RC Pirate Forums
Patriots for America
We Surround Rochester
Aug 28, 2010, Washington DC
Friend of and contributing author to RochesterConservative.com, Rev. Dr. Tommy Davis gave me a heads-up on a very informative article on his blog, Republican Review of America, that’s titled “The Great African-American Awakening”. Please take the time to read it:
The Great African-American Awakening
Here’s an excerpt from this great article by Myron Magnet:
Why do so many blacks, especially men, find it so hard to grasp the opportunity that is theirs for the taking? Why are “so many of our black youth squandering their freedom?” Cosby and Poussaint’s answer is that the social structure and culture of poor black neighborhoods distort the psychology of the children who grow up there, often shackling them in “psychological slavery.” The authors zero in on the permanently destructive effects of fractured families and slapdash child rearing—much more slapdash than middle-class parents, with their years spent nurturing, encouraging, and cajoling their children, could easily imagine. “In the neighborhood that most of us grew up in, parenting is not going on,” Cosby told the NAACP. “You have the pile-up of these sweet beautiful things born by nature—raised by no one.”
Certainly their fathers aren’t raising them. That 70 percent illegitimacy rate, troubling in itself, isn’t evenly distributed but is concentrated in poor neighborhoods, where it soars above 85 percent and can approach 100 percent. “A house without a father is a challenge,” Cosby and Poussaint write. “A neighborhood without fathers is a catastrophe.” That’s because mothers “have difficulty showing a son how to be a man,” a truly toxic problem when there are no father figures around to show boys how to channel their natural aggressiveness in constructive ways. Worse still, the authors muse, “We wonder if much of these kids’ rage was born when their fathers abandoned them.”
All POW-MIA
14 responses so far ↓
1 diogenes // Aug 4, 2008 at 11:14 am
Hey, wait a second! That’s exactly what Barack Obama says.
Good to see your endorsement.
2 rochester_veteran // Aug 4, 2008 at 12:25 pm
diogenes,
Rev. Dr. Tommy Davis is a conservative and is no fan of Obama’s radical/socialist leanings. Tommy, Bill Cosby and Alvin Poussaint are not advocating for nanny state solutions for the socialist induced problems the inner-city neighbhorhoods are experiencing, they’re advocating that claiming responsibility for one’s actions and self determination is the answer for reducing or eliminating the problems. Here’s a passage from Bill Cosby in the article:
Sure, racism hasn’t vanished, Cosby acknowledges in his 2007 book Come On People, a follow-up to his speech written with Harvard psychiatrist Alvin Poussaint. “But for all the talk of systemic racism and governmental screw-ups, we must look at ourselves and understand our own responsibility.” Even with lingering discrimination, “there are more doors of opportunity open for black people today than ever before in the history of America,” and “these doors are tall enough and wide enough” for just about all black people “to walk through with their heads held high.” So while “there are forces that make the effort to escape poverty difficult,” African-Americans are by no means merely the playthings of vast forces and helpless victims of racism. “When people tell you, ‘You can’t get up, you’re a victim,’ ” Cosby warns, “that’s when you know it is the devil you’re hearing.”
3 diogenes // Aug 4, 2008 at 2:43 pm
What Cosby and Pouissant say is no different than what Obama saidon Father’s Day. I heard Cosby on various TV shows defending and agreeing with Obama, especially when Jesse Jackson started in with his criticism of Obama.
4 phantomlord // Aug 4, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I don’t think anyone here will reject the right message just because someone else said it (unlike Governor Paterson who proclaimed last week that NY’s problems are not due to the welfare state since Rush Limbaugh cited that as its failing, but because we’ve driven out manufacturing and become a “social services economy”).
Obama was right to say black fathers need to actually be fathers to his children.
Obama is just as wrong when he says that the way for the rest of us to help black families (and the poor in general) is by piling on more socialism since it will only further aid them in abdicating their self-responsibility and stripping them of self-respect. Welfare was the key program which brought the black family from one of the closest knit to the current state. More welfare isn’t going to fix it. That’s like saying the solution when you’re bleeding to death is to slice another artery.
5 rochester_veteran // Aug 4, 2008 at 3:20 pm
The problem with Obama’s credibility in this matter is his membership of a congregation, Trinity United, whose pastor, Jeremiah Wright, preached racist “hate whitey” Black Liberation Theology and Obama attended services there for many years. Obama had similar relationships with the racist and antisemitic Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan and Liberation Theology adherent, Father Phleger, funneling funding to Trinity United and to Father Phleger, all of whom preach the “victimhood creed”.
Obama sought those radicals out and has some ’splaining to do.
6 diogenes // Aug 4, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Hey, I was just reading what you posted, not every aspect of American life. The stuff YOU posted about Cosby and Pouissant is no different than anything Obama said on Father’s Day. If you want to drag in all of Obama’s policies on other things, go ahead, but that isn’t what YOUR post talked about. The original post never once referred to Governeor Paterson, Rush Limbaugh, Jeremiah Wright, Black Liveration Theology, the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, Father Pfleger, etc etc etc
Phantomlord, at least you gave Obama credit for saying the same stuff, but you then asserted that Obama advocates “piling on more socialism” as a remedy. Funny, but I don’t recall Obama once using the term “socialism” so I’m not sure what you’re referring to. The only thing that remotely comes close to this asssertion is that, in Obama’s opinion, tax benefits and government programs should be re-structured so that it rewards balck fathers who “do the right thing” and be responsible fathers. That doesn’t sound too socialistic to me; it sounds like smart government.
7 phantomlord // Aug 4, 2008 at 9:29 pm
“Universal Health Care” = socialized medicine with a name that tries to cover up the fact that it is socialism. Obama is a rather large proponent of it.
Telling poor people, including poor black people, that you think so little of them that they can’t take care of their health care just pushes them further down the road to government dependence rather than self-responsibility. Are health care costs an obstacle? You bet… but it’s an artificial obstacle created by 45 years of government interference in the industry. The solution isn’t more government, but rather less.
As for the reference to Governor Paterson, I like to tie things in together so we see the hypocrisy of what people do and say… and how all that really matters to many people is who said it rather than the validity of the message. If people spent a little more time thinking about things for themselves rather than simply cheerleading for their team, we’d all be far better off. That goes for liberals, conservatives or any other group.
8 diogenes // Aug 4, 2008 at 11:55 pm
But Obama isn’t promoting “universal health care” he’s supporting “universal health insurance coverage”. Big difference. He wants to make sure that every American has the opportunity to access affordable health insurance. That has little to do with how medical care is provided, so it’s not the “socialized medicine” that Rove et al try to scare us with. And, while you might say that universal health insurance coverage is the first step towards universal health care, all I can say is “Not necessarily.” Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes universal health insurance coverage is just universal health insurance coverage.
9 phantomlord // Aug 5, 2008 at 10:26 am
Mandating that I spend my money the way you want me to, rather than the way I want to, is still taking my freedoms away, my right to choose what is best for myself, etc.
If I said “everyone over 18 must buy and maintain at least one firearm and purchase at least 100 rounds of ammo per month to ensure their physical safety,” you’d see the problem with mandating expenditures. Oh sure, I don’t force you to buy a high end rifle with expensive ammo, but I’m forcing you to buy something you don’t want because it falls in line with my beliefs.
The government created the high cost of health care with the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid. Seeing an immediate spike in the cost of health care and a drop in those who could afford it, rather than end the interference which caused the problem, the government then created the HMO industry… which in turn only caused the price to spike more with more people unable to afford to see the doctor. So, here we are again with the same question. Mandate yet more insurance, which will increase the price even further and make it harder for young working adults to make ends meet, or reduce the interference with medical care.
Government, especially the federal government, is not a service industry. Can you find me any authorization in the Constitution which allows them to institute national health care plans, Ponzi retirement schemes, allows them to dictate what/how your local school districts can teach, etc?
10 diogenes // Aug 5, 2008 at 11:42 am
Dang, so what you want is to go back to the “good old days” when men were men. Like the 20s. Before “socialism”. BeforeMedicare and Medicaid. Before Social Security. Before the New Deal.
Right before the Great Depression.
11 phantomlord // Aug 5, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Did you know that the nation debt isn’t $9 trillion, but over $80 trillion and that in 2017, the remaining $71 trillion starts coming due? That $70ish trillion difference is what is already owed to people who paid into Social Security and in 2017, the trust starts paying out more than it takes in.
In 1965, we began spending the excess Social Security taxes to cover the budget debts already being caused after just 2 years of Medicare/Medicaid and it got worse from there with the addition of the Great Society programs to fight a never-ending “War on Poverty.” We’ll be forced to either dramatically raise taxes on current workers (making it pointless to work) or drop benefits for people receiving Social Security.
The Soviet Union collapsed under its own economic weight… and while we’ve managed to delay that collapse, the US is facing the same future because we have the same fundamental problem – too much government interference in the economy in an attempt to provide services to everyone.
The Great Depression happened because of the exact opposite reason – too little government regulation in the economy resulted in people like Charles Ponzi scamming millions from others. We created the SEC in response and years early, wrote the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Those are great examples of the federal government using its power to regulate interstate commerce (the actual purpose of the interstate commerce clause).
The programs created from the New Deal and Great Society are blatantly Unconstitutional and violate the very notions this country was founded on. The last thing the framers wanted was a distant government telling you what you could do, how you can live your life, what doctor you could see, how much it was going to take from you, etc. The new the consolidation of power would breed corruption and that’s why the Constitution was written by specifically enumerating the powers of government rather than listing what the government couldn’t do.
Article I, Section 8 clearly defines the powers of the federal government… and I don’t see retirement, health care, education, etc in there anywhere… do you?
12 diogenes // Aug 5, 2008 at 4:15 pm
LOL. Not going into that debate. Without the New Deal, there wouldn’t have been anybody left to defend the Constitution.
And if we have a deficit so large, what are we doing spending $100 million a week in Iraq?
13 phantomlord // Aug 5, 2008 at 5:11 pm
There’s an argument to be made that the New Deal actually delayed the economic recovery after the depression by interfering with wages, keeping them artificially high despite high unemployment, limiting agricultural production to keep food in short supply and prices high, removal of the gold standard an injection of fiat currency which increased inflation, etc. Sure, there were good things about it, like the SEC and FDIC, but it wasn’t the help that many true believers would make it out to be. In fact, it set the precedent for a lot of the problems our government faces today between a completely devalued dollar, the exponential growth of government, entitlement programs we increasingly can’t afford, etc.
As for the deficit… I agree, we shouldn’t be deficit spending. We should be on a plan to reduce and ultimately eliminate all Unconstitutional federal spending. The cost of Constitutional spending, including the war in Iraq – something the federal government has explicit, exclusive control over, is about $951 billion of the projected $3091 billion budget and that’s including whatever pork is part of things like the transportation bill, so it’s actually lower than that if we eliminate the pork too. Unconstitutional spending, including education, health, retirement, agriculture, etc totals about $1826 billion. Remind me again… which is the real problem, the war spending or the runaway entitlement spending?
14 Dr. Davis // Aug 14, 2008 at 11:35 am
Economics is a subject that I have dedicated plenty of study. Please read the article at the link. It is important to know that many of the left wing policies are repackaged failures that will lead us down the wrong path if we are not careful.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=515
Leave a Comment