Anne Wortham is Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. She is a member of the American Sociological Association and the American Philosophical Association. She has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and honored as a Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education. In fall 1988 she was one of a select group of intellectuals who were featured in Bill Moyer’s television series, “A World of Ideas.” The transcript of her conversation with Moyers has been published in his book, A World of Ideas. Dr. Wortham is author of The Other Side of Racism: A Philosophical Study of Black Race Consciousness which analyzes how race consciousness is transformed into political strategies and policy issues. She has published numerous articles on the implications of individual rights for civil rights policy, and is currently writing a book on theories of social and cultural marginality. Recently, she has published articles on the significance of multiculturalism and Afro-centricism in education, the politics of victimization and the social and political impact of political correctness. Shortly after an interview in 2004 she was awarded tenure.
No He Can’t
by Anne Wortham
Fellow Americans,
Please know: I am black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul’s name as my choice for president.
Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is
worth living. I do not require a black president to love the ideal of America.
I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival, – all that I know about the history of the United States of America, all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician. I would have to deny the nature of the “change” that Obama asserts has come to America.
Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared “progressive” whites who voted for him because he doesn’t look like them. I would have to wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration, – political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.
I would have to believe that “fairness” is the equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to “go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice” is speaking in my interest. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the “bottom up,” and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.
Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting “Yes We Can!” Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead – and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.
So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a black man to the office of the president of the United States , the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over – and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like. The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a black person. So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America . Shout your glee Harvard, Princeton , Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to – Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine, – what little there is left, – for the chance to feel good. There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.
Personally, I have never understood what is so attractive about Ayn Rand’s ideas. She essentially argued that rational self-interest is the true standard of morality, and that altruism is not only stupid, but even profoundly immoral. And there’s nothing in her personal life that I find admirable, either. That said, this professor is right on target in her analysis of Barack Obama, of his ideas and agenda, of the people who voted for him, and of the consequences his presidency will have for the nation.
January 31, 2009 at 11:42 am
Mike – Anne Wortham sees to the soul of our current political culture in the White House AND Captiol Hill.
Who Saved President Obama’s Life?
Find out at:
andeeroo.wordpress.com
January 31, 2009 at 1:31 pm
“But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine, – what little there is left, – for the chance to feel good. There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.”
I wonder how long the illusion of “The One” will last? Will this mindless adoration continue on now that his idelology is cleary displayed by his executive orders and insane bills? I wonder how black and white Christians FEEL NOW with his speading the murder of unborn children around the globe at the American taxpayers expense?
I read on another blog today someone publicly apologizing for “jumping on the Obama bandwagon” and voting for him and NOW they see. I guess late is better than never but I felt sad just the same.
When I read Anne Worthams article, I felt the power of truth in her words and the sadness from which they flowed.
Thanks for posting this, very good article.
January 31, 2009 at 1:38 pm
First of all, let me say “thank you” for providing Ms. Wortham’s letter. It is a pleasure to read such well written insight.
Secondly, I would like to say that there is a way for rational self-interest to also serve the higher good. I work with horses, and as such have made a serious study of their behavior. The horse herd dynamic, the culture in which horses exist, is all about Respect, Trust and Partnering. In each horse herd, EVERY herd member supports what is good for the entire herd because survival of the herd is the best means of ensuring the survival of each member of the herd. In other words, if I want to survive, I need to be very concerned about your survival, and my neighbor’s survival, and your neighbor’s survival, etc. This is rational self-interest, but it recognizes that my good is only guaranteed by acknowledging, accepting and addressing what is truly good for all (a form of altruism).
It may be that Ms. Wortham sees rational self-interest from the same perspective as horses, but even if she sees it specifically the way Ayn Rand wrote about it, that version of rational self-interest would prevent one from making choices that are so foolish as to ground one’s very world into rubble, which as Ms. Wortham so eloquently states, appears to be Obama’s mission.
My point: If Ayn Rand’s version of rational self-interest was the best Obama could muster during his term in office, I think our future would look a whole lot brighter. Sadly, it appears that Obama’s standards and principles don’t even rise to the Ayn Rand level.
January 31, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Adneeroo,
Let me provide the link so viewers can simply click: http://andeeroo.wordpress.com/
And a taste of the article:
It’s also a strange dichotomy that the mother of our very first African-American President chose life for him but he does not extend that blessing to all the children that follow him. President Obama has promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) once it is introduced as a bill in Congress. FOCA would eliminate all state and federal restrictions on abortion; that means third trimester abortions of infants by making a hole in their head and scrambling their brains. It also means continuing saline abortions; basically burning the infant boy or girl to death.
We will never know the talent, brilliance or intellect of the near 50 million individuals whose lives have been ended by abortion. Perhaps there was one who would have discovered a cure for cancer or AIDS, still another who would have guided us through our economic chaos; yet another who would have brought us energy independence. No, we will never know as their lives were cut short in the womb.
You raise an excellent point: by Obama’s own standard, his mother should have aborted him.
And of course, if she had, Obama would never have existed beyond the womb where he was killed. Because abortion ends a human life.
I would add the sheer pragmatic aspect to the moral one: we have murdered going on 60 million workers and taxpayers. And now the only way to even survive as a culture is to tolerate a wave of immigration to replace American workers. But most of the people flooding here don’t care about America, or America’s history, or the values that made America great to begin with. And half of illegal immigrants don’t pay any taxes. It’s all cash.
So Obama launches into the most massive spending program in American history. And he calls upon the generation that he aborted to pay for those programs. But they’re dead. There aren’t enough of them to pay this burden. So the collapse is coming.
January 31, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Taffy,
I wrote a VERY brief critique on my thoughts on Ayn Rand, but Rand wasn’t the issue. Wortham’s thoughts were. And we should ALL find nuggets of wisdom wherever we can glean them (and that even includes Ayn Rand, btw).
Martin Luther said, “I would rather be governed by a wise Turk than a stupid Christian.” And – while he was only able to come to that realization because of the profound Christian contribution to the idea of “limited government,” and to the idea presented by Christ that there are TWO kingdoms (“render unto Caesar…”) – the fact remains that there ARE wise Turks out there, just as there ARE stupid Christians.
There are elements of wisdom in Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. They have genuine insight in certain fundamental aspects of human experience. And often, understanding their explanations helps me understand my own worldview better, even as I continue to firmly uphold my own Judeo-Christian worldview.
Wortham just nails the flaws in the messianic climate of Obamaism on point after point. She does it concisely and with power.
HL,
I hope that abortion becomes an issue for Obama. But I wonder if it will. Liberals who so love and adore Obama ought to realize that he should have been aborted on their view. Single mother, abandoned by father, etc. And what would have happened to all those other millions of babies who were killed before they ever had a chance to contribute with their potentials? But sadly, so many liberals are like Nancy Pelosi, and resolve the moral dilemma of abortion by getting “stupid.” Thus Nancy Pelosi tries to represent herself as a good and devout Catholic while being a staunch advocate of abortion, and presumes to correct Catholic theology as though SHE is the Pope. In other words, she resolves the dilemma by pretending with all her might there is no dilemma.
http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/catholics-open-can-o-whoopass-on-nancy-pelosis-abortion-of-catholicism/
In any event, traditional liberals like Anne Wortham who go after Obama on legitimate principles are worth their weight in gold to us. She should be congratulated for both her insight and for her courage.
February 1, 2009 at 4:29 am
That’s what I am, and I mean I am highly impressed and an immediate devoted admirer of Anne Wortham. It is a great find for you Blog Michael. Congratulations.
But you will understand if I keep the higher accolades for Anne Wortham’s own letter. I get into the habit of repeating that I have never seen because I used it just a few days ago in another article but this is even a better place to say I have never seen any better expose on Election 2008 than from Anne Wortham,
She exposes the half-truths [read that as blatant lies and distortions] of Obama’s ascendancy to the Presidency and does so irrefutably from the depth of her own achievements, moral beliefs ad the high standards she set for herself, plus her success in reaching and maintaining them, all with the gentle sureness of someone who knows who she is.
I shall be watching her career and hope others are influenced to reach her levels of achievement and the richness of self-fulfillment that always come with that.
I notice she herself doesn’t dwell on Ayn Rand that is also mentioned in the article and I agree with the statement about that personage. Dr. Anne Wortham has a clear mind without all the woolen ideology put forward by Rand. The latter doesn’t in my humble view reach the realities that Anne Wortham lives by.
And she exposes the myths of Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle. I am going to circulate/forward/ and with your permission duplicate the whole article a hundred times to send it around the Globe.
February 1, 2009 at 10:13 pm
My impression of Wortham is that she is a liberal who genuinely despises the identity politics that Democrats have been relying upon for years.
She is rather like the Joe Lieberman opposition to Democrats on the war on terror and the war in Iraq. As a classic liberal, he was in the tradition of FDR, Truman, and Kennedy (and Johnson) who understood the evil of genuinely evil ideologies and the need to stand up to them and oppose them with force.
It truly takes courage to be like both these people. No one eats their own the way liberals do.
February 9, 2009 at 12:19 pm
This is a very interesting article. I did not vote for Obama because of people, places and things. That does not mean though that I will not support him and hopes he proves me wrong. If he looses, we all loose.
I think Obama wants to be a man of integrity and I see good in the man. What I see more though is so many political affiliates that he has surrounded himself with. Nothing has changed before the election, and thus far, nothing has changed now that he is president. He still surrounds himself with his unwise and unjust political associates.
As far as race, that is so far down the scale for me, that it just isn’t an issue. If we make it an issue, then the hate ball of racism will keep on rolling. Is it now the time for the white man to say, ok the ball is in my court now? Hopefully not.
United we stand, divided we fall. We are definately a divided nation. Divided by justice and injustice.
I will probably face the firing squad for this comment, but I am not always proud to be an American. How can we be when througout history we have been politically brainwashed into thinking that someone else is going to fix everything and “change” everything.
I also will add that the news media in America, are a sutle yet prominent form of terrorism. The freedom of speech has been outspoken.
Politics as usual. I do have hope though that somehow we will find our way thru this maze and we will all stand on firmer ground.
For that I can hope and for that I can pray.
February 9, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Nina,
You provide a thoughtful and intellectually honest comment. I cannot condemn you for any of your views.
For myself, Obama’s 23 year involvement with Trinity United and with Rev. Wright was a watershed moment. The man has been patently dishonest in distancing himself from a church – of which he was a member for 20 years, and of which he said Wright was his “spiritual adviser” and like a family member – as though he had nothing to do with the hateful teachings.
“No, no, no. Not God bless America. God damn America!” This is the first “God damn America” president, on my view.
So we (and I hope respectfully) disagree on whether Obama is “a man of integrity” or “good.” Wright said awful things, and had I been in that church I would have got up and left. And I cannot respect as my leader any person who would not.
It is interesting that so many Democrats – who fallaciously quoted Jefferson as saying, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”(he never said anything of the sort) now saying, “Dissent is tantamount to treason.”
I hear you and agree when you say that we can’t always be proud of America. Of course we can’t. The question of issue is whether America has as a rule been good or evil. And the Obamas (and Rev. Wright, and Trinity United) believe that America has been far more evil than it has been good. While acknowledging that the US has not been good in every single act, I profoundly disagree with Obama: the US, while obviously imperfect, has yet been the greatest force for good in the 20th century. Period.
I also understand that there is a real sense in which we all stand or fall. Democrats proved that true in being unrelenting opponents of everything Bush tried to do. The war in Iraq would have gone completely differently had Democrats been true to their initial support –
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
- we would have had allies rally to our side who instead played Democrats off against Republicans and stayed out. Why should Europeans support America when Democrats refused to? And the same was true on all kinds of issues.
It was Democrat hatefulness that has energized and outraged me. I USED to think we had to all come together. But I’m tired of trying to make friends with spiteful people who will undermine and backstab me the moment it is in their interest to do so.
Further, I see a lot of the social agendas that Democrats are trying to impose as being dangerous. For instance, IN THE STIMULUS BILL are sweeping measures that will make it harder for seniors to get medical care in the name of “rationing” and “saving.” That is something that was always a clear ultimate outcome of the abortion mindset: “Watch out, grandma and grandpa, because the generation that survived abortion will come after you.” Conservatives have warned of this for years. Democrats denied it. Now it’s here. They lied.
I fought HARD to keep Obama from being elected because I saw a disaster. But now that he is here, yes, I would rather see a TERRIBLE time for the country than see him succeed in imposing an agenda that will utterly transform this country. Therefore, I truly hope he fails.
In any event, that’s how I view it. Thank you for sharing your thoughtful views.
February 10, 2009 at 12:47 am
The incredible writing by Anne Wortham is beyond words. God bless her.
February 10, 2009 at 10:55 am
The lady displayed a rare combination of passion and eloquence. And in doing so she pierced the heart of the largely substanceless emotionalism of the Obama myth.
February 10, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Nina, learn to spell “lose”.
February 13, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Someone above wrote that Dr. Wortham is a true liberal. I do not agree with that statement. I think Dr. Wortham is a loyal American, neither totally conservative or liberal, that sees through the true racist rhetoric that is destroying our country. Black people are being used by today’s liberals just as they were after the Civil War during reconstuction. It is the same old game that is now anti-capitalist.
February 13, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Percival,
I believe Wortham described herself as a “liberal.” But she may have “Kennedy liberal” (which would today be a conservative) in mind. She has also described views in terms of Ayn Rand. She certainly is no “typical” conservative!
I believe that she is speaking ultimately in outrage against the fawning mindset of the typical Obama voter (i.e. “messianic figure,” voting for him BECAUSE he’s black, the whole “transformational figure” crap). She is a proud woman – proud of her identity, proud of her achievement – who (rightly, I think) sees an abandonment of pride based on Martin Luther King’s “character” in favor of a culture of dependency. And based on your comment, it appears you agree.
The quintessential moment occurred in an Obama “pro-stimulus” rally, where people were cheering him like a god and begging him to grant them favor. That woman who needed a new car and a new kitchen. That sort of thing.
Obama IS “transformational.” But I despise the country he is moving us toward. Just like Anne.
February 27, 2009 at 7:38 am
What bigotry
February 27, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Congratulations, Susan; you are a true liberal ideologue and demagogue.
A black woman who is an academic and a self-confessing liberal shares her perspective that black people should not be worshiping big government as savior; should not be celebrating a black president as their messiah just because of the color of his skin; should not be crying out for the government to take care of them because they are too helpless and dependent on the welfare state to care for themselves; and you whip out your fascist demonizing terms meant to cast her as “the other” so she can be dismissed.
And without any arguments or proofs. Just pure demagoguery.
So let me just say of you, “What bigotry.”
March 3, 2009 at 5:46 am
You silly Christians(and some of you not so silly), when are you actually going to READ your Bibles and live the teachings of Yeshua, instead of just preaching? His teachings are a philosophy and one way to live your life, not an “end all, this is the only way” mandate(i.e. Jesus aka Yeshua was a Yogi). Wake up, self-proclaimed lovers of Christ. There have been Christ consciousnesses in every religion and in every era of history(read the Bible, The Koran, Bagavad Gita, The Upanishads, The Torah, The Teachings of Buddha(Dharmapada), St. Augustine, Socrates, Hermes Trismegistus, The Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda, Sri Yuksteswar, Babaji, etc…..)
And Dr. Anne Wortham, while being a brilliant speaker and a well read intelligent person all around, offers absolutely NO SOLUTIONS in her tirades against our president(unless you count the retroactive solution of writing in Ron Paul’s name). We might not have all voted for Obama, but we should at least stand with him in this dark hour and help each other as much as we can. He’s already done more good for the people of this country than George Bush(another radical, southern bred Fundamental Christian by name only) has done in his entire life. It has been 42 days since Obama’s inauguration and almost 125 days since his election; quit crying about it and start or continue to make a difference in your own spheres of existence. If this country hadn’t been run so far into the ground by the white supremacists(Strom Thurmond, Dick Cheney, The Bush Family, etc..) then we wouldn’t have needed to elect a messianic leader. To say that every black person voted for Barack because he’s black is yet another ignorant racist belief, and only hinders the development of this nation and its people. Offer up some solutions, wavers of the banner of self-proclaimed intelligentsia, for the massive amounts of unemployed in this country. If Obama gives someone hope who had none before, then great!!! Better than an old white man whose solution to unemployment would have been building more nuclear plants and coal mines, further polluting and destroying the ecology of our planet…Wake up!!!!! The time is now!!!!! Read some books that you never thought you would read!!!! Love each other UNCONDITIONALLY!!!!! This was Yeshua’s belief and should be yours if you truly are Christians!!! Sincerely and with love, William
March 3, 2009 at 1:40 pm
For someone who calls himself ‘Billy Graham’ and tells Christians how to be Christians, you could learn a lot from the Christ you claim to follow. Your statement:
“There have been Christ consciousnesses in every religion and in every era of history(read the Bible, The Koran, Bagavad Gita, The Upanishads, The Torah, The Teachings of Buddha(Dharmapada), St. Augustine, Socrates, Hermes Trismegistus, The Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda, Sri Yuksteswar, Babaji, etc…..)”
flies in the face with the words of the Bible. It flies in the face of the words of Christ, who taught, “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (JOHN 14:6).
It flies in the face of the teaching of Peter, who told Christians – and ONLY Christians – “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy” (1 PETER 2:9,10).
It flies in the face of the entire message of God to the Jews: “and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel” (EXO 19:6). God repeatedly told Israel to set itself apart from the nations and their religious systems and be devoted to HIS NAME.
The idea that one can find salvation in any other religious system by some numinous “Christ consciousness” is false. There is no salvation in Hinduism, or in Buddhism, or in Islam. There is only salvation in Jesus Christ (“ACT 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.”). There is only salvation in those who call on the name of the Lord – “ROM 10:13 for “Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”
And I dare say you misrepresent Anne Wortham nearly as much as you misrepresent the Christian message.
It’s funny how you talk about “white supremacists” (mentioning the Bush family and Dick Cheny, even though there’s NO REASON WHATSOEVER to do so. George Bush did more for Africa than any President in American history by FAR, and it is simply an incredibly bigoted and frankly hateful thing to do to give him that hateful label) and completely ignore massive white supremacist history in the Democratic Party (Senator Robert Byrd, former grand vizier of the Klu Klux Klan; Governor Faubus of Arkansas, etc.). It really just goes to prove that you are the very sort of ideologue you rail against others for being.
Rather sad.
March 8, 2009 at 8:39 pm
She is a right wing conservative, what did you expect her to write about Obama? This story is only going around because she is one of the few African Americans who don’t believe in Obama’s politics. No big surprise there, so what is the news flash? Does not make her right. After 8 years of the Republicans this country is in the worst shape it has been in 80 years, and maybe since her history. I would have voted for change if it had come from a Black man, a woman, an Asian or a white man. That change would have to have come form a Democrat because in our 2 party system, the Republican party would have been more of the same. And that my friends may have ended this country faster than the end to Capitalism as you call it.
March 8, 2009 at 10:57 pm
You’re wrong about her being a “right-wing conservative.” She is not, and has never been, conservative. What she is is a liberal professor who despises the “messiah” view of Obama, and who despises the fawning over Obama as some kind of symbol for anything. You are wrong about all liberals loving Obama. I have talked with MANY liberals who supported Hillary Clinton and came to despise Obama. Does that make them “right-wingers”? Only for someone who prefers labels to thought.
The Democrats were in control of both houses of Congress for the last two years. If you want to say electing more Democrats was “change,” I can’t stop you. It was CONGRESS that was responsible for overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; and it was Democrats who allowed the stock of both to plunge 90% during their watch. It was Democrats who passed the Community Reinvestment Act that blew up our economy, and it was Democrats who expanded the process of giving mortgages to people who could not repay the loans. And it was Democrat Barney Frank – chairman of the House Financial Services Committee – who continued to say that there was nothing wrong right up to the moment his whole house of cards came tumbling down.
Giving total control to the Party that destroyed our economy? That’s “change,” all right: Others would have cared enough about self-preservation to get those bozos out.
Of course, the other “change” is investors pulling their money out of the market by the millions for fear of the ignorant socialist policies of the president you’re so happy with.
March 11, 2009 at 10:11 am
“I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared “progressive” whites who voted for him because he doesn’t look like them.”
So before Obama, Democrats & Republicans were splitting the Black vote…?
March 11, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Eddie,
On the rudimentary level, you’re right. Given that it was a Republican who freed the slaves at the expense of a costly war; given that the Klu Klux Klan was a Democratic political organization that went after Republicans with as much vehemence as blacks; given that Republican Eisenhower sent in troops to guarantee rights to blacks that were being systematically denied by a Democrat governor, I can’t explain why blacks so completely betrayed the Republican Party.
But they did – and as a percentage not a whole lot more blacks voted for Obama than had voted for Kerry in 04.
What Anne is outraged over is the messianic worship that they accorded Obama. And the weak-willed helpless “save us, Massah! Please save us!” attitude that blacks have come to exhibit toward their savior big government. She – as I – see a major shift having taken place in this country. We have come to believe that we need a nanny-state to help us do everything. And she – as I myself am – is livid about it.
March 11, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Michael,
Southern Democrats were the main force behind the support for slavery & inequality for Blacks and defected to the Republican party when the more liberal Democrats of the party supported civil rights movement & general equality for Blacks. Add to that major government initiatives that helped Blacks were instituted by Democrat Presidents, it is more accurate to say that Blacks felt that Democrats had their interests in mind rather than Blacks felt betrayed by Republicans.
Also, while DDE sent troops in, it was to enforce the ruling of a predominantly Democrat Supreme Court.
March 11, 2009 at 3:57 pm
What you are referring to was Nixon’s “southern strategy,” which was a cynical ploy to “grab” voters unhappy with the most liberal policies. On that level, it was about Nixon, NOT about Republicans. I would argue that the media – which by then was already well to the left in political philosophy, used that as a wedge issue.
To the extent that blacks want “civil rights” as they have been advanced by “civil rights” leaders who have dramatically turned away from Martin Luther’s “I have a dream” speech (“the content of their character, not the color of their skin” cf. race-based quotas and myriad different standards for blacks versus whites), that is exactly what Anne Wortham is talking about.
Bill Cosby is out. What he says about black people taking responsibility for themselves, and looking at what they have done TO themselves in their own communities is anathema to this crowd.
I stand firmly with Bill Cosby and those who think like him. By that standard, I firmly oppose “civil rights.” Meanwhile, the black community continues to go to hell. Drugs. Gangs. Black-on-black violence and predation. And something like 60% of black babies are being aborted – a literal genocide of blacks at the hands of blacks. If they want more of the same, they should continue voting exactly the way they have the last 30-40 years.
As for your last sentence, you’re right about the court – given that FDR had “packed” it. But Eisenhower did NOT have to send troops in. There was no law requiring that he do so, nor could the court order him to do so. He was not some liberal court’s lackey. And it is unfair to take away what HE did.
March 11, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Call his strategy whatever you want. It doesn’t change the fact that Nixon, as the face of the Republican Party, chose to play the middle on civil rights after two Democrat presidents made bold, defiant stands in support of it. To pro-civil righters, it looked like he was trying to reach a compromise on equality and that’s not going to win him or his party any support from those demanding full & immediate equality. That was the death knell of Black support for Republicans and the reason why Democrats are seen as the party that has the interests of Blacks in mind.
The Republican party offers nothing for Blacks b/c at it’s core, it’s the party that will sacrifice equality for more personal freedom, and the ones that usually have had to suffer that inequality have been poor and/or minority.
I agree w/ Bill Cosby too, but I would be very surprised if he agreed w/ Anne.
Let’s accept your facts at face value & assume the only reason that Blacks voted for Barack was b/c he was Black… Is it really that bad if, for no other reason, it breaks the mentality that creates the situations you described? How many mainstream successful Blacks can you think of that aren’t entertainers or athletes? It always amazes me how people underestimate the importance of role models in shaping someone’s views of themselves.
March 12, 2009 at 1:44 pm
What I pointed out was that the Republican Party had more than a century in which IT was the champion of freedom (for blacks and everyone else). And ONE brief period by ONE Republican was used as a propaganda wedge by the left to falsely create the view that Republicans were “racist” and Democrats were the real racial champions. And Democrats continue to falsely and maliciously play the race card to this very day as a club against Republicans.
It is vicious. It is evil. And black “civil rights leaders” are at the forefront of it.
We’ve now had decades of “Civil Rights” under Democrats, and for all your “those Republicans don’t care” argument, it has been the “caring Democrats” who have turned American blacks into dysfunction, dependent children who can’t possibly care for themselves. It has been the Democratic Party which helped self-serving black “leaders” turn totally away from Martin Luther King’s “dream” and warp civil rights into “please take care of us because we’re ignorant and helpless.”
I haven’t read the Wortham article in too long to compare/contrast her thoughts with Cosby’s, and don’t have time now.
But sadly today, the realistic “role models” of black people – due to warped “Civil Rights” and the Democrats – is a young girl whose had multiple abortions and doesn’t know who any of the fathers of her three babies are; a gang banger who kills policemen; and drug dealers. It’s incredibly tragic, and we’re going to continue to have that as long as blacks continue to support Democrats – and vilify anyone like Cosby OR Wortham who tries to offer an alternative – have any kind of credibility whatsover.
March 12, 2009 at 5:32 pm
You keep forgetting that the forces that kept Democrats as the anti-Black party for the 19th & early 20th century (the Southern Democrats) MIGRATED TO THE REPUBLICANS during & after the CRM. Everything that Blacks would have historically hated the Democrats for is a thriving part of the Republican caucus.
And since that migration of the S. Democrats, what have Republicans done to garner the Black vote?
-Openly embrace the deep south as their core when historically & currently Blacks look at the deep south as you most likely look at the inner city
-Openly defend the right of Southern states to fly the Confederate flag when it is as intrinsically tied to slavery as the swastika is to Nazis & the Holocaust
-Lead the opposition to making MLK a federal holiday… and those are just the ones off the top of my head.
Republicans have done nothing since early 20th century to garner Black support and nothing in their platform or ideology shows that if for some reason they did get the Black vote, they’d do anything to help Blacks.
And what have Blacks accomplished under the Democrats? A larger & faster growing middle-class, more representation in colleges & corporate America, more home-owners, more political activity & capital, more spending power… all in all, a positive trend.
But your view is the ‘popular opinion’ of Black society ie predominantly, if not completely, overshadowed by the negative images and ignoring the positive truths. So again, I don’t see a downside IF Obama was only voted for b/c of his skin color, if it opens the eyes of Black youths & ignites a fire to debunk the ‘popular’ view of Black society.
March 12, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Let me start with this gem: “Openly defend the right of Southern states to fly the Confederate flag when it is as intrinsically tied to slavery as the swastika is to Nazis & the Holocaust.” You must be talking about former Klu Klux Klan bigwig Sen. Roberty Byrd? Or were you speaking about recently elected Senator Jim Webb? And Nazi? You mean like the people who routinely shout down Ward Connerly because he apparently doesn’t deserve the right to speech? Or people like this guy who accuse him of every crime against the human race imaginable just for being a conservative black man? Do you mean those Nazis?
Tell you what: Barack Obama just got failing grades from a panel of economists. Which basically means that all he has to offer is to keep letting “his people” suck off the teat of the government welfare dole.
Why SHOULD Republicans give all sorts of goodies to lure black people or any OTHER people to vote for them? Why should they play that game? Your point presupposes that that’s the role of government – and flatly I deny that it is. I would argue that the government’s job ought to be to get the hell out of the way so that people can have the freedom to strive to the extent of their talent and their willingness to work. Tell you what: send me half your money every month, and I’ll tell you when I start becoming “ennobled” by being on the dole, and having someone else support me.
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/10628-Free-gas-for-my-car.html
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/02/10/obama-to-the-rescue
If blacks want to continue to exist in the cycle of dependency forever, than they know who to vote for. I mean, it’s a no-brainer: you want whitey to take care of you because you can not or will not support yourself, vote Democrat. If they ever decide that they’re tired of mediocrity, and want to strive for something better, they should also know which party to vote for.
And if they want to vote for a candidate just because he’s black, I hope they never again complain about white people similarly supporting whites. Racism is racism, and it ought to be wrong no matter what the skin color of the racist is.
March 13, 2009 at 11:51 am
‘You mean like the people who routinely shout down Ward Connerly because he apparently doesn’t deserve the right to speech? Or people like this guy who accuse him of every crime against the human race imaginable just for being a conservative black man? Do you mean those Nazis?’
What does this have to do w/ why Blacks don’t vote Republican? Nothing. It’s not even elected officials that are the perpetrators, where as it is elected officials that were defending the right of states to fly the rebel flag and in the next breath wondering why they can’t get the Black vote…
I love how people like you are so quick to cite examples of Blacks doing things, and then forget your own roles in benefiting from the same programs. 33% of those receiving welfare funds are WHITE, 37% are BLACK… so it seems that Blacks are NOT the only ones that “suck off the teat of the government welfare.”
And it’s not about giving goodies. If it was, Blacks would have left the Democrats when Clinton reformed the welfare system. But again, you’re more concerned w/ ‘popular’ opinion than truth & facts.
“Why SHOULD Republicans give all sorts of goodies to … any OTHER people to vote for them?”
Haha…are you really that naive? Why do you think the only politicians that look to reverse NAFTA are those trying to get the votes of those who lost jobs b/c of it? Politics, more than any thing, is about what can you do for me.
And again, this is another example of how you like to ignore your own party’s involvement or benefit from whatever goodies you want to claim that Blacks are dependent on. What government program is there that Blacks are the greatest benefactor of?
“If blacks want to continue to exist in the cycle of dependency forever, than they know who to vote for. I mean, it’s a no-brainer: you want whitey to take care of you because you can not or will not support yourself, vote Democrat.”
Yes… Blacks are the ONLY ones in a cycle of dependency. Per capita, Whites are just behind Blacks as the biggest benefactors of welfare, and in gross funds collected, are the biggest benefactor.
And for all your complaining, you haven’t offered ONE reason why Blacks should vote Republican. The nerve that you would think that Obama got the Black vote solely b/c of his skin color borders on stupidity. Did Al Sharpton get 90% of the Black vote in 2004? Did Obama get 90% of the Black vote when he went head to head w/ Hillary for the nomination? Have Blacks ever voted less than 90% for Democrats? No, no, no…but once again, ‘popular’ opinion in lieu of facts…
March 13, 2009 at 12:29 pm
What does this have to do w/ why Blacks don’t vote Republican? You didn’t appear to notice that Ward Connerly is black, and that the young conservative who wrote the article is likewise black. Being conservative is a damnable offense for blacks; they are called – in VERY Nazi fashion – traitors and worse. The system goes after them in a blatantly biased and propagandistic way. Would the media allow a liberal black to be so treated without making a peep? No damn way. You are also conveniently glossing over the fact that (besides a Ku Klux Klan grand pooba in Robert Byrd) I cited an article mentioning Democrat Jim Webb’s ties to the very Confederacy you so damn. Webb got elected because the media damned his opponent for his racism while ignoring Webb’s.
And it WASN’T Clinton who reformed the welfare system; it was Republicans. Clinton vetoed it two (and I think THREE) times before he realized the country wanted it – and then he took credit for it like the quintessential hypocrite.
Your paragraph: “Yes… Blacks are the ONLY ones in a cycle of dependency. Per capita, Whites are just behind Blacks as the biggest benefactors of welfare, and in gross funds collected, are the biggest benefactor” is interesting. Heck. It might even be true. But it sure flies in the face of what the mainstream media has argued. The propaganda media wants to claim that blacks were being left in the dust because Republicans are racist. Now you are acknowledging that that isn’t true. And that whites and blacks alike are both going through the same situation. So let’s just make sure you understand: you can’t have it both ways.
You seem perfectly okay with blacks voting for Obama because he’s black; so I hope you are equally okay with the white Southerners you’ve damned voting for a white candidate just because he’s white. What’s good for the goose, as they say. And it is also interesting that Obama won in several of those Southern states you’ve claimed were so full of racist whites whose votes Obama needed to win.
You see whatever you want: but this is what I saw: Barack Obama’s “value system” from his church of 23 years:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.
I would have similarly boldfaced the word “white,” but alas, it never managed to appear as a group that Obama’s church of 23 years gave a damn about. No Asians, Indians, Arabs, etc either, I couldn’t help but notice.
And I profoundly disagree with you: Politics should NOT be about “what can you do for me.” THAT is the attitude that will ensure that the United States – which in its greater years was about individual responsibility – becomes as mediocre as American blacks have become [note I say "American" blacks, because black people who come here from other countries are succeeding and excelling (one big example is Jamaicans) while those who embrace the values you are advocating continue to fail]. Other minorities, such as Indians and Pakistanis, get every bit as much “discrimination” as blacks, but come here and succeed. Government should attempt to create a level playing field and get out of the way; but that isn’t the government you seem to want; you prefer a government that gives some people stuff at the expense of other people.
People who wait for the government to give them a handout and take care of them will never amount to anything. And whenever that government teat is taken away, they will struggle and suffer because they don’t know how to take care of themselves.
P.S. I’ve noticed you haven’t so much as insinuated that I’m a “racist,” Eddie. And I want to make sure you realize both that I have noticed and that I appreciate it. But that’s just not the way Democrats are playing ball. Just today, Rep. Clyburn REPEATED his charge that Rep. Gov. Sanford is essentially a racist for not taking all the stimulus money.
That’s just where we are today. And the media has covered the news that way for decades. THAT is the reason why I believe that so many blacks vote Democrat. To the extent that a relatively small percentage of them additionally voted for Obama, I personally don’t really care. What I DO care about is that 57.4% of Obama voters had been so propagandized that they thought REPUBLICANS had been in charge of Congress the last two years, and that they were voting for “change,” and that sort of thing. What I DO care about is that the politics of the “race card” is repeatedly used as a club against Republicans with those charges picked up and trumpeted by the mainstream media.
March 14, 2009 at 12:08 am
Michael,
I feel sorry for you and your narrow minded, racist beliefs, and those people with whom you come into contact. Good luck on your quest for salvation through indirect experience(based on religious dogma and fear, instead of direct experiential spirituality) and lack of education. Read your bible a few more times before you embarrass yourself any further. I love you and I hope that you figure it all out before you pass on to the next life…Billy
March 14, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Boy, Billy.
For a guy who takes the name of a great Christian evangelist you sure are full of anger and self-righteous judgmentalism. For what it’s worth, I’ve never – EVER gone to someone’s blog and came after them with the kind of hatred and anger that you’ve come after me with. I just don’t have that kind of nastiness in my soul, I guess.
I have been in a discussion with another gentlemen who shares your much more liberal persuasion, and was pointing out how quick so many on the left are to immediately label their opponents as “racist.” And then you come along and post this, almost as if on cue.
I assure future readers of comments that I didn’t blow some kind of whistle. This is just the way WAY TOO MANY liberals are. You come after people like me with all this hatred, and narrow-mindedness, and intolerance, and viciousness – and you call me ‘intolerant’ while you’re doing it! It’s really an amazing study in hypocrisy. But only people capable of honest self-reflection will ever see that.
Let me just respond to you the way I respond whenever someone attacks me with the type of hatemongering you spat out: “my narrow-minded, racist beliefs”? Why what a narrow-minded, racist thing of you to say!
March 18, 2009 at 2:20 am
I enjoyed reading “No He Can’t” by Prof. Anne Wortham, and I am asking permission from you to post part of it on my blog (http://rowevings.blogspot.com) with a link to your site and the entire read of it.
I don’t have many followers yet, but that doesn’t bother me. I got here on your site through a link on another blog and I like what I have read here.
Thanks in advance for considering my request.
G.A. Rowe
March 18, 2009 at 1:24 pm
G.A.,
Welcome to blogging. If you’ve got conservative (or at least libertarian) views, I hope you stick around.
I myself merely found and passed along the pearls of Ms. Wortham. You may certainly feel free to post it. My goal is to spread the word around – to expose who is leading us and the disastrous policies being advanced – to anyone who will bother to read. And I hope Ms. Wortham’s goal is the same.
My major goal is to leave behind a record of what has happened.
April 10, 2009 at 10:43 am
Thanks, Michael!
I just read your blog after reading Anne Wortham’s article in an email…I appreciate that you were willing to patiently go the distance in this conversation!
She inspired me as well as Patriots as yourself do!
April 10, 2009 at 11:23 am
Thank you, SC Grandmother Patriot. I was at Fort Jackson for a while while training in the Army. Wonder if your grandson is military?
I can’t say I “patiently” go the distance. I get VERY impatient with a lot of the stupidity otherwise known as “liberal thought.” But I WILL go the distance, and will get up to fight every round.
Ann Wortham is a self-described liberal academic. I probably would have vehemently disagreed with her for most of her life. But she had one GIGANTIC moment of intellectual and moral clarity. And I thank her for putting it into words.
May 30, 2009 at 7:28 pm
I don’t agree with Mrs. Wortham in her view that Obama has ben elected and is running his administration on some type of political correctness feelings and notions. I think Obama got elected almost as a fluke. My opinion is if Bush hadn’t of gone into Iraq the Repubicans might have won the election. As it was a war yr, many might of stayed with the status quo. Though, a window of oppertunity appeared, for the Democrats. Hillary could of won as the first woman. Or as a very close election at least. Obama came out of no where and as an Afician Americian of honor and grace has out done the other players. Had the Iraq situation been put off or not not done at all, Bush’s popularity might have carried the day. We’ll never know. Though, a twist of fate, and Ophra’s endorsement inabled the man Barack to astonish the world. I see it only good for the country.
May 31, 2009 at 6:17 am
“Being politically correct is not just a cutesy attempt to make people feel better; it’s a larger, coordinated effort to change Western culture as we know it. Early Marxists/ Progressives designed their game plan long ago and continue to execute it today: Control the argument by controlling the language. Those with radical agendas understand that plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive public.” Glen Beck, “An Inconvenient Book”
Political correctness is a means of controlling/shaping the debate by controlling/shaping language and establishing their own subjective parameters as the new “norms.”
Was Obama’s election a fluke? It may have been, if the financial disaster itself was a fluke. Personally, I believe it was staged. Do you know what brought down the first giant financial institutions? Rumors. Rumors that were picked up and reported on CNBC and which spread like fire. Bear Sterns and then Lehman Brothers. When the CEO of Bear Stearns heard the rumor, he was puzzled. They had something like $25 billion in reserves. But it wasn’t enough to cover the run on them that followed. The reality is, Bear Stearns was no more leveraged than anyone else. ALL the institutions were in the same boat. And the rumor that befell Bear Stearns and then Lehman Brothers could have happened the previous month, or the previous year, or the previous year before that.
I personally believe the collapse was conveniently timed to favor Democrats. The message of, “It was all Bush’s fault, and McCain is just like Bush” is what ultimately changed the election.
And, of course, there were all kinds of lucky breaks. AND the liberal propagandistic media that WOULD NOT be fair.
It is, of course, ultimately a debate no one can really win, wondering WHY Obama is now our president.
June 1, 2009 at 7:22 pm
I just emailed this note below, to the friend who sent me your article. Then I looked you up on the net.
“If you have any way of reaching this amazing woman (I will look her up on the net), she needs to know that she is a stark raving genious. Her open-minded intellect is what I want for President of the United States….Maybe if we push her, she will run.”
I’m as serious as a heart-attack thinking that a brilliant woman like you should run for public office. It was my own dream from the 60’s that a black man would some day be President. I prayed for the walls to come down. When Hillary was running against him and lost (thank God), I prayed that he wouldn’t pick her for VP. I knew that if he did, he would be dead in a very short time, because she is as ruthless as they come (remember Vincent Foster…and there were others). Well, he was smart enough to recognize the dangers (obviously) and gave her another role to claim the support of her audience (the brainwashed, unrecognising “village people” that reaks of class differentials, etc. The Rhoads scholarship awarded to her husband, that reeks of class separation…In order to get it, you have to subscribe to and write about Cecil Rhoads Philosophy of life. He was an elitist personified, yet people are so impressed by the title of the scholarship, they neglect what it actually espouses.
Ms. Wortham, you are the type of individual that could put this messed up country back on track. Even if it is not in your adgenda to do so, I wish you well, in whatever you endeaver. You are remarkable and I’m glad I had the opportuntiy to read what you wrote.
Sincerely,
Donna Vernick
Teacher & Inner City Youth Minister
P.S. Our kids are our future and we still don’t get it.
June 2, 2009 at 7:48 am
Donna,
I’m glad you work with inner city kids. I get the sense they have and will continue to benefit from your wisdom, character, and teaching.
I have and will continue to hope for great black leaders – and for leaders of every degree of pigmentation. For such can only shine the spotlight on America as the land of the free and the land of opportunity for everyone who is willing to work hard to succeed. But since I am a conservative – and I do not believe that the color of one’s skin is as important as the content of one’s characters or the quality of one’s ideas or values, I am looking for conservatives of every color. And I most definitely despise identity politics, which is nothing more than a form of political correctness which seeks to force blacks, Hispanics, and others to identify with liberalism.
Ann Wortham focused like a laser beam on what is most profoundly wrong with the Obama presidency and with the civil rights movement in general. Neither are about empowering the individual; but rather both are a symptom of a community desperately looking outside for a savior rather than looking inward and saying, “What can I do to improve my life, my family’s situation, and my community?”
One of the great Christian leaders in 18th century London (and this takes any racial component out of the picture) went to the slums and said, “You need to look around you. You’re living like animals. Your wastes are piled in the streets and alleys. You need to start to care about yourselves and work to better yourselves and your surroundings. You have demanded that other people solve your problems; you must work to solve your own problems. And I assure you that when the upper classes see you striving to improve your neighborhood, they will begin to provide you with resources to help you.” And he was right. They did. The people cleaned up their own community.
When I read this article (and it’s been several months since I did), that was what I took from it. Take responsibility!
Ann Wortham hit that message out of the park in this article. And it is the most pressing message that the country needs to hear.
June 2, 2009 at 7:58 am
Thank you for sharing the quote from the Chrisitan leader in 18th century London. It is so powerful. What a courageous man to tell the people the truth.
You do an excellent job of articlulating truth and Conservatism.
June 2, 2009 at 8:33 am
HL,
For the official record: it wasnt’ a quote. It was my memory of the gist of an event that I read about. But it WAS powerful, which is why I remembered the story.
As long as people lived like animals, no one reached out and helped. London was beset by crime, filth, and moral filth like prostitution and drunkenness. When the residents began to be inspired to get involved to clean up their own acts, the wealthy pitched in significantly.
The problem is I don’t remember enough specific keywords to find the event using Google. Nor do I remember what book I read about it in (though I have a likely candidate in mind).
The London event is what every neighborhood, every community, and every town, city state, desperately need. Rather than whine for help while doing nothing, people need to start taking essential steps and THEN seek assistance.
June 7, 2009 at 2:38 pm
You are more versed in these things then I. If Bush wouldn’t of gone into Iraq at that time in that way then McCain probably would be the pres., is kinda what you said. And is what I said. You coupled the other factors like the media as a game player in it and other normal war politics thinking. And don’t get me wrong, I like your way of expression. Though to see political play in all these events is quite unreasonable, in my opinion.
You got to know the phase….” it’s difficult to please everybody even part of the time?”
To me, it seems we americians are in for a lot of civil strife for many yrs to come if we can’t get above the party politics type hating.
Look, not all us americans are christian believers. Therefore, any world view that is based exclusively on the truth of christ, or any religion, is kinda covered in the constitution…freedom of thought and belief though sadleed with some conduct ground rules. Though, still there is a degree of personal conduct and respect regarding each other and beliefs or non-beliefs, and behavior.
Come on. You mean to say the whole financial meltdown is a liberal strategic staged event to gain Obama, or at least a democratic president? And the left-leaning media networks in on it all?
You don’t think there are flukes?
There can be hope in these times. Life is actually getting better not worse. It’s the modern workings of the mankind, with technology and faster rising masses clambering to get a piece of the dream, wherever it is. That’s the highest achievement of a great society, when everyone else what’s to be like you. America is great, and, will always be great despite the problems and or the wrongs, in my opinion. Due to the high ideals, goals and struggles and abilities and resources so abundantly found in this land…we have shown the way…to the promised land. Peace on earth. Yeah, I know you’ll say, yeah right!!?? I mean a general peace, that things will work out and we shall overcome as a nation whatever may happen. Faith and hope.
Come on. Give a bit more respect in the “common man”. As, your story noted. Everybody has to at least take care of their own. And give a little bit more here and there.
Even with all this, you got to know, some folk in all places in the world, will still be problems. There will be bullies or criminals. Wacked out folk. Things need to be planned out as best can.
You seem to be all worked up over an overused/outdated train of thought.
Come on….Obama has won the hearts and minds of most of the world by now. Can’t you see any good will here?
We can at least say there’s a black man in the white house, and it’s a good thing. Even if he was a republican, it’ll still be good.
This could be one of the best things that could of happened.
You’re right. There’s no changing the past. Only the present & future will finish the story.
So’s let’s say “united we stand”. Rather than be “divided” and falling….for a while.
Why are you guys hating the liberal side of our society so?
Why have you lost hope in a modern americian dream?
June 7, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Doug,
You’re clearly a smart guy, but your comment spans through so many concepts it’s hard to respond. I’ll pick a couple of paragraphs that strike me as more fundamental:
It is first important to realize that modern conservatives are actually “classical liberals.” Go back to the founding fathers, and what you’re quickly find is that NOBODY wanted a gigantic federal government system that would have the power to intrude so dramatically into the rights of the states and the people like what we have today. Nobody.
There has rather been a movement, sometimes called “progressivism” and sometimes called “liberalism” that is 100% contrary to the classical liberalism of our founders. Woodrow Wilson, “the father of progressivism,” was a fascist when you look at his governance. And he was the first president who openly mocked the Constitution. He actually argued that we abandon our Constitutional form of government to switch to a European-style Parliamentary system. He worshiped power, saying, “I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.”
He abandoned classical liberalism, which viewed government as a necessary evil, or as a benign and voluntary social contract for men to willingly enter, and replaced it with a view that society was to be one organic whole. The latter left no room for those who didn’t want to “evolve” with the constantly evolving and constantly growing government.
Liberals can’t go to the clear literal/historical intent of the founding fathers; they must create a “living breathing Constitution” that essentially means whatever they WANT it to mean.
In a nutshell, THAT’S why we are “hating the liberal side of our society so.” Because it is an abomination of everything our Constitution was supposed to produce.
One other paragraph:
Go to my article here to see what is wrong with that view according to the founding fathers. I’ve got all kinds of statements of the founding fathers to demonstrate how necessary religion (by which they meant the Christian religion) was to the civil society. John Adams said it most powerfully: “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The founding fathers did not impose the Bible the way Islamic governments imposed sharia law. What they did was implement a Judeo-Christian-worldview-inspired Constitution. They KNEW that God and religion was essential to ANY doctrine of human freedom. Read the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence!
Essentially, our founding fathers had no intention of forcing you to become a Christian; but they had every intention of creating a country that made you live as though you WERE one. You can be a Muslim or an atheist here; but neither Islam nor atheism was the worldview that shaped this country – Judeo-Christianity was. And our history, our laws, and our Constitutional form of government reflect that.
Contrast that with the only officially atheistic form of government – communism. See the contrast between the freedom and liberty, along with the individual responsibility, of America versus the human-spirit and human-dignity crushing giant totalitarian government of any communist regime you care to name.
June 8, 2009 at 2:46 am
“Essentially, our founding fathers had no intention of forcing you to become a Christian; but they had every intention of creating a country that made you live as though you WERE one. You can be a Muslim or an atheist here; but neither Islam nor atheism was the worldview that shaped this country – Judeo-Christianity was. And our history, our laws, and our Constitutional form of government reflect that.”
Great insight and explanation of the truth of our nation’s founding and documents.
That is why is is SO DISTURBING AND INFURIATING to hear Obama and others say we are no longer a Christian nation and other statements that show an utter ignorance of our Founders and our Founding documents.
June 8, 2009 at 11:12 am
Socialists, Marxists, and fascists have always despised religion, and viewed religion as fairy tales.
And what is really the difference if one believes in one fairy tale rather than another? Hence they want a “moral equivalence” of religions, where one can simply spread them all out and say, “Pick a religion, any religion.”
I wonder how the WWII vets that stormed the beaches of Normandy would have reacted if Obama had told them they were fighting for Islam and atheism every bit as much as for Christianity back in June 1944? That IS what he did in his speech to “honor” them, btw.
The Constitution does NOT establish a “Christian nation” in the sense of demanding we be ruled by priests with the Bible for our laws. But that’s a straw man; we WERE founded under and according to the Judeo-Christian worldview, under traditions established under “Christendom,” and according to a Judeo-Christian understanding of history, morality, and law.
June 9, 2009 at 9:12 pm
hey, OK, the history of the western world is still going on and taking shape. I can agree with what you said re:founding fathers. Yes, we came from a Judeo-Christian path, with basic philosophical thoughts and ideas from Greece & Rome & Europe.
But we continue down the path of progress. As the greatest and most powerful nation the world has known, we are still on the cutting edge of freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (right to own property) for all mankind. Ideas and beliefs change with time and testings and logic. The common thread is humanity. We are all humans. Basically wanting the same things. A life worth living and fighting for with family, friends and associates.
Our ideals, legal & social ways have almost come to full flower. We are a multi racial multi ideal society based on common humanity and reason. Dog eat dog though dog respect dog. Kind of like a doggie park. When one mean dog gets outa hand something is done.
The western world at the founding was of course mostly Christian. The global world of today needs basic ideals, not another religious view, in my opinion. Christianlty is a historical fact with the good and the bad that comes with such huge events. As Islam is and appears to be for a while…a growing religion. Islam and it’s political ideas are faulty to be sure. And will burn out when much of the third world becomes modernized.
Yes, the clasic liberal is more like todays conservative, still religious in their thinking. And the progressive is the modern liberal, yes.
I still say america can survive and stay strong as a free-thinking society based on freedom principles., without religion as the basis. Most people use to think the world was flat, and, that the biblical stories were, say, gospel. Though, I’d say it’s bout 50/50 now. And in years to come it will change again.
It could be viewed as part of the beauty of america…..people not believing the same things though living the same ways. I believe we need to see our common grounds and common goals.
the humanist in the Valley
June 9, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Let me respond to this statement:
“I still say america can survive and stay strong as a free-thinking society based on freedom principles., without religion as the basis. Most people use to think the world was flat, and, that the biblical stories were, say, gospel. Though, I’d say it’s bout 50/50 now. And in years to come it will change again.”
Here’s the problem with that: apart from religious principles you don’t HAVE freedom; you have tyranny. That has been demonstrated over and over again. More than 100 million human beings were murdered DURING PEACETIME by regimes that were officially “without religion as the basis.”
The founding fathers understood that religious moral principles were essential for a civil society. And, while you describe society as “changing,” these principles of freedom, of individual liberty, of tolerance for others, DON’T change.
How do you get to the principles you want for a free and civil society based on the law of the jungle? How do you get a democracy based on “survival of the fittest”? Rather, what you get 100% of the time (because officially religion-free regimes have a 100% track record), you get the crushing of the human spirit.
Look at the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence. Understand that the founding Fathers were stating to the King of England that he had usurped their rights. And how did they frame their argument, that they even HAD rights to begin with? How did they argue that they had a RIGHT to demand something better? They depended upon religion:
God (namely the Judeo Christian God) is fundamental to their argument. He is the one who created us and endowed us with fundamental rights. The argument was that God had endowed men with these fundamental rights – of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – and therefore no human authority could take those rights away. And any man who did was a tyrant who could be deposed. And I would submit to you that we don’t HAVE such rights apart from God. We don’t have them today any more than 200 years ago.
Here’s another one: the ending of the Gettysburg Address:
You have men who died – who gave their last measure of devotion, to secure something. And those who survived needed to be dedicated to to that same something as well, in order to prevent the soldiers from having died in vain. What was that thing? Lincoln is grounding his argument in “this nation under GOD having a new birth of freedom.” In other words it is NOT a nation NOT under God that could have such a birth. What was it that Lincoln said was worth fighting to preserve? “This nation under God having a new birth of freedom.” And no other kind of nation.
Is there democracy in Islam? Go to Saudi Arabia and find out. The only place where there IS democracy is where we have IMPOSED it. In point of fact, true democracy is impossible under true Islam. But let me go further. It was the Christian British who imposed democracy in India. They ended the practice of sati/suttee – the practice by which wives had to throw themselves alive on their husband’s burning funeral pyre that was based on the Hindu worldview. Japan has a democracy today because Americans defeated one of the most evil regimes in world history and IMPOSED it. And while these things were going on we had a different experiment in Russia, in China, in Cambodia, in North Korea, in Cuba. How did THAT work out?
What I am saying is that Judeo-Christianity was ESSENTIAL to the formulation and foundation of American democracy. It supplied the necessary presuppositions or foundations which allowed American democracy to form. And you can’t simply pull out the foundations and assume the edifice that foundation supported will long stand.
As we become less and less religious, and less and less Christian, we are not just seeing more and more social degeneration and chaos. We are seeing our system itself devolve. We live in a world where “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” When you refuse to read our Constitution, our founding documents, our laws, in the spirit in which they were written and intended, you end up with increasing chaos, increasing division, and a slide downhill.
And we ARE going downhill.
An Obama State Department spokesman said, “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”
And on that view, the same is true of us. American exceptionalism is dead. Now that we no longer have the anchor that made us the greatest nation in the history of the world, we are just the same as the other 190 countries in the world.
Again, you don’t have to be a Christian to be an American. But if you refuse to genuinely respect the foundation and origin of our democracy, you will invariably be part of the usurping of the very freedoms you claim to desire.
June 10, 2009 at 3:43 am
Great response, Michael.
June 10, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Thank you, HL.
I think a lot of people – in fact the overwhelming majority – have been presented with a straw man that they bought.
The straw man is that to recognize that we were in fact founded upon a Judeo-Christian worldview is tantamount to claiming that we are a theocracy. That is a false dichotomy. Rather, we have a Constitution, a system of government, and a system of laws that themselves emerged as a result of something more foundational: the explicitly religious view “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,” without which every other edifice collapses; and the specific Judeo-Christian-informed moral, ethical, and cultural worldview of the Bible and Christianity. The compacts and charters that predate and inform the Constitution, sources such as Blackstone’s Commentary that had a profound influence on our legal system and our laws, and the state charters all testify to this.
While neither the US Constitution nor government has any businesses arguing theological issues (e.g. “Should baptism be by immersion or pouring?”), it must be open to and friendly with the religious worldview – especially Judeo-Christianity – as a major aspect of its governance. We were NOT founded as an atheist government; it is wrong to act as though we were.
June 11, 2009 at 6:29 am
Ann Wortham, thank you for your honest candor. I have worked with black people over many years of employment. Upon some of them I had to depend for the safety of my life (dangerous job). I’m white but never saw the color…just the man..with kids and a wife like mine. I have retired but I still enjoy seeing some of those guys to this day. My point is this. If we would stop looking toward color for our pride and start taking our pride from accomplishment, we would all be in better shape. And we would reflect our pride in electing the qualified to represent us in D.C. Thanks for your wake up.
D. Kirby-Michigan
June 12, 2009 at 5:31 pm
One of the things that outrages Ann Wortham is the identity politics that Democrats have used in a racist manner to pidgeonhole people into groups. If you are black, you should vote like a “true African-American” and support only Democrats and leftwing causes.
June 13, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Come on Michael, we’re not going downhill, in my opinion, we are going forward, and onward in the beauty of the human civilization.
There is morality without religion. It’s basic common sense, with an educated mind. The law of the jungle and the survival of the fit est works with modern democratic freedom and liberty and justice, with the introduction of the human mind through logic, reason and civility.
Sure the histories of the great human documents including the american experience had ideals, concepts and thoughts from the religions of their present tense. And all governments ruled by other means than freedoms and justice are flawed. Thoug, ours is a fairly new way to do it, isn’t it.
Come on Michael, you say our degree of freedoms is no more than 200 years ago?
Drive anywhere in america all along and I bet you can appreciate the freedom of having your own vericle and be in the jungle “so to speak”…and the sense of freedom is quite nice.
I believe a reasonable common sense person of sound mind can come up with the best ways to live and survive in the world. Some better than others can work/or/work/with their social systems to their own greater advantage. Then, we’ll always have a police of some kind…to keep eye on things. And keep the peace and the general welfare of the citizens of the earth, as best we can. I believe we need the whole world to care for the “world” the way it shall be. Therefore, those that see a future with a huge society and a small government is not being too reasonable. The shere size of our military and law enforcement systems is enough to ground me in the complexities. And then the courts, foods, international commerce…let along health care and facilities for family reunions, etc. etc…. for now and futures. It’s huge. I think folk aren’t seeing the huge fact that it’s got to be done, and will be done….for enerity on earth.
One nation undivided…is the goal. With you blasting away at every little thing regarding another american – Obama – and liberal/democrats…isn’t helping.
Like you said, “Classical Liberals” – to Conservatives today – to a future conservative arguing for the same as liberals of today – and a futher radical idea beyound that. I’m thinking we are at some unsurpassable limits of mass civilization, due to birth rates, and the ideas that lead through will be major pillars again.
God will always have a place in human endeavors. Though, the classical ideas of God probably will fade with more understanding humanity. As has been the case in history.
Keep the goods things, let some things go, move forward
as a more unified society. You know, the generational gap is much less today than in the past.
June 13, 2009 at 7:37 pm
You seem like a nice guy, Doug.
But you have your feet firmly planted in midair.
If our rights and freedoms don’t come from God, then where DO they come from? Human civilization, you say? Do you mean Joseph Stalin’s human civilization? Adolf Hitler’s? Kim Jong-Il’s? Maybe Charles Manon’s? Which human civilization do you mean? Maybe pre-British India’s which called for widows to throw themselves on their husbands’ burning funeral pyres in a practice called suttee? I could ask you why you’re so intolerant and judgmental of these other societies’ “human civilizations.”
The Columbine killers recorded themselves as saying, “We are no longer human, for we have evolved beyond human morality.”
And based upon what objective standard do you say that the “human civilizations” that do things you don’t like don’t get to represent “human civilization,” but ONLY what you LIKE does? Did someone die and make you God, as the saying goes? Where do YOU get off saying that Islamic terrorists or the People’s Republic of China don’t represent “human civilization?”
Nazism and Marxism used their conception of “survival of the fittest” and came up with something FAR more accurate to what Darwin described as the “struggle to survive” than anything you offer. Social Darwinism is the logical extension of Darwinism: If Darwinism applies to animals, and we’re animals, then it applies to us as much as it does wolves. And if “survival of the fittest” was what got us to this level of evolution, then why shouldn’t we continue doing what worked for four billion years? If we are strictly part of nature, then ANYTHING WE DO is “natural,” including rape and cannibalism. And the fact that you may not LIKE rape or cannibalism doesn’t really mean squat. Rape is just another way to propagate the genes. I’ve watched nature documentaries: it’s really quite a common practice in the rest of the animal world. As evidence of the “naturalness” of rape, biologists Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer have pointed to the incidence of rape throughout the animal kingdom.
You are literally suggesting that we live in a pretend world where we live as THOUGH there is objective morality even though everyone should know there really isn’t.
By contrast, the freedoms and liberties that societies such as the United States were founded upon – as I have already documented – came from the solid foundation of a Creator God who endowed us with a human nature, and objective standards of right and wrong. And EVERY human society and “human civilization” is held accountable to THAT standard whether they want to or not, and whether they believe in it or not. And as Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence, kings or rulers are to be held accountable to enabling the rights of his/her people according to THAT divine standard.
By the way, your premise is flawed. You argue that we’re less religious, and yet we have more freedom than ever. But Dinesh D’Souza actually demonstrates that the world is FAR MORE religious than ever. Please go here and read the article.
And, for the most part, the United States, which has been the most advanced and the cutting edge, has at the same time been one of the most religious countries in the world.
I know you mean well, Doug. But our ethics and morals have to come from somewhere. They have to have an objective source that grounds them. Otherwise, it’s “And every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”
Apart from a morality founded upon God, you invariably end up with only two options: the totalitarian scenario and the madhouse scenario. And those societies that are abandoning a God they once believed in still have a vestige of “the fear of the Lord” in their laws and in their culture. What is terrifying is what will happen to those societies when that fear (which ultimately means honoring God and His ways) is totally gone.
I would take you again back to those nations that have officially disavowed themselves of religion. Look at THEIR freedom. They murdered more than 100 million of their own people in peacetime. The Soviet Union collapsed. China just “celebrated” its anniversary of the Tienanmen Square massacre by shutting down the country. North Korea is building nuclear bombs while their people starve.
June 16, 2009 at 1:17 am
Assuming that election fraud was not a major factor in the outcome of that election, Barack Obama found a majority of voters in this country who are willing to squint and not see EVERYTHING about the man. They ignored his threats while a mere candidate (and not as empowered as he now is) to sue and imprison TV and radio station managers for running political ads showing him in an accurate light (which invariably with Obama is a bad light). They ignored his use of dirty money to build his political career. They ignored his confessed worldview as a professional victim, because too many of the voters in this country view themselves in the same way.
And now we have a leftist president and a leftist Congress ready and able to pull down our Bill of Rights in order to make it smooth and easy for them to remain in office. We have Adelman and Copps at the FCC twitching to reinstate the “fairness doctrine,” which has only been invoked by Democrats to silence outspoken critics of their policies (FDR and LBJ, specifically).
Happy now? Because the minute you summon the courage to criticize THIS president aloud, he won’t smile and let it roll off his back the way Bush II did. This guy has a very thin skin and a very mean temper when crossed (which accounts for the threats made to TV and radio station managers over the NRA-ILA ads). He doesn’t even have the good grace and respect for our Bill of Rights to be ashamed of what he did – he’s going to do more of it.
Homeland Security and the FBI will be much more oppressive than they were ever allowed to be under Bush, because the President told them to. Thanks loads for saddling us with this jerk, useful idiots.
I have to praise Professor Wortham for having the courage of her convictions, even though it may mean that she will begin to have trouble over things that didn’t matter before… but which are there and ready to be picked up and used in a rough game of political football.
June 16, 2009 at 1:36 am
Good comment, Loupgarous.
I wasn’t sure what the NRA-ILA ad business was, so I googled it. And found this.
Obama has shown he can’t handle criticism since someone made a comment about his ears during the campaign. And he’s never been anything but a pathologically narcissistic demagogue since then, IMHO.
If Democrats start putting people in prison for exercising their free speech – which is VERY possible for these “Fairness Doctrine” fascists – I hope they come for me in the first wave. Because, as you say, it takes courage to speak out in the face of certain reprisal.
I would rather be hauled away for speaking out than realize later on that I was a coward.
June 21, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Dr. Wortham:
This is not for publication. Speaking as a retired black US Army General, thank you for your wonderful article. I’ve written similar articles with similar conclusions, but none of them are close to your eloquence. Keep up the good work. America needs people like you.
Gen. Curry
July 19, 2009 at 7:51 pm
“I love how people like you are so quick to cite examples of Blacks doing things, and then forget your own roles in benefiting from the same programs. 33% of those receiving welfare funds are WHITE, 37% are BLACK… so it seems that Blacks are NOT the only ones that “suck off the teat of the government welfare.”
One small problem with those numbers…
Blacks make up roughly 12% of the US population, while whites make up roughly 80% of the population.
So, 12% of the population makes up 37% of the welfare rolls, while another 80% demographic makes up 33%.
I think you made your point perfectly clear.
July 19, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Vantrepes,
Great point.
Say there are 100 people in the “country.” 80 of them are white, and 12 of them are black.
Now, based on the welfare rolls of about 40% of Americans, about 13 of the people in our 100 person country are receiving welfare.
That means, of the 80 white people, 4 (4.29) are receiving welfare. Of the 12 black people, nearly 5 (4.81) are receiving welfare. So, five percent of whites are on welfare, versus forty percent of blacks. So, yeah, welfare is a white problem; but it is an absolutely MASSIVE black problem.
What is ultimately necessary is for the black community to stop blaming everyone else and start fixing the massive breakdown that permeates black culture in America. Jamaican immigrants come to the US and are quite successful; it’s NOT “anti-black” racism.
What we’ve got going is failed liberal programs and policies, and failing black communities depending on those failed policies and programs. The more blacks depend on failed programs and liberalism, the more their communities will fail. Because liberalism itself is a failure.
July 23, 2009 at 9:27 am
Mr. Eden,
Your site is wonderful, great discussion here. Not sure I sent this properly. I might have deleted accidently. Here goes again:
What a refreshing thing, to have someone simply speak the truth! I’m so repulsed by this man and his ilk lying to the American people daily! We aren’t all so childlike (or Leftist) as those who voted for him. We knew this was what we were going to get. The silence of those that voted for him is very telling; buyer’s remorse, guilt, and fear, perhaps, as they “wake up” from their fantasy.
God Bless you! Keep speaking truth, dear lady! You have put into words what every rational, informed person I speak to is thinking, including many high school, college and young working adults. A line has been drawn and it is now between morality believing, hardworking, responsible, patriotic, America-honoring citizens and those who do not honor what she was founded on and therefore want America taken apart, reworked into another failing political experiment by power hungry, arrogant, rotten individuals. No longer a courageous “City on the Hill”, a light in the dark, but instead another nation that turns “gray” in the hands of a group of narcissist that only want to lord power over us. This group that wants to lead us, loves not “The People”, any of us.
This divide cuts across all races and socioeconomic backgrounds. We are ALL touched by this terrible deception that is going on. You were right on target as you named the people, groups, schools, etc. You hit the bulls eye! You are a great role model of grace, dignity and courage for all concerned Americans.
America, have courage and use your voice, keyboards, phones, facebook, twitter, votes etc. and get this message out to the people, while we can. All of them!
July 23, 2009 at 4:08 pm
After reading pro and con–my biggest question—-obama is not a citizen of usa–our supreme court will not tuch it—is our constitution a law ? is it a problem to the democrate congress ? what will our laws stand for if we do not obey== only solution mass marches which we do not want–news papers will not print—afraid—is socialism the answer as we slowerly to give inn-I would at 94 years like to know my generations to come would not want a hand out but a self made free a man for what he is worth and love to all–thanks
July 23, 2009 at 4:26 pm
whcarlisle,
I’ve written a ton of articles about what a rotten deal Obama would be/is for the country, but I’ve never written about his citizenship – yet.
It’s hard to believe that if the man has a “long-form birth certificate” that he wouldn’t have whipped it out to say, “SEE? Are you SATISFIED?” A short form is simply too easy to get. And that’s all Obama has produced.
I have read that the White House has spent a couple million dollars to tell everyone how ridiculous this is rather than just show us the form. Just produce the form. That’s not too much to ask.
At this point, I figure that it is justified to assume he is not a citizen and treat him accordingly (like that Army Major did) until he produces the long form that would put the issue at rest.
July 23, 2009 at 4:44 pm
TX Lady,
Rosa Parks was a genuine hero for racism because she stood up against a white racist society (and in Alabama, it WAS) and said, “No.” Anne Wortham is a hero against racism because she stood up against a racist black society (and that’s what it has become) and said, “No.”
I wrote an article about Harry Alford versus Barbara Boxer’s liberal racism. He, too, is a hero. It takes COURAGE to be an Anne Wortham today. I truly hope she doesn’t regret her outraged and eloquent denunciation of what she has come to see as being so wrong with our nation and the black community.
I think Anne Wortham was so outraged because she sees so many terrible things going on in the black community: the abortion, the fatherlessness (and I argue that fatherlessness is caused by abortion, rather than a solution to it), the drugs, the crime, the poverty, etc. And she sees every move to actually DO what NEEDS TO BE DONE to solve these problems are opposed at every turn by a certain liberal racist mindset. And it was that mindset that elected Obama.
Now you’ve got Obama as the first “community organizer in chief” who is attempting to radically redefine America as he reshapes it. You’ve got a new framework for the country. You’ve got an emphasis on “social justice” that therefore needs to have massive social programs to GET to that “social justice.”
And “social justice” is defined as ‘equal outcomes’ to the abandonment of individual behavior and what people do to themselves.
Anne Wortham saw right through that. As a woman, and as a black woman, she has the wisdom to see that that path is just going to result in more excuses, and more dependency, on the part of the black community.
August 3, 2009 at 12:15 pm
This is for Anne Wortham,
I received your article as an e-mail and put it on my site:
http://www.takingamericaback.shutterfly.com
tab: You MUST read
scroll down: Anne Wortham
I totally salute your for this article, I sure wish everyone could read this.
I do not see a copyright, if I am missing it please forgive me, if you would like me to remove this article please let me know and I will do so immediately.
A friend,
Joyce
August 3, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Joyce,
The goal is to get the word out, to pierce the veil of the mainstream media and the leftwing blogs and explain the conservative vision. Ann Wortham hit the nail on the head of the “Government as God, Obama as Messiah” liberal worldview. The assumptions, implications, and consequences of Obama’s “vision for change” have to be exposed. And thanks for being part of the counterattack.
August 4, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Finally, someone who calls themself an American — not a Black American or a White American or an Mexican American, or African American, but “I’m and American.” Thank you Ms. Wortham — you are a true American! God Bless you! and GOD SAVE AMERICA! We need His help –not Obama’s help — II Chronicles 7:14.
August 5, 2009 at 5:44 am
I generally refuse to say “African-American” or permit hyphenated Americans.
If you want to be “African,” then get on a plane and fly east and a little south. You’ll get there and then you can call yourself “African” to your heart’s content. And more power to you, and good luck to you.
The only people I “hyphenate” is American Indians. And that is only to avoid the confusion with the far more numerous Indians from India. (Nor do I call American Indians “Native Americans,” because I’M a native American, too.
Anne Wortham exposes the sick soul of “African-Americans.” She doesn’t want “social justice” (which means take money from one person and give it to another). She doesn’t want reparations for something her great great grandparents went through. She doesn’t want racial quotas. She doesn’t want to live focusing on the color of her own or anybody else’s skin. She just wants to live in a society where people have the right to live up to their potential, and be held accountable for their failure to get off their butts and LIVE up to their own potential.
And that’s all any American should want.
Dueteronomy 5:29
September 10, 2009 at 5:07 am
Great article! But Michael, if you admire Joe Lieberman and buy into that phony war on terror crap you should love Obama. Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, how much more pro-zionist can you possibly get? AIPAC loves him, why not you?
Cheers
September 10, 2009 at 10:54 am
It is not if the free people of america are going to war against the socialist parasites. It is only when. We will not be delivered to our liberty on a feather bed. Be prepared for what is truely a life and death struggle for our liberty and our lives. Vote with your wallet and buy more ammo and arms. Every bit helps. Libertytreeradio on youtube for more videos and info. Check out Libertytreeradio.4mg.com for 24/7 patriot talk/music radio. MGK/GDW!
September 11, 2009 at 12:48 am
I’ve really got to just stand back and laugh at you, Tim.
Here’s an article entitled, “Israelis growing increasingly anxious about Obama policies.”
Here’s one entitled “Netanyahu: What the hell do they want from me?” about the impossible demands Obama is trying to put on Israel.
Here’s a Jerusalem Post article that covered a poll: “4% of Israeli Jews: Obama pro-Israel.” It cites the fact that 88% of Israelis believed Bush was pro-Israel.
The Weekly Standard answers the question, “Why don’t Israelis trust Obama?”
We’ve got Biden on the record saying that “Biden Reported Stating Israel Must Accept A Nuclear Iran.”
We’ve got the new US tone toward Israel: “Obama Administration Reveals New US Position On Israel: Cold Indifference,” with top Israeli officials being not only snubbed, but flat-out insulted.
Because of all this (and the figure is actually probably worse now), 1 in 4 Israelis would leave the country if Iran gets nukes (and they will). They know Obama will do nothing about it. That is why Israel will have to “go it alone” and attack Iran.
I could actually go on. But why bother?
It’s frankly hard to imagine how you could be more profoundly wrong. The Obama administration has made it abundantly clear that it has totally eradicated America’s “pro-Israel” stance that has defined both Republican and Democrat Administrations since Harry Truman in 1948.
The sad fact is that many liberal Jews are actually quite against Israel. Their liberalism defines them; not their “Jewishness” (and many of them aren’t even “Jews,” given they are atheists). Rahm Emanuel (and, yes, I know that a long, long time ago he did a stint of service in the IDF) is squarely in this camp of “liberal first.”
Your obvious anti-Semitic racism and bigotry is patently obvious. Facts don’t matter; only “reasons” that support hatred for Jews.
September 11, 2009 at 12:58 am
Mark,
I am a student of history. I know, for instance, that only about 10% of Americans became patriots and served their country during the Revolutionary War. I know that, in the year 1789, there were actually more “Americans” serving the armed forces of Britain than there were Americans serving under George Washington.
A small number of committed patriots cannot be underestimated. Their faith can move mountains.
I don’t know what will happen in the future. I believe a breaking point is coming, and I believe that Obama-liberals are going to try to take advantage of it (just look up “Cloward-Piven strategy” for details). When our system collapses, liberals will immediately try to force even MORE of the big government socialism that imploded the system to begin with. People will be panicky and hungry, and demand that the government help. Liberals are already planning to use that panic to create their new “Utopia.”
Whether we will have to resort to armed struggle to defeat this movement or not is anybody’s guess. I pray that we will be able to avert it before it comes to that. But the time is short, and that prospect is becoming dimmer. Every five days we add another hundred billion dollars in debt.
November 11, 2009 at 7:11 am
Oh Please. She has studied the positions and oppositions of W.E.B Dubois versus Booker T. Washington, and picked a side. Tell us something we haven’t heard before.
November 11, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I hadn’t previously been aware that W.E.B Dubois and Booker T. Washington had talked about Barack Obama. Learn a new thing every day, I guess.
Anne Wortham struck a chord, and she continues to strike a chord. Her outrage over the fact that she watched her community crying out for a now-demonstrated-to-be-a-failure Obama to save them like he was some kind of Messiah outraged this self-motivated woman on a personal gut level. Her cry is, “Take some responsibility for YOURSELVES!”
Has anyone ever said, “Take some responsibility for yourselves” before? Well, duh. But she made her cry unique because it came right from her gut.
November 11, 2009 at 8:03 pm
I can say that I am a student at Illinois State University, and having a teacher like this is damn near crazy. I thought that Ayn Rand was taught as an addendum, a cautionary tale for Reagan enthusiasts to keep their inner genocidal maniac on a leash. Little did I know, there were respected (sort of) people who believed in it.
Well, I hate to sell you the bitter pill, but to criticize Obama for whittling away your “freedom” after 8 years of Bush actually taking big chunks of it is sort of silly- what has he taken away your freedom to do? Be free from wiretapping? Oh, that was the PATRIOT Act. Your freedom from excessive debt? No, the Iraq war will keep us on the Chinese doll for some time to come. How about our collective ability to remain both in a position of economic power and political leadership? Well, you’ll really have to blame that on capitalism, because while you can have money or morals, you just can’t have both.
I was actually turned onto this blog by a fellow student in this teacher’s class- if my understanding of her silly teaching methods is correct, she probably won’t last through the year of student reviews.
November 12, 2009 at 2:54 pm
For the record, Anne Wortham never says a single word about Ayn Rand (or Ronald Reagan, for that matter) in her article. Johnny is engaging in the intellectually dishonest tactic known as the “straw man” argument. He attacks Wortham’s article by attacking stuff that have nothing to do with Wortham’s article.
I feel sorry for you, Johnny. You’re talking about a bad teacher? sounds to me like you’ve never had a single good teacher in your entire life.
That’s a perfectly valid thing to say – if you are a Marxist who has never understood how the real world works. Otherwise it is utterly ridiculous. Oh, no, there cannot even be a theoretical possibility for your ilk that a person can have an honest business that makes a lot of money providing a good product at a good price. Somehow they must be exploitative and evil.
I hope you don’t plan to go to work ANYWHERE in the private sector – or for that matter anywhere in the US where even the GOVERNMENT is funded by the private sector – because otherwise you’ll be just another hypocrite working for a greedy system. You really should go to happy, prosperous North Korea where your ideas will fit right in, but of course you won’t.
You clearly had a terrible education with all KINDS of bad teachers to make absurd statements like that.
Your statement,
demonstrates what a narrow-minded and ignorant ideologue your “education” with those lousy teachers has made you. Some people who have a clue would admit that Reagan brought down the most evil and oppressive government in the world – one which crushed the human spirit and dignity of its own people and exported its dehumanization globally. But not you. Nope, “Mr. Student,” you don’t have the first clue. If you had any common sense, you would contemplate the 100 million body count of communism, and denounce that instead of Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy – who BOTH worked to defeat the most evil system in history.
If you’re going to be fool enough to denounce Reagan as a “genocidal maniac,” you might as well denounce the president whom nearly all Democrats say was the greatest president in the last sixty years. And all you have to do is ignore the 100 million human beings the REAL genocidal maniacs murdered.
And I have to simply MOCK you for calling Reagan a “genocidal maniac,” given that you defacto support Saddam Hussein staying as president for life of Iraq. US AID has discovered the remains of 400,000 of Saddam’s own citizens buried in mass graves. And there are a bunch of other graves that they’ll never find. He waged a war against Iran that claimed the lives of Allah-knows how many people. He brutally invaded and raped Kuwait. He created the largest ecological disaster in human history by deliberately setting the oil fields on fire. And you’re just sorry he’s gone.
The anti-Reagan junk aside, you should be aware that very few conservatives are followers of Ayn Rand. Rand was an atheist who denounced Ronald Reagan over abortion. I most definitely am not a follower of Ayn Rand. Most of her philosophy is repulsive to me, just as it is repulsive to anybody who derives their moral/ethical system from God and from religious foundations.
Let me put it this way: you despise Ayn Rand for her laissez-faire attitudes supporting free market capitalism; I hope that you are consistent and despise her for her celebration of personal freedom and individuality at the expense of government power that homosexuals enthusiastically endorsed.
I simply reject as absurd your throwing Ayn Rand at me, Reagan, conservatives, or anybody else, and then ignoring the stuff she put out that you very likely support. That is just plain intellectually dishonest.
Hate to burst your bubble, but Iraq is a drop in the bucket compared to the debts that Obama Democrats are racking up now. It’s $694 billion – still behind the cost of the Vietnam War that Democrats got us into and a Republican got us out of. Quite a lot of dough, but nowhere close to the $3.27 stimulus porker (according the the CBO’s estimate of the real cost of the stimulus) that hasn’t created any jobs, trillions which Obama racked up within what, 3 weeks of taking office? Can’t blame Republicans – 236 out of a total of 238 Republicans OPPOSED it.
Republicans are terrible spenders who are irresponsible to run the country. That is, unless you compare them to Democrats.
And that of course isn’t counting the health care fiasco that he’s trying to foist on us.
Obama is racking up debts in just one year that rival Bush’s entire 8 years of deficits COMBINED.
It’s funny that your still whining about the Patriot Act. The funny thing is that now that Democrats are in total control, we STILL have it, still have wiretapping, still have rendition, still have virtually everything that you demonized Bush for. It’s amazing to me that you can’t stop yourself from blaming Bush. If liberals were opposed to these things, they would have ended them. Hell, we even still have Gitmo.
But the funniest thing of all is that for all your hatred and hostility toward Anne Wortham, you haven’t even TRIED to as much as DENT anything she said in her article. No, you’ve just focused on irrational tirading that has nothing to do with anything she said, instead.
Fwiw, Obama has expanded government more than any president since FDR. And (and it’s too bad you never had a good teacher or you’d know this) government is force. If you don’t do something the government says you have to do, pretty soon someone with a gun and a badge shows up and hauls your butt away.
And fwiw, Nancy Pelosi’s version of Obamacare has more than 3,400 occurrences of the word “shall,” which means that YOU shall do whatever government says, and government just gave itself a host of new roles.
So, yeah, Obama is busy taking away our freedoms.