No. 139 – July 21, 2012
GOP – COLOR BLIND – OR JUST PLAIN BLIND?
Yes, folks, it is “race-baiting” time again in America.
This time, I am going to say a few things that will rile a lot of Republicans.
But, let’s take a step back in time. Lincoln freed the slaves – and he was Republican. Most of the freed slaves considered Lincoln their “savior” and became Republicans.
It was not until the Democrats started to make Americans of African Ancestry believe that they would “take care of them” – whereas the Republicans demanded that they work – by pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.
Through a conjured up psychological twist of “facts” the Democrats convinced most black Americans that the Democratic party would “help them” more than the Republicans.
The society of Black America took the bait.
Yet, in 1965, President Johnson had to enlist the help of the Republican Party to get the CIVIL RIGHTS BILL passed. This little known fact is NOT taught in our Public Education System.
The Democrats actually despised Americans of African Ancestry. George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Senator Robert Byrd (past KKK senior member, elected in perpetuity by his Democratic constituency).
Since blacks have adhered to the Democratic lie – they have continued to live in poverty – Watts and South Central L.A., for starters. The ultimate slums, since I was a kid – 50 years ago!
But let’s not bring up such embarrassing points regarding the “Democratic” party.
It is time to get straight to the point.
Whatever you may think, Colin Powell would have made a GREAT first American of African Ancestry President of the United States. And he would have been Republican.
But the GOP turned on him – and General Powell, in turn – endorsed our current “president.”
The GOP had the opportunity to choose Condoleezza Rice as vice president – and the GOP turned on her. Not “conservative” enough.
So the Democrats picked Obama, played the race card to the hilt – and we end up with one of the most disastrous presidencies of all time.
Now we have one of the GREAT MEN of our generation – highly intelligent, formidably articulate, with the courage of a true warrior.
And the GOP is not even interested.
So, I ask. Is the GOP – currently controlled by the ultra-right conservative “Christian Block” – actually racist in its approach to choosing its leaders?
ALLEN WEST SHOULD BE THE VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE to run with Mitt Romney.
So, why is he not EVEN considered?
I submit, that the current Status Quo Republicans are – in secret – CLOSET RACISTS.
Sorry folks, but that is how I see it.
RACE CARD – FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE DECK
OK, stupids! We are dealing with the group that originated from Chicago – and brought up and nurtured by none other than, Al Capone.
So the Democrats picked Obama, played the race card to the hilt – and we end up with one of the most disastrous presidencies of all time. But wait. He is “black” so all is forgiven.
“Chicago! Chicago! My kind of Town!” – Frank Sinatra
They play down – and dirty -in Chicago.
So, why is the GOP not going with Allen West. Instead, everybody is clamoring for Marco Rubio.
Are you kidding me? Then again, think about this.
The Democrats actually don’t like – not do they want – to actually HELP the black community to pull itself out of the slums – and continue to do so, to this very day.
So they are smart enough to play the “race card” with Obama – but not to overdo it.
They go with an articulate HALF-BLACK man – and then play race as a major factor in the 2010 election.
“You don’t like Obama – so you must be racist.” End of conversation.
I cannot tell you how many times I heard that when Obama was running.
The ploy of the Democrats worked wonders. The LAST thing that ANY Liberal wants is to be branded as a racist. They would rather sell their mother than be called such a despicable name. They just can’t help it. That is the way they are.
So, they voted for Obama to PROVE their “open-mindedness.”
But, remember, Obama is HALF-WHITE, too. So, in essence, they could vote for him and STILL convince themselves that they were not voting for a REAL American of African Ancestry.
Just half way.
SO, WHAT IS THE POINT?
The point is this.
Imagine the following scenario:
You are at a restaurant talking with a group of Liberals and you opine that you really like Allen West – and wish he would run for Vice-president. (Actually, I wanted him for President, but that is entirely another story).
Back to the point.
The Liberals would automatically freak!
“That right-wing” nutto,” would spout someone in the group.
“He is crazy,” would chime in another.
Then you, as an Allen West supporter, could casually say, “I believe that you are racist.”
The whole table would explode. (Believe me, I have done this to my sheer delight).
More vitriol would emanate from that group than lava flowed from Mt. Vesuvius.
It actually happened to me. It was the most fun I have had in a long time.
After I let them blow off steam, I simply said, “After all, Allen West would be the first REAL American of African Ancestry to be nominated for the Vice-presidency.
“Racist,” they screamed in chorus. They were vehement in their collective condemnation.
Then I simply said that, “Allen West is 100% black American of African Ancestry. And that is why YOU don’t like him. Obama is half-white. Allen West is 100% PURE. Now, who is the racist?”
Then came the excuses, the floundering, the “deer-in-the-headlights” gawk that all Liberals resort to, when they are caught with their intellectual pants down.
Then I added, “What’s wrong. Don’t you like REAL Black People?”
They stuttered and stammered, like an eight-cylinder engine, firing on 6 pistons.
It was hilarious.
But my point was made – and they automatically made it for me.
So, why does the GOP NOT get this very “racist card” and shove it right back into the Democrats faces?
I submit, they themselves do not want a REAL black man that close to the presidency.
Any other observations would be kindly appreciated – via the Blog Section of the AMERICAN TELEGRAPH.
ONWARD AND DOWNWARD
Bernanke will be forced to implement another stimulus – either some sort of “monetary easing” to juice the economy or an all out QE 3 – before the November election.
There will be trouble in the Middle East – and Obama will take FULL CREDIT for the outcome. And it will turn out in HIS favor. He will either make it appear that Putin “backs down” (to be repaid later) or Obama will move in to “aid” the Syrian rebels – when he is certain that they will emerge victorious. Exactly like his idol, Joseph Stalin, declaring war on Japan – on August 9, 1945.
Hiroshima, August 6. Nagasaki, August 9. Extremely dangerous move on Stalin’s part. (That is a cynical joke for all you Liberal readers).
Gasoline will be around $3 per gallon in October.
Obama will keep touting the class warfare mantra – and the Republicans will still be trying to convince voters that they are not the party of the rich – with little success.
For the true story, please go to the following site:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48257611
Credit goes to Frank Champagne – a published author and true expert on tax affairs.
PREDICTION: If the GOP does not pick someone with the courage and stamina that Allen West already possesses, then it will be Four More Years of Obama.
ONE CAVAET: If the GOP cannot band together, massage Sarah Palin’s “stupid” ego, bring Rubio, Christie, Jeb Bush, and other real “barn-burners” to the fore at the GOP Convention – then we are doomed.
The last thing the GOP needs now is another, ultra-right wing “whine-out” and simply sit at home and not vote.
If the SILENT MAJORITY actually steps up, then maybe Romney has a chance.
But if there is more in-fighting over abortion and gay marriage then we are simply sunk.
GROW UP – GOP.
Pick Allen West – and march into the White House victorious – in January 2013!
Keep thinking positive – and remember to use your cursor to view all the sites to the right of the AMERICAN TELEGRAPH. Just point your clicker on your choice of sites, and click. It will come up – and you can keep yourself better informed – all FOR FREE.
May I suggest that you check out THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (Charles Payne) and UNFILTERED NEWS (G. Edward Griffin) for some interesting news and commentary.
And last, but never least, an inspiration from Europe, submitted by reader, Doc Dolan. This should put all music lovers into the spirit of the weekend. Simply beautiful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBaHPND2QJg&feature=share
That is it for now.
Best wishes,
Lawrence Klepinger
THE AMERICAN TELEGRAPH
Editor/Publisher
Dick Bachert Says:
Larry,
I must take issue with your comment that Lester Maddox “despised” black folks. His media slanted axehandle stand against fedzilla at his then-famous Pickrick restaurant was NOT to keep blacks OUT. It was to keep fedzilla from destroying the few vestiges of STATES RIGHTS Lincoln and his War of Northern Aggression failed to kill.
The fact is that Lester — whom I knew and met with a number of times over the years before his death — PUT MORE BLACKS IN POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY IN THE GEORGIA GOVERNMENT than any governor up to that time. (The man was a saint who almost single-handedly cared for his dying wife right up to the end. How many of US would do that?)
We DO agree that Allen West has the goods to move on up (with a nod to George Jefferson) to the West end of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a highly intelligent and courageous man, Col. West probably also “gets” the old political joke that so and so became Vice President and hasn’t been heard from or seen since. I’d much prefer that Col. West become President. He understands the threat posed by the muzloids better than many others I could name (including McCain) and the madness of waging no-win wars that piss away American blood and treasure in places where the natives have been murdering one another for thousands of years and we can’t change that. Condi Rice, on the other hand, is well up on my list of neo-con chicken hawks who have no problem sending other parents’ kids off to these foreign meat grinders. And, though the Beltway Pubbies probably DID slight him, I’m afraid Colin Powell voted for Obama primarily on the basis of race. In my alleged mind, that disqualifies him from a shot at the big show.
The proggies now in charge of the donkey party would NEVER embrace West: He’s a REAL MAN, — tremble — a Christian and a – shudder – Constitutional conservative! With them and the oligarchs running the GOP, it’s less about race than it is about IDEOLOGY!
That said, while we have a few disagreements on some items this issue, we love Larry loonnng time and will continue to spread his brand of cheer throughout the land.
July 21st, 2012 at 2:34 pmJoan Dow Says:
We agree that Allen West should be the VP candidate. He fills a lot of gaps and will solve a lot of problems.
Joan
July 21st, 2012 at 3:26 pmJohn Says:
Yep another opine note!! I thought that was a good word; but how many understand your usage of words, better yet, do they bother to look up the meanings.
I hear ya, and it sounds more the same of what you have said before. But how does the thoughts you have put here get to the voters. I think you should still get on Letterman and that other guy’s show. How about Anderson’s show!! Or, how about a debate with some of the strategists from each political party.
Hey, I heard gasoline was going up because of the cost of a barrel of oil was going up. How come I still see prices in Sacramento area going down evan as this past Friday by another 2 cents a gallon?
Why do we even talk about racist or abortion or gay rights, those are not issues, just ways of screwing around with the voters.
Do we have good candidates for President? From what I have heard,NO! But on the other hand, people say I guess I have to vote for “the one that is most likely not hurt us..” Guess where their vote is going?
Why does the Demos have a Donkey for a mascot and the GOP have an Elephant. Kind of stage mascots for a polictical parties!
Demos show have a PIG and the GOP have a JackASS!
I still ask, what are they going to do for the retired folks?
July 21st, 2012 at 3:30 pmBrian Springer Says:
“. . . we end up with one of the most disastrous presidencies of all time.” Humm!!! So GW was not a “disaster”??? Got us into two unwinable wars and cut taxes to begin the horrendous debt cycle (you complain constantly about). Kettle cannot call the pot black!!!
How can you complain when your own guy started the mess that the next guy has had to try to unwind?
July 21st, 2012 at 6:03 pmFrank Champagne Says:
Thanks for he mention, Larry, but I didn’t get the context….
July 21st, 2012 at 6:22 pmAs for West, absolutely! He is ideal! I love the guy, strong, sensible and as grounded as Gibralta. But, depending on which political club you belong to, he’s too black, too conservative or too “abrasive” -read, uppity. Yes, there is racism on all sides of politics. And I agree with your analysis.
Dick Jones Says:
What? more black folks in the white house?? Are you nuts?? Haven’t we (the rest of the races) had enough of the racist black politicians?? We would have to be insane to enlist the “aid’ of more black politicians!! All black politicians sound great during campaign, remember O’bama? He promised everything everyone wanted both liberals and conservatives (street jive) he then proceeded to do anything he wanted after he was elected! We should follow their lead and vote as the blacks do, BY RACE! We should re install ALL White and any other race except black and proceed to dismantle the damage O’bama has caused!!
July 21st, 2012 at 8:28 pmjoe winstead Says:
Hello Larry-
The reality is that it could be another 200 years before we have another black president. Based on what we’ve seen so far, I personally hope that’s the case.
The blacks are just like the Jews – race and ethnicity first and foremost. You just can’t trust them to do the right thing. Colin is the perfect example here. Most people would consider this a ’racist statement’. So be it – the truth is the truth no matter how much it hurts.
Look for Rubio to be the chosen one. The Hispanics are a much larger voting block than the blacks (especially considering the fact that they don’t need an ID to vote). And Romney really needs to win Florida.
Regards,
Joe
PS> The Lincoln thing didn’t actually happen quite the way it has been portrayed. Do a little research on the Emancipation Proclamation which was issued following the battle of Antietam – the actual scope of the document – and the resulting draft riots. Most notably in New York City. You may also be interested to find out why Lincoln wanted to purchase Cozumel from the Mexicans. History can sometimes be cruel to those that wish it was otherwise.
July 22nd, 2012 at 5:24 pmGerrit Kuiken Says:
I note that Larry K oftentimes refers to “Evangelicals” and their influence on matters political.
He begins his A.T. #139, stating:
“But, let’s take a step back in time. Lincoln freed the slaves – and he was a Republican. Most of the freed slaves considered Lincoln their “savior” and became Republicans.”
I would like to take another step back in time – and examine where the notion to “free the slaves” came from? It did not originate with Lincoln, but was brought to fruition under his presidency.
In fact, the emancipation of slaves/abolishing the slave trade sprung from the early British Evangelical movement and later, those having the same evangelical beliefs in America.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism
Quoted from above website link:
“Evangelical political influence in America was first evident in the 1830s with movements such as abolition of slavery and the prohibition movement, which closed saloons and taverns in state after state until it succeeded nationally in 1919.[33] The Christian right is a coalition of numerous groups of traditionalist and observant church-goers of every kind: especially Catholics on issues such as birth control and abortion, Southern Baptists, Missouri Synod Lutherans,and others.[34]”
Later, Larry K asks “So, I ask. Is the GOP – currently controlled by the ultra-right conservative “Christian Block” – actually racist in its approach to choosing its leaders?”
Since emancipation of (black) slaves originated with the evangelical movement – which by definition includes “the Christian Right” – I think the premise that the Christian Right is racist is ridiculous on its face.
I think that Larry often uses the term “Evangelical” but indeed, I don’t think he even knows what Evangelicals are all about. Incidentally – Evangelicals could include Catholics who support conservative social issues all the way through to main line Protestants, and other denominations that are more direct in spreading the Gospel Message, including Charismatic’s and fundamentalists.
Again, the above Wikipedia link is quoted:
Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian movement. It began in the 17th century and became an organized movement with the emergence around 1730 of the Methodists in England and the Pietists among Lutherans in Germany and Scandinavia. The movement became even more important—drawing far more members than in Europe—in the United States during the series of Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th centuries. It continues to draw adherents globally in the 21st century, especially in the developing world.
It is a religious movement that de-emphasizes ritual and emphasizes the pietism of the individual, requiring him or her to meet certain active commitments, including:
• The need for personal conversion (or being “born again”);
• A high regard for biblical authority;
• An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the saving death and resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ;[1]
• Actively expressing and sharing the gospel.
David Bebbington has termed these four distinctive aspects conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism, noting, “Together they form a quadrilateral of priorities that is the basis of Evangelism.
In more plain English – Evangelicals highest priority is to the spiritual aspects of their lives and their world view is biblically based. They humbly submit themselves to God’s commandments as understood through their biblical understandings. It is their belief that although they are “in this world”, they are not “of this world”.
This notion springs from Jesus answer to Pilate when he was questioned if he was “The King of the Jews”?
John 18:36 Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.” Matthew 26:53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?
Further: Luke 17:21 “Nor will people say – ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the Kingdom of God is within you”
Again, in John 18:
33Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?” 34Jesus answered, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?” 35Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?” 36Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” 37Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” 38Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?”
And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, “I find no guilt in Him. 39“But you have a custom that I release someone for you at the Passover; do you wish then that I release for you the King of the Jews?” 40So they cried out again, saying, “Not this Man, but Barabbas.” Now Barabbas was a robber.”
There are three aspects to everyone’s personality or lives. Physical, intellectual, & spiritual.
When I was an innocent (inexperienced/uneducated) child, I perceived the whole world as physical. It was basically about where is my next meal coming from?, relieving myself, learning to walk, eat, etc. Everyone was (physically) bigger than me – I was limited by my smaller size etc. I understood enough to know that when I got bigger, I would be freer to do what I wanted to do, i.e. get whatever satisfied me in terms of material things, in other words, satisfy my physical needs, where now I was dependent on “adults” for my needs.
In my childish/uneducated naïve world, I thought the whole world was about material things or the physical aspects of my personality, including sexual or appetite satisfaction, etc.
Sadly enough – some people never mature beyond this aspect of their personality and spend a lifetime pursuing their material/sexual/appetite cravings and think that if they could just find the next trinket/toy/ food/sport/sexual partner, whatever, this would bring them happiness and satisfaction. It never does.
After that point of view, when becoming educated, it occurred to me that satisfaction and happiness could be achieved through “knowledge” or developing the “intellectual” side of my personality.
Of course, at this time, although a life-time church/Sunday School attendee, I still wasn’t even aware that there were three aspects to my personality.
It never occurs to some, that they have a spiritual aspect to their personality or if it does, they refuse to acknowledge it!
There are many who still believe if they can just gain that bit of knowledge that they don’t know, they would then be “happy” and they spend their life(s) in that pursuit. In fact, they usually hold in contempt anyone that doesn’t agree with them (i.e. achieving a higher education is the key to happiness/success, etc.), and particularly anyone who seem to put their spiritual aspects first in their lives. Some so-called “Intellectuals” remain stuck in an “Ivy Tower” of their own making their whole (unhappy) lives, believing the world is all about knowledge and that’s what moves people. And through intellect or knowledge, happiness and contentment can be achieved. Not true either.
At a point in my life – I thought everything could be intellectually understood and explained. and I depended upon my life experiences and knowledge to make my life decisions.
Liberals, “intellects” and secularists are often stuck in this facet of their personalities and don’t want to even admit there is a spiritual realm.
Sometimes, it occurs to (some) people, that what really moves them, is the spiritual aspect of their personality. (Not the physical or intellectual aspects of their lives)
It occurs to some much earlier in life than in others, some people absolutely refuse to even consider the spiritual aspects of their life or that there even is such a thing, refusing to talk about “Religion” or anything about their core beliefs. Indeed, many don’t even know what their core beliefs are?, and if they have any, upon what are they based?
Evangelicals don’t have this problem. They readily acknowledge the spiritual aspects of their personality and that it is first in their life’s. They believe in God with an unshakeable belief that “the Kingdom of God” is within them, and what they do spiritually is the most important aspect of their personality. And act upon it.
Evangelicals are on a life-long quest to become closer to God, and more compliant to his plan for their life(s). They view the world through their biblical understanding, using God’s word as the measurement stick for all that affects them. Though their understanding might be imperfect, they continue through prayer, meditation and spending time daily, reading the Bible.
Some Evangelicals are apolitical, believing (like Jesus) that what local govts do, finally, is not important to their salvation, and as long as they are left free to worship as they see fit – they are not too concerned about who leads their govt(s).
There are other Evangelicals (the majority) who would like others to know what they know (about God/Jesus) and want – in fact, believe it is their life’s mission, to share the Gospel Message, i.e. God condemned mankind and cursed man to eternal death, because of Adam’s disobedience in the garden, but eventually, there was to be a Messiah who would come and save mankind from that curse. Jesus was that Messiah lived a perfect life as an example to us, but yet, Jesus though innocent, was crucified. But by his death on the cross, Jesus redeemed all mankind, if you believe and make public confession of that belief, and are baptized as a seal of that faith; the Holy Spirit enters into your heart, and motivates you to do “works of the spirit”.
That in a nutshell is the “Gospel Message” and what all “Evangelicals” believe. They believe they are “Saved”, meaning there is a place their spirit/soul will go when they die.
Several of Evangelical’s basic tenants are that all life is sacred, from conception to natural death and that marriage is the union of one man & one woman, with Adam and Eve as the first marriage. It wasn’t Adam and his pal, Eddie. Marriage is about procreation – not sexual gratification, and two people of the same sex, can’t procreate. Evangelicals believe God meant for marriage to be one man, one woman, and they will never believe any other way. Nor will they ever accept aborting children. They believe that every fertilized human egg has a soul and that soul is sacred. They believe to do otherwise is a “sin” and serving the Devil, while their priority is to serve God. They don’t believe they can serve two masters, so their allegiance is to God.
End of sermon/rant.
But let’s not say that the “Religious Right is “racist” – not even within the realm of their (spiritual) world! They are about “saving souls” and souls don’t have skin color!
July 22nd, 2012 at 8:25 pmMichael Kruse Says:
Sorry Larry, but it’s about time someone picked you up on your repeated harping on the “Obama-is-not-really-a-black-man” theme.
The American South was not South Africa. One was branded “black” or “coloured” indiscriminately if one looked anything other than pearly white. It is perfectly appropriate to see Barack Obama as a black president, as he would have born the full brunt of southern racism had he been born into a southern segregationist community. The fact that so many white Americans have been willing to vote for someone less than 100% white is the miracle of Obama’s election.
So why did they vote for him? You offer this reason, ‘They go with an articulate HALF-BLACK man… The LAST thing that ANY Liberal wants is to be branded as a racist. They would rather sell their mother than be called such a despicable name… So, they voted for Obama to PROVE their “open-mindedness.” But, remember, Obama is HALF-WHITE, too. So, in essence, they could vote for him and STILL convince themselves that they were not voting for a REAL American of African Ancestry.’
So that’s why they voted for him! 3 cheers for Larry Freud, pop psychologist manque! My own interpretation would have been different; I would have assumed a lot of white Americans voted for him because he IS articulate, and they were terrified of a repeat of either the palpable idiocy of another Reagan (“Ask the turkey!”) or of another educationally subnormal Dubya. They would have voted for him because they knew he was planning to reform the healthcare system, because he promised to close Gitmo and end the Iraq and Afghan Wars, because he is POLITICALLY to the left and – guess what, it’s not just colour! Some American voters actually have left-wing views themselves, especially DEMOCRATS (duh)! – and, finally, yes, some probably voted for him because he is black – by any definition that has significance in the United States -and simply voting him into office creates, or at least brings to the fore, a sea-change in US politics. Finally, some may indeed have voted for him because of bent Chicago politics.
He may have disappointed them on many counts, but I believe any one of these is more likely to have been a reason for democratic voting patterns than the preposterous scenario you suggest, that they voted for him because he was trendily half-black but reassuringly half-white. I don’t think I’ve seen a greater obsession with the precise degree of Obama’s negritude vs. albinitude anywhere than on your blog, Larry.
And BTW, I don’t know Allen West’s ancestry in detail, but he’d be a very rare bird if he were, in fact, of “PURE/100%” (your phraseology) black ancestry, and he’d be a rarer bird still if anyone outside of a DNA lab could prove it.
And one final BTW: one can still be a black man and be crazy and a nutjob. Duh. Just maybe some people vote for the reasons they say they do, Larry – and just maybe YOU don’t.
July 23rd, 2012 at 2:26 amjoe winstead Says:
Gerrit-
You are right about Lincoln not really having anything to do with freeing the slaves. In fact, Lincoln said in his first inaugural address –
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
Strange words coming from the ‘great emancipator’ two months before the start of the Civil War.
But he will forever get the credit anyway.
joe
July 23rd, 2012 at 6:06 amGerrit Kuiken Says:
Thanks for the heads-up on Joe’s feedback.
I wasn’t necessarily trying to take away President Lincoln’s part in emancipating the slaves, I was merely trying to point out that any of all president’s policies/initiatives have to have some popular support in order for those policies to be enacted or put into place. A president alone, without popular support is hard put to install/implement any public policy without popular support. (Obama-Care notwithstanding! 🙂 )
And I believe the driving force behind the freeing of Slaves in America and the shutting down of slave trading/slave ships in England was the Evangelical movement. And of course, I believe, Lincoln, who I would call an “Evangelical” based upon his known religious beliefs, agreed with the notion that freeing the slaves was the “Christian thing to do.”
When people have a mindset or devotion to some (usually) religion based principles, they act upon/encourage others to act upon those beliefs. And of course, Evangelicals believe that all souls are equal and important in God’s sight – hence their abhorrence of abortion or the taking of innocent lives before they are really barely started. Black slaves have souls and are human beings and have the same right to eternal life as any other, and treating them the way they were being treated, i.e. as property, wasn’t right in the Evangelical’s sight. (And by extension – in both Jesus & Paul’s sight)
It is interesting to note that technically, Jesus (and later Paul) didn’t take a stand on the subject of slavery (they were all about the spiritual aspects of one’s life) – but Paul did note that all were equal under God’s sight, Jew or Gentile, man & woman, slave or free. And therefore – if one has become a “son of God”, they no longer want to own slaves or treat them as chattel, etc.
In both Rome, in the three centuries that Christianity became the societal mode – slavery was abolished, and it took about the same amount of time for slavery to become (politically & religiously) unpopular in both England & America, (owning to the Evangelical movement) and was eventually abolished.
It is of interest to see website link:
http://bible.cc/galatians/3-28.htm
Particularly to scroll down to the first commentary on the above website. gk
July 23rd, 2012 at 7:22 amFrank Champagne Says:
Hi Larry!
A few further thoughts about the Reps and the Christian vote.
We need to somehow bring these folks to reality versus idealism.
As you said, being all consumed about important, but relatively peripheral social issues could hand over this nation to the socialists and doom us to the same fate as Europe.
If we could get Christian leaders, as well as Jewish Conservative leaders to talk to their European brethren, they might just realize the importance of fighting the fight of SURVIVAL and setting aside the other issues to be dealt with as we can. In Europe, a church closes its doors EVERY DAY. Attendance is down every year. People of faith are many times fewer than ten years ago, and FAR, FAR fewer than fifty years ago. Two generations of people have left religion behind.
WHY? Socialism. Period. Their culture is designed from birth to death to marginalize and degrade the idea of The Creator. Even the mighty catholic church has lost its grip in all of the traditionally Catholic nations. Even in Italy, attendance is way down.
Organized religion is doomed if we proceed down this path. The evidence is clear in Europe, once the bastion of faith. If our Christian leaders can’t see past the relatively smaller issues that separate them, they too will see their churches empty.
Now, none of this is to to minimize the moral importance of abortion and other such social concerns. They ARE very important! BUT, they represent the EFFECT, not the Underlying CAUSE of our problems. If we are to restore true morality, starting with mutual respect and respect for life, we must first change the political climate we live in because it is our political leaders who dictate the SOCIAL FORMS we live within. They control the schools and the other social structures that shape our views and dictate many of our actions. These must be undone, dismantled. We must turn back the ambitions of those who enslave us and seek to smother our traditional values and demean them. We must start with the VITAL issues, the ones that affect our very survival, then move on from there. It is a triage situation.
Perfectionism is arrogance in disguise. It is also sometimes a cover for cowardice or the lack of willingness to use our God given intelligence to discern between the immediate concerns and those that must wait for another day. And perfectionism has nothing to to do with reality. Only God is perfect, we make do as best we can.
ALL of these other issues are important. But we must decide where to start. And that, in my opinion,is in changing not only the leadership in DC, but the entire culture in DC. And that will take us all setting aside the other issues for the time being and FOCUS, really focus, and unite.
This is what the socialists fear most. They know if we see past their distractions and unite, we will crush their ideals like roaches. This is a test of character. This is a test of faith. If our faith is strong and God is good, then we can trust our faith and trust God. If not, we will cower behind our faith and hope that God alone takes care of the problems. History shows us that God does not work that way.
Anyway, I’ll climb off the pulpit now and leave you. With these thoughts for the day…..:)
July 23rd, 2012 at 2:49 pmMichael Kruse Says:
Gerrit says:
‘Later, Larry K asks “So, I ask. Is the GOP – currently controlled by the ultra-right conservative “Christian Block” – actually racist in its approach to choosing its leaders?”
Since emancipation of (black) slaves originated with the evangelical movement – which by definition includes “the Christian Right” – I think the premise that the Christian Right is racist is ridiculous on its face.’
Sadly, Gerrit is misinformed. The abolitionist movement owed much to the evangelical movement, but it originated with the Quakers. Wilberforce became the most charismatic and highly placed (as a member of parliament) spokesman for the movement, and he was an evangelical, but it should be borne in mind that he was thoroughly committed to the Anglican church. Another evangelical organization of the Anglican communion – dedicated to international missionary work, especially to conversion of the “savages” of Africa and the New World – was the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (today the United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel). The SPG was also owner of the notorious Codrington Plantation in Barbados, a slave plantation of such brutality that for a time 4 out of every 10 new slaves died – an exceptionally high death rate, even by plantation standards.
As for the “Christian Right”, until abolition, the majority of Christian leaders since (and including) St. Augustine had defended slavery. Eventually, Christians of every stripe have found common cause with the abolitionists, but for most of their history Christians have been shamefully silent about or actively supportive of slavery. Given the historical prevalence of segregationist congregations in the Bible Belt as late as the 20th Century, it is hardly ridiculous for Larry to ask if the Christian Right might not be racist.
July 24th, 2012 at 12:36 amDavid Klepinger Says:
Yes, West is Best! Allen West would by far be Mitt Romney’s best choice, if only he were the one doing the choosing. That choice will be made by the GOP/RNC. Anyone with the level of support by the Tea Party that Allen West enjoys would never be considered; he is too much of an anti-establishment candidate and cannot be tolerated. Nope, instead of Black and Bold, the decision will be White and Wimpy. Happens every time.
On another note, I found a magnificent article by Wayne Allyn Root, a Libertarian, entitled: “Small business owner to Obama — you owe us!” This really clarifies the whole issue of private business vs. government. I hope everyone takes a moment to read it:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/24/small-business-owner-to-obama-owe-us/?cmpid=cmty_fb_Small_business_owner_to_Obama_–_you_owe_us!
July 24th, 2012 at 2:48 pm