Charges of Racism are Hurtful (for both sides) | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Diane Rufino delves into a subject that has long been one of her major concerns - racism. Many Liberals strongly believe that, "it is high time to have a national discussion on race." Well here it begins from the bowels of Beaufort County Now: Diane Rufino Style.

    The Author's Note: The theme originated as a post on my blogsite. The article below actually represents a running thread of several posts and includes comments which criticize my points. The criticisms are clearly note.

    These past few weeks, I've heard all kinds of people, celebrities, groups, and even animals (ie, the New Black Panther Party) label the TEA Party as "racist." On July 13, the NAACP passed a resolution calling the TEA Party a racist movement. The TEA Party is the only truly patriotic group to have emerged in recent memory and it angers me to hear ridiculous claims leveled against them. If "racist" is used synonymously with "intelligent" and "patriotic," and "honorable" and "respectable," then I guess I won't mind. But hearing liberals and Democratic leaders and black activists, and the NAACP level the charge, I'm thinking they just want to distract ordinary Americans from the real strength of the party - which is a patriotic duty to return the country to one that our Founders created and the one that millions of Americans died to defend. And now we learn that Michelle Obama tacitly endorses the NAACP's message. Michelle Obama has been race-obsessed almost her entire life, so to hear that she has taken this position only reminds me of something that Ronald Reagan said many years ago: "There he goes again."

     I can't keep hearing about 'racism.' It's one of those things now that brings mockery to the speaker rather than genuine concern. I think the only people who take it seriously are the ones who unintelligently and recklessly use the term and civil rights attorneys (namely the ACLU, the organization dedicated to the destruction of this country).

    How does a white person take a charge of "racism" seriously when 94% of the 12 million blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them and a good segment of the white population voted for him because, although he doesn't look like them, they respected him and were mesmerized by his charisma.

    This country has always stood up and tried to do the right thing by black people. There may be lapses in judgment at times, but in our current atmosphere when the opposing side of any story touching on potential injustices to blacks CANNOT be discussed robustly in the media (again because of further cries of 'racism'), most people fail to take them seriously. That sounds harsh, but that is the truth. When you effectively shut down meaningful discourse, then people see things for what they are... bullying and ranting. They see it as the only alternative they have because they can't articulate issues on a meaningful level. We've all heard these arguments. We've all felt the growing level of disgust.

    Let's not forget what this country has done to help end racism - The Civil Rights Acts of 1865, the Civil Rights Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th) which gave citizenship rights and full rights and liberties thereof and made sure that states would not try to deny these rights and liberties to blacks (although the 14th was well intentioned, that single amendment has ended up deconstructing this country more effectively than anything else in our history), Brown v. Board of Education (an unconstitutional ruling, by the way, but a way to effect social change by psychologically empowering black children), the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" which was designed to free blacks from poverty, help fight racial injustice (especially in public and private accommodations), help them get out of the ghettos, and help fight urban decay [LBJ addressed black poverty by giving them a temporary "leg up" through the welfare system (the "Aid to Families with Dependent Children") which has now become a generational entitlement and way of life supplanting the need for education and ambition], bussing (another unconstitutional policy), affirmative action (another unconstitutional policy), racial justice acts (making sure race isn't a factor in sentencing), and the acceptance of the insane claim of "black rage." Oh, and let's not forget how strongly rap and hip-hop has been embraced. There are BET stations, black awards, black magazines, etc.

    In 2004, conservative economist Thomas Sowell noted that while the Great Society programs achieved modest gains in overcoming poverty, there was not the kind of movement out of decaying urban areas as LBJ expected, and instead, the programs only contributed to the destruction of African American families. Sowell wrote: "The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life." Issues involving race invariably are rooted in the inability of a segment of the black population to escape the destructive conduct and mentality that has kept them dependent on social programs, to show successes in education (ie, standardized testing scores and drop-out rates), to articulate grievances other than to cry "racism" and call Al Sharpton, to break from a dependence on crime and drugs, to end the cycle of teenage pregnancies, to commit to stable family structures, and to free themselves from their own 'racial' thoughts, attitudes, and conduct. Every ethnic group has their own population that gives the rest a bad name, so this isn't about singling one group out. My group has the mob and the Jersey Shore gang. [At one point towards the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 2oth century, there were more Italians living in north Jersey and the NYC area than in Rome. Italians were discriminated against and singled out by police. There is case law which proves this. In fact, in order to make a living, many turned to the type of crime that locals engaged in in Sicily - thuggery, extortion, illegality, violent crime (the mafia). There has not been a time in my entire life when someone hasn't asked me if there are mobsters in my family. I've had Italian friends who were interrogated about any possible connections to mobsters in job interviews. But you know how my family was finally accepted in the 1930's, and in the years that followed? They refused to label themselves as "Italians" first, they were respected because of their hard work and patriotism, and they were hired because they took education seriously and they spoke well and conducted themselves with class and integrity. I am immensely proud of my family and how the reflection they cast on the Italian race].

    So please don't give me the 'racism" argument.

    As ex-Colorado Governor Dick Lamn spoke in 2004 in addressing what's happening to our population: "I have a plan to destroy America...

    “I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, lets destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that "an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide." here is my plan:

    I would encourage all minorities to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than Americans, emphasizing their similarities.

    I would also make our fastest growing demographic groups the least educated - I would add a second underclass, un-assimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% drop out rate from school.

    Then I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of Victimology. I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was all the fault of the majority - I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.

    I would "Celebrate diversity." "Diversity” is a wonderfully seductive word. It stresses differences rather than common alities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other-that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse,” peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. If we can put the emphasis on the “pluribus,” instead of the “unum,” we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.

    Finally, I would place all these subjects off limits - make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to “heretic” in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. I would make certain topics "politically incorrect" and therefore targets for civil rights violations. Words like “racist”, “xenophobe” that halts argument and conversation. I would make it impossible for the majority group to present their side."

    [Dick Lamn was originally talking about immigration, but you can see how the policies that we have adopted to fight racism are the same as the ones Mr. Lamn has discussed as being destructive to our national integrity].

    This country has risked a lot to do the right thing to end racism. The very policies it has engaged in or adopted to address this problem have violated our Constitution, have weakened our country, have grown our government to the point that it reaches too heavily into our pockets and intrudes too heavily in our lives, have burdened all our fundamental liberties, undermined our security, have destroyed many of our schools, cities, and communities, and have led to social decay. The policies have touched on every single American, and if you want to ask which group in particular has been most horribly burdened, it isn't going to be the group crying "racism."

    When studying the development of how religion and religious principles were removed from school and how they eroded from society, I came across several arguments by various liberal judges. And I do mean "liberal" (and worthless, legally). In cases addressing the teaching of sexuality. homosexuality, and birth control in school, judges wanted to throw out the teaching of "morality" because "morality is associated with religion and the government cannot support religion in schools" (Wall of separation). Similarly, schools can't teach "intelligent design" in the origin of species because that also "touches on religion." That is complete and utter nonsense. Not everything is defined by whether it is 'religious' or not. Maybe topics should just be allowed because they are pertinent and make good common sense and they offer tremendous benefits and grounds for robust intellectual discussion. And that's the way I feel about the current topic. Too many people are too quick to label things as "black" and "white," when that is counterproductive. Issues aren't necessarily "black" and "white." Maybe they are just important issues. Maybe they are just "American" issues.

    So please let's retire this counterproductive term "racism." Let's stop drawing attention to race and get back to building a color-blind society based on "character." Whether those who cry racism want to believe it or not, those you criticize truly don't have the feelings you accuse them of.

    CRITICISM: I love how you couldn’t help but tell us everything the U.S. has done to facilitate equality without mentioning repeatedly how “unconstitutional” it all was. The undertone to your whole article IS racist, but you follow it by telling black people they are unnecessarily criticizing people like you. Unfortunately, racism isn’t dead. Many of our own representatives are openly racist, and you yourself are further proof that we still have a long way to go. It is the responsibility of the majority to respect the rights of the minority.

    Of course the comments make me feel bad. But the preface of my piece was the unfounded accusation that the TEA Party movement is racist and I stick to my position. I mention the advances to fight racial injustice which are unconstitutional only because I am an attorney and know the Constitution and I know how judiciary review is SUPPOSED to work. I highlighted the fact that such decisions and policies are unconstitutional only to show how dedicated those powerful forces in this country were to making change to fight social injustices. I didn't say the changes were bad or good; I said they were unconstitutional. If you take the time to read Brown v. Board of Education, you will see how the Supreme Court had a goal in mind (ending segregation in schools) but really had no legal way to get there. So they fashioned a new social problem and used their hearts to twist the law. They said that segregating black students from white students denied them the chance to get an equal education. They said that separating black students from white students made them feel inferior which then translated into depressed learning ability. Furthermore, they based this theory on a "psychological study" (which was referred to as "ample scientific authority") involving dolls. According to the study, when they asked students in segregated schools which dolls they preferred, the majority chose white dolls. The conclusion the Court reached was that the black students had confused or poor self image. No one is denying that socially this wasn't a good decision. It was intended to end forced segregation even when facilities and opportunities were absolutely equal. It gave black families the choice to choice to keep their children in black schools or send them to schools that were once white. But it was only the beginning. In another 10 years or so, the Court would run circles around that decision and order the remedy of bussing to forcibly achieve racial balances in school, even in areas where there was NO intentional segregation. This was an insane decision that had no sound legal basis to it whatsoever. Consider the decisions in Swann v. Charlotte-Meckenburg Board of Education and Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, which held that freedom of choice was no longer good enough. There must be forced mixing of the races. There must be mandatory racial mixing and mandatory racial balances. And that means in all areas. The Court's rationale was disturbing, to say the least. In the spirit of the Civil Rights era of the 1960's, the Court (the highest court in the land) was now mandating forced proportional racial mixing. The only way to achieve this judicial goal would be to ACTUALLY and INTENTIONALLY DISCRIMINATE AMONG STUDENTS BY RACE. Ooops, that would be a 14th Amendment violation, wouldn't it ? By as I was trying to make the point in my original post, this country went out of its way and adopted extraordinary measures to overcome racial injustice. The Supreme Court held that bussing black students into white areas would increase their educational opportunities. So it was a benefit for black students. But what about those white students who were forced to leave their school systems and ride in a bus sometimes over an hour each direction to schools that were deemed by the Supreme Court to be inferior schools? Who are the losers in this scenario? Sounds like the interests of only one group of people were advanced at the expense of others. White students were forced to bear the burden for one reason only - because of their race. And that is an impermissible reason, according to our very own Constitution. In most scholars’ minds, there is outright discrimination by bussing. (Note that when the idea of forced bussing first was brought up, the attorneys for the NAACP argued aggressively that even 9 minutes of daily bussing would harm black students enormously).

    In my area, the number one goal of the education system is not the quality of education; it is racial balance.

    I am not denying that there are representatives who are openly racist. You misconstrue my point. The point is that people cannot go around using the word "racist" without accompanying it with proper articulation. People cannot go around using the word lightly when there is well-documented history in this country that suggests that there have been enormous efforts (for well over a hundred and forty years) to end the kinds of disparate treatment and harmful stereotypes that the word “racism,” when used correctly, conjures up.

    Please don't suggest that I am racist by trying to point out truths and history. It isn't easy listening to charges of "racism" against organizations and against certain people when I know without a shadow of a doubt there is no merit whatsoever to the charges. You think there is a long way to go to fighting racism. There is equally a long way to go to fighting reverse racism and ‘racial’ thinking.

    It is the duty of the majority to respect the rights of the minority, yes. We also have a Declaration of Independence which is this country's value system - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." But we are under no obligation to change equal laws, change the Constitution, or deny rights to others in order to respect the rights of the minority. Yet that's exactly what this country did to fight racial injustice.

    Unfortunately people with all kinds of horrible backgrounds can associate with open organizations. The bottom line though is that while some members may have dark hearts, the party itself doesn't promote the discrimination of anyone. The TEA Party is merely a grassroots organization devoted to core conservative concepts including smaller government, limited taxation, fiscal responsibility, free markets, respect for the Constitution as intended by our Founders, and a return to productive principles such as morality, personal responsibility, and hard work. We believe the government should keep out of our lives and our pockets. We believe in morals and ethical behavior. We know that strength and honor come from a disciplined life. We believe that the primary role of the government is to secure our borders and keep the nation safe and aside from the other (16) limited and clearly defined grants of power listed in the US Constitution, the greatest seat of power rests with each individual state. We believe in a Creator who has endowed us with our fundamental rights, as the Declaration of Independence tells us. And because our rights come from our Creator and not from any government, no government can take them away. This sums up the extent of the TEA Party ideals. Nothing more. Nothing the TEA Party represents is anything new. They are all the simple and straightforward principles that the Founding Fathers used in creating this country and which guided us through the greatest development of our country's history.

    There is no racist agenda and no racist policies within the TEA Party movement. We reach out to everyone and want to embrace everyone. We feel the core principles of the movement are the same core principles that most people hold dear. And they are color-blind, indeed.

    I've been to TEA Party protests and rallies, and I'm even an executive member of the local TEA Party where I live. I would never have agreed to get a group going if it rested on principles that are abhorrent to me and to people of good conscience and of a Christian heart.

    I have read the allegations of the NAACP and of many others, including many of the news media, who accuse the TEA Party of racial slurs and racial incidents. I have never seen a single instance of either. In fact, at the Healthcare Protest in Washington DC on March 20th, one of the most peaceful, intelligent, and good-natured protests that I've been to (and I was there on the Capitol lawn with the protesters from morning until the event ended at about 5:00), I returned home only to watch the news and hear repeated charges of racial incidents and racial slurs labeled at the TEA Party. I was blown away. There was nothing like that while I was there. There was, however, a driver-by who stopped his car, opened his window, and shouted to the TEA Party people standing on the lawn: "You're all a bunch of racists !" This man didn't listen to a word any of the speakers said, didn't read a single sign, and didn't engage any of the TEA Party members in discussion, but he proceeded to just call everyone a bunch of "racists." I was crossing the street with my 4 young children when the man stopped his car and yelled this out. I was with a group of my fellow Republican Women as well. We all heard it. The TEA Party response was laughter. Alot of head-shaking. No foul language, no retorical comments, no nothing. Just the kind of laughter and head-shaking that comes from something ridiculous. But there was no mention of that incident on the news. That was the only incident all day that anyone had noticed involving anything racial.

    Look, this country has been through a lot, and aside from groups like the KKK, the neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the new Black Panther party who outright hate according to race, we are at a place where comments by individuals should be looked at for the underlying issues they touch on and not as an indictment of an entire race. Can some people present their cases more compassionately? Can certain people put the sarcasm aside and address the issue clearly? Have too many people forgotten that wonderful trait that has left this country with the likes of Ronald Reagan – respect? I think YES.
Mark Williams, head of the TEA Party Express, in an attempt to show how hypocritical the NAACP is (Williams claims that the NAACP’s mission embraces a series of offensive stereotypes), wrote a satirical letter to Abraham Lincoln and signed it with the name of the NAACP President, Ben Jealous. It was indeed a letter written in bad taste and although he was using it to make a point about the NAACP itself, there aren’t many people in their right mind who would have used that particular approach. Williams was making fun of the fact that the NAACP still refuses to let go of certain stereotypes by emphasizing certain stereotypes himself. BAD MOVE, Mr. Williams. While the comments weren’t coming from his heart, the form he chose to make his point was hurtful.

    But let’s see who else has used racial and/or hurtful comments:

    Joe Biden told the New York Observer on January 31, 2007, that Barack Obama is "the first mainstream African-American [presidential candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

    Malik Zulu Shabazz, head of the Black Panthers party, and an attorney, went to Duke University after 3 white university lacrosse players were accused of the rape of a black dancer and publicly announced: "We as black men cannot sit idly by and allow white men to rape black wome ity as vilely as can be, yet in the end the accuser was found to have fabricated the entire accusation to cover up such flagrant promiscuous behavior that ended up in a pregnancy that she would not have been able to explain to her boyfriend. The harm that was done to the white community, to the university, to the lacrosse coach, to the families involved (the legal fees alone caused at least o ily to sell their home), and especially to the young men was incalculable. The woman was never reprimanded, and no one from the black community came out to condemn the accusation or apology to the white community.

    President Obama even threw his own mother under the bus when the issue of race came up. He used his own mother to endear himself to the black community. His mother was the only parent who did right by him.

    President Obama also allowed his bias to show through in 2009 when an acquaintance of his from Harvard was arrested. Professor Gates could not open his door and had to forcibly enter his own home. The activity caught the eye of a neighbor who called police concerned of a possible break-in. She was being a diligent neighbor. Anyway, Gates was arrested after he was belligerent to the officers and accused them of racism.

    In response to a question about the incident, and without knowing the facts, Obama felt the need to make this statement: “"Recently, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America? Now, I've – I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."

    Well, here are the facts: Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, a black man, had returned from a trip and found his front door jammed. He tried to force it open but then he and his chauffeur got in through the back door. According to Officer Figueroa’s police report, a neighbor called the police saying she saw “a man wedging his shoulder into the front door as if to pry the door open.” The woman did not identify the men by their race. Further, Figueroa, who was the second officer to arrive on the scene, was also black. The first officer on the scene, Sgt. James Crowley, teaches a class on racial profiling and race relations, picked to do so by a former police commissioner who is black. Sgt. Crowley was responding to a possible “crime in progress” and found two men inside the house. Shortly thereafter, Figueroa arrived and witnessed the professor’s behavior. According to his report, professor Gates was yelling at Sgt. Crowley, calling him a racist and saying, “This is what happens to black men in America” and “You don’t know who you’re messing with.” The encounter ended with the professor’s arrest.
Obama ended up meeting with the officers. He was still demanding an apology from the officers, and last time I checked, both refused to give him one.

    As if that wasn’t enough, the Reverend Al Sharpton discussed the incident and referred to it as one of "police abuse or racial profiling", calling it "outrageous" and "unbelievable." [This coming from the man who marched for the woman who accused the 3 Duke athletes of rape and who touted Tawana Brawley as a victim of a racial hatred – remember she claimed that white men raped her and smeared her with feces, only to recant the accusation and admit she smeared herself with dog waste].

    Reverend Jesse Jackson admonishing government leaders by saying: “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.”

    On the April 4, 2007 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team, which is comprised of eight African-American and two white players, as "nappy-headed hos" immediately after the show's executive producer, Bernard McGuirk, called the team "hard-core hos." Imus lost his job (only to go back on the air years later).

    Wolf Blitzer was airing an episode during hurricane Katrina in which the contributing reporter was making a remark on how poor people were unable to evacuate the city. The corresponding video showed an image of black people wading through chest high water. Mr. Blitzer felt he had to add his two cents and made the comment that the people were “so very black.”

    And who can forget what Dog the Bounty Hunter said (caught on tape) when he ordered his son Tucker to break up with his girlfriend who is black. I won’t post that horrible tirade here because there are too many bad words.

    What about official US policy aimed against white? The Justice Department has seen fit to drop voter intimidation charges against Malik Shabazz’ New Black Panther Party’s involvement in the now infamous events at a polling place in Philadelphia on November 4, 2008. Shabazz and the other members of the party were present at polling places brandishing nightsticks for intimidation. There is even video proof of the organization’s intentions to use intimidation and force that day – “we’re going to do it strong.” On the video, Shabazz also states: “As soon as a black man takes over the Justice Department, the charges will be thrown out.” It is worth noting that Mr. Adams at the Justice Department has come forward with the Justice Department’s policy of selective enforcement. He has gone on record with this disturbing revelation: “I was told by Voting Section management that cases are not going to be brought against Black defendants for the benefit of White victims. That if somebody wanted to bring these cases, it was up to the US Attorney but the Civil Rights Division wasn’t going to be bringing it.” This policy has been since corroborated. QUESTION: Under these new revelations and the increasing pressure from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, how long can Attorney General Eric Holder allow the perception to remain that crimes under his watch are only enforced if the victims and the perpetrators fit the correct racial profile?

    And speaking about the New Black Panther party, how about this public rant by King Samir Shabazz using a megaphone on the streets of Philadephia: “"I hate white people – all of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate 'em….. You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers! You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!"

    Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) falsely accused the Tea Party of having ties to the Ku Klux Klan. Speaking at the NAACP convention, she said: “All those who wore sheets a long time ago lifted them off to wear Tea Party clothing.”

    And what about Reverend Jeremiah Wright, spiritual leader to our very own President Obama, who preached anti-white and anti-American rhetoric for years. The title of Obama's 2006 memoir, The Audacity of Hope, was in fact inspired by one of Wright's sermons. Wright had this advice for black people: “You are not now, nor have you ever been, nor will you ever be a brother to white folk. And if you do not realize that, you are in serious trouble." He also said: “The civil-rights movement was never about racial equality, it was always about becoming white . . . to master what they do. Martin Luther King was misguided for advocating nonviolence among his people, born in the oven of America." Furthermore, according to Wright: “The educational system in America is designed by whites to miseducate blacks - not by benign neglect but by malignant intent." Wright also hates Jews. He offends my people, the Italians by calling them “pizzarias” and “Luigis”

    And what about the lyrics to rap songs? You don’t get more racial and offensive than that (and they can go in both directions).

    There is hurt on both sides. Racism is hurtful. Everyone has to realize that it is hurtful to both sides. Personally, I embrace the First Amendment and try to bring social issues to the public for discussion. Meaningful discussion. I am not a racist nor hold any hate in my heart. I go about my day in a colorblind fashion and enjoy the company of my human beings for everything wonderful and unique each person brings. Every encounter teaches me something, even if it is about myself. So when anyone tries to shut down any discussion I try to bring up (even if it is a sensitive issue) by labeling me something which I know I am not, it is hurtful. I understand where Moriahbethany is coming from and I don’t believe she thinks I am a racist. I think she did a great service by bringing it up and starting a wonderful discussion on the topic. I can’t understand other people’s perspectives if no one brings them up.

    In 1787, the Constitutional Convention took place in Philadelphia where the states sent delegates to draft a Constitution which would reflect their interests and reflect their common understanding of a “united” states. The issue of slavery came up and most delegates were adamant about abolishing the institution with the ratification of the Constitution and the birth of the United States of America. They understood the hypocrisy of embracing the Declaration of Independence (“All Men are Created Equal) but yet denying that very recognition for a class of fellow human beings, as well as the moral outrage it represented. All but 2 states (South Carolina and Georgia) would not sign a Constitution that abolished slavery. Yet despite what we learn in the public school system, those 2 states did acknowledge the moral reprehensibility of slavery and bondage, and requested a compromise situation for the purposes of weaning its agricultural-based economy off of the hard work of slaves and to another manner of production (including the introduction of some industry). The compromise was a 20-year grace period to accomplish the transition from their slave-based agricultural local economy. For 20 years, the Congress of the United States would not be able to abolish slavery for good. In fact, Section 1.9.1 memorializes this compromise: “There will be no prohibition of slavery before 1808.” [Something went terribly wrong after that though and the abolishionists couldn’t get a majority in Congress to pass the legislation in 1808; hence, we eventually had to fight a civil war].

    I bring this up to lay the foundation for a remark that George Mason, a delegate from Virginia, one of our Founding Fathers, made in regard to this concession. Mason was a staunch opponent to slavery, even though he owned several. He said: “This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British merchants. They British government constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns not the importing states alone but the whole Union. Maryland and Virginia have already prohibited the importation of slaves expressly. North Carolina had done the same in substance. Slavery discourages arts and manufacturing. The poor despise labor when they know there are slaves to do it. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country. As Nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities.” I believe Mason was right. I believe Providence did punish this nation by the greatest national calamity of all – our Civil War. In that great war, 620,000 Americans died to end slavery and to reunite the states and the issue then went on to divide the country for years after.

    We need to get our house in order. We need to end the use of words that divide and prevent the willingness to live together in respect and cooperation. We can’t stop talking about issues that will benefit the country as a whole and preserve the nation. If petty differences prevent this, then I believe Providence will again punish us. And this time, we won’t be able to rebound. We’ve already been warned and given the chance to get our make good on our promise to God, which was to recognize that all men are created equal with the same endowed rights.

    Make no mistake about it. Our country is on a collision course with destruction. The policies it has embraced over the past years has put it on a course for failure. We’ve willfully neglected and ignored our Constitution. We have intentionally chosen to ignore the words of our Founding Fathers, the wisest men in our history, and the very men who gave us the greatest nation on Earth. Over the years, our politicians and even our Supreme Court Justices have ignored the Constitution, claiming that it is out-of-date, out-of-touch with the American people, and ineffective to meet our growing diversity and our evolving society. They argue that the Founders are outdated and that they have lost relevance. They say all these things because they believe that our Founding Fathers were products of their era and could not foresee the societal change that has evolved in this country. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Our Founders absolutely understood how the society would develop. The men who gave us the greatest nation on Earth weren’t just a couple of guys who went to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 to hammer out the wording of a Constitution that would be binding on all the states. These men were visionaries. These men did their homework. They were deeply devoted to creating a nation that would stand the test of time. They wanted to come up with a foundation, a Constitution, that would not wither with the times. And so for that purpose, they studied all the failed regimes of history and they looked at all the constitutions and founding documents of other nations and studied the reasons why they were unable to last long. So, there is nothing that we’ve seen in our developing history that other nations haven’t dealt with and nothing that our Founders weren’t able to foresee. As Machiavelli wrote: “Whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times. This arises from the fact that they are produced by men who ever have been, and ever shall be, animated by the same passions, and thus they necessarily have the same results.”

    The problem with ignoring history is that each time history repeats itself, the price goes up. The stakes are higher. From their studies of history’s failed regimes, they came up with core principles that are absolutely vital to prevent this country from going down those same paths. They were wise enough to predict and to warn us of what would happen should we fail to honor and respect those principles. And there is nothing we see here today in this country that the Founders have not written about or warned us about.

    The TEA Party is the one party that has taken up the cause that the Founders left behind when they passed, (and then when they apparently passed out of relevance). The only way the country can turn around is by a return to the principles that our Founders laid out for us. We need to divest the federal government of so much power, return it to the states where people can enjoy more of the freedom that God and our Founders envisioned. As Patrick Henry explained: “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests?” That’s the true message of the TEA Party… that’s all. Anything else that may be said is extraneous, illusionary, and distracting. If we are going to get the country back on track, we cannot allow the TEA Party message to be distracted or diluted.

    Our national motto is “E Pluribus Unum” – out of many, One. Let’s hold that message dearer than any message of division.

    RESPONSE: Perhaps I shouldn’t have jumped in. I have little interest in the supposed “Tea Partiers are racist” debate. I wouldn’t say that it is true…in general. At any rate, who cares about that. You guys have Rush Limbaugh and racists and we have Michael Moore and potheads.