Meet Herman Cain: The Ultimate ‘Civil Disobedience’ Activist
By: The Good Friar, Guest Contributor
------------------------
Back in the 1960's and 1970's, at at time when America was overtly and institutionally racist in many respects, a young Herman Cain chose to perform the ultimate act of subversion by going inside the system and beating it at its own game.
Rather than launching his attack an unjust system from the outside by sitting down at lunch counters in North Carolina or marching across bridges in Alabama (which all were indeed extraordinary and needed acts of courage), Herman Cain chose to do something that would prove just as effective in shattering the glass ceiling of racism in America.
He went inside the system as a black man and succeeded.
In so doing Herman Cain did something neither Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Louis Farakhan ever accomplished -- he made it to the top in the ranks of corporate America all on his own. With few legal safeguards or entitlements available to him at the time, he achieved the unachievable armed with nothing more than a determined work ethic, gifted business savvy, real intelligence and extraordinary people skills.
In other words, he beat "The Man" at his own game using his own rules.
Now that's subversive. In doing so he thus opened the door for millions of others to potentially do the same. Herman Cain has quietly proved that America for all its flawed racial attitudes, and its dark history of slavery and Jim Crow laws, still could not (and would not) suppress the gifts and instincts of a gifted black man willing to ignore barriers and press on until he reached the prize.
In so doing Cain has shattered the liberal mold of affirmative action, entitlement legislation and civil unrest as the only means of aggrieved minorities to rise and prosper in the American society.
Now, running for President, and quickly gaining the support of the majority of a party typically depicted by the liberal media as hopelessly racist and instinctively unfair (the same party of Lincoln and the abolitionists that is), Herman Cain is again undoing the system.
No wonder the liberal media is so apoplectic in their anger at him -- he has made it to the top without them.
Herman Cain has every right to use his gifted gospel voice to proudly sing, "We Shall Overcome." Why? Because he did. Perhaps Lawrence O'Donnell should join him in a duet.
William F. Buckley on Racial Profiling
Since re-reading his landmark work God and Man at Yale again earlier this summer, I've been on something of a William F. Buckley "kick." In short, I can't get enough of the late, great conservative champion and his unique rhetorical skills. Thank God for YouTube!
I wanted to give you a little taste of what you're missing if you haven't been following me on Twitter (@rjmoeller) where each night a post another Buckley clip. Here is the man himself, discussing racial profiling with rapper Chuck D (of Public Enemy fame).
I could listen to the man talk all day. And have before.
Tea Party Rally In South Central Los Angeles
When you think of "South Central," names like Snoop Dogg, Dr. Dre and Ice Cube come to mind, not Michelle Bachmann and Andrew Breitbart. While neither Bachmann nor Breitbart were in attendance this past weekend, the Tea Party movement they proudly represent made it presence (and disdain for the NAACP) known at a rally in the heart of Los Angeles.
Some of the anti-Tea Party protestors who showed up expressed their blunt opinions and specifically addressed their, shall we say "disappointment," with fellow black Americans who have the nerve to endorse limited government and fiscal responsibility.
Alright, so this is less than a fair sample size. I admit that.
But, and this is a big "but," we heard the same rhetoric coming from the 20-year pastor of our current president.
Somehow liberal pundits are always able to deftly parse the subtext of any comment a conservative, Republican, or libertarian makes regarding limited government and lower taxes. They make inferences and take massive illogical leaps to make their primary point: the Right = racist.
More than anything else, my heart breaks for these angry, confused, and wildly mis-informed people. Barack Obama is one of them.
The day we move past the white guilt that suffocates our society, the day more prominent black men like the president actually begin to use their platform or pulpit to call the African-American community to account for their own actions, will be a blessed one for those lucky enough to see it.
Farrakhan to Obama: You kiddin’ me?
America's favorite anti-Semite, the venerable Minister Louis Farrakhan, has some (bizarre) words of warning for his (former) boy Barack Obama:
Weirded out? Me too.
According to the leader of The Nation of Islam, a group which recently promoted the existence of UFO's, President Obama is wrong for doing anything about the situation in Libya because the people protesting and rebelling there are actually happy with their leaders. I realize this train of thought makes little sense, but who needs such a trifling thing as sense when you have bodyguards and a rhetorical cadence like Minister Farrakhan does?
Same Reckless Rhetoric, Different Day
President Obama is desperate. The man who promised to bring the nation together, to put partisan politics behind him (and us), to lead a national dialogue on mending racial tensions, had this to say to Spanish-speaking voters on the Hispanic radio network Univision:
“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”
Nice. The presumption, of course, is that the Republican party is un-friendly to Latinos.
In way of a response, I'd like to share with you a poignant, thoughtful "open letter to Hispanics" from conservative talk show host (and uber-white guy) Dennis Prager.
An excerpt:
I am writing to you as a concerned and sympathetic American who is a Republican. My sentiments do not represent those of every American — that would be impossible. But I believe the following represents what most Americans believe.
First, a message to those of you here illegally:
You may be very surprised to hear this, but in your position, millions of Americans, including me, would have done what you did.
If I lived in a poor country with a largely corrupt government, a country in which I had little or no hope for an improved life for me and my children, and I could not legally get into the world’s freest, most affluent country, the country with the most opportunities for people of any and every background, I would do whatever I could do to get into that country illegally.
Mexico and many other Latin American countries are largely hopeless places for most of their people. America offers hope to everyone willing to work hard. Who could not understand why any individual, let alone a father or mother of a family, would try to get into the United States — legally preferably, illegally if necessary?
Now that I have made it clear that millions of us understand what motivates you and do not morally condemn you for entering America illegally, I have to ask you to try to understand what motivates us.
No country in the world can allow unlimited immigration. If America opened its borders to all those who wish to live here, hundreds of millions of people would come in. That would, of course, mean the end of the United States economically and culturally.
If you are from Mexico, you know that Mexico’s treatment of illegal immigrants from south of its border is far harsher than is my country’s of illegal immigrants from your country and elsewhere.
All it takes is common sense to understand that we simply cannot afford to take care of all of you in our medical, educational, penal, and other institutions. However much you may pay in sales tax, most illegal immigrants are a financial and social burden in those states in which most of them settle.
Yes, many of you are also a blessing. Many of you take care of our children and our homes. Others of you prepare our food and do other work that is essential to our society. We know that. As individuals, the great majority of you are hardworking, responsible, decent people.
But none of that answers the question: How many people can this country allow to come in?
The moment you answer that question is the moment you realize that Americans’ worries about illegal immigration have nothing to do with “racism” or any negative feeling toward Hispanics.
Please read the rest of Prager's recent column here.
Obama’s Department of Agriculture: “We Did Enough” For The White Guy
Now I fully realize that public figures sometimes say things they don't mean while the cameras are rolling, but this latest clip that has surfaced from the Director of Rural Development in Georgia is highly offensive.
Does it even need to be said that had a white member of the Bush administration said anything resembling this nonsense to an all-white crowd of Republican voters in Georgia it would be front-page, wall-to-wall coverage for the rest of the year until the mid-term elections?
Where is the racial reconciliation we were promised from the Agent of Change during the 2008 presidential campaign? President Obama and angry black liberals such as this federal official in Georgia have forgotten the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr. and it's sad to behold.
Of course racism is in the human heart of people from all ethnic groups, but if we can't publicly call black racists what they are, we will NEVER "move past" race in this country.
“Shocked” By Black Republicans
Let's assume that the labeling of Fox News as a "right-wing" network is true...what does this then say about MSNBC?
The network was, of course, "surprised" by the fact that there are a handful of black Americans running for elected federal office as Republicans. And what is worse: they're partnering with Tea Party groups in their respective areas! Gasp!
My beef is not with MSNBC having an opinion on the situation they're reporting on here. It's that absolutely no credit will be given to conservatives or Republicans for attracting ethnically diverse candidates.
And speaking of the tragic mis-placed loyalty blacks have had to the Democrat Party, here's an excerpt from Dr. Walter E. Williams' latest column on that very subject:
Tragically, most Americans, including black people whose ancestors have suffered from gross injustices of slavery, think it quite proper for government to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another. That's precisely what income redistribution is: the practice of forcibly taking the fruits of one person's labor for the benefit of another. That's also what theft is and the practice differs from slavery only in degree but not kind.
What about blacks who cherish liberty and limited government and joined in the tea party movement, or blacks who are members of organizations such as the Lincoln Institute, Frederick Douglass Foundation and Project 21? They've been maligned as Oreos, Uncle Toms and traitors to their race. To make such a charge borders on stupidity, possibly racism. After all, when President Reagan disagreed with Tip O'Neill, did either charge the other with being a traitor to his race? Then why is it deemed traitorous when one black disagrees with another, unless you think that all blacks must think alike?
I hope it's misunderstanding, rather than contempt, that explains black hostility toward the principles of liberty.
Obama to Arizona: “Play Fair”
By: R.J. Moeller
The governor of Arizona, a Republican woman named Janice Brewer, signed a bill into law last week that will allow law enforcement agents in her state to arrest people for breaking the law.
That’s what I call “edgy” policy-making, no?
In the minds of our progressive-liberal friends on the Left, the crime of entering the United States of America illegally pales in comparison to the seemingly unforgivable transgression of pointing out that entering the United States of America illegally is, well – illegal.
Unfortunately for all of us, one of the loudest critics of we illegal immigration “whistle-blowers” happens to be the Commander-in-Chief and 44th president of those same United States of America.
Barack Obama, a man sworn to defend the Constitution, to uphold the integrity of our republic, to defend our borders, shows more public disdain and disapproval when one of the nation’s 50 executive leaders legislatively declares that circumventing the law is no longer a tolerable option, than he does about Iranian and North Korean nuclear “activities.”
The actions by the Arizona legislature threaten “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans,” Obama said.
Really? How so? With all due and proper respect for a Community Organizer of President Obama’s stature, what in the world could be more unfair than to allow more than 11 million people to get away with breaking America’s laws? How fair do you think it is to the millions waiting (and desperate) to get into the U.S. legally?
“Surely we can all agree that when 11 million people in our country are living here illegally, outside the system, that’s unacceptable,” Obama said. “The American people demand and deserve a solution.”
But only if that solution doesn’t involve any of those pesky American people, clinging to their “guns and religion”, deciding for themselves how best to deal with the “unacceptable” problem, right? Those yahoos can’t be trusted with a spork to eat their mashed potatoes at KFC, let alone with decisions pertaining to the legal, cultural and economic fate of their beloved nation.
What happened to the Man of Hope who, according to he and his wife Michelle, wasn’t going to allow us to “sit on the sidelines” anymore? How can the politician interested in getting people on the local and community levels involved in the political process now be upset that a state (full of people living in local communities) is handling the immigration matter in-house?
Is President Obama tearing down the actions of concerned citizens with “a lot of talking”?
Here’s the message I’ve been receiving from Washington D.C. for the last four years regarding illegal immigration: The decisions of individual citizens, municipalities, counties, and states can’t be trusted (or possibly be fair), but the same people who brought you FEMA, Fannie and Freddie, the public education system that is ranked 35th in Math and 29th in Science in the world, and the “Cash for Clunkers” program last summer will set crooked paths straight, right every wrong, and wipe every tear from every illegal immigrants eye…eventually. (Just stop trying to fix things on your own, you tax-paying, law-abiding, meddling twits.)
“Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others,” Obama said. “That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona.”
Absolutely true, Mr. President: the legislative and executive branches of our federal government have thoroughly failed the American taxpayer by their dereliction of duty to deal with the out-of-control border situation and immigration dilemma.
But my question is this: Why does it always have to be Big Brother that corrects every important problem in every area of the country? Why should a state like AZ trust you, President Obama, to be any more serious about addressing the unsustainable situation we’re currently facing than previous leaders?
Why is the default position always, no matter what, that the federal government needs to come in and “fix” things? Especially in light of the fact that it has been Big Brother’s unwavering unwillingness to act that has led to an exodus of upwards of 20 million undocumented, law-breaking people to our shores.
The conservative king himself, Ronald Reagan, mistakenly thought that the illegal immigration problem could be fixed with amnesty at the federal level in 1986 when only about 1 million people were involved. President Reagan was led to believe that if he gave out a few “Get out of having to return to the country you swam through shark-infested waters to get to America from” Cards back then, it would motivate legislators at the federal and state levels to “get serious” about border enforcement so we would be safer and more secure by now.
Errrrr. Wrong.
When you incentivize illegal behavior, then reward it by refusing to punish the wrong-doers, who in their right mind thinks that the illegal behavior will not continue (and, as we’ve witnessed the past twenty years, exponentially expand)? If I lived in a hell-hole of a country, with a corrupt government and abysmal economy, and I knew that I could come to the United States, get work, avoid any sort of legal repercussions for my illegality, and have politicians fighting over who could get me on the welfare’s dole quicker (so they could stay in office), I would absolutely make the same choice to do whatever it takes to get here.
But what makes the United States of America a country worth risking your life to come to isn’t just a stronger economy or free health care from your increasingly-bloated Uncle Sam. Those things are only even possible because of something we used to like to call, “the rule of law.” Nations don’t become prosperous and then decide to look into “that whole 'protecting ourselves and our property rights' thing.”
We are worth escaping to for the very things that allowing millions of foreigners to enter our borders illegally undermine and deteriorate.
The “we’re all immigrants” mantra that well-meaning people regurgitate in hopes that no one will actually ask them to think about their position on the immigration problem leaves out the fairly important word “legal” between “all” and “immigrants.”
And now, in light of the failures of Reagan’s 1986 Amnesty, and a crystal-clear track-record of the federal government being unable and unwilling to tackle the immigration issue in a way that doesn’t include Amnesty, and with anywhere between 11-20 million illegals already among us, we’re supposed to believe that the answer is to give the federal government another college-professor try?
Your position on the immigration problem is what is really wrong, President Obama, not just the methods you want to employ in solving it.
When congress attempted to force amnesty down the American people’s throats back in 2006, the nation responded in force by flooding Capitol Hill with calls, letters, emails, faxes, and, if Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) ever got them, a few of my favorite carrier pigeons.
America’s message to the philosopher-kings in Washington: Get real, clowns. We’re not racists, but we’re not suckers either. You padding your voter-base with 20 million new, appreciative, potential ballot-casters at the expense of the country’s economic, legal and health care system are the kind of “change” societal destruction can conceive in.
If all it takes for me to be granted citizenship (and be eligible for welfare entitlements) is that I promise my eventual vote to a politician, I won’t have to hire Lewis and Clark to explore uncharted territories to find me a willing accomplice in congress.
By wrapping the immigration issue (and themselves) in moral terms, by presenting the issue as a “Lovers of immigrants vs. Haters of immigrants,” the White House and racially-charged groups like La Raza (backed by a progressive-Left, sympathetic media) clearly have their sights set on a new and the-opposite-of-improved version of the 2006 amnesty bill. To suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
The insinuation of President Obama’s negative reaction to the new law in Arizona is that our law enforcement agents are too racist to handle the responsibility of arresting perpetrators of illegal behavior (in any and all forms).
The only other conclusion, if that one does not strike your fancy, is that the administration and leadership in congress are radical Leftist ideologues who believe so deeply in growing the size and control of the federal government that facts, figures, history and the prevailing sentiments of the American people are nothing more than obstacles in the way of a utopian vision we’ll thank them for when it’s finished.
I love that we live in a nation people want to come to. The immigrants that I have had the distinct pleasure of working with in various odd jobs growing up have always been the hardest working employees. Many of them are here to send funds back to relatives who need money in their native lands. But none of that changes the fact that we need REAL change in our approach to our borders and immigration policy at the federal and state levels.
Send more troops and guards to our borders. Grant more work visas. Make English the official language of the country. Encourage all states to have their law enforcement agents check for the same identification I have to show at the nearly-extinct Blockbuster Video by my house. Incentivize lawful actions by your citizenry and those hoping to come and work and/or live here.
Fair = judging someone by the content of their character.
Fair = punishing all law-breakers the same.
Fair = upholding the Constitution you ensured voters in January of 2009 you would “protect and defend.”
Arizona acted out of necessity. Is the law perfect? By no means. Few laws are.
But here is what we know: the border is out of control, businesses fear little reprisal for hiring illegals, the federal government has done its best to convince us all to join a local Tea Party, and the nation is in a fiscal mess. In that environment, for a state like Arizona to make a decision on how best they will address the concerns they have in-state seems entirely reasonable to me.
We here at AVITW will monitor the AZ law, and if there are aspects of it that we don't care for, or if there are abuses perpetrated under the cover of it, we'll be unafraid to highlight them for you, the reader.
Our intent is not to tell you what to think, but simply to remind you to think, and think hard, about what kind of city, state, and country you want to live in (and hope to leave for your children).
Hey Black Man, Aren’t You Uncomfortable Around Whitey?
I can't wait to get home, download my new podcasts for the day, and hear what Dennis Prager has to say about this story.
The insinuation from this "reporter" is, of course, that black people only really vote for liberal Democrats, so a black man at a Tea Party rally must be there by accident and afraid for his own safety among such racist, homophobic, xenophobic bigots.
I understand why a reporter like Kelly O'Donnell thinks the way she does. I just don't like it, and firmly believe that her mindset (i.e. all black people not only should be, but are, progressive liberals and supporters of bigger and bigger, unsustainable government) ought to wake some people up to the fact that it is the Left who is obsessed with race.
The Tea Party movement is all about fiscal responsibility, personal and national accountability, limited (Constitutional) government. It's sad that so many Americans (liberal Democrats and progressives) don't believe in those things; it's even more tragic that they resent those of us who do.
Finishing Sowell’s Thoughts On “Race and Politics”
Last week I posted Parts I and II of Dr. Thomas Sowell's series on "Race and Politics". I won't offer much in the way of my commentary here, but I wanted to at the very least link to both Parts III and IV that came out last Thursday and Friday, respectively.
Part III discusses the erroneous notion most have that there is an exclusive link between "causation and morality".
An excerpt:
Today's racial dogmas are no more realistic, when they try to dismiss or downplay behavioral and performance differences among racial and ethnic groups, blaming different outcomes on the misdeeds of others. Nothing is easier to find than sins among human beings. But the fatal misstep is to assume that those sins must be the reason for the differences we see.
The more fundamental question that almost never gets asked is whether there was ever any realistic basis for expecting different racial, ethnic or other groups to all have the same skills and orientations, even if they all had the same genetic potential and there were no injustices.
Those who see differences among groups as being due to environment, rather than heredity, too often think of environment as the current immediate surroundings. But a major part of any group's environment is the culture that they have inherited from the past.
In Part IV, Sowell hammers some convincing nails into the "multiculturalism rules!" coffin:
One of the most ominous developments of our time has been the multicultural dogma that all cultures are equal. It is one of the many unsubstantiated assertions that have become fashionable among self-congratulatory elites, with hard evidence being neither asked for nor offered.
But, however much such assertions minister to the egos of the intelligentsia and the careers of politicians and race hustlers, the multicultural dogma is a huge barrier to the advancement of groups who are lagging economically, educationally and otherwise.
Once you have said that the various economic, educational and other "gaps" and "disparities" of lagging groups are not due to either genes or cultures, what is left but the sins of other people?
Sins are never hard to find, among any group of human beings. But whether that actually helps those who are lagging, or just leads them into the blind alley of resentment, is another question.
We are all blessed to have access to the clarity and wisdom of Tom Sowell.
RJ's Social Network
Read RJ’s Columns/Blogs
What is “Mere Conservatism”?
Video of RJ
Rudy the Dog barks at "change"
Books You Need to Read
Wall Street Journal
Blogroll
- Acton Power Blog
- Big Government
- Big Hollywood
- Black and Red
- Conservative Daily Blog
- Dad's blog
- Dennis Prager (The Master)
- Desiring God (John Piper)
- Doug Giles (Clash Radio)
- Education News
- Hugh Hewitt
- Jihad Watch
- Mere Orthodoxy
- Michael Medved
- Milton Friedman
- Mom's blog
- My LOST blog
- Only Good Movies
- Patriots Corner
- Remnant Culture
- Shot In The Dark
- Stiletto Blog
- Subscribe via RSS
- The Straight Hype
- Twitter Me
Columnists You Need to Read
- Ann Coulter
- Charles Krauthammer
- Christopher Hitchens
- George Will
- Jonah Goldberg
- Karl Rove
- Mark Steyn
- Marvin Olasky
- Thomas Sowell
- Tony Blankley
- Walter E. Williams
Music/Entertainment
News/Politics
- Drudge Report
- Fact Check
- Fox News
- Hot Air
- Jerusalem Post
- National Review
- Real Clear Politics
- Townhall
- Washington Times
- Weekly Standard