BLOG.AFROCONSERVATIVE.COM

Hanging Up My Extremist Jacket…

Vanessa — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:49:00 GMT

If you’ve been keeping up with this blog, by now, you’ve seen that I’ve decided to change course.

Though, there is still this side of me that would love to be a loud and proud black right-wing extremist. The bellicose part of my character still enjoys the visceral reactions that I get from my liberal brothers and sisters. But, the whole point of this blog, since its inception was to reach those Blacks, like myself, who are tired of the liberal monopoly in our communities. I also wanted to give my White brothers and sisters a little perspective on how black consciousness and conservatism are completely compatible. There are many Blacks who are looking for a BETTER alternative. I think the right side offers a mostly better alternative, but I’m not looking to compromise my culture and identity in order to fit into what mainstream conservatives think a Black Conservative should be.I’m me-the one and only Afroconservative A.K.A. Nappy Head Republican.

Let me say that I don’t think Conservatives should have a monopoly on the Black community either-I just think there needs to be balance. Blacks, or anyone for that matter, shouldn’t have blind allegiance to either party or either movement.

Some of my older writings were a little divisive. I’m trying to stay away from political polarities because, well, there are mindless drones on both sides of the political spectrum. I don’t want to leave one type of rhetoric and openly embrace another.

I’m excited about the prospects. Another one of my articles was featured on hip hop republican, and my friend who’s argued with me plenty of times text messaged me and said he’s now considering becoming a Republican.

My girl Star over at “Did she say that” has this wonderful catch-phrase: “What I wrote yesterday, I may not believe tomorrow, because of what I learned today!”

You are now witnessing the political evolution of the Afroconservative.

To the faithful readers who’ve been with me since the beginning-thanks.

You all are in my heart.

Hello Black Republicans/Conservatives? What are we doing?

Vanessa — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:31:00 GMT

There was a time in my life when I believed there was this system purposefully set up to keep Black people subordinated. Somehow, in the midst of that phase, I naively internalized that liberals were the only ones who acknowledged the proverbial "system", and did everything in their power to change it. Then I found out about how liberal policies negatively impacted the Black Family. Liberals instantly became the object of my disdain.

So, naturally, if liberals were so "evil" the only place left for me to go was the other side, right?

I've openly identified as a Conservative Republican for a little over 2 1/2 years. I'm almost 26, and I realize that my opinions will continue to evolve. I don't "co-sign" on everything Republicans say or do. I think independently. However, I find that most of my views align more perfectly with Conservatism, especially as it relates to the family-and the importance of keeping the mother-father nuclear family intact-something that liberals all too often negate. Liberals seem to think that government can supplant a married mommy and daddy and the human capital that is produced when children are raised in said family. Just ask anyone whose worked in "the hood" for years, like myself, and they'll tell you that government cannot compensate for broken families that all too often produce broken people.

However, the last few months, I've found myself increasingly annoyed and gravely concerned with Republicans and Conservatives especially Black Republicans and Conservatives. It's so easy to Bash Obama, and his followers. I've done my fair share of that. After a while, that gets old. What alternatives are we bringing to the table? The unemployment rate is hovering around 10 % nationally and runs even higher than that in certain areas in the US. If someone is out of a job and a Republican or Conservative calls Obama a "Socialist" or says he's about "Spreading the wealth" most people who don't understand the dangers of confiscatory government will simply say, "Hey, Obama better spread some of that wealth my way! I'm B-R-O-K-E!"

The question for Republicans, especially BLACK Republicans is: What are we doing for the people in the hood? What are our policy proposals that will help bring jobs to people so they can get off of "government"? I have respect for most of the tea party people-especially because I have friends who participate in them religiously. However, let's keep it real, Tea party goers don't care about the hood. What policies do we have for high-crime, low educational attainment, and the other social pathologies we see in the inner city.

According to many studies, and a recent Pew Research Survey, Black people's views align almost perfectly with the Republican party-YET STILL only 2-3% of us identify as such? Something is terribly wrong.

So what's causing the disconnect?

Well, for starters, I believe that there is a self-hatred problem we refuse to talk about. I believe that there are many of us on this side who are trying to brown nose to White people because we feel this inherent sense of inferiority. We bash our brothers and sisters, look down on them, and end up being part of a different plantation. Yeah, I said it. There's a plantation mentality on this side too. Just the other day, a Black Conservative woman on facebook posted a picture of a defaced Michele Obama likening her to a gorilla. Again, not all of us (Black Republicans) behave this way, but many of us have identity issues and the rest of our Black brothers and sisters can see through it.

The other problem is the way we package the message. We live in a mixed economy. Most Americans are MODERATE. I heard Glenn Beck say that the other day! You think Rush Limbaugh isn't a moderate? A few months back, when he was on Jay Leno, and Jay asked him if he wanted to get rid of Social Security and Medicare (FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS) altogether, Rush responded an unabashed, "No!" How moderate of him. Scott Brown is a Pro-choice Moderate. Michael Steele is a moderate too, and he constantly gets flack about it! Go figure! Americans are not extremely to the right, nor are they extremely to the left.

We, the people, believe in government regulation and taxation- but not to the point where it stifles creativity that produces economic growth. That's the "right-wing" message people should hear. Ironically enough, I heard this lady on Rush Limbaugh's radio show a few weeks ago vilifying welfare recipients-but she worked in the welfare office for over 20 years! All I kept thinking was, this lady has been able to pay her bills for 20 years and will collect a pension because of tax payer dollars that fund welfare programs and she's complaining? I'm not advocating dependence by any means, I just find the hypocrisy a little alarming. Other people do too.

I used FEDERAL financial AID when I went for my undergraduate and graduate degrees! In 2007-2008, 66 % of all undergraduates used Financial Aid for college. As Republicans/Conservatives, we need to articulate what this "limited government" catch-phrase slogan signifies as applied in real life. When we talk about limited government, are we advocating that we cut off all financial AID? Even uber-right wing libertarians have conflicting messages of what exactly constitutes limited government. We can't simply say, "We need limited government!" as a reactionary response to every proposal made by liberals!

One of the main issues in the inner city is educational attainment after broken families. It's not just about offering inner city students vouchers. It's more than talking about dilapidated schools, unmotivated kids, and/or antiquated teaching styles. What urban policy platforms are we drafting? I've slowed down my writing because I refuse to lose my identity in the Republican Party. I'm doing more than listening to talk radio and Fox News for this week's talking points. I want to understand economic policy so I have an alternative when Liberal Democrat's present theirs. We can criticize people on the left all we want for coming up short when it comes to urban renewal, job creation, and health care reform, but what are we presenting as viable alternatives? It's time to elevate the dialogue. Who's with the Afroconservative AKA NAPPY HEAD REPUBLICAN?

Haiti Benefit Concert/Haitian Relief

Vanessa — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:33:00 GMT

First off, let me say thank you to all the faithful readers of this blog who reached out to me the past few weeks. It's been an emotional roller coaster-but in the midst of it all-God is still in control!

I received word that my father, his family members, and mother's family are all safe--except one cousin of mine who tragically died. I did not know him-but please pray for my family. I was under the impression that my father was in another part of Haiti which was not affected-but he called my mother and told her that he was indeed at the epicenter of the earthquake and that he's alright! They've all been sleeping in the streets due to the tumultuous after shocks.

If you are in the New Jersey/New York Area, I am a planning the first of a series of Benefit Concerts, the first (details below).

Saturday January 30, 2010
"Fountain Baptist Church"
116 Glenside Avenue
Summit, NJ 07901
6-9pm

If you are able to attend, I am asking people to bring water, diapers, baby formula, sanitary products (soap, toothpaste) etc, non-perishable items, energy bars, rice, and beans.

God calls us to act and help the least amongst us-not sit around and wait for someone or an institution.

Tomorrow isn't promised to any of us. Yeah, it sounds kinda hackneyed, right? Well, many people woke up on January 12, 2010-- in Haiti-- not knowing that it would be their last morning. Remember not to take your lives for granted! Please...if you remember anything from this blog-hopefully it's that!

Vanessa

Earthquake in Haiti

Vanessa — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:46:00 GMT

Last night when I came home from work, I decided to take a nap. My best friend started calling my cell phone and my land line incessantly. So I decided to pick up and she said, "Did you hear there was an earthquake in Haiti?" I responded, "No. I've been sleeping."

For those of you who don't know already, My family is from Haiti. I am a second-generation Haitian American. I called my family in Florida to let them know. Unfortunately, since his retirement, my father has been spending most of his time in Haiti. The area where he was residing is said to have been terribly hit. I don't know if he is safe. It's very difficult to contact anyone at this time. We are all holding our breaths.

I am asking you all to pray for my family, and all the families in Haiti right now. I just keep thinking about the children--who are probably alone right now--because their parents are missing or dead. *sigh* I broke down yesterday. I don't want to break down again until...I don' t know...

I'm not sure if God is telling me to go to Haiti. I am going to continue to pray about it and I will let you all know.

Regardless of what they say in the news, Haiti is such a beautiful island with beautiful people. Haiti was the first country with slaves to successfully revolt against the European colonists. They received their Independence on January 1, 1804. Haiti used to be called the "Pearl of the Caribbean". The last few decades have been marked by violence, poverty, and an unstable government run by opportunists.

The people there haven't learned how to utilize the resources they have in order to prosper. This past earthquake will make things significantly worse.

In the midst of it all, I still believe these are signs of Christ's imminent return.

Be Blessed,
Vanessa

Getting Rid of the “Carlton Banks" Stereotype of Black Republicans

Vanessa — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:32:00 GMT

One of the greatest shows in all of sitcom history is probably “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air”. Remember Carlton Banks (played by Alfonso Rebiero)? He was the quintessential Black Republican! He was rich, out of touch with his consciousness, and surrounded by white people who loved to sing Tom Jones.

Growing up in the 90s, I always thought Carlton’s antics were hilarious-but I never realized the insidious message that I internalized about Black Republicans until I became one, and became the object of peoples’ subtle and not so subtle disapproval. Whenever people find out that I am a Republican, they are usually shocked because of my dreadlocks, and my conscious vibe. After finding out that I recently switched political parties, one of my co-workers befuddled asked, “But…but…you have dreadlocks in your hair, you talk about BLACK HISTORY, and you listen to my problems??”

The reason why he was shocked is because I don’t fit the stereotype of a Black Republican. The image that usually comes to mind when one thinks of a Black Republican is someone who is out of touch with their “blackness” and trying hard to emulate “White America”. Carlton Banks went to private school. He rarely ever danced to Hip Hop, and always had that ever popular awkward Carlton dance where he would snap his fingers and sway his arms from left to right. Carlton spoke proper English, and didn’t hang out with “no brothers”. He looked down at Will’s more ghetto friend Jazzy Jeff. He didn’t listen to Rap, wore khaki pants, and polo shirts and was rarely, if ever on the basketball courts. He was usually playing golf, tennis, or swimming in his pool with his white friends. He was a prominent member of the Republican club in school. He didn’t have what Harry Reid (currently the poster child for racial sensitivity) would call “typical negro dialect.”

In contrast Will Smith’s character was oh so cool, comical, conscious, and down to earth. He fit the prototypical image of a regular brother whose funny and ‘down with the cause’ vibe made everyone feel comfortable and safe.

So, is there an “image” problem for Black Republicans? Of course! That’s without question. Now, if we’re serious about getting more Blacks to the join the side with family values, educational choice options, and economic principles for success, we have to confront our issues as Black Republicans. Many young, conscious, educated Blacks are leaving the Democratic Party and becoming Independents because they realize how much Liberals have monopolized the Black community. There’s a huge constituency of intellectuals that we can convince to join the “right side”. The only problem is most people wouldn’t want to identify themselves as a Carlton Banks. Neither would I.

One of the first things we can do as Black Republicans to tap into this constituency is to start talking about Black Conservatives like Booker T. Washington, Frederick Douglas, Madam CJ Walker, and Mary McLeod Bethune. We can contrast their solutions for Black America with the current Black “leaders” (Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) who are simply opportunists who don’t care about urban revitalization.

We NEED to have to an identity. It’s not enough to parrot mainstream conservatism and expect it to resonate with our people. When I first became an avid Conservative- I began to parrot mainstream conservatism and honestly lost my identity. I slowly began to realize that there’s rhetoric on both sides. What solutions are we bringing to the table? The Tea Party Protestors aren’t thinking about the inner city. They’re fighting for their own causes and they have every right to do so. What are we doing to help Black America? We’ve come a long way and the last thing most Black People want to do is join a Party they think will make them lose their identity.

This is why leaders like Michael Steele are vital. He’s trying to modernize and soften the image of the GOP. Some may say he is “compromising principles” I say he’s reaching across the aisle and drafting pragmatic solutions. We can criticize him, and Obama (like I’ve done), but what are we doing that’s solution-oriented in nature?

Times are changing, the issues are evolving. Talking about “limited government” is one thing. However, enlightening people about the dangers of confiscatory government regulation and how that can effect job creation is something else. As Black Republicans, we shouldn’t be afraid to talk about Racism. It’s not dead. We can acknowledge racism and condemn it, without becoming the liberal establishment victims that typical leftists prey on. There are many people who want us to look the other way and sometimes we do for fear of reprisal. We know how much we’re readily rejected by people who look like us, so we’re scared to rock the boat with White Conservatives. So, we look the other way when we know something is racist and wrong. There are also some who want us to forget our history, heritage, and culture so we can make them feel more comfortable around us. If the shoe was on the other foot, would you have respect for people you perceived to be that way?

If we don’t curtail our strategies, we won’t be able to get Black people to open their ears to the conservative solutions we may have for the inner city. Don’t be afraid to be yourself. I have to constantly remind myself of that. You may not please everyone as a Black Republican, because we’re called “RINOS” on one side, and then we’re called “Uncle Toms” or “Aunt Jemimas” on the other side. Who the hell cares? I’ve found that most people respect people who are honest and true to themselves. And guess what? We can agree to disagree. Frederick Douglas said it best when he said, “I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence.”

Madam CJ Walker and InnerCity Entrepeneurship

Vanessa — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 04:36:00 GMT

Question: What do most women think about more than men? Answer: Their Hair. Don't get upset ladies-we know it's true.

Many people don't know that the first woman to become a self-made millionaire was a Black woman by the name of Madam CJ Walker. She went from working in the cotton fields in the South-to distributing hair care products through her own manufacturing firm. For those of you who chemically straighten your hair-you can thank her for the perm. I'll stick with my nappy hair. Thanks.

There are many lessons we can learn from Madam CJ Walker. The first is that if we have enough drive we can accomplish anything even under the most inauspicious circumstances.

In Madam CJ Walker's time, Black people weren't an "interest group"-so most Blacks had to depend on one other (mutual aid networks) like the church in order to survive. Madam CJ Walker understood that. Because of her entrepreneurial spirit-not only was she able to become a self-made millionaire, she was able to help lift many Black people out of poverty through EMPLOYMENT. We should always avoid class envy because if Madam CJ was poor and part of the "why me" chorus--she wouldn't have been able to create jobs. I want you to remember that next time a Liberal politician tries to get you angry at "rich people". Madam CJ Walker was also a philanthropist. She left over 2/3 of her wealth to organizations she felt worked towards the betterment of her community-- like the Tuskegee Institute, and a historically black college by the name of Bethune-Cookman College.

Many Black people hated Reagan because they say he cut many "essential" social programs. What many Blacks fail to realize is that under Reagan, the number of black-owned businesses increased from 308,000 - 424, 000 which is equivalent to a 38 percent influx (compared to the 14 percent increase in the total number of firms in the United States). Moreover, receipts by black-owned firms doubled (went from $9.6 billion to $19.8 billion at the end of his administration). Let's give credit where credit is due. Part of the reason why receipts for Black owned businesses doubled is because Reagan understood that too much government can stifle economic activity. Which do you prefer, a leader who promotes dependency through legislation-or one who promotes economic autonomy? I choose the latter.

Obama's policies may sound nice but they aren't doing anything to stimulate the economic activity in this country. When the rest of America is in a recession-the ripple effects on the Black community are even more potent. While I have tremendous respect for Obama, as an individual, I cannot willfully blind myself to the fact his policies are having a retardant effect on our economy...because his father was Black, like me.

Instead of waiting for the government to step in where we come short-it's important for us to look to the people who came before us, like Madam Walker-who had conditions significantly more arduous-yet still managed to turn their obstacles into opportunities.

The entrepreneurs in the Inner City should look more like the people who fraternize their businesses. There are many non-profit small business networks which help individuals draft business proposals. There are also programs that help small business owners with loans and grants. Many of these programs are geared specifically for Blacks. Madam CJ Walker didn't have any of those things in her day. So, therefore, -we have no excuses.

Conservatives Need Not be Afraid of Black Conciousness

Vanessa — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 04:35:00 GMT

I am constantly posting status updates on facebook to foment debate-or at least get my friends who still credulously believe in liberalism and Democrat’s (in general) to see why it’s a farce-especially as it relates to Black America. I use humor, sarcasm, and hyperbole to drive home the point that Democrat’s have bamboozled Black America. Another reason why most BLACKS give credence to MOST of what I have to say is because they know how conscious I am. Historians credit the black“consciousness” movement to historical figures such as Martin Daleny, an abolitionist, Marcus Garvey who started the UNIA (Universal Negro improvement Association), and Steve Biko of the National Union of South African Students.

White Conservatives need not be afraid of Black "consciousness". Many times people confuse "black consciousness" with "black supremacy". In general Black consciousness can be defined as the realization by the black man of the need to rally together with his brothers and sisters,accept and love the blackness of their skin, and to work together to free themselves of the shackles that tie them to perpetual servitude. I went from being a black nationalist to a black conservative because of the strong desire I felt to psychologically emancipate Blacks from the perpetual servitude to the system set up and designed by Liberal Democrats. Besides, what's the problem with this message? Don't Asians,Hispanics, and the Jewish community stick together?

When I call myself a “Nappy Head Republican” it’s because of the pride I feel to wear my hair kinky-instead of accepting the message inculcated in me from when I was a child-that Black skin and Nappy Hair is a handicap. I received that message from my family and also from the society. Yes, Blacks have made many strides since emancipation, but since liberals infiltrated our communities, we’ve also regressed tremendously. At the same time, Conservatives cannot forget that there are still vestiges of slavery seen through internalized oppression. We cannot ignore these things because they make us feel uncomfortable. My students have definitely internalized a message of inferiority especially when they say things like, "This is the way Black people are supposed to act..."

Blacks are constantly talking about “good hair” and “good skin”and I always have a visceral reaction because all of these positions came about AFTER European colonization. Two notable Black Psychologists by the names of Kenneth Clarke and Mamie Clark conducted several doll experiments in the 1940s. On several occasions they gave young black children the choice to pick between playing with a “White doll” and a“Black doll”. An overwhelming majority of the black children picked the white doll because they believed the black doll was inferior. The same experiment was re-administered in 2005 with the same results. Why?Because blacks still feel inferior. This inferiority is perpetuated by liberals especially with policies that coddle blacks instead of structuring policies which tap into our potential. I was also told that being a Republican/Conservative isn’t something productive.Fortunately, I rejected both of those messages.

When urban conservatives boast about the Black Conservatives like Mary Mcleod Bethune, Sojournor Truth, Marcus Garvey, Booker T. Washington,and Frederick Douglas it’s because Ronald Reagan, Ayn Rand, and Milton friedman aren't the only faces of Conservatism.

Steve Biko wanted Blacks in South Africa to internalize the fact that black is beautiful. Whites misunderstand these phrases because most whites don’t understand why you have to say "Black is beautiful"because it's not necessary to say things like “White is beautiful”. The reason why the latter doesn't have to be said is because it's understood through Euro-centric Images of beauty constantly being displayed in the media. Even our "Black role models" have blond hair.Asian women are constantly trying to emulate European standards of beauty. In the Caribbean black women are constantly buying products(TODAY) to bleach their skin. If you walk into a beauty supply store in the inner city, you will more often then not find a section dedicated to skin bleach. This is why we still say "Black is BEAUTIFUL". Whites don’t have to deal with internalized oppression. Whites don’t see a barrage of negative images of themselves in the media. I understand that whites may feel guilt because of wrongs committed by their forefathers. Please don't misunderstand the purpose of this post-it's not to make you feel guilty. I just want you to understand why it may seem as though I have a slightly different message.

Black consciousness is really about ingraining in blacks that we don’t need the proverbial “white man” “liberals” or “republicans”—what we do need are conservative principles and policies driven towards economic,educational, and social parity. Need I remind everyone that before we became a political interest group we owned our own businesses and were learning in the segregated classrooms.

When I am challenging my students, I have to also challenge archaic beliefs about the black race and an inherent sense of inferiority that they feel like (e.g. Intelligence is a white solely a white domain).The reason why liberalism is so dangerous is because liberals unknowingly perpetuate the belief that Blacks are inferior-thus blacks need the help of liberals because liberals especially “white liberals”assume they know what's best.

Jesus Christ said that our “brothers and sisters” are those who do the will of our Father in Heaven. To my white conservative brothers and sisters, don’t be afraid when you hear me and other urban/black conservatives talking about black empowerment, a need to be conscious,and also a need for blacks to stick together. It has nothing to do with us feeling superior-we just want to be equal. We want economic parity for our brothers and sister in the hood. We want educational parity for our brothers and sisters in the hood. We all know liberalism has failed us tremendously. We aren’t any “less conservative” than you because we talk about race and acknowledge that there are different cultural elements and different axiology's (value systems). We simply have a slightly different focus because we want to emancipate people in the inner city from archaic belief’s regarding “government handouts”. We want our people to realize, the same way kids in suburbia realize that we are in a global economy-- a global marketplace. We need solutions that aren’t naïve-but concrete policies packaged in a way so that Black people can see which political side holds pragmatic approaches for true urban revitalization.

Statistically, we know that Blacks lag behind whites as it relates to standardized testing, college graduation rates, employment rates, and salaries. So, again, when urban conservatives talk about "black consciousness" don’t be threatened by the empowerment message-because AGAIN it’s about ECONOMIC PARITY, EDUCATIONAL PARITY, and SOCIAL PARITY…NOT SUPREMACY. We’re all in this together-we’re just assigned different roles, all for the same goal: Economic FREEDOM and Social equality FOR ALL. Just because my focus is different than yours doesn't make me any less of a Conservative. If the Democratic Party is a big tent party with social conservatives, communists, Marxists, and KKK members, why can't the Republican Party include Social Conservatives,Fiscal Conservatives, Black Conservatives, Conscious urban conservatives, Hip Hop Republicans, and Libertarians?

Silence about hidden Eugenics Agenda Liberals are trying to push in Healthcare "reform" bill?

Vanessa — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:57:00 GMT

It's Christmas eve, and I'm sitting here in my apartment about to get ready to go sing for a Christmas Eve service in the New York City. Yesterday, I watched the documentary "Maafa 21" which exposed Planned Parenthood and their insidious eugenics agenda. Eugenics is the study of methods of improving genetic qualities by selective breeding as applied to human beings. So, my friends, "pro-choice" is simply a guise, a euphemism for systematically getting rid of Blacks, and other "undesirables".

If you go up to a black person and you ask them why they would never vote Republican or support a Conservative-most of the time they will respond, "Because they are racists who don't care about poor people-especially not poor Blacks." So, when my brothers and sisters say this I concede-that yes, there are indeed racist Republican/Conservatives. I have read some of the distasteful comments they make about Obama like calling him a "slave monkey" or calling Michele a "whore". However, the very few crazy right wingers and their archaic belief's about white protestant superiority don't bother me because (a) they don't directly impact my community and (b) it's quite comical-because most of them would never go to "the hood" speaking that way.

So I always ask..

What about Racist Liberals? What about the pernicious legislation-actively-proactively being pushed by the left that is directly related to the Eugenics movement? What about abortion? What about the fact that Margaret Sanger (feminist/liberal god), a member of the New York Socialist Party, a regular speaker at KKK ralies-was actively trying to eliminate the "feeble minded" aka Blacks?

Are we to close our eyes to this? How convenient of Harry Reid to elicit images of slavery in our minds to incite rage against liberal health care "reform" nay sayers. YET this man actively, supports legislation that was created to "exterminate blacks" (words borrowed from M. Sanger).

This is not conspiratorial. Margaret Sanger, and early liberals were unabashed about their hatred for Blacks. The links between Margaret Sanger, the Birth Control League/Review and the Nazi Movement are well documented. I love to read about black history-especially because it gives me hope. Blacks have been through so much in this country-yet we survived. I believe we can survive the evils of liberalism too.

Blacks make up a little over 12 % of the population yet account for 40% of abortions-all by LIBERAL DESIGN. Incidentally, as high as 94% of abortion clinics are located in the inner city. Why? It's not because Blacks "milk" the system because BEFORE blacks had access to "welfare" and other "social programs" Margaret Sanger and early eugenicists were actively trying to eliminate Black existence. Social Darwinism at it's best.

I cannot believe how much Black people think they have an ally in the White House.

Obama's science czar, John Holdren published a book in the 70s about "population control" via compulsory abortions. Obama received 100% support from NARAL (Pro-Choice America). And yet people think he "cares" about Black people? What about the Black Caucus? Silence. Why? What about Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? More crickets. Incidentally, Jesse Jackson called Abortion "black genocide" a few decades back-but switched his stance to garner more mainstream support. Now there's a sell-out for ya.

Aside from the fact that healthcare 'reform' bill that's going to be signed by Obama, isn't the type of change we need to lower healthcare costs-why are liberals pushing to include unabated access to abortions SO ARDENTLY??? The Hyde Amendment of 1976 barred federal tax dollars from funding Abortions. What's really behind the liberal agenda-and why aren't our Black 'leaders' saying anything? If they "care" why don't they donate money to Planned Parenthood specifically requesting that funds go to abort black babies? Oops, that's already been done.

If you care about Blacks, let's spread the word about how evil liberalism is. During this Christmas season, the only gift we can give to people-is the gift of truth.

The Myth of the Racist Republican

Vanessa — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:56:00 GMT

I am not the author of this article. I found it and I thought it was a great read. It's from the "Claremont Institute's Website". I am a history buff-so if you're like me, you'll enjoy this piece.

The Myth of the Racist Republicans

Books Discussed in this Essay:

The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South, by Joseph A. Aistrup.

The Rise of Southern Republicans, by Earl Black and Merle Black.

From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich: Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution, 1963-1994, by Dan T. Carter.

A Stone of Hope: Prophetic Religion and the Death of Jim Crow, by David L. Chappell.

The Emerging Republican Majority, by Kevin Phillips.

Amyth about conservatism is circulating in academia and journalism andhas spread to the 2004 presidential campaign. It goes something likethis: the Republican Party assembled a national majority by winningover Southern white voters; Southern white voters are racist;therefore, the GOP is racist. Sometimes the conclusion is softened, andRepublicans are convicted merely of base opportunism: the GOP is theparty that became willing to pander to racists. Either way, today'sRepublican Party—and by extension the conservative movement at itsheart—supposedly has revealed something terrible about itself.

Thismyth is not the only viewpoint in scholarly debates on the subject. Butit is testimony to its growing influence that it is taken aboard bywriters like Dan Carter, a prize-winning biographer of George Wallace,and to a lesser extent by the respected students of the South, Earl andMerle Black. It is so pervasive in mass media reporting on racialissues that an NBC news anchor can casually speak of "a new era for theRepublican Party, one in which racial intolerance really won't betolerated." It has become a staple of Democratic politicians likeHoward Dean, who accuses Republicans of "dividing Americans againsteach other, stirring up racial prejudices and bringing out the worst inpeople" through the use of so-called racist "codewords." All thismatters because people use such putative connections to form judgments,and "racist" is as toxic a reputation as one can have in U.S. politics.Certainly the 2000 Bush campaign went to a lot of trouble to combat theGOP's reputation as racially exclusionary. I even know youngRepublicans who fear that behind their party's victories lies a dirty,not-so-little Southern secret.

Now to be sure, the GOP had aSouthern strategy. Willing to work with, rather than against, the grainof Southern opinion, local Republicans ran some segregationistcandidates in the 1960s. And from the 1950s on, virtually all nationaland local GOP candidates tried to craft policies and messages thatcould compete for the votes of some pretty unsavory characters. Thisrecord is incontestable. It is also not much of a story—that a partyacted expediently in an often nasty political context.

The newmyth is much bolder than this. It insists that these events shoulddecisively shape our understanding of conservatism and the modernRepublican Party. Dan Carter writes that today's conservatism must betraced directly back to the "politics of rage" that George Wallaceblended from "racial fear, anticommunism, cultural nostalgia, andtraditional right-wing economics." Another scholar, Joseph Aistrup,claims that Reagan's 1980 Southern coalition was "the reincarnation ofthe Wallace movement of 1968." For the Black brothers, the GOP had oncebeen the "party of Abraham Lincoln," but it became the "party of BarryGoldwater," opposed to civil rights and black interests. It is only ashort step to the Democrats' insinuation that the GOP is the latestexploiter of the tragic, race-based thread of U.S. history. In short,the GOP did not merely seek votes expediently; it made a pact withAmerica's devil.

The mythmakers typically draw on two types ofevidence. First, they argue that the GOP deliberately crafted its coremessages to accommodate Southern racists. Second, they find proof inthe electoral pudding: the GOP captured the core of the Southern whitebacklash vote. But neither type of evidence is very persuasive. It isnot at all clear that the GOP's policy positions are sugar-coatedracist appeals. And election results show that the GOP became theSouth's dominant party in the least racist phase of the region'shistory, and got—and stays—that way as the party of the upwardlymobile, more socially conservative, openly patriotic middle-class, notof white solidarity.

Let's start with policies. Like manyothers, Carter and the Black brothers argue that the GOP appealed toSouthern racism not explicitly but through "coded" racial appeals.Carter is representative of many when he says that Wallace's racialismcan be seen, varying in style but not substance, in "Goldwater's voteagainst the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, in Richard Nixon's subtlemanipulation of the busing issue, in Ronald Reagan's genial demolitionof affirmative action, in George Bush's use of the Willie Horton ads,and in Newt Gingrich's demonization of welfare mothers."

Theproblem here is that Wallace's segregationism was obviously racist, butthese other positions are not obviously racist. This creates ananalytic challenge that these authors do not meet. If an illegitimateviewpoint (racism) is hidden inside another viewpoint, that secondview—to be a useful hiding place—must be one that can be held forentirely legitimate (non-racist) reasons. Conservative intellectualsmight not always linger long enough on the fact that opposition tobusing and affirmative action can be disguised racism. On the otherhand, these are also positions that principled non-racists can hold. Tobe persuasive, claims of coding must establish how to tell which iswhich. Racial coding is often said to occur when voters are highlyprone to understanding a non-racist message as a proxy for somethingelse that is racist. This may have happened in 1964, when Goldwater,who neither supported segregation nor called for it, employed the term"states' rights," which to many whites in the Deep South implied thecontinuation of Jim Crow.

The problem comes when we try toextend this forward. Black and Black try to do this by showing thatNixon and Reagan crafted positions on busing, affirmative action, andwelfare reform in a political climate in which many white votersdoubted the virtues of preferential hiring, valued individualresponsibility, and opposed busing as intrusive. To be condemned asracist "code," the GOP's positions would have to come across as proxiesfor these views -and in turn these views would have to be racist. Theproblem is that these views are not self-evidently racist. Manyscholars simply treat them as if they were. Adding insult to injury,usually they don't even pause to identify when views like opposition toaffirmative action would not be racist.

In effect,these critics want to have it both ways: they acknowledge that theseviews could in principle be non-racist (otherwise they wouldn't be a"code" for racism) but suggest they never are in practice (and so canbe reliably treated as proxies for racism). The result is that theirclaims are non-falsifiable because they are tautological: these viewsare deemed racist because they are defined as racist. This amounts tosaying that opposition to the policies favored by today's civil rightsestablishment is a valid indicator of racism. One suspects thesetheorists would, quite correctly, insist that people can disagree withthe Israeli government without being in any way anti-Semitic. But theydo not extend the same distinction to this issue. This is partisanshipposturing as social science.

The Southern Strategy

Thisbias is evident also in how differently they treat the long Democraticdominance of the South. Carter and the Black brothers suggest that theaccommodation of white racism penetrates to the very soul of modernconservatism. But earlier generations of openly segregationistSoutherners voted overwhelmingly for Woodrow Wilson's and FranklinRoosevelt's Democratic Party, which relaxed its civil rights stancesaccordingly. This coalition passed much of the New Deal legislationthat remains the basis of modern liberalism. So what does thesegregationist presence imply for the character of liberalism at itselectoral and legislative apogee? These scholars sidestep the questionby simply not discussing it. This silence implies that racism andliberalism were simply strange political bedfellows, without any commonvalues.

But the commonality, the philosophical link, is swiftlyidentified once the Democrats leave the stage. In study after study,authors say that "racial and economic conservatism" married whiteSoutherners to the GOP after 1964. So whereas historically accidentalevents must have led racists to vote for good men like FDR, after 1964racists voted their conscience. How convenient. And how easy it wouldbe for, say, a libertarian conservative like Walter Williams togenerate a counter-narrative that exposes statism as the philosophicallink between segregation and liberalism's economic populism.

Yetliberal commentators commit a further, even more obvious, analyticerror. They assume that if many former Wallace voters ended up votingRepublican in the 1970s and beyond, it had to be because Republicanswent to the segregationist mountain, rather than the mountain coming tothem. There are two reasons to question this assumption. The first isthe logic of electoral competition. Extremist voters usually havelittle choice but to vote for a major party which they consider at bestthe lesser of two evils, one that offers them little of what they trulydesire. Segregationists were in this position after 1968, when Wallacewon less than 9% of the electoral college and Nixon became presidentanyway, without their votes. Segregationists simply had very limitednational bargaining power. In the end, not the Deep South but the GOPwas the mountain.

Second, this was borne out in how little theGOP had to "offer," so to speak, segregationists for their supportafter 1968, even according to the myth's own terms. Segregationistswanted policies that privileged whites. In the GOP, they had to settlefor relatively race-neutral policies: opposition to forced busing andreluctant coexistence with affirmative action. The reason thesepolicies aren't plausible codes for real racism is that they aren't theequivalents of discrimination, much less of segregation.

Whydid segregationists settle for these policies rather than continue tovote Democratic? The GOP's appeal was mightily aided by none other thanthe Democratic Party itself, which was lurching leftward in the 1970s,becoming, as the contemporary phrase had it, the party of "acid,amnesty, and abortion." Among other things, the Democrats absorbed acivil rights movement that was itself expanding, and thus diluting, itsagenda to include economic redistributionism, opposition to the VietnamWar, and Black Power. The many enthusiasms of the new Democratic Partydrove away suburban middle-class voters almost everywhere in thecountry, not least the South.

Given that trend, the GOP did notneed to become the party of white solidarity in order to attract morevoters. The fact that many former Wallace supporters ended up votingRepublican says a lot less about the GOP than it does aboutsegregationists' collapsing political alternatives. Kevin Phillips washardly coy about this in his Emerging Republican Majority. Hewrote in 1969 that Nixon did not "have to bid much ideologically" toget Wallace's electorate, given its limited power, and that moderationwas far more promising for the GOP than anything even approaching aracialist strategy. While "the Republican Party cannot go to the DeepSouth"—meaning the GOP simply would not offer the policies that whitesthere seemed to desire most—"the Deep South must soon go to thenational GOP," regardless.

Electoral Patterns

Inall these ways, the gop appears as the national party of themiddle-class, not of white solidarity. And it is this interpretation,and not the myth, that is supported by the voting results. The myth'sproponents highlight, and distort, a few key electoral facts: Southernwhite backlash was most heated in the 1960s, especially in the DeepSouth. It was then and there that the GOP finally broke through in theSouth, on the strength of Goldwater's appeals to states' rights.Democrats never again won the votes of most Southern whites. SoGoldwater is said to have provided the electoral model for the GOP.

Buthidden within these aggregate results are patterns that make no senseif white solidarity really was the basis for the GOP's advance. Thesepatterns concern which Southern votes the GOP attracted, and when. Howdid the GOP's Southern advance actually unfold? We can distinguishbetween two sub-regions. The Peripheral South—Florida, Texas,Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas—contained manygrowing, urbanizing "New South" areas and much smaller blackpopulations. Race loomed less large in its politics. In the more rural,and poorer, Deep South—Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina,and Louisiana —black communities were much larger, and racial conflictwas much more acute in the 1950s and '60s. Tellingly, the presidentialcampaigns of Strom Thurmond, Goldwater, and Wallace all won a majorityof white votes in the Deep South but lost the white vote in thePeripheral South.

The myth that links the GOP with racism leadsus to expect that the GOP should have advanced first and most stronglywhere and when the politics of white solidarity were most intense. TheGOP should have entrenched itself first among Deep South whites andonly later in the Periphery. The GOP should have appealed at least asmuch, if not more, therefore, to the less educated, working-classwhites who were not its natural voters elsewhere in the country but whowere George Wallace's base. The GOP should have received more supportfrom native white Southerners raised on the region's traditional racismthan from white immigrants to the region from the Midwest andelsewhere. And as the Southern electorate aged over the ensuingdecades, older voters should have identified as Republicans at higherrates than younger ones raised in a less racist era.

Eachprediction is wrong. The evidence suggests that the GOP advanced in theSouth because it attracted much the same upwardly mobile (andnon-union) economic and religious conservatives that it did elsewherein the country.

Take presidential voting. Under FDR, theDemocrats successfully assembled a daunting, cross-regional coalitionof presidential voters. To compete, the GOP had to develop a broadernational outreach of its own, which meant adding a Southern strategy toits arsenal. In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower took his campaign as nationalhero southward. He, like Nixon in 1960, polled badly among Deep Southwhites. But Ike won four states in the Peripheral South. This markedtheir lasting realignment in presidential voting. From 1952 to theClinton years, Virginia reverted to the Democrats only once, Floridaand Tennessee twice, and Texas—except when native-son LBJ was on theballot—only twice, narrowly. Additionally, since 1952, North Carolinahas consistently either gone Republican or come within a few percentagepoints of doing so.

In other words, states representing overhalf the South's electoral votes at the time have been consistently inplay from 1952 on—since before Brown v. Board of Education, beforeGoldwater, before busing, and when the Republicans were the mainstay ofcivil rights bills. It was this which dramatically changed the GOP'spresidential prospects. The GOP's breakthrough came in the leastracially polarized part of the South. And its strongest supporters mostyears were "New South" urban and suburban middle- and upper-incomevoters. In 1964, as we've seen, Goldwater did the opposite: winning inthe Deep South but losing the Peripheral South. But the pre-Goldwaterpattern re-emerged soon afterward. When given the option in 1968, DeepSouth whites strongly preferred Wallace, and Nixon became president bywinning most of the Peripheral South instead. From 1972 on, GOPpresidential candidates won white voters at roughly even rates in thetwo sub-regions, sometimes slightly more in the Deep South, sometimesnot. But by then, the Deep South had only about one-third of theSouth's total electoral votes; so it has been the Periphery,throughout, that provided the bulk of the GOP's Southern presidentialsupport.

* * *

The GOP'scongressional gains followed the same pattern. Of course, it was harderfor Republicans to win in Deep South states where Democratic-leaningblack electorates were larger. But even when we account for that, theGOP became the dominant party of white voters much earlier in thePeriphery than it did in the Deep South. Before Goldwater, the GOP'sfew Southern House seats were almost all in the Periphery (as was itssole Senator—John Tower of Texas). Several Deep South House memberswere elected with Goldwater but proved ephemeral, as Black and Blacknote: "Republicans lost ground and stalled in the Deep South for therest of the decade," while in the Periphery they "continued to makeincremental gains." In the 1960s and '70s, nearly three-quarters of GOPHouse victories were in the Peripheral rather than the Deep South, withthe GOP winning twice as often in urban as rural districts. And six ofthe eight different Southern Republican Senators elected from 1961 to1980 were from the Peripheral South. GOP candidates tended consistentlyto draw their strongest support from the more educated, middle- andupper-income white voters in small cities and suburbs. In fact,Goldwater in 1964—at least his Deep South performance, which is allthat was controversial in this regard—was an aberration, not a modelfor the GOP.

Writers who vilify the GOP's Southern strategymight be surprised to find that all of this was evident, at least inbroad brush-strokes, to the strategy's early proponents. In hiswell-known book, Kevin Phillips drew the lesson that a strong appeal inthe Deep South, on the model of 1964, had already entailed and wouldentail defeat for the GOP everywhere else, including in what he termedthe Outer South. He therefore rejected such an approach. He emphasizedthat Ike and Nixon did far better in the Peripheral South. He saw hugeopportunities in the "youthful middle-class" of Texas, Florida, andother rapidly growing and changing Sun Belt states, where what hecalled "acutely Negrophobe politics" was weakest, not strongest. Hethus endorsed "evolutionary success in the Outer South" as the basis ofthe GOP's "principal party strategy" for the region, concluding thatthis would bring the Deep South along in time, but emphatically on thenational GOP's terms, not the segregationists'.

The tensionbetween the myth and voting data escalates if we consider change acrosstime. Starting in the 1950s, the South attracted millions ofMidwesterners, Northeasterners, and other transplants. These"immigrants" identified themselves as Republicans at higherrates than native whites. In the 1980s, up to a quarter ofself-declared Republicans in Texas appear to have been such immigrants.Furthermore, research consistently shows that identification with theGOP is stronger among the South's younger rather than older whitevoters, and that each cohort has also became more Republican with time.Do we really believe immigrants (like George H.W. Bush, who moved withhis family to Texas) were more racist than native Southerners, and thatyounger Southerners identified more with white solidarity than didtheir elders, and that all cohorts did so more by the 1980s and '90sthan they had earlier?

In sum, the GOP's Southern electorate wasnot rural, nativist, less educated, afraid of change, or concentratedin the most stagnant parts of the Deep South. It was disproportionatelysuburban, middle-class, educated, younger, non-native-Southern, andconcentrated in the growth-points that were, so to speak, the least"Southern" parts of the South. This is a very strange way toreincarnate George Wallace's movement.

The Decline of Racism

Timingmay provide the greatest gap between the myth and the actual unfoldingof events. Only in the 1980s did more white Southerners self-identifyas Republicans than as Democrats, and only in the mid-1990s didRepublicans win most Southern House seats and become competitive inmost state legislatures. So if the GOP's strength in the South onlyrecently reached its zenith, and if its appeal were primarily racial innature, then the white Southern electorate (or at least most of it)would have to be as racist as ever. But surely one of the mostimportant events in Southern political history is the long-term declineof racism among whites. The fact that these (and many other) bookssuggest otherwise shows that the myth is ultimately based on ademonization not of the GOP but of Southerners, who are indeed assumedto have Confederate flags in their hearts if not on their pickups. Thisview lends The Rise of Southern Republicans a schizophrenicnature: it charts numerous changes in the South, but its organizingcategories are predicated on the unsustainable assumption that racialviews remain intact.

What's more, the trend away from confidentbeliefs in white supremacy may have begun earlier than we often think.David Chappell, a historian of religion, argues that during the heightof the civil rights struggle, segregationists were denied the crucialprop of religious legitimacy. Large numbers of pastors of diversedenominations concluded that there was no Biblical foundation foreither segregation or white superiority. Although many pastors remainedsegregationist anyway, the official shift was startling: "Before theSupreme Court's [Brown v. Board] decision of 1954, thesouthern Presbyterians. . . and, shortly after the decision, theSouthern Baptist Convention (SBC) overwhelmingly passed resolutionssupporting desegregation and calling on all to comply with itpeacefully. . . . By 1958 all SBC seminaries accepted blackapplicants." With considerable understatement, Chappell notes that"people—even historians—are surprised to hear this." Billy Graham, themost prominent Southern preacher, was openly integrationist.

Thepoint of all this is not to deny that Richard Nixon may have invitedsome nasty fellows into his political bed. The point is that the GOPfinally became the region's dominant party in the least racist phase ofthe South's entire history, and it got that way by attracting most ofits votes from the region's growing and confident communities—not itsdeclining and fearful ones. The myth's shrillest proponents are asreluctant to admit this as they are to concede that most Republicansgenuinely believe that a color-blind society lies down the road ofindividual choice and dynamic change, not down the road of stateregulation and unequal treatment before the law. The truly tenaciousprejudices here are the mythmakers'.

Yeah...About Graduate School...

Vanessa — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:36:00 GMT

So, most of you who follow this blog regularly know that I am working on a second master's degree. I am taking a class that deals with the ethical issues in public policy. Surprisingly, my professor is a liberal.

To date, she has never presented material from a non-liberal perspective. I'm not criticizing her as an individual, I am criticizing the fact that I am paying $2000 (OUT OF POCKET---payment plans OF COURSE) to be indoctrinated.

Look, don't misunderstand the afroconservative--I am not afraid to be around smart liberals. Being around liberals who can articulate sentences other than "Democrat's care about poor people" or "We need free health care to save everyone" or (my personal favorite) "Republicans don't care about Black people" is a good thing. I welcome being around people who can articulate view points other than the aforementioned because they will only help me GROW intellectually. It gets kind of tiring mentally roughing people up with facts and DEBUNKING their typical liberal talking points.

To those simpletons, I simply ask them which political party has been controlling the inner city for the last 40 years. I also ask them which political party benefits from the issues in the Black community. Then they change the subject...as liberals usually do when their rudimentary stances are debunked.

So, needless to say, I am highly disappointed. I prayed about it, and God told me to finish the semester. So, I'm going to stick it out. Every time I leave class, I say, "Are you sure GOD? You really want me to do this?"

*sigh*

I always wonder, and I've written this before--but if the conservative perspective is so asinine, why not present both sides of the issues and let the students battle it out. Why monopolize the debate with one side? What are the liberals afraid of? Can someone tell me what the Marxists are threatened by???

One night after we watched a front line documentary about the financial meltdown of 2008, I raised my hand and I prefaced the following statement by talking about how the Clinton administration forced insurance companies to fulfill certain quotas by giving loans to people who weren't in a financial position to pay them back so I continued, "...I also find it very ironic that they had people like Barney Frank [as if he didn't have a hand to play in the debacle] discussing what happened [in the documentary] when he was on the Financial Services oversight committee since 2003." My professor then cut me off and said, "I think we should hear from someone else."

Then I sank in my seat for about 45 minutes. My professor and the students started talking about "greed" and how terrible capitalism is and how the "free markets" don't work! Then they commented on how Hank Paulson [secretary of the treasury under Bush] was such a non-intervention, free-market promoting guy but then he spear-headed the largest bail-out in the history of this country. Blah Blah Blah!

[Sidebar: Um, ah, capitalism allows for corporations to fail. Paulson and others in the Bush administration weren't supposed to interfere and bail these corporations out if the principles of free-market capitalism were applied correctly.]

Okay, back to my life in graduate school...

I didn't say anything until I couldn't take it anymore so I raised my hands and said, "Look, I believe in sensible regulation. I'm simply looking at the housing crisis from different lenses then everyone else. I believe that confiscatory regulation can cause just as much damage, if not more damage then completely unfettered markets. Let's not forget that wealth is not created by government, but wealth is created in the private sector." She simply nodded and didn't comment.

I'm going to finish out the semester. I've received an "A" on everything that I've submitted--I'm just bored out of my freaking mind. I want to be challenged. I want to learn! I want to freaking learn!! Is that too much to ask for?

Regardless of what they say-- or how they impugn conservatives-they will never get an "Amen corner" from this Nappy Head Republican. I ain't beat for that. [slang for: I'm not going to acquiesce to the liberal powers that be].

My New Favorite Rap Song...We're Waking Up...Black America is waking up...

Vanessa — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:44:00 GMT

Black Conservatives/Republicans are the biggest threat to the liberal establishment right now.

THIS IS MY NEW FAVORITE RAP SONG!!! Watch the whole video. Black Americans who read about history understand how oppressive liberalism is. Those of us who READ about Democrat's and failed liberal policies aren't irrationally emotive when it comes to Obama--'freedom' and 'progress' for us is bigger than a "Black face" in the white house. Freedom for us means breaking ourselves from the Democrat's stronghold in our communities, freedom for us means economic power, freedom for us means fathers who marry women before they bring children into the world, freedom for us lies in values--NOT GOVERNMENT.

Blacks and whites have to work together to fight against tyranny. This brother is dropping serious knowledge.

The Founders of "SolidPrinciples.com" Understand How to move the Republican Party Forward

Vanessa — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:17:00 GMT

You can hear the "afroconservative's" first official podcast interview here! Aside from being a great resource for the conservative movement, the gentlemen over at "solidprinciples.com" are doing a tremendous job giving exposure to young, black, republicans!

I also want to publicly thank them for the "afro" on their page-because aside from being a Proud Black Republican, I am really proud of my kinky hair.

I hope you enjoy!

Shifting Focus

Vanessa — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 04:30:00 GMT

It's rough being a Black Conservative. I experience many moments of cognitive dissonance. I'm constantly second guessing myself. What do I believe? What do I really believe? How do people define me? How do I really define myself? Am I catering my message for my audience? Am I just regurgitating Conservative Republican talking points? Is my 'black and conscious' side coming out enough in my writings?

The other evening, I spoke with my buddy Akindele Akinyemi a fellow Urban Conservative who is 'down for the right cause' and also an educator-like myself. We spoke at length about what Black Conservatives can do, but haven't been doing to help the Black Community release themselves from the psychological dependence on Democrat's and government.

So, I'm shifting gears a little bit. I am still going to be the same sardonic Afroconservative that you all have grown accustomed to reading. However, I am going to be more solution-focused as opposed to criticizing and impugning members of the left all the time (they deserve it-I know! ). I don't want to be so reactionary. It's time for some public policy proposals from the Nappy Head Republican!

Most of you who read this blog regularly already agree with me, but I want more Black people who don't think they agree with me to be able to come and read my viewpoints-without me coming across in a bellicose manner. The crazy thing is, part of me likes the caustic, brash tone of my writings (Sssh! Don't tell anyone!).

Realistically speaking, that's not going to win more people like me over to the 'right' side of things. It's just 'entertainment' for people who already agree with me. Black people need to hear the conservative message from someone who looks like them and truly understands the plight of being a Black American. I'm not complaining about a 'system' or the proverbial 'man', but if you don't look like me, there's somethings you just won't understand (and vice versa, of course).

Thanks for reading. I really appreciate you all. Some of you come everyday-even when I don't post for two weeks!!! Ugh! I'm working on being more consistent too!! Outside of this blog, I'm a singer, a pianist, a graduate student, a fulltime counselor, and The one true God's daughter. No excuses. I know. I'll do better!

We won't always agree, but you'll always get honesty from the Afroconservative.

God bless,

Vanessa

P.S. I am working on my first (of many) books. Writing a book requires resources. I know times are hard, but if you can, please donate a few dollars. I'm working on finding an agent also. So if you know an agent, or a publisher who would be interested in my book please email me (vanessa@afroconservative.com). The book will be about liberals and their hand in the destruction of the Black Family. Surprised??? lol Thanks in advance.

Liberal Democrats Destroyed Black America, Who Wants Next?

Vanessa — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:16:00 GMT

In the wake of Derrion Albert's death, I find myself increasingly disillusioned by the current state of Black America. While African Americans comprise 13.5 percent of the population, 43 percent of all murder victims in 2007 were African America. Of the 43 percent who were murdered, 93.1 percent were killed by African Americans.

Was it always like this? The answer is Unequivocally: NO.

The disproportionate crime rates, illegitimacy rates, divorce rates, drugs abuse, and disproportionate incarceration rates didn't begin until liberals took over the Black Community in the 60s. Before liberals came and negated the influence of the Black father, over 80 percent of black children in 1960 were born in wedlock. In 1940 the illegitimacy rate amongst Blacks was 19 percent. Today, post the liberals monopoly in the poor urban areas, the illegitimacy rate is over 70 percent and almost 90 percent in the inner city. Surprisingly, between 1890 and 1940 Blacks had a marriage rate slightly higher than Whites. According to Herbert G. Gutman author of "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom (1750-1925)"-- for every 6 children under the age of under the of 6-5 of them lived in two parent households. In Harlem between 1905 and 1925, only 3 percent of all families were headed by a woman under 30. In this same time period, 85 percent of black children lived in two-parent families.

The training ground for any human being begins in the home. The dynamics of the home environment can do two things: it can set the child up for failure or for success. When Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat began seeing the negative trends of entitlement programs regarding the Black Family in the 60s he wrote the "Moynihan Report". In the "Moynihan Report" he predicted that if the Black family continued to disintegrate, then there would be issues of delinquency, crime, disproportional educational outcomes, and other social problems that come when a father isn't active in a child's life.

What did the liberals do with this information? They called Moynihan a racist! They decried that he was "blaming the victim" and that he was against the "strong black woman" and that she could do it all by herself. Well, it wasn't all by her lonesome because the nanny state (LBJ's Great Society) was going to be there to replace daddy. Part of the stipulations for receiving welfare was that the Black father was not able to be present in the home. Therein lies the beginning of the destruction of our families.

Well, on behalf of the Black race, I want to thank all the liberal feminists who screwed up Black America with their entitlement programs and their warped world views. I want to thank the Saul Alinksy's and all the "community organizers" who used the Blacks as pawns to advance their Marxist agenda. The progressives of this day had it all figured out. In order to eradicate the capitalist foundation of this country, they would need to put as many people on the welfare rolls as possible. The progressives didn't care about Blacks before this. They were too busy empathizing with Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. Look it up. Moreover, racist Progressives like Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) were too busy pushing their eugenics (i.e. let's kill off as many black people and other "undesirables" as possible).

Do you think Lyndon Baines Johnson and John F Kennedy cared about Blacks in this time? Lyndon Baines Johnson and John F Kennedy didn't even support civil rights legislation until it became politically convenient to do so. Neither supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (pushed by REPUBLICANS). In fact, the same president we thank for Great Society, Mr. LBJ said, "President Truman's civil rights program "is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill. . .. I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill."

Liberals managed to destroy an institution that survived the most heinous of circumstances.

So, what's the answer?

More government? Obama? PUHLEEZE! Spare me! Obama has the same prescription for the REST OF AMERICA that the Liberals had for Blacks in the 60s. It's not going to work. When you want to think of what a liberal utopia will look like in America (don't think of Stalin's Russia, Mussolini's Italy, or Hitler's Germany-I know it's tempting) just picture the ghettos of America.

Hey liberals, You cannot help lift people out of poverty by taking from one group to give to another. All that happens with redistribution of wealth is a new "slave" that the liberals can count on that will always vote for them. Contrast that to the Conservative Republican response to poverty, which is change your values, maintain strong family structures that create human capitol, and then stay out of the private sector so the private sector can do what it does best-create WEALTH. That way it becomes nearly impossible to become slaves to the Conservative Republican "system" of economic revitalization.

The answer for Black America is getting back to our values. Not the values of the amoral, nihilistic liberals. We need to go back to a place where we reject moral relativity. We need to encourage Black men to marry Black women before they bring children into the world. We need to stop "dogging" Black people who are educating themselves and speaking proper english. We need to stop calling them "sell-outs" and "uncle toms". We need to stop saying "You talk like a White person" when one of "us" speaks proper english. Intelligence is not strictly "white domain"-no matter what liberals tell you. Liberals continually want to absolve Blacks of personally responsibility. Liberals say we kill each other, we rob from each other because we "don't know any better" or because " we can't help ourselves". That's bull. We do know better. We can do better. We will do better when we get back to our "roots". What are those "roots"?--God, Family and Education. More Government, and Obama definitely aren't part of the prescription for a better tomorrow.

Latest Blog Post from the Afroconservative aka Nappy Head Republican

So maybe I'm a Centrist?

Vanessa — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:45:00 GMT

As most of you know, I am now living in my home state. It's been about one month and I am happy and blessed to be back "home". I know I haven't been blogging as often as I should be--no excuses. I am paying attention to the events and I do have my opinions.

There are many reasons why I haven't been blogging as frequently. First of all, on top of my full time job as a Counselor, I am also a musician/singer and have been singing or playing the piano for churches EVERY WEEKEND that I've been back in New Jersey. With long rehearsals, by the time I get home, I'm getting ready for the next day! Secondly, I've been doing lots of self-introspection. As audacious as I am about my beliefs, I am also always second guessing myself.

It's like Clarence Thomas said, "I don't know one of my friends who is considered a conservative who has not had to go back and thoroughly think through everything. You do a lot of soul-searching - 'cause we are not going to win any popularity contests. "

As I mature personally, spiritually, and politically, I am often asking myself what's more important to me. Is 'black solidarity' more important than 'political solidarity'? In other words, is it more important to cleave to people who share my pigment, or people who share my political values?

As much as I brag about being an "independent thinker" I dread the thought of being labeled an "Aunt Jemima" or a "sell-out" --because I'm not. Anyone who knows me personally, knows that I'm not. Much too often though, it inadvertently comes with the label "black conservative" or "black republican". After agreeing with a Black professor the other night about how Blacks are more conservative then the people they vote for, he looked at me and said,"Vanessa, sometimes, titles are everything!" I sighed, and thought, just for a moment, if I would fare better if I switched back to the Democratic party but maintained my mostly "conservative" stance on the issues.   Life would be easier, especially with my hopes of becoming a member of academia. But, then, I thought-HELL NO! I rushed to the bathroom, I slapped myself in the face a little, sprinkled some water on my cheeks, looked in the mirror and said to myself, "Vanessa, wake-up GIRL! Remember, Nancy Pelosi is a Democrat!?!?"   Enough said. I quickly sobered up and came to my senses.

Whew!

Am I a purist when it comes to belief's on the 'right'? No. I am not against government "help". I am against generational dependency, statism, and what Jonah Goldberg calls smiley-faced fascism (i.e. Obamanation). But then, I've used federal government services before. For example, when I was in college I used federal loans because my parents (first generation Caribbeans) couldn't afford to pay for the school that I attended. I know how higher education subsidies contributed to the sky-rocketing costs of higher education, however, that doesn't change the fact that I needed it, and used it.  We all contribute to the social security pot, the medicare pot, and the medicaid pot. I'm not going to depend on the government, especially with information regarding social security and medicare-but let's be honest with ourselves. The aforemented are federal programs that members of the left and the right utilize.

When it comes to immigration, I know people who are here illegally not because they broke the law entering the United States-but because they came here on a temporary visa's and had to stay because of the dangerous situations in their countries. These are people who aren't "milking" the system-but doing what they need to do trying to accomplish the "American Dream". These people are living in the shadows and they aren't breaking laws. When I hear members of the right lambasting "illegal aliens" I often think of the people I know from the Caribbean and African continent who would do anything to stop living in the shadows. When I fight for the conservative cause, it's almost like I'm spitting at these people. Yes, I know there are illegals draining the system. I know there are illegals who commit crimes and make it hard for Americans, but the people I know don't behave this way. They're here already so what's the rational answer that conservatives have for this cohort? Is it reasonable for them to go back to their dangerous countries where there is no way they'll survive?   Bush and Mccain were for some form of amnesty, but most people on the right are vehemently against the idea. The irony is, most of the undocumented workers I know are down for the conservative cause. They're conservative in nature, they don't want government taking care of them. In fact, I know some who pay for college out of pocket! If the Democrat's give them amnesty, how can I tell them to vote for conservatives or republicans "in principle" if all they ever hear from most members of my camp is, "Go home illegals!"?

I thought it was stupid of President Obama (the "uber" unifier) when he said the Boston Policemen " acted stupidly". However, I do think that it was highly inappropriate for the police officer to enter into the home of Mr. Gates without a search warrant. I'm not calling the cop a racist or anything inflammatory like that. Only God can judge a man's heart, however, he had no right to enter into Mr. Gates home. I've been in cars with my black male friends and can attest to the fact that I am pulled over way more often when I'm with them. In fact, in my younger radical days, I've mouthed off at some police officers saying, "I know what you people do to people that look like me!" Of course, with age comes maturity and I don't do that anymore. It wasn't until I was in college when I worked in an emergency room, that I realized that not all white male cops hate black people.

Republicans who are in office tend to be very reactionary. Once the Liberal Democrats see an "issue" (or a new group they want to exploit) they devise proposals, and then republicans devise reactionary proposals to their proposals. Republicans need to begin using the same tactics of the left and start fussing over issues the same way the leftists do. That's why James O'keefe and Hannah Giles were so successful in defunding Acorn. They used the rules from Saul Alinsky's book. Republicans need to start championing causes too! Don't wait for Democrats to try to fix a problem and then give an alternative to their proposals! This is especially the case concerning health care reform! When Republicans had control over the bicameral legislatures and the Executive branches of government, they should have been the ones deregulating and promoting health insurance portability! How can Republicans expect people to take them seriously if they're always proposing the 'alternatives' or just being 'reactionary'?

So, in summation--I guess I'm a centrist when it comes to certain issues.

Don't worry, I'm not giving up my "conservative republican" title. I still believe that the Democrat's exploit Black people and many other groups. I still believe that the best way to lift people out of poverty is by making the tax-code "work friendly" not through redistribution of wealth. I still believe in a limited federal government because fascism, socialism, communism, Marxism SCARE ME. I'm still a free-market gal!! I believe that there should be reasonable not confiscatory regulation. I believe that the private sector better serves the interests of the public NOT the GOVERNMENT because the private sector suffers financially if they cannot compete. Suffering financially is incentive to always be on the cutting edge of new services and technology. There is less or NO accountability if the Government messes up! Therefore, it's incumbent upon the members of the private sector to be innovative and competitive and it's the job of our elected officials to stay out of their way as much as possible. I'm never going to be a Liberal or a Democrat again. I haven't stopped arguing with folks, (lol). I haven't stopped championing for the "right". I just think there are things that members of the "right" cleave to that aren't always as cookie cutter as some may make it seem.

We won't always agree on the issues, but (I hope) we agree that we live in the best country on earth.

Capitalism and Africa

Vanessa — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:21:00 GMT

This is an amazing video of an African Economist who postulates in her book "Dead Aid" that all of money Africa is receiving from foreign countries and private donors isn't helping-it's making matters worse. Please watch the entire video. She's corroborated with much of what I've felt has been a major issue in Haiti as well. My parents are from Haiti and there is so much AID that goes over there---yet the people are still living in poverty.

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's surely the best.

AM I A RACIST TOO, MR. CARTER?

Vanessa — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:51:00 GMT

I wish we could view Obama as simply a Marxist liberal who is uprooting the free enterprise foundation of this country as opposed to JUST a "Black Face" in the White house.

Jimmy Carter, the greatest president who ever lived, has said that the opposition to Obama is largely due to racism.

Members of the left use race, gender, and other "victim status" as a way to stifle dialogue about the issues du jour. I am not negating the fact that there is real racism. For example, James O'keefe (the young man responsible for exposing ACORN) exposed the blatant racism of the Planned Parenthood organization. Just in case you didn't know, he called Planned Parenthood to donate money to them and requested that they make sure to use his money to abort a "Black baby" because "Blacks have way too many kids". None of the operators working for Planned Parenthood objected to this, some even explicitly concurred. Mr. O'Keefe used this tactic to expose the blatant genocide (promoted by the left) of Black babies via abortion and those who use the euphemism "choice". If Okeefe was really a racist, Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) would be giving him kudos.

So, in summation there's modern day racism.
Exhibit A: Planned Parenthood.

I digress.

So, the Afroconservative has some questions for Mr. Jimmy Carter:

On November 4, 2008, 44 percent of White voters voted for Obama. If it wasn't for the white majority, Obama wouldn't have become president. Mr. Carter, did the White people who voted for Obama magically grow racist brain cells since January of this year?

Secondly, Mr. Carter, is it at all possible that the people of this nation are upset because our president is dismantling the very fabric that made this the Greatest nation on earth?
Also, Mr. Carter, when constantly reminding us that Obama is "Black" and people don't like him because of it, don't you think you are representing the exact opposite of Martin Luther King's dream? Just in case you don't remember, Mr. Carter, Martin Luther King dreamed for a day where people would be judged based on the contents of their character, not the color of their skin.
Is it also possible, sir, that those of you who are constantly evoking images of race, are the ones who are truly fixated on this issue?
Finally, Mr. Carter, I am a 25 year old Black Woman--so I know what it feels like to be "prejudged" because of my ethnicity, race, gender, and even my age. Am I racist against my own "people" too- because I oppose a large majority of Obama's domestic agenda?

Mr. Carter, your comments are quite incendiary and actually pretty offensive. Your comments are especially offensive to me and other Americans who don't really care if someone is White or Black but concerned about a Communist versus a Capitalist. You know, the difference between Liberty and Tyranny. I know members of the left probably excuse anything that's said by their camp, but, please think before you speak.

Putting On My Back Pack and my Bullet Proof Vest

Vanessa — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 05:05:00 GMT

I arrived in New Jersey about 1 week ago. The reason why I moved back to my home state was because I really wanted to pursue a second master's degree in Political Science. My ultimate goal is to become a college professor. As I've written before, I would like to teach on the collegiate level so that I can counterbalance the leftists who all too often use their platform to inculcate their anti-american, anti-christian, pro-baby killing, pro-marxist, moral relativist leanings.

To be completely honest, I am a little fearful of going back into their territory. Fortunately, I can mask my fear pretty well. I don't let fear truncate my ability to clearly articulate the truth. It's just sad because too often Conservatives/Republicans are caricatured and lambasted by liberal professors who should present ALL of the sides of the issues, and allow their students to critically analyze which side makes the most sense.

Almost 80% of Academics vote Democrat. Surprised? 72 percent identify as Liberal while only 15 percent identify as Conservative. The ideological disparity is even more stark at the most elite schools in the nation with 87 percent of faculty who identify as Liberal and only 13 percent who call themselves Conservative.

Much to my chagrin, I did background research on the professors in the political science department of the institution I will be attending. They are all leftists. I hate the fact that I won't have a "conservative" to "look up to", but I am more concerned that professors might be hostile to my perspective on the issues. I can honestly say that not all of my liberal professors had tunnel vision. In fact, it was a liberal professor who opened my eyes to the fact that I might be more conservative then I would have previously imagined. This professor also told me about Thomas Sowell. Thomas Sowell is my friend in my head.

I just hope, since the leftists are the "champions" of "respect" for "intellectual diversity", that they will embrace a differing opinion, and welcome "dissent". After all, I'm a minority (conservative), in a minority (Black). Maybe they'll take me under their wings, lol.

Classes begin on Monday, and I'm getting a book bag and a bullet proof vest. It's hard out here for a Conservative. If you believe in Jesus, keep me in your prayers.

Uber Liberal CALIFORNIA Finally Realizing that Confiscatory Taxation....SUCKS for State Revenues

Vanessa — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 03:07:00 GMT

So it turns out that the liberals in California are realizing that their confiscatory tax codes and regulations are hurting state tax revenues. For real? Gasp! I'm shocked!

According to a recent article I read on "yahoo news", broadcast television, commercials, and cable television stations are opting to leave Hollywood. In order to deter them from moving to states that are more friendly towards free enterprise, California is offering these entertainment corporations a 20-25% tax "credit".

Wait. Wait.

Aren't states supposed to represent a microcosm of what can or can't be done by the federal government? When jobs are sent overseas Americans are the first to complain about how "our" jobs are being done for a fraction of the costs. Whenever people say this to me, I ask them, "What would you do if you were a business owner and it was no longer profitable to keep your business in America?"

Now, don't get me wrong, I know that some corporations pay virtually no taxes at all.  However, there are ways we can solve this...keep reading.

I think if our elected officials are "smart" they'll try to institute a flat tax. A flat tax is a system where everyone is taxed at one marginal rate. This system doesn't mean that everyone gives the same amount of money back to Uncle Sam, rather everyone pays back the same percentage. In other words, if I make $100,000 (I wish ) I would pay $10,000 if the marginal rate is 10%. Conversely, if someone makes $30,000, he/she would pay $3,000. We both pay 10% of what we make. The system we have now is progressive. Under our current system, the more money someone makes, the more they are penalized by Uncle Sam. My mother is a Registered Nurse and the company she works for recently asked her to work a significant amount of overtime hours. I counseled her AGAINST this because after a certain amount of hours, she would be taxed sooo much, it wouldn't even be worth it. Besides, the thought of Nancy Pelosi controlling my mother's overtime money makes my blood boil....*sigh*

Now to those skeptics out there, previously communist counties in Eastern Europe have seen government revenues increase TREMENDOUSLY since they've decided capitalism is probably the best way to increase the standard of living, while simultaneously increasing government revenue. When government minimally involves itself in the private sector, government's chances of getting larger revenue enhancements increases exponentially. Just ask the homies in Slovakia, Romania, and Georgia (to name a few).

The fair tax is different from the flat tax. The fair tax is a consumption tax set at a rate of 20 something percent. In other words under this system ALL Americans (businesses and consumers) would only pay taxes on items that they purchase. Consumption tax rates are now around 7%. Now a consumption tax rate of 23% sounds crazy-but it would work because prices of goods/services would decrease dramatically because an income tax rate would no longer be applied. Although I like the proposed "fair tax" too, it's probably too much of a radical shift for Americans right now. Gotta be realistic!

Anyways, you can read about ~~uberliberal land~~ California applying conservative principles to revitalize their economy here.

The Afroconservative is Moving, Education/Welfare Reform, and more of why I can't stand Nancy Pelosi

Vanessa — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:58:00 GMT

I am relocating to New Jersey in one week! I am originally from NJ. I have been living in Miami for the past 2 years. I decided to relocate back to NJ to pursue another graduate degree in Political Science or Public Policy. I haven't decided which one I'm going to pursue, but I will be taking introductory courses this fall semester to decide which route is most conducive for me.

In case you are wondering...

Yes, I am anticipating the leftists trying to indoctrinate me-and I'll blog about each incident-don't worry!

I will definitely miss my coworkers. Surprisingly, I was the only Republican in my school. I was surrounded by Liberal Democrats every day. Politics aside, I did work with some amazing people. It does take lots of love, patience, courage, and tenacity to work in an urban school. I get really angry when politicians malign public school teachers because working in an urban school system is very difficult. It is my experience that most of the "issues" in the inner city schools have very little to do with the teachers, but has lots to do with the value systems of the parents. Regardless of where one might be on the socioeconomic spectrum, I have found that when parents are invested in the education of their children-the children fare better. The issues that I've seen have very little to do with "funding" but have everything to do with parental involvement.

Don't misunderstand. I am not negating the importance of adequate funding. What I am saying is that no amount of money can compensate for lackluster parental involvement in the educational process. Aside from Liberals negating the value of a mother and a father in the home, the issues that plague some low income families’ stem from the fact that they are told by their politicians that they don't have to work-government is here to take care of everything. Sometimes, they unknowingly pass those same values onto their children. This is probably why we see the same issues such as low motivation in low income urban schools. One solution that I've pondered is some type of connection between children's performance and welfare payments. In other words, if you are on government assistance, your children have to make certain grades and benchmarks or else you might be in jeopardy of losing your benefits. Now, it's not that I'm being harsh or cruel, it's just a program like that would do a lot to curtail generational dependency. It would force parents to be accountable for their children's educational outcomes. If the child makes the grade level benchmarks, the chances of them being on welfare later on in life greatly diminishes.

Anyways, I walked into the office of the new administrator to tender my resignation as Guidance Counselor. I was shocked to see that he had pictures of Obama ALL OVER THE WALLS! I thought to myself, "I wonder who he supported on November 4, 2008?". *sigh* I'm used to it.

I will be taking a position as a Family Therapist in another inner city school when I relocate back to my home state. I am excited about the new position but I'm even more excited that I'll finally be able to begin pursuing a second master's degree!

Be patient with me. I'm going to write about Nancy Pelosi likening concerned Americans to Nazis soon. Nancy Pelosi has some nerve, especially because she's the one who advocated birth control to "help" with the economy. Something HITLER AND THE REAL NAZIS SUPPORTED.

My blood pressure started going up just thinking about such a statement. Post coming soon!

Thanks for the supportive emails and thank you for reading.