Book Review: Heal Us, Emmanuel: A Call for Racial Reconciliation, Representation, and Unity in the Church


Book Review: Heal Us, Emmanuel: A Call for Racial Reconciliation, Representation, and Unity in the Church, edited by Doug Serven. Oklahoma City, OK: White Blackbird Books, 2016. 326 pp.

For various reasons, the topics of racial discrimination and racial injustice are predictably tense and sensitive areas of public discussion. During the past eight years particularly, attempting to frankly examine these subjects has become even more of a fragile and unproductive endeavor that has curtailed open and honest dialogue in favor of racial monologues that have increased racial resentment and hostility. The product of marginalizing a variety of serious and authentic voices on racial issues has suppressed what could be productive, diverse and candid discussions, which would lead to actual approaches to mitigate racial discrimination where it actually exists.

Though the multiplicity of responsible voices willing and able to faithfully analyze and address such tenuous topics are relegated to the margins in society at large, these voices are also seemingly silenced in the one place they shouldn’t be- the American church. Many Christians have increasingly and repeatedly acknowledged the church’s ostensible absence or silence on such important issues. These observers lament the church’s lack of leadership and action in being the model for racial reconciliation and unity the country desperately needs.

 Many of the Christians concerned by the church’s reluctance and inactivity to genuinely confront the race issue are found in the book, Heal Us, Emmanuel: A Call for Racial reconciliation, Representation and Unity in the Church.

Heal Us, Emmanuel is an assorted collection of 30 essays from 30 different authors, all of which are pastors or elders in the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). The introduction informs the reader that the majority of the contributors are white and theologically conservative, though there are contributions from black, Latino and Asian Americans- also members of Presbyterian Church leadership- who share similar perspectives concerning racial problems in the PCA. The narratives, in their unique way, detail how blindness to racial issues for some and an increased racial consciousness for others have influenced their personal lives and the context of their respective ministries. The goal of Heal Us, Emmanuel, is to initiate the process of racial reconciliation and unity within the church, starting with biblical confession, repentance and Christ-like forgiveness.

The narratives in the book are methodically portioned into six sections, with each section bearing a corresponding theme that reflects the systematic emphasis of the book as a whole. The six- step procedural is as follows:

  1. An Invitation to Listen
  2. Awakening to Privilege
  3. Sins of Omission and Commission
  4. Historical and Theological Perspectives
  5. Confession and Reconciliation Are Necessary
  6. A Way Forward

This six-part narrative is a map that guides and informs the reader of the practical, religious and theological consequences of Christians genuinely confronting the implications of submitting to the gospel’s directive of eliminating barriers of racial resentment and ethnic hostility. Engaging in the difficult and uncomfortable task of interracial healing and racial reconciliation potentially achieves what one author called, redemptive unity.

Though the personal storylines about racialized experiences come from self-identified Presbyterians contextually anchored in the PCA, I think much of what was expressed is representative of the American church as a whole. Truthfully, my experience guides my belief that the American church hasn’t approached the issue of multiethnic unity and interracial reconciliation with the seriousness and urgency it deserves. Increasingly I’m of the opinion that many American churches have very little interest in challenging the discordant issues of race and reconciliation. True, as chapter three intends, the subject of race is sometimes omitted, in part, because being in the dominant class means not having to experience the prospective pain, hurt and frustration of racial discrimination. The omission is unintentional. Not having an expectation of encountering racism means not having to prepare or react in defensive or emotionally protective ways. In other words, out of sight, out of mind.

On the other hand, omission can be commission. As one author notes about Presbyterians (104-114) (which again can be applied to the American church overall), excluding blacks is deliberate. Historically, this exclusion can be traced to slavery when blacks were forced to create separate racial denominations that allowed them to fully participate in worship; through Jim Crow and the civil rights era when white churches compromised the integrity of the gospel, and their public Christian witness by consistently staying silent with respect to the evils of segregation and the suffering of their black brothers and sisters in Christ (120).

Presently, if and when the church apprehensively attempts to address the topic, the enterprise isn’t as effective as it can be, I believe, because the modus operandi of the American church is replicating the failed and inadequate “racial justice” agendas of our culture rather than employing a gospel-centered approach that integrates love, forgiveness, repentance and acceptance on the path toward (re)conciliation (theological unity, 183). One author referred to the socially acceptable pattern of considering black people, and confronting issues of racism while judging “progress” by socio-economic, quality-of-life factors, as an ineffective “political mindset” that underemphasizes the gospel and achieving redemptive ethnic unity (3-9). The “political mindset” that perceives social and economic parity or black advancement prefers a “better America” than God’s kingdom and gospel based on interracial Christian unity (3-7).

The relative lack of attentiveness, apprehension and reluctance of the church to faithfully address issues of race, repentance, and reconciliation serves to preserve the racial discontentment that includes both the church and culture. The church’s absence and perceived indifference to racial unity allows lesser quality movements, and agendas, that nurture racial grievance and discord, like Black Lives Matter, to fill the void. Heal Us, Emmanuel is a conversation starter in this regard because it encourages white Christians to own and confess the sin of racism. The book also encourages white Christians to commit to theologically influencing systems and structures in churches and denominations (and society) that lead to redemption, reconciliation and unity in the body of Christ.

And that’s the rub. This book can’t just encourage people to start a conversation or continue a dialogue. Talk doesn’t equal action; it should necessarily lead to it.

Heal Us Emmanuel is worth the time. It read as a sincere attempt of now self-aware white Christians to acknowledge the evils and consequences of racism in both American church and American culture. The book is admittedly unidirectional, primarily dealing with the obligations of white Christians to resolve the problem of race, and thus, limiting. That resolution shouldn’t include admitting that behaviors and thoughts- or lack of behaviors and thoughts- are “racist” when they aren’t. Nor should it include social or religious genuflecting when and where it isn’t needed, which I felt some of the essays rhetorically reflected. I think these actions, the result of white guilt, complicate the tasks of racial healing and unity.

Nevertheless, Heal Us, Emmanuel is an honest and needed contribution in pushing the American church toward its overlooked responsibility in shaping a gospel-based strategy of racial healing and unity.

Book Review: The End of White Christian America


The End of White Christian America, by Robert P. Jones. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2016. 309 pages

According to Robert P. Jones, the founder and CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), White Christian America- “the most prominent cultural force in the nation’s history”- is dead.

Jones’ new book, The End of White Christian America, which narrates the historical development and decline of this religious and national phenomenon, functions not only as a eulogy for the once prominent majority but also the obituary of what he refers to as White Christian America. Though the exact time and date of death is somewhat uncertain- Jones speculates roughly 2004- the cause of death, according to Jones, is obvious. The factors that inevitably led to the demise of White Christian America included the changing racial/ethnic demographics, increasing religious disaffiliation among Americans- particularly younger Americans, and the inability of White Christianity to maintain relevance in a shifting cultural environment that welcomed and approved the redefinition of marriage to include homosexuals.

Who, then, is White Christian America?

According to Jones, White Christian America overwhelmingly consists of white Mainline Protestants and white Evangelicals. Jones argues that the political activity of Evangelicals in the latter part of the 20th century forced white Christian America to expand and integrate Catholics and Mormons into their tribe in hopes of expanding its political influence resulting from a shared partisan expediency and potential socio-political objectives.

Historically, White Christian America traces its religious roots to northern Europe (30-31). In America, Jones chronicles three distinct waves of its cultural influence and growth: the Roaring 20s, World War II, and the political ascendancy of the Religious Right in the 70s and 80s (7). Though viewed as a whole, geography and theology distinguished one half of White Christian America from the other. The theologically liberal, mainline Protestants were headquartered in New England and upper Midwest while the more conservative evangelical Protestants were (and still are) entrenched in the South and lower Midwest (31).

The power and influence of White Christian America were seen not only among institutions that shaped and reflected its culture- The National Council of Churches, the National Association of Evangelicals, The Boy Scouts of America, the Girl Scouts, the Young Men’s Christian Association, denominational colleges and seminaries among others- it was demonstrated in the kind of architecture that defined both halves of this Protestant empire. Jones notes that the (mainline) United Methodist Building in Washington, D.C., the Interfaith Center in New York City, and the (evangelical) Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, California- reflected the respective cultural prominence of white Protestantism in its heyday.

Recounting the decline of White Christian America, Jones provides very good data from sound sources including the General Social Survey, American Values Atlas, the Pew Foundation, and data derived from Jones’ organization, PRRI. The gathered data suggest that religious plurality; ethnic plurality, the increasing decline in self-identified religiosity, and the graying of White Christian America all contributed to its decline. For instance, Jones highlights that 2008 was the last year on record in which Protestants, regardless of color, represented a majority of the country(50). The estimated white Christian share of the 2016 electorate is only 55 percent and Jones predicts it will make up 52 percent of the electorate come 2020 (47).

Considering the decline of white Christian presence in the country and electorate, Jones contends the election of the country’s first black president was both a symbolic repudiation and conquest over the long dominance of this cultural force. The reaction to the first black president, argues Jones, resulted in the “politics of nostalgia” for White Christian America- specifically by evangelicals- anxiously or angrily pining for a time of recognizable religious and ethnic homogeneity (85). Though he doesn’t mention the current election cycle, one is immediately drawn to the “Make America Great Again” campaign slogan of Republican presidential hopeful, Donald Trump.

Has White Christian America lost its cultural and political influence? Unequivocally, Jones says absolutely. He notes the political strategy of marshaling and depending on white Christian voters- a successful plan of action for re-electing George W. Bush in 2004- is a losing political strategy going forward, resulting from the declining citizenry of White Christian America. Appealing to a wide berth of data, including the 2013 Growth and Opportunity Project commonly referred to as the “GOP Autopsy” report, Jones is certain that if the GOP wishes to remain politically competitive in the future, it needs to abandon the once-dependable strategy of appealing only to white Christians (110).

I couldn’t agree more.

Sociologically, the end of white Christian dominance precipitates a broader demographic change with social, cultural, political, and economic consequences. Even still, the book focuses on this phenomenological passing through a political and cultural lens and that shouldn’t be avoided or minimized. For example, a portion of Jones’ autopsy, as mentioned earlier, is focused on “gay marriage” and what “acceptance” means for White Christian America and its decline. Though he conflates “gay rights” (doesn’t define in detail) with “gay marriage,” Jones acknowledges that the agenda of homosexual activists was to directly challenge the religious sensibilities and theological principles of White Christian America in pursuit of social acceptance and legalization of “marriage equality.” Further, Jones says that widespread acceptance and legalization of same sex marriage is additional evidence of the end of White Christian America’s cultural dominance. This is a bit concerning, as widespread acceptance of same sex marriage (more specifically, redefining marriage to include anyone) is a rejection of the orthodox Christian teaching and practice concerning marriage, regardless of color or ethnicity.

Jones’ claims that the refusal to bend to cultural trends and accept gay marriage (which he labels antigay) puts the evangelical portion of White Christian America at odds with younger Americans (132-137). There’s a subtle suggestion that evangelicals should follow their mainline brethren and bend or reject traditional Christian biblical and theological teaching on marriage as a strategy to broaden its appeal to younger Americans.

Lastly, Jones maintains that White Christian America has a race problem, evidenced both in the opposition to Barack Obama, and the reaction to cops killing “unarmed black males” (147-148), which he claims establishes a lack of sympathy for blacks and their feelings about blacks who’ve died in police interactions (155). As it pertains to the election of Barack Obama, there might have been some who held anti-black feelings that motivated and animated opposition to him. But, and what Jones doesn’t consider, is that considerable opposition to Obama had less to do with his skin color and more to do with his progressive ideological convictions that contradicted his professed Christian religious beliefs, and the traditional Christian viewpoints of his detractors. To say that all or most white Christians who opposed Barack Obama did so because of racial animus, without evidence, disingenuously disparages a large group of people with a very little consideration.

Jones asserts that the reality of systemic racism and homogenized social segregation validates his claim that there’s no social institution positioned to resolve problems stemming from racial discrimination (156). For Jones, this is simply a continuation of the historical patterns of racial discrimination by white Christians- particularly by evangelical Protestants (Southern Baptists). Mainline Protestants are almost given a pass- congratulated for their contribution to social justice work both historically and presently (177-78).

Coming to terms with the end of White Christian America has come in phases. Jones acknowledges that the weakening influence of mainline Protestants has been occurring since the 60s and 70s, so mainline Christians have had more time to experience the stages of grief, denial, anger and acceptance (200), though there continue to be some holdouts. Jones ostensibly scolds the Institute of Religion and Democracy (IRD) in its mission to hold the mainline denominations religiously and theologically accountable to orthodox teaching, practically condemning its persistence in its refusal to accept the consequences of demise of White Christian America (200-201).

Evangelicals are on a different timeline and are presently, though reluctantly, coming to terms with their diminishing authority and influence, which Jones claims is the source of the angered outbursts (the Tea Party, and one assumes, support for Donald Trump) in refusing to accept the inevitable.

One cause for celebration about White Christian America’s declining political clout is that evangelicals can return to the biblical obligation of making Christian disciples, rather than trying to make political ones.

Yet there is some very noticeable but subdued cheerfulness by Jones for the end of White Christian America and one gets the sense that he’s not alone in his excitement. The celebration and joyfulness, though, should be measured.

As White Christian America has lost its strength both in real numbers and in cultural, moral, and political influence, something predictably rises to fill the vacancy. What that “something” is, isn’t always predictable. In this case it very much is. The social values and “virtues” of Leftism, has replaced the space and institutions once dominated by White Christian America. As we’ve seen in the academy, where religion- particularly Christianity- has been shamed into public silence and private expression, the receding influence and presence of “white” Christian America has allowed the academy to degenerate into a moral gutter. The same is true regarding the debased nature of the arts and entertainment, which have occupied spaces where Christianity served as a bulwark against its culturally corruptive influence. Is that a good thing, and if so, how and why?

No one, or at the very least, very few people maintain the idea that White Christian America was perfect. They missed the mark on some pretty important social issues because of their culturally homogenized, whitewashed, biblical hermeneutic. Despite Jones’ underlying tone, the values of White Christian America- specifically Judeo Christian values- provided a semblance of unity against the proven destructive nature of pluralism that lead to the many damaging effects of relativism.

Despite the not-so-subtle excitement for the culmination of Christian influence on American culture, the analyses provided by Jones makes The End of White Christian America worth reading.


Book Review: America’s Original Sin


America’s Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege, and the Bridge to a New America, by Jim Wallis. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2016. 272 pages

During the past several years, Evangelical Christians have been criticized for their lack of involvement in the fight against racial injustice. It’s said that Christians willingly and consistently engage in Pro-Life issues (and issues concerning the proper role of marriage and sexuality), but are glaringly absent when it comes to the issue and consequences of racial injustice.

In reacting to these criticisms, Evangelicals have attempted to increase their visibility and participation in the ongoing, national conversation on the topic of racial injustice. Recently, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship — an Evangelical campus ministry — held its Urbana 15 Student Missions Conference that had as a keynote speaker a social justice advocate and self-identified supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement. Last week, Wheaton College’s Center for Applied Christian Ethics hosted three members of the Ferguson Commission on a panel entitled Change, Healing and Reconciliation: A Conversation with The Ferguson Commission to discuss the findings of the Department of Justice’s investigation of the Ferguson Police Department, in addition to the Church’s response to what many perceive to be blatant and persistent forms of racial inequality.

This week Jim Wallis — author, political activist, and founder of Sojourners magazine offers his contribution to the Evangelical discussion of this culturally sensitive issue in America’s Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege, and the Bridge to a New America.

According to Wallis, this book serves as a “primer on the underlying racism that still exists in America,” and seeks to “talk honestly” about America’s original sin of racial discrimination and how it continues to impact various areas of American life. Wallis argues that white America is obligated to begin the act of contrition — repentance for participating in, and contributing to, racial discrimination against blacks and other minorities. In addition to repentance, Wallis argues that white Americans (which he conflates with white Christians throughout the book) should listen to their “black and brown brothers and sisters” when they tell their stories of racial injustice rather than disregarding these pain-filled experiences as unimportant. For Wallis, these are the necessary first steps toward racial justice and reconciliation.

The book explains that racism is a manifestation of sin — clearly using biblical and theological language to convey the moral evil of racial discrimination. Wallis rightly notes that sin is a theological problem that goes deeper than politics. The book also effectively explains the linguistic and theological contours of repentance. It stresses that repentance is much more than merely adopting an apologetic tone for wrongs committed. Repentance, which follows forgiveness, entails the sincere and complete change of direction of one’s mind (renewal), evidenced by one’s actions (restitution, loving one’s neighbor, etc.). Discussing racism in biblical (moral) terms rather than political terms is a refreshing necessity that should be adopted by Christians and non-Christians alike.

In addition, Wallis laments churches that have “baptized us into our racial divisions” rather than teaching and modeling that our baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, unites us in a way that transcends all earthly limitations. Wallis is spot-on here, and he would have done a great service by expanding the implications of this idea a bit more than the passing glance he gave it.

The book describes the underlying tensions contributing to the current state of race relations in the United States using Ferguson and Baltimore as parabolic examples of the consequences of racial tension. It also discusses in some detail the socio-economic disparities that exist between blacks and whites — including the lower quality of black life in the ghettos, “mass incarceration” and the disproportionate numbers of blacks represented in the penal system, the substandard public school system among other issues, arguing these realities are the result of white privilege and white supremacy. Wallis argues that the root of these disparities is unquestionably found in racial injustice that, because of the shifting racial demographic of the country, not only affect blacks but also other minorities.

That said, having read Wallis’ other work and knowing his political sensibilities direct his religious beliefs, the overall framework and content of America’s Original Sin was rather predictable.

For starters, Wallis says that white racism is an extension of white privilege, but he never explicitly defines “white privilege.” He repeatedly condemns white privilege as if what constitutes white privilege is self-evident. It isn’t. The term “white privilege” is just as intentionally ambiguous as the phrase “Hope and Change.” That is to say it can mean whatever the person invoking it wants it to mean, at any given time, risking contradiction from invocation to invocation. The closest Wallis comes to defining white privilege was to link it to white supremacy. But he didn’t explain how white supremacy — a thoroughly dated but deliberately provocative term — is defined in our contemporary setting.

Likewise, aside from not defining it — but confidently stating that blacks continue to suffer because of it — Wallis never explains how Asian, African, Indian and other immigrants to America without white skin, seem to avoid falling prey to the intentions and negative effects of white privilege. It’s as if they don’t exist so as to preserve the myth.

Throughout the book, Wallis repeatedly suggests that Christians should “talk honestly” about racial injustice, and should engage in “telling the truth about race.” But sadly Wallis doesn’t come close to living up to his own suggestion. As I read the book, I wondered if this truth was objective, or if it was in fact based on how he and others, who share his position on racial matters, (re)define it.

For example Wallis unquestionably claims that all of the socio-economic ills experienced by blacks and other minorities are sourced in the preservation of white supremacy and white privilege. He says this as if the fact that these discrepancies exist are in-and-of themselves, hard evidences of racism. How can Wallis be assured of this? Based on what proof? He gives a number of dizzying statistics that demonstrate the quality-of-life discrepancies between blacks and whites, but he doesn’t give any evidence that validates his claim that these statistics are singularly the result of racism. He does say that “black[s] and [other minorities] are disproportionately consigned to the lowest economic tier is a continuing proof of racism.” He also says that the “systemic and perverse character of racism” in addition to the “cold hard savagery of racism,” is responsible for the declining quality of life among many blacks. The academic and economic experiences of many blacks might contribute a lesser quality of life than their white counterparts — and I believe that in many cases to be true. But, if we’re being honest as Wallis suggests we should be, there are very clear reasons why blacks are academically and economically disadvantaged, and one can argue that racism is but one result. However racism as an explanation in totality, without clear evidence to support such a claim is irresponsible, especially by someone of Wallis’ stature.

(As a side note, the strongest area in which racism can be argued to be actively influential is in the area of education. The substandard education delivered to poor minority children in places like Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, New York, Philadelphia and other ghettos across the country is the result of teachers’ unions placing the priority of employing teachers over educating students. That doesn’t absolve black parents from their responsibility of emphasizing academic success by any means. But what’s allowed to happen to poor ghetto children when it comes to education is a national sin.)

Additionally, Wallis argues that blacks suffer these socio-economic maladies because they’re black (because that’s how racism works). No other contributing factors like values, attitudes, behavior and morality are given as reasons or predictors of black suffering. At the same time, whites are successful because they benefit from white privilege. Again, just like the lack of other variables that might explain black suffering, no other reasons are given as reasons or predictors of “white” success. For Wallis, minorities, especially blacks, are never-ending victims of external circumstances, not autonomous beings that are capable of forming ideas, attitudes and behaviors to reduce socio-economic disparities. Thus when Wallis blames all social and economic ills on white racism and ignores black involvement, he engages in the sort of condescending, racial paternalism that re-victimizes blacks, making them powerless when it comes to relying on self-determination to influence and change their own fate. Aside from handicapping blacks, having to constantly beg and depend on external help to solve their problems, he indicts all whites as racists, obligating them (through guilt) to engage in redemptive acts of black charity. That directly contradicts his earlier appeal to the biblical and theological understanding of forgiveness and repentance, which does more to nourish white resentment than it does to cultivate racial reconciliation. And it’s not very Christian.

By reducing the black role in racial reconciliation to the role of a disabled and victimized bystander, the book minimizes the black obligation of forgiveness and repentance. Blacks are not simply in a position to forgive white people for participating and sustaining white racism (where it exists); they’re also in a position to ask whites for forgiveness. Despite the book’s false claim that blacks can’t be racist because they lack the power to implement their discrimination (50), which minimizes black moral responsibility — if racial reconciliation is to become a reality in the church — blacks must be required to ask forgiveness from whites for assuming and projecting racism onto whites where it doesn’t exist. All church-based strategies that seek racial reconciliation and restoration will crash and burn if they don’t include blacks as equals in moral agency, as a result of being created in God’s image in addition to being children of God, and as brothers and sisters in Christ (Romans 8:15-15, Galatians. 4:5–6.)

Repeating the overused cliche’ and untrue narrative that blacks are permanent victims of white racism doesn’t make it any more true simply because it’s accompanied with Christian veneer.

America’s Original Sin argues that racism is a sin that’s deeper than politics, yet the remedy offered appears to be almost entirely political. Though effective change can happen through social and economic policy, the reality is our morality dictates our politics. The more Christian morality influences politics, the more impartial legislation can become. Regardless, Christians shouldn’t wait until politicians pass policies they approve of. Christians have to be epistles that emanate the gospel of Christ in our own communities, living as as ambassadors of redemption and in this case, racial reconciliation. In other words, Christians (regardless of color) should be disciples of cruciformity — conforming to the gospel of the crucified and resurrected Christ in pursuit of redeeming and restoring relationships that have been strained and broken along racial lines.

Ultimately, America’s Original Sin, in effect, attempts to Christianize recycled racial narratives without critically or courageously examining why racial, moral and cultural disparities exist between black and white Americans. Simply laying fault to a white racial boogeyman isn’t productive, nor is it particularly Christian. I can’t imagine too many Christians arguing that racism doesn’t exist. I also can’t imagine too many Christians who don’t want to reduce racial inequality or who’re against racial reconciliation. But attempting to provoke them into action through blame, guilt, bad politics and a watered down gospel isn’t a plan for lasting success because it trivializes both the problem and the solution.

In the age of Black Lives Matter and the social expectation to support its agenda or be slandered as racist, Christian contributions to racial reconciliation should approach this issue carefully. Racial inequality deserves the attention and engagement of Evangelicals but not through a superficial and self-righteous agenda that does more damage than good. It’s simply not enough for Christians to look busy while doing nothing in a self-congratulatory manner like Black lives Matter.

America’s Original Sin left a lot on the table, but should be read more for what it isn’t than for what it is.

Evangelicals, Black Lives Matter and The New York Times


Last week the New York Times ran an article discussing the trepidation some Evangelical Christians face when it comes to the Black Lives Matter Movement.

It notes that religious support for Black Lives Matter generally lies with Christians and denominations that are more progressive, like the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the American Baptist Churches, whereas more conservative Christians, groups and denominations are much more cautious in supporting a movement with such a radical agenda.

Part of this tension is seen in the repercussions InterVarsity encountered last month after a keynote speaker, Michelle Higgins, spoke at the Urbana Missions Conference where she not only argued in favor of Christian support of Black Lives Matter, she insulted the sincerity and authenticity of the Christian commitment to being Pro-Life but seemingly ignoring the issue of adoption.

From the New York Times:

InterVarsity, one of the country’s leading campus Christian organizations, is known for its history of racial cooperation and integration. But many of its members and supporters are conservatives who oppose abortion, support law enforcement and are skeptical of the welfare state. And in her wide-ranging comments about social justice, Ms. Higgins did little to make her speech more palatable.

“We can wipe out the adoption crisis tomorrow,” Ms. Higgins said at one point. “We could wipe it out this week, but we’re too busy arguing to have abortion banned, we’re too busy arguing to defund Planned Parenthood. “We are too busy withholding mercy from the living,” she said, “so that we might display a big spectacle of how much we want mercy to be shown to the unborn….

Even had Ms. Higgins never ventured into the dangerous terrain of abortion politics, her speech probably would not have pleased many evangelicals, who consider Black Lives Matter to be a liberal movement.

“Consider Black Lives Matter to be a ‘liberal’ movement?” That’s like saying some people “consider” it lighter in the daytime than it is at night. And Black Lives Matter isn’t “liberal.” It’s a progressive movement, period.

More from the New York Times:

The historian D.G. Hart, who teaches at Hillsdale College in Michigan, noted in a blog post that the website, a prominent one within the movement, expresses support for transgender and gay rights, issues that are problematic for conservative Christians.

“Some who support justice for African-Americans and oppose police brutality may wonder legitimately what Caitlyn Jenner or Dan Savage have to do with Freddie Gray or Tamir Rice,” Dr. Hart wrote on the website Patheos, contrasting icons of the transgender and gay rights movements, with black men whose deaths have galvanized Black Lives Matter.

The discomfort of evangelicals about Black Lives Matter goes beyond specific policies. Many believe that the church should not be intimately involved with politics.

In an interview, Dr. Hart, a member of the conservative Orthodox Presbyterian Church, said that he took police brutality and racism seriously, and that those concerns might affect his voting in local or statewide elections. But in general, he thinks the church should not be a political actor.

“I tend to be a Machen guy,” Dr. Hart said, referring to J. Gresham Machen, the Presbyterian theologian who died in 1937 and was known for his belief that political participation could sully the church. “He believed that the church doesn’t do politics, though individual Christians may.”

Mimi Haddad, an evangelical, leads Christians for Biblical Equality, which works for the equality of women, including those in the church. She signed an open letter, printed in the liberal evangelical magazine Sojourners, congratulating InterVarsity for showcasing Black Lives Matter.

The Times reasons that this conservative Evangelical cautiousness stems from conservative Evangelical groups, “support[ing] Republican candidates [and being] uncomfortable with the movement because of its embrace of liberal politics, associated with Democrats.”

An interesting read regarding the obvious fact that Evangelicals aren’t a monolithic demographic who think and act the same. Nevertheless, a few observations are in order.

It’s noteworthy that the piece argues that progressive Christians support Black Lives Matter because of the teachings of Jesus and Paul — a thoroughly religious reason, of course — but conservative Evangelicals don’t support the Black Lives Matter because of their unflinching loyalty to the Republican party — a thoroughly political, non-biblical reason. It’s a passive way to commend progressive Christians (and by extension, the author?) for their fidelity to the Bible and dismiss conservative Evangelicals as playing politics. The Times doesn’t hesitate for a moment to consider that one reason conservative Evangelicals refuse to support Black Lives Matter is that its leftist agenda and confrontational tactics contradict the gospel’s rendering of mercy, love, and reconciliation.

Put simply: progressive Christians, good; conservative (political) Evangelicals, bad.

Also, I’m not sure I agree with Hart’s assessment that the church should abstain from politics. How far should that go, exactly? Honestly, at some point or another, all of politics deal with morality. Is it moral, or right, for the government to penalize some people through burdensome taxation, simply because they make more than others? Why? Based on what system of morality? Doesn’t it violate the directive against stealing? Or, is it morally right to weaken a citizen’s right to defend oneself, one’s family and one’s property through troublesome and prohibitive gun laws that seek to disarm him or her in the face of danger? If so, based on what moral value system? And, isn’t it morally right to influence policies that seek to mitigate racial inequality — a justice for some that doesn’t come at the expense of others? Is it morally right to seek “justice” for one racial group, if it causes an injustice to another? Why or why not? Again, based on what system of morality?

Though I share Hart’s viewpoint concerning the danger regarding the intimacy of churches and political parties, I would argue that it’s because of the self-imposed limitation and silence of many churches and their pastors from discussing political issues that’s led to the declining presence of the church’s religious influence upon our culture. This voluntary withdrawal has created a moral vacuum in which movements like Black Lives Matter have filled. This void has facilitated a thick moral confusion among Christians and non-Christians alike, emotionally manipulating and intimidating people into supporting “black lives” in a specific way or risk being labeled a racist and/or non-Christian. It’s to the detriment of both Christians and culture not to speak out confidently — with a Christian perspective rooted in both the bible and church tradition — on pressing cultural and political issues.

Conservative Evangelicals have the unique ability to fix this problem of refusing to preach and practically apply God’s word to how we should live in the world. Jesus is our guide. There’s a reason why the overwhelming majority of Jesus’ teachings and parables dealt with life outside of synagogues and the Temple — because outside of religious centers is where we live the overwhelming majority of our lives. If Jesus was able to do it, so can conservative Evangelicals.

Conservative Evangelicals need to increase their presence to inform and teach others as to how racial inequality and racial reconciliation should be approached — and it doesn’t include Black Lives Matter. If the church was on the forefront of this issue — discussing from a biblical and theological perspective on why all black lives matter (and not just ones in police custody or killed in police-involved shootings) — it would be much clearer why there’s an obligation to reject the Black Lives Matter movement. The church should be saying that black lives matter because they are created in the image of God, not because they’re black — and if these ‘black lives’ are Christian, that their primary identity is centered in Christ, not in being black; that black lives matter means black families need to be restored, black abortion needs to be reduced and black children need a married mother and father; that black lives matter means black children deserve quality education not abandoned in failing schools; that black lives matter means instilling and reinforcing Christian values at home and at church to mitigate the self-destructive behaviors that lead to disproportionately high numbers of blacks imprisoned; that black lives matter means much more than an empty slogan and socially-provocative, self-aggrandizing, behavior.

If conservative Evangelicals believe Jesus is Lord of all, they should start acting like it. Engage culture and politics using the gospel and common sense. Don’t be afraid to reject Black Lives Matter — not because you’re racist, or you’re a Republican, but because it doesn’t square with the template of reconciliation found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Rob Schenck Is Wrong- One Can Be Pro-Life and ‘Pro-Gun’



Last week Reverend Rob Schenck, an evangelical Christian, published a morally confusing, anti-firearm piece in the Washington Post, in which he claimed that one can’t be both pro-life and pro-gun at the same time. Specifically, the tenor of the piece took the position that Christians can’t be pro-life if they’re pro-gun.

For starters, Schenck’s position — that one can’t be both pro-life and pro-gun — is a false dichotomy. Many have argued, some quite persuasively, that there’s very little tension between being pro-life and defending the Second Amendment. Even further, many have convincingly argued that owning a gun — for proactive protection or as the result of being victimized by criminal activity — can be used to defend innocent people from (further) violence and evil. This is a very practical example of being pro-life.

Schenck says he previously believed that “we had a God-given right to defend ourselves,” and that he believed, “the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms, and that anyone should be able to obtain a gun.” Now after viewing “the after-effects of gun violence firsthand,” he believes differently saying, “These experiences, followed by careful theological and moral reflection, left me convinced that my family of faith is wrong on guns.”

Here’s part of the moral confusion regarding Schenck’s conversion on gun-ownership. Is he saying that Christians don’t have the God-given right to defend themselves – period — or that Christians don’t have a God-given right to defend themselves with guns? And if it’s not a God-given right (again, why not?), can Christians engage in self-defense if it’s a government-granted right? More important, if the right to defend oneself, which includes acts of protecting oneself in addition to other innocent people- isn’t granted by God and only by government, government can also take that right away, leaving millions of people, including Christians, defenseless against a tyrannical government, and civil criminal enterprise. Is Schenck morally, politically and theologically okay with that potential outcome? Why or why not?

The effects of gun violence that Schenck says were instrumental in his transformation are the mass shootings in Pennsylvania, that left five Amish schoolgirls dead, and the mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard where twelve people were killed and three others injured. It’s puzzling that he refers to these examples as evidence that Christians can’t be pro-life and pro-guns, considering the details of both incidents. In the first example, the mass murder of defenseless Amish schoolgirls wasn’t an act of self-defense whatsoever. The man responsible for that evil reportedly had unresolved grief over the death of his minutes-old daughter almost a decade earlier. His suicide note mentioned that he was still angry with God because of it.

The second example of the Navy yard shooting, the murderer clearly suffered from mental issues, saying that he heard voices in his head. He also claimed to be the victim of low frequency electromagnetic waves, which influenced him to commit this evil. Again, this is nowhere near what one would describe as self-defense. To use these two examples of mass murder as the foundation for the claim that Christians can’t be pro-life and pro-gun, or to undermine the defensive nature of gun ownership in general, is very shortsighted, deeply misguided and frankly, inexplicable.

Schenck then offers this,

“But I disagree with my community’s wholesale embrace of the idea that anyone should be able to buy a gun. For one thing, our commitment to the sanctity of human life demands that we err on the side of reducing threats to human life. And our belief in the basic sinfulness of humankind should make us skeptical of the NRA’s slogan, “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.” The Bible indicates that we are all bad guys sometimes.”

Wholesale embrace?” Schenck doesn’t quantify this nor does he provide any examples to support this sweeping generalization; it’s simply true because he says it is. Where have any well-known evangelical ministers, groups, denominations or lay Christians claimed a “wholesale embrace of the idea that anyone should be able to buy a gun,” with no restrictions? If this sentiment is as common as Schenck would have us believe, he should have no trouble specifying considerable support for such a tenuous proclamation. Moreover, many people are very clear that criminals and those suffering from mental illness that should necessarily be exempt from owning guns, and rightly so. This position clearly and directly contradicts Schenck’s charges against an evangelical, “wholesale embrace” that anyone should be able to buy a gun.

Schenck continues his with his morally confused change of heart saying, “our commitment to the sanctity of human life demands that we err on the side of reducing threats to human life,” but discounts using a gun to do just that. In the absence of a gun, how would Schenck like to see Christians reduce threats to human life in a situation where the very threat(s) to human life have guns? The Second Amendment allows citizens to legally own a gun to use as protection in situations where it mitigates the discrepancy between a criminal the size of a linebacker and a much smaller, weaker victim — man or woman.

Having a gun to defend oneself and others actively demonstrates the sacredness of life. Willingly sacrificing oneself and not doing what one can to protect human life, when one has the chance, actively undermines his call to reduce threats that endanger life.

And aside from the obligatory demonizing of the NRA, Schenck ignores the fact that many people have responsibly used guns to protect against, thwart and end criminal activity by others who’re not so keen on valuing human life. People, especially Christians, have rescued the weak and needy, and have delivered them from evil (Psalm 82:4) using the very thing Schenck condemns.

Schenck then engages in an outright appeal to moral equivalence, that when taken to it’s logical conclusion, nullifies the obligation to do good and fight evil. He says, “The Bible indicates that we are all bad guys sometimes.” And? So we’re “all bad guys sometimes,” means what, exactly? Christians can’t be good, or do good? Apart from moral equivalence, some people are more than just “bad” sometimes; they’re evil. Within the moral spectrum, there are gradations of good and evil. To ignore that, and our part to try and overcome it, is dangerous.

But if Christians are “bad guys sometimes,” why engage in any acts of charity, mercy, and goodness- which can include defending innocent lives with guns? As a Christian, Schenck knows that Christians are called to fight against bad and evil — both within themselves but also in the world. In other words, Christians are to combat evil. What were to happen if Christians used Schenck’s mindset and applied it to protecting preborn lives from abortion? Should Christians stop trying to save these lives because sometimes Christians can be “bad guys?” This position simply makes no sense.

Schenck then says,

“…anyone using a gun for defense must be ready to kill. Such a posture is antithetical to the term “evangelical,” which refers to the “evangel,” or gospel. The gospel begins with God’s love for every human, and calls on Christians to be more Christ-like. At no time did Jesus use deadly force. Although he once allowed his disciples to defend themselves with “a sword,” that permission came with a limitation on the number of weapons they could possess.Numerous Bible passages, such as Exodus 22:2-3, strictly limit the use of deadly force.

Schenck conflates the moral implications of killing and murdering. Killing while defending innocent human life is acceptable; murdering innocent life isn’t. It’s precisely why the proper translation of the Sixth Commandment is “thou shalt not murder” rather than” thou shalt not kill”: God makes a clear moral distinction between killing and murder. It’s why the Bible gives clear instructions for the punishment of murder — death, which differs from the punishment for killing — time served in sanctuary cities.

How making a moral distinction between killing and murder — being prepared to use a gun to do the former and not the latter, in an attempt to save lives — is antithetical to the gospel is anyone’s guess. This actually gives credibility to the gospel rather than detracting from it.

To appeal to Jesus’ lack of doing or saying something, as a model to follow, can be theologically tricky. It’s applicable in some areas, not in others, like gun ownership. Just because Jesus didn’t mention a specific topic or didn’t engage in a specific activity, doesn’t mean we should automatically apply that omission to our current situation. Jesus didn’t specifically mention abortion; should Christians ignore that issue, allowing even more lives to perish because of our passivity — and thereby becoming less pro-life? He also didn’t mention homosexuality; should Christians simply ignore the seriousness of this issue and its far-reaching moral, cultural, and physical consequences?

Yet Jesus did encourage his disciples to carry swords (Luke 22:36, 38), plural, for protection and sell-defense. But Schenck diminishes this example, which can and should be applied to gun ownership, by changing the subject from self-defense tothe actual number of weapons one should (or shouldn’t) have for self-defense. So is Schenck against using guns for self-defense in total, or is he simply against the number of guns one might have for self-defense?

Additionally, Schenck cites Exodus 22:2-3a to defend the idea of limiting deadly force, but these verses also permit one to protect one’s family and property. Verse two allows for the striking and killing a person if he breaks in during the night- the time where a family is most vulnerable to theft or worse. Appealing to this passage undermines- and further confuses- Schenck’s position rather than bolsters it.

I very much disagree with Schenck’s position — I think people can and should own guns and they have a moral obligation to learn how to use them safely and legally to protect themselves and other innocent people from criminal intent and other forms of evil. He’s wrong to advocate and defend a false dichotomy between supporting the right to own guns and being pro-life. These two issues aren’t mutually exclusive, as he and those who share his view would have Christians believe. There are many Christians who would love to exercise their legal rights to own a gun for protection but are prevented from doing so by prohibitive laws and a lack of financial resources. Would Schenck tell the number of gun-less Christians, who live in the inner cities of Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Oakland and elsewhere who are terrorized and killed by criminals with guns that all is well- that their position is ‘pro-life’ even as they lose theirs?

Schenck’s position on gun ownership needs considerable clarification. He confidently proclaims that he’s against fellow Christians maintaining a defensive, anti-life position because they own guns. Is he then saying that he’s against using that gun to deter crime and other evil? After all, that’s what the defensive position he laments, defends against.

If Schenck can’t be pro-life and pro-gun, that’s fine — for him; it’s his personal decision. He’d still be misguided, but his morally and theologically confused position would only apply to him. It should exclude the slandering and mischaracterization of responsible, sober-minded gun owners — the overwhelming majority of whom are law-abiding citizens.

This isn’t a condemnation of Schenck. He seems to be a good and decent man. Yet on this issue, he seems emotionally confused and unwilling to acknowledge the nuances, realities and the moral requirement to protect life. It appears as if he is using his faith to justify his anti-gun ownership transformation.

InterVarsity Seduced by #BlackLivesMatter, Compartmentalized “Justice”

Despite the incongruity between its activist agenda and what the name of the organization (and hashtag) superficially implies, the social current of #BlackLivesMatter has successfully swallowed a number of churches and Christian organizations in its supposed quest for racial and social “justice.” InterVarsity Christian Fellowship is the latest victim to be seduced by the cultural fad of “justice” — always compartmentalized — at the expense of biblical justice, which is supposed to permeate the totality of the Christian’s life.

During InterVarsity’s Urbana missions conference, Michelle Higgins, director of Faith for Justice, a Christian advocacy group — and herself a member of #BlackLivesMatter — lectured listening Christians about the need to be involved in the fight against racial injustice. Fighting against racial injustice, in addition to all forms of injustice, is a Christian obligation that’s firmly rooted in the mission of the church. The body of Christ is — and should be — the vessel of racial reconciliation, predicated on Christ having overcome all superficial forms of division and separation, including those based on racial and ethnic considerations.

But for Higgins, or any Christian, to conflate the fight against racial injustice with supporting the agenda, intent, and behavior of #BlackLivesMatter is “chasing after the wind” — a fool’s errand that leads many sincere Christians astray. Christian leaders have a tremendous responsibility to be voices and examples of reason. Christian credibility is at stake. So it’s a cause for concern when Christians engage in negligent and questionable behavior. Here it involves using racial guilt to manipulate Christians into supporting a movement that perpetuates a secular social and political narrative that consists of lies and racial paranoia under the guise of fighting racial inequality.

During her speech, Higgins sought to religiously justify support of #BlackLivesMatter in a manner similar to the Christians and theologians that used Christianity to justify the black power movement of the past.  Higgins said, “Black Lives Matter is not a mission of hate. It is not a mission to bring about incredible anti-Christian values and reforms to the world. Black Lives Matter is a movement on mission in the truth of God.”

That a Christian felt comfortable enough to say this with a straight face is disturbing. The fact that the audience was so embracing of her message, especially in light of the rhetoric and strategies used by #BlackLivesMatter activists is even more disturbing, reflecting poorly on Christians. The claim that #BlackLivesMatter is on ‘mission in the truth of God’ is about as true as the claim made at Michael Brown’s funeral — that he was “out spreading the word of Jesus Christ” before he was killed.

Brown was actually stealing a box of cigarillos from a liquor store shortly before he was killed.

Higgins continued, noting the presence of racism in various areas of life where she claimed the church is silent, including the racial disparities in education and the criminal justice system — obligatorily mentioning the cases of Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland, Eric Garner and Michael Brown. She then clarified what she wants people to think #BlackLivesMatter means, saying,

“Now, I don’t want all people of color to go scot-free for wrongdoing – I don’t want to see people of color never arrested for anything. Black lives matter doesn’t mean all black folk can kill people and steal stuff…. that’s not what we want, that’s not what I want. What do we want? Justice. And what is justice? Justice means my baby boy, my baby girl will not be tried, condemned… executed on the street. That’s justice. Justice means the burden of supremacy…is not up on you, because God is pleased with you. Therefore, you can be pleased with everyone he has made.”

Higgins added,

“BlackLivesMatter demands that we face facts and tell the truth…it demands that I know myself and that I see you, it demands that [we see] those that have been in prison… and executed… because of their skin color, and that we free them. It demands that white and black and brown and Asian and Hispanic brothers and sisters be treated as one. Redefine justice the way that God defines justice; your God is not white, he’s not Japanese or Congolese — your God is God.”

Ok, let’s face facts and tell the truth.

Here’s a fact. There are racial disparities in education and the criminal justice system. And there is a case to be made, at least in education, that the disparities are partially the result of substandard education intentionally delivered to poor black and Hispanic children. Deliberately giving poor children less access to quality education is a partial predictor of future dependency, contributing to a growing underclass. Chicago, Detroit and New York are perfect examples. This cause should be taken up by Christians, but #BlackLivesMatter has nothing to do with it.

Further, if the goal is to reduce the racial disparities in education, people should not only advocate that poor children receive better quality education, they should also encourage the redemption and reconciliation of the black family. Not only would that contribute to the mitigation of academic disparities suffered by blacks, increasing the number of intact black families would also mitigate the racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Blacks aren’t locked up disproportionately simply and only because they’re black. Blacks are imprisoned disproportionately because of the disintegration of the family and the collapse of the Christian moral value system.

Speaking of criminals, here’s another fact: #BlackLivesMatter valorizes black criminality and sanctifies black criminals. The lives of everyday blacks don’t matter to this movement, including the lives of blacks tormented by black criminals. This is why #BlackLivesMatter is a misnomer. The only black lives that matter to these social agitators are the ones killed by (white) cops, largely the result of the actions of the criminals themselves. Defending and honoring the lives of black criminals over the lives of blacks that aren’t criminals, but in need of our attention, is despicable and unworthy of being called or legitimized by Christianity.

Moreover, with the exception of Tamir Rice — who was shot and killed because he was playing with a toy gun that police officers mistook for real — Michael Brown and Eric Garner were killed because they attacked police officers or resisted arrest when their criminal behavior was confronted. (Sandra Bland also refused to listen to an officer’s command, which resulted in a physical confrontation.) This isn’t to say that they deserved to die, but they also weren’t “innocent” nor were the merely “victims” because of their race. There are consequences when one confronts police officers, is insubordinate to police officers or resists arrest. For Higgins to conflate their deaths with the possibility of her “baby boy” and her “baby girl” being “tried, condemned… and executed on the street” — presumably because they’re black and nothing else — trivializes any real understanding of what justice entails.

Further, where specifically has anyone, in modern America, been “executed” in prison only because of his or her skin color? That’s a heavy charge that deserves to be supported by very firm evidence, particularly when said by someone who self-identifies with the name of Christ. Without supporting evidence, it’s a lie. Additionally, why exactly should we “free” anyone in prison, as a rule, merely because of his or her skin color?

Now the obvious but compulsory disclaimer: fighting against racial injustice and inequality is the Christian thing to do; there aren’t many Christians that would argue against doing so. Christianity’s influence was responsible for ending slavery and was the moral motivator and sustainer of the civil rights movement — the last great moral movement in our nation’s history. Supporting #BlackLivesMatter isn’t the proper or most effective and practical way for Christians to meet the challenge of fighting the vestiges of racial injustice. In many ways, supporting #BlackLivesMatter contributes to racial discord and perpetuates racial acrimony.

Additionally, part of fighting racial injustice is to resist the reflexive urge to label every socio-economic disparity a result of racial injustice — a characteristic of #BlackLivesMatter. Purposefully mislabeling every racial disparity between blacks and their racial counterparts, the result of “racism,” trivializes actual occurrences of racism, preventing these occurrences from being appropriately addressed. It also stifles constructive strategies (which have nothing to do with race) that can be implemented to diminish socio-economic gaps that continue to exist.

Trying to address racial discrimination is one thing. Trying to do so facilitated by the dishonest rhetoric and antagonistic behavior of the #BlackLivesMatter organization should be of no interest to Christians. Christians shouldn’t allow themselves to be influenced by the kind of overt deception that #BlackLivesMatter espouses, and they shouldn’t legitimize the tactics and secular agenda of such a duplicitous organization.

Sadly, InterVarsity undermined its religious credibility by granting unearned moral authority to #BlackLivesMatter. Shame on Michelle Higgins for conflating the fight against racial injustice — a worthy cause — with the questionable and unworthy cause of #BlackLivesMatter. And shame on InterVarsity for legitimizing this error by giving Higgins such a big platform to mislead so many Christians

Sanctuary Cities Protect The Guilty At The Expense of The Innocent


It’s past time to rethink the practice and name of sanctuary cities.

Sanctuary policies are laws, resolutions, and ordinances passed by local authorities that prohibit city employees from notifying federal authorities- or cooperating with federal immigration laws- regarding the presence of illegal immigrants living in and around their communities. The origin of these laws apparently originate from the so-called Sanctuary Movement of the 1980’s, an American social and religious agenda that sought to protect and provide “sanctuary” for immigrants seeking asylum from violence primarily in Central America. During this time, churches and other social organizations acted as safe havens for illegal immigrants and refugees who were refused asylum by the United States government.

Though the beginning of this movement may have been borne out of good intentions, the current policies associated with sanctuary cities are anything but. Now, sanctuary cities- and those who support them- openly defy and ignore federal immigration policies concerning illegal aliens. Sanctuary cities, by-and-large, no longer protect refugees seeking asylum. Rather, these cities are actively protecting illegal aliens who knowingly and intentionally thwarted the country’s immigration procedures to take advantage of the social and economic spoils that come with living in America- all coming at the expense of taxpaying citizens and immigrants who came here- or are in the process of coming here- legally. This law breaking and theft is aided and abetted by policies and supported by people whose moral and ideological worldview see no difference between illegal aliens, legal immigrants, and US citizens. For them, the so-called “rights” of illegal aliens are just as important as the rights of citizens. But when people deliberately come to the country illegally, or overstay their visas, they have no rights. They’re not immigrants; they’re lawbreakers who’re eligible for deportation. To purposefully equate citizens and legal immigrants with illegal aliens is immoral and it both undermines and trivializes US citizenship, and our immigration laws, respectively.

This kind of politicized and ideological defiance of federal immigration laws is an issue of public safety, as the recent murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco demonstrates. Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal alien and seven-time felon who had been deported five times, casually murdered Kate Steinle earlier this month.

The original Sanctuary Movement and its illegitimate offspring, sanctuary cities, centers its moral basis among several traditions of defending life which includes the sanctuary cities found in the Old Testament, the Underground Railroad that sought to help slaves escape the dehumanization of slavery in the American south; and the program of protecting Jews from persecution and death during World War II. Though these precedents were noble actions that attempted to protect and sustain the sanctity of life against revenge and the forces of evil, my concern is the biblical notion of sanctuary cities and how this idea has been morally and politically perverted in favor of an ideological agenda that refuses to distinguish right from wrong in its quest to weaken federal immigration laws under the banner of social “justice.”

Biblically speaking, sanctuary cities were “cities of refuge.” Examples and prescriptions that applied to these cities of refuge are found in several places in the Old Testament (including Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua), where God commanded the Israelites to establish specific places as safe havens for those who had accidentally and or unintentionally killed another person. Because a person killed accidentally- as opposed to having murdered someone intentionally (and there is a moral difference between killing and murdering), the designated city would provide refuge- a safeguard against the avenger of blood (generally a family member seeking retribution for the unintended death). The person seeking sanctuary was required to remain in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest serving at the time of his arrival, after which the person was allowed to go back to his family without fear of reprisal.

However, if someone sought asylum in a city of refuge and was found guilty of intentional murder- proof of which came after a trial, he was not allowed to receive sanctuary; he was rightly put to death. He was shown no pity. The divine directive commanded the Israelites to purge the evil from their midst (Deut. 19:19). Plainly speaking, there was a very clear distinction between intentional and premeditated murder and unintentional killing; between the guilty and the innocent- all in the pursuit of maintaining the law and preserving the sanctity of human life.

Not so with the current manifestation of sanctuary cities. Unlike the recommendations regarding cities of refuge in the Bible, current sanctuary cities sanctimoniously and defiantly refuse to differentiate between the guilty and the innocent. In a moral inversion of the original, current sanctuary cities actually provide sanctuary for the guilty at the expense of the innocent. Sanctuary cities flout federal immigration laws, refusing to report the illegal aliens (and their extra-criminal activity) they knowingly harbor, consciously and unreservedly perverting justice in the process. Again, we must be clear: sanctuary city policies transparently and without shame, protect and defend the guilty, not the innocent.

Rather than bringing the deviants to justice, sanctuary cities redefine justice to appease and cater to illegal aliens, which is an injustice to legal immigrants and American citizens.

Illegal aliens receiving sanctuary (and those who grant it) are, by definition, guilty of intentional law breaking. As increasing examples demonstrate, many are guilty of much, much worse. In harboring illegal aliens, these cities don’t just simply blur the lines between life and death; they actually invite death itself. Again, as the preventable death of Kate Steinle demonstrates, Francisco Lopez-Sanchez (a fitting name, indeed)- the illegal alien and convicted felon– said he knew San Francisco was a sanctuary city so he knew he wouldn’t be deported.


Politicians and others who create and defend sanctuary city policies and who willfully participate in blurring the lines between legal and illegal, right and wrong, justice and injustice, are guilty of perpetuating a caricature of moral authority that invites and nurtures the kind of criminality that violates public safety. Embracing a sympathetic ideology that lacks common sense to justify the continued harboring of illegal alien criminals is socially destructive and a moral shame.

And if sanctuary cities shelter the guilty and the criminal at the expense of the innocent, who or what protects the innocent victims of such policies?

Christian or not, politicians and those who support the postmodern notion of sanctuary city policies violate the law, common sense, and Leviticus 19:15 which says, “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.”


Chicago Theological Seminary Associates Gay Sex With The Return Of Christ


You gotta love what ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ have wrought. The return of the Messiah equated with an orgasm- and done by a “Christian” “church,” no less.

Apparently, condoms- adorned with a rainbow flame and a religious/sexual double entendre- were handed out as party favors last week at the Wild Goose Festival– an annual progressive Christian festival, sponsored and or attended by people affiliated with the theologically liberal, Chicago Theological Seminary.

The logo is a flaming, rainbow-colored, LGBTQXYZ -friendly version of the logo associated with Chicago Theological Seminary. CTS is affiliated with the United Church of Christ- a politically-leftist, Protestant denomination, which focuses more on social justice than biblical justice.

The United Church of Christ approves of and endorses same-sex marriage, despite the clear absence of Biblical or theological-support of such “union.”  That a “church” and associated seminary would sanction the handing out of condoms that liken the Second Coming of Christ to a second orgasm, particularly one associated with gay sex (and thus, sex outside the bounds of normal marriage), says all one needs to know about the theological and biblical credibility (or lack thereof) regarding this denomination.

It also shows what little reverence they hold for a divinely promised event- an expectation that has influenced the lives of millions of Christians for almost 2,000 years.

Therefore it’s no surprise that the United Church of Christ is losing self-identified members, having fallen below one million members back in 2013. At this rate, the denomination will cease to exist in 30 years. I won’t be surprised if the UCC is absorbed into the equally liberal Episcopal Church- which is also loosing members at record pace- before then.

Those Christians who still take the Bible as the word of God and who continue to take church tradition seriously are obligated to “purge this evil from our midst,” and “expel the wicked from our church.” If and when we don’t, we’re tarnished with the stigma and perversion of evil, and guilty of taking God’s name in vain.

Christians Should Not Encourage Resistance to Police

The latest in the on-going, media-created narrative regarding the disproportionate incidents of police brutality against black Americans involves a pool party in a suburban area of McKinney, Texas — the video of which has expectedly gone viral.

Time and again, people are content and assured in how they feel about incidents of police brutality to the exclusion of facts pertaining to the case, especially those facts that are contrary to their initial — and reflexive — feelings.

When these incidents are sensationalized, people are going to use them to advance a disingenuous social narrative and political agenda. Christian leaders have a greater responsibility to be voices and examples of reason to be heard and followed, respectively. Yet when people of the cloth are engaged in negligent and questionable behavior that perpetuates social paranoia, it’s even more concerning.

And in my opinion, that’s what one Anglican theologian has done.

According to his website, Preston Yancey is a member of the Anglican Church in North America and is also, “employed by the Anglican Diocese of the Western Gulf Coast as Canon Theologian.” In addition, Yancey is a priest-to-be who hopes to be ordained next year.

With these kinds of credentials, his Twitter-based response to the McKinney pool incident was a disappointment. Last Thursday, in a series of tweets Yancey offers up some problematic statements which — aside from condemning white privilege — appear to be advocating police resistance.

Here are some of Yancey’s tweets:

View his Twitter profile, here.

First of all, Yancey is encouraging or defending the idea that (black) people should resist arrest and “fight back” against police officers. How else can what he’s tweeted be interpreted?

And what form does fighting back take? Is Yancey speaking literally or metaphorically? Under what circumstances is it acceptable and justified? And who decides those circumstances, Yancey, or someone else? Why them?

Contrary to Yancey’s opinion, there are clear examples that fighting back against police officers simply doesn’t work. Fighting back against police officers as they attempt to assess or control a situation is foolish and can be deadly.

The idea that a soon-to-be priest is encouraging those in police custody or those being questioned by police to fight back — especially as it relates to teenagers at a pool party — is dangerously irresponsible both of Yancey and those who may recklessly contemplate his advice. Considering how many blacks have lost their lives doing exactly what Yancey suggests makes his unsolicited advice look even more destructive. Yancey says that the ‘gritty work of the kingdom is ideals within a context of valuing life,’ but responding to law enforcement through physical force — or to “fight back” as Yancey terms it — not only devalues lives because of the potential consequences of such outcomes, some of which we’ve already seen (Mike Brown and Eric Garner, for example), but it has absolutely nothing to do with “kingdom ideals.”

Now let’s distill some of Yancey’s tweets.

Yancey disagrees with Christian pacifism, evidenced by his tweet, “Anywho, for whatever it’s worth that you know this, I reject Christian pacifism as the most viable expression of the Gospel.” He also tweeted, “Kids get a gun put in their face trying to defend a girl pinned to the ground by a cop? Pacifism is not the answer here.”

Who argued ‘Christian pacifism’ as an ‘expression of the Gospel’ was the answer here? “Christian pacifism” in the context of being detained by police is irrelevant but has everything to do with how one conducts oneself in the presence of police officers, whether the situation is calm but especially when pressed with tension. Comporting oneself with humility and respect toward an officer in an effort to minimize a potential escalation is simply being smart, Christian or not. Yancey’s projection and misapplication of Christian pacifism in this situation is simply wrong.

In my opinion, Yancey reveals the motivation behind these series of misappropriated tweets when he posts, “Christian pacifism is a blind luxury of white privilege. Let’s not rush to tell people being murdered by the State to ‘calm down’,” and “… I am not the oppressed. More often than not the roused God has anger toward me and my participation in oppression.” He also says that, “There’s a whole reality I never have to think about, like being wrestled to the ground at a pool party for simply existing.”

There it is — white guilt. White guilt is the reason for these tweets. Just to be clear — white guilt with or without Jesus and the Gospel is still … white guilt.

Yancey admits that he is not part of the oppressed (presumably blacks) but is part of the “oppressor.” Though he doesn’t elaborate as to his specific contributions towards the oppression he laments (or God’s anger toward him for it), one can assume that his oppression is a consequence of his white skin. That his white guilt provokes him to encourage blacks to challenge the authorities knowing full well the recent and deadly outcomes of those who’ve acted on his unsolicited advice in advance, demonstrates how little black lives are valued by Yancey.

Further, there’s bit of irony that saturates Yancey’s tweets. That he can offer such imprudent advice to “fight back” from the comfort and security in which he lives (he admits it’s a reality he doesn’t have to think about), knowing full well that he, with or without Jesus, wouldn’t suffer the same consequences as those he’s actively encouraging — or the fate of those who did “fight back,” reflecting Yancey’s call that ended in a loss of life truly is white privilege — a naive, white privilege at that.

That Yancey — a man of God and a soon-to-be priest, is suggesting the kind of confrontation with police that invariably leads to physical injury at best, loss of life at worst, however sincere, is an abdication of his calling and his obligation to properly shepherd his flock in addition to everyone else within his sphere of influence.

Church leaders should be saying the exact opposite of what Yancey is saying. To those who may encounter police officers, however aggressive, answer them calmly and politely — even if they’re wrong.

If you’ve been wronged, it’s easier to fight that injustice if you’re still alive.

Contrasting Post Charleston Sermons

Last weekend, Mother Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina, held its first church service since the massacre that claimed the lives of nine members of its congregation.

Rev. Norvell Goff- preaching because the church’s regular pastor, Rev. Clementa C. Pinckney, was one of last week’s casualties- delivered a Spirit-filled sermon that honored both the lives of those who were murdered and those people who came to- and responded in- Charleston with love, prayer and forgiveness. Goff’s fiery and inspirational sermon reflected not only the community of Charleston, but also the members of the congregation- encouraging both groups to persevere in the kind of Christ-like love that actively seeks to overcome the kind of evil and race-based hatred that motivated Dylann Storm Roof to commit his terrorist acts of evil.

As a Christian, one would hope that sermons like Rev. Goff’s that encouraged love and forgiveness would have been commonplace in churches- especially black churches- this past Sunday. Again, as Rev. Goff acknowledged- and which has also been seen and wondered about by news media outlets across the country- the response of the Charleston community wasn’t to riot or loot, or to profess threats and intentions of vigilantism unless local residents were delivered a sufficient amount of what they loosely defined as “justice.” Rather, there was a clear, noticeable and appreciative lack of social disruption and economic destruction in Charleston last week- as it should be. The proper- though difficult- Christian response to a situation such as this is love, prayer, forgiveness, and spiritual edification.

Which is why it was disappointing, disheartening, and somewhat confusing to watch a clip of Bishop Charles H. Ellis III, preaching this past Sunday. Charles H. Ellis III is Senior Pastor of Greater Grace Temple in Detroit, Michigan and is currently the presiding Bishop of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (P.A.W.).

Ellis’ sermon was the opposite of Rev. Norvell Goff’s. Where Goff sought to encourage his congregation to stay the course in courage, faith, unity, and love, Ellis sought to lay blame and in many ways, maintain racial and political division by slandering what he called “the right wing” and “Reagan Republicans.”

What does Ronald Reagan, the so-called ‘Reagan Republicans,’ or the “right wing” have to do with the reprehensible acts of Dylann Storm Roof?

Absolutely nothing.

In his sermon, Ellis confusingly castigates Ronald Reagan for rightly telling then Soviet-leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall- insinuating that Reagan’s international act of clear morality is somehow hypocritical because Nikki Haley, governor of South Carolina, refused to take down the Confederate battle flag from the statehouse- which to Ellis, represents an wall of separation equal to the Berlin Wall (Nikki Haley has since endorsed having the flag removed, but not because of Ellis’ sermon).

Ellis’ disingenuous attempt at (im)morally equating Ronald Reagan with Nikki Haley and the Confederate flag fails because one has nothing to do with the another, whatsoever. Technically speaking, the Confederate Battle Flag has very little to do with Republicans but a lot to do with Democrats, but I doubt very much that this historical tidbit made it into Bishop Ellis’ sermon.

And Ellis sinks further.

Though the sermon clip is edited, Ellis appears to shame Nikki Haley for calling herself (and being) a Christian while, “stand[ing] up for segregation” and “for stand[ing] up for denying people their rights.”

When and where, specifically, has Nikki Haley ever defended segregation or actively fought against giving “rights” to any of the citizens of her state? Since Ellis made the claim, he should provide incontrovertible evidence to support such morally serious charges. Charles Ellis is slandering his sister-in-Christ with these harmful allegations.

Nikki Haley shouldn’t be shamed. Charles H. Ellis III should be shamed for engaging in a false, moral equivalence and for dissembling from the pulpit.

When Republicans and conservatives- and by extension, conservative talk radio and television (which are proxies for white people) are mentioned in combination with Dylan Storm Roof, whether it’s in Ellis’ sermon or anywhere else, it’s to intentionally identify and slander both groups as racists who’re guilty of having ideologically influenced Roof to murder the Charleston Nine- even though there is no evidence to support such vilification. I expect this level of dishonesty from politicians, television pundits, and Bill Maher- types who’re looking to score political points, but not from a pastor of Ellis’ stature and influence. For Ellis or anyone else to politicize the deaths of those martyred in Emanuel A.M.E. Church is to do a disservice to the lives lost and the faith they shared prior to their deaths. Again, that a pastor would do this from the pulpit is disgraceful.

Furthermore, that Ellis politicized these deaths and blamed Roof’s malicious acts on the ‘right wing’ and ‘Reagan Republicans,’ rather than on sin that brings forth and nurtures evil undermines his moral and pastoral credibility, and goes directly to his character. As Jesus said, things that cause people to stumble are sure to come, as day follows night, but woe unto them though whom these stumbling blocks come.

More to the point- how does Ellis’ sermon serve the purpose of racial reconciliation, particularly in the body of Christ? After all, some of the very people Ellis pridefully ridicules and condemns- Republicans and conservatives, including Gov. Haley- are actually his (our) brothers and sisters in Christ. Ellis intentionally perpetuates the unnecessary divisions that St. Paul warned against.

Where Rev. Goff preached a love and forgiveness- that transcended politics- worthy of the name of Christ, Bishop Ellis preached finger pointing and continued division.

Considering the racial acrimony and division the country has witnessed and suffered through the last several years, we would receive much more spiritual and civil edification if there were more sermons like the one Rev. Goff delivered this past Sunday at Emanuel A.M.E. Church, rather than the one shamelessly delivered by Bishop Charles Ellis III.

Democrats Don’t Want Poor Kids To Have A Good Education


Barack Obama and his party continually pitch themselves as the defenders and the political party of the poor. To look at the picture they paint, only they are looking out for the best interests of those living in poverty.

Conservatives and Republicans on the other hand- again based on the political and moral picture painted by Democrats- are said to hate the poor. They not only hate the poor, they want to keep the poor, in poverty. Read what’s been said by Democrats about Republicans since last week regarding the quality of life of the residents in Baltimore. Even though Baltimore hasn’t had a Republican mayor since the 1960’s, Republicans were still blamed for not addressing- or not having solutions to- the poverty-plagued pathologies that contributed to last week’s riots and mayhem.

But any cursory look will pull up numerous attempts- some serious, others not- by Republicans and conservatives to address and alleviate the effects of poverty. One issue that conservatives repeatedly bring up as a way to help the poor is the policy of educational reform and school choice. Conservatives believe that one of the sure fire ways to equip the poor- and give them the foundation needed to help escape the bowels of poverty is to allow them access to a good education. Part of that access is giving poor parents the opportunity to choose the kind and quality of schools their children attend in addition to the quality of teachers their children should have. This opportunity should be extended to all Americans, but particularly poor Americans. Forty years ago economist and Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman said that the most important thing we can do to help the (black) poor is to implement the school voucher system to combat the lifelong effects of poor education that leads to fewer opportunities for the poor to improve their economic conditions. This is precisely why conservatives are in favor of school vouchers which enable school choice.

But the Democrats want nothing to do with poor people having that choice, and they diligently and enthusiastically prevent parents from having the freedom to choose what school their children attend. Why are Democrats/Progressives so vehemently against school choice? Barack Obama enjoys the freedom and liberty to send Sasha and Malia to Sidwell Friends- a private school that costs more than $37k- per student, per year, but he and his party steadfastly refuse to extend that same freedom and opportunity of school choice to the poor parents in his adopted hometown of Chicago- or other poor parents across the country.

In my opinion, that’s morally and politically indefensible.

Democrats talk a lot about economic ‘fairness’ and “justice” for the poor, but conveniently avoid talking about educational ‘fairness’ or educational justice. Democrats talk incessantly about a “woman’s choice” when it comes to abortion, but they don’t allow a woman who chooses life to “choose” where her children go to school. This is because Democrats have a vested interest in keeping poor people poor in the same way they have a vested interest in keeping blacks perpetually preoccupied by racial boogeymen- to keep both groups solidly voting for Democrats.

Look at a recent Wall Street Journal article highlighting the benefits the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program continues to have for poor- mostly black- children- and how Barack Obama continues his efforts to defund the program.

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which George W. Bush signed into law in 2004, has so far funded private-school tuition for nearly 5,000 students, 95% of whom are African-American. They attend religious schools, music and arts schools, even elite college-prep schools. Last month at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, I met with about 20 parents and children who participate in the program. I also visited several of these families in their homes—which are located in some of the most beaten-down neighborhoods in the city, places that in many ways resemble the trouble spots in Baltimore.

These families have now pulled together to brace for a David vs. Goliath fight to save the program. For the seventh straight year, President Obama has proposed eliminating this relatively tiny scholarship fund, which at $20 million accounts for a microscopic 0.0005% of the $4 trillion federal budget.

The parents and students point out that the scholarship program has extraordinary benefits—they use phrases like “a godsend for our children,” “a life saver” and “our salvation.” One father, Joseph Kelley, a tireless champion of the program, says simply, “I truly shudder to think where my son would be today without it.”

[Virginia Ford] tells me that “kids in the scholarship program have consistently improved their test scores, have higher graduation rates, and are more likely to attend college than those stuck in the D.C. public schools.”

The numbers back her up. An Education Department-funded study at the University of Arkansas recently found that graduation rates rose 21 percentage points—to 91%, from 70%—for students awarded the scholarship vouchers through a lottery, compared with a control group of those who applied for but didn’t get the scholarships. For all D.C. public schools, the high-school graduation rate is closer to an abysmal 56%.

“If you’ve got a program that’s clearly working and helping these kids, why end it?” asks Pamela Battle, whose son Carlos received a voucher and was able to attend the elite Georgetown Day School. He’s now at Northeastern University in Boston. She says Carlos “almost surely wouldn’t have gone to college” without the voucher. 

[A]mazingly, these energized parents are opposed by almost every liberal group, even the NAACP, and nearly every Democrat in Congress—including Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents the District of Columbia in Congress but opposes a program that benefits her own constituents... Mr. Obama won’t even meet with these parents. A few years ago the voucher supporters held a rally with 3,000 minority and disadvantaged families in front of the Capitol to protest President Obama’s proposed elimination of the program for all new students. Republicans in Congress, including House Speaker John Boehner, one of the program’s strongest supporters, stood in solidarity with the families, while Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues were nowhere to be seen.

Interestingly enough, I’d be very curious to know how many of these parents who’re desperately fighting to save the voucher program their children benefit so wonderfully from actually voted for Barack Obama and the Democrat party the last several election cycles. Though I sympathize with these parents, they can’t complain about a problem- the lack of school choice, in this instance- if they are directly contributing to the problem- voting for the very party that stands in the way of education reform and school choice.

So, Obama diligently and immorally continues his efforts to end school choice for poor black children in Washington, D.C. for no good reason. In addition, Obama’s Justice Department, led by then Attorney General Eric Holder, sued the state of Louisiana to try and prevent the implementation of a voucher program that would also allow poor black children a chance to escape failing schools.

The Justice Department is trying to stop a school vouchers program in Louisiana that attempts to help families send their children to independent schools instead of under-performing public schools.

The agency wants to stop the program, led by Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal, in any school district that remains under a desegregation court order.

In papers filed in U.S. District Court in New Orleans, the agency said Louisiana distributed vouchers in 2012-13 to roughly 570 public school students in districts that are still under such orders and that “many of those vouchers impeded the desegregation process.”

The federal government argues that allowing students to attend independent schools under the voucher system could create a racial imbalance in public school systems protected by desegregation orders.

Jindal — who last year expanded the program that started in 2008 — said this weekend that the department’s action is “shameful” and said President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder “are trying to keep kids trapped in failing public schools against the wishes of their parents.”

Desegregation orders? Really? In a state where 88 percent of public school students are black, claiming desegregation is the hight of foolishness and shows they truly have no defense for that which cannot be defended.

Another progressive, Bill deBlasio- the socialist mayor of New York City tried to limit both funding and expansion of successful charter schools immediately after he was elected to office. He also wanted to increase the rents of these schools which would’ve forced them to divert resources away from deserving students.  Like D.C. and Louisiana, the majority of the students who benefit from school choice in New York City are black and increasingly Latino.

In light of that, look what USA Today had to say about the results many New York City charter schools are achieving-

Earlier this year, Stanford’s Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO) revealed that in just one school year, the typical New York City charter school student gained about five additional months of learning in math and one additional month of learning in reading compared with students in traditional public schools.

These gains, repeated year after year, are helping to erase achievement gaps between urban and suburban students. A rigorous 2009 study from Stanford professor Caroline Hoxby found that students who attend New York City¹s charter schools from Kindergarten through 8th grade will make up 86% of the suburban-urban achievement gap in math and 66% of the gap in English.

What makes these results so impressive is that charter schools are not elite private schools. They are tuition-free public schools, funded by taxpayers and open to any student.

New York has roughly 70,000 students enrolled in public charter schools, and the numbers are on the rise. This school year alone, 14,000 new students in the city enrolled in charter schools ­ with the vast majority in low-income neighborhoods.

All of these aggressive efforts (and many, many more) to limit school choice for the poor are from the very same political party that claims to have the best interests of the poor in mind. Keeping kids trapped in failing schools is good for the poor how, exactly? How does anyone who self-identifies as a Democrat, politician or otherwise, morally defend the status quo of forcing poor children to stay in failing schools that deliver substandard education?

Since many of these poor children also happen to be black, how do Democrats- who also claim to be the party that has the best interests of blacks in mind- morally or politically defend the idea that it’s acceptable to disservice poor black children when it comes to educational access and academic opportunity?

That Barack Obama is so ardently against school choice is one reason why his most recent weekly address was so unnerving. Talking, again, about the great benefits of education, Obama discussed his new initiative to have “libraries and major publishers provide more than $250 million in free e-Books for low-income students.”  Obama went on to issue a challenge to “mayors, libraries, and school leaders to help every student get a library card, so they can expand their horizons in a place like this.”

That’s his new plan to help children from poor families get a “great education”? This program expands the horizons of low-income students more than access to better education in higher-performing schools?

He continues-

In a global economy, we’ve got to help ensure that everyone, of every age, in every zip code – urban and rural – has the chance to learn the skills that lead directly to a good job.

That’s also why I’ve put forward a plan to make two years of community college as free and universal for every American as high school is today.

First, as most people should be aware, high school isn’t free and neither would two years of community college. Taxes in various and overwhelming forms fund this so-called free, subpar education.

That aside, Obama wants to give poor people more access to- and more resources at- public libraries, but less access to quality public education, as if this is some great fete to be applauded. All of this obstruction and window dressing comes at the expense of poor children who’ll continue to lack the proper educational foundation for the foreseeable future – minimizing future academic and economic opportunities, including economic mobility.

If this is what the Democrat party does when they have someone’s best interest in mind, imagine what they do when those “best interests” aren’t even considered.

This issue is perfect for conservatives and Republicans- politicians and otherwise- to continue to address and advocate for. This is a civil right that should be defended. But conservatives and Republicans have to craft a clear, easy-to-understand message and draft the right messengers if they want any chance of being successful. And as we’ve seen time and again, conservatives and Republicans- particularly the latter- are their own worst enemy.

Another Episode of Black Moral Chaos


What’s been allowed to happen in Baltimore is a moral and cultural abomination. Once again, so-called activists, a large number of them black, have been allowed to attack and assault police officers in addition to destroying public and private property. These so-called demonstrators claim anger over what happened to 25-year-old Freddie Gray who died in police custody, allegedly from three fractured vertebrae and a crushed voice box. Specific details are still forthcoming and if the officers are in fact guilty of negligence, they should be fired, they should lose their pensions, and be prosecuted.  If found guilty, they should be punished.

Just like many incidents prior- notably Sanford, Florida and Ferguson, Missouri- protestors have decided to rob, loot, damage and destroy the city of Baltimore as an expression of justifiable outrage. Rather than comporting themselves with dignity and respect, and waiting for the details to be released in regards to how and why Gray died, these degenerate “protestors” and “demonstrators” are acting like wild animals who have escaped their natural habitat, wreaking havoc and terror on civilized society.

After all, nothing says “justice” like out-of-control blacks attacking random whites and causing chaos as they burn, damage, destroy buildings in addition to looting stores- making off with liquor, televisions and shoes- while inconveniencing thousands of city residents who had absolutely nothing to do with Gray’s death.

Aside from the ‘soft bigotry of low expectations’ that allow and excuses bad black behavior in such socially destructive ways we don’t dare allow from any other racial group, once again this despicable behavior unfairly stigmatizes those blacks who condemn and are embarrassed by such conduct.

Why has the mayor of Baltimore allowed these reprobates to cause this kind of damage to the city? And she did allow it, which is why Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake is partially responsible for this citywide mayhem. She directed the Baltimore Police Department to “give those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.” Rawlings-Blake went on to say, “We work very hard to keep that balance [between free speech and destructive elements], and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Idiot. Moron.

What political leader in their right mind directs peace officers to stand by and watch as hooligans are given the chance to engage in violence and destroy property? You don’t cater to a mob made up of thugs who distrust and dislike law enforcement, and give them an outlet for their behavior-letting them vent- as if once these degenerates have gotten their misplaced anger out of their system, they’ll clean up their mess and quietly go home.

Because of the mayor’s failure to act quickly and appropriately, the Baltimore Police Department is in need of the National Guard to come in to help restore order in Baltimore after the Maryland Governor Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency.

Scenes of burning and chaos in Baltimore are reminiscent of Gotham’s chaos in The Dark Knight Rises and Rawlings-Blake did her part to facilitate it. Her city is being destroyed and it shows- aside from the stupidity of allowing thugs an opportunity to start their demolition of the city she presides over- just how incompetent she is. It also shows just how stupid the policy of allowing blacks- the only group this low standard applies- to act in such disgraceful ways, just and only because they’re black.

For this reason, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake should be forced to step down. She’s obviously demonstrated a clear lack of leadership and competence. But she won’t be forced to leave, because she’s a woman, black and Democrat. But not just a Democrat, but a member of the Democratic National Committee.

Ah, affirmative action.

And for those who’re complaining that the people demolishing Baltimore aren’t residents- who cares? That’s not the point. What matters is the damn behavior that’s being allowed and which lends itself to scorn and condemnation- the riots, the fires, the looting, the attacking police, regardless of what geographic area these pieces of scum hail.

Unfortunately what we’re seeing is the culmination of what began with the Trayvon Martin circus. This is the environment that Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, the grievance industries, and the mainstream media helped create and nurture. Racial divisiveness, mixed with healthy and consistent doses of ‘blame whitey’ and ‘white privilege’- in addition to too many people excusing bad black behavior and justifying it under the guise of acceptable “anger” has created this environment.

More to the point, this behavior is precisely what happens when people completely embrace the idea that they’re forever victims of social, economic or racial injustice. Blacks are convinced- against any and all evidence to the contrary- that the “system” is “racist” and intentionally set up against them. Forget the idea of personal responsibility for one’s actions. When you’re a victim, you have grievances; when you have grievances, it’s always someone, anyone or everyone else’s fault. People who’re convinced that their identity is that of victim feel justifiably entitled to act in the way we saw in Sanford and Ferguson, that we’re seeing in Baltimore and which I’m sure we’ll see again very soon.

And where does this kind of damaging mindset of victimization and perpetual grievance come from? Leftism. Leftism in all its forms has done a tremendous disservice to blacks, having poisoned their minds and hearts, leaving them perpetually angry and racially paranoid. Though I still lay the blame on Obama, Holder and company- all Leftists, by the way- all of this anti-social behavior is the culmination of what the Left has done to blacks since the 1960’s. White progressives have made perpetual children of blacks, whose temper tantrums- which continues to be the only way blacks are able to articulate their frustrations- must be endured as proof of a still racist county absolving itself of its past racial sins and other injustices.

And the resentment this creates and nourishes among mainstream America might be too large to overcome.

That black people continue to humiliate themselves like this is disgusting and I’m sick of it. White people are too frightened to tell the truth about bad black behavior for fear of verbal and physical reprisals. Blacks are too afraid to speak out against criminal behavior that lends itself to black stereotypes because of racial empathy and racial solidarity.

But, those blacks that choose not to condemn these lawless actions- largely a product of the black underclass, but increasingly adopted and justified by blacks in the middle class- that sit silently on the sidelines out of fear and/or racial solidarity and empathy are, in my opinion, traitors to their race and their country. Their silence condones this behavior. Their lack of justifiable outrage for unjustifiable black lawlessness in cities across America sends a clear message that the jungle behavior that destroys our nation’s cities is an appropriate way to air one’s grievances, real or imagined. Black silence in the face of vandalism and continuing anarchic riots betrays everything their cultural ancestors achieved. Silent blacks are guilty of undermining the achievements of abolitionists and freed slaves, of undermining blacks who fought against insurmountable odds to prove to former slave owners and other whites who were suspect of black humanity that blacks were every bit as dignified as they were; of damaging the legacy of blacks who successfully fought their way into the American mainstream though legalized discrimination fought back. America isn’t perfect, but black silence is complicit in unnecessarily betraying a country that has given blacks every material benefit and social opportunity their forebears could only dream of.

Blacks will never- never– get ahead, or be taken seriously, as long as we endorse this kind of behavior- our silent complicity telling beleaguered onlookers that this kind of conduct is acceptable and must be endured.

This behavior shouldn’t be endured. The behavior we saw in Sanford, Florida was inexcusable.

The behavior we saw in Ferguson, Missouri was inexcusable.

The behavior we saw in New York City, where marchers chanted anti-police slogans including “What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now,” was inexcusable.

The behavior of the so-called ‘black lives matter campaign’ characterized by stopping traffic on city streets and freeways, screaming at restaurant patrons or taking over department stores in multiple cities while annoying and inconveniencing people… this kind of petulance aside from not endearing people to their message, was and is, inexcusable.

And of course, the behavior in Baltimore is inexcusable.

Rev. King once said that, “non-violence is the most potent weapon available to the Negro in his struggle for freedom and justice. I think for the Negro to turn to violence would be both impractical and immoral.” King also added, “I would hope that we can avoid riots because riots are self-defeating and socially destructive.”

Having forgotten King’s message of civility and non-violence, the nation is once again witness to the reasons why more and more people increasingly have such a low opinion of blacks in general, and why moral expectations of blacks are so low. With behavior like this, we’ve earned every bit of the condemnation and ridicule we get. Racist, out-of-control cops, emblematic of a racist country aren‘t to blame.

We are.

To say black priorities are out of order is a tremendous understatement. The overwhelming majority of these black suspects killed by police were attacking the cops or resisting arrest (Freddie Gray ran from police after he made eye contact with them), or had criminal histories. These men aren’t martyrs and black reverence for them reveals our broken moral compass. In addition to making saints of slain black suspects- and completely ignoring any and all facts relevant to every situation in which this occurs- blacks set out to destroy their own neighborhoods while calling for “justice.” No wonder the ghetto is the ghetto- an economic and social wasteland. This is why property values, which are already low, continue to decrease in value. It’s why people with any sense, don’t invest in black neighborhoods- too much risk, too little reward. It’s why those who can, leave the ghetto the moment the opportunity arises.

More so, our skewed moral compass is even more recognizable for this very reason. Regardless of how many black suspects who’re killed by police, it still pales in comparison to the numbers of blacks killed by other blacks through abortion and black-on-black criminality every year. Shockingly, blacks can’t find the time to riot over that. Blacks aren’t burning businesses over it either. Blacks aren’t holding vigils and demonstrations over the injustice of black genocide. This reality goes completely ignored when compared to what happens when a black suspect with a rap sheet is shot and killed by police. Like I said before, when you’re a victim, it’s always someone else’s fault. When you’re a victim- or in the case of blacks, the victim- the notion of personal responsibility doesn’t exist. And as long as blacks embrace this destructive identity, black chaos will continue.

People, regardless of color, need to stop making excuses for black violence, criminality and chaos. Blacks need to take responsibility for themselves- and this starts by blacks publicly and consistently denouncing such poor, socially destructive and irresponsible behavior. The shame and embarrassment that accompanies victimization, which has permeated and debilitated black culture, must come to an end. It’s time for blacks to consistently demonstrate that we’re not second-class citizens who’re incapable of living up to the standards we expect of everyone else.

The only things at stake are black self-respect, dignity and our reputations. I mean, black lives matter, right?

“Missing” Black Men Aren’t Lost- We Know Where They Are


A recent article in the New York Times attempted to bring attention to- and speculate as to why- the so-called disappearance of young black men.  Here are a few excerpts from the piece-

“[Black men] are missing, largely because of early deaths or because they are behind bars. Remarkably, black women who are 25 to 54 and not in jail outnumber black men in that category by 1.5 million, according to an Upshot analysis. For every 100 black women in this age group living outside of jail, there are only 83 black men. Among whites, the equivalent number is 99, nearly parity.

African-American men have long been more likely to be locked up and more likely to die young, but the scale of the combined toll is nonetheless jarring. It is a measure of the deep disparities that continue to afflict black men — disparities being debated after a recent spate of killings by the police — and the gender gap is itself a further cause of social ills, leaving many communities without enough men to be fathers and husbands.

Perhaps the starkest description of the situation is this: More than one out of every six black men who today should be between 25 and 54 years old have disappeared from daily life.

…Incarceration and early deaths are the overwhelming drivers of the gap. Of the 1.5 million missing black men from 25 to 54 — which demographers call the prime-age years — higher imprisonment rates account for almost 600,000. Almost 1 in 12 black men in this age group are behind bars, compared with 1 in 60 nonblack men in the age group, 1 in 200 black women and 1 in 500 nonblack women.

Higher mortality is the other main cause. About 900,000 fewer prime-age black men than women live in the United States, according to the census. It’s impossible to know precisely how much of the difference is the result of mortality, but it appears to account for a big part. Homicide, the leading cause of death for young African-American men, plays a large role, and they also die from heart disease, respiratory disease and accidents more often than other demographic groups, including black women.

…The disappearance of these men has far-reaching implications. Their absence disrupts family formation, leading both to lower marriage rates and higher rates of childbirth outside marriage, as research by Kerwin Charles, an economist at the University of Chicago, with Ming-Ching Luoh, has shown.

The black women left behind find that potential partners of the same race are scarce, while men, who face an abundant supply of potential mates, don’t need to compete as hard to find one. As a result, Mr. Charles said, “men seem less likely to commit to romantic relationships, or to work hard to maintain them.”


Black men aren’t “missing” nor is it a “phenomenon.” Forget- actually, ignore- what the authors said about police shootings- police aren’t shooting enough black criminals to statistically contribute to the disparities between black men and women, or the numbers of ‘missing’ black men. What is ‘jarring’ is the fact that the self-destructive and destabilizing behaviors- which have been destigmatized due to low expectations and the stupidity that saturates bad ideas like racial and social “justice”- directly contribute to the criminality that leads to imprisonment and early death- particularly as it relates to black-on-black homicide. PERIOD.

And because of that- aided and abetted by the lack of moral self-policing of blacks by other blacks, everything else is destroyed in the process. Family formation and maintenance that provides the proper environment to raise and teach children- an environment where young black men are taught not to be the stereotypes (drugs, crime, hyper-sexuality and their glorification) that continue to undermine black credibility; where young black women are taught to regain and or retain the respectability of not having scores of illegitimi and how to choose a proper husband. It also leads to an expanded welfare state and intergenerational poverty that socially and economically reinforces these problems.

If we- and by we, I principally mean blacks as regardless what is thought and our actions sometimes reinforce, we’re autonomous beings with free will- want to normalize these numbers and “find” black men- we have to stop glorifying the values of death and destruction and embrace values that prioritize and glorify life and prosperity. Again, if black lives don’t matter to blacks, they sure as hell aren’t going to matter to non-blacks.

Lastly- black women who limit their options to just black men as boyfriends, spouses and eventual fathers are instrumental in their ongoing loneliness and have no one to blame but themselves. There’s an abundant pool of available men to choose as a spouse and a father when the racial limitations are lifted. I say this with all sincerity- black women, love isn’t confined to color, even if you are…

Sorry- You Can’t Demand A Wage You’re Not Worth


I’m sure you’ve seen fast food workers and their sympathizers “demonstrating” as they demand to be paid a wage higher than their skill set currently allows. Rather than be content with their current wage earnings, protestors are attempting to force their employers to pay them $15 per hour, based on nothing else than that’s the wage they want. These people need to be reminded that a minimum wage is for minimum skills. There’s no such thing as a “living wage,” as if people should get paid simply because they’re alive and kicking.

But why let the facts of life ruin a good, social-justice narrative that goes against the grain of sound economics?

From The Daily Mail

“A Chicago single mother has revealed what it’s really like to live on McDonald’s wages, where she makes only $10.50 an hour and can only afford to sleep in a moldy basement.

Adriana Alvarez, 22, says that even with assistance from food stamps, Medicaid, and a child care subsidy, she is barely getting by, despite having worked for McDonald’s for five years.

Alvarez is a leader with Fight For $15, an international movement to raise minimum wage laws and acquire the right to unionize.

…The mother revealed in a column for Refinery29 that the first thing she would do with an increased wage would be to find a ‘decent place to live’ with good schools for her three-year-old son Manny.

‘When it rains, water steeps into the apartment,’ Alvarez writes of her basement home, the only place she said she can afford.

…Alvarez said that, after paying for ‘child care, transportation to work, food, rent, and our other basic expenses,’ she can never afford to give anything else to her son.

According to the New York Times, Adriana Alvarez is also on food stamps, receives Medicaid, and a day care subsidy for her son.”

This is a sad story- and it’s supposed to be. If an economic argument can’t be made to increase the minimum wage for the minimally skilled, the next step is to make an emotional argument. After all, any employer who says ‘no’ to raising the wages of a needy employee like Adriana is cold-hearted and cruel-and that’s the message many of these “protestors” and members of ‘Fight for 15′ they’re trying to send.

But it still doesn’t jive.

First, Adriana is a single mother. Being so, why should her employer be guilted into increasing her hourly pay, simply to subsidize her bad decision making of having a child when she couldn’t afford to be a mother? It should be clear to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that the minimum wage isn’t supposed to be enough to support a family. A minimum wage job is supposed to be temporary until the worker earns enough on-the-job training to get a promotion or a raise, which then leads to other promotions and raises which then allows for a person to start and support a family.

Further still- where is her extended family? Are they not helping her? Why not?

Second, even if Adriana got her wage increase, chances are she’d still receive government benefits because she and others will eventually claim that “$15 an hour is still not enough,” which then presents the question- why’re these “protestors” stopping their demands at $15 an hour? Why not demand $20? Why not $25?

Third, if we increase the wages of the minimally skilled apart from actually being worth the increase, employers will then have to increase the pay of other positions as well.  When the minimum wage goes up, those employees who have more responsibilities and more job skills such as shift managers, weekend managers and store managers will also need an increase in pay to maintain the justification for employing them too.

Fourth, forget Adriana and others like her. Is it okay to pay a comfortable middle class, suburban teenager who lives with his parents $15 an hour as well? Or is it just for the noble and downtrodden people like Adriana?

The obvious problem in demanding a wage that’s not commensurate with one’s job skills or work history is that in many cases, if these folks were worth $15 an hour, they’d be making $15 per hour. But they’re not, so they shouldn’t.

People Mock Blacks In Response to DoJ’s Decision in Martin Case

Attorney Gen. Eric Holder Delivers Statement On Supreme Court Voting Rights Act

The U.S. Dept. of Justice announced today that there would be no civil rights charges filed against George Zimmerman who was acquitted of criminal charges for shooting and killing Trayvon Martin- or as blacks have treated him, St. Trayvon of The Blessed Hoodie.

It took three years to come to this decision and close this case. The fact that no charges will be filed is of no surprise to anyone who dispassionately read and engaged the evidence presented at trial.

A statement released by Eric Holder said, “Though a comprehensive investigation found that the high standard for a federal hate crime prosecution cannot be met under the circumstances here, this young man’s premature death necessitates that we continue the dialogue and be unafraid of confronting the issues and tensions his passing brought to the surface. We, as a nation, must take concrete steps to ensure that such incidents do not occur in the future.”

“Continue the dialogue.”

I’ve said this before but it bears repeating. Eric Holder, Barack Obama and every proud member of the black and racial grievance industries want nothing to do with a serious dialogue regarding race or black criminality and the criminal justice system. There are some very uncomfortable truths regarding the abdication of black responsibility in regards to black conduct that most blacks consciously would rather not to hear. What Eric Holder- and by extension, the grievance industries- means by “dialogue” is the one-sided, unproductive, resentment creating and nurturing lectures that disproportionately blame whites for racism while manipulating white guilt to obtain socio-economic concessions under the guise of social and economic justice. There’s much more political capital and it’s much easier to continually cry racism than doing the hard work of rehabilitating and redeeming black lives.

The reactions to the Dept. of Justice’s decision highlights the low opinion people have of black people, brought on by the disruptive and disreputable behavior of black people which is too often justified and excused by black people. Everywhere the story is posted, regardless of political affiliations and biases, people are asking when the looting, riots, “protests” and “demonstrations” will commence. Whether these questions are sarcastically rhetorical or (partially) serious in nature, however few- it all points to the same reality. Blacks have conditioned themselves that a proper and acceptable response to not getting their way is to throw public, destructive tempter tantrums, which at the same time has conditioned the public to expect such lowbrow, vulgar behavior.

It’s extremely disheartening and demoralizing to those of us who know blacks can do and be better.

Ehh, why bother. The more time goes on the more I realize that fewer and fewer blacks care, regardless of how childish and self-destructive they appear to the wider world. Most blacks appear to be very content with taking for granted and forfeiting numerous opportunities to prove their moral and cultural legitimacy. Worse still are those blacks that recognize the repugnant, stigma-laden attitudes and behaviors but choose to remain silent out of some misguided and embarrassingly naïve sense of racial solidarity because of the consequences of being labeled or associated with a so-called sell-out.

The irony is that those who engage in disgraceful and unsympathetic behaviors and those who passively excuse them by not vociferously speaking out to condemn and reject them are the real sellouts. They’re selling out members of their race in the course of racial solidarity.

Isn’t that something? Doggone shame.

John Legend’s Statistically-Misleading Oscar Speech

87th Annual Academy Awards - Show

Last night during fairly boring Academy Awards ceremony, singer John Legend and hip-hop rapper Common performed their Oscar-nominated and Oscar-winning song “Glory,” from the movie “Selma.” Aside from a few lyrical references, the song is pretty good.  The performance itself was stirring, resulting in a standing ovation the performance received, accompanied with several people- Oprah, Chris Pine, Jessica Chastain, among others- visibly moved to tears.

But, the performance was overshadowed by the politically incoherent acceptance speech John Legend and Common gave- more so, John Legend- after winning their Oscar.

Legend started his politically-charged acceptance speech by saying, “We wrote this song for a film that was based on events 50 years ago. But we say that Selma is now, because the struggle for justice is right now.”

What ‘struggle’? ‘Justice’ meaning, what specifically?

From Politico-

“We know that the Voting Rights Act that they fought for 50 years ago is being compromised right now in this country,” Legend said, referencing the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision that essentially invalidated the centerpiece of the 1965 civil rights legislation.

Legend referenced the significant increase in black incarceration in recent decades, as well. According to a study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black men were six times as likely to be in prison than white men in 2010.

“We know that right now the struggle for freedom and justice is real,” he said. “We live in the most incarcerated country in the world. There are more black men under correctional control today than were under slavery in 1850.”

Wait, what?

‘Selma is now?’ Where, exactly? And, what does that even mean? Where or what is the equivalent to “Bloody Sunday?” That venerated march was to bring national attention to the lack of voting rights for black citizens. There is absolutely no equivalent to that today. Aside from  having a twice-elected black man as president- according to the U.S. Census, in the 2012 presidential election, the black voting rate exceeded that of the white voting rate. Regardless of what Leftists say and would have you believe, no one is preventing blacks from going to the polls.

There’s no equivalence to Selma. None. To say so trivializes what the emotional and physical trauma blacks experienced in Selma.

Legend’s reference to the black incarceration rate- a favorite reference for Leftists- also lacks context and clarity. It’s a tremendously unfortunate reality that so many black men are locked away in prisons. It’s a stain on the black community and on the country at large. But we have to be honest about the problem, something Legend had no intention of doing.

According to the same statistics Legend cities, blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, which results in the inflated number of blacks in the penitentiary system. Blacks are seven times more likely than whites to be homicide offenders. Blacks are also responsible for 62 percent of all drug-related homicides compared to 37 percent committed by whites. Over 65 percent of all drug-related homicide offenders were black; whites comprised 33 percent.

Furthermore, blacks were enslaved (and segregated) through no fault of their own, which is why we consider slavery such a moral evil. Black incarceration on the other hand, is the consequence of law-breaking and criminality. The two are morally incomparable.

John Legend- and many on the Left who appeal to the problem of black incarceration- do so in a way that completely divorces black criminality from black incarceration, as if blacks were- and are- simply arrested, convicted and imprisoned for no other reason than the complexion of their skin.  It’s absurd- and again, it’s one of the reasons why the country increasingly takes blacks less and less seriously, to the detriment of… blacks. If people want to reduce black incarceration, let’s proactively reduce black criminality and recidivism.  

The idea of two black multi-millionaires misleading the country about racism while lecturing and guilting Hollywood liberals about the reality of black pathology was stupid and pointless. It would’ve been much more preferable and desirable- since Legend and Common felt compelled to lecture- to acknowledge how far blacks have come in such a short period of time. They could’ve used themselves as examples and highlighted what’s possible in our country when you try hard, make the right choices and take advantage of the opportunities given. The point- it’s good to thank previous generations for their sacrifices, but blacks should look to the future rather than dwelling on the sins of the past.

And by the way, I thought Jennifer Hudson’s Oscar performance was better- even though she didn’t get the applause or ovation her performance deserved

Eric Holder, Fox News, And Islamic Terror


Eric Holder is emblematic of the problem we have in not being able to effectively address- much less, confront- the increasing barbarity of ISIS. Holder has more scorn and condemnation for those he considers to be the political enemies of the Obama administration than he does for the evil personified by ISIS.

At the National Press Club, Holder said this-

“We spend more time, more time, talking about what do you call it, as opposed to what are you going to do about it. I mean really, if Fox News didn’t talk about this, they would have nothing else to talk about, it seems to me. Radical Islam, Islamic extremism, I’m not sure an awful lot is gained by saying it. It doesn’t have any impact on our military posture. What we call it doesn’t have any impact on the polices we put in place. The terminology, it seems to me, has little to no impact on what ultimately we have to do.”

Imagine that- a news organization that actually acknowledges its journalistic responsibility not only in telling the truth, but holding a presidential administration accountable.  Eric Holder- and Barack Obama- would have a much easier time implementing their agenda and fleecing the country if they only had to answer questions from a media that share their ideological world view and refused to challenge them.

That said, Holder had the temerity to blame FOX News for this problem? Really?  What an embarrassment he- and the Obama administration- continues to be.

Time and again, Eric Holder displays the kind of abject stupidity and arrogance that has come to characterize the Obama administration in general, but particularly the unserious, haphazard response or strategy- if one can call it that- in dealing with the threat of ISIS.

Mr. Holder, the reason so much breath is given to discussing the proper labeling of ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban is precisely because you- and the rest of the Obama administration- continue to petulantly twist yourselves into moral and intellectual puzzles trying to disassociate Islam from terror. In other words, you don’t spend enough time talking about ‘what you call it.’ That’s the point. Your boss has pathetically referred to them “vicious zealots” and their acts as “violent extremism,” among other semi-ambiguities, completely and intentionally unattached to the theological and religious impetus for their evil savagery.

Further, aside from refusing to refer to these aforementioned groups as Islamic terrorists, you refuse to label their acts specifically as Islamic terror. For the love of God- the so-called conference currently convened is a summit on how to “counter violent extremism,” without regard to the obvious focal points of that violence and extremism- specifically, Islam and terrorists.

This is not only naive and irresponsible, but it’s also extremely dangerous as a must-read Atlantic article pointed out. How can the kind of evil that Islamic terrorists represent be actively and effectively fought if it’s not accurately acknowledged and identified? Mr. Holder, what you ‘call it’ has a tremendous impact on, and has everything to do with what you ‘ultimately’ do to fight it. But more to the point, if terminology truly doesn’t matter, then why the extreme disinclination by you and members of the Obama administration to call it exactly what it is? Prove your own point.

That Holder and by extension, Barack Obama- part of the self-anointed, political intelligentsia of the Left- would rather put more energy into bashing and blaming FOX News(emblematic of their political adversaries) for their ever-increasing inadequacies and failures, rather than putting energy into confronting the existential threats facing our country, decreases our safety and should be a concern for everyone.

Ash Wednesday


kid, ashes

I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.  Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.  Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.  I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.  Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

Job 42: 2-6


January’s Jobs Numbers

When it comes to the economy there continues to be very little success to celebrate, unless the understanding of success is defined downward. And under President Obama, economic success has indeed been defined downward, at the expense of millions of struggling Americans.

The president, possibly realizing this fact- a mere six years too late, made a significant portion of his uninspiring SOTU address about reviving “middle class economics.” This was nothing more than a continuation of his predictable pattern of recycling campaign rhetoric of wealth redistribution in lieu of actual economic policies that facilitates more job creation and more employed Americans.

The proof Obama’s unserious plan for the economy was his $4 trillion dollar budget that most everyone panned. The President’s budget contained $2 trillion dollars in tax increases with the intention of redistributing some of the revenue to the middle class. It bears repeating- redistribution of wealth isn’t economic growth. Reduced regulation, incentivizing the market that leads to substantial job creation combined with wage increases is what stimulates economic growth.

And of course, job creation still isn’t where it should be. Private payroll firm ADP claims that the private sector created 213,000 jobs last month- far below expectations (shocker), and down from the 252,000 jobs created in December. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that 257,000 jobs were created, slightly better than the number of jobs created in December. The unemployment rate ticked up slightly 5.7%, while the unemployment rates for blacks fell slightly to 10.3% while and Latinos increased to 6.7%. The U-6 measure shows that the unemployment rate is 11.3%- nearly twice the official rate, which bounced the labor force participation rate back up to 62.9%, which remained in the same two-tenths of a point limbo it’s been since April.  Still, 9 million people remain unemployed, 6.8 million underemployed, and 92+million remain out of the workforce.

For many months, I’ve researched an written about the actual economic conditions that characterize this so-called recovery, which is a contrast to what the Obama administration reports and celebrates. During this time, I’ve noted that that the numbers coming out of the Dept. of Labor, at best, have been “allegedly” falsified in an effort to absolve Obama from his responsibility for- and contribution- to the perpetually weak economy. At worst, the true nature of the economy has been intentionally underreported for ideological and deceptive reasons related to Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.

The true nature of the economy is the number of people who remain unemployed, the underemployed, the number of Americans who are not in the workforce; the numbers of monthly job creation that’s well below monthly population growth; the number of jobs created during the past several years and how they’ve gone to immigrants both legal and illegal as opposed to native-born Americans. All of these specific economic indicators are what the Obama administration neglects to mention and what his press secretaries in the media actively decide to keep from the country.

This past week, the Chairman and CEO of Gallup, Jim Clifton, penned a commentary that has confirmed common sense and what we’ve been relaying for months. The actual unemployment rate of 5.6% (for December) is baloney as a result of the method in which the government counts those who’re employed and unemployed. For example if one gives up looking for work for four weeks in a row, s/he isn’t counted as unemployed; they’re simply ignored. At the same time, if one works a single hour a week and earns more than $20, s/he isn’t counted as unemployed, but as employed. Those working part time and want or need full time work, they’re counted as “employed”, not unemployed. This is one reason why people refer to the alternative measure that counts unemployment, the U-6 rate, as closer to the actual unemployment rate. As Clifton says himself, “The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.” A lie that benefits Obama and continues to stifle this “recovery.”

In a separate commentary, Clifton also reports that, for the first time in 35 years, more businesses are dying than are created. Since 2008, business creation has fallen below the business failure rate.[5] According to Breitbart, “America has just 6 million businesses with one or more employers– 3.8 million of which have four or fewer employees. In total, these 6 million U.S. companies provide jobs for more than 100 million people in America.” From the report itself, “There are about a million companies with five to nine employees, 600,000 businesses with 10 to 19 employees, and 500,000 companies with 20 to 99 employees. There are 90,000 businesses with 100 to 499 employees. And there are just 18,000 with 500 employees or more, and that figure includes about a thousand companies with 10,000 employees or more. Altogether, that is America, Inc.”
Several other things continue to point to the non-recovery, recovery Obama celebrates:

  • The economy’s growth last quarter was only 2.6 percent, which was well under the 3.2 percent GDP was projected to grow. When the year is averaged out, the economy only grew 2.4%. Many economists are celebrating the best year of economic growth since 2010, which shows how hard they’re trying to find something to celebrate. Again, this is defining success down;
  • The Center for Immigration Studies found that since 2009, the Obama administration has dutifully and quietly gifted over 5 million work permits for “non-immigrant foreigners who arrived as tourists, students, illegal immigrants or other types of migrants…” which according to the Center, is outside the laws and limits set by congressional authority- again, at the expense of American workers. If the number of people already given work permits is added to the number of people included in Obama’s unconstitutional executive action of delayed deportation of illegal immigrants, more than 10 million foreign workers will be added to the economy by the end of this year- further suppressing wages due to the increased pool of labor. When that number is combined with the average yearly flow of immigrants into the country, Obama will have added 18 million non-native Americans to the economy since 2009- which wouldn’t necessarily be an issue if we had a strong economy that wasn’t hamstrung by regulations, poor job creation, and government mandates;
  • Tax revenues hit a record $739,482,000,000 for the first quarter of fiscal year 2015. Yet, the federal government ran a $176,664,000,000 deficit during that time, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement. The White House projects that for the totality of fiscal year 2015, the federal government will take in more than $3.1 trillion in tax revenues, another record. Yet the president is intent on raising taxes;
  • John Deere, and DreamWorks Animation both downsized in the form of layoffs;
  • Homeownership rates are at a 20-year low, according to the Commerce Department, via the Wall Street Journal. According to their estimations, slightly under 64 percent of Americans owned their home at the end of last year. As a result, naturally, prices in the rental market continue to climb;
  • Obamacare continues to do its part to further hamper the economy. A recent Congressional Budget Office report projects the president’s signature legislation will cost the government $1.993 trillion while taking in more than $643 million in new taxes, penalties and fees over the next decade. The net trillion-dollar price tag- which will still leave close to 30 million uninsured (which was one of the reasons Democrats unilaterally passed this)- will average out to a cost of $50,000 per person insured under Obamacare. This in light of Obama’s repeated promise that in passing this impractical bill, he wouldn’t add a dime to our deficits;
  • The Census reports that 20 percent of all children in the country relies on food stamps. Prior to the recession, that number was one in eight.

Obama claimed in his SOTU address that, “the shadow of crisis has passed” and we were going to “turn the page.” It may be a different page but it’s the same tired, old story.

Benjamin Button Haircut For Kids That Misbehave

Kids will misbehave- it’s as sure a thing as death and taxes. And when kids misbehave, they need to immediately and effectively be punished for their behavior. When I grew up, parents spanking- or whooping (or whipping)– their children was as common and American as apple pie. Spare not the rod, right? The majority of people I know who were whooped when they were younger- myself included- developed a healthy sense of right and wrong, and a clear understanding of the proper role and respect for authority.  In other words, we turned out okay.

But that was then.

Now, you can’t spank your child because it’s considered a form of “violence” and “child abuse.” Parents that whip their children today can expect a visit from CPS and the local law enforcement followed by sanctimonious, public condemnation. As a result of our overly-protective, Dr. Ben Spock, therapeutically-saturated culture, parents today are forced to be a bit more creative when disciplining their children.

From the Washington Post

Got a kid who’s raising hell? Afraid the police will be called if you break out the belt? A suburban Atlanta barbershop may have a solution for you.

Three days a week, parents can take their misbehaving kids to A-1 Kutz in Snellville and ask for the “Benjamin Button Special,” which Russell Fredrick and his team of barbers are offering — free of charge — to parents who want to try a novel form of discipline.

 The cut involves shaving hair off the child’s crown until he begins to resemble a balding senior citizen, inviting that unique brand of adolescent humiliation that can only come from teasing classmates and unwanted attention.

Supporters say it’s the perfect punishment for misbehaving kids who want to “act grown.”

Fredrick, the A-1 Kutz co-owner and a 34-year-old father of three, said he decided to advertise the cut after he used the unique disciplinary measure on his 12-year-old son, Rushawn, last fall — and saw immediate results. Rushawn’s grades, which had fallen, “dramatically skyrocketed” after he got his old-man haircut, Frederick said.


[F]redrick said he was surprised by the attention the photo garnered, but he thinks he knows why his alternative disciplinary measure struck a chord: Cases like the one involving Adrian Peterson – the NFL star who was charged with child abuse after spanking his 4-year-old son with a tree branch — have forced many parents to reevaluate they way they bring order to their households, Fredrick said…


“Parents are at a loss,” Fredrick told The Post. “When you go to discipline kids these days, they can’t necessarily use physical punishment they way parents did in the past, but they have to do something. If you don’t, and your kid ends up doing something crazy, everyone is going to say the problems started at home.”

This warms my heart. And makes me laugh. Look at that kids face. Lolol.

Hey- this is what the therapeutic, dandelion-and-daffodil mentality of raising and punishing kids has wrought. Sorry folks- punishment techniques like “time-out,” to “think about what you’ve done” is a joke and doesn’t work. All so-called time out does is allow the child being “punished” to think about how they can get away with whatever they’re being punished for the next time around. Banishing a child to his or her room- “grinding them” where they can watch tv; listen to music play and engage in social media on their iPad/Iphones, and playing video games on their PS4 isn’t punishment. It’s leisure time.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing a return to more direct forms of parental punishment- obviously within reason. But until then, I look forward to seeing more “Benjamin Buttons” and other creative forms of parental punishment and public ridicule for disruptive behavior.

Hollywood Idiots Slander ‘American Sniper’


moore, kyle

Michael Moore is being Michael Moore again.

Moore- the stubbornly sloppy socialist who appropriates a hypocritical, “down-with-the-regular-folk” schtick to mask the fact that his slickly-edited, hit-piece documentaries have made him a one-percenter, sounded off on the Chris Kyle biopic, “American Sniper.”

From the Daily Caller

Kyle, the most lethal sniper in military history, saved countless lives of American soldiers in his 4 tours of duty in Iraq. He was killed in February of 2013 by a fellow soldier he was trying to help who was suffering from severe post-traumatic stress.

But, of course, none of that matters to the chewed-up piece of bubble gum known as Michael Moore. The fact that Kyle was so efficient in his job probably adds to Moore’s snarkiness.

So according to this fat socialist, snipers are “cowards” who “aren’t heroes”.  Amazing

First, of course is Moore’s inability to resist the temptation of moral relativism- all snipers bad. Based on Moore’s twisted moral universe, John Allen Muhammad- the “DC Sniper,” who arbitrarily killed ten people back in 2002, is morally equivalent to Chris Kyle who killed Islamic jihadi terrorists before they could kill members of the US military or innocent Iraqi civilians.

Second, from what I’ve seen and read, snipers will shoot a target anywhere they have a clean shot, moron.

Just to be clear, Moore thinks snipers- and by extension, members of the military in general- are cowards who volunteer themselves to be put in harms way to fight for the very freedoms he takes for granted. See how easy and tasteless it is for Moore to passive-aggressively insult a deceased yet celebrated soldier from the comfort, luxury and security that he has, knowing a) that Kyle can’t defend himself; and b) this sack of bacon fat doesn’t have the testicles to offer his condescending insults directly to the face of any sniper in- or member of- the US military.

But Kyle is the coward. Riiiiiiight. Michael Moore is bad joke.

Moore is a well-known Hollywood progressive who advocates for socialism and “economic justice.” Moore has a history of attacking the military, corporations and the wealthy while embracing totalitarian regimes around the world, including Cuba. While he’s never been in the military, he and his company have made tens of millions of dollars through his films.

His recent divorce exposed his lavish lifestyle, including a huge mansion in Traverse City, Michigan, which exposed him to charges of hypocrisy.

Nope. Chris Kyle isn’t the coward y any stretch; Michael Moore is.

A. Big. Fat. Lying. Pathetic. Hypocritical. Coward.

Moore isn’t alone in his stupidity- he has company. Man-boy Seth Rogan who grabbed attention last month when his horrible movie “The Interview” was canceled by Sony after receiving cyber threats to pull the movie, chimed in to offer his thoughts regarding the hit movie as well.

On Twitter, Seth said-

Ahhh. Ok. The forever juvenile has compared ‘American Sniper’ to Nazi propaganda. According to the Daily Caller

The movie to which Rogen referred is the fake “Nation’s Pride,” the Nazi propaganda movie that draws Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, and other Nazi high command leaders to the theater where they are slaughtered in Quentin Tarantino’s masterpiece.

It’s too bad that Rogen couldn’t have voiced his thoughtless opinion last month prior to millions of people spending good money to support him and his bad film. Both he and Moore are obviously free to say what they want, regardless of how moronic it is. The irony is that they intentionally attack those who volunteer to defend the security and right for them to be as stupid as they want to be.

These two are emblematic of a large portion of Hollywood with their hollow chests, inverted morality and lack of self-awareness.

What Rev. King Might Say If He Were Alive Today

Way too many black folk not taking advantage of the opportunities born from the sacrifices of Rev. King- up to and including his death.

Too many black folk still want to blame whitey for what holds us back rather than realizing the obligation of personal responsibility that comes with freedom.

Too many blacks still think equal access means equal outcomes. They also think that the lack of equal outcomes is proof of that institutional racism still exists.

Too many black folk are still afraid to condemn self-debasing attitudes, ideas and behaviors among their own people.

Too many black folk scared of full integration into mainstream America. They’re scared to take the risks- which include the possibility of failure- and make the sacrifices that comes with full integration into American society.  In their minds, failure reinforces the belief in white minds that blacks are still second-class citizens.

Too many black folk content with being the very stereotypes their cultural antecedents fought to avoid and or overcome.

If Rev. King were alive today- he might say something along these lines. And he wouldn’t be wrong.

No Charges For NYPD-Involved Choking of Eric Garner

eric-garner-police-brutality-ramsey-orta (1)

The NYPD officer who was caught on video applying what many saw as an “illegal” or an “excessive” chokehold that caused the death of Eric Garner, will not be charged with his death.

A Staten Island grand jury dismissed all charges against Officer Daniel Pantaleo, meaning he won’t face indictment for the death of Garner.

From the NY Post

The blockbuster decision capped weeks of investigation by the special grand jury, which was empaneled in September specifically to review evidence in Garner’s racially charged death.

It was unclear exactly what charges prosecutors asked the grand jury to consider filing, or how the vote went.

Under New York law, an indictment must be agreed upon by at least 12 members of a grand jury, which can have up to 23 members.”

Cellphone video captured the officer-involved altercation with Garner which began after he was confronted for illegally selling cigarettes.  In the video, you can see and hear Garner pleading with the officers saying he couldn’t breathe as the officers restrained and cuffed him.

Garner’s death was ruled a homicide by the Medical Examiner’s Office, saying he died from a “compression of neck (chokehold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police.”

Other reports are saying that Garner suffered a heart attack.

Garner’s family has filed a $75 million wrongful death suit against the city of New York, and none other than Al Sharpton is a Garner-family advisor.

This will surely add more ammunition to the demagogued narrative that racist, out-of-control cops are preying on innocent black men, fueling the “black lives matter” mentality.  I will say- this case, rather than the Michael brown case, is much more disturbing and qualifying of restrained outrage regarding how police apprehend and restrain offenders- regardless of their color.

That said, because of the intentionally-inflamed rhetoric that we’ve heard over the past several months where racial agitators and defenders of Michael Brown elevated him to being a martyr and canonized him as a saint, a significant amount of moral authority regarding questionable officer involvement with blacks has been forfeited. Though I still believe that the issue of black criminality- largely at the expense of black victims- is much more of a pressing concern that warrants more focus than confrontations between police officers and (potential) black offenders, this present case is much more favorable to the so-called ‘black lives matter’ social campaign.

Because the grievance industries (aided by media outlets) intentionally inflamed tensions, intentionally ignored and disregarded evidence in the Brown case that clearly demonstrated Brown’s actions contributed to his own death- in addition to repeating and gesturing, the ‘hands up, don’t shoot’ fairy tale, the hearts and minds of many Americans might be closed to the potentially legitimate cries of injustice this time around.

That’s why we’re taught from an early age never to cry wolf.

Though it is sad that Eric Garner lost his life, the reality is had he- and Michael Brown- not resisted arrest (Garner yelled ‘this stops today’ when officers approached), both men would be alive today. That’s the narrative that needs more attention: don’t resist arrest; live to talk about it.

#Blacklivesmatter- but not to black people

black lives

#Blacklivesmatter is a new hashtag activism campaign that claims to be “a response to the ways in which [black] lives have been devalued.” This socially virtuous campaign has gained considerable momentum recently as the country awaited the results of the grand jury investigation into whether enough evidence existed to indict officer Darren Wilson for committing a crime- the murder of Michael Brown.

The objective of #Blacklivesmatter- as stated on at least one website associated with the campaign- “is a call to action…which Black people can unite to end state sanctioned violence both in Ferguson, but also across the United States of America.” It also “aims to end the insidious and widespread assault on Black life that pervades every stage of law enforcement interactions; be it in custody or in our communities.”

The campaign seeks to bring attention to the fact that black lives are every bit as important and worthy of respect as everyone else.

It’s a worthy goal but tragically misguided. The focus of the campaign would have much more moral authority and would be taken much more seriously if it focused on those actions that do devalue black lives- which have very little to do with white cops and everything to do with blacks themselves.

According to data collected from 1980-2008, in 2008, the homicide offender rate for blacks was almost 25 percent, seven times higher than the offending rate of whites (3.4%).   The homicide victimization rate for blacks was about six times higher than the victimization rates for whites. Blacks were also 47.4% of all homicide victims and 52.5% of all homicide offenders. During the same period, blacks accounted for 62% of all drug-related homicides compared to 37% committed by whites. Over 65% of all drug-related homicide offenders were black; whites comprised 33 percent.

Blacks were 44.1% of felony murder victims and almost 60% of felony murder offenders. For gun homicide rates, blacks were 51.4% of all victims but 56.9% of offenders. Black offenders committed 93% of all black homicides.

The FBI statistics aren’t any better. In 2012, of the 2,648 black victims of homicide, blacks were responsible for 2,412. Of the 14,581 total murder offenders that year, 5531 (38%) were black.

This qualifies as an ‘insidious and widespread assault on black life.’

The internecine war doesn’t begin here; it actually begins in the womb. As bad as black criminality is- and it’s bad- the most dangerous place for a black child isn’t the inner city or cities disproportionately populated by blacks. It’s in its mother’s womb.

According to one report, black abortions accounted for nearly 36% of all abortions performed between 2007 and 2010. The same report said blacks accounted for almost 54% (16,738) of all abortions performed in Georgia (31,244 total), even though blacks are less than a third of the population. In Mississippi, between 1995 and 2010, blacks accounted for almost 72% (39,052) of all abortions while comprising 37.4% of the population.

In a 2012, report from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, more black babies were killed by abortion (31,328) than were born (24,758) in New York City, totaling 42.4% of all abortions performed. In 2010, 60% of all viable, black pregnancies in New York City ended in abortion.

The babies fortunate enough to make it out the likely unmarried mother’s womb (black illegitimacy rate is 73%) appear resolute in their intent to finish the work of killing that many black mothers began.

Furthermore, the numbers of black abortions and the numbers of black murders at the hands of other blacks, respectively, both exceed- by far- the total number of blacks killed by lynching (3446) between 1882-1968.

Black lives matter? Not only is it questionable if black lives matter to blacks themselves, one wouldn’t be wrong if one sincerely questioned the depth of self-hate responsible for motivating blacks to kill themselves off with the type of reckless determination that pervades their actions.

When you combine the numbers of black babies aborted with the numbers of black victims who die by the hands of other blacks, you see that the attack on black lives has nothing to do with racist, white cops. If we blacks don’t take our lives seriously, why should we expect- or demand- anyone else to?

Again if #blacklivesmatter- and I believe they do- then black lives have to matter to black folk first, before they matter to others. And black lives have to matter just as much when they’re taken by blacks as they seem to matter when taken by others. 

Obama Scripture Reference Undermines De Facto Amnesty Plan


Last night, President Obama addressed the nation in an attempt to justify his decision to act unilaterally in deferring deportation for up to five million illegal immigrants.

Obama’s de facto amnesty speech omitted a number of things- such as how he “evolved” and can now act through executive order when he previously, several times over, argued that he couldn’t; why he refused to wait until the new Congress was sworn in so they could pass an immigration-reform bill; and how his imminent action of undermining current immigration laws were constitutional.

But Obama did find the opportunity to cite the Bible to religiously defend his imperial activity. The intention of the biblical reference was to persuade (deceive) the country into believing that he has the moral authority to act alone in this particular capacity toward illegal immigrants. What sanctimony.

Toward the end of his speech, Obama said,

Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger — we were strangers once, too. My fellow Americans, we are and always will be a nation of immigrants. We were strangers once, too.”

Of course Obama neutralizes the reference by saying ‘scripture’ rather than the ‘Bible’. I’m picky, but still. He also doesn’t give the ‘scripture’s’ exact reference, which is curious.

The reference could be Exodus 22:21 (New American Standard Bible) which reads,

You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Or it could be Exodus 23:9 (again, NASB) which reads,

You shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt.

There are many other verses in the Bible that say similar things- among them Leviticus 19:34 (English Standard Version), “You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” and Deuteronomy 10:19 (English Standard Version), which reads, “Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”

Sounds moral and decent, right?  Sure does.

The problem is the verse that Obama appeals to religiously defend himself actually undermines his reason executive order and his open-border stance.

The Hebrew word (ger, gwr) translated “stranger” or “sojourner,” in Exodus 22:21- along with Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19- denotes an immigrant who entered Israel, followed the process of law, had legal sponsorship of the government (or a family), and upon recognition of citizenship status (legal, resident immigrant), fully embraced– and was subjected to– the laws of those among whom they dwelled.


In other words, during the process of- and in gaining legal status, these ‘strangers’ assimilated and followed the laws of those whom they sought cultural and material benefit. They also received the same legal protections as the native born and were considered permanent residents. These ‘strangers’ didn’t game the system or take advantage of those whom they requested refuge. Their new leader (or government) wasn’t a proud and arrogant conduit of further law breaking.

It’s painfully obvious that Obama doesn’t read the Bible that often, but the very least he could do with accessibility of his so-called spiritual advisors is to find a verse that doesn’t directly undermine the point(s) he’s trying to make or the unlawful action(s) he’s trying to defend.

Al Sharpton profit$ from racial division, dodges taxe$

obama, sharpton

It’s no secret that race hustler Al Sharpton’s visibility has increased during the Obama administration. Thanks to being in close proximity to the president, Sharpton’s visibility- and his transition from a notorious New York City rabble rouser to mainstream political prominence- has been extremely lucrative for him and his not-for-profit organization, the National Action Network.

But according to the New York Times, Al Sharpton’s influence and his tax debt continue to soar.

From the Times-

““I’ve been able to reach from the streets to the suites,” [Sharpton] said that night.

Indeed, Mr. Sharpton’s influence and visibility have reached new heights this year, fueled by his close relationships with the mayor and the president. 

Obscured in his ascent, however, has been his troubling financial past, which continues to shadow his present. 

Mr. Sharpton has regularly sidestepped the sorts of obligations most people see as inevitable, like taxes, rent and other bills. Records reviewed by The New York Times show more than $4.5 million in current state and federal tax liens against him and his for-profit businesses.

And though he said in recent interviews that he was paying both down, his balance with the state, at least, has actually grown in recent years. His National Action Network appears to have been sustained for years by not paying federal payroll taxes on its employees.

With the tax liability outstanding, Mr. Sharpton traveled first class and collected a sizable salary, the kind of practice by nonprofit groups that the United States Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration recently characterized as “abusive,” or “potentially criminal” if the failure to turn over or collect taxes is willful.

Mr. Sharpton and the National Action Network have repeatedly failed to pay travel agencies, hotels and landlords. He has leaned on the generosity of friends and sometimes even the organization, intermingling its finances with his own to cover his daughters’ private school tuition.”

Over four million in back taxes?

Also from the Times-

“Mr. Sharpton’s newly found insider status represents a potential financial boon for him, furnishing him with new credibility and a surge in donations. His politician-heavy birthday party, at one of New York City’s most expensive restaurants, was billed as a fund-raiser to help his organization. Mr. Obama also spoke at the organization’s convention in April, its primary fund-raising event.”

Read the full Times article, here.

That Al Sharpton has been able to make the kind of money to owe more than $4.5 million in taxes shows exactly how profitable racial division and manipulation has been to one of the most visible members of the Racial and Black Grievance industries. That President Obama and Eric Holder have both supported Sharpton- giving his racially inflammatory tactics credibility indicts their characters and seemingly identifies both as members of the grievance industries as well.

It’s really no surprise that scam artists like Al Sharpton and his ilk continually find racism where it doesn’t exist. Racism- or more specifically, charges of racism- pays well.

Very well.

DePauw Professor Apologizes for being White, Straight & Middle Class


One of the most unserious places in the country is a college campus. For reasons that should be obvious to many, the college campus has become an outright incubator for liberal ideas- which means campuses are full of people whose emotions have been unchecked by the slightest hint of reason.

Case in point- at a multicultural campus gathering focusing on “diversity” and “microagressions” at DePauw University in Greencastle, Indiana, a sociology professor (of course) apologized to students for being white, straight and middle class.

According to Campus Reform, Professor David Newman said,

I’m a white man. I’m a white middle-class man. I’m a white middle-class heterosexual man. I’m on the right side of the equation,” said Newman, a professor of Sociology, in a story first noticed by The Pundit Press. “This is my fault. I didn’t do anything directly, but this is my fault. My silence makes this my fault.”


If Newman didn’t do anything directly, what the hell is he apologizing for? His silence puts him at fault- for what, exactly? That blacks aren’t white? That gays aren’t straight? That the poor aren’t middle class? It’s his fault- indirectly?

To prove that DePauw is sensitive to the needs of its emotionally underdeveloped students, school administrators are now considering canceling classes- devoting the day to conversations about “inclusiveness.”

This. Is. Pathetic.

This particular display of (liberal) white guilt is humiliating and should embarrass all clear-thinking white people.

And this embarrassment is even before one discusses the insanity of ‘diversity’- which on a college campus means conformity, the exact opposite of ‘diversity,’ and microaggressions- the intentional searching out of conscious or subconscious behaviors- slights, really- that are assumed and taught to be subversive forms of racial discrimination.

White people- for the sake of your dignity, please don’t follow this stupid example of false humility and apologize for who you are (being white), for something you took no part in, or your silence when not taking part in what you weren’t taking part in. This is one of the DUMBEST examples of (faux) white guilt I’ve seen in a while.

Strengthen and stiffen your backs, white people!


no white guilt


John Lewis Likens Ferguson to Selma

john lewis

On a recent episode of the Roland Martin radio show, Representative John Lewis (D-GA) took Martin’s bait and irresponsibly compared the shooting of blacks by police officers- including Michael Brown- a “modern-day Selma.”

Think about that. Blacks being shot by police officers are equated with the March to Selma, Alabama in 1963.

For far too many blacks, it will always be the 1960’s. No matter how much visible and overtly obvious progress the country has made in overcoming racial discrimination, in the minds of still too many blacks, we still haven’t “overcome.”

And in reality, the fact that every incident involving race- no matter how peripherally- is intentionally and desperately compared with past incidents like Selma, actually proves how much of a non-factor systematic racism is in today’s America.

Back to the racial instigator- the ‘civil rights icon’, John Lewis.

Lewis told Martin-

Selma was the turning point. And I think what happened in Ferguson will be the turning point. I think people are waiting, they’re watching, and we’re gonna see within the next few days what’s going to happen — and that would be massive, nonviolent protests all over America. When we were beaten on that bridge in Selma, people couldn’t take it, for they saw it, they heard about it, they read about it, and it lit a sense of righteous indignation. When we see a miscarriage of justice in Ferguson, they’re going to have the same reaction they had towards Selma.”

“Miscarriage of justice?”

First- to say this is to suggest that Michael Brown was innocent. The information released and leaked so far indicates that Brown wasn’t the gentle giant his family and the media claimed he was, nor was Brown out “spreading the word of Jesus Christ”- a lie his cousin offered up at Brown’s funeral.

Based on the same leaked information, Michael Brown was culpable in his own death. Further- is Lewis calling for officer Darren Wilson’s indictment even if the evidence demonstrates Wilson’s innocence? Where’s the justice in that?

Were the protestors who marched in Selma, Alabama for voting rights the moral equivalent of Brown stealing a box of cigarillos and attacking a police officer?

Were those who peacefully marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge the moral equivalent to the “peaceful demonstrators” who’ve looted, damaged businesses and organized chaos in Ferguson Missouri?

Is Bloody Sunday the moral equivalent to the criminal disobedience the country has witnessed in Ferguson since August?

It’s clear that the statements of John Lewis- emblematic of the average ‘hands up don’t shoot,’ Michael Brown supporter- isn’t concerned about justice. He- along with every other person who’s emotionally involved in this case already has his or her minds made up. The narrative of ‘racist cop shoots innocent, unarmed back teen’ as proof of unending white racism can’t- and won’t- be pierced, regardless of what evidence to the contrary the grand jury reveals.

With all due respect to John Lewis and what he experienced during the actual march to Selma-including a severe head wound, engaging in emotional manipulation by racially inciting the black residents of Ferguson discredits what he and many others personally witnessed in Selma. With statements as reprehensible as these, he trivializes what Selma marchers experienced on Bloody Sunday while giving credibility to the self-destructive, anti-social behaviors of Ferguson protestors.


The Stigma of Bad Black Behavior Hurts our Race

By Derryck Green

Rather than waiting until specifics about the Michael Brown case are known — such as autopsy results, detailed officer reports, toxicology or other details regarding his death — some Ferguson residents, Brown supporters and various hangers-on decided to act.

Learning nothing from the Trayvon Martin case, people took to the street with demands for “justice” and homemade protest signs. They were aided by a media seemingly excited about exploiting the narrative that Brown’s death was at the hands of a brutal and possibly racist cop in a militarized police force that cares little about black residents.

Ensuing nights after the shooting brought out the worst in people — including looting and burning businesses, vandalizing property and the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson seeking to “organize” the masses.

Regardless of one’s feelings about the Brown case, there’s a need for honest reflection about the behavior of people assembling in Ferguson, Missouri.

The self-destructive and self-defeating behavior on display in Ferguson was inexcusable. It’s a disservice to residents because it takes a sympathetic, accommodating view of the anti-social, regressive behaviors present during the riots, most of which were, unfortunately, committed by blacks.

Sympathizing with looting, vandalizing, personal violence and confrontation with law enforcement essentially excuses it, which emboldens perpetrators. Furthermore, this bad behavior is at the expense of law-abiding local residents whose lives were disrupted by this turmoil — the majority of whom are black.

Aside from being disgraceful, this dysfunction has severe economic consequences for the residents of Ferguson. While vandals reveled in self-created chaos, they made the case that opening businesses there may not be worth the risk.

All this stems from moral decay. There is a noticeable absence of moral values and ethical virtues in the nation as a whole these days, but it seems more concentrated in the inner cities, which are disproportionately populated by blacks. Churches have flunked their mission. The optics are devastating as the stigma associated with these incidents of violence and unrest are projected onto blacks as a whole, unfairly defining an entire race by the misdeeds of a relative few.

Whether the disruptive behaviors witnessed in Ferguson are from locals or self-seeking opportunists from other areas is really of no consequence. Regardless of race, class or residency, people shouldn’t hesitate to condemn bad behavior. But it seems too many whites won’t publicly condemn this condemnable behavior, even though they may earnestly desire to do so. Whites appear culturally conditioned these days to withhold honest commentary and astute observations on race, particularly about blacks. Common sense has been labeled “racist” by the racial grievance industry.

Compounding the problem is that the stigmas of these disgraceful activities and inverted morality behind them are projected onto blacks as a whole and are extremely difficult to overcome. To use a sports metaphor, blacks swallowed their whistle. We’ve forfeited our obligation of self-policing and society seems far too hesitant to publicly confront the conduct undermining the reputation of a race. This stunts our socio-economic progress.

A “soft bigotry of low expectations” is created when we refuse to denounce disruptive behaviors within our own community.

We too often excuse and remove the stigma of detrimental behavior, minimizing the shame that once accompanied dysfunctional, destructive activity. Counterproductive behavior is justified as the legacy of slavery and discrimination. We act as if we are a standard unto ourselves, separate and unaccountable from what society should expect — and actually demands — from other races.

Excusing inexcusable behavior has sullied our reputation and proved to many that we’ve spent our currency as a moral, cultural and political force. The bar is set so low that many aren’t shocked by what happened in Ferguson (or in Chicago, Detroit or other places).

And on the occasions bad behavior is called out, the predictable and reflexive reaction is that such critique is racist.  Once again, the behaviors of a disproportionate few define blacks as a whole. The radicals perpetuate the very stereotypes that make them cringe.

Blacks aren’t done any favors when behaviors we’ve seen in Ferguson are excused by white enablers or black defenders. Racial solidarity and racial empathy unfortunately seem more important to these people than dealing with the overwhelming responsibility of overcoming the stigma associated with undistinguished behavior.

Blacks have a moral obligation to reclaim values and dignity worthy of respect and admiration.  It is likewise incumbent upon blacks, particularly the black middle class, to forthrightly and aggressively condemn attitudes and behaviors that thwart our progress and impugn our collective character.

This begins with public and consistent condemnation of these stigma-creating behaviors.

Project 21 New Visions Commentary