Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for December 19th, 2009

The Founder of Kwanzaa Ron Everett AKA Maulana Karenga or Ron Karenga went to prison in 1971 for kidnapping two black women, stripping them naked, whipping them and, according to their testimony, beating them and sticking a soldering iron in their mouths along with detergent and a water hose. 


 

Kwanzaa creator a secular kook, convict

By Ralph Bailey

There are three aspects of Kwanzaa that most folks don’t know. First, most blacks DON’T celebrate the invented holiday. Secondly, very few non-Americans even know of its existence and finally, its inventor is a kook and a violent convict.

Born Ron Everett, Maulana Karenga gave up what he calls his “European name” right about the time he began to adopt his Marxist, black nationalistic views in the 1960s, right around the time he invented Kwanzaa (Dec. 26, 1966), a week-long celebration focusing on African heritage and culture.

You see, Karenga believes in black separatism and black isolationism. He’s a radical extremist; a member of the Black Power movement and founder of a group called Organization Us.

Yeah, neither had I!

But I did discover that following a dispute between Organization Us and the Black Panthers over who would head the then-new Afro American Studies Center at UCLA in the late 60s, Organization Us members shot and killed two Black Panthers.

Then-UCLA Chancellor Charles E. Young insisted the murders were unrelated to the groups’ “sit down” and the matter was soon forgotten.

Yet Patrick Mulligan wrote in “Intellectual Conservatism,” in a glowing ode titled “We Owe a Debt of Gratitude to the Founder of Kwanzaa Ron Everett AKA Ron Karenga,” dated Dec. 15, 2009, that “…if two lives must be lost for the advancement of enlightenment, that is thankfully a sacrifice that Maulana Karenga was willing to make.”

As my grandmother used to say … “Say, what?!”

Karenga went to prison in 1971 for kidnapping a pair of black Organization Us women, stripping them naked, whipping them and, according to their testimony, beating them and sticking a soldering iron in their mouths along with detergent and a water hose.

But this isn’t why black America historically all but ignores Kwanzaa. Black folks, as our support for Proposition 8 clearly demonstrated, maintain a religious heritage that dates back to our inauspicious arrival to this country.

Culturally, we are incapable of turning our back on Jesus and celebrating a secular holiday cooked up by a convict! It would be a spit in the eye to all those who, with the support of Jesus, paved the way for black achievement today.

It would be tantamount to poo pooing the beliefs of Martin, Thurgood, Jackie, Harriet, Frederick and martyr Crispus Attucks.

How could we ignore the spirit that saw us through slavery, systematic oppression and a government-opposed revolution that played out on national television in the 1960s?

The church has historically been the focal point of black life. It’s where we socialized, where we were educated, where we worshiped and was the birthplace for the civil rights movement.

The one thing all those great black thinkers agreed on was: God is good and AMERICA is our country!

Karenga’s Marcus Garvey ideals of going “Back to Africa” thankfully fall on deaf ears in 2009. Most blacks agree with me, the only way I want to see the Dark Continent is clad in my best Banana Republic gear with one of those goofy pit helmets or safari hats on. I’d be holding in one hand a cocktail with an umbrella in it and a pair of binoculars in the other.

Despite Karenga’s deadly past, political correctness has so run amok that President George W. Bush spoke glowingly of the holiday during his tenure in office. And while the ideals and principles of Kwanzaa are commendable, when placed in context to whom the inventor is the holiday is simply un-American!

However, Karenga’s secular, Marxist holiday is not rebuffed because blacks are aware of his violent, radical past — because most aren’t — or because he sees an America most blacks don’t, but because simply someone else dominates December.

Most Americans, most African-Americans, wish to honor Jesus’ birthday beyond all others. I can still see my grandmother wagging her finger in my face insisting, “Ya need Jesus!”

I can never embrace an event put together by a man who deems Christmas “a white man’s holiday.” Grandma Sadye knew best. We all need Jesus!

Merry Christmas, Feliz Navidad and have a wonderful New Year.

Read Full Post »

The Party of Repeal

By Arnold Ahlert

In 1994, Republicans seized control of Congress, largely due to their Contract With America pledge which resonated with the electorate. The same concept will work for the 2010 election — if Republicans have the guts and the foresight to run with it. Note I used the word “concept,” because this time their pledge should center around a completely different set of promises.

To begin with, Republicans must understand that Democrats and their media lapdogs are unwittingly doing them a huge favor by referring to them as obstructionists for refusing to abide Democrats’ intention to socialize America. They should take that obstructionist label and double down on it: Republicans must become the “Party of Repeal. To wit:

If Democrats pass government-run health insurance, Republicans must first tell Americans they want no part of it — and them tell them that if they become a majority in 2010, they will repeal it.

Ditto for a host of other leftist agendas. Cap-and-trade passes? We’ll “unpass” it. Terrorist trials in civilian courts? We’ll overturn the Attorney General’s decision by crafting a law stating that all non-citizen terrorists will stand before military tribunals. Democrats pass illegal immigration “reform?” We’ll toss it overboard and enforce the laws already on the books — and we’ll also cut federal funds to all “sanctuary cities” until they comply with those laws.

Runaway government spending? We’ll peg federal spending to inflation and population growth, and come up with a realistic plan to reduce federal debt — including a pledge that no Republican will ever again add a single earmark to any federal bill. Democrats raise taxes? We’ll lower them and get America working again.

Gutsy? Only if Republicans ignore the reality that Americans identify themselves as forty percent conservative, thirty-five percent independent and twenty-one percent liberal. Only if they have managed to miss the stunning uptick in people supportive of Tea Party Americans who have prospered despite a relentless bashing by the mainstream media and Democrats.

Only if they don’t understand that one of the primal fears of most Americans is that once a government program is enacted, it is forever.

Republicans can make it crystal clear that nothing is forever, especially anything which has the capacity to undermine two hundred and thirty three years of individualism, freedom and prosperity.

If Republicans need reassurance that standing against rampant liberalism is a potential winner, perhaps they should cast their collective gaze toward Florida where their own “machine politician,” Charlie Crist, has just been caught from behind by conservative upstart — and virtual unknown — Marco Rubio. This is happening despite Crist’s huge advantage with regard to both campaign funding and name recognition. At the very least, such a startling development should tell them that Republicans are fed up with the status quo. Add the gubernatorial victory of Chris Christie in bluer-than-blue New Jersey — by an “ACORN-proof” one hundred thousand vote margin — and maybe Republicans might get the idea that moderates are ripe for the taking as well.

Moderates plus conservatives? Even the most math-challenged Republicans should be inspired by the possibilities.

One of the great strategies in selling anything is to turn a negative into a positive. Democrats and the media have excoriated Republicans, labeling them the “Party of No.” Republicans should wear that label like a badge of honor — if they truly care about the country. A sizable majority of Americans are fed up with big — and getting bigger — government. [emphasis mine]

If Republicans can’t see that, they’re comatose.

Read Full Post »

Virginia lawmakers have begun drafting legislation that would close the loophole in the state law and make it illegal to take the life of a born child if it is connected by the umbilical cord and placenta. Current state law does not consider the baby to be a separate life as long as it is physically attached to its mother.

State Senator Steve Newman announced legislation is being drafted to change the law’s baby killing loophole, and Governor-elect Bob McDonnell said he would sign the bill into law.

Newman, who is leading efforts to draft the bill, said state lawmakers are working to redefine the terms “separate and independent.”

“There are only five states that do not have such a loophole,” Newman said.

I.M. Kane

 

VA Mother Kills Own Baby No Charges Pending

 

Mother won’t be charged in newborn baby’s death

By Angela Hatcher

A loophole in state law is preventing Campbell County investigators from charging a woman they say killed her newborn baby.

Deputies were called to a home in the 1200 block of Lone Jack Road in Rustburg about 11 a.m. Friday. The caller said a woman in her early 20s was in labor.

When deputies arrived, they discovered the baby had actually been born around 1 a.m., about 10 hours earlier. Investigators said the baby was already dead when deputies got there.

Investigators told WSLS the baby’s airway was blocked. They said the baby was under bedding and had been suffocated by her mother. Investigators said because the mother and baby were still connected by the umbilical cord and placenta, state law does not consider the baby to be a separate life. Therefore, the mother cannot be charged.

“In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it,“ said Investigator Tracy Emerson.

“She could shoot the baby, stab the baby. As long as it’s still attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it’s no crime in the state of Virginia.“

The Campbell County Sheriff’s Office and Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office worked unsuccessfully to get the law changed after another baby died in the county in a similar case. Emerson said they asked two delegates and one state senator to take the issue up in the General Assembly. He says the three lawmakers refused because they felt the issue was too close to the abortion issue.

Emerson said there is a double standard with the law. If someone other than the mother harms a baby still attached to the mother, that person can be charged.

The baby’s grandmother was home and was the one who called 911. Police said she will not be charged because the baby was born in the middle of the night and the grandmother did not know until late morning. Investigators said the baby’s father was upset when he showed up at the home after deputies.

“He was very upset. I think the grandparents were upset. I believe everyone was upset, except for the person who should have been upset, the mother,” said Emerson.

Emerson said the woman knew she was pregnant and had received prenatal care. He said the baby was full-term, due Tuesday. The medical examiner says the baby was born healthy. An autopsy is being performed. The baby’s body will then be released to the family. 

Read Full Post »

Rules of Engagement

By Harris R. Sherline

Are we fighting a war or not?   Sometimes I wonder.  Wars are generally all-out efforts to kill the enemy and destroy their ability to fight.  The goal is to win, and to do that it’s necessary to kill people and break things.

However, there are some rules, although not everyone observes them.  The most widely accepted are The Geneva Conventions, which Wikipedia describes as follows:

The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties and three additional protocols that set the standards in international law for humanitarian treatment of the victims of war. The singular term Geneva Convention refers to the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of World War II, updating the terms of the first three treaties and adding a fourth treaty. The language is extensive, with articles defining the basic rights of those captured during a military conflict, establishing protections for the wounded, and addressing protections for civilians in and around a war zone. The treaties of 1949 have been ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 194 countries.

Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.

Unfortunately, as terrorism has appeared on the scene, the generally accepted standards of The Geneva Conventions have fallen by the wayside.  Terrorist combatants wear no uniforms, represent no specific nation and observe no rules, including attacking and killing women and children, even those in their own societies. 

Furthermore, the forces of Political Correctness have influenced our military mindset to the point that the United States has exceeded the basic standards of The Geneva Conventions by imposing extraordinary Rules of Engagement (ROE) on our military, which can jeopardize their safety in combat zones.

Based on individual soldier accounts, WorldNetDaily reports that current ROE restrictions include:

  • No night of surprise searches.
  • Villagers are to be warned prior to searches.
  • Afghan National Army or Afghan National Police must accompany U.S. units or searches.
  • U.S. soldiers may not fire at insurgents unless they are preparing to fire first.
  • U.S. forces cannot engage insurgents if civilians are present.
  • Only women can search women.
  • Troops can fire on insurgents if they catch them placing an IED but not if they walk away from where the explosives are.

In addition, the ROE often require varying levels of approvals before action can be taken.

One  company commander has been quoted as saying, “We can’t do anything if we don’t have the ANA or [the Afghan National Police]… We have to follow the Karzai 12 rules. But the Taliban has no rules…Our soldiers have to juggle all these rules and regulations and they do it without hesitation despite everything. It’s not easy for anyone out here.”

Imposing restrictive ROE’s is not just some theoretical exercise in winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans, that they have caused the loss of life is well documented.  For example, in one case, four U.S. Marines (fighting in Kunar Province) twice radioed for artillery support during a combat action, which was refused.  As a result, they were killed.  Who knows why those in command would not or could not give their authorization?

So, while we are supposed to fight with one hand tied behind our backs by observing PC Rules of Engagement, our enemies are free to engage in the most heinous actions, torturing and beheading people, hiding among the local population, using them as shields, committing the most violent acts against both our military forces and civilians alike.

Under the circumstances, my conclusion is that we should be less concerned about the constraints of The Geneva Conventions than taking the fight to the terrorists without hesitation.  The idea that we can fight a war in which we hamstring our military because of some PC notion that we are morally superior to our enemies is counterproductive.  My sense is that they also believe they are better than their enemy, us, which permits them to win by any means possible, no matter how despicable.

© 2009 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved

Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at www.opinionfest.com

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.