U.S. Bishops Prepare Catholics for Civil Disobedience: ‘We May Need to Witness to the Truth by Resisting the Law’

By Terence P.  Jeffrey via CNS News

(CNSNews.com) – Having organized 43 plaintiffs—including the archdioceses of New York  and Washington and the University of Notre Dame—to file 12 different  lawsuits against the Obama administration last Monday alleging the  administration is violating the religious freedom of Catholics, the  Catholic bishops of the United States are now preparing Catholics for  what may be the most massive campaign of civil disobedience in this  country since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and early 1960s.

“Some unjust laws impose such injustices on individuals and  organizations that disobeying the laws may be justified,” the bishops  state in a document developed to be inserted into church bulletins in  Catholic parishes around the country in June.

“Every effort must be made to repeal them,” the bishops say in the  document, which is already posted on the website of the U.S. Conference  of Catholic Bishops. “When fundamental human goods, such as the right of  conscience, are at stake, we may need to witness to the truth by  resisting the law and incurring its penalties.”

The bulletin insert reminds Catholic parishioners that the bishops  have called for “A Fortnight of Freedom”—which  they have described as “a special period of prayer, study, catechesis,  and public action”—to take place from June 21 to July 4.

The bishops  have noted that June 21, when this fortnight will begin, is the Vigil of the Feast of St. John Fisher and  St. Thomas More. Fisher was a Roman Catholic cardinal  whom the English monarch  Henry VIII beheaded in 1535 after he refused to act against his conscience and  take an oath asserting that Henry was the supreme authority over the  church in England. That same year, Henry VIII also beheaded Thomas More, his former  chancellor, for the same reason.

The sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate is set to go into effect for most health-care plans on Aug. 1, about four weeks after the bishops’ “Fortnight of Freedom.”

In campaign speeches delivered this week after the Catholic dioceses and organizations filed their 12 lawsuits, both President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama indicated that the administration intends to move forward and enforce the mandate.

Mrs. Obama  brought it up in a stump speech in Cleveland on Monday afternoon, less than three hours after the Catholic bishops had announced their lawsuits.

“You can tell people how, because we passed health reform, insurance  companies  will now have to cover preventive care–have to,” said Mrs. Obama.  “Things  like contraception,  cancer screenings, prenatal care–and they have  to do it at no extra cost.   People have to understand that’s what that  fight was for.”

President Obama signaled his personal commitment to enforcing the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate, using virtually identical language about it in back-to-back campaign speeches Wednesday and Thursday in California and Iowa.

“We don’t need another political fight about ending a woman’s right to  choose, or  getting rid of Planned Parenthood or taking  away affordable  birth control,” Obama said.  “We don’t need that. I  want women to control their  own health choices, just like I want my  daughters to have the same economic  opportunities as my sons.  We’re  not turning back the clock. We’re  not going back there.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.

While detained, King, who was a Baptist minister, wrote his  “Letter from the Birmingham Jail,” in which he said the moral  justification for civil disobedience against Alabama’s segregation laws  was derived from the writings of the Roman Catholic saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

“During the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, Americans  shone the light of the Gospel on a dark history of slavery, segregation, and racial bigotry,” the Catholic bishops say in their bulletin insert.  “The civil rights movement was an essentially religious movement, a call  to awaken consciences.

“In his famous ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’ in 1963,” the bishops  says, “Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. boldly said, ‘The goal of America is  freedom.’ As a Christian pastor, he argued that to call America to the  full measure of that freedom was the specific contribution Christians  are obliged to make. He rooted his legal and constitutional arguments  about justice in the long Christian tradition: ‘I would agree with Saint  Augustine that ‘An unjust law is no law at all.’… A just law is a  man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An  unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.’”

The bishops have argued that elements of the Patient Protection and  Affordable Care Act—AKA Obamacare—including the  so-called “preventive services” mandate, would force faithful Catholics  to act against their consciences and the teachings of their church. The  mandate requires that virtually all health-care plans in the United  States cover, without any fees or co-pay, sterilizations and all Food  and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, including those that  cause abortions.

The bishops also object to the manner in which Obamacare deals with  abortion generally. In April, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops  issued a background paper explaining how Obamacare not only would use tax dollars to fund abortions but would also force  Americans to pay for abortions with the premiums they would pay to purchase health  insurance—which under Obamacare they are mandated to do. The  backgrounder was titled, “The New Federal Regulation on Coerced Abortion  Payments.”

Additionally, the bishops object to the so-called “religious”  exemption to the mandate that requires all health-care plans cover  sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients. That exemption only  applies to “religious” organizations that are primarily focused on  inculcating religious tenets and that serve and employ primarily members  of their own denomination. This “religious” exemption would not extend  to Catholic schools, universities, hospitals, and charitable  organizations—and, the bishops argue, it violates the Establishment  Clause of the First Amendment by empowering federal bureaucrats to  determine which religious institutions are truly “religious” and which  ones are not.

In their bulletin insert, the bishops unequivocally state that the  administration’s sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate would  force people to act against their consciences.

“This is a matter  of whether religious people and institutions may be forced by the  government to provide such coverage even when it violates our  consciences,” say the bishops.

“What we ask is nothing more than the right to follow our consciences  as we live out our teaching,” they say.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius first announced the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient regulation last August. At that time, the bishops submitted formal comments to HHS, calling the regulation an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty” and asking the administration to rescind it in its entirety.

After Sebelius finalized the regulation in January, many Catholic bishops around the country asked their priests to read a letter from the pulpit at Sunday Masses that said: “We cannot–we will not–comply with this unjust law.”

Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who leads the Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services wrote a letter that he asked all Catholic chaplains to read at Sunday masses at U.S. military facilities across the globe. Broglio’s letter not only said “we will not” comply with the law, it also said: “It is a blow to a freedom that you have fought to defend and for which you have seen your buddies fall in battle.”

As reported by CNSNews.com, the Army told Army chaplains not to read this letter in Mass, a move that Archdiocese for the Military Services described as a violation of the First Amendment rights of Archbishop Broglio and Catholic chaplains.

In the April backgrounder, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop  said that another regulation issued by the Obama administration in March of this  year confirmed what the bishops had said about Obamacare when it was up  for a vote in 2010 and they opposed its passage.

“While some have misunderstood or misrepresented the Act’s role in  funding abortions, the new rule confirms that analyses by the Catholic  bishops’ conference were accurate on this point,” said the backgrounder.

“Under this Act,” it says, “millions of American taxpayers will be forced to help  support abortion coverage, in two ways:  (1) Through their tax dollars  all taxpayers will be forced to subsidize overall health plans that  cover elective abortions, contrary to the policy of the Hyde amendment  and every other major federal program, and (2) Many of these Americans  will also be forced to pay directly for other people’s abortions. Some  will say this is technically not ‘tax funding of abortions,’ because the  required surcharge will be a premium payment rather than a tax payment  as such. But what the payment is called is less important than what it actually does.”

The day after releasing this analysis, the bishops issued “A  Statement on Religious Liberty,” that explained the Catholic belief that  “an unjust law cannot be obeyed” and called for Catholics to join in  what the bishops called “A Fortnight of Freedom” that will run from June  21 to July 4.

June 21, the bishops pointed out, is the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More.

“We suggest that the fourteen days from June 21—the vigil of the  Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More—to July 4, Independence  Day, be dedicated to this ‘fortnight for freedom’—a great hymn of prayer  for our country,” said the bishops.

“Our liturgical calendar celebrates a series of great martyrs who  remained faithful in the face of persecution by political power—St. John  Fisher and St. Thomas More, St. John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul,  and the First Martyrs of the Church of Rome,” said the bishops.  “Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study,  catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our Christian and  American heritage of liberty.”

“It is a sobering thing to contemplate our government enacting an  unjust law,” the bishops said. “An unjust law cannot be obeyed. In the  face of an unjust law, an accommodation is not to be sought, especially  by resorting to equivocal words and deceptive practices. If we face  today the prospect of unjust laws, then Catholics in America, in  solidarity with our fellow citizens, must have the courage not to obey  them. No American desires this. No Catholic welcomes it. But if it  should fall upon us, we must discharge it as a duty of citizenship and  an obligation of faith.”

For more click here.

 

Alveda King: Sharpton, Jackson should stop ‘playing race card’ over Trayvon Martin

By Matthew Boyle via The Daily Caller

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece is criticizing the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson for politicizing the Trayvon Martin shooting and leveraging racial tensions to rile up Americans.

Conservative activist Dr. Alveda King, now the director of African-American outreach at Priests for Life and the founder of King For America, said she hopes Sharpton and Jackson stop “stirring up the people without positive solutions” in Sanford, Fla., and elsewhere in the U.S.

“I would believe that, by stirring up all of the emotions and reactions, I wanted to encourage them to remember the man that they say that they followed, to remember that his message was nonviolence and very loving,” King told The Daily Caller, referencing her late uncle. She added that she wanted to encourage Jackson and Sharpton “to talk about nonviolence and not to incite people with that race card that they are very good at playing.”

“Nonviolence was a very important part of the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr,” she added. “So, we want to encourage people to be nonviolent in their responses, to be thorough in their research and that justice must be done…We want justice to come, but we want nonviolent responses to this really tragic and terrible incident.”

King hasn’t made up her mind about the facts of this case and who is responsible for what, but believes there should be a full investigation. She told TheDC that she agrees with former Republican presidential candidate and businessman Herman Cain, however, who has asked for a full investigation instead of “swirling rhetoric.”

“I believe that it should be thoroughly investigated,” she told TheDC. “I believe that it should be discovered whether there was undue force. If Trayvon did work to defend himself, he was not armed and so that is an unfair fight right there. Trayvon was not armed and the man who shot him was. So there is a possibility of undue force.” (RELATED: Full coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting)

She said her heart goes out to Trayvon Martin’s family and she understands what they’re going through. “I’m very concerned about Trayvon’s family,” King said. “I’m praying as well, and many members of my family are as well… Several of us have experienced death of family members by shooting.”

“My grandmother, Mama King, Alberta Williams King, was shot in Ebenezer Baptist Church,” King continued. “My uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., of course, was shot. And, then, my dad [Alfred Daniel Williams King] was killed the next year, drowned in a swimming pool. So, we are not unfamiliar with these kinds of shocks and tragedies to a family. And, so, my first thought is to pray for the family.”

King hopes Americans won’t continue to “hype this up so much to a point and make all this big demonstrations. Of course, there should be an outrage and there should be an outcry. But, remember: There are many other young people who are at risk and many young people getting killed in violent situations.”

She said if her father, A.D. King, and uncle, Martin Luther King Jr., were still alive today, they would handle this tragedy much differently from how Sharpton and Jackson have so far.

“I remember when our home was bombed, and my dad went out to the people and he said, ‘please don’t riot, please don’t react violently, my family and I are alright,’” King said. “’If you have to hit anybody, hit me. So please, I’d rather you be nonviolent and don’t strike out.’ So, my uncle would urge a call for justice but he would also urge nonviolence in responses. He would do that, I can assure you he would.”

Moving forward on this storyline, King said Americans “should be watchful for  racial profiling, for stereotypical responses.”

“We also should urge people to know that we are one human race,” she said. “We’re not separate races. There’s only one human race.”

King said the news media — which she said was largely responsible for  Martin’s story gaining a massive national following — should remember that there  are many struggles being encountered by America’s youth.

“I would like for the media to be aware of how dire circumstances are and to  be a little more compassionate in reporting and to be fair, of course,” King  said. “To be honest and truthful, but to know that we’re dealing with some dire  circumstances and this is not a one-time occurrence. There are issues involved  here — certainly the racial issue is a question, but it’s not the only thing  because we have violence against young people from those who are within their  own racial communities and their own ethnic groups.”

King adds that racism still exists in America today, and the American people  need to watch for it and fight back the way her uncle, Martin Luther King, Jr.,  taught. “This is the 21st century and we would all like to think racism is dead  in America,” King said. “Actually, that’s not the case, still there are some  racial issues that are out across this nation and so we have a responsibility as  compassionate citizens of America, no matter what our ethnic group happens to  be, to confront these issues when they arise. The best way to confront it is  with God’s love, and if my uncle and my father were here today, they’d say that  to you: ‘God’s love.’”

For more click here.

The Congressional Black Caucus and Black Leaders are the Real Racists!

By  on 9/1/2011 via Catch Kevin

When are organizations like the CBC (Congressional Black Caucus) and the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), just to name a couple, going to stop victimizing their members? I’m tired of black politicians and more particularly, those in leadership positions, using reverse discrimination and playing the perpetual “race” card!

Rep. Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana who serves as the CBC’s chief vote counter, said at a CBC event in Miami that some in Congress would “love to see us as second-class citizens” and “some of them in Congress right now of this tea party movement would love to see you and me . . . hanging on a tree.”

Carson echoes the incendiary and inflammatory “race card” rhetoric I constantly see from Congressional leaders like Maxine Waters, Cedrick Richmond, Al Green, Frederica Wilson and Alcee Hastings, along with “has been” civil rights activists like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan that keep Martin Luther King’s dream, just that—A Dream—and not a reality. Those people are your real racists—not the Tea Party, not the Republicans, not the Independents, not the Democrats, not the Liberals, not the Conservatives, and definitely NOT White America!

It’s the iconic idiocy of these race-baiters that manipulate a gullible and undereducated black populace, perpetuate the “victim” status, and keep black people in bondage. They’re the antithesis of everything Martin Luther King stood for.

These people aren’t about equal rights and equal opportunity, they’re about power, popularity, and prestige . . .

“If we can’t control the country, let’s control our own people!”

Instead of educating, empowering, and inspiring black Americans to achieve greatness, they inflate their own egos and vainglorious fame under the mantra of “We’re looking out for you.”

No you’re not. You’re looking out for yourselves. And you’re doing it at the expense and naivety of less fortunate and less educated blacks across the country. Abraham Lincoln emancipated your people from slavery. You, on the other hand, elect to keep them there.

It’s not the whites, hispanics or the government that continues to oppress blacks—It’s you Mr. Jackson, Mr. Sharpton, Mr. Farrakhan, Mr. Green and Ms. Waters. And you’re doing it through your “Woe is me,” “I’m a victim,” “They owe us” political propaganda that does nothing more than incite hatred, bigotry, reverse discrimination and venomous invective against the very people that really do care about your constituents . . . namely, those terrorist Tea Partiers, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Liberals, and Conservatives who fight for a Free Democratic Republic—for all American citizens—every single day!

Instead of pushing for more social welfare, blaming Republicans and the Tea Party, and keeping your members and constituents in a perpetual “Nanny State,” how about advocating personal “Responsibility” and “Accountability!” Better yet, how about stepping aside and letting untainted black role models like Colin Powell, Herman Cain, Allen West and Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, who was recently on my radio show, provide the leadership you dismally fail at?

Do we still have racism and discrimination against blacks in this country? Yes, it’s called black leadership discriminating against their black caucus. They choose to be victims of self-imposed discrimination because it’s easier to get a hand-out than it is to give a hand-up.

Perhaps nothing speaks to it better than the following comment by a black American to a blog post about Barack Obama’s appearance on the Tom Joyner radio show . . .

“Wake the hell up, America! As long as Republicans can build on to their million dollar homes, afford memberships at wealthy country clubs, play golf when they should be working, keep their wives tanning in the Carribean, support their mistress, and give their kids the best Ivy League educations, why would they care about our plight? They are robbing us blind, but the funny thing is that we are fully awake!”

No, the only ones robbing you blind are those you choose to exult as your leaders, role models and spokesmen. Only they’re robbing you of your dignity, your pride, your heritage, your hard-fought freedom and your self-worth. You have the same God-given unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as anyone else in this country.

You can be a victim or you can be a Victor! The choice is yours, not theirs.

Godspeed.

Kevin A. Lehmann

Revealing the Truth about the Democratic Party

by Frantz Emmanuel Kebreau on 9/14/2011

I have done extensive research on the subject because at one point, I was a Democrat.  A few years ago, I was confronted with a fact that I knew to be false but after an investigation into the point, it turned out to be true.  It was that Martin Luther King was a Republican.

This of course forced me to extend my research into other areas.  What else could this Political Science Major be unaware of?  The Truth became stranger than fiction.  The list is quite long so here we go.

President Kennedy had little intention of enacting a Comprehensive Civil Rights Law during his 2 years in office.  Tensions in society were running so high due to the riots and such that by the 1963 State of the Union address he had no other choice but to enact some kind of Law.  Mind you, for the previous 100 years, it had only been the Republican Party who had supported any Civil Rights Legislations (I was not aware of these facts until I was 35 years old);

13th Amendment:  Abolished Slavery

100% Republican Support     23% Democratic Support

14th Amendment:  Slaves Allowed to be Citizens

94% Republican Support       0%   Democratic Support

15th Amendment:   Right to Vote for All

100% Republican Support        0%     Democratic Support

CRA 1866                   Enacted by the Republican Party            Equal Rights

CRA 1871                   Enacted by the Republican Party             Anti-KKK

CRA 1875                   99% Republican Support                          Anti-Discrimination

0%   Democratic Support

———–It took another 82 years until the next Civil Rights Act———

———–The Democratic Party blocked every attempt to equalize citizens of color—–

CRA 1957                   Enacted by the Eisenhower (R) Administration

Then Senator Kennedy Voted against this Bill

Filibustered by Democrats

CRA 1960                   Enacted by the Eisenhower (R) Administration

The final version was watered down by then Senator LBJ

Filibustered by the Democrats

CRA 1964                   82% Republican Support

63% Democratic Support

CRA 1965                   87% Republican Support

Voting Rights             75% Democratic Support

I do not want the “government” to treat me any differently than any other citizen.  Therefore, I consider equality of opportunity and equal voting rights to be the summation of Civil Rights in America.  If anything extra is afforded me or anyone else merely due to the color of their skin, I consider that to be an entitlement and patronizing.

Given my above statement, the Democratic Party, even if you sectionalize them by North and South, has never outvoted the Republican Party in any Civil Rights Law…Ever.  The actual numbers play out like this;

Lifetime Republican Party support for Equal Rights for all Citizens:                     94%

Lifetime Democratic Party Support for Equal rights for all Citizens:                     35%

Now to the point of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  This was a proposal that the Republican Party, during the Eisenhower Administration attempted to put forth but alas, their efforts resulted in the first Civil Rights Law in the previous 82 years…The Civil Rights Act of 1957 formed a Commission on Civil Rights.  The Plan of the Commission was to eventually enact the very Comprehensive Law of 1964.  Remember, this was the Bill that Senator JFK voted against, for political aspirations I’m sure.

JFK had his Justice department write the original Bill in early 1963.  The first version passed the House but stalled in the Senate.  Everett McKinley Dirksen (R), the minority leader in the Senate took it upon himself to REWRITE the entire Bill.  It took him 1 weekend and he had 2 helpers, 1 Democrat and another Republican.

The final version of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was written by a Republican which means that since the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, every Civil Rights Law was written by a Republican with more Republican support than Democratic Party Support.

Due to Dirksen’s tenacity, a cloture vote was successful and the Senate passed the Bill.  It then passed the Houses and became Law.

Some notes about its passage;

Robert Byrd (D) filibustered the Bill…the longest filibuster in American History

William Fulbright (D) voted against the Bill.  He was Bill Clinton’s mentor.

Al Gore Sr. (D) voted against the Bill

Speaking to two Governors on Air Force One, then President LB Johnson was quoted saying, “”I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” according Ronald Kessler’s Book in relation to the Law.

The big question is, did the South really turn “Red” after the CRA of 1964?  Well, I researched that also and found the following conclusions.

Presidential Elections (covering “The Solid South”)

The 11 Former Confederate States

Year                            Blue States                                          Red States

1964                            6                                                          5

1968                            6 (Segregationist Wallace took 5)       5

1972                                                    Landslide

1976                                                    Landslide

1980                                                    Landslide

1984                                                    Landslide

1988                                                    Landslide

1992                            4                                                          7

1996                            4                                                          7

2000                            0                                                          11

2004                            0                                                          11

2008                            3                                                          8

At least in Presidential elections, the Solid South wasn’t so “solid” until at least the year 2000 or 36 years after the CRA of 1964.

Now let’s take a look at the Governorships.

Governorships since 1964

(The 11 former “Confederate States”)

State                            Blue                            Red      Years until a “Red” Gov. was elected

Georgia                       7                                  2                      39 years

Mississippi                  8                                  2                      28 years

Alabama                     9                                  3                      23 years

Louisiana                    6                                  4                      16 years

Texas                          5                                  4                      15 years

South Carolina            5                                  5                      11 years

Arkansas                     9                                  3                       9   years

North Carolina            7                                  2                       9   years

Tennessee                   5                                 4                      7   years

Virginia                       7                                  5                       6   years

Florida                        7                                  5                       3   years

Total                           75                                39

That’s almost 2 to 1 Blue over Red.  I looked at the facts and not the rhetoric. The facts point to a different conclusion all together.  The South did not become “Solid Red” after the CRA of 1964.

After finding out that both Martin Luther King Sr. and Jr. were Republicans, I tend to deal only in facts and not with what I’ve been told.

Last Points

My former party, The Democratic Party says that they are for the “minority”.  In this case, I’ll just say “blacks”.  I believe in neither black nor minority but I defer to their thinking for this discussion.  If that’s the case, then how could the following piece of history have been erased?

Ninety-nine percent of the country does not know the name Hiram Rhodes Revels.  Here is his story and why the Democrats are not for “black” people.

At the end of the Civil War, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, was captured and subsequently imprisoned for 2 years.  Prior to this time period, Mr. Davis was a Senator from the State of Mississippi.  In 1870, the State of Mississippi filled the vacant post of Mr. Davis with one Hiram Rhodes Revels.  The curious fact behind this exchange is that now Senator Hiram Rhodes Revels did not only replace the President of the Confederacy, but he was also the First Black Senator in U.S. History…and virtually nobody knows his name.

One last point to explain this lack of universal knowledge…Jefferson Davis, The President of the Confederacy was a Democrat and his replacement, Senator Hiram Rhodes Revels, was a Republican.  Democratic leadership today will never share that history with their constituents of which I once was.  That led me to believe that the Democratic Party is more interested in my vote than the Truth.

It gets bit deeper.  13 former slaves became members of Congress between 1870 and 1901.  We as a nation killed our own citizens in a Civil War to FREE 4 Million slaves. 13 of those freed slaves became members of the U.S. Congress and the history books are silent to this fact.  640,000 Americans died in that war and the result was transformational yet, this groundbreaking and profound history is never taught in “left” leaning schools because it does not serve their agenda.  All 13 of the former slaves were Republicans.  I had to sift through the Library of Congress to reveal the following information…here it is for you in a video;

My belief is that the Party’s did not change.  The tactics changed.  They went from Pro-Slavery to Pro-Segregation to Pro-Entitlement, all of which results in nothing beneficial for the prosperity of an individual and is considered by many of my ilk, “Plantation Politics”.

All I want is the Truth and to be treated as an equal, no more and no less; as an equal.  I do not need the Democratic Party telling me that I’m “black” or that I’m a minority who needs their assistance.  I am not a color.  I am Frantz Kebreau, an American Citizen.

For the Democratic Party, it has always been about “Control” over Freedom.  Keeping the Truth from it’s constituents in order to maintain control over them is not what I want from my “Party”.

Revealing the Truth About the Democratic Party…On Video

Frantz Kebreau

CEO, Stolen History

Author of Stolen History

“The Truth Shall Set You Free!!”

Allen West, black conservatives challenge black-voter ‘myths’

By William E. Gibson, Washington Bureau in The Sun Sentinel

WASHINGTON — – Republican Congressman Allen West says fellow African-Americans often confess to him in a low voice, “I agree with you.”

“I tell them, `Why are we whispering?’ ” West recounted on Monday during a Conservative Black Forum, a gathering on Capitol Hill designed to dispel the “myths” surrounding black conservatives.

“We can’t have this fear of standing up and saying who we are,” asserted West, a tea party favorite from Plantation who has attracted fans across the country. “We shout at football games. We shout at church. We should be shouting about the principles that make us who we are.”West and about a dozen black leaders said they want to break down what they consider public misperceptions about them and about the monolithic nature of black voters — and their habit of voting for Democrats.

But some observers say that black conservatives really are out of sync with most African-American voters, who reject Republicans after taking a careful and sophisticated view of the candidates and issues.

Here’s a rundown on some of the leading “myths.”

Myth No. 1: Black conservatives are exceptional and quite different from most African-Americans.

The “reality:” Black conservatives at the forum said they are just like the great majority of African-Americans and have faced the same hurdles. West, for example, grew up in inner-city Atlanta in a neighborhood near Martin Luther King’s church.

But rather than look to the government for solutions, black conservatives see government as a barrier to progress.

Myth No. 2: An overwhelming majority of black voters are liberal-minded opponents of conservative causes.

The “reality:” Forum participants asserted that about a third of African-Americans identify themselves as conservative, though less than a tenth vote for Republicans in presidential elections.

“They think like us, they just don’t vote like us,” said former U.S. Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., once the only black Republican in the House.

A rebuttal: The one-third estimate was once true, but recent polling indicates that less than 20 percent of blacks call themselves conservative, said David Bositis, a research associate and political analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a nonpartisan group that focuses on African-Americans.

“Even that description mostly reflects their personal values and lifestyle, not their politics,” Bositis said of black conservatives. “About 75 percent of them have a very positive view of [President] Barack Obama.”

Myth No. 3: Blacks need government help.

The “reality:” Several conservatives at the forum compared welfare and other government programs to a latter-day form of slavery, trapping people in dependency.

“Government handouts and big entitlement programs are used like an intoxicating drug,” said David Clarke, the sheriff of Milwaukee County in Wisconsin. “The more government came to help me, the less responsible I was for myself.”

 

A rebuttal:Though African-Americans have a high unemployment rate of about 15 percent, most are working and not dependent on government programs, Bositis said.”These black conservatives want to leave the impression that every African-American is living on the street,” he said. “But there is a large black middle class, and like the middle class generally, it has fared poorly under Republican policies.”

Myth No. 4: Conservatives want to rip up the social “safety net.”

The “reality:” West noted that the Constitution calls for promoting the general welfare, when means the government needs to help those who slip off the ladder of opportunity.

“But the safety net is there for you to bounce back up and get on that ladder and start to climb,” West said. “Some people think the safety net is like a hammock, and you just lie there. That’s not what America is about.”

Myth No. 5: Conservatives have no solutions to offer.

The “reality:” West and other conservatives called for tax relief to create incentives for investment in “enterprise zones” designed to attract businesses and jobs to inner-cities. West said he is about to propose a bill that would reduce capital gains taxes to encourage investment in struggling communities.

Myth No. 6: African-Americans will vote for Democrats no matter what.

The “reality:” West said Republicans can draw more black voters by confronting these myths, promoting a conservative agenda and getting the word out though e-mail messages and social media.

Watts added: “Somebody who looks like us needs to be at the [Republican] strategic table.”

A rebuttal: Obama received 95 percent of the African-American vote in 2008, and he will get about the same share this year, Bositis predicted.

He said West was elected by white voters, not conservative blacks. “I’ll believe there’s some kind of movement toward black conservatives when I see one of them get elected in a black-majority district,” he said.

wgibson@tribune.com

UAW, Occupy and Obama Hang Themselves Together

By John Ransom, Columnist for Townhall

I’m going to skip the nonsensical projections regarding what the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. would think about today’s topical issues like Occupy Wall Street, so-called income inequality and Tim Tebow.

I can afford to do this because another man named King has already instructed me on his views.

Bob King, head of the United Auto Worker’s Union, got together with 500 of his fellow travelers over the weekend in a vanity-channeling of Dr. King by praising Occupy Wall Street and the UAW’s largest shareholder, Barrack Obama.

In this, King (Bob) seems to be operating out of a liberal playbook that looks to associate Occupy with King (Martin Luther).

It’s called “Occupy the Dream.”

I’m not sure if the irony is intentional or just accidental.

“So much of what he says is the same today, is about the world today,” said King on King “We’re at very difficult times in the United States of America right now. We’re at a time of great injustice and growing injustices. Thank God for the occupy movement and the young kids that are out there.”

Bob King has seen the past and tells us that the past is our future.

Our future is one where inequality is everywhere more relentless; where progress on issues, like racial equality is just a chimera, even as an African American sits in the White House.

He has to tell us that, this King named Bob does.

Even more, he needs for us to believe it, because without that belief, he’s a man without a job, as even he admits.

King (V.2.0) has placed a big bet that Americans not as familiar with him as the people he represents have bought into his rhetoric about inequality, especially as it pertains to income. His organization, the UAW, has been losing members, dollars and assets for decades as workers and consumers have repeatedly rejected the union label.

According to Reuters, the UAW has already had to “sell assets and dip into its strike fund to pay for its activities.”

In fact King (Bob) thinks that if he can’t win converts soon, there is no future for his union. “I have said that repeatedly, and I believe it.”

It’s a measure of the UAW’s desperation that King has pinned his hopes on Occupy and Obama, two movements that, like the UAW, seem to be tracking in the wrong direction from Main Street American thought.

“While Occupy Wall Street isn’t necessarily affiliated with a particular party, its anti-big business message may not be resonating with majorities in any party,” wrote Gallup’s Elizabeth Mendes as reported in the Washington Post. “Republicans, independents, and now close to half of Democrats are more concerned about the threat of big government than that coming from big business.”

According to Gallup 64 percent think big government is a bigger threat, and 26 percent think the bigger threat comes from big business.

And why shouldn’t they? Occupy Wall Street is mostly an extension of the extra-legal Big-Government-knows-best philosophy that ignores individual rights, private property rights and redistributes according to its own ideas of who is a have and who is a have-not.

From the New York Post:

Occupy Wall Street protesters announced with great fanfare last month that they moved a homeless family into a “foreclosed” Brooklyn home — even though they knew the house belonged to a struggling single father desperately trying to renegotiate his mortgage, The Post has learned.

Even though the single father is still the rightful owner, that didn’t stop the Occupiers from placing one of their own people into the house:

Meanwhile, the family that OWS claimed to be putting into the vacant house has not yet permanently moved in. And it turns out the family is not a random victim of the foreclosure crisis, but cast for the part, thanks to their connection to the OWS movement.

OWS last week said it has spent $9,500 breaking into the house and setting it up for the homeless Carrasquillo family. A photo of the smiling family covers a window, under the slogan, “A place to call home.”

The head of the family, Alfredo Carrasquillo, 28, is an organizer for VOCAL- NY, a group that works with OWS. His Facebook page shows him in a “99 Percent” T-shirt at an OWS protest in November.

Like King’s UAW, which hasn’t been able to force folks to give them what they aren’t entitled to legally, Occupy is a last-gasp movement that has failed to convince us of either the justice or logic of their cause.

Into this two-ringed circus now steps Ringmaster Obama, who has promised us all a campaign that will pit the UAW and Occupy have-nots against the rest of the country. Presumably, just as he’s done with the UAW, the domestic auto industry, student loans and green company investments, Obama will campaign that government eventually gets to pick the winners and the losers with a kind of group bailout for unions, Occupiers, Democrats and donors.

That’s how the GOP will campaign too.

And if I were a Democrat, here’s where I’d be concerned:

If Obama doesn’t hang you all separately with this strategy he most certainly will hang you all together.

And if Democrats don’t win this campaign, they might never win another.

I say it and I believe it.

John Ransom

John Ransom

John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance. You can follow him on twitter @bamransom and on Facebook: bamransom.

Rep Allen West Editorial “Mr. President, please don’t play the race card in 2012″

Posted by Allen West Republic

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mr. President, please don’t play the race card in 2012

Congressman Allen B. West

I was born in the inner city of Atlanta in 1961, when segregation was still rife, at a time when I would have been barred from visiting the very beaches that make up part of the congressional district I so proudly represent.

Just two years after my birth, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. momentously described his dream that one day his children would “live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but the content of their character.”

How proud he would have been on that November Tuesday in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States. Clearly, Dr. King’s dream had come true. White voters across America had judged our President by the content of his character, not the color of his skin, and elected a man of color, whose very lineage with a black African father and white American mother, was a literal manifestation of the figurative melting pot of these United States.

The inauguration of our first black President, the highest office in the land, and perhaps the world’s most powerful office, clearly demonstrated to the world that race need not be a hindrance to success and achievement in America. The fact that Barack Obama won the largest share of white support of any Democrat in a two-man race since 1976 indicated the lion’s share of these voters made their decision based on his character, his vision of hope and change, and his ability to relate with everyday Americans.

Still, let us not ignore that white Democrats aren’t the only voters who are capable of making a decision based on character rather than color.

In the 2010 election cycle, 42 black Republicans were vying for seats in the House of Representatives, and 14 of them made it to the general election. Two of those candidates, myself as well as Tim Scott from South Carolina, carried that success all the way to the House of Representatives. I represent a Congressional District where more than 90 percent of my constituents are not black. A powerful movement of respect for black conservatism is brewing in this country, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be proud of it.

With all of this progress, why is it that we continue to hear charges of racism emanating from the left, and most disturbingly, from the White House itself? It seems anytime there is criticism of the President or any of his black members of his administration, such as Attorney General Eric Holder, that criticism is decried as racist.

Mr. Holder recently said of his critics, “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him, both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.” In other words, he insinuated Republicans — along with Conservatives and Tea Party members — are incapable of judging anyone solely by their character, something I take very personally.

Mr. Holder and others need to know, the criticism of the President is not of his person, but of his policies, which have clearly failed our nation–and most tragically of all in this supposedly post-racial period –have failed the black community.

As of December 2011, black unemployment remained in double digits, nearly double the national average for men at 16.4 percent, and 14.1 percent for women.

According to a Washington Post poll in September 2011, the proportion of black Americans with a “strongly positive” view of President Obama has slipped from 83 percent to 58 percent. It would obviously be absurd to say the black community’s changing view of President Obama is racially biased, so how can one make the same claim about white members opposing his policies?

As we proceed into this general election cycle, it would be a disgrace if Mr. Holder’s comment is the first salvo in the upcoming campaign to deflect honest assessment of the President’s performance in office. This campaign must be about ideas, policy and the direction of this country, and the President must not hide behind a curtain of so-called racial bias.

All Americans, black or white – and every shade in between – must be allowed to voice their opinions, level their criticisms and engage in candid discussion without fear of being labeled “racist” simply because of the color of their skin. This is precisely what Dr. Martin Luther King spoke of so eloquently, and what we celebrate today.

My message to President Obama is this: “Mr. President, your very presence in office demonstrates Dr. King’s dream has indeed come true. But how devastated would Dr. King be to know the Americans who are still fomenting racism at the highest levels are the very people for whom he fought for and died?”

Hat tip Tanya Grimsley