Category Archives: Race Relations

UWF's Black Employee Association

I was taken aback just a bit to learn that the University of West Florida has an employee group called a Black Employee Association. This came to light in an article in the Pensacola News Journal about a Juneteenth event one week too late. No, the report wasn’t a week late. UWF’s celebration was a week late.

If you’re going to celebrate the ‘end’ of slavery, at least you could do it on the proper day. A week late sort of smacks of racial pandering. Someone on that campus apparently came under some criticism from the Black Employee Association and the CYA reaction was to ‘honor’ the end of slavery a week late. Maybe someone from the University can end the speculation as to why it was a week late? Right after they explain why they have a Black Employee Association.

It is a myth that the halls of higher education are the  enlightened bunch, above racial prejudice, when they have a racially defined group on their campus. It’s easy to justify say, a Professor’s Club or a Support Staff Club. They are color blind, race neutral, and the way things ought to be.

Where is the justification, in 2009, for endorsing anything based on race? It certainly would not be allowed if it had anything to do with religion. No, that’s not as precise as could be said. If it had anything to do with a Christian religion  it would not be allowed. The ACLU would see to that.

Is it true that the school will begin their winter break, formerly known as Christmas vacation, on December 28th this year?

link: UWF’s Black Employee Association celebrates Juneteenth

Sotomayor, Equality Or Pay-Back

Economist and philosopher Thomas Sowell examines President Obama’s Thomas SowellSupreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor from a perspective that is quite refreshing. Her record.

Back when I was on the receiving end of racial discrimination, it was to me not simply a personal misfortune, or even the misfortune of a race, it was a moral outrage. But not everyone who went through such an experience sees it that way.

When it comes to subjecting other people to the same treatment in a later era, some have no real problem with that. They see it as pay-back.

One of the many problems of the pay-back approach is that many of the people who most deserve retribution are no longer alive. You can take symbolic revenge on people who look like them but this removes the whole moral element. If it is all right to discriminate today against individuals who have done you no harm, then why was it wrong to discriminate against you in the past?

These are not just abstract questions. These are serious, real world questions, especially when considering someone to be given a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Some judicial nominees have had racial bias attributed to them, despite their years of unwavering support of civil rights for all— Judge Robert Bork and Judge Charles Pickering being striking examples. But the current Supreme Court nominee is the first in decades to explicitly introduce racial differences in their own words, along with the claim that their own racial or ethnic background makes them better qualified.

For nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Sowell points out from her words and deeds that she is anything but an equal applier of the law. That one point alone is enough to be a disqualifier for judge, let alone a Supreme Court Justice.

link: Equality or Pay-back?

Black Activists, Slavery Apology Useless

I don’t know where I’ve been but I thought the government already apologized for slavery.  Seems to me Bill Clinton did it when he was in Africa one time. Anyway, last Thursday the Senate passed a resolution, with all the substance that resolutions provide, to apologize for slavery and segregation. That and that the resolution is not to be used as fodder for the reparations crowd which, it already is.

OK fine. Now can we move on?

David Almasi at the National Center for Public Policy Research puts it this way.

The U.S. Senate resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation will be used as a lobbying tool to acquire reparations payments, say members of the black leadership network Project 21. The group urges the Senate to “move on,” saying the apology will do little to heal perceived racial gaps.

On June 18, senators unanimously passed a resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation in the United States. While the resolution was written with the intention that it could not be used to support claims for monetary reparations, reparations activists Randall Robinson told the Washington Post the legislation constitutes a “confession” that will aid the process of acquiring reparations. Harvard professor Charles Ogletree said the resolution should not be a substitute for reparations, saying “That battle will be prolonged.”

Project 21 members voicing skepticism about the politics behind the resolution and the need for it:

Jerry Brooks (Auburn, WA): “I’ll accept the Senate’s apology, but let’s move on already. This apology is something that might have been more appropriate long ago, and now it’s likely going to be misused by those with a political axe to grind. In particular and despite its intention to the contrary, it is already being used to promote reparations. Not only is this an idea without merit, but an extremely foolish one to be clinging to while our nation is trying to recover from its current economic distress.”

Brooks continued, “I also take offense to the ignorant partisan attacks involved in this debate. In trying to infer Republicans are responsible for slavery is downright silly considering that the party came about as part of the movement to abolish slavery.”

link:  Black Activists Call Senate Slavery Apology “Useless”; Say It Will Empower the Call for Reparations

Welcome President Obama

Today’s inauguration of the first black head of state was remarkable to say the least. The pre-inaugural hype about President Obama’s inaugural address turned out to be just that, hype. True to his style, Obama delivered the speech well and made everyone feel good for any number of reasons. But also true to his style in his campaign, he did not say very much that would put America in a direction that we, as Americans, could follow. That will have to change.

As is also his style, he covered all the bases on all sides. Personal responsibility up, government involvement up. What? Take care of yourself and your family, be responsible, while government will take care of them if you don’t. Huh? He was equally vague or non-committal when it came to energy. Seeming to focus more on what we don’t yet have than on what we do have.

I don’t recall any inauguration that patently offended an entire race, like the divisive benediction delivered by Rev. Joseph Lowery did when he prayed to God for a time “When white does right.” The fact that white people put Obama in the White House seems to have escaped this old man who is stuck in the last century. What a coincidence that the ghost of Rev. Wright would return on inauguration day.

I’m offended by the suggestion that our country has made no progress in race relations to the point that we need to pray to God for it. When what we need to pray for is an Obama administration that can keep us safe and repair our economy, while preserving our liberties and freedom.

I don’t expect the President to address and correct what Rev. Lowery said, but he should. And I don’t expect for the media to make anything of it either, and they won’t. But imagine for a second, the reaction of an inaugural benediction of a republican president where there was a focus on blacks to do something. Anything!

To Commemorate MLK's Birthday

On November 2, 1983, Republican President Ronald Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.Reagan signed the bill in the White House Rose Garden making the Birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. a national holiday. The bill first came up for a vote in 1979, but the Democrat-controlled US House of Representatives refused to pass the legislation. The first national celebration of the holiday in honor of Dr. King took place on January 20, 1986 and is celebrated on the 3rd Monday in January. In his remarks on signing the bill Reagan said: “Dr. King had awakened something strong and true, a sense that true

MLK2

justice must be colorblind, and that among white and black Americans, as he put it, ‘Their destiny is tied up with our destiny, and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom; we cannot walk alone.'”MLK3

The Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Holiday Commission with the mission of overseeing the observance of the MLK holiday was created in the bill signed by Reagan.

In May 1989, Coretta Scott King was made a member of the commission for life by Republican President George H. W. Bush.

Democrats today are trying to usurp Dr. King’s legacy, when in reality it was the Democrats who Dr. King was fighting. See the below article for details.

* * * * * * * *

Democrats Smeared Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the 1960’s

By Frances Rice

Character assassination. That’s the tactic used by Democrats in the 1960’s to discredit Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a Republican who was fighting the Democrats and trying to stop them from denying civil rights to blacks.

The relentless disparagement of Dr. King by Democrats led to his being physically assaulted and ultimately to his tragic death. In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Prior to his death, Democrats bombed Dr. King’s home several times. The scurrilous efforts by the Democrats to harm Dr. King included spreading rumors that he was a Communist and accusing him of being a womanizer and a plagiarist.

An egregious act against Dr. King occurred on October 10, 1963. With the approval of Democrat President John F. Kennedy, Democrat Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy – President Kennedy’s brother – authorized the wiretapping of Dr. King’s telephone by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Wiretaps were placed by the FBI on the telephones in Dr. King’s home and office. The FBI also bugged Dr. King’s hotel rooms when he traveled around the country.

The trigger for this unsavory wiretapping was apparently Dr. Kings’ criticism of the Kennedy Administration, according to the author David Garrow in his book, “Bearing the Cross”. The justification given by the Kennedy Administration publicly was that two of Dr. King’s associates, including David Levinson, had ended their association with the Communist Party in order to work undercover and influence Dr. King. However, after years of continuous and extensive wiretapping, the FBI found no direct links of Dr. King to the Communist Party.

The unrelenting efforts by Democrats to tarnish Dr. King’s reputation continued for years after his death. To his credit, Republican President Ronald Reagan ignored the Democrats’ smear campaign and made Dr. King’s Birthday a holiday.

Today, while professing to revere Dr. King, Democrats are still trying to tarnish his image by making remarks that diminish his civil rights achievements and continuing to claim that Dr. King embraced Communism – a system that is secularist and socialist.

In reality, Dr. King was a Christian who held deeply religious beliefs and was guided by his faith and his Republican Party principles in his struggle to gain equality for blacks. He did not embrace the type of socialist, secularist agenda that is promoted by the Democrat Party today, which includes fostering dependency on welfare that breaks up families, supporting same-sex marriage and banning God from the public square.

An understanding of who the real Dr. King was can be gained from a glimpse of Dr. King as a young man who participated in an oratorical contest when he was 14 years old. The title of his speech was “The Negro and the Constitution” which had the following sentences: “We cannot have an enlightened democracy with one great group living in ignorance…We cannot be truly Christian people so long as we flout the central teachings of Jesus: brotherly love and the Golden Rule….”

If Dr. King were still alive, he would be slandered by Democrats in the same way that they smeared him in the 1960’s and demean all black Republicans today.

Bio: Frances Rice is a lawyer, a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She can be contacted at: www.NBRA.info/

Alcaniz Street Preserved

At least for now. According to Councilman Sam Hall, the request to change the name of Alcaniz into Martin Luther King has been withdrawn.  Preserving that history was the right thing to do. All you ‘racists’ (according to Boyd) can rest easy now.

This was a big deal a few months ago when community organizer and head of Movement for Change, Leroy Boyd, had petitioned the City to change the remaining blocks of Alcaniz St. to MLK boulevard, from Fairfield Drive to the Main St. on the bay.

Derek Cosson has a good idea.

We’re going to be building a new public library… why don’t we consider naming that for Dr. King instead.

Too bad that Boyd wouldn’t see it that way. He would see it this way, ‘ain’t no white person gonna to tell ME what street I can rename.’

How long before the subject comes up again?

OPEN LETTER TO BARACK OBAMA THE MAGIC NEGRO

Regarding the ‘just discovered’ parody of a reporter’s idea of PEBO, Frances Rice, chairman of the National Black Republican Association, responds to the new-found ‘controversy’ in this open letter to President-Elect Barack Obama. It’s time to start walking the walk and show us his healing powers, to his own party. Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, a lawyer and she can be contacted at www.NBRA.info



OBAMA THE MAGIC NEGRO
By Frances Rice

Click here to listen to:  “Barack the ‘Magic Negro’ (That’s What the LA Times Called Him)”

If it were not so hypocritical, it would be comical how Democrats and their media allies have created a media firestorm over a parody on racism in the Democratic Party.  The Democrats’ display of rank hypocrisy on race is a familiar scenario.  First, Democrats exhibit vile racism.  Then, any Republican who points out the Democrats’ display of vile racism is attacked by Democrats as being racist.

The current target of this Democratic Party racial jujitsu is RNC chairman candidate Chip Saltsman.  So, what did Saltsman do to warrant being called a racist?  Well, he dared to distribute a music CD with a parody about the fact that black Democrat David Ehrenstein called Sen. Barack Obama a “Magic Negro” in an article published by the left-wing, Democrat-controlled “Los Angeles Times.”   Huh?

None of the people now trashing Saltsman uttered one peep of protest when the article entitled “Obama the Magic Negro” was first published in the “Los Angeles Times” on March 19, 2007 with the subtitle:  “The Illinois senator lends himself to white America’s idealized, less-than-real black man.”  Below is the link to that article.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center

Sadly, some high-profile Republicans who should know better have joined the Democrats and the mainstream news media in their Republican bashing frenzy.

Lost in the media uproar is the fact that the parody has been broadcast several times on the radio, and the satirical content understood by the more than 20 million listeners of the popular Rush Limbaugh Show.  One is left to wonder if the critics have even listened to the parody.

Where was all this outrage over racism when the Democrats used despicable racial stereotypes (just as Democrats did during the days of slavery and Jim Crow) to slur black professionals, such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele?

Brazenly, on the left-wing Internet website called “The News Blog,” Democrats posted a doctored photograph of Steele, depicting him as a “Simple Sambo.”

Cartoonist Jeff Danziger depicted Rice as an ignorant, barefoot “mammy,” reminiscent of the stereotyped black woman in the movie Gone with the Wind who remarked:  “I don’t know nothin’ ’bout birthin’ no babies.” Black comedian Harry Belafonte and Rev. Al Sharpton publicly denounced Powell as a “House Negro.”  NAACP Chairman Julian Bond equated the Republican Party with the Nazi Party and called Rice and Powell “tokens.”

The liberal media showed not a hint of concern about racial insensitivity when Obama campaigned for white Democrat Benjamin L. Cardin and against Michael Steele during the 2006 Maryland senate race, not long after Obama issued a letter of support for the re-election of white Democrat and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd.

Not one word of angst was uttered by the liberal press when a black Democrat pundit on national television called black Democrat Juan Williams a “Happy Negro.”  What offense did Williams commit that resulted in such a vicious racial slur?  He had the temerity to defy the Democratic Party’s “thought police” and wrote a book called “Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-end Movements and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America.”  His book exposes how the failed socialist polices of the Democrats who have been running black communities for the past 40 years have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands.

As author Michael Scheuer stated, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s:  slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.  Visit the website www.NBRA.info on the Internet to see the racist cartoons of Rice and Steele and the details about the Democratic Party’s 150-year history of racism.

The time is long overdue for Republicans to stop cowering over the issue of race.  Republicans should cease attacking fellow Republicans for telling the truth about Democrats, recapture the Republican Party’s rich civil rights legacy, and shed the light of truth on the failed socialism and racism in the Democratic Party – past and present.

Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, a lawyer and chairman of the National Black Republican Association.  She can be contacted at www.NBRA.info

Note: Two of the leading RNC chairman candidates are black Republicans Ken Blackwell whose website is http://kenblackwell.com/and Michael Steele whose website is http://www.steeleforchairman.com/

link: Press Release – OBAMA THE MAGIC NEGRO

Merry Kwanzaa, A Little History

Is it just me, or does Kwanzaa seem to come earlier and earlier each year?

This year, I believe my triumph over this synthetic holiday is nearly complete. The only mentions of Kwanzaa I’ve seen are humorous ones. Most important, for the first time in eight years, President George Bush appears not to have issued “Kwanzaa greetings” to honor this phony non-Christian holiday that is younger than I am.

It is a fact that Kwanzaa was invented in 1966 by a black radical FBI stooge, Ron Karenga, aka Dr. Maulana Karenga. Karenga was a founder of United Slaves, a violent nationalist rival to the Black Panthers and a dupe of the FBI.

In what was probably ultimately a foolish gamble, during the madness of the ’60s the FBI encouraged the most extreme black nationalist organizations in order to discredit and split the left. The more preposterous the organization, the better. Using that criterion, Karenga’s United Slaves was perfect. In the annals of the American ’60s, Karenga was the Father Gapon, stooge of the czarist police.

Despite modern perceptions that blend all the black activists of the ’60s, the Black Panthers did not hate whites. They did not seek armed revolution. Those were the precepts of Karenga’s United Slaves. United Slaves were proto-fascists, walking around in dashikis, gunning down Black Panthers and adopting invented “African” names. (That was a big help to the black community: How many boys named “Jamal” currently sit on death row?)

Whether Karenga was a willing dupe, or just a dupe, remains unclear. Curiously, in a 1995 interview with Ethnic NewsWatch, Karenga matter-of-factly explained that the forces out to get O.J. Simpson for the “framed” murder of two whites included: “the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, Interpol, the Chicago Police Department” and so on. Karenga should know about FBI infiltration. (He further noted that the evidence against O.J. “was not strong enough to prohibit or eliminate unreasonable doubt” — an interesting standard of proof.)

In the category of the-gentleman-doth-protest-too-much, back in the ’70s, Karenga was quick to criticize rumors that black radicals were government-supported. When Nigerian newspapers claimed that some American black radicals were CIA operatives, Karenga publicly denounced the idea, saying, “Africans must stop generalizing about the loyalties and motives of Afro-Americans, including the widespread suspicion of black Americans being CIA agents.”

Now we know that the FBI fueled the bloody rivalry between the Panthers and United Slaves. In one barbarous outburst, Karenga’s United Slaves shot to death Black Panthers Al “Bunchy” Carter and Deputy Minister John Huggins on the UCLA campus. Karenga himself served time, a useful stepping-stone for his current position as a black studies professor at California State University at Long Beach.

(Sing to “Jingle Bells”)
Kwanzaa bells, dashikis sell
Whitey has to pay;
Burning, shooting, oh what fun
On this made-up holiday!

Kwanzaa itself is a nutty blend of schmaltzy ’60s rhetoric, black racism and Marxism. Indeed, the seven “principles” of Kwanzaa praise collectivism in every possible arena of life — economics, work, personality, even litter removal. (“Kuumba: Everyone should strive to improve the community and make it more beautiful.”) It takes a village to raise a police snitch.

When Karenga was asked to distinguish Kawaida, the philosophy underlying Kwanzaa, from “classical Marxism,” he essentially explained that under Kawaida, we also hate whites. While taking the “best of early Chinese and Cuban socialism” — which one assumes would exclude the forced abortions, imprisonment of homosexuals and forced labor — Kawaida practitioners believe one’s racial identity “determines life conditions, life chances and self-understanding.” There’s an inclusive philosophy for you.

Coincidentally, the seven principles of Kwanzaa are the very same seven principles of the Symbionese Liberation Army, another charming invention of the Worst Generation. In 1974, Patricia Hearst, kidnap victim-cum-SLA revolutionary, posed next to the banner of her alleged captors, a seven-headed cobra. Each snake head stood for one of the SLA’s revolutionary principles: Umoja, Kujichagulia, Ujima, Ujamaa, Nia, Kuumba and Imani – the exact same seven “principles” of Kwanzaa.

Kwanzaa was the result of a ’60s psychosis grafted onto the black community. Liberals have become so mesmerized by multicultural nonsense that they have forgotten the real history of Kwanzaa and Karenga’s United Slaves — the violence, the Marxism, the insanity. Most absurdly, for leftists anyway, is that they have forgotten the FBI’s tacit encouragement of this murderous black nationalist cult founded by the father of Kwanzaa.

This is a holiday for white liberals — the kind of holiday Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn probably celebrate. Meanwhile, most blacks celebrate Christmas.

Kwanzaa liberates no one; Christianity liberates everyone, proclaiming that we are all equal before God. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Not surprisingly, it was practitioners of that faith who were at the forefront of the abolitionist and civil rights movements.

Next year this time, we’ll find out if our new “Halfrican” president is really black or just another white liberal. If he’s black enough to say the “brothers should pull up their pants,” surely Obama can just say no to Kwanzaa.

Ann Coulter, Dec. 24, 2008

What, surely you didn’t think that was my writing. Well said as only Ann Coulter can.

The End Of White Guilt

The National Black Republican Association and Shelby Steele offer their insight into the 2008 election, what it may mean and how it happened. Shelby Steele writes . ..

Does his victory mean that America is now officially beyond racism? Does it finally complete the work of the civil rights movement so that racism is at last dismissible as an explanation of black difficulty? Can the good Revs. Jackson and Sharpton now safely retire to the seashore? Will the Obama victory dispel the twin stigmas that have tormented black and white Americans for so long — that blacks are inherently inferior and whites inherently racist? Doesn’t a black in the Oval Office put the lie to both black inferiority and white racism? Doesn’t it imply a “post-racial” America? And shouldn’t those of us — white and black — who did not vote for Mr. Obama take pride in what his victory says about our culture even as we mourn our political loss?

White Guilt Emancipation Declaration

We, black American citizens of the United States of America and of the National Black Republican Association, do hereby declare that our fellow white American citizens are now, henceforth and forever more free of White Guilt.

This freedom from White Guilt was duly earned by the election of Barack Hussein Obama, a black man, to be our president by a majority of white Americans based solely on the color of his skin.

Freedom is not free, and we trust that the price paid for this freedom from White Guilt is worth the sacrifice, since Obama is a socialist who does not share the values of average Americans and will use the office of the presidency to turn America into a failed socialist nation.

Granted this November 4, 2008 – the day Barack Hussein Obama was elected as the first black president and the first socialist president of the United States of America.

Continue reading The End Of White Guilt

Is Same Sex Movement Getting Out Of Hand?

Where the Left and the so-called ‘gay rights’ movement is concerned, it appears that the only kind of elections they accept are the ones that go ‘their way.’ There have been ballot initiatives in 30 states so far that felt compelled to legislate the definition of marriage as a union between members of the opposite sex, and those measures passed in all of them. Given the opportunity to vote on it, it passes every time. Most recently in California and Florida.

Yesterday, we got a chance to see just how tolerant proponents of ‘gay marriage’ can be by staging protests, some not so peaceful, all around the country.

At Mount Hope Church in Michigan, a radical homosexual group disrupted an evangelical church service last Sunday. The activists rushed the pulpit, throwing condoms and buckets of glitter, using noisemakers and megaphones to scream at churchgoers and frighten children. Women ran to the pulpit and began to kiss; others shouted, “Jesus was gay!” Protests erupted outside Mormon temples in Utah and Seattle to protest the church’s support for the California marriage amendment.

Their strategy to link their cause to ‘civil rights’ simply does not fly with Americans, and certainly not with Black Americans. There is no right that straight Americans have that gay Americans do not have when it comes to marriage.

A gay man is just as free to marry a woman as I am. Similarly, a gay woman is free to marry a man. No problem. No one is preventing gays from getting married. Gays need to get a grip on the fact that they are not the mainstream of general society and learn to live with that fact, rather than trying to turn society upside down to suit their purpose, using judges that should be disbarred and politicians that should be arrested for blatantly violating the law.

I don’t believe ‘marriage’ has anything to do with rights. If it’s rights they’re after, then legislate some rights, call it a civil union, or even ‘gay married,’ but not simply ‘married.’ The latter being reserved for respect and preservation of traditional family values. Marriage is something that happens between members of the opposite sex. A judge can’t change the definition of marriage. Society via legislatures can, and I hope I’m not around if/when that ever happens.

Getting ‘rights’ for the gay lifestyle isn’t, on its face, a bad idea. Trying to equate it to normal heterosexual marriage however, is.

If gays were as proud of their situation as they seem to be, then one would think they would also be proud of that which defines them. Why not invent another hyphenated class to further delineate us? Along with ?-Americans (insert your word of choice), we’ll now have Gay-Americans. And Gay-Americans can be “gay married.” That seems to me to be a fair solution for gays that are tolerant of societal norms.

That would work, if only “tolerance” wasn’t missing from the lexicon of the gay “movement.”

related links: Gays And Marriage | Same-Sex Movement Demands Tolerance But Won’t Show Any