In my last few blog posts, I’ve shared with our readers how I’ve struggled to articulate all I felt about November’s election. Of all the emotions I went through, from shock, disappointment…and a bit of anger, I think the overarching theme from my Monday morning armchair quarterbacking was one of a pervasive sense of, once again, sitting on the outside. Feeling like I didn’t belong on the inside, and after all Black Conservatives go through from our ethnic community, from the Left, and honestly, from some well-meaning but “wrong-headed” people on the Right, once again, a great opportunity was missed and I was left on the outside…..again.

Many in the Black Conservative movement immediately began venting: “leave the Party,” “Forget the GOP,” “Do our own thing…” and so it went. And, I can’t say their anger was misplaced. We’ve been offered lip service for many years, with nothing truly substantive or anything different from “business as usual” being offered to us.

If “Gafftastic Joe Biden” says something goofy like “they gonna put y’all back in chains!” well, then you will see Black Conservatives in droves on Fox, or various radio shows. Anything involving race, and there we are. But, I am more than race…and so are all the many brilliant Black Conservatives it has my privilege to interview over these past four years. We have conservatism running through our veins and it is the same as our conservative counterparts across all ethnic communities. We care about free markets, life, traditional marriage, and small government. But, it is rare to see us, other than on the sidelines, on TV or in the media. Why isn’t there someone of color on “The Five?” My thought in November — and still is — that until we are seamlessly integrated into conservative media, we will continue to be portrayed as “tokens.”

That’s not to say the mainstream media will embrace us. They won’t. But one of their favorite weapons will be neutralized: the race card. And with historical fact on our side, we can begin to provide solution-oriented approaches to the issues plaguing communities of color and society at large.

Thus, it was music to my ears to hear that Senator Rand Paul took the brave, gutsy and courageous step to speak before the students at Howard University, one of the Historically Black Colleges & Universities (HBCU). After being told by Pat Buchanan that, “we go where the votes are” and essentially thumbing his (and the GOP “elite’s”) nose at the Black community, I applauded Senator Paul’s effort to put himself out there and begin engaging the African-American audience — a largely Democrat one at that! He didn’t begin with an “easy” foray, like speaking to Black Conservatives, he chose Howard and, while they may not have agreed with him, he was praised for reaching out.

When we interviewed him on the show a few weeks back, and he enthusiastically discussed his speech at Howard, we made a connection with his team, and in short order, worked out a plan to have the senator meet with a group of Black and other conservatives of color on his trip to CA.

The fundraiser was held last night at the mansion of the President of the Frederick Douglass Foundation of CA (FDFCA), Kevin McGary and his lovely wife, Tracy. The event was well attended, and afterward, though exhausted after a grueling day of travel and other appearances, the senator held a private meeting with the Executive Board of FDFCA, a board upon which I serve as Communications Director. In our 45 minute to one hour private meeting, I perceived the senator to be most sincere in his desire to truly engage communities of color. Not mere outreach, but full-on inclusivity and engagement at all levels. I cannot tell you what it meant for me to be a part of this meeting and hear the sincerity pour forth from this courageous man who has bucked the Establishment GOP at every turn!

Though the values of the Black community are more aligned with conservative principles (look at the traditional marriage vote, not once but twice in CA, and know that had to be Democrats of color voting their values), will this inclusivity mean Black folks will immediately jump ship and join the Republican party? No. It’s going to take time, effort and repeated attempts. The Obama administration has done nothing for the Black community: our schools are still in dire decline, unemployment is double and treble that of other communities, crime is still high and the abortion rate is astronomical. But change is hard for some people, and so it will be for the Black community to see that efforts to thwart the policies of this administration are not “racist” but an attempt to put forth real solutions, such as school choice, free market entrepreneurship and other ideas to benefit all communities, especially those of color.

Senator Paul stated that should he decide to seek the presidency in 2016, his will not be the traditional campaign. He will go to HBCUs and pulpits across our country. He is already making plans for follow-up actions on some of the concerns raised at last night’s meeting. I have full confidence he will follow through and that he will engage all Americans in his pursuit of policies that benefit us all.

Senator Paul is a gracious, sincere, down-to-earth family man. His wife, Kelly, and their youngest son also attended the event. Wherever this all leads, I am truly thankful for the opportunity to meet them and share my concerns with them…and feel like I have been heard.

Senator Paul has not formally declared his candidacy, and I do not know all who may enter the race, thus I cannot say who I will support. But I will say this publicly: I will enthusiastically continue to aid Senator Paul in his effort to reverse the negative perception of conservatives in communities of color and applaud him for every effort made to this end.

If nothing else, I feel that I am closer to the goal that was the genesis for what we have created here at African-American Conservatives, and that was to bridge the gap between communities of color and conservative principles.

Photo Credit: Linda Cano Avila (I took a picture of the picture at the event so I could post…and the picture is still at the venue)

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement

I’ve read a lot of articles over the past several years, ever since my state voted against same sex marriage (twice). Now that the issue is before the Supreme Court, I see tensions running high on both sides, but few have articulated what I hope to be the definitive explanation on the matter, on behalf of those who object.

With all the love, respect and patience I have, I am going to try to explain why same sex marriage is an oxymoron.

Before commencing with the “no h8″ hooha, try to hear me out…it’s the only way to know what I am thinking. Which is one of many problems with my opinions in general…many on the other side of issues dear to me use hateful words because I think differently, rather than trying to get into my head so they can truly understand my perspective rather than just bash it.

I don’t hate gay people, so I’m not a “h8r,” nor am I afraid of them, so I’m clearly not a homophobe. These are words used to “emotionalize” an issue, rather than discuss facts; and to denigrate the ideology of those one disagrees with. I don’t call names: I use facts and there are plenty of them here. We just may not agree on them.

If you really, really just want to “get it” you are going to have to wade through some stuff that may make you uncomfortable, maybe even make you mad, but making assumptions about me won’t help us understand each other.

So often liberals tell me about the separation of church and state. My kids could not pray in a traditional school if I didn’t homeschool them, because, supposedly, their “free exercise of religion” violates “separation of church and state.” How currency with “in God we trust” offends (BTW, if you are reading this and are offended by that currency, you can hit that donate button up top and I will gladly relieve you of it!). Arguing that having the Ten Commandments displayed is a violation of this “separation of church and state” but peeing on religious symbols isn’t and is “art” protected by free speech. All of which goes to show me, very few understand the intent and true meaning of the term.

The government of England established a “state church.” Let that sink in. The government established a state sponsored religious entity. Not that religion itself was wrong, per se. But the government established a religion everyone had to follow. Not “everyone can find his/her own path” or “celebrate the god of his choice” or even the option to be an atheist, if one so desired.

Thus, some folks, after establishing independence from England, said (cue the Schoolhouse Rock music), that never again would the government tell them how to (or not to) worship God. Each person was to be free from the government telling them how to worship. Thus, “separating” the government from telling the “church” what to do.

Fast forward to now: the government is telling religious people that they must provide abortifacients contrary to their religious beliefs, even when they are commonly available elsewhere (and we are forced to fund those other ones as well, regardless of our faith). Yes, the government, once again, is telling the Church (used in a universal sense), what it must do, “or else.”

Liberals for so long have castigated Christians for “clinging to their Bibles,” yet now…..now!!!…now a group of people want in on something that was created by this very God they want out of their government…and out of their political party, by booing Him and trying to vote Him out of it.

God created marriage.

I set that sentence apart because you need to understand that in order to understand my objection to same sex marriage. God created marriage and you cannot “separate” Him from it. He created it, and without Him it did not exist before He established it. In the thousands of years since God created marriage, it has followed His exact precepts: one man and one woman. You cannot out-legislate God (He created law, too!). Gays and lesbians can create something else, but cannot take what He has created and strip it of the parts not liked! Marriage is God’s “intellectual property.”

Marriage does not exist apart from God.

Here’s where I get a lot more people mad at me: advocates of same sex marriage aren’t the only ones who have it wrong about who may marry. That’s right. There are conditions, only one of which specifies the sexes of the candidates eligible to be married. Matthew 19 talks about some other criteria: you can’t have been married before and have cheated on your spouse. That, too, creates an unscriptural situation that God nor His people are to recognize. The one cheated upon may remarry, but the “guilty party?” Hosed. That’s how seriously God takes this precious institution He created.

Many articles have touched upon the issue of creating children, something that only a male and female can do (yes, I am an adoptive mom, and understand the other methods of family-building). However, the need for a man and a woman in order to produce children is yet another fingerprint God placed upon His design for marriage.

When I gave birth to my oldest son, I said it was the closest I would ever come to understanding how God created mankind. By the same token, marriage is the DNA of God’s relationship with the church. It is through marriage we understand God’s love for His church. This concept is at the very heart of religion, because Scripture tells us that His church is His bride, He died for her, and that His love for us is like a man’s love for his wife (Ephesians 5:25ff). Note the masculine and feminine verbiage. You cannot alter that, thus, you cannot alter marriage.

You cannot divest yourselves of the “trappings” of religion and take something that is, by its very nature, religious. You can’t skip the “religion” part that forbids males to be with males and females to be with females and then insist upon being let into the inner sanctum of religion (Romans 1:24-27).

If someone wants to will something to someone else, get power of attorney, have hospital visitation rights….those are legal and/or contractual issues. And no one (at least no one that I know) is saying anything about those. We are saying leave religion out of this, and marriage is inextricably linked to God and His church.

By the same token, you cannot have “gay marriage” and have the First Amendment stand, too. By practicing the tenets I have outlined here, I cannot “recognize” a government issued same sex “marriage.” If I were a clergy person, I could not perform such a ceremony (and, yes, I do know of ministers who will not perform marriages for those unscripturally divorced (on behalf of the person who committed adultery)).

By trying to force me to provide abortifacients, to recognize a marriage that the practice of my religion tells me cannot exist because it does not meet the qualifications, or by forcing someone to perform such a marriage, that “separation” of government telling the “church” what to do ceases to exist, and thereby my constitutionally protected First Amendment right to practice my religion unfettered by governmental interference. You simply cannot have it both ways: remove all that “religious stuff” in government, but yet have government and its courts dictate the tenets of religion. Period.

Once we go down this slippery slope, as we are already with the HHS mandate, then you begin to have government encroach upon an area where there is a much Higher Law, and, again, where the government then subjugates people protected by the First Amendment to a group of people who want a piece of something steeped in religion without that religion itself.

Many will not understand what I’ve written here. Many will still brand me a homophobe or bigot (yet actually branding me one would actually make them the bigots…but I digress). I’m used to being called much worse. And I’m okay with that: “If the world hates you, know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” (John 15:18, 19 ESV)

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement

I was honored to speak today on Arise.tv about the role of African-Americans in the Republican party.

There’s only so much you can say in seconds-long sound bites, particularly when many charges are being leveled at you with machine gun rapid fire. But the one false accusation still resonating with me hours later, one that still has me spitting mad, is that Allen West and other GOP minorities are somehow token poster children for “white guilt.”

On-air, I was (and still am) the first to concede that after “taking one on the jaw” as LTC West put it in his CPAC speech, the GOP is doing some much needed soul searching on a wide variety of issues with respect to its brand image. However, the Republican Party doesn’t need an infusion of “Roots,” it merely needs to reconnect with its (well documented) roots.

Those intimately familiar with the history of the Republican Party know that some of its first elected leaders were Black men. Men freed thanks to the Republican Party!

As this chart from Black Americans in Congress (BAIC) shows, there were no Blacks elected in the Democrat Party until 1935, some sixty years after the first elected Black Republicans:

Congress* Name State Party Service

41st (1869-1871) LONG,Jefferson Franklin GA Republican House
41st (1869-1871) RAINEY, Joseph Hayne SC Republican House
41st (1869-1871) REVELS, Hiram Rhodes MS Republican Senate

42nd (1871-1873) DE LARGE, Robert Carlos SC Republican House
42nd (1871-1873) ELLIOTT, Robert Brown SC Republican House
42nd (1871-1873) RAINEY, Joseph Hayne SC Republican House
42nd (1871-1873) TURNER, Benjamin Sterling AL Republican House
42nd (1871-1873) WALLS, Josiah Thomas FL Republican House

43rd (1873-1875) CAIN, Richard Harvey SC Republican House
43rd (1873-1875) ELLIOTT, Robert Brown SC Republican House
43rd (1873-1875) LYNCH, John Roy MS Republican House
43rd (1873-1875) RAINEY, Joseph Hayne SC Republican House
43rd (1873-1875) RANSIER, Alonzo Jacob SC Republican House
43rd (1873-1875) RAPIER, James Thomas AL Republican House
43rd (1873-1875) WALLS, Josiah Thomas FL Republican House

44th (1875-1877) BRUCE, Blanche Kelso MS Republican Senate
44th (1875-1877) HARALSON, Jeremiah AL Republican House
44th (1875-1877) HYMAN, John Adams NC Republican House
44th (1875-1877) LYNCH, John Roy MS Republican House
44th (1875-1877) NASH, Charles Edmund LA Republican House
44th (1875-1877) RAINEY, Joseph Hayne SC Republican House
44th (1875-1877) SMALLS, Robert SC Republican House
44th (1875-1877) WALLS, Josiah Thomas FL Republican House

45th (1877-1879) BRUCE, Blanche Kelso MS Republican Senate
45th (1877-1879) CAIN, Richard Harvey SC Republican House
45th (1877-1879) RAINEY, Joseph Hayne SC Republican House
45th (1877-1879) SMALLS, Robert SC Republican House

46th (1879-1881) BRUCE, Blanche Kelso MS Republican Senate

47th (1881-1883) LYNCH, John Roy MS Republican House
47th (1881-1883) SMALLS, Robert SC Republican House

48th (1883-1885) O’HARA, James Edward NC Republican House
48th (1883-1885) SMALLS, Robert SC Republican House

49th (1885-1887) O’HARA, James Edward NC Republican House
49th (1885-1887) SMALLS, Robert SC Republican House

51st (1889-1891) CHEATHAM, Henry Plummer NC Republican House
51st (1889-1891) LANGSTON, John Mercer VA Republican House
51st (1889-1891) MILLER, Thomas Ezekiel SC Republican House

52nd (1891-1893) CHEATHAM, Henry Plummer NC Republican House

53rd (1893-1895) MURRAY, George Washington SC Republican House

54th (1895-1897) MURRAY, George Washington SC Republican House

55th (1897-1899) WHITE, George Henry NC Republican House

56th (1899-1901) WHITE, George Henry NC Republican House

71st (1929-1931) DE PRIEST, Oscar Stanton IL Republican House

72nd (1931-1933) DE PRIEST, Oscar Stanton IL Republican House

73rd (1933-1935) DE PRIEST, Oscar Stanton IL Republican House

74th (1935-1937) MITCHELL, Arthur Wergs IL Democrat House

History speaks for itself: Republicans freed the slaves and Republicans championed Civil Rights. With the rise of the Tea Party, Conservatives are reconnecting with our historical legacy, and emerging from our ranks are strong men and women of color like Allen West, Mia Long, Star Parker, Tim Scott and Marco Rubio. These are not “tokens;” these are men and women convinced that limited government and free market solutions provide the best opportunities for all Americans, including those of color.

History has shown the GOP to be very different from the “bigots” the Left routinely paints them to be. Nor are they “anti-women,” as guest host Karen Hunter charged this morning, but rather champions of the rights of women from the womb, particularly Black women, who are more likely to be aborted than born, as a recent statistic out of New York shows.

Ms. Hunter went on to say that former RNC Chairman, Michael Steele was merely a counter-measure to the election of Barack Obama. Now, faithful readers know I have had my fair share of gripes about Mr. Steele, but being a “token” isn’t one of them. During Mr. Steele’s candidacy, did anyone from his party talk about his “Negro dialect” (that he could turn off “at will”) or call him “clean and articulate” (as opposed to what, I’d like to know — “dirty and inarticulate?”). Not only was then-Senator Obama called that, he went on to choose the author of that latter remark as his running mate! Only in the DNC could something like that happen, and yet the GOP is painted with the “raaaacist” brush!

Ah, facts (and the indelible memory of the Internet) – enemies of the Left. The next time you hear that “racist rhetoric” from your friendly neighborhood Lefty, please set them straight, or send them here!

* List does not include Joseph Willis Menard who was elected to the House of Representatives in 1868, but, in a contested race, was not allowed to be seated.

Photo Credit: New York Public Library

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement

As mentioned on our radio show this week, with Dave Bray, lead vocalist for Madison Rising, the band is offering copies of their debut album to a few of AACONS’ fans!

Get the details here [link disabled post-contest], and in the meantime, check out the interview with Dave and be sure to listen to Madison Rising’s inspiring rendition of the Star Spangled Banner as part of their mission to garner 5 million views by Independence Day, 2013!

[contest links removed post-contest]

Thanks, Madison Rising!

Congrats to our winners!
On-Air winner: Tom R.
Facebook winner: Laura B.
Twitter winner: Eric J.

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement

Despite anything a Hollywood “comedian” might tell you, or some common artist who paints the President as dying on a cross, newsflash: Barack Obama is not the Savior.

Comedian Jamie Foxx made remarks at a recent awards show that I can’t even repeat because the Christian in me cannot abide the blasphemous, but the basic gist was a deification of the utterly mortal Barack Obama.

Hypocrisy and blasphemy amongst Tinsel Town’s elite is nothing new. It is ironic that these liberal “celebrities” decry the uber-wealthy and say they need to pay their “fair share.” Yet these people, paid millions of dollars, are the rich that they seem to hold in such disdain. They hold fundraisers that you and I couldn’t afford to attend unless we were willing to give up a year’s salary (assuming we were employed, no thanks to this administration). However, even by Hollywood’s “standards,” Mr. Foxx’s declaration would appear to be a new low.

I’ve long warned family and friends who are Democrats, yet claim to be Christians, to be careful in their support of Mr. Obama. I’ve quoted Scripture. I’ve talked about the Bible’s admonition about those with “hands swift to shed innocent blood,” and how then-Senator Obama not only supported abortion, but voted four separate times to continue the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. I’ve quoted book, chapter and verse about homosexuality. I’ve expressed concern at the Democrat’s attempt to “vote God out” of their party, and how they booed Him at their convention. Now this.

Proverbs 6:27 says, “Can a man take fire in his bosom and his clothes not be burned?” Christians, with this devotion to a mere man, you are playing with fire!

Noah spoke for 120 years before the flood, and only 8 listened to him and were saved (1 Peter 3:20). When do people who say that they believe in God begin to show it and say “enough?” Nobody is saying you should run on down and register as a Republican, but can a person of “faith” in all good conscience remain a card carrying Democrat?

The contrast between the Son of God and Barack Obama could not be clearer:

Jesus was perfect and without sin, and was the only One in the history of mankind who could claim this.

Jesus was crucified. In Matthew 20:20-28, the mother of James and John came to Jesus seeking places of honor for her sons. Jesus said, ‘You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?’ (meaning his manner of death by crucifixion, one considered shameful and reserved for criminals).

Regardless of what you may think about the President’s treatment in conservative media, Mr. Obama is alive and well. He has not been physically beaten or flogged by angry people who then made him carry a wooden cross on his blood-stained back along a public pathway leading to a place where he had stakes hammered into his body, put up on display for all to see, hanging between two thieves.

Jesus has a church. Though I know many who worship at the “altar of Obama,” they are deluded. That brutal death I described above was that of Jesus Christ, and the resulting death of this perfect and sinless God-man is what purchased our freedom from sin, places us in His church, and offers the hope of eternal life.

Jesus can affect our eternal destination, whether that be Heaven or Hell. This blind devotion to Barack Obama might land you in Hell over stuff like the current foolishness in equating him with the Savior, but the President cannot grant you entrance into Heaven.

God condemns worship of any other. In the Old Testament, we have the command that we “have no other gods.” Note the “little g” ‘god’ in contrast to the “big G” God!

Growing up, many of us heard of great Bible heroes like Moses and Elijah. However, Luke 9:27-36 tells us that when Peter saw these two great men talking to our Lord, he wanted to build monuments to all three. God didn’t even let Peter finish expressing the thought, but put the kibosh on the idea by saying, ‘This is my Chosen One, hear Him!’

If you are willing to follow some human being, you really should follow someone who can remit your sins, and grant you an eternal home. And guess what, Left? It’s ….FREE!

–Marie Stroughter

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement

Those who know me well know I am rarely silent about anything! However, the events of the last two weeks have temporarily rendered me speechless. Not because I don’t have anything to say — I do, and plenty of it — but because I need to process it in such a way that I can discuss it without losing my “Christian cool.”

I have said that I am a Christian first, and whatever else I am politically, ethnically, occupationally or otherwise, is secondary.

I had a long talk with Stacy Swimp today, and vented quite a bit as friends do with friends. Then, a couple of hours later, Congressman West confirmed that the race in St. Lucie County had been certified for his opponent, Patrick Murphy.

That sent me over the emotional edge for a few minutes, and I had to really think long and hard about a few things. I will still most likely go back and finish the many blog posts I’ve started and stopped during this period, because I do think I’ve got a lot to say before I can move on to The Next Big Thing.

The point of this blog post, however, is to expand upon something I said to my husband right after the election was called in favor of President Obama, and what Congressman West and I discussed today when he told me of the situation in FL: God’s got this.

In Bible class at church, we’ve been studying the prophets. They warned the people time and again about straying from God, and often God allowed them to “feel the burn” from their rebellious choices. He allowed them to have the king they begged for in order to be “like the other nations” (1 Samuel 8). Further, He allowed them to be carried away into captivity, allowing the Israelites to suffer famine or adverse weather conditions, etc. when they chose to disobey Him.

Am I saying that’s what He’s doing today with us and this election? I don’t have a Special Red Phone that rings, but I do know that God places people in positions of authority. He places the leaders we like and those we don’t. And we are called to be mindful of their positions (Romans 13).

I know that if Mitt Romney had won, I would be doing the Fairly Happy Dance, instead of the “Icky Shuffle” (with all due respect to the iconic Elbert “Ickey” Woods and his Shuffle of many years ago). I would probably not be focusing as much on the spiritual as I am now, because I have probably prayed more often and more fervently for this nation than ever before.

Now with Congressman West’s race decided (I refuse to say “defeated,” for my opinion is that he was robbed), I again turn introspective and prayerful. As I wrote to Representative West today, I said that I am learning to focus on the bigger picture, which is this world is not my home, so I shouldn’t be “snuggling in” getting comfortable.

Though I was at home this morning with sick children, my husband shared today’s lesson at church with me. Our preacher mentioned that it was when he was at his lowest that he felt the strongest spiritually. He said that we need adversity to remind us of our priorities.

Those of us of faith have read the end of the book. We know how it ends. Good triumphs over evil. God wins, and the bad guys lose. Until then, I have a job to do: continue to talk about spiritual things in the hopes that more eyes are opened to the Truth. As that wise philosopher, Peter Parker once quoted, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

–Marie

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement

Back in the day, we used to call someone like that, and I want to remind you when this incident occurred, I was really struck by a front page picture of this guy, which we called Negro, I mean that we call him a Negro in the fact that he works for not for our people but against our people.
In the old days we called him an Uncle Tom.

These words were spoken by Zaki Baruti, the president of an organization called the Universal African Peoples Organization, whose mission, as it is stated on their webpage, is to “do all we can do to uplift and empower our people throughout the world,” at a NAACP rally in support of two members of the SEIU who were charged with assaulting a street vendor named Kenneth Gladney while calling him a ‘n****r’. While there is some debate as to what happened the night of the assault between Mr. Gladney and the SEIU members – the unionists were eventually cleared, despite eyewitnesses collaborating Mr. Gladney’s testimony – I found it much more interesting why Mr. Gladney should be called an “Uncle Tom” at a NAACP rally. As Ron Christie wrote in his book Blackwards: How Black Leadership Is Returning America To The Days of Separate But Equal, it would seem that the NAACP now finds it necessary, before it works toward the ‘advancement of colored people’ to check that colored person’s party affiliation:

In the face of an apparently racist even where a black man is seemingly beaten, and berated due to his political beliefs that run counter to those of many African-Americans, Clyburn and other supporters of the president cowered, rather than led. They failed to denounce a vicious assault on a black man at a health care rally; assaulted both because of his affiliation with the Tea Party and called a n****r’ because he was black. For all its calls for equality, equal rights, and justice for all under the law, the Congressional Black Caucus failed to stand up for someone who was black because the gentleman in question was from a differing political and ideological perspective than their own.

Mr. Baruti defended his charge on The O’Reilly Factor, by saying that it was okay to call Mr. Gladney an “Uncle Tom” because Mr. Gladney was selling anti-Obama merchandise at a Tea Party rally. A Black man selling anti-Obama merchandise is apparently all it takes to be labeled as someone who is “nor for our people but against our people” by someone who is ‘doing all he can do to uplift and empower our people.’

Mr. Gladney is not alone. Representative Allen West, a man who, with two master degrees and over 20 years of military service, would seem to be someone African-Americans could look to as a role model, nevertheless is called “Uncle Tom” and “House Slave” regularly, especially in the Black Progressive press. The same press also regularly dismissed Clarence Thomas as an Uncle Tom, much to the chagrin of Professor Patricia Turner, who said “It was a really rough time for me during the Clarence Thomas hearings because it was very common in the Black community to refer to Clarence Thomas as an Uncle Tom. And my understanding of Justice Thomas, you know, he wasn’t good enough to be the real Uncle Tom. I couldn’t imagine him being someone who would have let himself be beaten to death rather than reveal where these two Black women were.”

Even Drs. Thomas Sowell and Walt Williams, African-Americans who escaped poverty to become two of the most respected economic thinkers alive today, were called “a new breed of Uncle Tom [and] some of the biggest liars the world ever saw” by Benjamin Hooks, former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. If that’s considered advancing colored people…

If someone of Dr. Sowell’s accomplishments can be called an Uncle Tom, then what is an Uncle Tom? Clearly Mr. Hooks did not mean the term to refer to the actual Uncle Tom from Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, who sacrificed himself to a death by beating at the hands of a slave master rather than betray two escaped slaves, as Dr. Turner did. The term as Mr. Hooks and others use it, is, according to dictionary.com, a “disparaging and offensive” term for “a Black man considered by other Blacks to be subservient to curry favor with Whites.”

Generally, this definition comes as much from White Liberal Elite as it does from Blacks. In fact, often the White Liberal Elite seems to be leading Blacks by the hand on issues of race, defining for us what is racist and who are the Uncle Toms, and often using Blacks to promote Progressivism, regardless of the ill effect this Progressivism may have on the Black community. This is generally true today as it has been true historically. Margaret Sanger for example, founder of Planned Parenthood, once said that “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Nonetheless, if this is the definition of an Uncle Tom, then why should it used against African-American conservatives? Is Conservatism anti-Black, and its opposite, Progressivism, pro-Black?

Who, for example, African-American Conservatives or African-American Progressives, has a more pro-Black view on an issue that affects the African-American community as dramatically as abortion? Interestingly, until relatively recently, there was no distinction between the two. The Reverend Jesse Jackson, for example, as late as 1977, until he needed White Liberal Elite support for his run for the presidency, stated flatly that abortion was “Black genocide”. When one looks at the raw data it is easy to see why he came to this conclusion. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are more Black abortions than the number of Blacks lost to the seven leading causes of death combined. Blackgenocide.org reports that from 1973 to 2011 there have been over 13 million African-American abortions, which is 174% higher than the number of deaths Blacks have suffered from AIDS, violent crime, accidents, cancer, and heart disease combined. Further, it is estimated that over 1,800 Blacks have abortions each day.

Yet, despite these tragic and incredible numbers, there seems to be no African-American Progressives who seem willing to speak out against abortion, even as it relates to the Black community. Certainly not Barack Obama, who has made his support for abortion – even partial-birth abortions and born-alive abortions (the killing of a child that is delivered after he or she survives an abortion attempt) – a centerpiece for his reelection campaign. Representative Emanuel Cleaver, like most of the Congressional Black Caucus of which he is the chairman, has a perfect 100 percent rating from the pro-abortion group NARAL. Tellingly, a billboard from thatsabortion.com that featured a Black child under the statement: “The Most Dangerous Place for an African-American is in the Womb” had to be removed after facing pressure from Black groups led by Al Sharpton who found it to be “racist.” One of the few prominent African-Americans to support this billboard was Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, a woman who though I believe is essentially a Progressive though a Social Conservative, who said “This billboard should be posted in every city of the country.” For this statement and for many others like it, Dr. Alveda King has of course been called an Uncle Tom.

Another issue in which one can compare African-American Conservatives and African-American Progressives is economics. Surely, if Conservatism is antithetical to the well-being of the Black community, then under a conservative administration, Blacks will suffer disproportionally, while conversely, Blacks will disproportionally thrive under a progressive administration. But this has not been the case.

African-American columnist Joseph Perkins took a look how Blacks fared under the Reagan administration and found that “on balance, the majority of Black Americans made considerable progress in the 1980s.” Among the facts he listed include:
• Total Black business receipts increased from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987, translating into an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent (compared to 5 percent for all U.S. businesses.
• Upwardly mobile cohort grew by a third under Reagan’s watch, from 3.6 million in 1980 to 4.8 million in 1988.
• the middle class constituted more than 40 percent of Black households by the end of Reagan’s presidency
• Between 1982 and 1988, total Black employment increased by 2 million, a staggering sum. That meant that Blacks gained 15 percent of the new jobs created during that span, while accounting for only 11 percent of the working-age population.
• The Black jobless rate was cut by almost half between 1982 and 1988. Over the same span, the Black employment rate – the percentage of working-age persons holding jobs – increased to record levels, from 49 percent to 56 percent.
• The number of Black professionals increased by an astounding 63 percent.
• Black college enrollment increased by 100,000 between 1980 and 1987
• The 1980s saw an improvement in the Black high school graduation rate, as the proportion of Blacks 18 to 24 years old earning high school diplomas increased from 69.7 percent in 1980 to 76 percent by 1987.

How have African-Americans done under the progressive administration of the first Black president? Not nearly as well. As Antony Davies and James Harrigan wrote for the Triblive.com, “

The median black income was $28,000 (in today’s terms) versus a $35,100 median white income when Bush left office. By 2011, the median black income had fallen to $23,600 while the median white income had increased to $35,300.

This is due, in no small part, to unemployment. Here blacks have fared considerably worse than their white counterparts as well. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the official unemployment rate for blacks rose from 10 percent in 2008 to 14.5 percent today, while unemployment for whites increased from 5.2 percent to 7.2 percent over the same period.

But the official unemployment figures understate the reality. When workers are unemployed so long that they stop looking for work, the government stops counting them as unemployed. Adding back those discouraged workers shows that the actual unemployment rate for blacks rose from 10 percent in 2007 to 17.7 percent today, whereas white unemployment increased from 7.2 percent to 10.4 percent during the same period.

If unemployment paints a bleak picture, incarceration rates make matters considerably worse. Blacks today are imprisoned at almost seven times the rate at which whites are imprisoned. The majority of these people are imprisoned for nonviolent drug offenses.

In perhaps the most telling metric, the poverty rate for blacks rose from less than 35 percent in 2008 to almost 39 percent in 2011, according to the Census Bureau.

Yet, despite these numbers, if you are an African-American who prefers the Reagan administration to the Obama administration, guess what that makes you?

One can hardly fault those African-Americans who tend to have to knee-jerk association of Conservatism and racism, and therefore Black Conservatism and Uncle Tom-ism. Much of that is the result of the White Liberal Elite dominance of the media, and their willingness to exploit this dominance in order to fashion a narrative to make Conservatives seem racist. The typical mainstream media reporter will search for a racist on the Right with the same desperation with which I search for the free sample tables at Costco. And if one cannot be found, then one can be created, by way of either planting one at, say, a Tea Party rally (how difficult is it to have some guy stand with a placard of Obama with a bone through his nose?), or by labeling some Conservative as a racist.

Remember the “Journ-O-list” scandal, the set of emails between prominent Progressives in the media that was leaked a few years ago. One such email came from Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent, who emailed to his colleagues his advice that they should “take one of them–Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares–and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a Black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.”

This tactic is used most noticeably as of late in the voter ID debate. Advocates of laws that would require voters to show some form of ID do not request that the bar be higher for African-Americans. I as an African-American would not have to pay any special tax, take any special test, and so on beyond the normal requirements of obtaining a government ID such as a driver’s license. It is difficult to see the discrimination against me here. Almost all Americans, even African-Americans, have an acceptable form of identification or can easily get one. And the minute minority of people who would find the task of getting an ID too burdensome – usually some indigent elderly person whose birth certificate was long lost – should be able to get one by way of special government assistance. Yet despite the lack of discrimination in Voter ID requirements, the White Liberal Elite,– including President Clinton – compare Voter ID laws to Jim Crow. I even channel-surfed past MSNBC recently long enough to hear some pundit for The Nation – a favorite sounding board for the White Liberal Elite – say that Republican support for voter ID comes because ‘suppression of the Black vote is the core issue for the GOP’.

With over-the-top, hyper-partisan rhetoric such as this taken as gospel by many, is it any wonder then that Black Conservatives are seen as betrayers of their race?

To a large degree, the belief that Black Conservatism equals Uncle Tom-ism is also based on the belief that Conservatism has been historically been against civil rights. Yet this belief is based upon myth. There are obvious facts that even Progressives admit to – that the Republican Party was born out of the abolition movement, that Republican president Lincoln ended slavery, that the KKK formed out the Democratic Party. But what is not widely acknowledged it that it was the Republican Congress with a Republican president who passed the 1957 Civil Rights Act over Democratic objections, or that 94% of Senate Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Let’s look at the records of the two administrations most responsible for making African-Americans such loyal Democrats: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. It is interesting to note that while it was the Republicans who supported federal anti-lynching laws, including Alfred Landon, FDR’s 1936 Republican opponent, and President Calvin Coolidge, President Roosevelt opposed such legislation. President Roosevelt also appointed known KKK member Hugo Black to the Supreme Court, named segregationist Jimmy Byrnes as a top advisor, and picked former KKK member Harry Truman as a vice-president. President Roosevelt was so hostile to African-Americans, or so afraid to irritating the racist element of his party, that he refused to meet with Jesse Owens after Mr. Owens won four gold medals, though he happily met with other White Olympians.

President Roosevelt was no Woodrow Wilson in terms of racism however. Nor was he a Lyndon Johnson. According to Pulitzer Prize winner Robert A. Caro, who has written extensively about President Johnson, “never supported civil rights legislation—any civil rights legislation” until 1957. His first speech as senator was to complain that President Truman’s proposed civil rights legislation “for depriving one minority of its rights in order to extend rights to other minorities”, meaning deprive White Southerners the right to discriminate against Blacks in hiring, and the right to lynch. He revealed his motivation for reversing his view on civil rights as senator by saying “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness.” When he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act he told two Democratic governors that “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” Similarly, when he appointed Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, he told a staffer, “Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a nigger.”

Yet, despite this, for any Black to oppose the presidency of either man would have one labeled an “Uncle Tom” in the African-American community.

It is difficult to avoid the temptation to call Black Progressives the true “Uncle Toms.” Black Progressives not only are advocates for policies that harm the Black community in deference to the White Liberal Elite in my view, but are extremely hesitate to criticize a member of this White Liberal Elite for racial speech or actions. (Yeah, let’s call Sarah Palin a racist for writing “Obama’s Shuck and Jive Ends with Benghazi Lies”, but let’s not say anything when Harry Reid praising the “light skinned” President Obama for having “no Negro dialect except when he wanted to.”)

But I, like most African-American Conservatives, prefer to presume that both Black Conservatives and Black Progressives want what is best for the Black community. Unfortunately, thanks to a White Liberal Elite that continues to manipulate our perception of history and current events for their own ends, it seems difficult for Black Progressives to agree.

–DK

Image Credit

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement

African-American Conservatives Co-Founder, Marie Stroughter, sums up the last of the Presidential debates for the iVote section at iVillage.

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement

African-American Conservatives Co-Founder, Marie Stroughter, speaks at the Stand Up For Religious Freedom rally in San Francisco on Saturday, October 20, 2012:

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement

Marie’s assessment of last night’s first and only Vice-Presidential debate, written for iVillage is now live! Chime in!

(NOTE: Though normally I don’t refer to people by last name only, the piece has been edited for length, thus no disrespect is intended –M.)

African-American Conservatives - --the soul of the conservative movement