The Problem We All Live With

Because of the damage wrought in the Black community by these people’s ideas, mentality and actions, I made a short list of men for whom it would take every ounce of Christian restraint to keep me from punching in the throat on sight if we ever met.

Dr. Marc Lamont Hill

The Rev. Dr. Michael Eric Dyson

The Rev. Alfred Charles "Al" Sharpton, Jr.

Dr. Cornel Ronald West

Broderick Steven "Steve" Harvey

Thomas "Tom" Joyner

Kanye Omari West

As these men prove, education and success are no measure or guarantee of wisdom. They are indeed the modern day Sambos and Quimbos, tirelessly wielding the whip for their racist liberal masters, keeping the coloreds inline on the Democrat plantation. Servile and ignorant, they look towards their masters in government to see to their needs.

They are happy to be in those nice servants quarters the masters done let them have in Compton, East St. Louis and the like. The Democrats of old forbade the education of their slaves, lest they become uppity and begin to question their station. The modern Democrats still don't want Black folks learning to read, so they resist any idea that might have the effect of improving education for urban youth.

School vouchers? “We don’t want them going to school with our children!” Charters? “What about the teacher’s unions?” The Democrats have even managed to have the more slack-jawed Black folks championing the failed urban school systems, telling their fellows “the Charter Schools really aren’t that great.”

The NAACP teamed up with the United Federation of Teachers in a lawsuit against the City of New York, alleging the charter schools took resources away from the public schools. As well they should–when you consider the charters put those resources to much better use.

President Obama, as his support begins to erode even in the Black community, in a gesture I am sure was aimed at assuring his more reactionary urban constituents that he is still “down”, hung Norman Rockwell’s painting “The Problem We All Live With” a few feet from the Oval Office.

This painting, one of Rockwell’s most famous, was inspired by the plight of Ruby Bridges. In 1960, at age 6, Ruby Bridges became the first student to be integrated into schools in New Orleans. The painting depicts a little Black girl dressed in white, escorted by a cadre of U.S. Marshals, errant tomatoes splattered behind her on a wall adorned with the word “NIGGER”.

I am sure it’s not lost on the President, but his adherents fail to see the irony in his hanging this particular painting. The left eschews a Rockwellian depiction of America in almost every way. Always quick to portray Rockwell’s conservative chronicling of American society in the last century as hopelessly idealized, they claim it has very little relation to reality.

Yet it was the conservatives who loved that romantic view of America as rendered by Rockwell that actually championed desegregation. It is forgotten that it was a Republican Dwight Eisenhower who ordered those U.S. Marshals  down to Nola to escort Ruby Bridges to school! The leftist Democrats also want it forgotten that it was Ike who got the Civil Rights ball rolling to begin with.

The painting is a dramatization of what was happening in the South at the dawn of the Civil Rights Movement. Adding to the irony, anyone in New Orleans who was opposed to Ruby Bridges or the “Little Rock Nine” attending school with all them good White children back then and likely to throw tomatoes and write “nigger” on the wall, would have been a staunch Democrat.

Democrats still champion separate but equal education for Black folks. How else do you explain their dogged encouragement of failed educational paradigms? The fewer Black folks in good school systems the more Black folks languishing in the ghettos for the Democrats to exploit. Keep them on the plantation; let master think for them.

“Pay no mind to them uppity conservative Black people, they forgot where they belong. We know how to control our coloreds. You got to make sure they understand they can never compete with the White man, unless we help them. And we only help the ones that know their place. You know the American dream ain’t for you, boy! You know the White man ain’t never gonna treat you like an equal.”

So why bother?

That is the question ruling the lives of far too many of the American Black youth of today. They feel like there is no hope. They had hope in Barrack Obama, he seems to be repaying that hope with indifference. Maxine Waters was absolutely correct to call Mr. Obama on his failure to even pretend to address Black issues. A stopped watch and all that...

It should be acknowledged that the hardest hit segment of the President’s constituency is the Black community, yet on his recent bus tour he did not stop in a single urban area to assure that community he is working on it.

The bottom line is that Mr. Obama knows despite the utter failure of leftist policies in urban America, Black folks are going to vote for him in huge numbers just because he is Black and more importantly, a Democrat. Because Black folks would still vote for a White Democrat, if the Republican candidate is Black, we saw that played out in the 2008 elections.

So why waste a trip to inner city Chicago? It is the White vote Obama needs and he knows it. So it is much more pragmatic to have a donut in Decorah, Iowa, than a Coney Dog in Detroit, Michigan.

The “problem we all live with” today, is an unengaged Black youth. Where the Black children like Ruby Bridges of the first half of the 20th century saw education as a means to better themselves, far too many of today’s Black youth have zero confidence in the school systems they are trapped in by liberal policy’s ability to make them viable. Along with a belief that the whole world is stacked against them, because that is what their heroes keep telling them.

And the left, despite the platitudes they spout to the media, do all they can to foster that attitude amongst urban youth. “Progressive” morality has decimated the Black community. Driven by urban entertainers (themselves motivated only by money and fame), our Black youth idolize and internalize some of the most unwholesome behavior and ideas that have ever existed in America.

With our Black children raising hell in public and flash mobs robbing people based on race, Blacks are participating in the most self destructive conduct imaginable. And the left fans these flames every time they portray Black youth as victims instead of responsible beings who control their own destinies.

The only people preying on Black folks today on a regular basis are other Black folks! The naked stupidity of Black youths attacking White people is proof positive of their complete detachment from all practical reasoning. Not only is it morally wrong to attack anyone of any race, it is beastly foolish to pick a fight with someone who has numerical superiority and a great deal more resources than you.

The leftist will say the establishment and corporate America is preying on Black youth, sucking the jobs out of the city and taking them overseas. They can say this with a straight face as they grant men like G.E. CEO Jeffrrey Immelt all access passes in fraudulent quasi-governmental positions like “The President's Council On Jobs And Competitiveness.” Meanwhile, General Electric continues to be one of our greatest exporters of American jobs.

When do we wake up? Perpetual idiot Janeane Garofalo accused Presidential candidate Herman Cain of suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and being a paid shill for the Tea Party, acting as a beard covering inherent racism in the conservative movement. Yet men like Herman Cain represent and offer an alternative to failure, a break from the misery plantation as cultivated by the left that the Black community now finds itself yoked to.

How long must the Black community wax worse and worse before we stop listening to the modern day Sambos and Quimbos? Some are complicit in advancing the racist liberal urban agenda – men like Sharpton, Hill and Dyson, who know for whom they are working and what impact it has on urban America, but, it got them into the big house. Others are just plain dumb, like Harvey, Joyner and Kanye West; all they know is what they have been conditioned to know, but their bully pulpits make them terribly harmful as they spread that conditioning.

Black youth create havoc, often racist in nature, film it and post it on YouTube themselves in an unenlightened celebration of folly and madness. Then racist White folks see it on YouTube, call the videos of Black bad behavior “Chimp outs” and use it as a justification for their own hatred as they spew racial invective! All this under the presidency that was supposed to heal the nation?

The left cringes at the idea of one's faith playing a factor in governing. Most who hold to a liberal perspective have little regard for the things of the Holy Bible and the Bible’s God. They maintain the belief that man can restrain man, but never wonder why their endeavors bear so little fruit. You can change laws to protect man from his fellow, but you cannot legislate the attitudes of his heart.

Frankly, the left is only interested in persuading people to vote for them in elections; they don’t really care what happens to folks in their work-a-day lives. This is the primary reason they oppose a practical Christian faith. They are OK with faith on Sunday, but don’t bring it into your political and practical life.

They know that the only way to enact real “Change” is through Christian faith, but that goes against everything they work toward. They condition their henchmen like Sharpton and Cornell West to advocate for folks placing their faith in government, rather than God and themselves through Biblical truth. Why? Because the truth has the nasty habit of making men free!

“A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.”  Ezekiel 36:26-28

Digital Publius

Empty Gestures

To what end?

If you talk to me for any length of time, eventually you will hear me ask that question. I don’t ask it to be flippant or dismissive—I just hold empty gestures in low regard. To what end? This is a question too few of us ask; we are often too swept away by our passions, our fervor and emotions to pause and reflect...To what end?

Hence, so many were willing to overlook the obvious inadequacies, questionable associations and murky background to elect a certain junior Senator from Illinois President of the United States of America.

Some who did ask the question “To what end?” regarding then Senator Obama, still made the decision to vote for him despite his political shortcomings, because he represented something for them. Perhaps it was racial pride, a historical benchmark quelling the guilt of the past, or perchance simply an ideological fellow traveler.

The question can be asked and a person may understand what they are about to do is risky and potentially disastrous, yet emotional people will regularly ignore the latent danger of their choices and “hope” for the best, if the short term emotional pay off is substantial enough to make an empty gesture at least appear grand!

After all, as illustrated by his erstwhile political rival for President and future running mate: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Joe Biden continued, "I mean, that's a storybook, man." Considering our current circumstances, Mr. Obama’s subsequent election to the highest office in the land seems more a “Grimm” fairytale.

Those most swept away in the grandeur of America’s empty gesture in electing an unprepared Barrack Obama are even now beginning to feel like they are sitting in the witch’s cauldron. The fire gets hotter and hotter and suddenly they feel duped. Unfortunately, those of us who recognized Mr. Obama for what he was, now find ourselves beside them in the soup.

We on the right are not immune; we, too, engage in our own brand of vacuous shenanigans! We, too, chase what we consider noble ideas without asking, “To what end?” The difference is, we tend to cloak our empty gestures in what the Holy Bible calls a “form of godliness.” Such a gesture is being offered now in Israel, brought to you by Glenn Beck.

“He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?” Luke 6:39

Glenn Beck, as he stood in a theater built by Herod (Herod, who in an effort to kill Christ as a child, killed all the male children in Israel below the age of 2) in the city of Caesarea, making opening remarks at his “Restoring Courage” rally in Israel, informed his audience there were “Senators and Representatives from eleven of the United States.”

Beck told his enthusiastic crowd that among them were “religious leaders from 26 of the largest congregations in the U.S. alone”. No less than “four dignitaries from the E.U.” “Six members of Parliament from the E.U.” [sic] “eleven representatives of the largest ‘Tea Party’ groups”, the latter elicited a resounding yelp and thunderous applause.

Beck continued, “We have members from the 9/12 Project, we have 1400 viewing parties all around the world tonight” Beck told the audience: “People are watching this event tonight in Pakistan and in Egypt and in Brazil, in South Africa and 80 other countries around the globe.”

Beck informed the crowd: “tonight is going to concentrate on the ‘courage to love’. Tomorrow is the ‘courage to remember’ and it all ends at the throne of God on Wednesday, the ‘courage to stand’.”  But Beck never gets around to explaining to what end are they gathered in Israel to love, remember and stand?

Beck says: “We welcome you no matter what denomination or what faith you belong to tonight.” He then introduces a Rabbi to give an opening prayer, exclaiming at his ecumenical gathering, “People are not neutral here and neither is God”. Quite so, God is not neutral. Nor is He ecumenical, at least not the God revealed in the Holy Bible.

“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism,  One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Ephesians 4:4-6

Not a very ecumenical statement. Man quite often, in a misguided attempt to unite all men by being all things to all people, will try to drag God along for the ride through gestures like Beck’s rally in support of Israel.

My blog, Digital Publius, is very political, but it is also very Christian. I make an effort to distinguish my political and social views from my directive to spread the Gospel of Christ. It is my intent to always honor God by submitting my will to His, allowing my faith to inform my views on politics and society.

Honestly, it is impossible to operate in a spirit of ecumenicism and maintain a commitment to God—if He is your first priority—if you stand with Israel for temporal reasons like her being our only true and strategic American ally in the Middle East; or you just don’t want your supply of Israeli couscous to dry up. I can stand with Beck on that, I like Israeli couscous as much as the next guy.

But, as I explained in my article “Sweet or Bitter”, when he ventures into the spiritual, Beck and I have to part ways. Beck declares his faith as he introduces historian David Barton: “As many of you know, if you watch or listen to me, I have chosen a path that isn’t always the most popular with Christians. I am a member of the LDS faith.”

He goes on to state David Barton loves him for who he is, demonstrating his love for Beck “in every way at all times.” “David is one of the finest examples of Christians, I think, and he has helped me put this event together so we could all be here for this historic night.” Again I ask, to what end? Why this historic night?

This was not a night about Israel and it certainly was not a night to honor God. You honor God the way He says He should be honored, first by offering Him Praise and Thanksgiving, before doing anything else. I don’t love Israel, I love God. I support Israel because God in His Word told me to. Any other reason to support Israel in the temporal sense may be expedient, but it is so because God arranged it that way.

“In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.” Amos 9;11,12

The very existence of Israel as a modern state is a testament to the sovereignty of God! Before 1948, the fact that the Holy Bible made statements like the one above, saying Israel would again be a nation after an almost two millennia long diaspora, was the number one reason people doubted the Bible was God’s Word.

Though the Romans finally succeeded in casting Israel out of their land, they were not able to destroy the Israeli Identity. It was utter madness to suggest Israel would ever rise again. Yet here we are. God declares, in the last days:

“The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.  Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. ”  Zechariah 12: 1-3

A “burdensome stone” is there a more accurate description of Israel as seen in the world today by her enemies? In Psalms 83:2-8, we find this prophetic portrait of Israel’s plight in our time:

“For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head. They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones. They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance. For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee: The tabernacles of Edom, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes; Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek; the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre; Assur also is joined with them...”

All those names at the end of these passages are the modern day Islamic and Arab states surrounding and arrayed against Israel today, constantly threatening and plotting to destroy her. Yet returning to Zechariah 12 verses 8-10, God promises Israel:

“In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. ”

The LORD is here saying that Christ, “me whom they have pierced” will destroy Israel’s enemies and “they” (the Jews) will finally look upon and recognize Christ for who He is. I like the great theologian Adam Clarke’s commentary on verse 10 describing the Jewish reaction to this:

“This shall produce deep and sincere repentance; they shall mourn, and be in bitterness of soul, to think that they had crucified the Lord of life and glory, and so long continued to contradict and blaspheme, since that time.”

This Christ is not the created being described by LDS ontological teachings on Christ. This is Christ the Creator as portrayed in the Holy Bible! His appearance will be a rude awakening for those who teach they themselves can become gods.

Belief in false gods or ill-formed messiahs always ends badly. Whether they be political ones calling for “hope and change”, or theological ones obscured by man’s desire to be accepting of everyone’s idea of “faith”. As I have said many times, we can all be wrong, but we cannot all be right.

This rally in Israel is unseemly, it seems more a device to drive the Glenn Beck machine helping to launch his new online network. When you read the comments of so many people on the Blaze articles depicting last night’s events, there is a cacophony of folks either praising the quality of the transmission from Israel or complaining that they can’t sign up for whatever reason.

To what end? If you are there in Israel, or zealously watching on the world wide web for any purpose other than praising the God who is that nation’s author, deliverer and sustainer, you may want to give some thought to believing what that God says.

Ironically, on the Blaze we find a link reading: “Slideshow: 19 Cool & Amazing Pictures From Night One of ‘Restoring Courage’” The photo used to illustrate this article is the one used to advertise the link. It is number 18 in the slideshow, In light of God’s injunction:

"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD." Leviticus 19:28

The photo perfectly demonstrates how in ones zealousness to support an idea, one can lose track of the source of that idea. And in so doing, offer up yet another empty gesture!

Digital Publius

Rhetoric v. Substance

“States’ Rights!” How many concepts established in our Constitution have been more controversial and situationally pliable, perhaps even ephemeral than “States Rights?” It is at once (depending on one’s perspective) both noble concept and apex of licentiousness.

In a “more perfect union”, “States’ Rights” is perhaps second only to the recognition of an individual’s “unalienable rights,” endowed by the Creator, which is greatest of the great ideas inherent in our national identity. Yet due to the “inherent” fallen nature of man, this virtuous idea has been used on occasion as a tool of oppression.

This reality begs other questions: Is it the concept of states’ rights that is flawed, or the men who twist it to grant themselves powers over other men? Should we do away with the concept all together and cede all power to the federal government, or should we endeavor to curb our baser instincts and rise to the nobility of the concept?



In answer to the last question, the modern left would surely prefer the former. Particularly that segment on the left that derives its power from race baiting. Indeed “race” has been at the vanguard of the states’ rights question from the very beginning of our American experience.

Historically, it has been the Democrat party that has made best use of the perceived mercurial nature of the states’ rights idea. Democrats are for states’ rights when it suits them and against the idea when it encumbers their agenda.

The Democrats were for states’ rights and in full support of the Tenth Amendment when it allowed them to maintain their use of chattel slavery in the American South. But Democrats were all too eager to infringe upon the sovereignty of Northern states when it came to decisions like the Dred Scott ruling and the Fugitive Slave Act.

It was Infringements like Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Act that incensed the Northern states and abolitionists in particular as exemplified by Harriet Beecher Stowe penning the pivotal novel “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” and the subsequent founding of the modern Republican Party.

At the time of the American Civil War, you were a rare creature indeed if you were a member of the Republican Party and you were not also a staunch abolitionist, as this was the stated purpose of the party’s founding in 1854. The far left in America has done a very good job of expunging this fact from the American consciousness!

Liberal Democrats have been very successful at recasting the history of the Democrat Party. One of the best tactics of oppression is to convince the oppressed that the oppressor is in fact their benefactor while demonizing and recasting the true liberator.

“And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” II Corinthians 11:14

We see this very clearly in modern discourse as it pertains to slavery. The modern left works tirelessly to downplay the Republican Party’s roll in the abolition of slavery. Even recasting Abraham Lincoln as someone impartial to slavery, a goal most often accomplished by the use of a sentence fragment taken out of context from a letter written by President Lincoln in response to an editorial by Horace Greeley: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it...” It is completely ignored that Mr. Lincoln in the same sentence continued: 

“...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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”



Lincoln summed up the letter: “I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”

This does not suggest a person who is indifferent to slavery, but rather someone who holds out hope for the noble purpose of the Tenth Amendment and the Constitution as a whole - a person desirous to see men live up to that noble idea and cease oppressing their brothers because it is the right thing to do.

Lincoln makes clear this point in a letter written to Albert Hodges, the editor of the Frankfort Commonwealth, a Kentucky Newspaper”

: “I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling.”

Though Mr. Lincoln ultimately acted to end slavery by force, he never liked having to do so.  President Lincoln was a staunch believer in states’ rights. He was loath to inflict the weight of the Federal government on the South. Yet he did so for a greater moral good. Lincoln sums up the Hodges letter:



“In telling this tale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God.”

The Democrat party contemporaneously has all but abandoned the idea of “States’ Rights” after using it so effectively, in recent history, to strengthen the party’s despotic Jim Crow Laws.

Now that states’ rights no longer serve the Democrat Party’s ends, they have given themselves over to the idea that the Federal government should in all instances supersede States’ Rights if the citizens of those states have the temerity to oppose the left’s idea of “social justice;” if your citizenry stands for the defense of traditional marriage; enforcing the immigration laws already on the books; or are in favor of limiting the power of Federal government.



Jesse Jackson illustrates this truth clearly in a recent speech in support of big activist government.
The Democrat party, in an effort to reshape history to reflect favorably on them, has used the Nixon era’s so-called “Southern Strategy” to mask their party’s less than stellar history on civil rights. The liberal narrative is that the racist Democrats of the Civil Rights era now infect the Republican Party.

Democrats say racist Southern politicians, infuriated by Northern Democrat support of Civil Rights legislation, jumped to the other party. This is in spite of the fact that the modern Civil Rights struggle began with Republican President Eisenhower desegregating southern schools.

Is America supposed to accept that even though the Republican Party was overwhelmingly in support of Civil Rights, racists felt comfortable, even compelled to join the Republican Party? Richard Nixon himself, the beneficiary of the so-called Southern Strategy, opposed bussing, but gave teeth to the feckless and unenforced Civil Rights Act that passed during the Lyndon Johnson Presidency.

It was the Nixon administration that forced through Congress the Philadelphia Plan long abandoned by the Johnson administration for black quota-hiring in construction in 1969. During his early time in office, President Nixon created the Office of Minority Business Enterprise (OMBE) in the Department of Commerce that earmarked funds for minority contractors.

President Nixon raised the budgets and staffs of all the leading civil rights enforcement agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCC) in the Department of Labor; the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; and the Civil Rights division (most notably, the Voting Rights section) in the Department of Justice.

To preserve citizen’s health and safety, Mr. Nixon oversaw the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in 1970, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in 1972. Proving  that all throughout our history, Democrats spout rhetoric while Republicans actually implement real “Change”.

On the campaign trail Democrat President Woodrow Wilson courted the Black vote by promising: "Should I become President of the United States they may count upon me for absolute fair dealing for everything by which I could assist in advancing their interests of the race." Upon election, Mr. Wilson set back Civil Rights by decades as he fired key black supervisors working in the government, replaced them with whites and completely segregated federal workers. He followed that action by giving the ambassadorships traditionally held by Black Americans to countries like Haiti and Santa Domingo to whites.



Franklin Roosevelt similarly promised much to garner black votes, only to renege once elected. When the Black press excoriated Mr. Roosevelt for not being an honest broker, President Roosevelt barred the Black newspapers from being distributed to America’s Black troops serving overseas.



With all the talk of the “Southern Strategy”, there are precious few examples of segregationists switching parties. Of the so-called “Dixiecrats”: Ross Barnett, Robert Byrd, Bull Connor, Orval Fabus, Mills Godwin ,Al Gore, Sr., James Eastland, Allen Ellender, Benjamin Travis Laney, Russell Long, Lester Maddox, John McClellan, John Rarick, Richard Russell, John Sparkman, John Stennis, Herman Talmadge and George Wallace, Only two, Mills Godwin and Strom Thurmond ever changed parties.

That these two changed parties for political expedience is absolutely true, though these two, above all the other racist segregationists like Vice President Al Gore’s Father Al, Sr., who remained Democrats until their deaths, had mitigating circumstances in their lives that may have caused them to soften on race over time.

Godwin had sought out and enjoyed the Black vote during his career and actually enjoyed the NAACP’s endorsement during his 1965 bid for the Virginia Governor’s office. Godwin also supported Lyndon Johnson’s candidacy for President thereby losing his Democrat base which despised Johnson’s Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act enjoyed support from the vast majority of Republicans yet we are to believe that racist joined the party most responsible for the Act. 



Back in 1925 Strom Thurmond had a daughter with one of his black servants.  Thurmond paid for his daughter’s college education and supported her financially. In a display of liberal tactics, it is interesting to note that in Thurmond’s Wikipedia entry, he is not referred to as a “Conservative” until after it is recorded that he had become a Republican. The entry avoids calling him a conservative, while it talks about his years as a Democrat, even though this was the time he was most ardently racist.

This is a very subtle piece of propaganda which fits the leftist polemic against the Tea Party and Conservatism in general. Simply stated “To be a Conservative, is to be a racist.” That is a lie the weak-minded and unaware accept as gospel truth and is also why the left fights passionately to cultivate and maintain weak-minds.

The left has proven powerfully adept at selling the rhetorical over the substantial, so adept that the average liberal is completely uninterested in truth. None are more unaware of the realities of true racial history in America beyond the legacy of slavery than American Black folks. Even though we, more than any others, have felt its sting and should remember. Through entitlements and welfare, the Democrats have succeeded in clouding Black folks minds, to the point that we are oblivious to the true “Southern Strategy”.

The one where the Democrats, upon recognizing they could not win the Civil Rights battle with clubs, fire hoses and attack dogs, changed tactics and began rotting the country, primarily the minority communities, from within. We Black folks are now slaves to entitlements, the leftist idea of big government now our masters.

“When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.” (sic) – Abraham Lincoln in a letter to Joshua Speed

Digital Publius

Templar Redux?

After reading Anders Behring Breivik's (the villain responsible for the recent massacre in Norway) so called "manifesto," Breivik and his manifesto both seem more like an extreme covert leftist trick than a document undergirding a legitimate terrorist movement. If these new "Templars" are real, their motivation is materialist and, therefore, Christian in name only.

What makes the document suspect in my eyes, is the presence of legitimate information on the destructive nature of Cultural Marxism. The document begins with Breivik admonishing his fellows to edit; add to; and freely and widely distribute his “manifesto”.

The introduction titled: “What is 'Political Correctness'?" and the following segment: “How it all began - Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism” are frankly spot on. Breivik’s abbreviated history of Marxism, both economic and cultural, is very accurate, and not a little bit frightening, as what it lays out is very obviously true if you are a clear eyed observer of cultural indicators.

It is also the sort of thing a leftist would leave in so once theses Neo-Templars begin their Manchurian Candidate like attacks on defenseless targets, like the cowardly attack on the Norwegian children’s camp, the truth in the document can later be dismissed as the musings of madmen and therefore rendered forever illegitimate arguments when engaged in debate with true cultural Marxists.

The document does not give a good reason for slaughtering children in an effort to reverse the harm done by leftist radicals who have been all too successful with their experiments in social engineering. It has all the earmarks of leftists propagating the myth that conservatives are as dangerous as radical Islam and if you can tie in Christianity through associating these evil men with the Crusades, by calling themselves ‘Templars', all the better.

That was me wearing my tinfoil headgear. Let us now address the more probable, yet equally distressing actuality of what is laid out in the manifesto.

It would not surprise me if these “Neo-Templars” are indeed a legitimate movement. But let’s be clear, this is not a Christian movement. The original Templars were founded after the first Crusade and their primary function was to protect the world’s Christian pilgrims as they visited the Holy Land after Jerusalem had been liberated from Islamic invasion.

The “manifesto” gives the origin of the Neo-Templars and talks of the movements anonymous founders even mentioning their spiritual affiliations, a number of whom adopt the dubious classifications “Christian Atheist and Christian Agnostic.

Through the manifesto we learn that:

“Choosing the path of the Justiciar Knight is to walk the path in pursuit of becoming “The Perfect Knight”. Any candidate prepared to walk this road must be willing to forfeit his materialistic ambitions and embrace voluntary poverty and martyrdom.”

Very noble sounding! And not at all dissimilar to an Islamic Jihadi pledge. The Neo-Templars forfeit their materialism to fight for European materialism. Make no  mistake, God is an afterthought to these people, thrown in for the sole purpose of adding legitimacy to their claims of being modern Templars.
As Breivik rightfully points out, in his history of the original Justiciar Knights, the Templars sacrificed to “lay up treasure in Heaven” by protecting Christians from being killed by Muslims while on pilgrimage, which is exemplified by the Scripture verse:

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13

The Neo-Templars express the following as their guiding principles: “to protect the interests of all free, indigenous Europeans, European cultures and Christendom in general through armed struggle.”  Clearly, the Neo-Templar’s first priority is protecting the material interests of Europeans, this is often the case with irreligious conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic.

If they meant anything other than the material well being of Europe, they would not have found it necessary to list protecting the cultures second and Christendom last. No true Christian ever puts Christ last in any list of motivators.

Equally explicit is that they are not truly interested in protecting the interests of “ALL”  free indigenous Europeans. As displayed by Brevik’s willingness to take the lives of some 90 indigenous European people, no small number being children. In America at least, a Conservative’s primary material interest is life and it is the first of the unalienable rights mentioned in our Constitution as being endowed by God.

Nevertheless, the description of the the Neo-Templar movement goes on aping Islamic extremist rhetoric:

“The Order and Tribunal has concluded that any and all Europeans have not just a right, but a duty to resist through political and military means; cultural Marxist/multiculturalist atrocities and crimes committed against the indigenous peoples of Europe.”

You resist by launching your own atrocities? This sounds more akin to what is taught in the Qur’an:

“Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-” Surah 4:95

In the Holy Bible there are no similar instructions calling Christians to fight. The manifesto continues:

“As such, any European Christian conservative can act as a Justiciar Knight. This includes Christian agnostics and Christian atheists. Although the
PCCTS, Knights Templar is a pan-European indigenous rights movement we give all Europeans, regardless of skin colour, the opportunity to become a Justiciar Knight as long as the individual is either a Christian, Christian agnostic or a Christian atheist.”

Statements like the last few, reveal the utter lack of a Christian spiritual component to the Neo-Templar movement.  However, there is a spirit driving these ersatz Templars--it just isn’t from God. The Holy Bible defines what a Christian is and is not, any other definition is human in origin and, therefore, temporal not spiritual.

One cannot be a Christian Atheist or Christian Agnostic. Nor can one be a Christian and join an organization that sanctions the actions of Breivik.

The Apostle in Romans 3:8 categorically, absolutely denies the lawfulness of doing evil, any evil, expecting that good can result from it, anyone making such claims in their actions can expect only damnation.

“And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.”

These Neo-Templars make quick shrift of their ignorance of Christianity if they truly hold to what Breivik reveals in his manifesto. When they speak of Christian Atheists and Agnostics, I can only imagine that they mean secular individuals who cannot deny the practical nature of advancing the Christian ethos in an orderly society even while denying the God who inspired that ethos. Anything else would be by any interpretation patently absurd.

As Romans chapter three continues, in verses 12-16 we find an apt portrait of those who would act as Brevik acted:

“They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways:” 

If this is not a leftist plot to make conservatism and Christianity look bad, then it is likely the result of, as I mentioned in my article, “Bondage of Corruption Pt. 2: American Taliban”, a case of co-opting terms.

In that  article I explain that ideas and groups like the Knights Templar can : “...manifest quite often in a twisting of terms and words. Shallow thinking coupled with what often seems disdain for the true meaning of words (or the true function of a historical group) gives rise to malformed concepts.”

Breivik and those who identify with him in co-opting the Knights Templar, in modern times, are the dangerous exemplars of a younger generation completely indifferent to the realities of what they emulate or celebrate. I am reminded of the young guys who don Guy Fawkes masks because they liked the “V for Vendetta” comic book or movie--adopting Guy Fawkes as the symbol of rebellion.

In reality, Fawkes and his confederates were tools of the Catholic Church and terrorists who plotted to kill hundreds of people (by blowing up Parliament in full session) to kill King James the I, because they opposed his making Holy Scripture available to the masses and his Protestant resistance to the papacy.

Fawkes was the ultimate manifestation of oppression and establishmentarianism.

Or leftist kids who revere Che Guevara even though he was a murderer who essentially opposed everything they love. If Che and his form of economic Marxism had prevailed, they would not have there much beloved iPods and Wii game systems.

I have received friend requests on Facebook from a great many young folks, mostly Europeans that have as their profile picture some iteration of the Crusader’s cross in the past few weeks.  It is my sincere prayer that these young folks are not aligned with Breivik’s ideology. If they are I would ask them to consider this:

The Hospitallers, the Templars and all the other Crusaders did not take vows to stay at home to kill their fellows who disagreed with their ideas of what Europe ought to be, that was not their idea of fighting for their fellow Europeans rights, culture and Christendom. They didn’t dress like trusted policemen only to open fire on defenseless children. Instead, these crusaders took the fight to the attacking enemies face wearing the cross proudly!

If you want to fight and you are in a country that is actively involved in the War on Terrorism join the military and fight. If you are a veteran, re-up! If you are in a country not actively engaged, act towards getting your government involved.

And for God’s sake, leave Christ out of this sort of foolishness. He is big enough and God enough to deal with evil on His own terms. That is what real Christian faith demands. This does not mean you cannot defend yourself when attacked, or oppose evil when need be, but you have to know that God wants you to leave children at camp having innocent fun alone.

“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” Romans 12:19

Digital Publius

A Gentle Reminder To The Obama Voter

We told you so!

How now progressives? What means that sickly pallor overwhelming your once hearty and vital visages? I miss that glazed over luster in your eyes!  Where you once stood so resolutely confident in “Change” – you Hollywooders, you leftist tycoons, now you  waiver. Do you now find your “Hope” kinked?

In truth, it was always so. All your "Hope and Change" hinged on flawed premises and false paradigms. What we on the right knew all along, you are just now beginning to realize, which is that ideology can oft times diverge sharply from stark reality.

President Obama is a hardcore liberal ideologue - and that’s all. Ideology is the sum of his Presidential being. That too has always been so! It was so when he was a community organizer; when he was a Senator on the national and state levels and when he campaigned for the office he now inhabits.

Why liberals felt the junior Senator from Illinois would make a competent Commander-in-Chief, administrator and statesman given a far left background completely bereft of commensurate experience remains God’s own mystery.

Yet, here we are! And while here we are seeing the sort of damage that can be done in a very short amount of time when competence is not considered whilst making enormous decisions like who will helm the ship of state. As a passenger on that proverbial ship, I find the naked sentimentality that led to your choice of a novice captain himself guided by foggy idealism, a poor substitute for accurate charts and a clear sky.

So, it is no small wonder that we now find ourselves dangerously off course in exceedingly dangerous waters.

Just shy of two years ago, I wrote an article wherein I expounded upon a narrative popular at the time, fueled by no less than an ex-president that anyone critical of President Obama’s policies was a plain dealing bigot. In lieu of this liberal fallacy becoming a tenet amongst more rabid Obama sycophants, I coined a new eponymous law.

 Beside Murphy’s Law, Occam’s Razor and Asimov’s Laws of Robotics I placed:

"The Obama Principle: Opposition to the policies of an African American president exists by virtue of him being an African American president."

My eponymous law may prove to lack the staying power of its aforementioned illustrious comrades. It seems that once people actually had to live with some of the President’s policies it has become okay to question the wisdom of Mr. Obama and his half-baked machinations. The actualized ones as well as the ones he proposes.

The irrational opinions the President uses to frame his political arguments have suddenly ceased to be rallying cries and have become the subject of sharp rebuke from people you would not expect, people who were, at least on the surface, supporters of Mr. Obama.

A few years ago, early Barack Obama enthusiast and supporter Warren Buffett, with blind adulation for the fresh faced candidate from Illinois, (once it was clear that Hillary was not a fait accompli) announced:



"I will be very happy if he is elected president.” 



Buffett’s comment prompted Leftist bloggers to fire off postings with titles like:



“Here's Why Warren Buffett Endorsed Obama Today: McCain Failed to Get 'Lobotomy'”

By March of 2009 things had begun to appear shaky in light of the President’s economic remedies’ lack of...Clarity. The President granted an interview to 60 Minutes where he was asked:

"Your plan really for solving the banking crisis was met with very, very, very tepid response,"

Kroft said to Obama.

"A lot of people said they didn't understand it. A lot of people said it didn't have any, enough details to solve the problem. I know you're coming out with something next week on this. But these criticisms were coming from people like Warren Buffett, people who had supported you, and you had counted as being your..."

The President interrupted:

"And Warren still does support me," Obama interjected. "But I think that, understand, Warren's also a big player in the financial markets who's a major owner of Wells Fargo. And so he's got a perspective from the perspective of somebody who is part owner of a bank."

Quite so! A reality that Mr. Buffett himself was beginning to remember once the dew of Obama madness began to evaporate. Nevertheless Buffett continued his role as Starbuck to Obama’s Ahab and toed the ideological line. Buffett stated in an interview on CNBC around the same time:
"I voted for Obama and I strongly support him, and I think he's the right guy,"

This, even though the President had yet to offer any proof that would bolster such confidence and optimism.

Where once liberal Obama stooges immune to all semblance of reason held dogmatically to the unspoken creed that no one ought to find fault in Mr. Obama, it seems he is now becoming fair game.

Warren buffett offered a stern lesson in the idiocy of Mr. Obama’s class warfare inducing rhetoric, when he explained the economics of corporate jets and their owners Which Obama had earlier ridiculed. He completely laid open Obama’s ignorance in regards to the provisions, Mr. Obama's own stimulus plan allowed corporate assets like the much-maligned jets.



This should come as no surprise to thinking people. As a hardcore liberal ideologue, who has not produced a thing himself, the President had nothing to do with the production of the stimulus plan-- Other than desiring of course that it be a bill that would induce more Federal spending. Thus, he fell into his default mode and attacked the rich through his ill-informed  corporate jet demagoguery. He didn't know about the Corporate asset write offs in the stimulus.

The Berkshire Hathaway head honcho is not the only Obama loyalist now at least entertaining the idea the President may be well and truly insensible to economic actualities. In light of Mr. Obama’s equally careless remarks eschewing Las Vegas tourism, we find erstwhile Democrat and Obama supporter Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts veritably frothing at the mouth as he laments this Administrations mishandling of the economy, fostering a business hostile environment, paralyzing the private sector.



Wynn passionately intoned:

“I believe in Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. But I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States."

Wynn continued:

“And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime.”



Even Rap Mogul Jay Z, when asked his opinion on the criticism aimed at the President recently had to admit:

 “He's the president, it's fair.”



This is the same Jay Z, who in an interview a year and a half ago said:



“I believe the same thing about Barack that I believed at day one. What he represents is bigger than any political agenda that he can pass across the House, Senate or whatever. I think that right now he's going through a difficult period because people are putting the last eight years on his table and they're judging him by it. You can't expect a man to clean up eight years of mess in two years; it's just bad math. It's impossible.”

When one considers the latest report from the Labor Department showing unemployment at 9.2%, compared to an average unemployment rate of 5.2%, during the eight years Jay Z berated, it is “fair” indeed! The unemployment rate didn’t reach 6% until August of 2008 and it ended at 7.3% 



The unemployment rate was at 7.8% at Mr. Obama’s swearing in and it has not been that low since. Unemployment peaked at 10.1% in October of 2009 and since then has only been below 9% twice. 



Not to wax all wonkish, because that is not my normal style, but this is interesting data when you remember that President Obama rushed through the stimulus all the while assuring us that it would keep unemployment below 8% if acted upon swiftly! And so it was.

Reactionary politics and voting emotionally as exemplified by the 2008 election is never a good idea. Especially when it culminates in the election of so pig-headed an ideologue as our current President. That is why our Founders arranged our election cycles as they did, to allow a swift correction in government if emotionalism resulted in bad choices. The Founders insured America time to come to her senses.

George W. Bush was an ideologue; Bill Clinton was an ideologue as well and born of the same species as Obama. Yet, the leftist strain infecting Clinton is not nearly as virulent as that coursing through Mr. Obama’s fevered brain. Prompted by the Republican takeover of Congress, Mr. Clinton saw the writing on the wall and was wise enough to recognize the plans he put in motion were failing miserably. 

President Clinton was an able enough captain to see the rocks ahead. He knew he needed to change course. Mr. Clinton cooperated with the Republicans and thanks to the leadership of Newt Gingrich and the Republican’s “Contract with America,” President Clinton was then able to take credit for a healthy economy and surplus.



President Obama’s liberal sensibilities are completely clouding what little judgment he has left. Even though John Boehner, the current House Speaker, played an instrumental role in drafting the "Contract With America", this President has his jaw set and will not be moved. 



To all the liberal and independent people who now bemoan their tragic trust in an unproven commodity, heavy on the show, but otherwise insubstantial-you voted with your heart and not your brain.

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9

Let that be a lesson to you!

Digital Publius

Take These "Mental" Chains From My Heart

There is a great tumult in the liberal blogosphere triggered by a pledge signed by Michele Bachmann called “The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family,” the pledge makes this unsteady, perhaps even dubious statement:



“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

It was dumb to include that statement in the pledge, even though it may well be true--it will not help the conservative cause or make the Republican party more appealing to minorities.

Not because it may be factually in error, but because even if it were found to be accurate, most  people lack the discipline to alter their current behavior and attitude in order to correct our current state based on the possible reality that Black families were more stable under slavery.

Slavery is such a sore subject with Black folk that invoking it immediately closes minds to the rest of your message. The statement does not suggest that Black folk were better off under slavery, the statement begins:

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families"

This part of the statement is completely overlooked because of the reactionary nature of the race question in America. A good example of that racial default setting is exhibited by Black folk who I know to be conservative in their sentiments and politics, who nevertheless suggest since this issue came to light that David Duke and Michelle Bachmann share common ground.

Statements like the one in the “Marriage Vow”, never work! Frankly, you have to be engaged in higher order thinking to consider such beliefs in the first place. Whether true or not, most people never ponder anything this deeply.

What is lost because of this lack of depth, in liberal and unfortunately Democrat following Black folk’s thinking, is sadly, the contemporary Black community is in such a state that one would even think to make such a historical comparison in the first place!

I made a similar statement to my former Pastor and one of the Elders of my church a few years back. I made the mistake of intimating that through the American slave trade, what man meant for evil, God used for good in that literally millions of Africans would have died in false religion if they had not been brought to America as slaves where they heard the Gospel message and were saved.

Black folks were “physically” worse off in chattel slavery, but they were in an infinitely better place spiritually. Better to die a Christian in slavery than a free man in false religion. Eternity is a heck of a lot longer than the few decades we suffer through on earth.

When I made this statement you would have thought I set a bomb off in the room from their reactions. But if you are a Christian, you have to agree!

My Pastor and the Elder, placed so much value on their blackness and maintaining a misguided moral superiority based on the premise that we as American Blacks are victims and morally superior to Whites because of our victimhood, they were blinded to the victory an unknown multitude gained through this great evil.

Even in American slavery God Himself received the increase!

It is simply a matter of pride. Not the good kind of pride, but rather the kind of pride that God condemns that we are now in bondage to. We are so bound to any scrap of an idea that makes us feel good about ourselves, that we are more than willing to believe man’s wisdom over God’s revelation if it uplifts the Black race.

In that same conversation my Pastor or the Elder, I don’t remember which at this point, made some reference to life having begun in Africa. To wit I responded: “Not according to the Bible”. The Holy Bible says that human life began in the Garden of Eden, which according to description, would have likely been in modern day Iraq, a long way from the Olduvai Gorge, even if you believe the world is different topographically after the Great Flood.



Adam and Eve in the Garden, or Homo Habilis in Tanzania? It makes us feel good as Black folk to lean towards Homo Habilis, we would rather be an extinct apeman, which man in his hubris attached the genus Homo to, as long as he is a black apeman from Africa. We came first.



Even though the Bible states a different locale and doesn’t find it the least bit necessary to comment on Adam’s race, or Christ’s for that matter. All we know about Christ’s appearance in Scripture from the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, is that unlike the Hollywood depictions of Him, He was not very good looking! We know he was Jewish. God, unlike man, places zero importance on race or any other physical attribute,

God says He:



“...hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;” Acts 17:26

Earlier in Acts we read:



“Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.  ¶Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:  But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” Acts 10:33-35

Biblically, we are all the same to God, we are all sinners. There is no moral high ground for Black people to stand on any more than there is for Whites. The Whites imported us to America, but it was Black folks doing the exporting.



Just as Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt by his own brothers, so too were Africans sold into America by theirs. Josephʼs slavery ended up being a blessing to his brothers and the people he came from. Not by wallowing in self pity or lamenting his predicament, but by being what God ordained him to be even in bitter bondage. And because of that attitude, Joseph was able to overcome dire circumstances and rise above them based on his character and faith in God. As a result, Joseph became second only to Pharaoh in Egypt.



Black folks have spent so much time looking to the modern Democrat party to be a latter day Moses, holding our hands as we wander blindly through the wilderness, we have forgotten the earlier example of Joseph who was, who he was, whether he was free or in bondage.

The biggest difference is the latter day Democrat Party/Moses simulacrum, is not doing Godʼs work. The Democrats are leaning on their own understanding and leading Black folk, as well as the nation, at large, into disaster, not the Promised Land.



All that being said, the modern conservative movement is absolutely clueless as to how it should appeal to minorities, if in fact the movement is attempting to make such an appeal.

This is primarily because  conservatives have not understood the pathology at work in the minority communities.

Conservatives underestimate the level of resistance to reason the mental pathogen leftist racism has engendered in the minority mindset. Liberals have so ginned up racial identity in the Black community and animus towards conservatism, many Black folks are truly convinced, even with nothing ever changing for the better in their communities, as conditions wax worse and worse, they should still vote Democrat.



Even though the overwhelming majority of Black folks would agree with most everything in the pledge Bachmann signed; they still give their vote to people who find those same ideas anathema!

All hope of removing the mental chains from Black folks hearts and minds which could have been accomplished if Black folks actually read the document and recognized, they shared common ground with it’s signatories, was shattered by the inclusion of the maladroit slavery analogy.



The primary reason for this ignorance on the part of conservatives, is they actually buy into the “content of character” paradigm. But Black folks are so full of identity politics as fostered by racist liberal ideology, they are unable to see the catastrophic consequences of liberal policy in their own lives. 

To the conservative this is insanity! As well it should be to any thinking person. Liberalism, however; does not exist and flourish in the mind of “thinking” people! This is why the left is so averse to any forum where their ideas are exposed to the marketplace of ideas in free exchange, especially if that market is not completely controlled by liberals.

The Bible teaches that even if certain behavior is permissible, such as having a cocktail. That permissible thing is harmful if it causes someone else to stumble. In other words, it would be imprudent to have lunch with a friend who is an alcoholic and you sit there quaffing martinis in his face knowing he has a weakness.

The idea the pledge attempted to get across with the slavery analogy may have been a good one in regards to creating a sort of jarring effect to the reader. However, that anal- ogy ultimately fails because it is a stumbling block to the segment of the population you were trying to reach.

If we as conservatives are going to win the culture war. we need to pay heed!

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” Matthew 10:16



Digital Publius

The Source of Republicanism!

In my last article “The Soul of Republicanism” two items sparked controversy in the discussions the article spawned. One being some taking umbrage at my giving praise to David Barton at the end of my article.

Apparently, there is criticism aimed at Barton’s work, accusations of misrepresentation and lying. The criticism comes most often from those who hate the very idea of our nation having Christian origins.

I was unaware of these criticisms and I will investigate them for myself! I have read enough directly from the Founders themselves -- apart from Barton’s work -- to stand behind the Christian premise.

The other item was a statement I made within the text of the article:

"However, it does not follow that because we have religious freedom in America, all faiths are equally valid, or are equally useful in determining American morality or political thought."

I was asked in a thread to clarify this statement. Before I had the chance to respond, a reader did an excellent job of explaining it for me. Mark Pepin wrote:

“I'll take a stab at it and see if Hassan and I agree. It will also be added clarification for RHS: My understanding of that statement is that the founding of this nation, being dominated by Christian thought, was intended to support the morality of the Christian religion. Not all religions have morality systems that are equal to Christianity, and therefore, not all should be favored. The fact is, many of our laws come straight from the Bible, while others are derived from Biblical thought.”

I do indeed agree – Mark gave a very good explanation of my statement. I’m afraid I originally failed if my statement was not universally understood in the context Mark affirms, I thought it was clear cut. I will however go further than Mark’s clarification since the question affords me the opportunity to so.

Truth is, there is an exclusion of any other faith besides Christianity in the founding principles used in determining our system of government. (Note that I am saying “faith,” there were civil considerations. After all, the Founders did not invent republicanism).

If you assign equal validity to the world’s various faith traditions, you effectively invalidate them all. We can all be wrong, but as they all contradict each other, logically, we cannot all be right.

I have said this before in various discussions over the years, primarily with atheists. It is impossible for man to have created God. Man does not currently, nor has he ever had, the power to create ex nihilo  “out of nothing”. Everything man has produced has a frame of reference. There could be no god concept apart from God having first revealed Himself to man.

If God revealed Himself to man it is prima facie that He did so in a particular way. It is the responsibility of man to determine the way. Creation itself is the only safe objective medium to use in determining which tradition is reliably the way God revealed Himself.

In other words, the tradition whose source makes the most accurate statements about the universe and reality is most likely the Creator of the universe. The source most adept at describing man’s nature objectively as opposed to the way man wishes to see himself, is the Creator of man.

The God of the Holy Bible expresses this in what amounts to a challenge to man and all who would espouse false beliefs. It is a recurring theme in the Holy Bible:

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” Psalm 19:1

The Psalm goes on to describe the movement of the sun, declaring that only God could put such a thing in action.

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: “ Romans 1:19,20

The God of the Holy Bible is saying examine the world and compare it to what I have revealed to you. Many of history’s greatest scientists understood this and expressed as much. 

In a beautiful letter to his wife Maria Christina, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Guglielmo Marconi wrote:

“I know how much you love and cherish the beautiful Nature - the expression of God’s Will - where one can find the ideal eternal values: the Truth, the Beauty and the Good (and you possess the three of them). The harmonious unity of causes and laws forms the Truth; the harmonious unity of lines, colors, sounds, and ideas forms the Beauty; while the harmony of emotions and the will forms the Good, which in being the ultimate expression of the Eternal and Supreme Creator brings man to completion and drives us to seek absolute perfection.”

He also stated:

“The more I work with the powers of Nature, the more I feel God’s benevolence to man; the closer I am to the great truth that everything is dependent on the Eternal Creator and Sustainer [Creatore e Reggitore Eterno]; the more I feel that the so-called ‘science’ I am occupied with is nothing but an expression of the Supreme Will, which aims at bringing people closer to each other in order to help them better understand and improve themselves.”

Physics Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias, in a statement to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 on the Big Bang Theory remarked:

“The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”

Nobel Laureate in Physics, William Phillips in a letter to T. Dimitrov May 19th, 2002; in reply to several questions as to whether he believed in the existence of God:

“I believe in God. In fact, I believe in a personal God who acts in and interacts with the creation. I believe that the observations about the orderliness of the physical universe, and the apparently exceptional fine-tuning of the conditions of the universe for the development of life suggest that an intelligent Creator is responsible. …I believe in God because of a personal faith, a faith that is consistent with what I know about science.”

There can only be one truth and therefore only one good source to base our society on. The Founders understood that premise back in the 18th century. If one takes a practical look by eliminating the idealistic, when engaged in comparative theological study, you have to determine that there are many false religions in the world, but only one that lines up with reality.

Not all faiths can be equally valid because all faiths do not equally reflect reality. Why would God tell the Hebrews the earth is round and that it hangs in space, but then tell the Hindus the earth is flat and it sits on the backs of elephants standing on turtles? Why give one group the more accurate, demonstrable truth and lie to another group?

Why tell the Muslim the sun sets in a pool of mud and slime? If the Qur’an gets that wrong, if it is wrong on natural things, why should I believe what the Islamic god says about the supernatural. If Allah gives false reports about creation, and the tangible, how can I believe him when it comes to my soul and the intangible?

The wanton barbarity of those who follow the Qur’an strictly and the tragic state of affairs in Islamic nations, who base their laws on the Qur’an’s brand of morality, stand as a testament to this truth, particularly as it pertains to human rights.

Plainly, if you do not think it would be pleasant to live under Sharia, which is based on the faith of Islam, then Islam is not morally equal to the faith that served as the source of American republicanism.

If you chafe at the very idea of living under a caste system like the one India employs,  inspired by the Vedas. A system where people starve under the feet of a fat, well fed, and I might add tasty and nutritious “sacred cow”, working out karmic destiny, then Hinduism is simply not an equally valid source to structure a society around.

Nor is a lack of religious conviction a good starting point for government. One merely has to look at societies founded upon humanism and secularism to see that an atheistic perspective can be down right deadly on a massive scale.

The horrors of the French revolution; the tens of millions slaughtered by atheistic socialism in Soviet Russia; Communist China; and sundry other socialist Asian states.  Let’s not forget, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara’s nightmarish excesses. Even Hitler’s Nazism like the others, was based on naturalism at it’s core and the list goes on and on.

If there is a God, as it seems logical to assume, then as He says-there is also an adversary working against man. The Adversary, like man lacks the ability to create from nothing, but he is very good at inspiring man to do what is counter to man’s own well being.

It is the Adversary that inspires atheism and false religions and, therefore, the faulty human states including the ones our Founders fled.

I could site example after example! All those lands and others are hemorrhaging people and those people are coming where?  Here! Whether you accept Christianity or not; whether you find David Barton an honest broker or not. The premise of “The Soul of Republicanism” is sound and worth remembering!

Digital Publius