Greetings HBCU-GOP,
Have you ever thought about the role of the HBCU in modern times? If we know our history, then we know that these institutions were founded because of and in spite of the bigotry and systematic discrimination that Black Americans suffered during post-slavery Reconstruction and Jim Crow. We needed institutions of higher learning that catered to our needs, and the HBCU was born. However, now that times are different, does the HBCU still continue to play a significant role in our society?
I ask this question because as conservative thinkers, the idea of an all Black learning environment may at times seem contradictory to our sociopolitical beliefs. Furthermore, as are most college campuses, HBCU campuses are havens of liberal thought, even more so because of our collective loyalty to the Democratic party. Most politically concientious students at HBCUs are Democrats with tendencies toward Black nationalism.
As conservatives, that is not who we are at all. I am proud to be Black, but Black is not what defines me. My race is only a portion of who I am, and although God created me as a Black woman for a purpose, that purpose was not to create a superficial basis for my identity.
We could say that we still attend HBCUs for the history, but if the truth is told, that history is mostly social, (the African American studies departments are tiny, and so one sided that they aren't relevant) and even that is dying out. I'm greek, and in case you didn't know it, the greek scene at most HBCUs these days is cat to say the least (using a little bit of vernacular), and the sophistication that once shrouded the serious, focused student bodies has been replaced by a gutter idea of being crunk at all costs. The marching bands are still hot, but that's far less than enough to justify the need or relevance of today's HBCU.
So, for a conservative thinker, what purpose does the HBCU serve? You guys are fortunate enough to have figured out which way was "right" while you were still in school...
So, post your thoughts. There is no right or wrong answer - its a purely philosophical kind of vibe...
I.C. Jackson
"Need some more? Visit the Black Conservatives Blogspot on MySpace!"
http://blog.myspace.com/blackconservatives
Dec 17, 2006
Dec 12, 2006
A problem with authority-
Well, i have a problem ad as usual no one seems to be able to help me so maybe you guys can you seem to know alot more than the others... I plan on having a Black history forum ad of course I'm starting early (I'm dealing with my people) to start early i need to get OUR account info from OUR advisor. Here's a little history- she is a very busy lawyer who is a single mom and a professor and blah.. blah.. I have been calling her on her cell 4 times a day and i call the office and i get the same "secretarial" answer. She is a white lady and race has nothing to do with it but she doesn't know who i am dealing with SUBR! what do i do i am trying to prior plan because that alone prevents a piss poor performance, but i cant get people to move with me. And also what are some freshman recruitment ideas.. "help me PLEASE"...
The Great Black Hope Illusion
With all the excitement on Barack Obama tonight I had to google him and found an article that identified to a sinking feeling I had by Benjamin Wallace-Wells "The Great Black Hope". He goes into similar stories of ivy league, presidential aspirant Cory Booker and his rise in popularity among whites and his disappointing loss at New Jersey mayor. Similar to Obama he served as a sign for white America that things are changed and everyone favored and loved the guy. The New York Times to CBS news couldn't stop discussing him as a potential presidential candiadate. Like Obama he was a neophyte, like Obama he was charasmatic, and like Obama he was infectious in the media. He was a great speaker and was a smoothest fundraiser seen. With all the promise in him there was still one major issue. He was black. He always ws going to be black. No matter how the media wants to hype up Obama, there will always be that same issue. Booker lost by 3000 votes and was proclaimed afterwards of being too young, brainy, and inexperienced. Furthermore, Wallace- Wells added:
"For this small group of black politicians, race has been an advantage because whites see in them confirmation that America, finally, is working. Blacks, after all, aren't just any minority, the moral equivalent of Asian-Pacific Islanders but six times the size. They are the victims of much of our country's most vicious oppression, the cause of our deepest historical divisions, the stubborn counter-example that suggests our system isn't as fair or just as we would like it to be. The act of redressing these injustices has absorbed much of the political and emotional energy in America for 150 years. And while all Americans can take some pride in what racial progress African Americans have made in recent years, what whites—and indeed blacks—really want is for the whole awful nightmare behind them. The ultimate proof that we have finally done so would be for a black person to be elected president of the United States. In Barack Obama or Colin Powell, whites, giddily, begin to see not only figures who can command both white and black votes but also the promise of a real racial unity. Their candidacies are thrilling because they carry with them the notion that the symbolic gap between the races may be beginning to close."
The problem is in essence that these talented individuals are elevated too high way too fast. I've read the "Audacity of Hope" and it is high on inspiration but low on policy. The media is looking at him as president and we have no idea what he even stands for. With the media's track record, they will send you into orbit in one moment and plan your demise in the same breath. So far all what I've seen, in terms of voting record is: Yes to GOP initiative of limits on class action lawsuits and the confirmation of Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State and yes to just about everything else his colleagues voted for (which sounds a little scary considering the left wing of the party's track record), No to the Consumer Bankruptcy Abuse Act, but has done nothing really "knee jerking".
Nathaniel Peete Jr.
"For this small group of black politicians, race has been an advantage because whites see in them confirmation that America, finally, is working. Blacks, after all, aren't just any minority, the moral equivalent of Asian-Pacific Islanders but six times the size. They are the victims of much of our country's most vicious oppression, the cause of our deepest historical divisions, the stubborn counter-example that suggests our system isn't as fair or just as we would like it to be. The act of redressing these injustices has absorbed much of the political and emotional energy in America for 150 years. And while all Americans can take some pride in what racial progress African Americans have made in recent years, what whites—and indeed blacks—really want is for the whole awful nightmare behind them. The ultimate proof that we have finally done so would be for a black person to be elected president of the United States. In Barack Obama or Colin Powell, whites, giddily, begin to see not only figures who can command both white and black votes but also the promise of a real racial unity. Their candidacies are thrilling because they carry with them the notion that the symbolic gap between the races may be beginning to close."
The problem is in essence that these talented individuals are elevated too high way too fast. I've read the "Audacity of Hope" and it is high on inspiration but low on policy. The media is looking at him as president and we have no idea what he even stands for. With the media's track record, they will send you into orbit in one moment and plan your demise in the same breath. So far all what I've seen, in terms of voting record is: Yes to GOP initiative of limits on class action lawsuits and the confirmation of Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State and yes to just about everything else his colleagues voted for (which sounds a little scary considering the left wing of the party's track record), No to the Consumer Bankruptcy Abuse Act, but has done nothing really "knee jerking".
Nathaniel Peete Jr.
Dec 9, 2006
For those who call the truth a big whine
Many people seemed to be upset with my original post, calling it bascially a whine that does not exist. Of course many liberals and so called "independents" who have never pulled the lever for anyone other than the Democratic Party are perfectly content to accept liberal dogma as truth and come to the conclusion that there is no liberal bias in news, despite the fact that 88 percent of reporters are registered Democrat. These people also don't like the idea that there is a liberal bias on nearly every college campus, not to mention the fact that there is a large bias towards Black radicalism as well as radical left wing politics on almost every college campus because of the nature of youth combined with tenured radical professors. If you can't see that, you are either blind to the facts, or like most liberals, you ignore the facts for your own misguided beliefs.
But since the critics clearly never read past the opening line of my original post, allow me to clarify what I mean when I say loneliness of Black conservatives. My point is that African-American conservatives are left out of the discussions on how to reform Black America. If you can point to the occasion where prominent Black conservatives have been invited to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH convention or the NAACP convention, please write back and feel free to let me know. However, since I was there working as a membe of the media and asked both why there were no African-American conservatives represented, I think you will be hard pressed to prove me wrong. The fact is that the Civil Rights generation is so in bed with the Dims, that there is no way that any prominent Black leader over the age of 50 will invite Black Republicans to work with them because of the perception that Black members for the GOP are "working for the man", or are simply Uncle Toms. If you don't think this is true, lookat the Oreo pelting that Michael Steele endured, and the painitings of Steele in Blackface, and how no Civil Right "leaders" rushed to defend him. Yet you can bet if the shoe had been on the other foot and if Republicans had painted Harold Ford Jr in Blackface, the Democrats would have painted the entire GOPas a party of racist rednecks. There is a double standard for Black conservatives, and the lonlieness factor comes into play when the majority of political Blacks don't even look to Black conservatives for ideas and a GOP that is unwilling to play the same racial card the the Dims have been using since they pretended to stop being the party of slavery and instead have moved to pretend they are the Party of Civil Rights. This is still the Democratic Party of Senator and Klansman Robert Byrd who used nigger on live television last year; again no response from the "party of equality". You can call this a whine, but you cannot ignore plain and simple facts.
But since the critics clearly never read past the opening line of my original post, allow me to clarify what I mean when I say loneliness of Black conservatives. My point is that African-American conservatives are left out of the discussions on how to reform Black America. If you can point to the occasion where prominent Black conservatives have been invited to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH convention or the NAACP convention, please write back and feel free to let me know. However, since I was there working as a membe of the media and asked both why there were no African-American conservatives represented, I think you will be hard pressed to prove me wrong. The fact is that the Civil Rights generation is so in bed with the Dims, that there is no way that any prominent Black leader over the age of 50 will invite Black Republicans to work with them because of the perception that Black members for the GOP are "working for the man", or are simply Uncle Toms. If you don't think this is true, lookat the Oreo pelting that Michael Steele endured, and the painitings of Steele in Blackface, and how no Civil Right "leaders" rushed to defend him. Yet you can bet if the shoe had been on the other foot and if Republicans had painted Harold Ford Jr in Blackface, the Democrats would have painted the entire GOPas a party of racist rednecks. There is a double standard for Black conservatives, and the lonlieness factor comes into play when the majority of political Blacks don't even look to Black conservatives for ideas and a GOP that is unwilling to play the same racial card the the Dims have been using since they pretended to stop being the party of slavery and instead have moved to pretend they are the Party of Civil Rights. This is still the Democratic Party of Senator and Klansman Robert Byrd who used nigger on live television last year; again no response from the "party of equality". You can call this a whine, but you cannot ignore plain and simple facts.
Dec 8, 2006
We Made Booker Rising
Shay is like the black female instapundit and she did this blog a huge favor by linking to it yesterday. Thanks!
The blog as a whole caught a lot of slack for the "Loneliness Of A Black Conservative" post with many of Shay's readers labeling it a whine. Without getting into how obvious it is that those visitors didn't read past the title--which for many, I understand, would be asking far too much-- I would like to speak a little bit about why I NEVER complain about the lack of black ideological cohorts.
1. Beginning to even care how another black person thinks is a page straight out of the Democrat playbook for Negroes.As black conservatives, we've all seen the noses turned up and the smacking of the lips when some black people hear of our political affiliation. I don't know why they care and I think it's stupid to get any emotions going because some body's ideology and race don't "match" in your opinion.. Black conservatives, libertarians or whatever shouldn't even mind that most black people want to identify themselves with the Democrats. Their loss.
2. I think most of us who attend or have at one time attended HBCUs are quite happy that MOST of the students at our schools don't want to be aligned with us.
3. Being a political minority has its perks. We are able to mobilize a lot easier and our groups tend to have more active members on HBCU campuses since like-mided people are so happy to learn of each other. At Texas Southern we had over 40 members, with about 20 who were ride or die.
The blog as a whole caught a lot of slack for the "Loneliness Of A Black Conservative" post with many of Shay's readers labeling it a whine. Without getting into how obvious it is that those visitors didn't read past the title--which for many, I understand, would be asking far too much-- I would like to speak a little bit about why I NEVER complain about the lack of black ideological cohorts.
1. Beginning to even care how another black person thinks is a page straight out of the Democrat playbook for Negroes.As black conservatives, we've all seen the noses turned up and the smacking of the lips when some black people hear of our political affiliation. I don't know why they care and I think it's stupid to get any emotions going because some body's ideology and race don't "match" in your opinion.. Black conservatives, libertarians or whatever shouldn't even mind that most black people want to identify themselves with the Democrats. Their loss.
2. I think most of us who attend or have at one time attended HBCUs are quite happy that MOST of the students at our schools don't want to be aligned with us.
3. Being a political minority has its perks. We are able to mobilize a lot easier and our groups tend to have more active members on HBCU campuses since like-mided people are so happy to learn of each other. At Texas Southern we had over 40 members, with about 20 who were ride or die.
Dec 6, 2006
Re: Did Ford Race Create A Bridge In Tennessee
Your point is well taken...
I worked for the College Republicans and a lot of my time was focused on their efforts on the Bob Corker race. You would never believe how many dirty looks I got when black people found out what I was doing. How dare I work against a black man, even if I think he's a flake and the ultimate son of privilege?
The 95% number touches on three things- 1. How blacks think they must vote for the person who is black--as long as they are a Democrat; 2. How blacks will not tolerate any dissent, especially when it comes to blacks voting against other blacks--as long as they are Democrats; 3. Finally, how blacks blindly vote.
Harold Ford campaigned as a strong conservative Democrat. Steve Cohen, who ran to replace Ford at the congressional level campaigned as a liberal Democrat. Both overwhelmingly got most of the black vote. What does this say about black people? I believe it says most blacks (or at least the ones who voted for both Cohen AND Ford) have no values, they only have party, all they know is the D is good and they are sticking with it.
This is why I personally have no problem with black people voting lock-step with Democrats. Most of my black republican friends get caught up in this whole outreach mirage, they think that most black people would vote Republican if they knew what the party actually stands for. I'm getting to the point of thinking that if you are an adult, and don't know what a major political party stands for then you are the last person I want in my party. As a matter of fact if Bob Corker was getting 95% of the black vote I would seriously have to reconsider my support since it would say a lot about him.
I do believe younger black people are less beholden to a party, but they aren't the major voting bloc. Until they are, I doubt we'll see any change in voting habits.
--Scooter Jackson
I worked for the College Republicans and a lot of my time was focused on their efforts on the Bob Corker race. You would never believe how many dirty looks I got when black people found out what I was doing. How dare I work against a black man, even if I think he's a flake and the ultimate son of privilege?
The 95% number touches on three things- 1. How blacks think they must vote for the person who is black--as long as they are a Democrat; 2. How blacks will not tolerate any dissent, especially when it comes to blacks voting against other blacks--as long as they are Democrats; 3. Finally, how blacks blindly vote.
Harold Ford campaigned as a strong conservative Democrat. Steve Cohen, who ran to replace Ford at the congressional level campaigned as a liberal Democrat. Both overwhelmingly got most of the black vote. What does this say about black people? I believe it says most blacks (or at least the ones who voted for both Cohen AND Ford) have no values, they only have party, all they know is the D is good and they are sticking with it.
This is why I personally have no problem with black people voting lock-step with Democrats. Most of my black republican friends get caught up in this whole outreach mirage, they think that most black people would vote Republican if they knew what the party actually stands for. I'm getting to the point of thinking that if you are an adult, and don't know what a major political party stands for then you are the last person I want in my party. As a matter of fact if Bob Corker was getting 95% of the black vote I would seriously have to reconsider my support since it would say a lot about him.
I do believe younger black people are less beholden to a party, but they aren't the major voting bloc. Until they are, I doubt we'll see any change in voting habits.
--Scooter Jackson
Perceptions of the Black Community internal and external
I’ve found myself reading articles on blacks and the conservative movement, black collective voting, and just conservatism in general. Some have especially made me think a little broader. I read an article in the Fall 2006 Public Opinion Quarterly (Vol. 70 no. 3) titled "Ideology and the Affective Structure of Whites' racial perceptions". The researchers took data from respondents that would consider themselves liberal or independent leaning to the left and conservative or independent leaning to right (those in the middle were kicked out of the research study) and attempted to mediate between the conflict between humanitism and individualism as it applies to conservative views and perceptions. The study found "that whites with a college degree and higher levels of political expertise were associated with more positive perceptions of blacks, while greater conservatism was associated with more negative perceptions of blacks." (Vol. 70 no. 3 POQ). (Just in case I will site it) but their were a lot of conflicting views and perceptions within the conservatives. Also, the results of the liberals were not mentioned. The reason I brought this up isn't necessarily the case study itself but what is our own perceptions and conflicts within ourselves? The conservatives and liberals in the study were equally sympathetic on the struggles blacks encountered during the civil rights era and prior no matter what ideology they had. The difference was that the conservatives took a more individualistic tone on blacks and the community. No special treatment needed etc.. and success comes from personal choices in this day and time. This made me think of how Bill Cosby was attacked in all directions when he made his statements for us and about us by telling black America to take a look in the mirror. It seemed that many blacks applauded him while many took shots at him and even wrote books attacking his credibility. Many blacks I have come into contact with feel the same way as the white conservatives in the survey. There seems to be a standard of being black that gets fuzzier as one turns conservative. We have the same conflicting issues in our community though we have a disproportionate ideology when looking at our voting patterns. This ties into to the article in which Lorrine Crenshaw wrote on RBE website, in which the black vote is so polarized that Russell Simmons had to do a public statement explaining to black America why he endorsed a republican, which I think is totally insane or the Tennessee Tribune listing an article of blacks in the Nashville community who do not vote with their home numbers and addresses. I know this post is a little random but it I think it is still something that we as young people should discuss.
Nathaniel Peete Jr.
Nathaniel Peete Jr.
Dec 1, 2006
Did Ford Race Create a Bridge In Tennessee
The Ford/Corker race brought something into light for me. Listening to talk radio host, Phil Valentine after the race there was another racial debate going on the shoe Let me first say that Ford, agree or disagree with his politics, accomplished an amazing feat for the black politician in Tennessee. He got reportedly 40% of the white vote and 95%b of the black vote. It was said to be the end of the era of the hidden white vote that says they'll vote for a black man but just can't pull themselves that direction in the booth. Back to the point, it opened up a dialogue in which I have never heard. Blacks were said to be more racist or as racist as whites. First, I didn't know so many black people listened to Phil Valentine LOL, but all races were telling the way they really felt. No one there to judge them. I heard whites say that wouldn't vote for Ford because of race and stood by that...... I respected the honesty. I heard whites accused the black community of being uninformed and "blind voters" (95% is a large average but what is the story behind the number? I would say blacks are more conservative and too conservative to be any where involved with democrats. Regardless, this type of forum was helpful, in my opinion, because there are several parts of Tennessee where blacks are scarce to none and hearing a black point of view helps especially a black conservative view. The forum caused anger and laughter at the same time and it almost felt like a moment of healing to a extent. Ford didn't win but he came close. He may have alone set the stage for the first black senator in the south since Senator Blanche K. Bruce (first to finish a term) of Mississippi and Hiram Rhoades Revels from Pre-construction. It will happen and maybe sooner than most think.
Nathaniel Peete Jr.
Nathaniel Peete Jr.
Nov 28, 2006
Political Triangle
This is something i think WE all can relate to... Does any of this sound familiar to anyone??
CATHY YOUNG
Balancing views on campus
By Cathy Young | November 27, 2006
DIVERSITY in higher education was a major topic of discussion at a recent conference in Cambridge . The focus, however, was not on the familiar concept of diversity as a desirable mix of races, genders, and ethnic groups. Rather, participants deplored the lack of intellectual and political diversity on college campuses.
The National Organization of Scholars, which held the conference Nov. 17-19, emerged in the late 1980s in response to "political correctness" in the academy. The group is widely perceived as conservative, much to the consternation of some members who are liberal Democrats but are put off by the prevailing orthodoxy in the universities. One star speaker at the event was Boston-based lawyer Harvey Silverglate, a liberal champion of civil liberties, who noted that many statements that would be considered normal, if debatable, expressions of opinion anywhere else are regarded as discriminatory on college campuses.
Numerous studies confirm that most college faculty lean left, especially in the more prestigious institutions. At a time when political discourse in American society in general has shifted noticeably to the right, some people wonder why an academy that tilts left is a problem: The universities, they argue, are islands in a sea of conservatism. But no academic institution can thrive on uniformity; liberalism itself can turn illiberal when isolated from different ideas. What's more, the marginalization of right-of-center ideas in the academy may have a lot to do modern conservatism's transformation into a caricature of itself.
That marginalization is evident. Some academic programs, particularly in such areas as women's studies, education, and social work, explicitly push for left-leaning social change. On one panel, Brooklyn College historian Robert Johnson offered a striking example of intellectual uniformity. He noted that, according to its website, the University of Michigan history department has 26 full-time professors teaching American history. Eleven of them focus on race and ethnicity in America, while another nine specialize in women's history. There are no military or diplomatic historians.
To what extent this imbalance penalizes alternative viewpoints is hard to establish. In a recent survey by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni at 50 top colleges and universities, nearly half of students said the presentation of contemporary political issues and controversies in classes, campus panels, and lecture series was too one-sided, and nearly a third felt they had to agree with a professor's political views in order to get good grades. On many campuses, there is a general sense that you have to be a liberal to fit in. In a post-conference interview, Johnson said that the problem was not so much retaliation against students with dissenting opinions as "one-sided instruction to students that don't have the educational or intellectual background to detect the bias and challenge a professor's viewpoint."
Some conservatives advocate legislative interference as a solution. Activist David Horowitz has been pushing for an "Academic Bill of Rights" that would not only protect dissenting students from classroom retaliation but also guarantee the inclusion of balanced viewpoints in the curriculum. This effort has gone nowhere.
In his talk at the conference, Johnson took a dim view of such efforts. Given conservative support for including "intelligent design" in the biology curriculum, he noted, a mandate of "balance" in teaching could be used to smuggle creationism into science classrooms at public universities. Yet he also outlined legislative remedies that could work: Fund programs that would expose students to ideas currently neglected or marginalized in the academy; conduct oversight hearings on the lack of intellectual diversity on campuses; abolish speech codes that often result in suppressing politically incorrect opinions on race, gender, and sexuality within college courses.
When stifled on campuses, right-of-center ideas don't just go away. These days, they are expressed -- in pungent manner -- on talk radio, and in overtly political journalism and publishing. Such outlets have increased in prominence, and universities have lost influence over American politics. When intellectual life is seen as a bastion of the left, conservatism devolves from intellectual giants like the late Milton Friedman to intellectual thugs like Ann Coulter -- with dangerous consequences for the political climate.
Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. Her column appears regularly in the Globe.
CATHY YOUNG
Balancing views on campus
By Cathy Young | November 27, 2006
DIVERSITY in higher education was a major topic of discussion at a recent conference in Cambridge . The focus, however, was not on the familiar concept of diversity as a desirable mix of races, genders, and ethnic groups. Rather, participants deplored the lack of intellectual and political diversity on college campuses.
The National Organization of Scholars, which held the conference Nov. 17-19, emerged in the late 1980s in response to "political correctness" in the academy. The group is widely perceived as conservative, much to the consternation of some members who are liberal Democrats but are put off by the prevailing orthodoxy in the universities. One star speaker at the event was Boston-based lawyer Harvey Silverglate, a liberal champion of civil liberties, who noted that many statements that would be considered normal, if debatable, expressions of opinion anywhere else are regarded as discriminatory on college campuses.
Numerous studies confirm that most college faculty lean left, especially in the more prestigious institutions. At a time when political discourse in American society in general has shifted noticeably to the right, some people wonder why an academy that tilts left is a problem: The universities, they argue, are islands in a sea of conservatism. But no academic institution can thrive on uniformity; liberalism itself can turn illiberal when isolated from different ideas. What's more, the marginalization of right-of-center ideas in the academy may have a lot to do modern conservatism's transformation into a caricature of itself.
That marginalization is evident. Some academic programs, particularly in such areas as women's studies, education, and social work, explicitly push for left-leaning social change. On one panel, Brooklyn College historian Robert Johnson offered a striking example of intellectual uniformity. He noted that, according to its website, the University of Michigan history department has 26 full-time professors teaching American history. Eleven of them focus on race and ethnicity in America, while another nine specialize in women's history. There are no military or diplomatic historians.
To what extent this imbalance penalizes alternative viewpoints is hard to establish. In a recent survey by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni at 50 top colleges and universities, nearly half of students said the presentation of contemporary political issues and controversies in classes, campus panels, and lecture series was too one-sided, and nearly a third felt they had to agree with a professor's political views in order to get good grades. On many campuses, there is a general sense that you have to be a liberal to fit in. In a post-conference interview, Johnson said that the problem was not so much retaliation against students with dissenting opinions as "one-sided instruction to students that don't have the educational or intellectual background to detect the bias and challenge a professor's viewpoint."
Some conservatives advocate legislative interference as a solution. Activist David Horowitz has been pushing for an "Academic Bill of Rights" that would not only protect dissenting students from classroom retaliation but also guarantee the inclusion of balanced viewpoints in the curriculum. This effort has gone nowhere.
In his talk at the conference, Johnson took a dim view of such efforts. Given conservative support for including "intelligent design" in the biology curriculum, he noted, a mandate of "balance" in teaching could be used to smuggle creationism into science classrooms at public universities. Yet he also outlined legislative remedies that could work: Fund programs that would expose students to ideas currently neglected or marginalized in the academy; conduct oversight hearings on the lack of intellectual diversity on campuses; abolish speech codes that often result in suppressing politically incorrect opinions on race, gender, and sexuality within college courses.
When stifled on campuses, right-of-center ideas don't just go away. These days, they are expressed -- in pungent manner -- on talk radio, and in overtly political journalism and publishing. Such outlets have increased in prominence, and universities have lost influence over American politics. When intellectual life is seen as a bastion of the left, conservatism devolves from intellectual giants like the late Milton Friedman to intellectual thugs like Ann Coulter -- with dangerous consequences for the political climate.
Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. Her column appears regularly in the Globe.
The N.A.A.C.P: Friend or Foe.
I was browsing the RBE site today and was happy to find this link. Not because I get any particular joy out of seeing more black Republicans being involved with the NAACP; but because the idea of us being involved with the NAACP is one I've internally debated for years. I should note, when I refer to the NAACP in this post I am talking about the national organization, although some local NAACP groups fit the same description
By all means today's NAACP is a left-wing organization. Like its ideological counterparts, Rainbow Push and BAMN, it has become a mouthpiece and PR machine for the Democrat party and other left wing causes. Sometimes I wonder why the DNC even needs a black outreach program when the NAACP subserviently does it for them--for free!
The puppet masters who really control the NAACP put a so called "moderate", Bruce Gordon, at its helm in an obvious attempt to take attention away from their extreme left wing views. From Julian Bond to Hilary Shelton, the NAACP's true power brokers are all committed Democrats with communist leanings.
Do we really serve the conservative or even moderate causes by aligning ourselves with them? Does giving the group any type of recognition contribute to the widely, yet ignorantly, held view that the NAACP represents "us" as a whole?
In my honest opinion, I think black conservatives and black Republicans would be better served by joining black conservative and black Republican organizations. This would be a perfect time to stake out a move like this. The NAACP, contrary to popular belief, is growing weaker and weaker by the minute. I recall Gordon saying its membership total had them at a little over 200,000 members. This means there were more black Bush voters in 2004 than are members of the NAACP. It's time for right of center blacks to start reaching out to these people, drawing the line in the sand and engaging in political warfare with the NAACP and its ilk.
Make no mistake about it, the NAACP is our adversary and they've put themselves in that position. Joining them and paying them membership dues would be the equivalent of Michael Newdow joining the 700 Club. As long as we credit them with our involvement and membership dues we help them spread the lie that the NAACP is fighting for "black people".
--Scooter
By all means today's NAACP is a left-wing organization. Like its ideological counterparts, Rainbow Push and BAMN, it has become a mouthpiece and PR machine for the Democrat party and other left wing causes. Sometimes I wonder why the DNC even needs a black outreach program when the NAACP subserviently does it for them--for free!
The puppet masters who really control the NAACP put a so called "moderate", Bruce Gordon, at its helm in an obvious attempt to take attention away from their extreme left wing views. From Julian Bond to Hilary Shelton, the NAACP's true power brokers are all committed Democrats with communist leanings.
Do we really serve the conservative or even moderate causes by aligning ourselves with them? Does giving the group any type of recognition contribute to the widely, yet ignorantly, held view that the NAACP represents "us" as a whole?
In my honest opinion, I think black conservatives and black Republicans would be better served by joining black conservative and black Republican organizations. This would be a perfect time to stake out a move like this. The NAACP, contrary to popular belief, is growing weaker and weaker by the minute. I recall Gordon saying its membership total had them at a little over 200,000 members. This means there were more black Bush voters in 2004 than are members of the NAACP. It's time for right of center blacks to start reaching out to these people, drawing the line in the sand and engaging in political warfare with the NAACP and its ilk.
Make no mistake about it, the NAACP is our adversary and they've put themselves in that position. Joining them and paying them membership dues would be the equivalent of Michael Newdow joining the 700 Club. As long as we credit them with our involvement and membership dues we help them spread the lie that the NAACP is fighting for "black people".
--Scooter
Nov 26, 2006
The loneliness of Black Conservatives
One of the major problems today is that when we look at Blacks in politics, we are often overrepresented by one Party and under represented by the other Party. African Americans are the Democratic Party's largest, most conservative and most loyal constituency. Yet, it seems when election years roll around, the Democratic party is much more keen to talk about getting out the vote while actively courting constituencies whose values directly contradict those of African-Americans. We have always been a church going people-from the spirituals born out of freedom, to the church leaders that led us through the Civil Rights movement, to today where African-Americans clergy have warned against the dangers of abortion, which kills 450,000 black babies every year. But with the Democrats actively courting the pro-abortion feminists in a campaign to preserve the Roe v. Wade Court decision that they could never pass in a legislature, Blacks are being left behind. And with a wave of illegal aliens coming in, taking away jobs from poor Americans, one would think that the Democratic Party would stand with Republicans in supporting the construction of a border fence and preserving jobs for American citizens. Instead the Democratic Party has courted the illegal non citizen vote, and Blacks are being pushed out of the Democratic Party's Small Tent, which begs the question, are Blacks ready for the Big Tent?
President Bush stated before the Urban League in 2004 when he came to court African-American voters, "Blacks are gagging on the donkey, but don't seem quite ready to swallow the elephant." Indeed Mr Bush, fair or unfair, the perception of the GOP as hostile to African-Americans is one that the GOP must actively work to get past if the GOP is to erect the permanent majority that it claims to want. Indeed it is why former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman has spoken at over 500 Black events since 2004, and why the GOP ran 2 African American candidates for governor, and 2 for Senator, doubling the Democratic Party's efforts on both counts. Now to quickly answer the question what about Obama? Obama is the Democratic Party's hero more for his story than who he is-a man with a white mother from Kansas and an African father from Kenya, than for his positions. Obama has called the idea of removing God from public life ridiculous, and called for the Democratic Party to embrace evangelical Christians. The on top of that, he campaigned for Harold Ford Jr, the Black pro-life Senator that tried to out conservative his Republican opponent in the election, yet was defeated by the Republican in extremely Republican Tennessee. So what are Blacks to do-leave the Party that has historically been the Party of Civil Rights? Well, yes-and some are starting to here that message.
Losing Senate candidate Michael Steele was able to capture some of this Black disaffection gaining more than 30 percent of the Black vote, well over what Republicans have garnered in recent elections. If Harold Ford ran his same campaign as a Republican, he would have won in a landslide. The fact is, the GOP is trying to reform its image as the racist party by giving minorities more opportunities than before. From Bush's Cabinet where he appointed the first Black and Black female secretaries of state, the first Black National Security Advisor, the first Black secretary of education and had a Black domestic chief advisor, to the elections where the GOP tries to recruit Black Republicans to run for state and national offices, the GOP is trying to grasp onto disaffected Black conservatives whoa re lonely within the Democratic Party and give them opportunities in the Big Tent where Blacks belong. Remember, Blacks started out as Republicans, and should end up as Republicans. In the words of Ken Mehlman, "The Republican Party will not be complete until more African Americans come back home." It's time to go out of the lonely wilderness into the open arms of the Big Tent.
President Bush stated before the Urban League in 2004 when he came to court African-American voters, "Blacks are gagging on the donkey, but don't seem quite ready to swallow the elephant." Indeed Mr Bush, fair or unfair, the perception of the GOP as hostile to African-Americans is one that the GOP must actively work to get past if the GOP is to erect the permanent majority that it claims to want. Indeed it is why former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman has spoken at over 500 Black events since 2004, and why the GOP ran 2 African American candidates for governor, and 2 for Senator, doubling the Democratic Party's efforts on both counts. Now to quickly answer the question what about Obama? Obama is the Democratic Party's hero more for his story than who he is-a man with a white mother from Kansas and an African father from Kenya, than for his positions. Obama has called the idea of removing God from public life ridiculous, and called for the Democratic Party to embrace evangelical Christians. The on top of that, he campaigned for Harold Ford Jr, the Black pro-life Senator that tried to out conservative his Republican opponent in the election, yet was defeated by the Republican in extremely Republican Tennessee. So what are Blacks to do-leave the Party that has historically been the Party of Civil Rights? Well, yes-and some are starting to here that message.
Losing Senate candidate Michael Steele was able to capture some of this Black disaffection gaining more than 30 percent of the Black vote, well over what Republicans have garnered in recent elections. If Harold Ford ran his same campaign as a Republican, he would have won in a landslide. The fact is, the GOP is trying to reform its image as the racist party by giving minorities more opportunities than before. From Bush's Cabinet where he appointed the first Black and Black female secretaries of state, the first Black National Security Advisor, the first Black secretary of education and had a Black domestic chief advisor, to the elections where the GOP tries to recruit Black Republicans to run for state and national offices, the GOP is trying to grasp onto disaffected Black conservatives whoa re lonely within the Democratic Party and give them opportunities in the Big Tent where Blacks belong. Remember, Blacks started out as Republicans, and should end up as Republicans. In the words of Ken Mehlman, "The Republican Party will not be complete until more African Americans come back home." It's time to go out of the lonely wilderness into the open arms of the Big Tent.
Nov 21, 2006
Where is the Love?
So much is happening in the party right now I don’t know which way to turn! But something stuck out o me. I read an editorial on RealClearPolitics.com and it's headline stated- The Only Real Option: Leave Iraq Now.
-WHAT! I need my American people to sit down and really look at what they are asking for! If we pull out of Iraq do we honestly think that that will be the end?? (Of course not) No one starts a war and then says -"Oh, we are sorry for disturbing your life, we are going to leave now and expect you not to form alliances, and retaliate against us. We are going to take the advice of our citizens and "pull-out'! No people it doesn't work that way. Wars are not just won over night. This country was built to last- because of war! This is an excerpt from the article- - Sen. John McCain has planted his flag at one extreme of the debate, making the counterintuitive argument that the way to get out of Iraq is to send in a lot more U.S. troops who would stabilize the country as a necessary prelude to withdrawal. By "counterintuitive," I mean, "divorced from reality as we know it." For one thing, the troops McCain wants to send do not exist -- the military is stretched paper-thin as it is, and I don't think Rep. Charles Rangel's proposal to reinstate the draft is going to get very far. For another, McCain doesn't specify how all those magically conjured reinforcements are supposed to accomplish such a mission. - This was stated and I found it a little alarming being that I am around veterans and current military officials on a regular. This is what I found on the Army's web page. (www.army.mil/recruitingandrentention)-On October 11, 2005 the Army announced that the active-duty Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserve exceeded Fiscal Year 2005 retention goals for the year, with annual recruitment numbers falling short of projected enlistments.
• the active-duty Army closed the fiscal year at 108 percent of its retention mission. The goal was to re-enlist 64,162 Soldiers and 69,512 Soldiers actually reenlisted.
• The Army Reserve closed out fiscal year 2005 at 102 percent of its retention mission, with 16,485 Soldiers reenlisting. The goal was to retain 16,248 Soldiers.
• The Army National Guard finished 2005 at 104 percent. The Guard reenlisted 33,804 Soldiers, surpassing its goal by 1,233.
- With these FACTS, I would like to say know your research before running off at the tongue. Wars take time, and they take encouragement, and also a little force and maybe some mistakes. But don’t be ignorant, be AMERICAN and be glad there aren’t bobs flying over your head as you take that redundant trip to McDonalds with your happy-meal indulging offspring.
-WHAT! I need my American people to sit down and really look at what they are asking for! If we pull out of Iraq do we honestly think that that will be the end?? (Of course not) No one starts a war and then says -"Oh, we are sorry for disturbing your life, we are going to leave now and expect you not to form alliances, and retaliate against us. We are going to take the advice of our citizens and "pull-out'! No people it doesn't work that way. Wars are not just won over night. This country was built to last- because of war! This is an excerpt from the article- - Sen. John McCain has planted his flag at one extreme of the debate, making the counterintuitive argument that the way to get out of Iraq is to send in a lot more U.S. troops who would stabilize the country as a necessary prelude to withdrawal. By "counterintuitive," I mean, "divorced from reality as we know it." For one thing, the troops McCain wants to send do not exist -- the military is stretched paper-thin as it is, and I don't think Rep. Charles Rangel's proposal to reinstate the draft is going to get very far. For another, McCain doesn't specify how all those magically conjured reinforcements are supposed to accomplish such a mission. - This was stated and I found it a little alarming being that I am around veterans and current military officials on a regular. This is what I found on the Army's web page. (www.army.mil/recruitingandrentention)-On October 11, 2005 the Army announced that the active-duty Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserve exceeded Fiscal Year 2005 retention goals for the year, with annual recruitment numbers falling short of projected enlistments.
• the active-duty Army closed the fiscal year at 108 percent of its retention mission. The goal was to re-enlist 64,162 Soldiers and 69,512 Soldiers actually reenlisted.
• The Army Reserve closed out fiscal year 2005 at 102 percent of its retention mission, with 16,485 Soldiers reenlisting. The goal was to retain 16,248 Soldiers.
• The Army National Guard finished 2005 at 104 percent. The Guard reenlisted 33,804 Soldiers, surpassing its goal by 1,233.
- With these FACTS, I would like to say know your research before running off at the tongue. Wars take time, and they take encouragement, and also a little force and maybe some mistakes. But don’t be ignorant, be AMERICAN and be glad there aren’t bobs flying over your head as you take that redundant trip to McDonalds with your happy-meal indulging offspring.
Nov 12, 2006
Congrats to Democrats
Well, i hvae never had bad sportmanship, CONGRATS TO THA DEMOCRATS! (Just dont do anything TOO liberal) I also wanted to address the issue of How many of my peers dont know their history. Sometimes i have to wonder- you say that you are democrat but the democrat candidate may not even sahre the same religion as you, nor do they have the same beliefs as you. But you are voting for them JUST BECAUSE your mom and dad told you to vote democrat, or my abosolute favorite- "democrats help the black people". - which hasn't been done under their control for the last 40 years.
Welcome
Welcome to our HBCU Republican Blog. We hope this page can serve as a focal point for the growing emergence of Republican clubs and activism on both HBCU and traditional campuses. Please visit our regularly updated blog and support the next generation of Republican leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
