Back to Basics

Candidly, I have struggled with this for years; how best to explain why I am a black conservative and why fellow black Americans should join me.

I served on a board with an extremely bright black mom. Both of her kids, a boy and a girl, are brilliant; her son received a full scholarship to Yale.

This black mom is well-read on “whiny” black liberal authors and philosophers. I am talking about the majority of black authors you see featured on mainstream TV. They sound extremely intellectual, explaining how white America is still systematically abusing blacks and why more heavily funded government programs are the answer. I feel like screaming at my TV, “Knock it off! Bottom line is you hate white people and are seeking more entitlement government freebies!” Such needy victim rhetoric has NOTHING to do with, nor does it achieve REAL, “black empowerment.” Frankly, these people turn my stomach.

As I said, the black mom is extremely well-read on victim-hood peddling black authors and has never heard of brilliant black conservatives Professor Walter Williams and Dr. Thomas Sowell.

Professor Walter E. Williams is an American economist and academic. He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, as well as a syndicated columnist.

Dr. Thomas Sowell is an American economist, social theorist, political philosopher, and author of 30 books. Dr Sowell is currently a Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

Both these guys are about “real” black empowerment, teaching personal responsibility, education, hard work and morality; not the standard blacks-are-eternal-victims and white-America-owes-us garbage spouted by black pundits on TV. Thus, you NEVER see Prof. Williams or Dr Sowell on mainstream TV. I love these guys, Prof. Williams and Dr. Sowell.

Black media and mainstream liberal media, for the most part, ignore black conservatives. It is shameful that I had to hear about distinguished black conservatives who have the their heads on straight from white conservative talk radio hosts.

On rare occasions when black media (talk radio, TV & etc) does recognize black conservatives, for the most part, it is to denigrate them — labeling them Uncle Toms, traitors to their race and self-loathing stupid n******.

Liberal mainstream media today strives to keep black conservatives “invisible.”

My 84 year old black dad never heard of Herman Cain until the liberal media’s gleeful 24/7 coverage of alleged sexual harassment against Cain during his bid to win the Republican presidential nomination.

Think about that folks. Herman Cain is a black conservative author, business executive, radio host and syndicated columnist. Cain was the first black CEO of Godfather Pizza and CEO of the National Restaurant Association.

If embraced by Oprah, Tavis Smiley and the mainstream media, Herman Cain would have been a tremendous inspiration to young black entrepreneurs. But, the left “don’t cotton” to uppity blacks who achieve the old-fashion way — via education, hard work and character without government intervention or lowered standards.

Tragically, the left chose to introduce Herman Cain to black America as nothing more than a guy who can’t keep it in his pants. This is how the left (liberal media and Democrats) love to demean, discredit and humiliate self-reliant, non-victim-minded blacks.

The Democrats are the ones who are gender quota-mongerers. The Democrats are the ones who use femme-statistics to push more mandates and government meddling when so many factors other than gender discrimination explain disparities.

But when held to account for their own rhetoric and ideology, the Democrats do what they always do: Cut and run.

After wrapping itself in the GOP-bashing “War on Women” cape, the White House is absolutely tongue-tied when it comes time to answer for gender hiring disparities at Obama’s beleaguered Secret Service.

Here’s White House flack Jay Carney dodging questions about the percentage of women in Obama’s Secret Service (11%):

TRANSCRIPT:

Female reporter: Sen. Susan Collins said this weekend that Secret Service supervisor Paula Reed, who we all read about this weekend, acted decisively and appropriately in Cartegena and “I can’t help but wonder if there had been more women as part of that detail if this would have ever happened.” Is there a point there? Should there be more women as part of the Secret Service?

Carney: I would simply say, as I did earlier, that assessments of the institutions, culture, broader questions about the mission, I think, uh, need to be, uh, held in reserve while this investigation into a specific incident, uh, is completed. Uh, and in many ways, I think that those questions, will be looked at broadly but also specifically by the Secret Service, as is appropriate. So, but, I don’t have a comment specifically to that, uh, beyond what I’ve said.

Another female reporter: …if the percentage of women in the Secret Service is indeed 11 percent, you can speak to that, correct?

Carney: Again, I can’t. I’m not familiar even with that figure. I would simply that questions about the mission, the institution, broader questions about the Secret Service that arise from this incident and this investigation, I think, at least from here, I will resist answering, because it’s not appropriate while this investigation is ongoing. And I think those questions in many ways will be and should be addressed to the Secret Service itself. But they are focused on this investigation into this incident at this time. And it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to make broad observations about the institution during this period.

Reporter: Would you agree that if that figure is correct, it’s really, it’s very low.

Carney: Well, again. You’re saying “if that figure is correct, what do I think about it.” I don’t know that figure to be correct or incorrect.

Reporter: We’re talking about 11 percent as a percentage.

Carney: Well, again, it’s a law enforcement agency. I don’t know how that compares to other law enforcement agencies. I would simply ask that, uh…well, you know, you can ask, but I would ask for understanding as to why I’m not going to make, uh, broad assessments of the institution itself, its mission, its culture, while this specific investigation is going on.

Just a reminder that Carney is Mr. Stats McStats when it comes to unloading figures on women and employment to try and paint Republicans with the broad, anti-woman brush.

Flashback:

MR. CARNEY: Let me say a couple things. First of all, I have not spoken with the President about this so I don’t have anything to report to you on that.

Many of you have been sending me a link to this Atlantic piece entitled “Why the U.S. Economy is Biased against Men” (thanks BTW):

The workplace cultural practices more often preferred by men have largely been replaced by approaches more often preferred by women. Individual initiative is now usually deemed inferior to teamwork, competition often replaced by collaboration, “push through to get the job done” with “process feelings,” decision-making by leader with decision-making by committee. Men are more likely than women to throw all of themselves into work than to demand worklife balance, for which they are often dubbed with pathologizing monikers such as “workaholic” and “unable to relax” rather than “heroic” for being so contributory, even if it costs them their life. Men die 5.2 years earlier than women, a major cause being stress-related illnesses such as heart attack and stroke.

The author of the piece, Marty Nemko, seems to be on the right track, though I don’t appreciate his crack about Montgomery, Alabama.

The title of this post was for dramatic effect only — in reality I think Jill could kick his ass.

From the Daily Caller:

Vice President Joe Biden suggested on Wednesday that the GOP’s opposition to the Democratic version of a domestic violence bill will give the green light to male violence against women.

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed in 1994 and was reauthorized in 2005. Approval of an updated law is stalled because Republican and Democratic senators disagree over what provisions should be added to the law.

“Just ask yourself, what message does it send to our daughters, to every women imprisoned in their own homes … if the law is not reauthorized,” Biden declared today at a White House meeting of feminists and groups that are funded by the law.

Social opposition to male abuse of women “became part of our social fabric, our social culture,” because of the 1994 law, Biden said. ”Just imagine the impact on the moral disapprobation of society if this Congress refuses to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.”

Poor ol’ Sheriff Joe still thinks morality comes from legislation.

But what do I know? I’m just a wife-beating white male. Here’s Phyllis Schlafly’s take on the VAWA:

For 30 years, the feminists have been pretending that their goal is to abolish all sex discrimination, eliminating all gender differences no matter how reasonable. When it comes to domestic violence, however, feminist dogma preaches that there is an innate gender difference: Men are naturally batterers, and women are naturally victims (i.e., gender profiling).

Starting with its title, VAWA is just about as sex discriminatory as legislation can get. It is written and implemented to oppose the abuse of women and to punish men.

Ignoring the mountain of evidence that women initiate physical violence nearly as often as men, VAWA has more than 60 passages in its lengthy text that exclude men from its benefits. For starters, the law’s title should be changed to Partner Violence Reduction Act, and the words “and men” should be added to those 60 sections.

The law should be rewritten to deal with the tremendous problem of false accusations so that its priority can be to help real victims. A Centers for Disease Control survey found that half of all partner violence was mutual, and 282 scholarly studies reported that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men.

Currently used definitions of domestic violence that are unacceptably trivial include calling your partner a naughty word, raising your voice, causing “annoyance” or “emotional distress,” or just not doing what your partner wants. The law’s revision should use an accurate definition of domestic violence that includes violence, such as: “any act or threatened act of violence, including any forceful detention of an individual, which results or threatens to result in physical injury.”

Women who make domestic violence accusations are not required to produce evidence and are never prosecuted for perjury if they lie. Accused men are not accorded fundamental protections of due process, not considered innocent until proven guilty and in many cases are not afforded the right to confront their accusers.

Legal assistance is customarily provided to women but not to men.

The Soros-backed hit men of Media Matters for America have led the GOP-bashing “War on Women” battle cry.

But how does the progressive organization measure up to the “equal pay,” diversity quotas, and gender equity standards it accuses Republicans of failing to meet?

After reviewing the Soros monkey’s recent tax filings, these inconvenient facts have come to light:

Top 5 highest paid employees in 2008 (base pay):

David Brock — $266,704

Eric Burns — $217,351

Jamison W. Foser — $188,333

George Lattimore — $163,451

Marcia Kuntz — $147,879

Top 5 highest paid employees in 2009 (base pay):

David Brock — $286,804 (7.5% increase over 2008)

Eric Burns — $240,579 (10.7% increase over 2008)

Tate Williams — $162,812

Marcia Kuntz — $147,454 (0.02% decrease from 2008)

Ari Rabin-Havt — $134,484

Top 5 highest paid employees in 2010 (base pay):

Eric Burns — $256,187 (6.5% increase over 2009)

David Brock — $254,547 (11.2% decrease from 2009)

Marcia Kuntz — $199,730 (35.5% increase from 2009)

Tate Williams — $192,810 (18.4% increase over 2009)

Ari Rabin-Havt — $167,052 (24.2% increase over 2009)

That’s one woman among the top five highest paid MMFA employees over three years. According to a recent list of MMFA goons, men appear to outnumber women at the group by two to one, and compensation is based not on Lily Ledbetter-style mandates but (according to the group’s 990 forms) is “BASED ON THE COMPENSATION STUDIES AND USING COMPARATIVE DATA FROM OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.”

Like the Obama White House and Democrats who coordinate closely with MMFA, it’s do as they say, not as they do.

Real Moms of the GOP
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2012

The authenticity of conservative women has always been under attack by radical orthodox feminists, but perhaps not as brazenly as by someone with such direct and frequent access to the corridors of the White House message machine as Hilary B. Rosen.

The D.C. career lobbyist and Democratic media strategist took to CNN’s airwaves this week to craft a left-wing “War on Women” attack on the real moms of the GOP. Ostensibly aiming at Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for his “old-fashioned” views of women, Rosen’s mouth instead shot off in the direction of wife, stay-at-home mother of five, grandmother of 16, and cancer and multiple sclerosis survivor Ann Romney. Mrs. Romney, sneered Rosen, “never worked a day in her life” outside of the home and should have no voice on women’s issues.

President Obama never met a payroll in his life, but that hasn’t stopped him from dictating what business owners across the country should and shouldn’t be doing. But I digress.

This was no accidental rhetorical drive-by. “Progressives” from Gloria Steinem to Patricia Ireland to Naomi Wolf have derided their conservative counterparts as female impersonators, fake women and men with breasts from time immemorial. It’s SOP: standard operating procedure. In 1992, Hillary Clinton mocked women who stayed at home and “baked cookies and had teas.” In 2004, blueblood Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, sniffed that first lady Laura Bush (a former teacher and librarian before becoming a homemaker) never “had a real job — I mean, since she’s been grown up.”

Alas, if you’re a conservative mom, you’re damned if you do stay home and damned if you don’t. In 2008, Howard Gutman, a member of the Obama campaign’s national finance committee, attacked GOP vice presidential candidate and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s ability to be a good parent and have a high-powered public life at the same time. “Your responsibility is to put your family first,” Gutman lectured as he singled out Palin’s Down syndrome baby and then-pregnant teenage daughter. “The proper attack is not that a woman shouldn’t run for vice president with five kids; it’s that a parent, when they have a family in need…” should get out of the public sphere and stay home.

What’s striking about Rosen’s latest ideological sniper attack is that she is not some lone-wolf operative on the fringes of Beltway influence. She works with former White House communications director Anita Dunn at the D.C.-based strategic communications consulting firm SKDKnickerbocker. That’s the same company that promoted the anti-Palin smear movie “Game Change” and that represented liberal Georgetown law school student activist and manufactured War on Women poster woman Sandra Fluke. Smack dab at the intersection of progressive agitation and Democratic Party campaign-season maneuvering.

White House visitor logs (which nonpartisan watchdogs point out are woefully incomplete) show that “Hilary B. Rosen” or “Hilary Rosen” has visited 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. at least 35 times, including several direct meetings with President Obama (5); White House senior adviser and consigliere Valerie Jarrett; senior adviser David Axelrod; senior adviser turned 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina; and a parade of communications/media team officials in both the West Wing “surrogate booking” office and the East Wing.

Hilary Rosen takes a page from the old femme playbook

Hillary Clinton did it to stay-at-home moms in 1992:

I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession…

Teresa Heinz-Kerry did it to Laura Bush in 2004:

Q: You’d be different from Laura Bush?

A: Well, you know, I don’t know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good. But I don’t know that she’s ever had a real job — I mean, since she’s been grown up.

And now, Anita Dunn colleague and Huffington Post Beltway insider Hilary Rosen has done it to Ann Romney (click the link for full coverage at Twitchy.com):

She’s “never worked a day in her life.”

I am also reminded of the liberal elite female journalists who scolded Sarah Palin for being a working mom in 2008:

Let’s talk Mommy Wars, double standards, and the media elite. Last Friday, Obama Campaign National Finance Committee member Howard Gutman attacked Sarah Palin’s ability to be a good parent and have a high-powered public life at the same time. In a finger-wagging appearance on the Laura Ingraham radio show, Obama’s operative scolded the Republican mother of five children for not putting her professional career on hold.

“Your responsibility is to put your family first,” Gutman lectured as he singled out Palin’s Down’s Syndrome baby and pregnant teenage daughter. “The proper attack is not that a woman shouldn’t run for vice president with five kids, it’s that a parent, when they have a family in need,” should get out of the public sphere and stay home.

The Gutman standard has now been proffered by countless Obama hacks and water-carrying commentators. Damningly, it’s high-powered working mothers in the journalism business helping to broadcast the anti-Palin slams or doing nothing to defend her.

CNN’s Soledad O’Brien denied Palin attacks on her network, even as her colleague John Roberts asked: “”There’s also this issue that on April 18th, she gave birth to a baby with Down’s Syndrome…. Children with Down’s syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of Vice President, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?”

NBC’s Meredeith Viera asserted that only blogs went after Palin’s motherhood abilities while running for veep, even as her colleague Brian Williams slyly raised feminists’ “fears or doubts that she should be able to do this, that she should be doing this.”

How would CNN’s O’Brien like the Gutman standard applied to her? She’s been working overtime covering the presidential campaign season, anchoring daily coverage, nighttime conventions, and producing documentaries that require large chunks of time away from home. Disney’s Family Parenting website lauds her as “a modern mom balancing a thriving career as one of America’s top news anchors along with her four children” – two daughters now ages 7 and 6 and twin boys who are 4. Where are the Palin-bashers to lambaste O’Brien’s professional pursuits?

How about Katie Couric? Her husband died at 42 when her daughters were 6 and 2 years old.

Here’s a snip from the Obama campaign this week concerning Mitt Romney’s alleged lack of regard for women:

“I was shocked and disappointed to hear that Mitt Romney is not willing to stand up for women and their families. If he is truly concerned about women in this economy, he wouldn’t have to take time to ‘think’ about whether he supports the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This Act not only ensures women have the tools to get equal pay for equal work, but it means their families will be better served also. Women earn just 77 cents to every dollar that men earn for the same job, which is why President Obama took decisive action and made this the first bill that he signed when he took office.”

Then, right on cue:

Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

Calculating the median salary for each gender required some assumptions to be made based on the employee names. When unclear, every effort was taken to determine the appropriate gender.

The Obama administration’s projection never ends.

They don’t care about “women”… they care women who are like them. They have nothing but detest for women like Sarah Palin, Ann Romney or anybody else that doesn’t fit their liberal mold. Just ask frequent White House visitor Hilary Rosen… or Hillary Clinton for that matter.

The civil rights movement is a success story, so much so that any and every movement has found that it can borrow the narrative and tactics of it to ram through whatever measures it likes. And so we come to the year 2012 where civil rights means men in dresses having the right to use the ladies room and the right of terrorist groups to be free from police scrutiny– among many other equally insane “rights”.

Much as the Civil Rights movement went from trying to reverse legal inequality embedded in law to trying to enforce an equality of outcome in every sphere from the commercial to the educational to the social by depriving others of their rights, succeeding movements have borrowed the narrative of inequality and the tactics of achieving equal outcomes, even when such outcomes are physically impossible.

We are for example obligated to believe that surgical intervention can transform women into men and that the only differences between the two can be eliminated with a few incisions and a few hormones. Applying the civil rights model moves the question from the realms of science and philosophy to the moral absolutism of resisting oppression. And that is the left’s home field.

The left is constantly on the prowl for the oppressed, even if the new oppressed are men who want to use the ladies room. And the oppressed can never be denied anything they want, instead there is an affirmative obligation on the entitled people who are not confused about which bathroom they want to use, to prove that they are granting every possible privilege and courtesy to the bewildered and confused.

Guilty until proven innocent is the new approach. It is not enough to not actively discriminate, we must prove that we are not discriminating by meeting our diversity quotas. We are forced to become the Stakhanovites of political correctness, exceeding our diversity quotas as a model to the nation.  That means everyplace must look exactly like “America”, a phrase that is best interpreted as meaning that every workplace must look like the ones on television. And every ladies room must have at least one man in a dress.

Very little of this has to do with the kind of rights that were fought for from Appomattox to Selma. Instead individual freedom and equality before the law has been twisted to justify a state of legal inequality and the deprivation of individual freedoms. Rather than a color-blind society, we have achieved a color conscious society in which everyone knows their place on the great ladder of diversity.

Slavery has not gone away, we are just confronted with it on a day to day basis. Our slaves live in China or in Africa. They serve the same purposes that slaves did before the Civil War, they make things cheaply so that they can be sold cheaply. The only difference is that we rarely pass them on the street or see advertisements for slave auctions.

There is still slavery even in the United States. Mexican and Chinese laborers whose families are held hostage back home, and prosperous Muslim families who bring along their tradition of the house slave, often teenage girls who are treated little better than dogs.