Sorry Black Folks, You’re Not Equal!

From the TV Mini-series "Roots"

Somebody has to say it and that somebody is me, you Black folks in America are far from equal, time to admit it.

Now, before you come and burn my house down or have the thought Police imprison me for not holding on to “pure thoughts” that please Liberals, indulge me for a few minutes and I’ll show you just how unequal Black conservative people in the United States are today, 50 years past the Civil Rights bill passing into law.

Us White folks have the freedom to formulate, hold and express our own personal thoughts, even though our conservative views are attacked or belittled by Liberals. Still, even though suffering ridicule for deviating from the preferred thought, we can be safe physically in speaking what we feel and believe, even if labeled “racist” for opposing Obama’s Liberal policies.

Black Liberals are also assured of safety for following the train passed down from on high through the NAACP, New Black Panthers and Democrat Party of today.

And that is where the equality ends for any Black person that has conservative views and dares to speak them, especially if in defense of Southern Heritage or the Confederacy.

You see, in order to be truly equal one must have the security of forming, holding and expressing their own individual values and views without fear of repercussion or physical assault.

Black conservatives are not afforded that security as seen time and again when they dare speak their views in public, they are either physically assaulted or personally insulted, called Uncle Toms, Sell Outs, House Negroes, Oreo’s and more.

And that comes from other Blacks and even White Liberals who repeatedly claim to be accepting and tolerant of other views, but astonished to find out there really are differing views and it is a Black person daring to speak them.

Most recently we see down in Mississippi where after attending a pro-Confederate flag rally in Alabama, a Black man and woman were run off the road by a “car full of jeering Black men,” killing 49 year-old Anthony Hervey, author of “Why I Wave The Confederate Flag, Written by a Black man.”

Mr. Hervey was a well-known and respected figure around the South at rallies supporting Southern Heritage and the Confederacy. Alabama Today says, “Anthony Hervey gave his life for something he believed in, reaching across racial lines to preserve history and protect our Constitutional rights.”

Over several years many other Black people have faced personal scorn and assaults too, although not killed for speaking their individual conservative views.

Before jumping back on the D.C. party circuit, as Secretary of State for President George W. Bush, retired General Colin Powell was labeled a “House negro” by Harry Belafonte, entertainer and staunch Black Liberal.

After Gen. Powell left and was replaced by Condoleezza Rice, a highly successful and very intelligent Black woman, she too came under fire from Liberals with a series of racist cartoons printed in newspapers.

Dr. Ben Carson, well known retired Neurosurgeon and Conservative Black man was recently ridiculed by Jamilah Lemieux, senior editor at Ebony magazine.

Again, his ideals were not countered, he was personally ridiculed for having a differing view than the left.

MSNBC’s Goldie Taylor has been heard saying of Black People appointed to former President Bush’s cabinet as “very, very dangerous to diverse communities,” and “self-hating minorities.”

Retired US Army Lt. Col Allen West, also a former US Representative from Florida said, “When black conservatives are attacked viciously by white liberals you don’t hear anything.”

Two Black Conservatives, Deneen Borelli and Rev. C.L. Bryant were verbally attacked at the 2014 NAACP Convention because of their association with FreedomWorks and that it is funded in part by the much hated Koch Brothers.

The woman assaulting them with her vicious words said, “They don’t stand for any of the values of what the NAACP stands for. They don’t need to be in here.”

Silly me, I always thought the initials NAACP stood for National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I never knew Black Conservatives “need not apply.”

Black Conservative actress, Stacey Dash was smeared in an Ebony magazine review with, “Her conservative, clueless political slant sparked controversy time after time this year, making Dash notoriously trendy for all the wrong reasons.”

The National Black Republican Association has often been ridiculed for holding fast to their personal values as conservatives.

Even Black Liberal Fox News contributor Juan Williams said a few years ago on Black Conservative attacks, “It’s Sickening to Me.”

But the assaults have not decreased; they have actually increased, now seeing a Black Conservative killed.

We Conservatives are labeled “haters,” “racists” and “White Supremacists” for daring to disagree with a Black Liberal like Obama, but the attacks a Black Conservatives are going well beyond that, making me fear we will see more physical attacks and possibly more deaths of Black Conservatives for daring to step off of the Democrat, NAACP, Black Panther Plantation.”

It is not Conservatives that do not allow Black people to hold their personal, individual values and views, it is Liberals, both Black and White.

And as I said above, if they are not secure in the freedom to formulate, hold and freely express their views publicly without such vicious personal attacks, not on their views, on their person, they are not equal in the eyes of Liberals.

Imagine, for all of the calls how Conservatives are racist and hate Black people, we are who sees Black people as our equals.

Liberals refuse to allow Black people the very equality they claim they support.

War Between the States Revisionism Falls Flat

The Lazy C is hard at it again, doing their best to destroy “PRIVATE PROPERTY rights” and spew revisionist history.

Odd how their revisionist history stated in the screen capture from the Saturday July 11, 2015 Cheers & Jeers column is deemed so important when there are ample quotes from the era showing the opposite of their claim.

For example, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Lincoln's first inaugural address.

“I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.” Lincoln from an 1858 letter.

“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of ... making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

“I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” Lincoln in the Lincoln - Douglas debates

“I view the matter as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion,” adding “I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.” Lincoln in explaining his rationale with the Emancipation Proclamation.

“We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.” William Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of State expressing the hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation.

“If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” Lincoln 1862 letter to Horace Greeley

“This war must go on till the last of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize his musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self-government. We are not fighting for Slavery. We are fighting for independence, and that or extermination we will have.” Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy as quoted in a July 25, 1864 New York Times editorial, “Is Peace Attainable? How?”

“It was only during Reconstruction that the cause of the war, slavery, was wedded so inextricably to the war’s eventual byproduct, emancipation. But six months after Fort Sumter, these issues were so hotly contested that the Union effort seemed threatened not merely by the surprisingly capable Confederate forces, but by the battle over abolition and its place in the Union fight. How could the remaining states in the Union prevail if they were so divided over the issue of freeing the slaves?”

“Seemingly always there to stir up more trouble, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner leapt into the headlines with a speech at the Republican State Convention in Worcester on Oct. 1 called ‘Emancipation: Our Best Weapon.’ In trying to transform the war for Union into a ‘war of abolition,’ conservatives feared that Sumner would draw out the war and poison the Republicans as ‘a ‘John Brown Party’.” A War Not for Abolition, New York Times October 11, 2011

Finally, the one part that I feel most dispels this revisionist history of the war fought solely over ending slavery, The Corwin Amendment proposed by President Buchanan and promoted by President Abraham Lincoln, a constitutional amendment that would have protected the institution of slavery and made it fully legal for all time in the states where it then existed.

If, as claimed by revisionist historians and the likes of the Lazy C, the war was solely about slavery, this one offer would have prevented the war and very well might have restored the Union prior to any hostilities, in my estimation.

Let there be no mistake, I personally feel slavery was a hideous institution that never should have been. My argument is not to defend slavery, but to show the truth that while an issue at the time, the North’s War of Aggression against the South was about much more.

I also make no claim of Black people in America ever being treated well overall. To do so would be a complete fallacy as it is a well documented fact that they have been wrongfully treated throughout America and our history, not just in the South. But, that is a subject for a future post.

As much as slavery should have never existed, neither should Lincoln have sent Troops to the South after South Carolina ousted the Union Army from their land at Ft. Sumter. Nor should Lincoln have been allowed to get away with the many violations of the Constitution in the Northern States, arbitrary midnight arrests of thousands of civilians suspected to have sympathies to the Confederacy, arresting the legislature of Maryland to prevent a legislative vote on secession, establishing Martial Law to forcibly keep Northerners in line and more.

Also ignored by so many is that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation declaring slaves free in states not under his control, not only still allowed slavery to exist in the states under Union control where slavery was practiced, but would have allowed slavery to exist in the South if they surrendered.

Another fallacy is that the South wanted to overthrow the United States Government. If that was the goal, Gen. Lee could have easily done that by surrounding Washington D.C. early in the war and arresting Lincoln and the government since the Confederacy was winning the early battles.

He did not as the goal was the same as when the Colonies rebelled against Great Britain, freedom to self determination and Liberty from an oppressive government.

Even citizens of the North were very reluctant and opposed to a fight for freedom of slaves, as stated in this PBS article, The Civil War and emancipation 1861 – 1865

“President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American volunteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.”

About midway through the war, slavery transitioned to a cause for the war as we read from PBS,

“Though ‘contraband’ slaves had been declared free, Lincoln continued to insist that this was a war to save the Union, not to free slaves. But by 1862, Lincoln was considering emancipation as a necessary step toward winning the war. The South was using enslaved people to aid the war effort. Black men and women were forced to build fortifications, work as blacksmiths, nurses, boatmen, and laundresses, and to work in factories, hospitals, and armories. In the meantime, the North was refusing to accept the services of black volunteers and freed slaves, the very people who most wanted to defeat the slaveholders. In addition, several governments in Europe were considering recognizing the Confederacy and intervening against the Union. If Lincoln declared this a war to free the slaves, European public opinion would overwhelmingly back the North.” (emphasis added)

It is well known that history is written by the victors and nothing shows that more than the North’s oppression of the South over the last 150 years in fabricating the cause of the war. In my estimation, they had to do that in order for them justify the war in the first place, forgetting that everywhere else slavery was ended, it did not require such a war.

We will never know for sure, but several people have claimed slavery was very gradually dying in the South. Reinforcing my speculation in that regard, I read from Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. in his article, Free Blacks Lived in the North, Right?

“In that raging year of Lincoln’s election and Southern secession, there were a total of 488,070 free blacks living in the United States, about 10 percent of the entire black population. Of those, 226,152 lived in the North and 261,918 in the South, in 15 states (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas) plus the District of Columbia. Let me break that down further: A few months before the Confederacy was born, there were 35,766 more free black people living in the slave-owning South than in the North, and removing D.C. from the equation wouldn’t have shifted the result. And they stayed there during the Civil War.”

“At no time before the Civil War (at least not after the first U.S. Census was taken in 1790 and future states were added) did free blacks in the North ever outnumber those in the South!”

And, we cannot forget that many of those Free Blacks voluntarily fought for the Confederacy for any variety of reasons.

For some insight into the main reasons the war was fought, I invite you to read Walter Williams
Dec. 2, 1998 article: The Civil War wasn't about slavery

I’ve said many times to friends that this current flap over the Confederate Flag is not about the flag itself so much as it is the complete eradication of Southern Heritage, a heritage steeped in the desire of and willingness to fight for freedoms and liberty. Black or White, doesn’t matter, Southerners hold a deep respect for America’s promise of freedom and liberty and even though it was denied in the past to some, that desire remains today.

 Once that is gone, a large block of resistance to totalitarian rules is gone.

Likewise, my recent research into the War Between the States, seeking out early documents, speeches, letters and what have you convinces me more than ever those modern revisionist historians and media like the Lazy C are completely full of crap!

Stand up for yourselves, America.

Daily Clarion Ledger, Jackson, Mississippi, Feb 23, 1890, Speech given by former slave, Confederate veteran and MS Rep. John F. Harris.

Diversity or Conformity?

Submitted by Angie Lee Sisk

For a society so hellbent on embracing "diversity," would someone please explain to me the reason for the headlong rush toward enforcing uniformity and conformity?

Think about it. A truly diverse culture is accepting (or at least tolerant) of differing ideas, beliefs, or opinions and not just different sexes, ages, skin colors, etc.. Recently, however, instead of celebrating the many different ideas, beliefs, and opinions in this country, anyone who stands on the "wrong" side of a hot-button issue is branded a bigot and told to go die or a mob will kill you and your family, burn down your house, and slaughter your dog just for associating with you.

There is no diversity allowed, because there is no tolerance, another concept the original meaning of which has morphed into a creature directly opposing that noble notion.

~~~Example 1: I am a Christian that does not believe in gay marriage, but those on the "correct" side of the issue don't know certain facts about me and my beliefs system:
1. I love you without judgment as Christ commanded.
2. I believe God gave us all free will and it's wrong for me to deny your right to exercise it.
3. I believe you have the freedom and liberty to make your own choices under man's law, which we are instructed to abide by per NT teachings. It's none of my damn business, really, what you're doing in the privacy of your own bedroom, just like it's none of your damn business what I'm doing in mine.
4. I believe the state has no business in regulating "marriage" as a religious institution recognized by the state, although the SCOTUS ruling puts that to bed (apparently in this case those on the "correct" side of the issue don't believe in separation of church and state? I'm confused). The state's role is to enforce protections of benefits conferred through religious ceremonies currently, such that the state recognizes ONLY civil unions for EVERYONE regardless of a person's religious proclivities, sexual orientation, race, or any other demographic being used to divide our society today. If someone wants a religious ceremony then it needs to be performed separately, and the "power of the state" should NOT be vested in a member of the clergy. THAT is truly SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

However, in today's climate of "diversity," such details are irrelevant because 1) I am a Christian and 2) I don't support gay marriage; therefore, I am an intolerant bigot and need to die.

~~~ Example 2: I do not believe in "climate change." In any forum I state this, I am automatically dubbed, without further explanation allowed, a Republican right wingnut denier who wants to rape the planet for a quick buck and make it uninhabitable for future generations. Or something to that effect. Regardless, I need to die because I have the "wrong" opinion. Irrelevant is the fact that I *do* believe in conservation and protecting the environment and that violators of REASONABLE regulations effecting that protection need to be dealt with severely.

I could give other examples, but you get my point.

My concern is that in suppressing opposing viewpoints, opinions, beliefs, or anything else, you're not truly celebrating diversity. Or tolerance. In fact, you're just the same as those you've labeled "evil intolerant bigots." What's your end game? Is it truly to embrace diversity, or is it to punish those you feel have been the oppressors? If your motivation is vengeance, you're no better than those you call the oppressors and seek to destroy, and you're going to take all the rest of us down even if we're not truly your "enemy" or a "violator."

Just because my opinion is different than yours doesn't make either right or wrong. It makes them different. Without differences and other facets of an issue to consider, we will never learn and grow. If everyone is the same and thinks the same and feels the same, we truly lose DIVERSITY.