partyslave

By Vanessa, the “Afro-Conservative”

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.

Tagged with:
 

drink meBy Nick Dial

When does political correctness reach a point of total insanity? No longer is political correctness just lip service to the easily offended, it now comes with the price of lives lost or endangered.

According to this new administration, we are no longer in a war against terror; we are in an “overseas contingency”. Acts of terrorism are now labeled as “man caused disasters” and we are no longer at war with Jihadist- only Al-Qaeda. Is Al-Qaeda not a group of Jihadist? In the name of political correct rhetoric and agenda driven spin, we have now reached a point where nothing is what it seems and everything is spun to deflect away from what it truly is.  The only thing missing from this scenario is a white rabbit wearing glasses and a bottle that says,  “drink me.” Only when you drink this liquid, you don’t grow in size – you simply march in step with the rest of the mainstream pundits of the media. Oh, how collective our society has become! Alice chasing the rabbit down this twisted trail of illusions in what is now The United States of Wonderland.

2_28_hasan_nidal_110709On November 5, 2009, an Army Major, Nidal Hasan Hassa, opened fire in the Soldier Readiness Center of Fort Hood. The shooting was said to have lasted approximately 3 minutes. By the time the shooting stopped, 13 were dead and 30 wounded. Immediately afterward, questions began to fly as to what the motive might have been. The mainstream media, however , and the liberal left, wasted no time projecting their hypothesis into the mix.  Headlines started to fly such as “War on Terror Takes Its Toll”, implying that it was not the shooter that was at fault, it was the stress of the war. Claims were made from “post traumatic stress disorder,” even though Hasan was never in combat, to he simply “snapped”. Everything and anything was thrown into the mix to derive away from what this truly is. It is none other than an act of domestic Islamic Terror.

According to the FBI, the definition of terrorism is as follows:

“The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

Given the above stated definition, we must ask ourselves, does Hasan fit this definition? Before deciding, let’s take a look at some of the factors surrounding Hasan and his actions.

Before Hasan  opened fire that day, there had been reports among colleague that Hasan showed contempt for the War on Terror, and the Role the U.S. was playing. According to Bloomberg.com, a doctor who was in a graduate program with Hasan stated he called the War on Terrorism “a war against Islam.” Bloomberg.com goes on to state the following:

“While studying for a masters degree in public health in 2007, Hasan used a presentation for an environmental health class to argue that Muslims were being targeted by the U.S. anti-terror campaign, said Val Finnell, a classmate.

“He was very vocal about the war, very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second,” said Finnell, 41, a preventive medicine doctor in Los Angeles, in an interview yesterday. He was always concerned that Muslims in the military were being persecuted.” Others who worked with Hasan stated that when he was challenged on such views, he became sweaty, flustered, and visibly upset.

The questionable behavior surrounding Hasan doesn’t stop with the above information. According to The Telegraph.CO.UK, the following was discovered about Hasan and his behavior in the military:

“Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America’s Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats”.

“He also told colleagues at America’s top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.

Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe”.

Obviously Hasan shared the same belief in Wahabbi driven Islam as his Al-Qaeda counter – parts. As additional information comes forward dealing with Hasan, continuing details lead to the fact that this was indeed, an act of a lone wolf domestic terrorist. A lone wolf terrorist is someone who acts alone in carrying out an act that is social or political in nature. A perfect example of a lone wolf is Timothy McVeigh and his 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City. His positions were clearly anti- United States Government; can the same not be said about Hasan? According to ABC, Hasan, in fact, tried to contact Al-Qaeda directly. ABC reports the following:

“U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with an individual associated with Al- Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News”.

It is not clear if much came from his attempts to contact Al-Qaeda, but the fact he tried speaks volumes regarding the motivation of his actions against the military.

Now that some of Hasan’s actions and behavior have been covered, a recap would be helpful in examining the intent behind his actions. Hasan did the following:

  • Stated he is a Muslim first and an American second.
  • Stated the war on terrorism was “a war against Islam.”
  • Stated that Muslims were being targeted by the U.S. anti-terror campaign.
  • Became sweaty, flustered, and visibly upset when challenged on his views.
  • Gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said “non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.”
  • Told colleagues at America’s top military hospital that “non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire.”
  • Gave medical colleagues an extremist interpretation of the Koran which lasted approximately an hour.
  • Attempted to contact Al-Qaeda before the event took place.

Based on the above overview, is it fair to suggest and conclude that Mr. Hasan was indeed a lone wolf terrorist acting in the name of radical Islam?  Again, the definition used by the FBI of terrorim states the following, “The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” Force was used against both government and civilian personal. It was clearly in opposition to the War on Terror and to promote Islamic Jihad and its values. Based on everything covered and the definition given, this a clear case of Terrorism.

Based on the above reported behavior leading up to this event, many may ask how did it get this far in the first place?  This is where political correctness comes in and rears its ugly head. When red flags are ignored to such an extent in the name of political correctness, a serious look should be taken at how similar situations  will be handled in the future. According to Fox News, the warning signs were there, but political correctness kept any serious inquiries from moving forward. Fox reports the following:

“There were definitely clear indications that Hasan’s loyalties were not with America,” According to Lt. Col. Val Finnell, Hasan’s classmate at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He and Hasan were students in the school’s public health master’s degree program from 2007-2008.

“The issue here is that there’s a political correctness climate in the military. They don’t want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody’s religious belief, or they’re afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit.

“I want to be clear that this wasn’t about anyone questioning his religious views. It is different when you are a civilian than when you are a military officer,” said Finnell, who is a physician at the Los Angeles Air Force Base.

“When you are in the military and you start making comments that are seditious, when you say you believe something other than your oath of office.  Clearly, someone needed to ask -why is this guy saying these things?

“He was a lightning rod. He made his views known and he was very vocal, he had extremely radical Jihadist views,” Finnell said. “When you’re a military officer you take an oath to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.

“They should’ve confronted him — our professors, officers — but they were too concerned about being politically correct.”

Unfortunately, we have reached a point in society where political correctness has superseded common sense. When people are injured or lose their life due to incompetence fueled by political correctness, society as a whole must take a hard look in the mirror of life. Life is not fair, nor is it a “politically correct” world. There are losers and winners, there is friend and foe, there is dark and light, and there is safety and danger. The time has come to quite playing childish games. The real world is hard and full of danger. We must stop trying to project a fabricated image of “perfect unity,” where questioning topics that are uncomfortable and provocative are avoided. This isn’t Kindergarten. In the real world not everybody gets the same amount of jelly beans and not everybody is a “friend”. Perhaps the nation needs to go back to grade school and retake courses in “stranger danger.”