Is U.S. Ready For Second Black Leader?

Charles Hurt wrote an interesting article in the Washington Times entitled,

"Is U.S. Ready For Second Black Leader?"

In posing the question, Mr. Hurt reminded us how the Democratic Party and Liberal idealists have blatantly attacked both blacks and whites, labeling them racists merely because they disagreed with their own personal philosophies. From Clarence Thomas to Herman Cain, "pulling the race card" has been an acceptable method of operation to divert attention from their failed ideals.

While there are far too many ignorant, bigoted, narrow-minded sociopaths in this country that judge people by their appearance or the color of their skin, I have found that most of the population of the United States accepts people for what they do and who they are. We all have apprehension when we are introduced into a new environment such as moving to communities where the dominate religion is not our own or the majority of the people are a different color. This concern doesn't mean that we are racists. It is just the process of being stretched out of our comfort zone. After we have time to acclimatize, we learn to love and appreciate our new home and associations as much as the last place we lived.

In a recent article I wrote, Americans Are Not Racial Cowards, as a rebuttal to the comment by Attorney General Eric Holder where he said that,

. . . in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.

I identified who a racist is:

A racist is a person who identifies or defines people by their race, whether they discriminate against them or not. We will never be a nation without racial, sexual or economic boundaries until we ignore these boundaries.

In an effort to teach the truth of this concept I ended the article with the following analogy.

Four states, Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico, all meet at one common point. The sand, air or vegetation around this point is the same for miles in any direction. The only difference between these four States is in our minds, not in the dirt.

There is no better way to create unity in our country than for people to work shoulder to shoulder helping someone else. These situations can not be mandated by government. It is necessary for those confident in their own identity to cross artificial lines in the sand so others can follow. Mr Holder can and should step forward as a man, as the Attorney General, as an American, to fight for equal treatment under the law for all. Justice is blind to our differences, but smiles at our similarities. Only as we are blind to our differences will we begin to sense the symbiotic strength in our similarities.

I supported the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court because he believed in the principles I uphold in our Constitution. It had nothing to do with him being black and I was not disappointed.

I didn't support Barack Obama as President of the United States because I do not agree with his idea of changing our country into a Socialistic State, an idea that has never succeed in any country in the world, ever. It had nothing to do with him being black and I have been thoroughly embarrassed by him.

I would support Herman Cain if his ideals for this country center around hard work, sound fiscal practices and ethical political leadership whether he was black, white or green. I don't care if our President is White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, Male or Female. As long as they are born and raised in this country, have a love of the constitution and the tenacity to defend it, I will throw my support and vote behind them.

If not, I will look for another candidate.

Also of interest, "Wanted, Real Leaders"

Putting Homosexuality into Perspective

There has been so much talk, so many accusations regarding homosexuality, that the basic principles and premises have be lost in the cloud of rhetoric.

On one hand, there are the religious fundamentalists, who, citing God as their resource, condemn not only the action, but all of the participants as well. This non-Christian attitude gives rise to bigotry, gay-bashing, acts of hate and violence and ultimately deprives the promoter of compassion, tolerance and charity, that pure love of Christ.

On the other hand, with the homosexual adherents, there flourishes whining cries of persecution, accusations of homophobia and the irrelevant shouts of the depravation of civil rights. More damaging than these is the promotion of sexual promiscuity and the de-valuation of the family.

Putting aside all the charges and counter-charges, there are a few simple principles that should put the issue into perspective.

1. There is, has been and always will be a difference between the act and the perpetrator. We can and should abhor actions that are wrong, destructive and damaging to mankind, but we always need to separate the revulsion for the act from the participant. When we become disgusted with the person, we alienate and ostracize them from society. Without a tie to society, there is seldom enough motivation for a constructive change to take place. In other words, condemning the person is a death sentence for reformation.

2. There is no such thing as a "hate crime." A crime is a crime, regardless of the state of mind of the criminal. What the two men beating Matthew Shepherd were thinking or what motivated them to act did not lessen or increase his pain, trauma and ultimate death. When a "God fearing Christian" makes derogatory remarks, spits or hits a gay person, it is no different than if they did the same thing to a white, Black, Asian or Jewish person. There is no justification or excuse for such behavior.

3. Relationships between people of the same sex are not only easier, but they are good. They provide common elements, attitudes and understandings that can help each of us to better cope and enjoy life. The problem arises in the misconception that sexual activity is a basic human need that can be satisfied with anyone or anything, in virtually any setting.

Sexual relationships outside the bonds of a heterosexual marriage, never brings the happiness and enduring satisfaction the participants are seeking. Sexual activity stimulates a hormonal change in us that bonds a man and woman together and facilitates a lifelong partnership in addition to perpetuating our species. It is an important element in making a heterosexual relationship endure. In any other setting, sex is destructive and dangerous.

4. Homosexuality is a choice, not chance. As discussed in #3, we by nature develop friendships and relationships with those of our own sex, but having a sexual relationship with them is a choice that is made, not a fate that is executed. There are those who have a predisposition or tendency to a same sex relationship, just as there are those who are predisposed to become adulterers, alcoholics, drug addicts, child molesters or any other negative behavior.

This in no way excuses one from submitting to attitudes and actions that will eventually bring pain, humiliation or death to you or others.

5. Too many times, those who do transgress the social mores, complain that they are not welcome in the company of those they offend. Of course we are not welcome if we promote concepts or attitudes that are contrary to a group. I raise the question, "Why do you care if the ‘opposition’ doesn’t accept you and why would you want to be accepted by those who oppose you?"

If an organization does not believe the same as you, how can you be offended by not being invited to attend? How many Jews have complained that they are excluded from Neo-Nazi groups or how many Blacks have sued the Klu Klux Klan for admission? The only justification for such action is seeking acknowledgement for a behavior they know is wrong, but want to continue.

For that, there is no protection under the law.