com. Mr. Kemp also spoke about the wonderful opportunity this will be for the GOP to reach out and express their ideas to an audience composed primarily of people of color.

I was even more impressed to hear that Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, also spoke favorably about the forum and the opportunity for the GOP to reach minority voters.

I fear all we can hope for is patience, that the continuing rise of the black middle class and the gradual erosion of strict definitions of black vs. white, amid the growth of interracial marriages and integrated suburban neighborhoods and schools, marginalizes not "the black community" per se, but only those who think there ought to be one separate from whites.

Overrated: Barack O'McNabb

"You know what, folks? I think it's time for a new name for Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and until it changes, until the way he's being treated by the Drive-Bys changes, ..........there is such a desire in the Drive-Bys that Obama do well, like there is in the NFL for people like McNabb to do well, that we're going to call him "Barack O'McNabb."

Rush is right again, and this time the usual suspects aren't even trying to make a buck by denying the truth. Perhaps ESPN will fire him again.

Also, note the slam by Mrs. O'McNabb against Mrs. Bill Clinton:

'Our view is that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House,'

Girl fight! Of course Michele O'McNabb is right; Mrs. Bill Clinton can not run her own house, and even when we had "two for one" Clintons they could not run the White House. But, the men who oppose her for the Democratic nomination remember how Rick Lazio lost because he picked on the girl, so they are sending their wives out for girl fights instead of standing up to Mrs. Bil Clinton themselves.

OK, I've been on vacation the past week and a half and am just now trying to do some catch-up. To that end I have compiled a list of some observations over that time:

Continue reading "A Pseudo Religion, Real Racism, and True Terror." »

Today was one for the books.

It began with a vote in the Senate that beat, throttled, and mutilated the hotly contested immigration bill before it finally died. Good riddance. I can't help but wonder if we've seen a life preserver thrown to the Republican Party.

You can continue to follow the spectacle on the thousand-or-so blogs covering the action, but make sure you hear about Sam Switchback and MSM Dimwittery from the WSJ, both via HotAir.

FULL DISCLOSURE: As someone who has clicked occasionally on the "Those Shirts" ads on HotAir, I am apparently involved in the plot.

That would have been a full day's news, but we're not finished.

SCOTUS decided to get into the action by offering its final ruling (yet another 5-4 with Kennedy siding with the Originalist/Textualist half of the court) [ SCOTUSBlog] on affirmative action in public schools. We'll need time to really digest this mammoth ruling; I've only managed to skim the Chief Justice's opinion for the court. But, as widely reported, the CJ has offered a statement in conclusion that I trust will become one of the great catchphrases of Supreme Court jurisprudence:

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

Next, Mike Pence's preventative measure banning the UnFairness Doctrine thundered out of the House, 309-115. Expect the Senate to pass it on a voice vote some Friday night in July.

To finish off a tumultuous day with a little comic relief tonight, the Dems had a debate, where they discussed the evils of resegregation being forced on America by the Supreme Court. The event was held at Howard University.

That would be the title of the book, if CAIR was writing it.

According to tax documents obtained by The Times, the number of reported members spiraled down from more than 29,000 in 2000 to less than 1,700 in 2006, a loss of membership that caused the Muslim rights group's annual income from dues to drop from $732,765 in 2000, when yearly dues cost $25, to $58,750 last year, when the group charged $35.

The organization instead is relying on about two dozen individual donors a year to contribute the majority of the money for CAIR's budget, which reached nearly $3 million last year.

PJM

What's most amazing about this video is how unabashedly racist it is, wrapped in the certitude that I am the racist.

Hot Air

This has to be the best Vent ever. Unfortunately, I don't think our effete friends at the Journal understand Inglés anymore.

I suspect that knowledge of the existence of a comedy magazine/group called National Lampoon is a generational thing, and I am of the generation that was buying the rag. More often I bought their comedy albums, it was my aural period, in those years reading took too much effort, to tell the truth.

the magazine quickly grew in popularity during the 1970s, when it regularly skewered pop culture, the counterculture and politics with recklessness and gleeful bad taste.

An example of the bad taste is the song from their off-broadway production, Lemmings which included one song that would not be permitted today. In fact, it has been stricken from the recordings of that shows soundtrack. A commenter to the Amazon site linked above says;

But VERY DISAPPOINTINGLY omitted from this CD is the Joan Baez spoof PULL THE TRIGGERS _IGGERS("Pull the triggers, _iggers- we're with you all the way... right across the bay..."). As offensive and politcally uncorrect as the song is in its brevity, it's hysterically funny- and I'm bewildered why National Lampoon would edit the song out of this revue. Anyone know why?

Yes, "Trampyre", they took it out because this nation no longer finds anything funny in the use of that word. Sure, in some circles it is still permitted language, but only in the crude parts of society, not in polite company, and especially not on terrestrial radio. Now they spell it differently, and claim that it has a different definition if spoken by a certain clique too. And, besides, who among us would find it ironic to have a white peace activist sing as though she were a black militant? Not me. It really wasn't ever funny, though I am sure that I laughed uncomfortably back then, just shocking. And, as Don Imus can attest, shock as a form of entertainment (and revelation about where we are as people) is no longer protected by the first amendment.

I wonder if this spoof would make it today?

The caption says, "If Ted Kennedy drove a Volkwagon he'd be President today".

Anyway, the next time you hear Joe Biden ask how many shock jocks we had in this country in the seventies you can answer that he has asked the wrong question. The question is, how many shock jocks were we training in the seventies?

Of course, the answer is unimportant really, for we all know that it isn't what is said, it is who it is said about. So, we know that the VW ad would be in trouble, it mocks one of the untouchables.

I sent the following terse email to the "Immigration" mailbox of my Republican senator:

Subj: All I want to know is...

Do you really want to be a 1-term senator?

Look, I'd prefer that we do all those things we keep getting told won't work: build a fence, deport every illegal currently inside our borders, make the crime a felony, etc. But in our republic, what I want isn't what we get; it's what can be hammered out in legislation... which then has to be enforced. You're right, we don't see anyone enforcing the laws. But enforcement is the job of the policing authorities under the jurisdiction of the executive. All we can expect from the legislative branch is the promise of tougher laws and oversight.

The immigration issue today doesn't quite reach the same level as slavery did, but it's weakening us tremendously. Just after the mid-term elections, I observed:

The idea that the leadership of my party is so ignorant of the political dynamics occurring within the rank and file is... well, it's beyond my ability to characterize effectively. Hell, I was even one of the Republicans trying to convince people that comprehensive immigration reform wasn't such a bad idea, and even I can see that handing the Democrats a victory on that issue now will completely capsize the Republican ship.

Ace links to blogging and garners comments about the Duke No-Rape case and the games that our friends on the other side of the isle and in the DLM... (I'm sorry, I'm stuttering for some reason)... the games they play to "overcome (racial) injustice" as Ace put it. But frequent commenter Entropy coined a wonderful term to sum up the whole concept: injustice redistribution.

I don't have anything insightful to say, but it all deserves a read.

I've generally avoided using this term with the disdain that some have adopted over the years of our struggle against militant Islamists. Once, I quoted someone else using it. Once, I used it inside scare quotes, while querying those who use it more liberally. And once, I used it as the sarcastic do (but only in the RSS excerpt, which most people won't see), out of a fit of pique regarding one of the rituals of the Shiite sect that disgusts me.

But now I use it bluntly. In one of the articles I link to above, I mentioned (as I must have innocently believed at the time) that Islam as taught in America was relatively liberal, and not at all the same strand as that which we are fighting. So one has to wonder if the enemy has infiltrated Pittsburgh, or if Pittsburgh is no longer a part of America.

Prove me wrong. Dispute me, please. Moderate American muslims, convince the DemocratLiberalMedia Party to help you shout down this animal, or you're going to lose what support you have left among those people who have tried to remain dispassionate about the necessary reform you are NOT conducting within your communities. This isn't about prejudice, this is about survival, and if you're not going to help us protect you by clearly differentiating yourself from the enemy, we're going to be forced to conclude that you too are the enemy.

You won't see me posting this cartoon on these pages, and it is specifically this kind of bigotry that we renounced when we added the word "enduring" to our subtitle.

ESPN sportswriter Jemele Hill deserves a lot of praise for seeing that she was taken advantage of, and saying what needed to be said to begin to take responsibility for the wrong she unwittingly committed. If only the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson had this much propriety, the world would be such a better place. But then again, if there were no Al Sharptons or Jesse Jacksons (or Pat Buchanans or David Dukes...), there would be no need for the Jemele Hills of the world to apologize.

I'd been thinking it earlier, but I have to give credit to Mark Levin since he spelled it out on his radio show before I could post:

Now that charges have been dropped in the Duke rape case, and the North Carolina Attorney General has gone to the extreme of calling the three accused college students "innocent" (instead of simply "not guilty"), how long can Syndication One withstand the pressure on them to fire the man perpetuating the race-hatred that helped foster this injustice? How long?

(the title is from Proverbs 22:8)

UPDATE: Cox & Forkum strike again.

UPDATE 2: Classic Ace:

Crucified By The FCC: MSNBC announces end of Imus simulcast, which means they'll have to put together a new morning show that gets zero ratings; and the FCC will give Imus the full Stern treatment for his deeply offensive remarks.

They might also want to check out rap stations that may have played this Easy E song from back in the day:

so i grabbed the stupid bitch by her nappy-ass weave
she started talkin shit, wouldnt you know
reached back like a pimp, slapped the hoe

David Duke just emailed me again to say "That song touches my soul."

A liberal journalist invokes the other "N" word in a column in the LA Times. I think it is an important development, but I am not yet sure why. So, I'll leave it to the reader to witness the remarks of David Ehrenstein.

"But it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the "Magic Negro."

The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. "He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist," reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.-wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro .

He's there to assuage white "guilt" (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest."

And I'll also give you access to Rush's take on Ehrenstein's essay.

"So, those of you white people out there who are supporting Barack Obama, you are racists. That is the point that David Ehrenstein is making. You're attempting to assuage all of your white guilt by supporting Obama, is worthless, because you're just exhibiting racism because you know he's not a "real black." "

I will also remind you of what Juan Williams and Brit Hume had to say about how being black affects Obama's chances at election.

Lastly, I must say that I just now learning that the M.N. term exists, and I am not happy to have it as part of the American lexicon.

Normally, linkage to this kind of juvenile bloggery wouldn't be worth my time, but I thought the cartoonishness of the prejudice was a spectacle to be shared.

Meet the eponymous Epimetheus, who is obviously the first Japanese bigot I've run into on the Internet.

This morning, I simply posted a 'recommended reading' about how the Black Congressional Caucus wouldn't allow a white member despite his representation of a predominantly black district. This afternoon, I read how CNN was defending Barack Hussein Obama against the 'smear' leveled against him by "Insight" magazine (sorry about using Google's cache; the original link was throwing errors). These two stories are actually related by a comment put forth by a NewsBusters user: "Why is Hussein Obama in the black congressional caucus if he has a white mother?" Well?

I heard something on FOX News Sunday which reminded me of the old controversy over Rush Limbaugh's comment that there was sentiment for Donovan McNabb to succeed because he is black. I am unable to locate a transcript of the panel discussion of January 21, 2007, but the gist of the conversation went something like this:

Chris Wallace: What part does Obama’s race play in his prospects to become President?

Juan Williams: Well, he is a black man, so he has such an incredibly high burden to bear, the world is against him for being dark-skinned; it hurts his chances.

Brit Hume: Juan is exactly wrong. The very fact that Obama is dark-skinned, though not black, since his Mother was white, while his Father was black, serves him well. The great majority of the people in America want him to succeed precisely because he is black. The real sentiment in this country is support and good wishes for people of color. America wants them to succeed. Barak Obama is a well spoken man, and intelligent and handsome, traits that Americans admire, but he is without a record of accomplishment equal to the Office he seeks. If he were white, he wouldn't even be in the race.

Those are not exact quotes, but I do not believe that I have not taken any liberty with their expressed views either. Basically that is what they said.

Now, if Mr. Hume is attacked for his position, I will deeply regret having made this post. He should not be attacked; just Mr. Limbaugh should not have been attacked. Both have said what the majority of the American people feel, we want all of our people to succeed, and we especially want blacks to succeed. There is nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Limbaugh also said that McNabb was over-rated, and while that is debatable, it isn't racist, nor was it an unfair. His statement was based on McNabb's performance , or more precisely, McNabb non-performance, in comparison with the image many were promoting for him. McNabb had not lived up to the hype.

At this point, the same question trails Mr. Obama, is he over-rated? We wish him well, in part because of his blackness, but mostly because we want leaders who do good work on our behalf. In his chosen profession the benchmark for success is how much he promotes our success. To date he has not demonstrated that he has the vision to lead. But, we feel better about ourselves just knowing that he has the opportunity to succeed; now it is up to him to prove that he is not over-rated. That is a demand which we should all make upon everyone who impacts our lives. Some will succeed, some will fail, and that is how life works. And there is nothing wrong with that either.

Cox & Forkum

An email sent to a certain Corner contributor on the occasion of a nasty column about her in one of the worst wastes of newsprint in America.

Kathryn,

Re: "Sex-obsessed"

I've never understood this charge when I hear it leveled. How is it that people whose whole world seems to revolve around "sexual orientation", who apparently spend every waking moment needing it to be accepted and even endorsed by the rest of the populace, and who go on tirades like spoiled little children when someone won't lie to them and tell them it's perfectly fine, natural, and wholesome, have the twisted mentality to suggest that anyone who dares tell them to put a sock in it is "obsessed with sex"?

Akin to calling a black person "articulate", this might just be code for someone who might otherwise be described as a "papist". Because, you know, we just love to breed. (Something our detractors have a slight problem with, for some reason.)

On a not-entirely-separate note, please post fair warning next time you want me to visit the Village Voice. Now I have to shower.

Word is that the RNC has asked Michael Steele to replace Ken Mehlman as RNC Chairman. Maybe Mehlman's prediction that this will be the Year of the Black Republican will come true despite the losses at the polls.

What might The Man of Steele's acceptance - which he has yet to confirm - mean to the Party of Lincoln? The Chairmanship is the FACE of the party. He's the guy who sells the party, both ideologically and financially. Having a brown face and a conservative heart selling our party to the masses almost makes up for the loss.

UPDATE: Well, actually it's more of a correction. I forgot the hat tip. Go to Ace, where there's a lively discussion going on about this.

Premiere blog hottie Michelle Malkin replays Lt. Gov. Michael Steele's response to the Washington Post's biased coverage, as seen on Fox News Sunday this morning:

Now, how many times (have) you seen the Washington Post do a second editorial on a candidate that they didn't even endorse? It makes no sense. So clearly, I must be winning this race, and the Washington Post will have to write that headline, "Steele Wins", and then eat it. [emphasis mine]

There's a word with much baggage in American history and culture: lynching. The act of publicly murdering someone "(as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction". A despicable atrocity, casually practiced by despicable and atrocious people. Unfortunately - though you may not hear it said very often - lynching is not a concept confined by skin color as much as it is defined by it.

Or is it?

Today, we learn that it need not be defined by skin color at all. It can be practiced by some people upon others within their own ethnicity. For what? For daring to stand up to despicable and atrocious people, of course.

Where have I read this before?

In the early 1900’s Mary Turner was upset about the lynching of her husband. Mary was eight months pregnant and made a comment that she would get even with those who hung her husband and would sign arrest warrants against the killers. The white residents of Valdosta, Georgia decided to teach her a lesson for being uppity enough to be vocal about her pain. A mob found her tied her upside down to a tree, doused her with gasoline and burned her alive. One of the crowd members took a knife and split her belly open letting the baby fall out. Another member of the crowd smashed the baby’s head with his foot. Then the crowd took out their guns and filled the burning body of Mary Turner with bullets. The Associated Press wrote that Mary Turner had made unwise remarks about the execution of her husband.

IMRA reports that a group of young Israeli citizens have written a letter to Minister of Defense Amir Peretz asking to be drafted to fight in the war against Hizballah.

"We are proud of Israel, and its just struggle," the letter reads, "and are prepared to carry out any mission that the IDF gives us."

Nasrallah apparently doesn't know what it means to be a citizen of a free country, but Mr. Nasser does. We pray that God continues to bless Israel with courageous young patriots like him.

But sometimes you just gotta respect the art.

Robert at Dean's World

While trolling at AoSHQ on Saturday night (heh, yes, I'm ashamed to admit I wrote that) someone anonymously posted a link to this thread at israelmilitary.net.

Where's the relevance to TBR? None, really. I just HAD to post that link.

Though, stretching for relevance, I could admit I'm prejudiced. Putting aside the mild PG-rated erotica of hot women with guns, my chauvinistic side says that young ladies - especially ones this good looking - should never be put in harm's way during wartime. Where are your priorities, Israeli men?

WARNING UPDATE: They get a little older and doggish at the bottom. I don't want anyone coming back at me for those, asking for damages.

Apparently, Jane Hamsher and the pseudonymous "DarkBlack" think that the way to fight race-bating is with stereotypical racial imagery. Tom Maguire quotes DarkBlack's defense of his "art".

Lieberman has attempted to activate a voting demographic that his strategists believe will aid him in his quest.

To this end, he has imported a figure, Bill Clinton, who has standing with the American black community, and has repeatedly asserted his personal credentials as one who has worked on behalf of that community.

Yet Lieberman has engaged in race baiting (with the Lamont flyer) as a cynical attempt to game this demographic, and he has engaged in other activities which cast doubtful shadows upon this allegiance.

Thus, in my opinion, Lieberman is pretending to be something that he is not for personal gain, exactly like the vile caucasian minstrel show performers of Vaudeville.

And so my artist's impression stands.

LGF

UPDATE: One of the commenters at the ConnecticutBLOG article links to this:

The act of accusing others, particularly white Americans, of racist behavior typically does not entail racially divisive language, unless it features talk about honkies and crackers and white-hooded Klansmen. It doesn't disparage white people generally, but, if it is disparaging, it tends to be disparaging of behavior that is racist.

This is only "race baiting" if you believe that exposing bigotry by whites somehow inflicts harm upon them; if you believe that whites are themselves the victims of systematic, oppressive, and widespread "reverse racism" in America -- a notion that enjoys considerable support among the angry white men of the right, but for which the evidence is scant indeed; and that suggesting at times that their behavior might be motivated by racism is itself a degrading racial stereotype.

This may be true in a handful of instances, but more often the charge is raised in instances where there is no derisive language, only serious questions. Indeed, compared to the real history of oppression and racism in this country, both in the past and present, such claims appear, more than anything, to be little more than the bathetic [sic] whining of the privileged.

Reformulating "race baiting" to include raising concerns about racism is a form of Newspeak: it inverts the actual meaning of the phrase to suggest its nearly polar opposite, thereby rendering it meaningless.

It seems even more appropriate now than ever who we named The Black Republican of the Year.

UPDATE II: A "compassionate progressive" at Ned Lamont's campaign blog delivers this hilarious whopper:

This is obviously a fake. Progressives are the pinnacle of tolerance. Why would one of us do something like this?

As a blog dedicated to the founder of our Grand Old Party, the original Black Republican, and the Great Emancipator, I could not let an article titled Emancipation Proclamation On Slavery Today to go by without comment.

My comment: Bravo! Mr. Rummel, and anyone else reading this, please send a copy of this Proclamation immediately to The President, Tony Snow, whoever the new presidential speech writer is, Senate and House Republicans - hell, send it to Senate and House Democrats as well! Send this to anyone who can read, and if there is someone you know who cannot read - read it to them.

This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no Slave, must consent to enslave no one. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under in [a] Just God, could not long rule a State. All honor to Jefferson-to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of Tyranny, Oppression, and Slavery

Therefore, in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, and the reality of The Declaration of Freedom of Humanity, I issue this Emancipation Declaration.

All persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, whereof their absolute Dictators are then in open Rebellion against a People's God given Rights, thenceforward, and forever shall be considered free; and the executive governments of all the democracies, including as necessary their military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and promote in actuality the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their Freedom from Slavery.

That day, that action, that fact of emancipation led many great people to perform great acts of courage, discovery and intellect, and allowed them to dream of better days not just for themselves, but for everyone. Relegating the slavery of monarchism, fascism, communism, and Islamofascism to the dustbin of history might be a dream, maybe even a pipedream to some, but I for one believe it is a dream whose time has come.

Dean

Good news: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been renewed.

Bad news: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been renewed.

Somehow, I've missed this and failed to comment on it before now. Perhaps because compared to the Ohio and Pennsylvania governors' races and the Maryland Senate seat up for grabs, the competition in the 13th Congressional district in North Carolina might seem like small change to our friends in the MSM.

But there's absolutely nothing inconsequential about Vernon Robinson.

Son of one of the famed Tuskegee Airmen and a former Air Force officer himself, Robinson lost his bid for Congress in 2004 during the Republican primaries, while being targeted by the Winston-Salem Journal with an editorial titled "Jesse Helms is back! And this time, he's black". Robinson, undeterred, actually adopted the attack as a badge of honor and used it as his campaign slogan. This past May, Robinson fared a lot better, winning the Republican nomination in the Democratic-leaning 13th district by a wide margin. He will face off against Congressman Brad Miller (D) in November.

The last time we visited with Mr. Robinson, he was inadvertently giving us a lesson in Civil War history. Now it's his chance to teach us about science fiction... although, unfortunately, Mr. Robinson is encountering far more liberal studies than science from his opponents, and not so much entertaining fiction at all.

The Black Republican wishes Mr. Robinson well, and pledges to do what we can to support his campaign.

Jimmy Akin

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Racist Democrats vs. Colorblind Republicans by John Hawkins

Hawkins does a fine job of listing the examples, both past and present, where Democrats have impeded the freedoms of black Americans, and he also does justice to the ways in which Republicans keep coming to the rescue of those same citizens.

"Sadly, Democrats have managed to trick a lot of black Americans into believing that the GOP is a racist party. But, in truth, the Democratic Party was, is, and will likely continue to be the home of far more racists than the GOP. Let me explain why I say that.

To begin with, the Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists, in contrast to the pro-slavery Democratic Party. It was Abe Lincoln, a Republican President, who led the North to victory in the Civil War and freed the slaves while the Democrats did everything in their power to keep black Americans down."

He makes the case that the Democratic Party has this history of not really supporting blacks, while mouthing off that it is the other Party that is racist, and the facts simply do not bear this out. The Republican Party has been the greatest political friend American blacks have ever had. .

Ann Coulter, this is taken from her "secret interview" with the NY Times, explains it this way,

" NY POST: You say that "without a fundamental understanding of man's place in the world" (by which you mean God), we risk being lured into, among other things, slavery. But weren't the American slaveholders devout Christians?

A: They may have been devout Christians, but they weren't being good Christians by holding slaves. That's the point: Any Christian slaveholder had to violate Christianity to own slaves.

Thus -- and obviously -- the abolitionist movement was fueled by Christians, much as the anti-abortion movement is today.

I'm sure in the year 2106 some future Ann Coulter will be asked to explain why some Christians had abortions 100 years earlier. Christians sometimes lapse into the church of liberalism by doing bad things, just as liberals sometimes lapse into our church by doing good things."

It's been a tragic day at UC Santa Cruz.

Denice Dee Denton, chancellor of the University of California-Santa Cruz, apparently jumped to her death Saturday morning from the 44th floor of a San Francisco building...

...where she shared an apartment with her [lesbian lover].

Denton was well-known for her efforts to advance women in science, engineering and higher education, and had won numerous awards for her achievements.

Having battled gender bias herself, she spent her career trying to pave the way for other women and was not afraid to make waves when necessary.

She was cheered by women around the world last year when she confronted Harvard President Larry Summers at a private symposium when he questioned women's aptitude in science and math.

But the accolades were overshadowed by controversy throughout her tenure at UC Santa Cruz. UC's hiring of [her lesbian lover, Gretchen Kalonji] came under attack almost immediately, and questions were raised about Denton's compensation and renovations to the chancellor's home on campus. She also had some run-ins with students and labor unions.

UC officials struggled Saturday to understand what was behind her death.

Or, through it all, it could have been because she was really, really ugly.

But despite all these possibilities, I think it most likely "what was behind her death" was either: A) the fall, or B) the sudden impact.

But I only bring it up because our MSM friends at the Mercury News mentioned that you were wondering about it. We wouldn't want to speak ill of the dead here. So I'll part with this sentiment:

"May you be in Heaven half an hour before the devil knows you're dead."

"Neo-nazi scores big with Alabama Democrats"

Unbelieveable!

Cap'n Ed

The Wall Street Journal today takes aim at one of the last vestiges of institutional racism in America today - Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Some Republicans are taking comfort in the belief that the Section 5 provision may be unconstitutional at the end of the day. And it's certainly true that the Supreme Court hinted as much in decisions like Shaw v. Reno (1993), which held that a "reapportionment plan that includes in one district individuals who belong to the same race, but who are otherwise widely separated by geographical and political boundaries, and who have little in common with another but the color of their skins, bears an uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid."

Ten years later, in Georgia v. Ashcroft, the High Court said, "the Voting Rights Act, as properly interpreted, should encourage the transition to a society where race no longer matters." The reauthorization would do the opposite.

The Journal suggests that reauthorization will happen without even a whisper to the contrary "unless Republican backbones miraculously stiffen", but this doesn't have anything to do with courage. If there was a great debate in America today about the problems with the Voting Rights Act, if there was an honest discussion about the blatant hypocrisy exhibited within the use, if not the actual text, of Section 5, we'd be talking about courage.

But there is no actual discussion going on. This is nothing but political expediency in the absence of any debate at all. And that's the real tragedy.

Yes, How many times?

Rhetorical, yet, on point.

A lot of times, I'll go tripping through a series of a series of websites in sequence so fast that I'm overloaded with ideas and emotions and can't properly formulate a coherent post about the topic. At that point, what I have to say about each page I visited is so minimal that I'm inclined to add the first page to Recommended Reading and leave it at that. But I can't do that, because the nature of the subject matter absolutely screams for commentary.

What's a person to do in this case? Perhaps the best choice would be to simply throw out the links I've visited, with minimal commentary and ask for discussion of the content - and perhaps as important, their inter-relation to one another. Maybe I'll save up these kinds of experiences when I get them during any given week and come back to them as a recurring event un