Sunday, June 28, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
I have been listening to the words, tactics and outrages that are promulgated as a means toward achieving a certain end by various operatives in today's debates about various important issues.
The notion of RIGHTS have changed dramatically as this nation has gone through its various states of transformation as a society. In today's world of "Social Justice" the notion of RIGHTS is more closely tied toward entitlements than at any other time in history.
Historically the notion of "rights" was assigned to the notion of those human attributes or privileges that no government or individual or corporate entity can abridge. The "right to free speech", the "right against unlawful search and seizure", the "right toward free assembly". All of these seek to protect the intrinsic FREEDOMS of man.
The first time I came to understand that all otherwise rational human beings don't see RIGHTS in the same way that seem in line with the constitutional understanding is when I purchased and read Jesse Jackson Jr's book in which he listed several constitutional amendments.
Nearly all of Mr Jackson's additions focused upon the "social justice" type of RIGHTS. The right to entitlements. From memory - there was a "Right to quality education", the "right to health care" and several along these general themes.
When I read this perspective I firt questioned how any of these can be guaranteed as "rights". With the qualifier of "quality" - how is it that the government control all who threaten the delivery of "quality" education? Certainly today more instructional hours in school are lost by classroom disruptions than by school books that were handed down from a wealthy neighboring school.
Beyond any nit picking opposition I noted one key point about Mr. Jackson's suggestions - there was no respect for PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. Your pursuit of health care entitles the government to come after me for the funds necessary to care for you due to our common membership in America. It is unavoidable to note the inverse relationship between those who promote "Entitlement Rights" to the maximum and the near lack of "Economic Rights"/"Property Rights" that they are inclined to respect.
More accurately most of these points are not RIGHTS. Instead they are "Public Goods That Should Be Maximized In The Context Of Respect For Economic Realities And Private Property Rights". People's private property rights should be encroached upon to pay for these entitlements as the EXCEPTION, not the RULE. Instead of seeking to enact some notion of economic retribution against the wealthy these same people should make note of the ultimate harm that is done to the culture of a people who receive an increasing amount of their standard of living outside of their own productive capacity.
Some people are perfectly happy with their people "BEING IN RECEIPT OF" a given benefit. Their needs and grievances apparently satisfied as a result. Instead this only makes them dependent on the SYSTEM that has cared for them instead of being capable of relocating and replicating their new found fortune.
Clearly the question must be asked about one's RIGHTS: Are you seeking to 'care for the people' or 'empower them to express their OWN VALUE FOR THEMSELVES via their own economic choices and industriousness?'
(No doubt there are people asking - "So how is this Negro going to actually justify "discrimination" as a good thing"?)
The word "discrimination" is a pejorative. Few people want to be called a "racist" and few people want to have their thoughts and actions meriting the label "discriminatory".
I have learned over time that certain sacred cows must be slayed lest you get rolled by people who pervert that which you are afraid to take on.
I make the case that there has never been nor could there ever be a society that does not make use of DISCRIMINATION to achieve a particular order among the people.
In summary - absent DISCRIMINATION there is the CHAOS of "Do Your Own Thing Free Of Any Judgment".
When people seek to attack a point of discrimination that exists in the society today in truth they are not seeking to end discrimination for "discrimination sake" as they may rhetorically claim, taking the moral high ground. Instead they seek to edit the list of points that we as a society had previously agreed was unacceptable, making them so.
At times I wonder what "norms" of today will be seen as "discriminatory" tomorrow.
Implicit to every society is the need for the prevailing forces to field an ethic that achieves:
- Justice, Conflict Resolution and Order Among The People
- Economic Stability and Growth
- Education For The Development Of The Masses
- Health Services To Maintain The People's Health
- Respect For The Institutions That Bring Forth All Of The Above
In effect the proposal to end a point of historical discrimination says that we have reached a state in the society by which the expression of the RIGHTS and FREEDOMS for a particular group of people that were negatively impacted by the "discrimination" has outweighed the controlling group's need to retain their brand of order via the continued maintenance of the discriminator.
For some people who are progressive in mind they pride themselves with being net liberators. A "progressive" society is one which grants more freedoms to more people, ridding itself with all discriminations that are based on non-functional biases, religiosity or straight up hatred. They estimate that the general society will be able to absorb these changes without any evidence of collapse to the whole order.
I figure that this is a critical time to point out that as an African-American I come from a people who were on the "wrong side of the norm" in America. Keep in mind, however, that the discrimination against the African-American hit upon the question of our basic humanity all for the purposes of first - economic exploitation and then for the express purposes of advancing "White Supremacy" and economic control in which "A Black man has no rights that a White man need respect". I challenge anyone to find such an open invitation to look the other way on the basic respect for human and civil rights based on race that what the Native American and African-American suffered?
I do not take the issue of discrimination and oppression lightly by any means. There is nothing arbitrary about it.
Today's desire for "progression" has shifted largely from the most blatant and problematic issues around race and gender over to the question of behavior norms as related to sexual orientation, gender assignment, fashion statements and the acceptability of certain behaviors.
My personal reference point for normative social constructs is the "Judeo-Christian" order. This is the order that has the prescedence of several thousand years AND the benefit of the complementary physiological natural state between man and woman that allows me to belive that "traditional marriage" is the template that our married relationships should be based upon.
If certain operatives are allowed to make the issue into a notion of "discrimination" then to express the audacity as I recognize the distinction between male and female and make inference about the prescendence referenced above makes me a "discriminator".
It is not the natural observation that is contemptible in my views - it is ONLY the prevailing sentiment within the society at the time which says "discrimiantion is wrong" that could hope to undercut my views.
This is why I REJECT the notion that the goal of a "discrimation free" society is a logical end. It is only a guaurantee of a chaotic society.
The one thing that I notice about those who pride themselves in "progressivism" is that they also have a propensity to not stand beside the bastard child that they have created in the societal order that is created in the wake of their disassembly of societal norms. They spend so much time fighting against the purveryors of the standard order that they often fail to prepare for the day when THEY CONTROL THE ORDER.
It seems to me a society that desires to retain their order needs to start off with some clear and predescribed points of order for the people living within. From this they should derive their norms.
I suspect that some elements of the society, if presented with clear evidence that a certain directed order for the people would produce favorable outcoems, would be agreeable to yielding the maximaxation of their own individual liberties for the sake of the greater good. They are likely to suggest this upon the wealthy tax payer. They are loathed to practice this same shared interests on the civil liberties domain.
RIGHTS AND DISCRIMINATIONS
When these two notions are paired together we see the most powerful pathway toward social change.
Today the denial of marriage rights is positioned as a denial of the extension of medical care and pension benefits to the person of my own choosing. In such a way those who pursue a secular and progressive agenda in our culture have effectively sought to place a check on the value of maintaining long held cultural traditions with the notion that their continuance works to discriminate against those who should have a right to a certain government entitlement (social security, health care, etc). The real goal of these individuals is to force the society to accept the "equality" of their relational choice as compared to the traditional heterosexual relationship.
OWNERSHIP OF THE OUTCOME
The primary argument for those seeking to advance the "marriage equality" argue that by increasing this nation's tolerance they are doing nothing to harm "traditional marriage". There will not be spontaneous divorces because one man has the right to marry another man.
I actually agree with this in total. My reasons for agreement are very different though.
I agree that the real problem at hand is NOT "same sex marriage". This is but a derivative of the problem. Clearly the real problem is with the loss of consciousness about the important function of marriage between one man and one woman and how this construct is the fundamental building block of families, communities and cities.
The pursuit of this standard would force some people who are living a lifestyle that runs awry to this standard are most inclined to fight the enforcement of the marriage ideal.
- Those who choose to pursue same sex marriages
- Those heterosexuals who are disinclined to marry
- Those who have children out of wedlock in the context of a relationship that is not destined for marriage
Instead of asking me to justify my viewpoints in relation to the RIGHTS to do as others will to do I ask the proponents of any alternative strategy to justify their agenda that is so divergent to the thousand year standard that has brought us this far.
The main people promoting the instances of societal neglect for the "left behind" are those who are the main enablers of the unstructured lives that many of them live. Most certainly "getting married" along is not going to bring riches to these people's lives. Instead it is the entirety of structure and standards of human relations between these masses that are presently aggrieved. The higher level of humanity is expressed NOT BY the government programs servicing "these people" thus having society showing that they are worthy. Instead this higher level is expressed by the people themselves. As they order themselves in support of higher level accomplishments because certain fundamental contracts that determine human interactions are settled upon - they will improve their aggregate condition.
Where is the demand that the community ethos of shared beliefs be the plaform that is the primary determinant factor for their lives? It is this insertion of 'RIGHTS" which insures that their actions and beliefs are abstracted from their ultimate end.
(Part 2 on "Discrimination" will focus on the notions of "Positive Discrimination")
Saturday, June 20, 2009
I applaud this woman for seeking to make a positive imprint in the lives of these young girls.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
[quote]A fundamental assumption leading to the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade was that because women are biologically tied to the birth process, they should therefore bear all responsibility in deciding the life or death of their children. The reason for this perspective is straightforward: Roe v. Wade rejected the idea that another person controlled a woman’s body[/quote]
My Response As Posted On "Booker Rising"
You suffer from the same affliction that others who defend "Gay Marriage" suffer from. (PS: I am sure that you will not escape this message thread without someone questioning your sexual orientation, but I digress)
Mr Williams - there are some issues that are NOT going to be resolved via legalisms or debate to find some mythical common ground.
With abortion and same sex marriage this AIN'T gonna happen.
Instead both of these issues will be put into abeyance when a higher level of CONSCIOUSNESS AND PURPOSE comes about the PEOPLE via the CULTURE that they choose to adopt per their desire toward bringing to life more productive "Directed Outcomes".
I had two movie clips detailing the news of a Black woman telling her man (oh sorry - that's Baby Daddy - for the fans of Huffington Post) about the news of her pregnancy.
In the first film with actress Kerry Washington informs her boy friend that she is pregnant. The first words out of his mouth????????? "Are YOU GOING TO KEEP IT?"
Once SHE informed him of her decision.....he, the sperm donor was made happy.
I found this telling about the state of Black male/female relationships in our present day.
In a second film - a Black married couple which was struggling to make ends meet. The WIFE informed her husband that 'THEY were pregnant' with the son that he always wanted.
WHAT WAS HIS first response? OVERWHELMING PRIDE AND JOY that a new addition would be added to the family, forwarding the FAMILY name and legacy.
THE WAY I TAKE IT - same two GENETIC MASSES being gestated within the womb.
the VALUATION of these two clumps of cells were derived to a greater extent by the RELATIONSHIPS that the two people responsible for putting it there as guided by the societal norms and the culture that they choose to subscribe to REGARDLESS of the societal norms that are around them.
Mr Williams - with Black people in America in particular we have been forced to defend against an external threat and thus our SELF-VALUATION has not been our primary concern.
Today we continue to ask for OTHERS to show us that they VALUE us as equals.
As time goes forward it will become more clear that the remaining area of development will be for the infrastructure by which SELF VALUATION is expressed via the institutions and standards that are enforced and expressed among us.
For some the "right of man" as they pursue the "Will of Man" trumps all other considerations. They trade legalisms for honor, decency and cultural traditions.
Thus Mr Williams your concerns that the man has no control over the "execution of his child" is a laughable concern to many who see little more than a "clump of human tissue" gestating off of the nutrients of its female host. HER RIGHTS trump any other consideration.
I will do a quick executive summary of my argument and then go on to substantiate my claims. This, I hope, will allow those of you who don't seem to be able to follow my line of reasoning per my writing style a chance to have it spelled out clearly to you.
My argument is that the Prevailing Powers within the Black Community - which is presently the BLACK PROGRESSIVE FUNDAMENTALIST makes steady use of his ability to:
- Define the narrative for certain events
- Respin events to his favor, shifting the domain of the argument where necessary (aka Moving The Goal Posts)
- Recasting the fault for the conditions in questions back upon the popular adversary for Black people rather than noting his own culpability per the position of power that he is presently in with respect to the interests of the Black community
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
I honestly cannot affirm that if some scientific study indicated that the key problems that we deal with as a people could be controlled and reduced to more tolerable levels IF the forces that influence the Black Cultural Norms were to promote and enforce the standard of MARRIAGE - that this would be promoted as the key focus by those who now spend most of their time looking in the past and externally as the reasons for their present condition.
There is clearly a different skill set required to move a people forward and looking toward where they will stand in the future.
But for many black women locally and nationally, the dream of marriage remains only that.
Forty-two percent of black women have never been married, compared to 21 percent of white women, according to national statistics.
But Bridges believes the data don't have to be an indicator of the outcome of black relationships.
"I believe that if you have a desire to be married, it's about timing and knowing who you are first," she said. "Don't worry about what you don't have. Worry about what you do have and before you know it, your mate will come."
Local church ministers follow Bridges' train of thought more than those of the national statistics.
Although they believe that data collected is accurate nationally, pastors and staff at local black churches point out that they are marrying more young couples than they have in years, indicating a change may be in the works.
"The first relationships where there's an upsurge is in the relationships with God, and the relationship with God gets them ready to love somebody," said Brother George W. Thigpen III of Deliverance Temple Church. "Down the line, that creates marriages and better marriages."
But within the last two generations, marriage rates for African-Americans have dropped significantly. Between 1970 and 2001, the black marriage rate dropped by 34 percent, compared to 17 percent in the general population.
Information from the U.S. Department of Health and Human services and from the U.S. Census indicate that African-American women are the least likely group to get married in the United States. And if they wed an African-American man, those couples have the highest divorce rate in the United States.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
While I appreciate the passion of this woman and I realize that there are a million and one reasons why that cookie cutter married relationship where man and woman live happily ever after I also note the tendency for people to seek to "dumb down' the standard for the purposes of accommodation.
I try not to attack people for choosing to walk a different path. I only ask that some of the consequences of doing so not be depreciated. Indeed a home that has the mother and father of the children, at home and working, applying their education toward the goal of maintaining the house on average is the best strategy.
What is wrong with keeping the ideal and MANAGING toward it? Today people are threatened by this ideal and seek to chip away at it because it is "oppressive" to the alternate will that they have.
Unfortunately they are less than willing to own up to the problems and dysfunction that so frequently accompanies the diversion from the standard.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
I am selfishly concerned about the loss of their relationship because their wives and their children play a significant part in our gatherings among friends. 10 years ago most of as couples were either without kids or our kids were young. Thus we gathered together in large groups to watch the "Mike Tyson fight" or the various investment clubs that both of these two guys that make up distinct group of friends had going at the time. At least every other Saturday or Sunday, it seemed, there was some sort of dinner or cookout that we attended together. Today our gatherings have diminished to possibly one gathering per year.
Beyond their children. Beyond the stability of having a home to focus my male friends' attention upon, the conflict with their spouse and the unhappiness therein is a force that trumps their will to stick it out. Both of these friends are the "man of the house". For one of them his lawn is his key investment in time. For the other the furnishing of his basement and his boat occupies his. The conflict would cause them to walk away from these foundations that they have shown so much pride in.
In my small attempt to tell them about the "costs" of their decision I reminded them about these things. I asked them about the thought of having another man raise "their kids" if his wife were to move on as well.
Whereas I realize that there is nothing that I could say in my role as a "marriage councilor" to keep them from making such a move (there is no physical violence involved in either of their situations) I did offer some guidance to each of them.
Once their wife gets used to his absence and even takes steps to go on the defensive in protection of her own interests, the ability for them to walk back into the door unscathed is diminished. The best solution is to prevent the relationship from degrading to this point in the first place.
In both of their cases their personal appetite for sexual relationships with other women is an important variable in the equation. I don't have a view into each of their relationships to understand how much their wives understand their outside activities but from my own experiences - I can't imagine how this cannot have something to do with it. The loss in trust from their wives is a very likely reason for their difficulties.
As a normally functioning man I am amazed (and tacitly envious) of the list of women that both of them have been involved with over time. I have to admit that I have been used as their alibi to get out of the house on several occasions. With one of them we have a long running joke about how about 14 years ago when he was married and I was not we were in a bar talking to two women. I asked out loud "What about Stephanie?", his wife. This was my own little "booty blocking" attempt in defense of his wife who is a friend of the family. In the long term I realized that I have no impact on what he is going to do.
With this same friend I have degraded to pushing him to make sure that he uses a CONDOM every time since he is going to do it outside of his marriage. Throughout the years he has told me about the new woman he has met while he was driving and she was standing at a bus stop or while both were shopping. After my amazement of his "numbers game" the first thing I ask is "Did you use a condom?". I could not believe how reckless my friend has been in this regard. Once again - I have no control over what a GROWN AZZED MAN is going to do. I would not choose to put myself and my relationship at risk as such. All I can do is to remind him about the AIDS threat and that he should think about the consequences of bringing something home.
In hanging out at a local sports bar with the other friend there was two nice looking young waitresses in the place. He told me that he had gotten with both of them over time- according to him. I hang out with him on occasion and we talk with a table of two or three single females. The next time I see him - there seemingly is always a report of how he has "gotten with" the one who gave him her number. His business trips and/or 3 or 4 day stays at a company conference in another city always has a new female involved. In fact right before he told me about his rocky relationship there was a story about going over the house of a married woman who's husband seemingly a mirror image of himself - handsome, physically fit and always on the road. While I am stunned at his ability to play the numbers game as well - I always wondered - "At what cost is all of this being done"?
I give them both credit for their ability to 'go straight for the gold' with regard to the women that they are interested in.
In the back of my mind, however, as I evaluate my own situation I always figured that this type of lifestyle had to come at some cost. With so much time running the streets there must be some severed relations back at home that were left untended to.
I don't pretend to be a complete angel in my decade long+ marriage. Having a conversation with a new woman absent the tension of a relationship and having a bit of flirting going on is indeed an ego stroking event.
Though I am an angle compared with some of my friends this "little bit of dirt" on a comparative basis means nothing to my wife who has a "zero tolerance" program in place. Even her knowledge about the doggedness of some of her own friends husbands is not enough for her to say "my husband is not that bad after all....I'll give him some slack".
My parents are still together after 45+ years of marriage. I also have a set of 4 siblings, each of whom are married with stable homes. I would feel a tremendous sense of shame to be the one sibling who got divorced because of my own actions.
(Oh - and "Yes I love my wife" and that's a part of it as well. I've learned over time that women inspect this entry on the list of "why I am not a dog like the other guy" . :lol:)
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Michelle Martin asks the question about the authority that is responsible for protecting our youth from violence.
As a long time observer of the "Black Establishment" and the "Black Press" I have learned that each passing day produces thousands of events that are left on the ground until someone comes along and brings attention to them. Emmitt Till was just another "Black boy who 'got himself killed'" until his mother & activists vowed that his death would not be swept under the rug.
In as much as there has been a great amount of defensiveness regarding "Black on Black" crime and the negative stereotypes that stream from them - the Establshment and Press deserve a measure of blame in regards to the conditions that we see. Our community has a "protest modality". When the assailant is of a different race our people are motivated to say "No More" and demand that the perps are thrown "under the jail". When the assailant is himself Black the contradiction between the call for justice and "yet another Black man in jail" comes to bear.
Lost in this contradiction is our community's absolute intolerance for crime and the assault of "our people's civil rights" by other people who look like us.
Clearer messages which condemn the acts and then destroy the complicty that a certain cultural element promotes (yes - Hip Hop) must be confronted.
If the government was to crack down upon those who are killing our children the same people who are saying "Do Something!!" now will be the protesters against the police and these same authorities that they called in when and if they believe that these authorities are in fact targeting their own people as the problem.
The only solution is to have a more effective ORGANIC operation within our communities to stop the present chaos.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
As I listen to the "Will Of Man" theorists they err on the side of "Maximized Rights" for two or more consenting adults. No government nor religious order should infringe upon the rights of the individual in our society to do what they please. As long as it does not apparently infringe upon the civil rights of others (notice I can't say "economic rights") then they should be free to do what they please.
From my inspection of this line of thought many of the holes that are present within this system is addressed via some government intervention. If problems are exposed then the government has failed. At no time will the purveyors of such a system dare to do introspection about their assumptions.
Some of the very people who proclaim their intention to seek increased VALUATION of the individual are actually seeking to have the GOVERNMENT show the value of these people via expressing their increased rights to entitlement.
When it comes to the worth of these same people being expressed upon their own backs - a casual observer beings to see the "assumed inferiority" that is actually present among the "liberators".
I struggle to see how those who operate as "civil libertarians" and thus seek to deconstruct much of the Judeo-Christian cultural ethic that has brought us this far fail to note how they are actually enablers of chaos.
They are so bound by IDEOLOGY that they can't see the damage that they do.
Zion is ultimately an ally in the struggle, not a foe.
Look at the framing of your argument.
You place the argument on the backs of the REPUBLICANS.
Let us talk about THE BLACK COMMUNITY.
The BLACK COMMUNITY is the most reliable DEMOCRATIC constituency. All of this DESPITE the continuing problems in our communities.
Instead of inspecting the REPUBLICANS let us inspect "the Blacks".
IF the Black community which has 100% of all Black majority districts controlled by DEMOCRATS and STILL we have these problems - what possibly can we HOPE FOR in the present course of action at a later date will FIX THIS?
WE ARE NOT 'CONSUMERS' to the Democrats or Republicans. WE NEED TO BE SCIENTISTS, figuring out the SOLUTIONS for our people.
Today, you see a resurgence of the Republicans courting that poor, broken white
man vote with yellowed speeches about how he lost his power in this country
because of someone who does not look like him. Where am I going with this? The
Conservative Republicans are their own worse enemies, and liberals understand
Zion - compare this "faux fear" with the operatives in the Black community WHO'S PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING FROM DIRECT COMPETITION with UNSKILLED ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and yet their political leadership has supported the very phenomenon that is eroding their economic position.
Zion - last spring's hail storm in my area has triggered a massive "insurance paid roof replacement" phenomenon. I have seen no less than 20 homes getting new shingles on their roof.
You know what Zion - ALL OF THE WORK CREWS HAVE BEEN HISPANIC.
I am not mad at them!!! I am only showing the state of where things stand.
Did you realize that back in the day it was said that "Black men are the brick masons of America"? When it came to this trade - we came to dominate it.
13 years ago when this subdivision was crafted and 7 years ago when a subdivision next door was build and 2 years ago when the one across the street was built - I SAW NO BLACKS DOING THE BRICK WORK.
What we are seeing is ABSTRACT THEORY in play. Black people LOVE to pretend that we have CLEAN HANDS. We will adopt NO POLICY THAT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST OTHERS, denying them of opportunity.
This is possible, Zion, BECAUSE there is a primary TRANSFERRENCE of the DEMAND FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY upon this nebulous concept known as "THE SYSTEM". Thus when Black Progressives take over a district or city and are thus charged with putting forth an EFFECTIVE economic order - despite their new found POWER - they wilL ALWAYS "expand outward" AND BLAME THE FORCES THAT LEFT THEM rather than making the linkage as to how their ideological loyalities have failed their own interests.
Like it or not the (evil) conservative instinct is to STAKE OUT a plot of land and MANAGE IT toward their own best interests. The positive side of this is that all who are inside of this box receive benefit of their management focus.
The downside of this approach is that if you are "an outsider" seeking to expand the level of 'tolerance' within this box - you are likely marginalized.
Zion - the problem with Black America today IS NOT that we can still be MARGINALIZED and have no legal recourse to fight this.
THE PROBLEM WITH BLACK AMERICA TODAY IS THAT THE PROGRESSIVE THAT DOMINATE OUR DISTRICTS DON'T KNOW HOW TO MAKE ORGANIC GROWTH FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE and thus they are forced to be on a PERMANENT OUTWARD CHASE in pursuit of POWER so that they will ONE DAY BE SATISFIED.
I think that your linkage between "conservative" and "Republican" is off. One does not need to be a Republican to be a Conservative. It is even more the case that Black Conservatives such as myself do not need to have the Republican Party promoted for our mission to be accomplished. Instead my goal is to push the Democratic Party out of our racial nucleus.
Stop hollering about the racist liberal Democrats. First of all, the Republicans
are the party that originated affirmative action policies, freed slaves, and had
prominent black figures within the party speaking about radical ideas of
empowerment. How the Republican party lost their ace on race to a party that
enslaved, segregated, and hung black folk because they were bored is beyond me.
This is easy Zion.
Once FDR started given GOVERNMENT HAND OUTS the labor class began to switch their loyaltiies to the forces that were giving out "government cheese".
You should use this information to discredit the present "Reparations Movement". While these Racism Chasers seek to extort money out of insurance companies and banks for their "Slave profits" of the past.....they are willing to allow the "Legislative Arm Of The Klan" - the Democratic Party to excape their legacy.
The Colfax Massacre in Louisiana is the first instance in which THE KILLING OF A BLACK MAN had directly lead to the SEATING OF A DEMOCRAT into a legislative seat. I dare ANY Negro to find one Republican in history who took office after shooting a Black man DEAD!!!
Black folk even naturally adhere to Conservative values.
NO WE DON'T!!!!!
Black Folks like to express "faux moral outrage" on certain issues.
When it comes to sticking to these stances WHEN someone throws some resources at our community to "purchase our vote".....these principles are VACATED like an single mother that is otherwise chaste but is in need of rent money. When the quasi-socialists come through with a knot of money in his pants, offering a solution - her problems are solved!!