LISTEN to BLACK MAN THINKIN’


…But, Mr. President, They Liked Their Plan…

by Black Man Thinkin'
Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: October 27, 2013

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoV0NeHNklk[/youtube]
That was the false rhetoric. While Obamacare purported to reduce the number of those without health insurance in the U.S., it now has the opposite effect, with more insured people losing the coverage they had and preferred than previously uninsured getting new policies. It is not possible to say how many more, since the administration has not released data on Obamacare signups, and others are not sure if the available numbers are accurate.

This much, however, is known: In Florida, 300,000 will see their individual policies “transitioned” to Obamacare, but not cancelled.

Seriously? The insurance they had, and liked, goes away in favor of new insurance that contains what they did not use (the “old” policies did not contain things like “maternity and newborn care, mental health, substance abuse services and emergency services”, which a “qualified” health plan must now include), will cost more, and is unavailable, due to the 0.4% signup success rate for those trying to get coverage through HealthCare.gov. That, in someone’s mind, is not a cancellation.

Why a healthy, sober male would need, or should pay for, maternity care or substance abuse services is difficult to understand, as is the government’s de facto assertion that people are incapable of deciding, for themselves, what makes up minimally acceptable health insurance coverage. That is, of course, until one remembers the new policy premiums will be more expensive.

Simply put, it is not about providing affordable health insurance to those who already had coverage; it is about making sure those who had coverage pay more to cover someone else.

We also know that, in California, Kaiser Permanente cancelled 160,000 individual policies, and Blue Shield cancelled 119,000 policies back in September; nearly 2/3 of the Blue Shield customers will see rate increases. In addition to the “Florida Flow” and the “California Carnage”, Pennsylvanians are gettin’ dropped like it’s hot: Highmark, in Pittsburgh, is shedding 20% of their individual policies, and the major insurer in Philadelphia is kissing 45% of its individual polices goodbye.

Since insurance companies are canceling policies, instead of individuals opting not to renew coverage, can anyone assert that these people can keep the coverage they liked, as the president said they could?

And are those who liked their doctor able to keep their doctor, which was the other part of the president’s “pledge”? Well, it depends on whether:

    • The doctor still accepts insurance. Some bailed on working with insurance companies in the Obamacare era, even before the website debacle?

    • The doctor still owns, or remains part of, a private enterprise which practices locally? Some argue that by 2014, such doctors will be harder to find.

    • You’re a Medicare patient, in which case, you need to get lucky.

As people waste time worrying about why a website doesn’t work, it is increasingly clear that the president’s assurances to those already insured were lies designed to encourage them to skip the debate, believing they would be unaffected by whatever happened. They are now learning how much their apathy may cost them.

Indeed, a bigger problem than people’s difficulty in accessing the website, will be their difficulties once they do. For one, the website seems not to respect the privacy of those who do manage to log on. Add that to what doctors must request and record under Obamacare, and the U.S. healthcare system may gather more information about U.S. citizens than the NSA.

The second major difficulty is the cost. The Manhattan Institute has calculated that Obamacare will double health insurance premiums for younger men, and hike them for younger women by 55% to 62%.

Of course, higher premiums run counter to candidate Obama’s 2008 campaign pledges:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66bgpRRSDD4[/youtube]which he repeated during the re-elect campaign: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4rkKzajF7Y[/youtube]

Interestingly, there are Democrats: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXpfox_4-1I[/youtube]who have another view, including the HHS Secretary, and acknowledge Obamacare will not lower costs.

To be fair, Obama’s remarks, about people keeping what they liked were quite subtle. All Obama said was if you liked your doctor or plan that you CAN keep it; he did not say how much it would cost anyone to do so.

This interesting fact remains: with 300,000 in Florida, and another 279,000 in California losing their health insurance, Obamacare took health insurance policies from more people, in just 2 states, than it provided to people throughout the entire nation. All who would dispute this need do just one thing: get the Obama administration to release its information regarding how many got policies, either via the website or any other signup mechanism. Rest assured, if Obamacare participation were strong, then that would be the only thing Jay Carney would discuss with the press….instead of ramblings like this:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrMbG4byoqQ[/youtube]

So, Obama was less than truthful regarding his promises to the already insured, about how his signature legislative achievement would impact them. Is anyone honestly surprised by that…or simply by how large the fabrications were and how far they went?

…and all to pave the way for the single payer system the Democrat Party wants to impose:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXgSKwYMnWo[/youtube] which will emerge from the ashes and lies of Obamacare.

Bankruptcy, Thy Name Is Democrat

by Black Man Thinkin'
Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: August 31, 2013

What do these U.S. locations have in common: Central Falls, RI; Detroit, MI; San Bernardino, CA; Mammoth Lakes, CA; Stockton, CA; Jefferson County, AL; Harrisburg, PA; and Boise County, ID? Well, each has filed for Chapter 9 Bankruptcy since 2010.

However, there is something else, shared with the financially troubled cities of Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Miami; also with Atlantic City and Camden, NJ, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

It is also common to the following states: California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

What these cities and states share, along with their financial challenges, is that the Democrat Party controls nearly every one of them; sometimes, it has for decades.

Consider Detroit, which on July 18, 2013, became the largest U.S. city ever to seek bankruptcy protection. No Republican has been mayor since January, 1962; the City Council has not had a Republican majority or plurality since the 1950’s. Democrats have run Detroit for more than a half century…into the ground.

As for the last Republican mayors in the other bankrupt locations:

    • Central Falls – 1930,
    • San Bernardino – 1993,
    • Stockton – only one since 1990,
    • Birmingham, Alabama, Jefferson County’s seat – 1975,
    • Harrisburg – 1982, and
    • Boise County, Idaho’s Commission appears majority Republican of late, bucking the trend.

Among the troubled, but not (yet?) bankrupt cities:

    • Baltimore last elected a Republican mayor in 1963,
    • Philadelphia – no GOP mayor in more than 60 years,
    • Pittsburgh was last run by a Republican in 1934, and
    • Miami has never had a Republican mayor.

Additionally:

    • Atlantic City’s last Republican mayor was black; James Usry ended his term in 1990,
    • A Republican last served as mayor of Camden, NJ from 1935 to 1936,
    • Chicago’s last Republican mayor served in 1931, and for 43 of the last 82 years, the Democrat running the city was named Richard Daley, and
    • Los Angeles boasts one Republican mayor since 1961.

There is more. In a report that identified 20 U.S cities that could go bankrupt after Detroit, at least 15 of them are Democrat-run. Of the 10 US cities with the highest percentages of residents living in poverty, Democrats have run them for decades. The point is hard to miss.

Turning attention to states with financial challenges:

    • California: 4 Democrat and 4 Republican governors since 1959. However, since 1992, Democrats have run the State Assembly for all but 4 years, and the State Senate for all but 2,

    • New York: Since 1958, 5 of 8 governors were Democrats. Since 1992, Republicans ran the Senate all but 4 years, but Democrats controlled the Assembly each year,

    • Illinois: Since 1991, 2 Democrat and 2 Republican governors; and Democrats controlled the State Senate for 12 of 22 years, and the House of Representatives for 20 of 22 years,

    • New Jersey: Since 1990 – 4 Democrat and 3 Republican, administrations. Since 1992, Republicans ran the Senate for 10 years, there were 2 years of shared control, and Democrats ran it for 10 years…the last 10 years; in the State House, Republican control for 10 years, followed by Democrat Control for the last 12, and

    • Massachusetts: Since Michael Dukakis’ 1991 retirement, there has been 1 Democrat governor, but Democrats kept majorities in both the Senate and the House.

To be “fair”, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are troubled states under Republican control. Ohio has 24 governments and 6 school districts plagued by pension funding issues and an unwillingness to cut spending despite declining revenues. Pennsylvania has $47 Billion in unfunded pension liabilities and no political will to address the problem. Michigan halts between dealing with rising healthcare costs, or kicking that can down the road.

However, the political scales may not balance as much as some might believe; the policies at the root of these financial ills have a decidedly liberal Democrat aroma.

The problem of unfunded pension liabilities traces back to President Kennedy’s desire to grab union votes for Democrats. Both Franklin Delano Roosevelt and former AFL-CIO president George Meaney considered collective bargaining for public employees bad for taxpayers. However, when Kennedy saw that New York City Mayor Robert Wagner built a reliable Democrat voting bloc by granting collective-bargaining rights to the city’s public employees, he put his party’s good ahead of taxpayer benefit and issued an Executive Order in 1962, granting those rights to unionized federal employees. The practice spread across the nation. Now, governments have collectively bargained themselves into more than $4.5 Trillion in unfunded pension liabilities.

Problems with healthcare costs trace back to the 1965 origination of Medicare and Medicaid under President Lyndon Johnson. Government socialization of medical costs is now a financial disaster, with Medicare facing $38.6 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, according to its Board of Trustees. Also, Medicare heads for bankruptcy in 2016 or 2024, depending upon what is true about Obamacare.

It took 17 years for all 50 states to “voluntarily” participate in Medicaid, and 11 more for President Clinton to announce Medicaid was bankrupting them. Add the fact Obamacare makes Medicaid more costly for states, and that uninsured patients often have better medical outcomes than those using Medicaid, and one wonders how Medicare, Medicaid, or Obamacare benefit the nation. However, despite poorer health care and worsened state balance sheets, liberal Democrats use the programs to show themselves as “caring”.

More often than not in the U.S., when governments have financial trouble, Democrats are at the helm of government and, even when not in charge, policies originated and associated with Democrats cause the problems. For example, Democrats portray Social Security as an effective and successful program.

However, it is hard to imagine how a program, short nearly $10 Trillion over the next 75 years, and facing massive growth in the number of beneficiaries, meets any reasonable success criteria…until you consider how it delivers the senior vote to Democrats.

To their credit, Democrats convinced the nation that they care about the people, even as they devastate them financially. By the time Democrats finish showing their concern for people, no government anywhere is likely to have a dime to spend on them.

Perhaps it is time for a real change?

Regarding One Thing Missing for Black Males

by Black Man Thinkin'
Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments: 1 Comment
Published on: August 8, 2013

Since Trayvon Martin’s death, momentum builds toward a racial “showdown” in this country, with one side outraged that a “white” man got away with “murdering” an innocent black child, while another side counters:

    1. Zimmerman is not white,
    2. A jury found there was no murder, and
    3. A teen-aged MMA enthusiast with ongoing school and drug problems is not everyone’s definition of an innocent child.

The first side, Side “A”, makes racism the issue, though the FBI and the Zimmerman jury said race was no factor. The month after Martin’s death, his parents formed a foundation to advocate for crime victims and their families (though the jury effectively said there was no crime), and, with the Congressional Caucus on Black Men and Boys of 2013, to challenge “Stand Your Ground” laws, though Zimmerman never invoked Florida’s version, and such laws are popular.

How did Side “A” come to create its own issues while dismissing others? In 3 acts:

ACT 1. In 1995, the Nation of Islam sponsored the “Million Man March” on Washington, D. C., to focus attention on black issues. Varying attendance estimates distracted from the event’s message, and determining what it accomplished is more problematic now than was counting heads then.

ACT 2. Nevertheless, the Million Man March inspired Washington, D. C., Congressional Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, in 2001, to form the “D.C. Commission on Black Men and Boys” to reveal and help resolve issues that (D. C.) Black men face, such as high school dropout rates, criminal justice issues, HIV and AIDS, and marriage and family issues. The commission met many times over the next decade. However, like the Million Man March, its accomplishments are difficult to find.

Homicides, district-wide, decreased to a 50-year low 88 in 2012, but the credit belongs to local government and police. However, in D. C.’s 93% black Ward 8, unemployment averaged 22% in 2012; in 2000, it was 21%. Regarding other Ward 8 “measurables”, between 2000 and 2009:

    • Poverty went from 35% to 34%,
    • Child poverty went from 46% to 48%,
    • Persons lacking a High School diploma went from 33% to 20%,
    • Overall unemployment went from 21% to 17%,
    • Unemployment for those 16 years old and older went from 45% to 48%, and
    • Average family income decreased 5.2%.

And between 2000 and 2012:

    • People on Food Stamps increased 75%, to 42,888 (total Ward 8 population: under 71,000), and
    • People receiving TANF increased 6%, to 17,579.

Lastly, black illegitimacy in D. C. was 77% in 2002; in 2008, it was 79%.

While these things occurred:

    • The D.C. Commission on Black Men and Boys of 2012 discussed Lessons from the Life and Death of Trayvon Martin and focused on local experience with and problem-solving for the negative branding of African American youth and men because of the color of their skin,

    • The D.C. Commission on Black Men & Boys of 2011 featured former rival gang members and violence intervention workers, and accepted testimony from residents,

    • The D.C. Commission on Black Men and Boys of January 2010 took 17 young fathers out for an afternoon of mentoring and job preparation,

    • The D.C. Commission on Black Men and Boys of August 2010, responded to the particularly difficult time Black men are having in a job market that is sometimes unreceptive to them, especially in today’s unprecedented economy,

    • The D.C. Commission on Black Men and Boys of 2007 discussed national efforts to support the “Jena 6,” six Jena, Louisiana high school students, all African American males, who face discriminatory treatment in the criminal justice system…

ACT 3. The Congressional Caucus on Black Men and Boys of 2013, formed after Zimmerman’s acquittal, was modeled after Norton’s D.C. Commission on Black Men and Boys. Its mission: to be a “vehicle for raising consciousness” on issues disproportionately affecting black men and youth including job training, HIV/AIDS and the breakdown of the family. Sound familiar?

So, organizations, modeled after gatherings which did not resolve issues in the last decade, which were inspired by an event that did not resolve issues in the decade before that…will resolve issues today? What is Einstein’s Definition of Insanity, again?

Meanwhile, Side “B”, seizes on black illegitimacy and family decline, the criminality of young black men, etc. They cite statistics with irrefutable implications. They identify a “grievance industry” which they believe facilitates and exploits the adverse state of black affairs, and frustrates honest race discussions. They also show little fear of the nuclear option of political discussions: being called “racist”.

Unfortunately, Side “B” mis-spends their courage. Standing up to Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and national NAACP official won’t influence the majority of blacks for whom those gentlemen do not speak. Side “B” needs to take its message to suffering black communities, showing the respect of direct conversation, not just the courage of broadcast monologues.

Side “B” also fumbles their facts, letting spinmeisters confuse issues and change subjects. If Side “B” says, “Blacks commit 93% of black homicides“, Side “A” counters with “Whites commit 86% of all white homicides“; that blacks, at 13% of the population, commit 52% of all U.S. homicides, including 59% of felony murders, gets lost in the noise. Should one say, “Black illegitimacy is at 73%“, another will counter, “White illegitimacy is increasing at a faster rate“…and so it goes…

Both sides miss the point: Side “A”, by putting energy into window-dressing events and off-topic efforts that do not improve the black condition; Side “B”, by being courageous with the wrong black people, and by letting objective facts become subjective banter.

The point? The black community does not hold black males accountable for their behavior.

For contributing to black illegitimacy, he appears, not before other black fathers, but before family court, while by-standers laugh:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_vcsJ5KNQQ[/youtube]

He is not taken “out back”, but taken in, to criminal courts:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQy6KNx4d-s[/youtube]

Dealing with this young black man fell to a judge because his community did not check him long before. When a man abuses a woman publicly, it is not the first time, and his behavior is no secret. People knew, and gave him a pass, because “he could ball”.

Black male misdeeds are not even privately considered by the black community; they are broadcast via social media:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gelk2eIWsPY[/youtube]

These things happen also to whites, hisanics, and asians. However, those groups do not have 3 of every 4 children born out-of-wedlock, nor does any of them, alone, commit more than half of U. S. homicides.

Black communities used to deal with their young men, handling complex issues and dispensing consequences that punished and deterred bad behavior. Now, they outsource that responsibility to schools, police, and courts. The result:

    • The schools are less safe;
    • Blacks fear the police, perhaps more than they respect them; and,
    • In 2009, there were 2 black males incarcerated for every 3 in college.

Such is the legacy of black communities not holding black males accountable for their behavior.

While Sides “A” and “B” debate, the men of a great people lack what they need most to succeed, or even live well. It is not employment, not education, not acceptance by whites. It is accountability, to those who best understand them. Accountability, to those who can best build and correct their character. Accountability, to those who look like them. Should that return, the other issues will heal, quickly.

There are communities that manage their young men by the power of community expectations. Blacks should strive be one of them…again.

Re-trial Goes Much Like the First Trial, But Sadder

by Black Man Thinkin'
Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments: 1 Comment
Published on: July 26, 2013

The basic details are not difficult:

A man saw someone he considered suspicious, called police and followed him. Eventually, he came into contact with the subject. Words were exchanged, an altercation ensued, during which the man sustained injuries. He drew a weapon and fired once. Police arrived to find the man, George Zimmerman, aged 28, bloodied and shaken, and the shooting victim, Trayvon Martin, aged 17, dead.

Police questioned Zimmerman that night, gave him a lie detector test the next day (he passed), and determined there was not probable cause for an arrest.

In the 16 months that followed: the FBI concluded race played no role in the shooting; and Florida’s governor appointed a special prosecutor who bypassed a grand jury to charge Zimmerman with 2nd-degree murder. That decision was criticized by a legal expert as potentially criminal, and special prosecutor Angela Corey was indeed later criminally indicted for falsifying the arrest warrant and complaint against Zimmerman.

At trial, prosecution witnesses supported Zimmerman’s self-defense assertions, including a black legal professor, who explained, under cross-examination, that injuries are not required before a person might legally act in self-defense.

Despite all this, people were shocked, SHOCKED, at George Zimmerman’s acquittal on July 13th.

So, those who insisted Zimmerman be tried in a court of law, despite a weak case, changed venues: the court of public opinion, bound neither by the rules of evidence, nor any need to speak truthfully. So, how is that coming along?

The day after the verdict, there were demonstrations from New York City to Los Angeles, Chicago to Oakland, Milwaukee to Miami, and elsewhere protesting Zimmerman’s acquittal.

Also on the day after the verdict, the NAACP and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network (NAN) called for the Department of Justice to file federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman. Attorney General Holder told NAN, “If we find evidence of a potential federal criminal civil rights crime, we will take appropriate action, and at every step, the facts and law will guide us forward.” One can only wonder if those facts will include the 2012 FBI report which found no evidence of racism, a hate crime, or any civil rights violation by George Zimmerman. One prosecutor is already criminally indicted for corruption in the charging of Zimmerman; could an overzealous Attorney General Eric Holder become the second?

Perhaps sensing the initiative slipping away, the NAACP’s Hilary Shelton appeared on Sean Hannity’s TV show (July 18th) to assert that Zimmerman “stalked, assaulted, and” shot Trayvon Martin to death, and to criticize Stand Your Ground laws. However:

    1. There is no proof that Zimmerman stalked Martin.
    2. The evidence presented and the verdict imply Martin assaulted Zimmerman, and
    3. Stand Your Ground was not part of Zimmerman’ defense.

President Obama’s post-verdict statement gave way to a July 19th race speech in which he said, “Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago.” Whether Obama sought to unite the nation or curry favor with the black Americans he normally ignores is hard to say. However, this is not: 2 days after the speech, a national poll showed Obama’s disapproval rating higher than George Zimmermans’s.

Then, there were the July 20th 100-City Trayvon rallies, with turnout far less than expected, though that was hard to glean from most news coverage.

Even the Congressional Black Caucus chimed in, with members expressing support for an economic boycott of Florida to protest Stand Your Ground laws, and looking to revisit gun control in the wake of Martin’s shooting. However, Congress generally cannot revise state laws, and the good ship gun control already sailed away…empty.

So, the public “re-trial” is going much the way the state trial did, and for the same reason: those arrayed against George Zimmerman have more passion than proof. However, regarding Martin, more proof emerges that may generate a different passion.

First, the Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea…actually Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail. Those are 2 of the 3 ingredients needed to make “lean“, a street drug, which requires the codeine in prescription cough syrup, or Dextromethorphan (DXM), available in over-the counter cough syrup like Robitussin. Martin’s Facebook page showed him seeking codeine to make more lean, before being told Robitussin’s DXM would also work. When abused, DXM can cause aggression and paranoia. Of course, all this is circumstantial until Martin’s autopsy report revealed liver anomalies, consistent with DXM abuse.

Then there is Alicia Stanley, Martin’s former stepmother who gave an interview to CNN at the beginning of the trial. She said she did it so people would know, “I exist…”

Why would that matter? Because it is she, not Sybrina Fulton, with whom Trayvon Martin lived, from age 3 until 2010. During that time, there is no evidence of the truancy, drug use, theft and other issues that prosecutors fought to keep from a jury.

To the point; it is less a matter of what Martin’s improper behavior was than when it started and, perhaps, with whom.

However, Alicia Stanley, the woman who raised Trayvon Martin, became an inconvenience: told to “get in where you fit in” at his funeral, and waited more than a year after Martin’s death before seeking the recognition some would say she has earned. By contrast, Sybrina Fulton waited less than a month before seeking to profit from trademarking “I AM TRAYVON” and “Justice for Trayvon”.

Sadly, a young black man died, shot in self-defense by a “soft” man with “a hero complex.” Unfortunately, that is not all that is sad. Trayvon Martin’s innocence began to fade in 2010, through events over which he had no control. By February 26, 2012, Martin was a troubled kid, by any measure: doing poorly in school, committing petty crimes, and a drug user who had already sustained internal organ damage and was at a 7-Eleven, procuring the ingredients for his drug of choice, jones’in’ for another high. Viewing the store security video in that light is heartbreaking:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvwhGVWAdjI[/youtube]

No matter why Martin was out that night, this tragedy might still have occurred. However, no one’s child should be out at night like that…ever. Somehow, we came to focus on Zimmerman, and lost the bubble on that.

The “Glazing” of North Africa

by Black Man Thinkin'
Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments: 2 Comments
Published on: July 19, 2013

This is Mohamed Bouazizi:

Mohamed Bouazizi

He was an anonymous Tunisian fruit merchant until December 17, 2010, when local police confiscated the 26-year-old’s weighing scales, keeping him from working. Angered and humiliated, Bouazizi went to the governor’s office to retrieve his scales and was ignored. After shouting in the middle of the street, “How do you expect me to make a living?”, he then did this to himself:

Bouazizi Ablaze

Bouazizi’s suicide set off protests that brought down Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, who had ruled for 23 years. The “official” story was the protests were responses to unemployment and a lack of economic freedom, and the Arab Spring “movement” spread to Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen; pretty much across North Africa and the Persian Gulf. By May 2011, only Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates were protest-free.

On May 19, 2011, American President Barack Obama gave a speech:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GZFkwtLBLM[/youtube]

With that, the “official” story was “fixed”: the Arab Spring was about “self-determination”, “governments denying their citizens’ dignity”, and was reminiscent of America’s Founding Fathers defying George III, or Rosa parks keeping her bus seat. The Arab people were demanding freedom and the march toward democracy could not be denied. However, the true story…well, look at a map of North Africa:

North Africa Map

Two and a half years after Bouazizi’s suicide overturned an Islamist government, Tunisia has: political instability and assassination, 17% unemployment, economic decline, sovereign debt downgraded to junk-bond status, another vendor self-immolation…and an Islamist government.

Algeria apparently weathered the Arab Spring well. Until militants attacked its Ain Amenas natural gas plant in January 2013, killing more than 80 people, and exposing anew the more than 2 decade-old struggle against Islamists.

The Shiite majority in Bahrain clashes politically with the Sunni minority that rules the the government. In response, Sunnis have jailed opposition leaders and relieved some Sunnis of their citizenship. Meanwhile, at least 55 people have died since the first massive protests of Feb 2011.

Jordan is less stable, as East Bank tribes grow distrustful of King Abdullah, along with a significant Palestinian refugee community, which supports an emboldened, and Islamist, Muslim Brotherhood.

Saudi Arabia’s absolute monarchy limits protests, but unrest in its Eastern provinces were buoyed by the Arab Spring. One expert believes the overthrow of King Abdullah is possible before 2017.

Despite his other flaws, former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi kept a lid on Islamists. However, the Arab Spring, coupled with Western intervention in Libya’s 2011 “transition” deposed Gaddafi and strengthened Islamists. They and jihadist terrorists flexed their muscle in the brazen 2012 assault on the US consulate in Benghazi.

The Libyan victory heartened Islamists in the Syrian opposition seeking to topple president Bashar Al-Assad. Syria’s president is in deep trouble, and deeply offensive to many in the West and elsewhere. However, now the only in-country option to Al-Assad is the “pick-your-favorite-Islamists” one.

In Egypt, the Arab Spring replaced a 30-year dictator, Hosni Mubarak, with another would-be dictator, Mohamed Morsi, whom the Egyptian military removed after one year. Now the military, long respected as a stabilizing force in Egypt, is on the defensive about an attack on reportedly peaceful Morsi supporters that killed more than 50. This provides a sympathetic, and not aggressive or oppressive, portrayal of Islamists who invaded Egypt’s political structure following Mubarak’s downfall: as those whose legitimate election victory was improperly voided, and as victims of political violence.

So, what does this mean?

    A) Islamists are moving toward control of North Africa,
    B) The current US president has done much to support them, and
    C) It also means the US is becoming a stench in the nostrils of those who oppose the islamists.

It started in 2009, pre-Arab Spring, when young Iranians protested the “landslide” re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by chanting US President Obama’s name in the streets, asking, “Are you with us or against us?” Their play for democracy and freedom was ignored, souring Iranians on the idea that America stood for freedom…or against Islamist oppression.

President Obama declared US interests and values at risk, without saying what they were, as the reason for intervening in Libya’s civil war, directly contradicting public statements by then Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. Obama’s policy was exposed in September 2012 by Al-Qaeda. Their 8-hour attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, during which the US president failed to defend US interests and values, came with Islamist shows of contempt, including posing for pictures,

Benghazi Attack

and raping the US Ambassador before killing him. To date, the Obama administration holds no one accountable for the attack, though leads and suspects were known since October 2012. Islamists need not fear, nor respect, the US in that country.

Islamists in Syria received the same message via Obama’s “red line” warning. First, the US president indicated the movement or use of chemical weapons in Syria would make him rethink opposition to US involvement, but then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton re-drew the line to allow movement but prohibit use. Then Israel, Great Britain, Russia, France, and the UN all confirmed chemical weapons use in Syria, Obama backtracked further, acknowledging a “small amount” of usage, and that he needed to reconsider what to do, leaving the “red line”, and respect for American resolve, in tatters.

In Egypt, Islamists are regrouping, but US prestige is not. Obama backed the wrong horse, regarding freedom, when he supported the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, who can the US support? Neither Obama nor US interests have many friends left in Egypt, if pictures are any indication:

North Africa sees Obama’s foreign policy as pro-terrorist, and Islamist terrorists are uninterested in freedom. Consequently, an anti-American “glaze” is now brushed across the region, awaiting the kiln fire of violence to make it a hard shell opposed to American interests, no matter which side prevails. If the Islamists win, then Benghazi will represent the normal regard for US interests; if freedom wins, then that the US stood with the enemy will dull Arab ears to US concerns.

Since all this was US foreign policy, does anyone believe this is unintentional?

Zimmerman Trial Shows Trayvon Martin May Not Be Only Black Fatality

by Black Man Thinkin'
Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments: 21 Comments
Published on: June 30, 2013

George Zimmerman is guilty.

George Zimmerman is guilty of profiling Trayvon Martin while acting as a neighborhood watchman.

George Zimmerman is guilty of saying Trayvon Martin “looks black”, when asked about Martin’s ethnicity.

George Zimmerman is guilty of following Trayvon Martin, leading to a confrontation.

George Zimmerman is guilty of shooting an unarmed Trayvon Martin to death…..

And none of these things are crimes in the State of Florida, unless prosecutors can refute Zimmerman’s self-defense assertion. That appears unlikely after the trial’s first five days.

The prosecution put on: a star witness who struggles with the truth; an eyewitness who said Martin did an MMA-style “ground-and-pound” on Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman screamed for help; and a witness who photographed Zimmerman’s injuries, and heard Zimmerman claim self-defense. At some point, the prosecution might wish to start eliminating reasonable doubt, instead of creating absolute doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of anything apart from weight gain.

However, the real story of the trial is the black reaction to it, for that may signal the decline of blacks as an American political demographic. Simply put, blacks are losing political and social respect – not because of what comes upon them, but for what emerges from them, which is clearly demonstrated by the Trayvon Martin ordeal.

Blacks, who owe their political standing to overcoming race-based injustice, are showing themselves racist. From the outset, blacks called the shooting a white-on-black crime, and, apparently, many still do, though Zimmerman’s parents are Jewish (father) and Cuban (mother).

(According to Jewish tradition dating to the 2nd century, and US Census bureau policy, maternity determines a child’s race. George Zimmerman is Cuban, not white. The same tradition and policy makes Barack Obama just another white man in the White House.)

The New Black Panther Party wanted whites killed in response to Martin’s death and placed a bounty on Zimmerman. The Martin family said they did not “condone those people”…which differs from the condemnation that should have (but did not) come from them and all people of good faith.

Spike Lee tweeted what he thought was Zimmerman’s address, telling followers, “feel free to reach out and touch him”. Lee later apologized and paid the couple he put at risk. Again, blacks were silent.

Had the Ku Klux Klan advocated killing blacks or placed a bounty on anyone, or had a minor white celebrity threatened an elderly black couple, black outrage, and that of most other Americans, would have come swiftly…because such things are wrong.

The black non-reaction to these things, including ignoring and excusing racist comments from Trayvon Martin the night he died, shows that blacks, who once rose in opposition to slurs and injustices cast upon them, now sit in acceptance of their own casting slurs and committing injustices…and the nation notices this.

Trayvon Martin died during an election year, which likely prompted the incumbent president to seek connection with blacks during the re-elect campaign:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt_g5JPdP8Y[/youtube]

Now, blacks supporting Obama at 96% in 2008 is understandable. But, since then, world economists recognize America’s decline under Obama, and the American middle class, for which Obama claims to fight, lead the downward spiral. Yet hardest hit are America’s blacks. High unemployment, diminished net worth, a worsening racial climate, etc. make being black in America tougher under Obama.

However, instead of punishing Obama in 2012, blacks gave him 93% of their votes. Obama also got a pass for showing greater concern for issues affecting hispanic and homosexual communities than for those impacting blacks. Indeed, blacks scarcely criticize Obama, and quickly label anyone who does.

So, blacks look like an abused woman who, despite her split lip and blackened eyes, defends the guy who beats her as “good”. Thoughtful people will conclude there is no reasoning with the woman, leaving her to the insanity. They are reaching a similar conclusion about black political and social reasoning.

Non-blacks see Detroit and other cities under long-term Democrat Party rule, so financially corrupt as to have emergency managers or be in receivership. They see Chicago, where Democrat rule contributes to “open season” on blacks, despite the nation’s toughest gun laws. They see Los Angeles, where long-term Democrat control brought that city near bankruptcy with schools that graduate only 2/3 of students. They see a welfare state, begun in 1965, that has lowered black marriage rates, sent illegitimacy rates soaring, and helped blacks, though under 13% of the US population, account for 30% of US abortions.

Despite this and more, they see the self-destructive thoughtlessness of blacks continuing to vote for liberals and their policies. When they seek to engage blacks on this, they are labeled racists or sell-outs, which ends meaningful dialogue.

Blacks once boasted the “moral leader” of the nation. But now: they support a president who fails them, is disrespected abroad and is a scandal factory at home; they elect blacks to Congress who are impotent; they elect a disproportionate number of corrupt black officeholders. And blacks, who once excoriated all racists everywhere, now excuse blacks offering racist testimony in court.

If the nation sees blacks as unable or unwilling to look after black interests, then why should they seek to work with blacks on national interests?

When blacks fought injustices by being on the side of right, countless others, of all races, creeds, and colors joined them. Not because they were race issues, but because they were issues of right and wrong. For example, trafficking in men is not racist; it is wrong. Jim Crow segregation is not racist; it is wrong. Arbitrarily denying the vote is not racist; it is wrong. When blacks led such fights, pursuing what is right, they prevailed and gained political and social respect.

However, now, no black leadership pursues what is right, but rather what is “black”. It focuses on what is wanted, on laying guilt, on what others have that can be taken. Fortunately, that is not the view of all, or even most, blacks.

However, unless and until the desire for right returns as the premier aim of black political and social discussion, those who sang “We Shall Overcome” will be overcome by the perception that they are too self-centered and bigoted to be taken seriously in national debates. Political and social respect for America’s blacks is dying; all one need do is watch the Zimmerman trial, and how blacks react to it, to understand why it ebbs away.

Why Immigration Reform?

by Black Man Thinkin'
Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments: 5 Comments
Published on: June 20, 2013

Let us begin with what is widely known though not widely reported: many things are more important to the American people than immigration reform, including:

    • Creating Jobs,
    • Growing the Economy,
    • Improving Government Efficiency,
    • Improving Education,
    • Fixing Social Security & Medicare,
    • Cutting Healthcare Costs,
    • Cutting the Deficit,
    • Improving Healthcare Access,
    • Reducing Poverty and Inequality, and
    • Reforming the Tax Code

Those first two have been Americans’ top concerns since the election…of 2008. So, the American people are left to watch a government, that won’t address their priorities, put great effort into something that is not their priority. Between this, gun control legislation about which the nation does not care, and the daily fixation on the almost daily increase of Obama administration scandals, the 2014 midterm elections may simultaneously: A) not come soon enough for Americans to voice their disdain, and B) not matter a hill of beans for, if historic re-election rates hold, then those who drove the nation into this ditch will yet have their hands on the wheel in January 2015.

However, the important question may not be, “Why is the federal government ignoring the electorate?”, but “Why is the federal government ignoring the electorate to do THIS?”

In 1986, there were about 3.2 million illegal immigrants in the US; then the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 did the following:

    • Required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status.
    • Made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit unauthorized immigrants.
    • Legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants.
    • Legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt.

Consequently, 3.2 million illegal immigrants were no longer held accountable for violating the sovereignty of US international borders…and the borders were not secured…and the immigration restrictions and penalties were not enforced (on illegal immigrants or their US employers)…and there are now 11.1 million illegal immigrants in these United States.

Now, in 2013, there is Senate Bill S744, which:

    • Requires employers to verify their employees’ immigration status with E-Verify.
    • Holds employers harmless for knowingly hiring illegal workers.
    • Legalizes agricultural illegal immigrant workers.
    • Legalizes illegal immigrants who entered the United States before age 16 and puts them on a 5-year path to citizenship.

So, this movie has played before, with two primary differences: 1) in 2013, employers of illegal immigrants get a better deal than they had in 1986, and 2) the Democrat Party is pushing this to the exclusion of more pressing matters. Now, if the 1986 Immigration Reform Law increased illegal immigration by nearly 250%, then what might a 2013 version, which looks pretty darn similar, do?

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicates the number of illegals will climb more than 300%, to 46 million by 2033, in less time than it took the 1986 law to increase them nearly 250%. The CBO also indicated that S744 encourages illegal immigration.

Given those facts, it is no surprise that the public is not overly fond of the bill, especially if securing the border is not a primary outcome of the legislation. It is also no surprise that Democrats are eager to pass this as soon as possible, since the following are true:

1. Illegal immigrants vote in US elections,
2. Illegal immigrants vote Democrat, and,
3. Should comprehensive immigration fail to pass, Democrats are confident it will be a winning issue for them in the 2014 and 2016 elections.

So, the Democrat Party fights for illegal immigrants to receive: food stamps; housing; medical care; education, including lower college tuition than US citizens attending the same school; etc., and all at the taxpayers’ expense.

Such is the Democrat Party’s modus operandi when it seeks the electoral loyalty of any demographic: blow up the nearest treasury and let “compassion” rain…funded with other people’s money. The strategy is successful, especially when racial animosities can be exploited. Blacks remain fiercely loyal to the Democrat Party, even though entitlement “compassion” has devastated black families and communities for nearly half a century. In fact, blacks are so loyal that they seem blind to hispanics supplanting them as the Democrat Party’s main ethnic squeeze. Remember, Obama snubbed the NAACP, sending VP Joe Biden instead, while packing his administration with hispanics.

Disrespectful (to blacks)? Perhaps. Deferential (to hispanics)? Definitely. Coincidence? I think not.

Immigration reform is not about addressing a top priority, like fixing the US economy and encouraging robust trade with countries from where immigrants come, creating jobs there and here…which WOULD address the top priorities of the American people. It is not about building the US workforce; that would require lower taxation and a smaller regulatory burden on businesses. If low-skilled and low-wage workers (which are the majority of illegal immigrants) made for a stronger economy, then the South should have won the Civil War. This cannot be about compassion, since there is no compassion with borrowed, or other people’s, money, in the form of entitlements. Finally, this is not about a cost-effective way to address the problems of illegal immigration, since the federal government already determined, more than 2 years ago that deporting all illegal immigrants costs less than allowing them to stay.

This is about the political left being so close to nearly unchecked power, at least in the next session of Congress, they can almost taste it; they had that power from 2009 to 2011, and the country has yet to recover. They are eager for another two-year stretch to finish the job “Hope and Change” started. Since blacks have outlived their political usefulness, the left looks to saddle up the hispanic community and ride a new race in pursuit of their agenda…

Adding another 35 million people to the country by 2033 who should not be here, registering them to vote (which they should not be able to do), and ensuring the majority vote for Democrats…THAT is the WHY of Immigration Reform.

Protestin’ or Profilin’?

by Black Man Thinkin'
Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comments: 5 Comments
Published on: June 18, 2013

Political protest in America has a long history, being the essence of the nation’s founding; 18th-century English colonists dissociated themselves politically from the British Crown and fought the most powerful military of the day to win their liberty. And political protest has remained an important form of national expression.

American political protest is somewhat unique; where protests in other countries often threaten the government’s existence, American protests generally do not put forward a serious alternative to the Constitution. Whether the Whiskey Rebellion, the Abolition Movement, the Civil War, the Labor Movement, Women’s Suffrage, Civil Rights, Viet Nam antiwar, the Tea Party, etc., American political protests, even violent ones, normally seek to adjust the government’s attitude, not seek to bring it down, the Civil War being an exception.

Beginning with the nation’s founding, American political protest has generally involved risk. The Declaration of Independence concludes with this sentence:

    “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

At the signing, Benjamin Franklin reportedly said, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately,” indicating the risk the Founders accepted. Risk has accompanied American political protesters ever since:

    • Those in the Whiskey Rebellion risked a military confrontation with President Washington,
    • The early American Labor Movement risked extinction, with President Grover Cleveland calling in federal troops against striking railroad workers,
    • Most abolitionists abandoned moral suasion after the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act and chose riskier pursuits, including John Brown’s 1859 raid on Harper’s Ferry,
    • Civil Rights participants, regardless of color, risked social stigma, financial reversal, incarceration, physical attack, and murder,
    • Viet Nam War protesters often put themselves at physical risk, including the 4 student protesters who were killed at Kent State in Ohio in 1970.

Even nonviolent Tea Party protesters were at risk. Their 2010 political success brought scrutiny from the Internal Revenue Service, which can incarcerate and financially ruin citizens, with consequences often coming before proof that a citizen did anything wrong.

Nevertheless, since the Civil Rights Movement, a high-water mark for modern American political protest risk, protesters seem to have less skin in the game.

For example, the Occupy Movement was disruptive, but suffered little backlash from those they targeted. They protested Wall Street about its “obscene” profits; in “retaliation”, Wall Street hired them. The Occupiers challenged and irritated the governments in some of America’s major cities. In retaliation, governments turned a blind eye to acts like this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luq4NTSK50M[/youtube]

Though the Occupy Movement included by rape, assault, murder, tuberculosis, arson, etc., the protests went unchecked for quite some time…until the public outcry, unlike the protesters, could no longer be ignored. When all was done, the Occupiers risked little, changed less, and became unpopular in America and elsewhere.

However, more popular protests seem to have the same amount of risk and change.

In South Carolina, Roy Costner IV ripped up his Pickens County School District-approved valedictorian’s speech in favor of a recital of the Lord’s prayer. The crowd erupted in response to protest of the school district’s new policy to prohibit prayer at graduation ceremonies.

Did Costner risk anything?

School district spokesman John Eby said, “The bottom line is: We’re not going to punish students for expressing their religious faiths.” Clemson University, where Costner plans to be this fall, did not rescind its acceptance of the incoming freshman. And the outpouring of positive sentiment was quite strong. No harm, no foul.

And what did it change? The Pickens County School District did not rescind the no-prayer policy; would not that have been the point of the protest? However, perhaps change, in response to Costner’s protest, happened half a continent away.

When Valedictorian Remington Reimer began to ad lib his graduation address, Joshua (TX) High School let him speak; they simply cut power to the microphone. They did not sanction his words, they controlled who heard them, perhaps a more frightening prospect. And Mr. Reimer is now off to the Naval Academy. Regarding risk, again, no harm, no foul.

And high schoolers are not the only low-risk protesters.

The North Carolina NAACP chapter has organized “Moral Monday” protests against the state’s General Assembly, which now has a Republican majority, for the past 7 weeks, resulting in nearly 500 arrests at the state capitol. But what is this likely to change? The Governor and the majority of the Legislature, both Republican, won elections. So is the NAACP and its supporters protesting the government, or the majority of their neighbors who vote? We saw how such protests wrought governmental change in Wisconsin. Why should the result differ in a state that is even more “red.” Again, no change and no risk…did anybody do anything to anyone who tried to unseat Scott Walker?

And what is at risk for “Moral Monday” protesters, after the NAACP also buses the protesters to the capitol and provides them snacks? An hour in a detention center, before the NAACP pays their bail and provides legal representation?

Once all is said and done, real protest looks more like this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPrHwmiUMH0[/youtube]

or this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nXT8lSnPQ[/youtube]

Only when people would rather be harmed, than ruled in a particular way, does political protest have honest power. Even nonviolent leaders like Ghandi and King understood that successful protest meant blood; they simply chose the side which would shed none. Today, people are more likely to be seen AT a protest, engaged in meaningless acts of no consequence to them, than involved IN a protest, where taking a stand is neither fun nor free. King David once said, “I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing. (2 Samuel 24:24)

If your defiance against what is wrong is an enjoyable endeavor that brings neither harm to you nor requires anything of value from you, then that is not protestin’; that is profilin’.

The “Editors” Are At It Again

by Black Man Thinkin'
Categories: ... 'bout Faith, ... 'bout Politics
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comments: 3 Comments
Published on: June 8, 2013

Periodically, the modern equivalent of the moneychangers Christ drove from the Temple set up shop in the marketplace of ideas, pushing some odd notion and finding isolated scriptures to support their point.

This past week, a trio of Iowa-based religious scholars published an op-ed, reminding readers that despite popular opinion, the Bible does not simply define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Turns out, their agenda item is to weigh in on the subject of marriage equality. While it may not expressly be the editorialists’ aim, the aim of many citing the editorial is clear: to use scripture to argue against the idea that homosexual marriage has any biblical opposition.

The citers’ argument is a bit roundabout, challenging the idea that the Bible teaches marriage is always a one man, one woman proposition. After successfully disputing that idea (and, I believe, they were successful), they, in effect argue that, since God does not limit marriage to one man and one woman, how can one conclude that He limits marriage to two people of opposite genders?

Sigh…

To support this assertion, they point out that the Bible does not condemn polygamy. Indeed it does not; rather, it teaches that those who would have leadership positions in the Church of Christ should have a monogamous marriage:

Titus 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach

1 Timothy 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Even those who would be recognized as widows were to have had a monogamous marriage, 1 Timothy 5:9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.

To be exact, the Bible does not say a man cannot have more than one wife, provided he is not seeking to serve in a leadership role. The writers also, and correctly, cite the polygamy of Abraham and David, whom God favored and blessed. They could have included Israel, Elkanah (the father of Samuel), Solomon (whose wives numbered in the hundreds), and others. The point of course is that polygamy is more of a social than a moral issue. That is a difficult assertion with which to disagree.

The editorial writers went on to state, among other things, that Jesus encouraged self-castration, using this verse:
Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Personally, I don’t quite see how stating what some have chosen to do, followed by saying, in effect, “If that’s you, then go for it; if not, then leave it alone”, qualifies as encouragement.

They also revive the worn, torn argument that the Bible teaches against interracial marriage:

Ezra 10:2-11 And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing. (3) Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. (4) Arise; for this matter belongeth unto thee: we also will be with thee: be of good courage, and do it. (5) Then arose Ezra, and made the chief priests, the Levites, and all Israel, to swear that they should do according to this word. And they sware. (6) Then Ezra rose up from before the house of God, and went into the chamber of Johanan the son of Eliashib: and when he came thither, he did eat no bread, nor drink water: for he mourned because of the transgression of them that had been carried away. (7) And they made proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of the captivity, that they should gather themselves together unto Jerusalem; (8) And that whosoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of those that had been carried away. (9) Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered themselves together unto Jerusalem within three days. It was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month; and all the people sat in the street of the house of God, trembling because of this matter, and for the great rain. (10) And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. (11) Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.

However, if that is the case, then why did God have no problem with the marriage of Joseph (to an Egyptian), or of Moses (to an Ethiopian)? Then there is Song of Solomon, the Bible book devoted to Solomon’s love for his black wife who was not a Hebrew. The idea that God had a problem with “race-mixing” is, therefore, illogical on its face. Recall, Paul’s words to those at Mar’s Hill:

Acts 17:24-26 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; (25) Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; (26) And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation

If all men came from one man, indeed from one blood, then what “races” are there? Can there really be more than one race in the view of Him Who created all men from one man? The simple truth is that God’s prohibition against inter-marriage was not a matter of trying to keep races pure, but of trying to keep faith from being tainted:

Deuteronomy 7:3-4 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. (4) For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

So, playing the race card, when discussing marriage and the Bible, is more than a little intellectually dishonest.

The editorialists concede that it is not accurate to state that the Bible allows for homosexual marriage, and further conclude that the Bible is not hard over on marriage being a “one-on-one” proposition. Again, those two ideas are difficult to dispute. However, they end by warning against the use of “ancient texts” to regulate modern ethics and morals, when those texts “endorse” practices that most Christians would condemn today.

Of course, this is a nod to the idea that ethics and morals are man-created and, therefore, subject to human revision once the original documentation becomes old or out of fashion. And this opens the doors for those who would promote consensual sodomy as something with which the Bible has no problem or does not speak against. One of the editorialists is quoted as saying, “[Anyone who argues that] the Bible speaks plainly on one issue, especially something as complicated as marriage … haven’t take[n] the time to read all of it.”

Indeed.

How these learned men missed Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them, or:

Romans 1:25-28 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient

The simple test of scriptural truth remains: if you take a position, concluding what the Bible represents on any issue, and that position fails to harmonize with all of scripture, then that position is not what the Bible teaches.

I personally believe heaven chuckles whenever the term “marriage equality” rises higher than the cloud layer, especially when used to validate the practice of homosexuality. However, that is because heaven is governed by the one who says, “I am the Lord. I change not…” Unfortunately, under the sun, there is a disturbing lack of resoluteness, which those who oppose God consistently seek to exploit – and every challenge resonates, to some degree, with some soul who is lukewarm toward God’s word.

This challenge is no different. The argument is, and remains, flawed, hilariously so, yet it will sway some from a steadfast position to a more “enlightened” point of view…which is why it will be used again. Can only hope the Lord returns before too many yield to arguments designed for itching ears.

«page 4 of 7»

The World of Black Man Thinkin’
ARTICLE ARCHIVES
WDFP Radio Show Archives

Recent Posts
  • All Americans Should Despis… by Black Man Thinkin'

    The Hypocritical Hashtag continues to ride police brutality lies toward an anarchy destination intended to diminish all in America. They taunt toward widespread armed conflict, and Americans will have to fight them – one way or another – to end the current tensions. No “diplomatic solutions” exist that would allow the republic to continue. I’ll[…]

  • Protect the Consequences of… by Black Man Thinkin'

    Busting the current police brutality myth, which beget the accompanying #DefundThePolice insanity, hinges upon the answers to these question: Is it a societal imperative to arrest those accused of violating the law, so that they might answer allegations made against them? Do those who frustrate that imperative commit a separate offense that society allows is[…]

  • Might COVID-19 Rescue Atlan… by Black Man Thinkin'

    After Independence Weekend 2020, Atlanta is clearly a more dangerous place because of the reckless progressivism of Keisha Lance Bottoms, another in the line of liberal U.S. black females who use elected office to compromise public safety for the sake of their ideology. You might recall how Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake had police stand down to[…]

  • But You Say, “It̵… by Black Man Thinkin'

    “It is enough that the people know there were deaths. The people who die determine nothing. The people who say how they died determine everything.”

  • Watching Melanin Fall… by Black Man Thinkin'

    To the extent this is credible – Oh, how the American black mind calcifies! Blacks are pessimistic about, and choose to consider racist, an elected official who’s presided over: The lowest level of black unemployment ever recorded, Collaboration with a black Senator and a black entertainer’s spouse to advocate for and enact criminal justice reform,[…]

  • America Finally Won An Election by Black Man Thinkin'

    [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdoLcdMJBUY[/youtube] The nation was told not to expect this. From the moment Americans found a 2016 presidential candidate through whom they could speak, they were called racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, misogynistic, or all of the above… Oh, you thought those were representations of Donald Trump? You poor soul. Virtually every event, good or bad, of Trump’s[…]

  • Need to Drain the “Ch… by Black Man Thinkin'

    It is possible that the “No Christian should vote” movement, regarding either major party candidate in 2016 is primarily a social media phenomenon However, I have reviewed enough articles and had enough personal conversations to doubt that. It is almost certain that anyone with even a remote church affiliation has heard the “ain’t neither of[…]

  • And Then There Was…A … by Black Man Thinkin'

    A picture of America’s modern presidential campaign model. Candidates seek to: • Segment the electorate into as many groups as practical, particularly at the state level, • Empathize with sympathetic groups to create the illusion of a supportive coalition, • Ignore conflicting interests within their coalition, speaking only of common goals, • Hurry to the[…]

  • It’s Not About Trump;… by Black Man Thinkin'

    My “pen” is largely silent during the 2016 presidential campaign and I would prefer it remain so; few things distract more from, while doing less to meet, this nation’s challenges than the two-year kabuki dance of those seeking the presidency. However, something so brazenly foul now occurs that it compels me to comment. Donald Trump’s[…]

  • Regarding New York Values by Black Man Thinkin'

    My late father was born and raised in New York City… Over the course of 79 years, he became a military man, the husband of one woman for more than half a century, a baptized Catholic, the father of 3 and grandfather of 5, a decorated war veteran, a Southerner…and someone who, by choice, never[…]

Categories
Recent Comments
Welcome , today is Thursday, November 21, 2024