Black Americans Wrestle with the First Gay President

May 21 by Atarah Golden originally at The College Conservative

“Obama laid down the gauntlet on black leaders. The question we are being forced to address is ‘are you going to be black or be godly.’”—Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr. (statement on the president’s same-sex marriage endorsement)

It’s no secret that an overwhelming majority of blacks consistently vote Democrat. And, it’s no secret that a majority of blacks oppose same-sex marriage. We have seen it in California, one of the most liberal states in America, and most recently in North Carolina. This should come as no surprise, as blacks are the most religious group in the country. Now that the president has endorsed same-sex marriage, many blacks have a dilemma.

I found the president’s “coming out” party rather amusing. Well, it wasn’t a party, per se, since he did not hold a press conference. Instead, he went the cowardice route and ran to ABC’s Robin Roberts. Same-sex marriage is an issue he has been flip-flopping on (sorry, according to the mainstream media, Mitt Romney flip-flops; Obama “evolves”) since 1996.

The truth is Obama has always supported same-sex marriage. He just couldn’t vocalize it because he knew that would never be elected as a state senator, as many individuals in the late 1990’s held strongly to traditional values. But, Obama’s evolution is finally complete and that calls for a celebration: a $15 million celebration, courtesy of George Clooney. By the way, this fundraiser marks the president’s 191^st .

Hours after the president’s endorsement of same-sex marriage, Obama began attacking Romney for his stance on traditional marriage. But Romney isn’t the only one being attacked; black pastors and a host of other individuals are being attacked as well. MSNBC host Chris Matthews told Bishop Harry Jackson, who spoke out against the president’s same-sex marriage endorsement, “I hope you evolve.” We all know that Matthews frequently goes to great lengths to defend the president who constantly sends thrills up his legs. In a recent interview with MSNBC’s Martin Bashir, he went so far as to compare Obama to Jesus Christ. CNN commentator and race-baiter Mike Dyson also used his pulpit to condemn black Americans who oppose the president’s evolved stance on same-sex marriage. Throughout his commentary, he equated the issue of same-sex marriage with that of the civil rights movement. Ignorance is bliss!

On HOT 97, a Hip-Hop radio station, several hosts encouraged their audience to call in and discuss the president’s “heroic” act. Their exact words were, “. . . if you’re stupid [those who oppose same-sex marriage], call us right now.” When several callers tried to articulate the reasons for their opposition to the president’s strategic political ploy and their opposition to same-sex marriage, they were mocked, ridiculed, and branded as “disgusting.” Oh, the-oh-so-tolerant Left.

Many conservatives are convinced that Obama has lost most of the black vote. I am not. Black Americans support Obama far more than any other demographic, and his same-sex marriage endorsement did little to no damage at all. It’s just being swept under the rug, as many are strongly compelled to remain loyal to the first “black” president. Take Reverend Emmett Burns, who is also a Maryland delegate, for example: in an interview with CNN, he stated that he and his congregation would no longer support the president and would “stay home” this upcoming election. Days later, in an interview with Bill O’Reilly, he retracted his statement, saying he “over spoke” and that he would continue to support the president. Reverend Randolph Bracy weighed in on the issue, too: “When all is said and done, African Americans will not abandon the president for Mitt Romney and the Republican Party.” Let the church say AMEN!

Obama was, by gay activists’ definition, a homophobe and a bigot, but he has been redeemed. Now that he has taken the first step and is the “first gay president,” he is hoping that the rest of America, primarily blacks, will get on board. From what I’ve observed thus far, many have; but, there are a few who are still on the fence.

I am not facing the dilemma many others are as a result of the president’s metamorphosis. The president’s endorsement of same-sex marriage came as no surprise and it certainly does not affect me in any way. I was not raised to support a man or a woman because he shares my skin color. I was not born a Democrat, nor was I born a Republican. My allegiance is to God, not man.

If the majority of black Americans can sweep something as horrible as abortion and after-birth abortion (both of which the president proudly supports) under the rug, then they will surely do the same for same-sex marriage. The president thanks you for your unwavering support. God bless America!

Atarah Golden | Cecil College | @AtarahGolden

Where does validation come from?

By Thomas Duane Smith

FDFMO President and host of Pro-life Fridays show

I was sitting at my computer thinking about another disappointment when a question popped into my head. Where does my validation come from? I am reminded of a situation a few weeks ago in which a very dear friend who was a part of an organization that I represent, decided to no longer be associated with us because of what another individual said. The old “Thomas” would have destroyed this individual’s work and reputation based on the knowledge that I have of the entire sequence of events. I decided to forgive and move on. Sometimes it is better to take the higher road. Over the course of my life, I have found myself seeking validation in friendships. I found myself being a people pleaser. It was a personality birthed out of fear.
Fear had a presence in my life from a young age. My older brother use to hold my head under water in the bathtub. I developed a fear of math problems. I also developed a fear of being hit because my adopted mother use to hit me in the face with her fist all the time. There were many other contributing factors to the fear that resided within me for years. I use to walk into the rooms where people were gathered and I would instantly be made fun of. I would be called names on a good day.
The humiliation and rejection ended up having a two part affect. I built walls around my heart that still to this day have never come all the way down. I also spent 4 years of my life burning with an intense hatred for ALL people. The interesting thing about that period in my life is that I was so afraid of doing something to hurt others that I just stayed away from people.
For some strange reason, I found myself helping people who were in need. That lead to me being walked on and taken advantage of. I accepted it because I found my validation in people. The whole time there was a LOVE who never was far away. A Father whose LOVE knew no conditions. A Father who never wavered in His message of Love towards me.

Despite the beckoning of the Lord Jesus Christ, I was afraid of Him. My fear was based on human attributes and not really knowing the Heart of a Loving Father. It has taken me years to reach this point of Love and reflection. I know that it is okay to have disappointments in life. I also know that at the end of the day….
MY VALIDATION IS NOT FOUND IN MAN; BUT IS FOUND IN THE LOVE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.
1 John 4:18 (Whole Chapter)
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
2 Timothy 1:7 (Whole Chapter)
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.
Passage Romans 5:8:

8But God commendeth His love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for
Us.
Galatians 2:16 (Whole Chapter)
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Christianity & Equal Opportunity Sin Condemnation

by Talitha McEachin on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 5:57pm ·

I think that one of the reasons that many view Christians as religious bigots when the topic of the day is dealing with homosexuality is because many of us Christians are very inconsistent with condemning all sinful behavior or immoral lifestyle choices equally. We whisper and gossip about the rumors within the church of the woman sleeping around with another woman’s husband – adultery. We might think badly of the fornication of single members of our church but we don’t always confront or condemn this behavior. We may know that a member is smoking marijuana, drinking excessively, beating his or her spouse or stealing and we may even be vocal about it, but not nearly as loudly or with such fervor as we do the homosexuality in our midst. Homosexuality, in my opinion, more than any other sin, is treated as the sin of all sins – the ultimate abomination to Jesus Christ. The swan song of morality. It is regarded as something that is so unnatural, vile and repugnant to us that if we don’t speak up against anything else, we’ll speak up against it – well many of us but most certainly not all.

The very idea that two men or two women would physically & emotionally embrace one another in the manner which the word of God has clearly designed and preserved for one man and one woman is so repulsive to us and quite rightfully so because it is repulsive to Christ. Before someone comments mentally or otherwise that I am a bigot, note that I am speaking of the acts themselves as repulsive, not the person committing them. Now I’m not arguing that we should not view homosexuality in this way, but why aren’t the other sins named and others, equally repugnant to us? None of us are perfect, although I think we should be striving for it as best we can. Even if we are not physically manifesting the sins named, many of us are thinking about dating or sleeping with other men or women when we are married, even if that person is married – we lust and are enticed by sins of the flesh constantly, well I know that I am, if I am being honest with myself. Matthew 5:28 tells us unequivocally that:

“But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his mind.”

Many of us, without manifesting the sin of adultery itself, have been guilty of it repeatedly without giving it a second thought– think about that. Many of us are “in the closet” with our manifestations of heterosexual perversions. So how dare we point a harsher finger (keyword harsher not that a finger should not be pointed at all) at those who sin openly because we feel morally superior in the moment, because no one knows about our sins or we are not sinning in the same way that homosexuals are or committing an allegedly “worse”sin. My father, Leroy “Lee”McEachin (RIP) had a great method for keeping his mind on things that were pure and righteous – he constantly studied and memorized the word of God. When he was on the job he would read over and over again scriptures that were written on the back of his business cards. One of the gifts he received from me one year was his favorite – a small hand held electronic Bible which he used so much the markings on the keys became worn and faded in just under two years. When I was a child our home was filled with conspicuous postings of scriptures on bright orange poster board – above the sink where we brushed our teeth, on the refrigerator, which some members of my house accessed more than others (smile Lance, my brother) and on the mirrors of our bedrooms where we glanced, or stared for hours (okay guilty as charged). Obviously, he too, was not perfect but the habit that he passed along to my siblings and I through his actions more than words, was to commit the scriptures to memory for our spiritual survival in this world full of sins of all types and more importantly, our minds – the devil’s playground. Back then I didn’t appreciate this habit so much but now as an adult I completely understand. After speaking with other fellow Christians about this matter, one of them said to me:

“..it (the church & I know this person didn’t mean all churches) doesn’t view all (non-violent) sin equally. It looks the other way on premarital sex, and is now warming up to same-sex marriage because it doesn’t want to be confrontational, unfair, bigoted, homophobic, etc. The church is just all too willing to be just like the world instead of shining light on darkness. That’s why Christians are trying to find all sorts of excuses to go along and get along on same-sex marriage. I guess they’re just tired of getting beat up. The bottom line is they won’t be able to squirm away from this one so easily.”

I am in strong agreement with this person. Now back to those non-homosexual sins; I have found none and believe that there is no biblical evidence that the sin of homosexuality is greater than others such as adultery or lying for example. If someone has it, please share it and I will retract that statement after consulting with trustworthy Christian scholars on the matter (trustworthy to me). I submit to you, that the bigotry accusations, due to the view of homosexuality, hurled at Christians, are misguided and misdirected because in our faith, which we have the constitutional freedom to pursue in America, we are taught inColossians 3:5:

“So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust and evil desires.”

and also in Galatians 5:19-21:

“When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, lustful pleasures, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness,wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.”

The Bible outright forbids and expresses disdain for the practice of homosexuality in the Old and New testaments:

Leviticus 18:22:

“You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman.”

Romans 1:26:

“That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turnedagainst the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.”

I could just as quickly and logically hurl accusations of non-religious bigotry at those who hurl them at Christians but I’m not a fan of ad hominems, so I won’t do that. Instead let me emphasize that although marriage is licensed and taxes are collected from the institution of marriage by the government, the institution itself is a predecessor of government. One thing that religious and governmental institutions once universally agreed on is the belief that heterosexual unions in marriages were the best environments for rearing and protecting children. Consider this, nearly 75% of America’s population says that they are of the Christian faith and Christianity is not the only religion which opposes homosexual lifestyles. When our governing officials attempt to re-define marriage in ways that many citizens oppose based on the tenets of their religious faith, they are in fact launching a direct assault on our liberties and legislating morality for all.

Instead of our current president Barack Obama’s recent open support of gay marriage, and in light of his strong views on the separation of church and state, his only response to the topic should have been in support of states’ rights to democratically decide the legality of non-traditional marriage. At least this way, religious and non-religious citizens alike, on both sides of the argument maintain their choices on this decision where they reside. It is in this tradition that the members of the highest court of our nation – the Supreme Court, can maintain their personal opinions while fairly and objectively rendering legal decisions. For Christians, if the vote is in their favor they can rejoice when the legal mandates are in harmony with their personal beliefs and respect them when they are not, although they should still be able to vocalize disapproval, without the ever present stigma of being labeled a “bigot”, which is etymologically fallacious anyway. A bigot is a person who is viciously and utterly intolerant of a differing creed, belief or opinion. Expressing disagreement in and of itself does not merit intolerance. Many Christians simply agree to disagree with non-theists on the matter, and cast their votes accordingly. Christians, if we were to voice our dissent on non-homosexual sins such as adultery just as quickly, adamantly and loudly as we do at homosexual lifestyle choices, perhaps the non heterosexual community would not be so quick to label us “bigots”. Don’t get me wrong, we don’t live to avoid labels from non-believers but Mark 16:5 states:

“And he said to them, Go into all the world and proclaim the Gospel to the whole creation.”

and Matthew 28:19-20:

“Go therefore to make disciples of all of the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Predestination arguments aside, how are we to achieve this with hypocrisy red herrings regarding the sins we unequally stand against as obstacles? Again, either way this label is unfair, however, we are spiritually charged with the task of and justified in expunging all sin from among us, as much as we possibly can. We must treat the sin of adulterers, liars, fornicators and so forth with equal spiritual condemnation. It is not the fact that we speak out against homosexual lifestyle choices that is problematic, it is the manner in which we treat other sins, equally forbidden in the Bible, as if they render a cooler place in hell or a warmer place in heaven if the offenders are not repentant. I spoke with another colleague who is a self-professed “gay Christian” He says:

“I believe that gay persons are born this way. Since many in the gay community are guilty of fornication and promiscuous, the church should advocate gay marriages in order to discourage sexual promiscuity and the spread of diseases just as they do for heterosexuals”

There are several errors in his logic and views among other things but I’ll say this – personally, I think that those in the church who believe that “some people are born gay” and use this as an argument to justify their support of gay marriage are wrong. What we are all born into is sin:

“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me…” Psalms 51:5

I believe that we have different inclinations towards different sins and some have an attraction towards the same gender. This alone is not the troublesome issue but rather the fulfillment of such desires in active homosexual lifestyle choices. This is the same problem for sinners whose inclination is for premarital sex who become practicing fornicators. We will either choose the path of hedonism or seek to be forgiven and quell those desires through the teachings of Christ and fellowship with the righteous. So I say to believers under the cyber sound of my voice, that if we want take charge of the religious and general narrative on sexual lifestyle choices in light of morality and be taken seriously, we must first, like my father, form habits which encourage and foster pure thoughts and leave little room for sinful impurities. Then once this habit is formed, we must develop an equal opportunity philosophy towards all sinners, regardless of which one they choose to indulge, including ourselves. Either way, quiescence in the face of sin is equivalent to approval andsin type based, biased, vociferous condemnation is hypocritical. Balance, which is always my personal goal, is found in the scriptures, when applied equally to sin inclination demographics.

I no longer have a community to which I belong

“I GUESS IT IS OKAY IN LIGHT OF THE TRAYVON MARTIN CASE….. FOR GANGS OF BLACK MALE TEENAGERS TO JUMP ON WHITE PEOPLE”
http://patriotupdate.com/22960/video-black-teens-brutally-beat-army-soldier-in-tampa

By Thomas Duane Smith

I have not written a blog in a while. After watching the preceding video, it has become apparent to me that I no longer have a community to which I belong. I do not associate myself with people who condone the type of acts which are portrayed in the video.

It’s now okay for gangs of black kids to commit actual hate crimes in the name of justice and no one will do a darn thing about it? ”Well it was done to us,” I can hear the quotes now. You know what? You are right we were lynched back in the day. Guess who did it? The very liberals that the black community sides with; I guess that would make Jesse Jackson= Quimbo and Al Shaprton= Simbo. If you don’t know who they are, maybe you should read Uncle Tom’s Cabin. See contrary to what most liberals think, the term “uncle tom” isn’t derogatory at all. Uncle Tom was the main character of the story that was beaten to death by the house slaves Q & S because he would not tell the slave master where the runaway slaves were hiding. In light of the fact that black conservatives have to hide who they are because of liberals like Q & S or Al and Jesse, whatever you prefer to call them.
The true sell outs are the black liberals and in some cases black conservatives who continue to justify wrong behavior. I haven’t really heard a lot of black conservatives talking about the black on white “hate” crimes that are actually being committed. Are you afraid of offending the sensitivities of our community? I’m not.
Some of you have been breast feeding on the “tit” of liberalism for so long that you don’t even realize that the liberals are and have been destroying the black community for decades. We have reached levels of unsustainability in our population. 12.3% in 2012 down from 20% in 1970.
I have a question for every black person who was upset with the Trayvon Martin case. How is it that you can be upset about the alleged murder of Trayvon, but not a peep from black liberals about the numbers of black babies that don’t get the opportunity to be born?
Talking to my mom a few days ago, I asked her what the doctor’s reasoning for recommending me for abortion was. They told her I was a tubal pregnancy. Folks! I was born 7 weeks premature. If my mom had carried me for almost 8 months in her tube, it would have ruptured and killed her. I just happen to be born 1 year after abortion was made legal in this nation.
See what many of you don’t realize and probably don’t care about is that abortion was a social experiment which accomplished its stated goals very well. Did you know that the black population was projected to be 50% of the American population by the year 2012?
How is that working out for us?
P.S. You don’t even want me to go there about the Pastors of our black churches.

By T.D. Smith

Why All Children Must be Included in Teacher Evaluations

By:

Mike Madigan, Vice President of The Frederick Douglass Foundation of NY

The Buffalo School system has one of the poorest track records at educating minority students in the entire nation. The impact this has had on the city can be seen in the 50% minority unemployment rate, and the fact that the City of Buffalo is one of the most poverty stricken cities in America. The status quo can no longer be tolerated.
The following is a review of the case for and against excluding children based on attendance as part of teacher evaluations.
Reason for exclusion: Union President Phil Rumore and the Buffalo Teachers Federation (BTF) contend that teachers must not be held accountable for something they feel they have no control over. It is their position and belief that only the parent is able to control and determine whether a child attends school.
Reason for inclusion of all children:

First: The teacher must not be a passive player in the education process. They must be actively engaged and encouraging child participation and engagement. Creation of a welcoming environment is essential to a successful education program. To expect otherwise would be designing an education program that is setup to fail.
Second: If the teacher is rated based only on children above a certain attendance history, and a child is known to have poor grades, the evaluation program actually incentivizes the teacher to create a hostile environment to lower that student’s attendance for the purpose of exclusion. This does not mean that a teacher would act on this incentive, but the fact is that the incentive would exist, and such an incentive cannot be permitted.
Third: If a parent is not sending a child to school, the existence of a rating system that includes all children would incentivize the teacher to engage with those parents to encourage improved attendance.
Fourth: If all children are included, the teacher would be incentivized to engage more with low performing students, even if they have an attendance problem. Exclusion would result in disengagement if it is known there is no consequence, once the student falls below the attendance threshold. Such a program is not acceptable.
The final justification for inclusion of all children was demonstrated on April 25th, when Superintendent Amber Dixon awarded plaques to 20 Principals. These awards were given for results they achieved at their schools. It was stated that through engagement with the children and their parents, the result was improved attendance at their schools of between 21 and 35 percent. This demonstrated that these teachers impacted attendance and invalidates Phil Rumore’s and the BTF’s claim that teachers have no control over student attendance. Teachers can and do impact attendance and must be rated on it accordingly.
********************************************************************

Note: Mike Madigan is a Congressional candidate for district 26, the seat currently held by Brian Higgins.

CALVINISM vs. ARMINIANISM

by Providence Crowder

Second generation Protestant theologians such as John Calvin and James Arminius had broadened Protestantism to boundaries their predecessors had not attained. Calvin, in particular, was a staunch Augustinian who became critical of the Roman Catholic Church in which he had been a part of, and challenged previously held viewpoints on traditional church teachings. He was a controversial figure whose hermeneutics greatly influenced Protestantism, firstly in Geneva, where he led the mission for reform. Calvin, in his quest for doctrinal clarity, comprised a summary of the Christian faith called the Institutes of the Christian Religion. The Institutes was a huge success and showed a “profound knowledge, not only of Scripture, but also of ancient Christian literature—particularly the works of Augustine—and theological controversies of the sixteenth century.”[1] Calvin developed what was known as a systematic approach to Protestant theology, and the scholarly brilliance of his polemic and apologetic writings have gained him prominence as the greatest theologian of his era. With his fame came many followers, making him the chief figure of the branch of Protestant theology termed Calvinist or “Reformed” Protestantism.

Reformed theology during Calvin’s lifetime was similar to those theological views held by Calvin’s contemporaries, Luther, Bucer, Zwingli, and others; differing primarily on the manner in which Christ was present in communion.[2] However, after Calvin’s death, various Calvinist groups and other Protestants arose, either distorting his views or disagreeing altogether with Calvin’s theology concerning divine grace, the human will, and election. One such person, James Arminius, challenged and attempted to reform some of the tenets of Calvinism, particularly concerning the aforementioned. Although initially Calvinistic in his leanings, Arminius’ soteriology became the foundation for Arminianism, a doctrinal system of beliefs contradictory to the teachings of Calvinism that maintained: Christ died for all not only the elect, God’s grace was not irresistible but capable of being rejected by the unbeliever, and that the believer was capable of falling from Grace.[3] After his death, the Remonstrants, a group of Dutch Protestants, sought to keep Arminianism alive by promulgating the teachings of Arminius and particularly challenged the more extreme Calvinistic views such as supralapsarianism[4] and other high Calvinism teachings such as those promoted by Protestant leader Theodore Beza.[5] Nonetheless, Arminianism did share a few key theological similarities to Calvinism.

Grace

Calvinism and Arminianism agreed concerning the grace of God. Both believed in original sin and the necessity of God’s grace as the only means for redeeming a totally depraved and fallen sinful race. Calvin in particular preached that “Man has no means within himself, by which he can escape from guilt, and the impending curse: that, on the contrary, until he is reconciled and renewed, everything that proceeds from him is of the nature of sin.” He further believed, “Man being thus utterly undone in himself, and incapable of working out his own cure by thinking a good thought, or doing what is acceptable to God, must seek redemption

without himself, in Christ.”[6]

Thus, grace was an act of love initiated by God to justify those sinful persons who respond in faith to the gospel and God considered those persons completely righteous as if they had no sin; this without the individual having done any other work to receive this unmerited favor. Although in agreement concerning the purpose and need for grace, the Calvinist and Arminian doctrines differed on whether or not God’s grace was irresistible. Calvinism maintained that Grace was irresistible while Arminianism argued that it was not.

The Synod of Dort, an “assembly of the Dutch Reformed Church that convened at Dort to deal with the Arminian Controversy,”[7] asserted the irresistibility of Grace. The Canons of the Synod of Dort proclaimed that faith was offered as a gift to the elect, or those predestined for salvation; “breathed and infused into him,” and God who works in man to will and do all things “produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also.”[8] Arminius contradictorily declared, “I by no means do injustice to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man’s free-will. For the whole controversy reduces itself to the solution of this question, ‘is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?’” He concluded that according to the Scriptures, “Many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered.”[9] The subject of the human will also became a point of conflict between the two Protestant groups. The Calvinists accused the Arminians of Pelagianism,[10] a claim that Arminius adamantly denied, declaring that the Arminians attributed too much to man’s free will.

The Human Will and Election

Within Reformed theology, the human will played little, if any role in soteriological matters. According to God’s divine Providence, nothing happened, not even a drop or rain fall, without the command of God. Even faith was initiated and directed by God, as Jesus declared in the book of John, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them” (Jn. 6:44). Therefore, election played a greater role than human will, although every man was responsible for his own conduct. The elect, though deserving of death for their sin, were saved according to God’s good pleasure.[11] Calvinism declared that Christ died only for the elect, “those who were from eternity chosen to salvation, and given to him by the Father; that he should confer upon them faith” according to God’s will, and not only that but God “should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end.”[12]

Those who were not among the elect were eternally damned because “God is under no obligation to confer this grace upon any for how can he be indebted to man, who had no previous gift to bestow . . . Who had nothing of his own but sin and falsehood.”[13] Therefore the elect owed God eternal gratitude and thanks for satisfying his sin and giving him the gift of eternal life. Unlike Arminius, Calvin avowed that because of God’s free mercy, the elect do not wholly fall from faith and grace, nor continue and perish in their backsliding because grace is not in consequence of their own merits. Even when the elect commit enormous sins, God does not entirely withdraw his Holy Spirit from his people, nor does he suffer them to commit sin unto death, nor does he totally desert them, allowing them to plunge into everlasting destruction.[14]

Calvin’s view of election, that some were predetermined for salvation and some for destruction, was not totally rejected by Arminius. However, because Arminius believed in universal atonement, declaring that Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men, he affirmed “Faith is not an effect of election, but is a necessary requisite foreseen by God in those who are to be elected. The decree concerning the bestowing of faith preceded the decree of election.”[15] The Reformed believed that election preceded faith whereas the Arminians maintained that faith preceded election; thereby giving the human will a greater role than in the Reformed’s soteriology.

Conclusion

Calvinism and Arminianism have both greatly influenced the Protestant theologies of their era as well as the modern era. While Arminianism found its roots in Calvinism, it soon became the antithesis of the Calvinistic faith by those who maintained a strict or high view of Calvinism. Due to the Arminian controversy, the Reformed, at the Synod of Dort, took a harsh stance against the Remonstrance and produced Canons and creeds of Calvinism that expressly establish clear differentiations between the two Protestant Denominations.

[1] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Volume 2, (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 2004), 64.

[2] Ibid, 68.

[3] The Creeds of Christendom, the Evangelical Protestant Creeds, Volume 3. Edited by Philip Schaff, revised by David S. Schaff. 6^th edition; (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1990), 545-549.

[4] “Supralapsarianism is the form of the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination which maintains that God decreed the election and non-election of men before the Fall of Adam. Calvin himself regarded Divine Predestination as an inscrutable mystery; he did not presume to elaborate the whole subject. It was his followers who boldly asserted such doctrines as supralapsarianism.” Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3^rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), s.v. “Supralaparianism.”

[5] “Beza Theodore was the Calvinist theologian who succeeded Calvin as the head of the Genevan Church and leader of the Calvanist movement in Europe. He is usually considered to have hardened Calvin’s doctrine of predestination by arguing that even the Fall was part of God’s eternal plain; it followed the election of some to salvation and others to damnation, the atoning death of Christ being offered only for the former.” Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, s.v. “Beza, Theodore.”

[6] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religions, Prefatory Address, Christian Library Heritage Edition, Version 8, (Rio, Wisconsin: AGES Software).

[7] Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, “Dort, Synod of.”

[8] The Creeds of Christendom, With a History and Critical Notes, Edited by Philip Schaff, revised by David S. Schaff. 6^th edition, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1990), 591.

[9] James Arminius, Sentiments of Arminius. Christian Library Heritage Edition, Version 8, (Rio, Wisconsin: AGES Software).

[10] Pelagianism is the heresy which holds that man can take the initial and fundamental steps towards salvation by his own efforts, apart from Divine grace. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Faith, s.v. “Pelagianism.”

[11] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16. Christian Library Heritage Edition, Version 8, (Rio, Wisconsin: AGES Software).

[12] Creeds of Christendom, 587.

[13] Ibid, 591.

[14] Creeds of Christendom, 593.

[15] James Arminius, Apology or Defense, Article 4. Christian Library Heritage Edition, Version 8, (Rio, Wisconsin: AGES Software).

Join the Frederick Douglass Foundation today

Live in NY Click HERE

Live in any other State Click HERE

Part II, Question I: “African-American or Black? What do you prefer to be called?”

Posted by Talitha McEachin

What’s in a name? Apparently, quite a bit! The most popular question I received from white people on this blog journey exploring race and culture was “African-American or Black, what do you want to be called?” and understandably so since so many have debated the legitimacy of calling black Americans “African-Americans” over the years. In order to answer this question we need to first explore the history of the term. Now I have searched high & low, deep & wide for hardcore evidence of the use of the term as far back as the 17th & 18th centuries because I have read claims of this in my research, but I have not been able to locate actual primary sources showing usage of the term. To start, there are many terms referring to persons of color considered obsolete by most, namely - Negro (still acceptable in certain contexts but not widely),colored,mulatto,mixed (still acceptable),biracial (acceptable & most current),quadroon,octoroon,quintroon and when you add other countries/languages the list goes on. Note that the term “negro” is widely acceptable & considered respectable in many Spanish speaking countries (especially on the South American continent) but it is also pronounced differently (“nay-gro” not “nee-gro”) in those places.

I have read that the term “African-American” was used by W.E.B Dubois, the black historian, sociologist, Pan-Africanist, editor, author & civil rights activist. I have also read that it has been used by Marcus Garvey, a Jamaican-American who was a publisher, journalist, entrepreneur & orator who was a staunch proponent of the Black Nationalism & Pan-Africanism movements. In all honesty, the use of the term (especially by Marcus Garvey) makes perfect sense in my opinion, given his tireless efforts towards a massive emigration of black Americans back to Africa. Let me say this very carefully because someone is bound to tell me that I said something that I did not. I did not say that such evidence & primary sources did not exist, I said I could not locate any such primary sources using the term “African-American”in those time periods. If someone points me to such a source which I can verify & link/reference to my readers, I will happily edit and give you the credit for locating it. I also perused some actual books on my personal shelf but could not find the term coined anywhere – that does not mean it was not used at that time in American history.

Now, let’s fast forward to the 20th century to Jesse Jackson who is in my opinion, a wannabe MLK Jr, a prominent race-baitor, a liar at times (exaggerator at best) but who has actually done some good (had to throw that in for the Jesse-ites). According to Wikipedia, he is:

“an African-American civil rights activist and Baptist minister. He was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984 and 1988 and served as shadow senator for the District of Columbia from 1991 to 1997. He was the founder of both entities that merged to form Rainbow/PUSH. Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. is his eldest son. In an AP-AOL “Black Voices” poll in February 2006, Jackson was voted “the most important black leader”

In 1988, as Jesse Jackson made his second run for president, he publicly recommended use of the term “African-American” in order to reflect the connection of black Americans to Africa, from where most sources say our roots lie and I concur. Jesse Jackson is indeed responsible for mainstream use of the tern in modern culture but it is actually a myth that the term’s origins can be traced back to him as the creator of it. There are many myths in Black history as well as American history in general and this is one of them. The term African American was coined by a black man named Dr. Johnny Duncan, whom most of you probably have not heard of. He was inspired to create the term after he read a sign which read “THE LAST FOUR LETTERS OF AMERICAN spell I-CAN” while serving in the US Army in Georgia. In 1985 while on an overseas discharge in Germany, he published his first (and to my knowledge THE first) of a series of annual Black history calendars containing his poem, “I Can” in which the debut of the term “African-American” appeared (so much for this inclusion on Jesse Jackson’s list of “achievements”).

For the record, Jesse Jackson has never said directly that he coined the term but the problem is that he has allowed so many others to think just that. To date, he has never credited Dr. Duncan’s poem, which he saw in a calendar sent by the author to Coretta Scott-King, for coining the term. Allowing others to give him false credit is equivalent to claiming the credit in my book. But hey, this is the same man who claimed to have held the dying MLK Jr, heard his last words (telling Jesse to lead the people) & had his shirt stained by his blood, which was a lie (okay “misrepresentation”for all you PC fanatics). In 1991 Jackson admitted to fathering a child out of wedlock – after praying with former first lady Hillary Clinton at the White House after her husband’s affair with Monica Lewinsky (because the tabloids had gotten wind of it not voluntarily). Oh, I know the pattern of deceit is hard to see but trust me it’s there <smirking>. The term became so popular that even the US Census began using it in its data gathering. Before the use of African American, the term “black” was popular in use after theBlack Power movement of the sixties, although at one time it was considered offensive, particularly, at the time when use of the term “Negro” was popular & preferred.

In Gallup polls consistently from 1991-2007 , most black people surveyed held no preference and said that it didn’t matter to them which term is used to describe them and personally I agree. Now I (keyword I) prefer the term “black” and this is because although I share DNA with Africans, culturally, I have very little in common with them & this is true for most black people in my opinion. We play football, go to prom, eat hotdogs at baseball games and participate in so many activities & rituals that are uniquely American. We are more American than African and that is why I prefer “Black-American” but I do not condemn those who prefer African-American as they want a name for themselves, from themselves to express a tie to African cultural roots. I think that is the key from that side of the argument – it’s a name a black person gave black people & some prefer to name themselves rather than utilize names that another culture has placed upon them – it is a waste of time & folly to debate this in my view. It is also folly to make a huge deal out of being called or identified by “black” if you prefer “African-American”, because the person doing so does not mean any harm nor does it have a negative connotation in & of itself.

Secondly, Africa is a continent, not a country. Unlike other racial/ethnic hyphenated names like “Irish- American” or “Kenyan-American”, African-American is quite vague – which country in Africa? It presupposes in a way that all Africans are alike which couldn’t be further from the truth. Africa is probably one of the most culturally diverse continents on the planet so if you can’t be specific about which country, I say use “black” but again, that’s just my opinion. Of course we could establish a general rule of thumb & law, that all African immigrants mustdistinguish themselves from black Americans by specifying which country in Africa they are from, before the hyphen (and perhaps place ____ – American on all applicable forms/documents), leaving the vague term “African-American” for black Americans only,who wish to identify their cultural heritage in a name, but is it really that serious? It can also begin to get very confusing as well because some immigrants have personally decided to identify as “American” and are happily adapting to a productive American life, contrary to public opinions. This does not mean that they forget or distance themselves from their cultural roots nor should they. Of course these days one can find out approximately which African country their ancestors likely came from through advanced genetic genealogy testing.

Now it’s important to note that one important reason critics of the term “black” don’t like it is because “black”people are not actually physically the color black & for that matter neither are “white” people but that’s a weak criticism because they are colloquial terms – relax. Then there are others who assert that African-American is losing popularity because of the lack of historical relevance to those born in America. Furthermore, it is a confusing term – after all, wouldn’t a white African immigrant to America be an African-American? I guess Jesse Jackson didn’t think that one through. White people, even though I prefer “black” I could care less if you called me African-American and I suspect most black people could care less also, or even if they have a preference, most will lose no sleep over it if you refer to them by either term. As for me I am an American – unhyphenated, who just happens to be black. Let’s leave the hyphens to immigrants who come to America & sweeten the melting pot with their unique cultures, which makes this country so great and distinguishes those of us who were born here. What black Americans don’t like is to be called the infamous “N” word (I’m including both pejorative words “nigger” & “nigga”) by a white person but for some reason it is still acceptable by many in the black community (younger generations mainly) if coming from another black person, as a term of endearment. Now that’s another question on my list from white Americans, so I’m moving on to the most popular question from black people to white people “Why are white Republicans afraid of black community outreach? Why are white people afraid of black neighborhoods?” – stay tuned for Part II Question II (if I didn’t break them up this would be too long!)

Read part 1 Here Top 10 things Black and White people want to know about one another but won’t ask

Original Post Here on KiraDavis

Become a 21 Century Abolitionist. See Membership Opportunities Here

Anybody but Obomney

By Hassan NurullahAnybody but Obama! That is the right’s battle cry moving into the November elections. Do those reading this who consider themselves conservative really believe that simply installing a person in the White House who happens to have an “R” next to his name, and who has contemporaneously taken up spouting conservative bromides, will be enough to right a wayward ship of state?

Is the temporal well being of the nation all we are concerned with? Is it even possible to have a temporally healthy America if a nation’s leadership and people are spiritually unhealthy? Do values matter anymore?

If values do matter — is it important to know the source those values flow from? If a leader’s “values” are similar enough to your own, does it matter where he gets his values? Do you think it matters to God?

Think carefully about this next question: Should the source of values be immutable or can the source be situational? What is the conservative answer to that last question?

Now what is the Christian answer to that question? Are the conservative and Christian answers in concord?

Are conservative and Christian synonymous? Are Christian conservative and Republican synonymous? The establishment right certainly hopes so. No, that last statement is inaccurate — the establishment left and right believes it is. So much so, that we have had in the last election cycle, and this one too, the candidate whom the Christian right has the least enthusiasm for.

I should qualify that last sentence — the spiritually minded Christians have no enthusiasm for our present candidate — the “anybody but Obama crowd” doesn’t think it matters who as long as they have the aforementioned “R” and what the Holy Bible calls “a form of godliness.”

Our presumptive nominee certainly looks the part, but then so did Saul! And for many, so did Barack Obama! Is it enough to have ” a form of godliness?” For a lot of Christian conservatives it seems so. I know many Christians who will vote for any candidate simply because he is the only alternative to Obama.

The right may have been for someone else earlier on, but they will conform — after all, anybody but Obama right?

Is that the right way of thinking?

The term ” a form of godliness” comes from the Second Book of Timothy, lets look at it in context, chapter 3:

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Well, many of you will say: “That may sound like Barack Obama, but it doesn’t sound like any of our candidates.” Doesn’t it? Frankly it sounds like all of us.

The difference is some will come to recognize they are in the reprobate state described above and choose to leave it by accepting the God of the Holy Bible’s precepts and redemptive work through Christ Jesus — while the people being addressed above have chosen to deny the God of the Holy Bible in favor of other gods or what suits them temporally and spiritually.

The likely Republican candidate has been a Mormon all of his life and for some, despite the grievous differences between Mormonism and Biblical Christianity and because Mormonism looks similar to Christianity using some of the same language and because Mormons seem outwardly to be good people, that is enough.

The apparent Republican favorite was a pro-choice Mormon when it was politically expedient for him to be pro-choice. Now that he is seeking the conservative vote he is what most conservatives want him to be, a pro-life Mormon. The “Christian” God is always pro-life. Yes, even in cases of rape and incest.

God is immutable — it is that immutability that prompted the founders of this nation to base our country’s moral laws on the unchanging tenets of the Holy Bible. This is also the reason they acknowledged our rights flow not from the situational ethics of an ever shifting human morality, but from the Creator God, the Author and Sustainer of all.

“Men love to gratify their own lusts, more than to please God and do their duty. When every man is eager for what he can get, and anxious to keep what he has, this makes men dangerous to one another. When men do not fear God, they will not regard man.” — Matthew Henry

Those are wise words from Matthew Henry’s commentary on II Timothy 3:5. I have said to many over the years that after accepting the saving grace of Christ and becoming a born again believer, I could not figure out how I could vote for any of the Democrats on the national stage and still stay true to the God of the Holy Bible.

You cannot be a pro-choice Christian if you believe what the God of the Holy Bible says in His Word. You can’t advocate for gay rights either. So how do you vote for a party or a person who makes advancing issues like those a top priority?

When a politician says he can disregard his Christian faith when considering political decisions he does not fear God — he fears public opinion.

“God is to be loved above all; but a carnal mind, full of enmity against him, prefers any thing before him, especially carnal pleasure. A form of godliness is very different from the power; from such as are found to be hypocrites, real Christians must withdraw.” — Matthew Henry

A Christian is not just someone who appears so outwardly, showing a form of godliness, looking to be a good family man or choosing to abstain from smoking, or drinking — but one who is one inwardly. A Christian man does not change his convictions to suit his desire for power, wealth, and comfort. He does not seek to conform his faith to the world, but rather allows his faith to inform his decisions and politics.

When we on the Christian right disregard our faith and what it teaches about false religion and the lessons the Holy Bible teaches about people who pick leaders by appearance and expediency, how are we any different from those who fell for “Hope and Change”?

Just as the establishment left counts on minorities to mindlessly vote for the Democrat candidate without thinking about how ineffective and in some cases down right destructive liberal policies have been to them and the nation on the whole — The establishment right takes it for granted that the Christian right is synonymous with Republican.

If that is indeed the state of affairs with the Christian right, you are placing the temporal above the spiritual and you will be denying the God who says:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. II Chronicles 7:14

It takes a great deal more than simply being able to identify the candidate who has an “R” next to his name, someone who woos you now that you seemingly haven’t any choice. We need more than that to prompt God’s healing. There is always a choice — you can choose the lesser of two evils because he is not Barack Obama — or you can simply reject evil all together.

This is why it is not possible for a person to be born a Christian. Christianity is a choice that one makes, a choice that brings about a change in the chooser. I was pro-choice before accepting Christ, but it did not take long after studying Christ’s words to realize I couldn’t stay pro-choice, so I changed my position on the issue to conform to Christ! I rejected the world’s expediency.

Let me end with this example of what you get when you lose sight of the immutable. The Mormon god and his elders upheld the notion that no Black man could serve as a Temple Priest or take part in Temple ceremonies until 1978 when it became to hot politically for the LDS to maintain this prejudice. They then received from their god “revelation” that he had changed his mind and Blacks could serve.

Bruce McConkle, then a member of the Latter Day Saint’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, was present when they received the 1978 revelation on priesthood. He wrote of the occasion:

“It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. The message was that the time had now come to offer the fullness of the everlasting gospel, including celestial marriage, and the priesthood, and the blessings of the temple, to all men, without reference to race or color, solely on the basis of personal worthiness. And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord.”

The Mormons got this revelation some two thousand years after the Holy Bible declared:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28

When the Apostle Paul gave instructions for choosing church leadership in I Timothy chapter 3 race is conspicuously absent from the list of criteria. Yet the Mormon’s did not get from their god that as they put it, “The message was that the time had now come to offer the fullness of the everlasting gospel, including celestial marriage, and the priesthood, and the blessings of the temple, to all men,” until 1978.

It is one thing when a person changes his mind — it is quite another when a person’s god changes his mind. If a man’s god is mercurial, can there be any wonder why the man following the mercurial god is also less than stable position ally on moral issues? If he is unstable on spiritual matters can he truly be trusted on temporal issues? The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court didn’t think so.

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” — John Jay

Anybody but Obama right? Go with that! As long as you think spirituality doesn’t matter and just any god will do so long as he looks good and says the right things.

I’m not putting my “Hope” for “Change” in anybody but the God revealed in the Holy Bible, even when that means voting “None of the above” for President and voting only for the House, Senate and the other choices come Election Day.

42 States Soon to Officially Recognize Juneteenth in 2012

Posted on April 10, 2012 by tfdfblog

By Ronald Meyers

(Washington, DC) – When the Maryland General Assembly, representing the home state of abolitionist Frederick Douglass, passes legislation to officially recognize Juneteenth this year, 42 states will be on record acknowledging America’s second Independence Day.

Sponsored by State Representative Melvin Stukes, HB 165, “An Act concerning State Government – Commemorative Days – Juneteenth National Freedom” requiring the Governor to “annually to proclaim a certain day as Juneteenth National Freedom Day” will establish Maryland as the 42nd state to recognize Juneteenth as a state holiday or state holiday observance.

During the 2011 – 2012 Regular Session of the Pennsylvania General Assembly unanimously passed HR 322, “A Resolution designating the third Saturday in June as ‘Juneteenth National Freedom Day’ in Pennsylvania.” The legislation was sponsored by Rep. Ronald G. Waters and adopted on June 12, 2011, establishing Pennsylvania as the 41st state to recognize Juneteenth as a state holiday or state holiday observance.

Juneteenth, or the “19th of June”, recognizes June 19, 1865, in Galveston, TX, when Union General Gordon Granger announced freedom for all slaves in the last southern state in rebellion following the end of the Civil War. This occurred more than two and a half years after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued by President Abraham Lincoln. Upon the reading of General Order #3 by General Granger, the former slaves celebrated jubilantly, establishing America’s second Independence Day Celebration and the oldest African American holiday observance.

“With so many states recognizing Juneteenth, we are optimistic that congress will finally pass legislation to make Juneteenth Independence Day a National Day of Observance, like Flag Day or Patriot Day,” states Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D., Founder & Chairman of the National Juneteenth Holiday Campaign and the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation (NJOF). “We hope that President Obama will also support our efforts by issuing a Presidential Juneteenth Proclamation and hosting a White House Juneteenth Celebration in June.”

For information on the National Juneteenth Holiday Campaign contact Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. at 662-392-2016, 662-247-1471 or e-mail: JuneteenthDOC@yahoo.comor web site: www.NationalJuneteenth.com.

Little People Can Make a Big Difference

by FDFNY Board Member Providence Crowder

Rochester community members and parents have grown weary of the corrupt practices and blatant disrespect shown to them by the Rochester City School District’s (RCSD) school board. They trusted the school board, their public servants and representatives, to make the best decisions concerning the children in the district. When they were voted in by the parents and community, they promised transparency. They promised the parents that they would work with them, engage them, and rely on their input. Yet, all but perhaps one of the school board members have broken that sacred trust and placed their own self-interests above the interests of the parents and children who are vital customers of the RCSD.

I could generate a whole list of legitimate grievances, but for the sake of brevity, I will speak on just one. This week the current President of the RCSD school board, Malik Evans, verbally reprimanded the actions taken by a frustrated group of parents live on the local news media. The parents engaged in a peaceful protest of school board’s latest scam, a fraudulent search process for a permanent superintendent of Rochester City Schools. These parents took center stage at a so-called “final candidates meeting forum” and wanted to express their concerns over the way the search process for a new school superintendent was conducted. After several unsuccessful past attempts to have a dialogue with the board over their concerns, they decided to make their grievances public. These brave parents never had their questions addressed that night. Instead, they had the police called and the doors shut in their face in an attempt to scare them back into silence.

That night Evans told the news media that this “small group” of people would not thwart their plans to go forward and impose their will upon the parents. That small group of taxpaying concerned citizens and parents, Evans inferred, were insignificant because they lacked numbers that would suggest that his position and power were in jeopardy. They lacked political influence—they were not a part of the 50 year reign of the inept Democrat establishment.

What Evans fails to realize is that throughout history, it was always the individual, the small, the insignificant few that brought about the greatest change. Little people can make a big difference, and for that reason, Evans and his cronies have plenty of reason to fear their political futures, at least in this city.

Thank God for insignificant little Rosa parks. History bears witness that when Parks refused to accept the status quo, because it was unjust, her actions sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott—a monumental exploit in the fight for civil rights for black Americans and women.

In the Bible, poor insignificant Gideon was sent by God to save the Israelites from the power of the Midianites. Gideon said, “O Lord, how can I save Israel? Mine is a poor family in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house.” And the Lord said to him, “Surely I will be with you, and I will help you drive out the Midianites.” Gideon was able to round up a very large army to fight against the Midanites, but the Lord said to Gideon, “Your army is too large. If Israel should win the victory, they would say, ‘We won it by our own might.’ Send home all those who are afraid to fight.” As the story goes, God led Gideon and an army of only 300 men to victory over thousands of Midianites—even pursuing them across a river and into the desert to utterly destroy them.

There are several other instances in history of little people and small groups doing great things. Malik Evans should thank this small group of caring parents for being concerned enough to involve themselves in the democratic process. They have sat quietly and trusted for too long as the school board and the school district failed their children.

Last year, Buffalo Business First rated the academic performances of 431 public school districts in the 48 counties of Upstate New York. This rating was based on four years of test data from the New York State Education Department. In that ranking, the RCSD placed dead last, number 431 out of 431 schools. As well, the school districts graduation rate is only 33%, down from a report four years ago in which stated that the rate was 39%, and dead last among the four big school districts in New York State—Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester, and Yonkers.

Sadly, the school district has been on this wayward path for quite some time. They have chosen to give out condoms instead of books, against the will of the majority of responsible parents. The school districts latest debauchery is the condom distribution program. This program solves no problems; but what it does do is encourage sexual behaviors. It also violates the religious beliefs and good conscious of several religious persons raising children who attend the city school district. It is completely denigrating to parents. I could never conceive of such a program being suggested or implemented in one of the districts in the surrounding suburbs of Rochester. Imagine the taxpayers of Pittsford, NY sitting idly by while their schools taught 100% of their children how to properly put on a condom but allowed 66% of them to fail out of school.

Malik Evans should do what he was elected to do—lead. Instead of being a leader, he is merely a pawn for the racist Democrat establishment who has never traded in its lifelong membership to the Ku Klux Klan. Evans can be likened to a black confederate in bed with the enemy. Instead of working hard to ensure that our children are not trapped in a failing school district, he works with the teacher’s union and the Democrat establishment to keep our children on the plantation, to make sure they have condoms but not books; to deny them school choice because it would spell the end of his job and squelch the influence of the all-powerful teacher’s union. He knows, as Frederick Douglass himself discovered, that “Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave.”

Malk Evans wants the parents to be uninformed and ignorant so that he can play politics with their posterity—unchallenged and unchecked. I only hope the insignificant few realize that little people can do great things. They have spoken and will remain silent no more. Their voices ring louder with each passing day, and their message is clear—“Malik Evans, we will deal with you at the ballot box, your days are numbered.”

Part I: “The Top 10 Things Black & White people want to know about one another, but won’t ask”

by Talitha McEachin

Now I know that I am supposed to answer the first set of questions from the list here in Part I but I’m actually going to pause a moment as per some requests, to answer two questions asked by many, about the introduction itself. I think it’s important that certain aspects of my introduction are fully understood before we move forward, based on the plethora of responses I received. For your convenience, I have included the original quotes here as well. We’re gonna jump right into this so the first (and most popular) question is:

“Talitha, was it really necessary to state the political affiliation of the persons who said the quotes, how is that relevant?”

Well, the answer is simple. If I simply identified those whom the quotes can be attributed to by race only, withholding any parts of the quotes which identified political stances, an interesting but tired phenomenon would take place. Conservatives would point fingers at Liberals and the same thing would occur the other way around. You see, some Conservatives actually believe that none of us hold any prejudices based on race. Some Liberals think that all Conservatives are racists. Many in both groups truly believe that their position is one of racial neutrality. Anyone within the ranks of either movement who expresses any extremist racial beliefs is either ignored, shunned or defended. This is why I waited until I saw such quotes from all sides to begin my missive. I cannot be fair without discussing prejudices and racism on the right because they do exist, although it is my belief, that racism is in opposition to conservatism. With that in mind, I think that any person calling themselves a conservative who embraces racism is not a true conservative. Now obviously, identifying the race of the persons who said each quote could cause black & white people to point fingers, but isn’t that what this is all about?

The second question is: “Talitha, what do you think is wrong with all of the the quotes?”

When I first saw this question I thought aloud to myself,“How in the world can anyone not know what is wrong with any of these quotes?” however, I’m going to give you all the benefit of the doubt. I realize that many of you probably know what is wrong with all or most of them (fingers crossed for all) but you just want to know what I think is wrong, which is fine, no matter your reason. If you are a person who genuinely thinks there is nothing wrong with any or certain quotes,<biting my tongue> please stay tuned. Okay here goes as succinct as I can so we can move forward to the first set of actual questions:

(Keep in mind that I placed the most problematic areas of each quote in bold lettering originally)

Quote#1

“Thoroughly conditioned from birth for self-hating is the condition of America’s blacks; taught from infancy that they need a hand just be marginally equal. It’s no wonder why there’s so much “internal” killing.

And for basic survival of shallow pride, all kinds of excuses have to be created; from economic despair to white racists- everything under the Sun has been blamed .. except for the individual.”

Any professor who teaches a basic logic & critical thinking course required at many universities, would find this quote to be quite useful…in teaching fallacies. This person is generalizing & placing all American blacks under the same umbrella of thought because he or she doesn’t tell us which black people he or she is referring to, and assumes we are all one monolithic race of people with identical experiences. To be fair this person may have unintentionally phrased it that way, but in my opinion, this person meant it as it was posted. What we don’t know is what he or she has based this on because he or she provides no evidence for the premise. This person simply asserts that all American blacks are “…..conditioned from birth…..and taught from infancy…” Are we to believe this is true just because he or she says it is? or is there evidence to back this claim up? Even if evidence was presented which proves the premise about American blacks to be the truth, the conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the original premise. Because of how American blacks are conditioned & taught, he or she concludes, “It’s no wonder why there’s so much “internal” killing”.

Now some of you are thinking to yourselves that this person could be justified in what he or she says because the majority of black people have generally voted the same way. That is true, in fact in 2008 91% of black people voted Democratic- for Barack Obama. Do not fall in the trap of generalizing based on voting patterns though because the black vote is more complex than that. Even though black people vote overwhelmingly democratic usually, most black people actually agree with the conservative view on many social issues, like gay marriage & abortion, for example. Much of the divide is on fiscal issues, so you have to dig deeper than mere voting statistics. Do you see why this is not only a weak argument, but a ridiculous, blanket indictment? You can’t conclude that black on clack crime (internal killing) is the result of blacks being taught to hate themselves even if that were true. With that said, the latter part of his argument, in my opinion, has much truth to it which is why there is no bold lettering in it (originally). In & of itself the latter part of the argument is not necessarily problematic in my view because it is often true that the blame game is on the tongues of so many black people (not all) however, I don’t know with certainty that the cause is “basic survival of shallow pride” and neither does he or she.

Quote#2

“Trayvon Martin is the thug product of Liberal parenting which teaches children to walk around dressed for criminal behavior. White children, whether they are Liberal or Conservative are taught better and do better, my people, my people!”

Again, this is a blanket indictment. This time of liberal parenting, as if Liberals love their children less than Conservatives. Even more than that, this person assumes that Trayvon Martin’s parents are Liberal. Where did that come from? Does he or she think this because they are black? because they are not married? because they live in Florida? Who knows! I didn’t hear Trayvon Martin’s parents discuss their political affiliations on the news or in any articles. George Zimmerman, on the other hand, has been identified as a registered Democrat which in my opinion, is irrelevant. Just as is the case for the first quote, here again we have faulty generalizations. What evidence does this person have that liberal parenting teaches children to “walk around dressed for criminal behavior”?

What evidence does this person provide that Trayvon Martin’s clothing is the attire of criminals? Here again, we have missing evidence, if any exists. Listen, certain attire worn by young people can be traced to many things, but liberalism is not one of them in my opinion. If anything, certain attire worn by young people which many think is inappropriate, is the result of teen angst or bad or absent parenting, which can come from a parent of any political affiliation. Then this person asserts that,“White children, whether they are Liberal or Conservative are taught better and do better, my people, my people!”

Wow…now this person is basically saying that regardless of political affiliation, if the child is white, they are taught & do better. You know, if the author of the first quote wants an example of self-hatred, he or she should read the second quote. In my opinion, the second quotes’ author, who is a black person, firsts hurls an ad hominem at liberals & liberal parenting whom he or she claims don’t know how to properly teach their children (how to dress at a minimum), but makes an exception if the liberal is white!? So basically, I might be able to deduce that it is black liberal parenting which is such a failure in that regard. I say “might”because this person could also be saying that there is something special about white children themselves enabling them to do better when taught. In other words, a white child raised by black parents could fare better also. The quote is somewhat incomplete and vague as well as illogical. Do you see how irresponsible this quote is? (I am this close to editing the prior sentence to hurl a few ad hominems myself) but I’m gonna leave it at that to quell my anger, except to say <sarcasm alert> “my people, my people”.

Quote#3

“We should pity black Conservatives because they are really of lower intelligence than black liberals, who can clearly see through the white Conservative lies and psychological hypnosis. White Conservatives who are as white as I am shouldn’t not be pitied at all, their racism is deliberate and very calculated, they should be charged with hate crimes.”

Briefly, here we have another ad hominem hurled at black conservatives whom this person thinks are of lower intelligence than black liberals. This person has no respect for varied political philosophies within the black community and uses provocative language like “psychological hypnosis” towards the black liberal choir steadily yelling “Amen!”as evidenced by all of the “likes” on social media this quote received. It kind of reminds me of the theatrics utilized by many prosperity preachers to ensure the collection plates are filled when passed around in church. Some of you won’t like what I’m about to say but if you have been reading my blogs regularly and/or are a “friend” of mine in social media, you already know that I could care less, so here goes:

This white liberal is nothing more than a figurative overseer on the plantation that is social liberalism. He or she is appealing to emotion, another logical fallacy rather than reason to prevent anyone from realizing “it’s time to escape!”. This person had the audacity to accuse white conservatives of lying, without stating the “lies”. He or she hopes that if he or she can keep the audience fixated on the appeals without questioning their authenticity, they will remain under his or her liberal hypnosis. Then this person attacks white conservatives “as white” as he or she is. This person is a snake – (There I said it! I know that’s an ad-hominem <bite me>) and is very clever. He or she garners favor with black liberals by attacking members of their same race which he or she knows will win them further over to liberalism! Then the icing on the liberal cake is “they should be charged with hate crimes” Do you see what I am seeing? A white person, is telling black people that other white people (conservatives) should be charged with hate crimes because of their so-called racism which he or she does not even explain! This person also says that other black people (conservatives) should be pitied. Why? Because the blacks in the virtual audience need to know that they are not culpable in any way of anything by virtue of being black and the blame is conservatism and the evil racist white people, who are pulling the wool over the eyes of dumb black conservatives. What specifically do white conservatives do that is racist & therefore deserving of a hate crime charge? We don’t know because this is purposely omitted. This is all hype & emotional appeal with no substance. This person’s thinking is the most dangerous & viscous within the ranks of Liberalism if you ask me (Oh, I am being asked, ha!)

Quote#4

“I can’t stand ___ & the rest of those Uncle Tom, sellout, stuck up, brown-nosing, a**-kissing “knee-gros” – who follow around “whitey” a real live example of a modern day house n***a and on top of that the b**** is light-skinned, she really thinks she is white! ___ you can dress like them, talk like them and try and hang out with them all she wants but that n**** doesn’t even know they’ll never BE one of them. They don’t want ya! LOL”

Folks, this one is so obvious that Stevie Wonder could see it. This is nothing more than an idiotic diatribe filled with ad hominems and since these insults were hurled at me, I recommended a thorough psychological evaluation from a licensed professional along with removal from social media until this person grows up. Name calling & profanity aside, this is a very childish person with nothing better to do so I’m moving on to re-state the first set of questions in the Top 10 list and give a little sneak peak commentary.

Here are the questions again:

Part II (sneak peek) - “The Top 10 things Black & White people want to know about one Another, but won’t ask”

#1 Black: Why are white Republicans afraid of outreach in black neighborhoods? Why are white people in general afraid of black neighborhoods?

Short answer: Newsflash black people – Republicans suck at outreach period not just black community outreach so get in line. As far as the reasons white people are afraid of black neighborhoods – the same reason why black people are afraid of black neighborhoods.

#1White: African-American or Black? What do you want to be called? Why?

Short answer: Both are acceptable – statistics show that most black people have no preference and will accept either. As far as why, stay tuned! (even I learned something I didn’t know on that question & I’m black)

by Talitha McEachin

Originally posted on KiraDavis

Intro: The Top 10 things Blacks & Whites want to know about each other, but won’t ask

by Talitha McEachin

Recently, I asked black & white people throughout social media for questions they always wanted to ask the opposite race, but haven’t for fear of offending them. I received over 4,000 responses and from them I took the top ten to address in this series on “race”or “race relations”. Since then I have been working on that blog series faithfully, because my goal is to educate both groups (including myself) and promote understanding and unity. Folks, I would prefer it if we did, but we actually don’t have to like one another, but we do have to share this country together in a civil manner. We must always respect one another and never discriminate or mistreat another citizen for any reason, let alone race. For the record I reject the notion of “race”but utilize this human construct because it makes life easier and makes me more easily understood. I have said it before but I’ll say it again:

“genetic variation in populations comes from mutations in genetic material, gene flow and random dispersal of genes through sexual reproduction. Also, environment was and is a huge factor in the phenotypes & physiological adaptations humans developed over time in order to survive in their various environments, which resulted in the three major “race categories” that humans categorize themselves in. This basically means that there are really no true “races” because our phenotypes are an inheritance from years of adaptations to various physical environments by our ancestors.”

Let’s face it, unless you are an Indigenous American, you are an immigrant regardless of the circumstances which led your ancestors here or any particular generation of your family in modern time. Yes, I’m including slaves & their descendents and if any of you want to get all upset because I didn’t distinguish that some Americans (black people) were kidnapped or sold into slavery which led us here, there, I said it! Are you happy? Moving forward with the dialogue, I saw the following post on the page of a White Conservative on a social media site:

“Thoroughly conditioned from birth for self-hating is the condition of America’s blacks; taught from infancythat they need a hand just be marginally equal. It’s no wonder why there’s so much “internal” killing.
And for basic survival of shallow pride, all kinds of excuses have to be created; from economic despair to white racists- everything under the Sun has been blamed .. except for the individual.”

Then I saw this from a Black Conservative:

“Trayvon Martin is the thug product of Liberal parenting which teaches children to walk around dressed for criminal behavior. White children, whether they are Liberal or Conservative are taught better and do better, my people, my people!”

Then a White Liberal:

“We should pity black Conservatives because they are really of lower intelligence than black liberals, who can clearly see through the white Conservative lies and psychological hypnosis. White Conservatives who are as white as I am shouldn’t not be pitied at all, their racism is deliberate and very calculated, they should be charged with hate crimes.”

Lastly, from a Black Liberal:

“I can’t stand ___ & the rest of those Uncle Tom, sellout, stuck up, brown-nosing, a**-kissing “knee-gros”– who follow around “whitey” a real live example of a modern day house n***a and on top of that the b**** islight-skinned, she really thinks she is white! ___ you can dress like them, talk like them and try and hang out with them all she wants but that n**** doesn’t even know they’ll never BE one of them. They don’t want ya! LOL”

Now, I took the time to emphasize in bold lettering the most problematic parts of these statements. Keep in mind that these are quotes from regular, everyday people, not well known political pundits or celebrities. Therefore, if you think the need is not there to justify such discourse, think again and do a little multiplying, because these four individuals are not alone as evidenced by the sharing, “likes” and “re-tweets”. These are your average Americans, sharing their thoughts throughout social media behind the cloak of the internet. I won’t reveal names nor which social media outlet they made these statements on, but the last comment was directed towards me actually. I laughed (I’m actually brown or caramel-complexioned not “light-skinned” as `the person claims). It’s a good thing my self-esteem is in tact and I don’t have that “shallow pride” the first person spoke of or I would have felt a slight pinch of insult. The fourth person even has the nerve to have pictures of Africa and famous black leaders all over their page with raised fists! <insert picture of me shaking my head>. Now if you cannot see the problems in the statements above no matter which demographic they come from, you are the very person who needs to get comfortable for the ride as I go through this blog series: “The Top 10 things Black & White Americans Want to Know about One Another, but won’t ask”

Stay tuned for Part I, Questions #1

Black: Why are White republicans afraid of outreach in black neighborhoods? Why are white people in general afraid of black neighborhoods?

White: African-American or Black? What do you want to be called? Why?

by Talitha McEachin

Posted originally at KiraDavis

THE NEXT PART: PART 1 is up

Become a member of the FDF today www.TFDF.org or Donate and get the magnet below…. Or a 21st Century Abolitionist T-shirt ask how at info@fdfny.org

Eric Holder’s “Conspiracy” Against Pro-Life Advocates

by Matt Barber | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 4/9/12 10:46 AM

Eric Holder is a busy man. When President Obama’s chief law enforcement officer isn’t tied up selling guns to Mexican drug cartels, refusing to prosecute self-serving cases of voter intimidation or ignoring “wanted dead or alive” bounties placed by black militants on the heads of private citizens, he’s busy conspiring with pro-abortion extremists to bring the full weight of the federal government down upon innocent pro-life advocates.

So much tyranny, so little time.

Eric Holder is much more than just incompetent. He’s an extremist pro-abortion activist who shares his boss’s goal of “fundamentally transforming America” to reflect both men’s secular-socialist self-image.

The most recent and obvious example of this administration’s serial abuse of power in furtherance of a radical pro-abortion agenda came when the Department of Health and Human Services mandated, in contravention of the First Amendment, that all religious organizations provide contraception, sterilization and various forms of abortion to employees. This may be the single greatest violation of our constitutionally safeguarded religious liberties in our lifetimes. The mandate remains in place to this day.

But individual citizens haven’t escaped a forced fiduciary tie to abortion homicide. A few weeks later HHS arbitrarily attached a “final rule” to Obamacare requiring that every American, pro-life or otherwise, pay one dollar per month earmarked expressly for an abortion services pool. This validates pro-life forewarnings that the president was simply lying when he issued a toothless executive order supposedly banning federal dollars for abortion. (What do we call someone who chronically lies?)

Still, every once in a while the good guys win one.

For several months now the Obama administration has been abusing our judicial system through a concerted political intimidation campaign via the federal courts. Obama has instructed the Justice Department to sue a number of pro-life counselors and volunteers for allegedly violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrance (FACE) Act.

You won’t hear it from the mainstream media, but the Justice Department has just faced an embarrassing smack down on the highest profile of these cases. It has dropped an appeal in Holder v. Pine against pro-life sidewalk counselor Mary “Susan” Pine, who is represented by the civil rights firm Liberty Counsel. The DOJ has agreed to pay $120,000 for this frivolous lawsuit which, as the evidence indicated, was intended to intimidate Ms. Pine and send a shot over the bow of pro-lifers around the country.

Mr. Holder unsuccessfully sought thousands of dollars in fines against Ms. Pine, as well as a permanent injunction banning her from counseling women on the public sidewalk outside the Presidential Women’s Center (PWC) abortion mill (or any other “reproductive services” clinic).

After 18 months of litigation, the DOJ’s case was thrown out of federal court, and the department was chastised in a scathing ruling by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Ryskamp for filing a case with no evidence.

Judge Ryskamp wrote that Holder’s complete failure to present any evidence of wrongdoing, coupled with the DOJ’s cozy relationship with PWC and their apparent joint decision to destroy video surveillance footage of the alleged “obstruction,” caused the court to suspect a conspiracy at the highest levels of the Obama administration. “The Court is at a loss as to why the Government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place,” wrote Judge Ryskamp. “The Court can only wonder whether this action was the product of a concerted effort between the Government and PWC, which began well before the date of the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine’s activities rather than to vindicate the rights of those allegedly aggrieved by Ms. Pine’s conduct.”

After the ruling the DOJ appealed on the last day possible and gave indication that President Obama had personally ordered the appeal. A little over a week later, the president apparently decided to cut his losses and reversed course.

Harry Mihet, senior counsel for Liberty Counsel, said of the judge’s ruling: “It’s not every day that a federal judge accuses the Justice Department of a full-blown conspiracy.”

Ironically, this past December, in the midst of the case, Ms. Pine actually counseled a woman outside of PWC and convinced her not to have an abortion, thus saving the life of the child and possibly the mother as well. Her email to Liberty Counsel read simply: “We saved a life today.”

Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, pulled no punches:

It is irresponsible for the U.S. Department of Justice to place politics above principle when deciding to prosecute, and thus attempt to silence, a pro-life sidewalk counselor without any evidence of wrongdoing.

When the nation’s highest law enforcement officer files suit against any citizen, the suit must be based on the law coupled with compelling evidence. Anything less is an abuse of the high office. Susan Pine will not be silenced or detoured from her mission to save the lives of innocent children.

Indeed, “politics above principle,” intimidation of private citizens and jaw-dropping abuses of power are but a few hallmarks of this Obama administration.

History will be no more kind to this president than he has been to the citizens he was sworn, and failed, to honorably serve.

LifeNews Note: Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action.

20 Obvious Truths That Will Shock Liberals

John Hawkins

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs

Right Wing News

1) The Founding Fathers were generally religious, gun-toting small government fanatics who were so far to the Right that they’d make Ann Coulter look like Jimmy Carter.

2) The greatest evil this country has ever committed isn’t slavery; it’s killing more than 50 million innocent children via abortion.

3) Conservatives are much more compassionate than liberals and all you have to do to prove it is look at all the studiesshowing that conservatives give more of their money to charity than liberals do.

4) When the Founding Fathers were actually around, there were official state religions and the Bible was used as a textbook in schools. The so-called “wall of separation between church and state” has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with liberal hostility to Christianity.

5) The biggest problem with our economy today is Barack Obama. His demonization of successful people, his driving up gas prices, his regulatory overload and threats to increase taxes have terrified businesses into hunkering down, refusing to spend money, and declining to hire new people. Replacing him would do more than any government policy to spur economic growth.

6) Not only are conservatives more patriotic than liberals, but most American liberals “love” America in about the same way that a wife-beater loves his wife.

7) Out of every 100 cries of “Racism” you hear these days, 99 are motivated by nothing other than politics.

Anyone paying income taxes is certainly paying his “fair share” — and then some — compared to the people who pay nothing.

9) You don’t have a “right” to anything that other people have to pay to provide for you.

10) If we can ask people to present an ID to buy alcohol, drive a car, or get on an airplane, then asking them to present identification to vote is a no-brainer.

11) There’s absolutely nothing that the government does smarter, better, or more efficiently than the private market with roughly equivalent resources.

12) The biggest problem with education in this country is liberals. They fight vouchers, oppose merit pay, refuse to get rid of terrible teachers, and bend over backwards to keep poor kids trapped in failing schools.

13) Fascism, socialism, and communism are all left-wing movements that have considerably more in common with modern liberalism than modern conservatism.

14) The Democratic Party was behind slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow laws. It was also the party of Margaret Sanger, George Wallace, and Bull Connor. It has ALWAYS been a racist party. Even today, white liberals support Affirmative Action and racial set-asides because they still believe black Americans are too inferior to go up against whites on an even playing field.

15) A man with good morals who falls short and becomes a hypocrite is still a far better man than a liberal who can never be called a hypocrite because he has no morals at all.

16) The most dire threat to America’s future and prosperity in the last 150 years hasn’t been the Nazis, the Soviets, or Al-Qaeda;, it’s the spending and overreach of our own government.

17) Greed isn’t someone wanting to keep more of what he earns; it’s people demanding a greater share of money that someone else earns.

18) Most of the time in American politics, the liberal “victim” is really a bad guy who is absolutely delighted by the opportunity to pretend to be “offended.”

19) Jesus Christ was not a conservative, a liberal, or a politician. He was also not a capitalist or a socialist. Still, you can say this: Jesus drew sharp lines about what’s right and wrong, he wasn’t tolerant of what the Bible categorizes as sinful behavior, and there’s absolutely no question that he would adamantly oppose abortion and gay marriage.

20) When you demand that other people fund your sexual escapades by buying your contraception, your sex life becomes their business.

Original Post

Alveda King: Sharpton, Jackson should stop ‘playing race card’ over Trayvon Martin

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece is criticizing the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson for politicizing the Trayvon Martin shooting and leveraging racial tensions to rile up Americans.

Conservative activist Dr. Alveda King, now the director of African-American outreach at Priests for Life and the founder of King For America, said she hopes Sharpton and Jackson stop “stirring up the people without positive solutions” in Sanford, Fla., and elsewhere in the U.S.

“I would believe that, by stirring up all of the emotions and reactions, I wanted to encourage them to remember the man that they say that they followed, to remember that his message was nonviolence and very loving,” King told The Daily Caller, referencing her late uncle. She added that she wanted to encourage Jackson and Sharpton “to talk about nonviolence and not to incite people with that race card that they are very good at playing.”

“Nonviolence was a very important part of the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr,” she added. “So, we want to encourage people to be nonviolent in their responses, to be thorough in their research and that justice must be done…We want justice to come, but we want nonviolent responses to this really tragic and terrible incident.”

King hasn’t made up her mind about the facts of this case and who is responsible for what, but believes there should be a full investigation. She told TheDC that she agrees with former Republican presidential candidate and businessman Herman Cain, however, who has asked for a full investigation instead of “swirling rhetoric.”

“I believe that it should be thoroughly investigated,” she told TheDC. “I believe that it should be discovered whether there was undue force. If Trayvon did work to defend himself, he was not armed and so that is an unfair fight right there. Trayvon was not armed and the man who shot him was. So there is a possibility of undue force.” (RELATED: Full coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting)

She said her heart goes out to Trayvon Martin’s family and she understands what they’re going through. “I’m very concerned about Trayvon’s family,” King said. “I’m praying as well, and many members of my family are as well… Several of us have experienced death of family members by shooting.”

“My grandmother, Mama King, Alberta Williams King, was shot in Ebenezer Baptist Church,” King continued. “My uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., of course, was shot. And, then, my dad [Alfred Daniel Williams King] was killed the next year, drowned in a swimming pool. So, we are not unfamiliar with these kinds of shocks and tragedies to a family. And, so, my first thought is to pray for the family.”

King hopes Americans won’t continue to “hype this up so much to a point and make all this big demonstrations. Of course, there should be an outrage and there should be an outcry. But, remember: There are many other young people who are at risk and many young people getting killed in violent situations.”

She said if her father, A.D. King, and uncle, Martin Luther King Jr., were still alive today, they would handle this tragedy much differently from how Sharpton and Jackson have so far.

“I remember when our home was bombed, and my dad went out to the people and he said, ‘please don’t riot, please don’t react violently, my family and I are alright,’” King said. “’If you have to hit anybody, hit me. So please, I’d rather you be nonviolent and don’t strike out.’ So, my uncle would urge a call for justice but he would also urge nonviolence in responses. He would do that, I can assure you he would.”

Moving forward on this storyline, King said Americans “should be watchful for racial profiling, for stereotypical responses.”

“We also should urge people to know that we are one human race,” she said. “We’re not separate races. There’s only one human race.”

King said the news media — which she said was largely responsible for Martin’s story gaining a massive national following — should remember that there are many struggles being encountered by America’s youth.

“I would like for the media to be aware of how dire circumstances are and to be a little more compassionate in reporting and to be fair, of course,” King said. “To be honest and truthful, but to know that we’re dealing with some dire circumstances and this is not a one-time occurrence. There are issues involved here — certainly the racial issue is a question, but it’s not the only thing because we have violence against young people from those who are within their own racial communities and their own ethnic groups.”

King adds that racism still exists in America today, and the American people need to watch for it and fight back the way her uncle, Martin Luther King, Jr., taught. “This is the 21st century and we would all like to think racism is dead in America,” King said. “Actually, that’s not the case, still there are some racial issues that are out across this nation and so we have a responsibility as compassionate citizens of America, no matter what our ethnic group happens to be, to confront these issues when they arise. The best way to confront it is with God’s love, and if my uncle and my father were here today, they’d say that to you: ‘God’s love.’”

Follow Matthew on Twitter

The Bunker …Stand up, Speak out & Hunker Down

Christ, Life, Conservatism, Politics, Prophecy, Everlasting Life & Understanding the times! Be informed, Be Ready to act, and Get off the Plantation.

Category Archives: Guest Writters

Black Americans Wrestle with the First Gay President

Where does validation come from?

Christianity & Equal Opportunity Sin Condemnation

I no longer have a community to which I belong

Why All Children Must be Included in Teacher Evaluations

CALVINISM vs. ARMINIANISM

Part II, Question I: “African-American or Black? What do you prefer to be called?”

Posted by Talitha McEachin

Anybody but Obomney

42 States Soon to Officially Recognize Juneteenth in 2012

Little People Can Make a Big Difference

Part I: “The Top 10 Things Black & White people want to know about one another, but won’t ask”

Eric Holder’s “Conspiracy” Against Pro-Life Advocates

Eric Holder’s “Conspiracy” Against Pro-Life Advocates

20 Obvious Truths That Will Shock Liberals

Alveda King: Sharpton, Jackson should stop ‘playing race card’ over Trayvon Martin