The Federal Government Can't Continually Dole out Jobless Benefits

(USA Today) The U.S. Senate cleared the way for 2.5 million out-of-work Americans to start receiving unemployment checks again, breaking a Republican roadblock minutes after swearing in a new senator.  Senators voted 60-40 Tuesday to overcome a Republican filibuster, setting the stage for a final vote today to restore benefits that began running out at the end of May.  Two Republican Senators--Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, broke with the GOP to support the jobless benefits extension.  One Democratic Senator, Ben Nelson, broke ranks with the Democrats to support the GOP.  After a Republican minority blocked this critical aid to America's families three separate times, the Senate moved forward on restoring benefits to the 2.5 million Americans.  Democrats were able to secure the 60th vote when Carte Goodwin was sworn in to replace Robert Byrd (D-WV), who died June 28.  The legislation would extend benefits through November and retroactively cover those whose benefits had expired.  The House could pass the bill as early as today and send it to President Obama for his signature.  Republicans claimed they wanted to help the jobless, but only if the bill's $33.9 billion price tag could be offset with budget cuts elsewhere.  The extension would add $826 billion to the country's debt over the next 10 years, according to the Treasury Department figures analyzed by the liberal center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Since the economy tipped into a recession supposedly around December 2007, Congress has extended unemployment benefits for up to as long as 99 weeks.  There have been arguments that continuing unemployment benefits will discourage jobless workers from finding employment.  Unemployment benefits is becoming the new entitlement in America.  I recognize there are Americans that live in states that are economically depressed.  I understand there are those that need help due to the fact it would be difficult to secure a job in some portions of this country.  However, unemployment benefits is becoming a trend.  It's an unhealthy trend.  America can't continually dole out jobless benefits.  It's going to continually swell the national debt.  The problem is the federal government is hindering the private sector by passing such bills as the healthcare bill passed in March which would increase the costs of small businesses.  The policies of the federal government are stifling the private sector.  The long-term answer isn't to extend jobless benefits.  The federal government needs to leave the private sector alone for the most part and allow them to make their own business decisions.  There are numerous government regulations which have made it difficult for small and medium-sized businesses to hire new employees.  Job growth comes through the private sector alone, not the federal nor state government.  Government has no business micromanaging the private sector. 

I do happen to agree that extending jobless benefits will discourage some Americans for seeking employment, especially those that lack a work ethic.  Many of the problems that America's economy faces is due to intrusion of the federal government into the private sector.  Another problem as well is the federal government signed two trade agreements--NAFTA in 1994--CAFTA in 2005, which have resulted in numerous manufacturing jobs leaving America for Mexico, China, India, and other countries.  Our elected elite need to renege on these treaties that have placed American at a competitive disadvantage.  America can't flourish economically without a manufacturing base.  Instead of the both political parties fighting over whether to extend jobless benefits to the unemployed Americans, it's time the government stop making it impossible for the private sector to grow.  New job growth is the long-term solution--not unemployment benefits. 

Newt Gingrich Hints at Running for President

(On Deadline) Lately former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been dropping hints that he might run for President in 2012.  Gingrich stated that the groundwork will have to be laid to run for the presidency by either February or March.  Both Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity on the Fox News Channel have seriously posed that questioned to Gingrich.  Gingrich has stated that he'll talk it over with his family and he'll know by February or March for sure whether or not he'll run for president. 

Joseph Farh, the editor of the "World Net Daily", posted an article on the website on May 24, 2010 entitled, "Newt is not the Answer."  Farah was making the point that when Gingrich became Speaker of the House in 1995, he was the politician instead of the revolutionary.  That is correct.   The problem with Newt Gingrich isn't his intellect capability nor does he not have solutions to answer the political problems plaguing America.  Gingrich is a brilliant intellectual and he does well at the group which he founded recently entitled, "Solutions for Winning the Future."  He's held "solutions" conferences across the country.  I have no qualms with him there.  Consequently, he can't handle power.  He was great in articulating the case in 1994 about the changes that were needed in America.  He and a few other fellow Republicans wrote a document entitled, "Contract With America."  That helped enable the "Republican Revolution" of 1994. That year the Republicans swept both Houses of Congress.  That was the first time the Republicans gained control of the House since 1954. 

Following the Republican Revolution of 1994, Gingrich was a politician more interested in posing with the president on Air Force One that trying to derail President Clinton's agenda.  There was an instance in late 1995 when the Contract with America was stalled when certain portions of the Federal Government were shut down due to a disagreement between Congressional Republicans and President Clinton on the annual budget.  There were approved appropriations that were set to expire and they did because no budget agreement was worked out.  The Congressional Republicans were trying to slow the growth of government spending.  It was said that Gingrich took the hard line stance he did because he was snubbed by the President when he was on the airplane heading to former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's funeral.  That really did some damage to Gingrich's reputation along with some allegations concerning Gingrich over the college course that he taught and he took a tax-exempt status for it.  He served as Speaker for over four years and resigned in 1999. 

There's no qualms about the brilliance of Newt Gingrich.  Everything he's said about the Obama administration is correct.  He can offer some solutions on paper what needs to be accomplished in Congress and the White House.  However, Gingrich won't stand up to his principles when he's in power.  He didn't then and he certainly won't today.  We need someone who will stand up to those in opposition in Congress and stand for the Constitution.  Gingrich is an establishment Republican.  He will compromise and bend to whichever way the wind blows.  It wasn't too long ago that he made a commercial with current Speaker Nancy Pelosi over climate change, which was phony.  Last year he supported RINO Dede Scozzafava for New York's 23rd Congressional Seat over a more conservative third party candidate Doug Hoffman.  Gingrich has proven that he's not always steady.  Given the state our government is in today, we need a rock solid candidate that won't bend to political correctness and compromise when it comes to the Constitution.  I appreciate the work Newt currently does and he needs to continue doing that.  He's been in the political arena long enough.

Sowing to the Flesh/Sowing to the Spirit

(Galatians 6:7-9) "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.  For he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.  And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not."  One of the universal principles of the Bible that nobody will escape--saved or lost--is the principle of sowing and reaping.  Galatians warns us to not be deceived for God is not mocked.  Whatever we soweth, we shall also reap.  If we sow to our own flesh, then we'll reap corruption of our own flesh.  If we sow to the Spirit, we'll reap life everlasting.  Nobody will escape that principle.  Everyday in our lives we are sowing something.  What does it mean to sow? Sowing means to plant.  We are planting seeds of whatever sort they are.  One of these days we'll reap from what we've sown whether it be positive or negative; of life everlasting, or we'll reap corruption.  Allow me to cite an example.  Students in school have a responsibility to study their homework.  They are given assignments on a daily basis by their teachers.  The students are expected to read their material and to follow directions.  There will come a time when the students will be tested on the material they've been required to study.  If they diligently put in time and focus on their material, then the chances they will score a high grade on their test is very probable.  However, if they don't read or study their material, by the time they take their test, their chances of passing their test is nil.  What's the difference.  One will diligently prepare by sowing their time to studying their material.  The othe person is lazy and decides not to study.  As a result, the one who doesn't study and prepare scores a lower grade than the one that studies.  I've heard teachers say you won't get anything out of the class unless you're participating.  That same principle applies to the farmer.  If a farmer doesn't sow his crops earlier in the year and devote his time to pruning his crops during the spring and summer, he won't reap a harvest.  However, if the farmer plants his crops on time in additon to diligently caring for his crops, then the probability of him reaping a harvest is great provided it rains adequately during the spring and summer.

Parents who have young children have the responsibility to plant good seed when raising their children.  If they desire for their children to grow up to love and serve the Lord, then they must start training them as soon as they're born until they're an adult.  They must diligently teach their children the truths of God's word and discipline them.  Parents also must shield their children from worldly influences.  If parents fail to shield their children from worldly influences of entertainment, then there's a probability their children will stray and not serve the Lord.  Training children is very difficult and cumbersome.  Parents must sow good seeds in their children.  Many Christian parents today are very slothful in raising their children.  Many parents wonder when their children are grown where they went astray in raising their children.  It's because the seed they've sown was choked by the bad seeds that have been planted when they've allowed their children to participate in worldly things.  You can plant all the good seeds you so desire in your children.  However, if you allow your children to engage in amusements which counter the seeds you've been sowing, then everything you've taught them has been for naught.   You can't plant both good and bad seed and expect to reap a harvest.  For example, you can't teach your children the Bible, send them to church, and then in turn allow them to watch all the filth from Hollywood.  The filth from Hollywood will choke out all the good seed that you've sown in your children.

The first part of verse eight says that he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption.  What are some of the things you can sow to the flesh?  Proverbs 6:14 says, "Frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth discord."  There are many church members (both men and women) that are guilty of sowing discord.  God says he hates sowing discord among the brethren.  It causes division and strife in the church.  There are church members who use their tongue to ridicule the man of God in the church.  They run their mouth about anybody and everybody in the church.  The church is in an uproar due to discord.  God will judge those that sow discord.  I've heard of people dying terrible deaths as a result of raising their hand against the man of God.  Sowing discord destroys relationships.  It hinders the work of God.  Discord has torn homes asunder.  You'll reap destruction if you devote your time being a busybody sowing discord.  There are those that sow iniquity and mischief.  There are people whose feet are swift to mischief.  They are always looking for an opportunity to commit mischief.  There are those that involve themselves with substance abuse.  They start out smoking one joint and then before you know it, they're hooked.  Then the seed they've planted has grown into a tall plant which has its hooks into you.  It's something you no longer can control if you ever could.  Then before you know it, they'll go to jail due to substance abuse.  There are those that abuse themselves with alcohol.  What started out was one drink and before you know it they're drinking liquor on a daily basis.  They become drunkards.  The alcohol impairs their brain and mental faculties.  They are abusive when they're drunk.  They've beaten their wives, left their families, spent all their paycheck just to have another drink.  Drunkards have even been guilty of manslaughter when they kill someone due to drunken driving--which is against the law.  Their lives are shipwrecked.  There are other seeds you can sow to the flesh such as bitterness.  There can be a number of incidents that cause bitterness such as death of a child or a spouse, the loss of a job, the inability for a young married woman to become pregnant, or a prayer request that God hasn't answered.  It can be a number of things.  Bitterness can grow and become deeply rooted in your heart.  People who are bitter are mean, hateful, cantankerous, and they are backbiters.  They hate life.  Bitter people are some of the most miserable people on earth.  Sowing to the flesh will lead to corruption. 

What are some of the things you can sow to the Spirit?  Psalms 126:5 says that they that sow in tears shall reap in joy.  When the passage mentions tears, it's not referring to tears of madness or tears of not getting your way.  It's talking about those saints who weep for the lost or weep for those saints that are experiencing trials.  God says if we sow in tears we'll reap in joy. When you sow in tears, you are displaying that the things that matter to God matter to you.  You're humbling yourself in desperation desiring to see God move in an individual situation.  Christians are to go forth weeping and bearing precious seed.  We are to weep for the lost.  We are to weep over the eternal destination of their souls.  That kind of seed is precious to God.  It's precious because that's near to the heart of God.  God loves sinners and we're to have a burden for sinners.  We're to be moved with compassion over sinners.  Tears are a reflection of the burden we have for sinners.  Hosea 10:12 says we're to sow to ourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy, break up the fallow ground, for it's time to seek the Lord, till he come and rain righteousness upon you.  Christians are to sow seeds of faithfulness.  It's faithfulness to our families, the House of God, prayer, and our relationship with the Lord.  We're to sow seeds in righteousness.  We're to hide the Word of God in our hearts so we won't sin against Him.  We're also to allow the fruit of the Spirit to reign in our mortal lives.  If the fruit of the Spirit is manifested in our lives, then we'll sow seeds of righteouness, mercy, and tears.   If our heart is right with the Lord, then we'll sow unto the Spirit.  A Christian whose heart is right with God won't use their liberty to sow seeds to the flesh.

I've given examples of sowing to the flesh and sowing to the Spirit.  If you sow to the Spirit, you'll reap life everlasting.  If you sow to the flesh, then you'll of the flesh reap corruption.  What's suprising is the attitudes of church people about sin.  They think they can play around with sin and sow to the flesh and not reap destruction as a result.  It doesn't work that way.  You can't live to the flesh and expect to reap life everlasting.  The same principle goes with someone who's building a house.  If you don't exert some labor to build the house, then nothing will be accomplished.  If you expect to spiritually reap a harvest, then you must sow to the Spirit or you won't reap a harvest.  God doesn't contradict his word.  God's not mocked.  You won't escape the principle of sowing and reaping.

The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia Minor (Revelation 1:16-20) (Revelation 2:1-29 & 3:1-22)

(Revelation 1:16-20) "And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last. I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches."

(Revelation 2:1-29) "Unto the angel of the church at Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast labored , and hast not fainted. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges; I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who tought Balak to cast a stumbling block before he children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolatanes, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fie, and his feet are like fine brass; I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."

(Revelation 3:1-22) "And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write: These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die; for I have not found they works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out; and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of Heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."

Black Liberation Theology

YouTube - A Conversation with James Cone

What is black liberation theology?  Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright catapulted black liberation theology onto a national stage, when America suddenly discovered Trinity United Church of Christ.  In order to understand what the thinking behind Jeremiah Wright's inflammatory preaching, a clear definition of black theology was first given formulation in 1969 by the National Committee of Black Church Men in the midst of the civil rights movement.  The article that I'm deriving the information from comes from Anthony B. Bradley who wrote an article entitled, "The Marxist Roots of Black Liberation Theology" on April 2, 2008. 

Black theology is a theology of black liberation.  It seeks to plumb the black condition in the light of God's revelation in Jesus Christ, so that the black community can see that the gospel is commensurate with the achievements of black humanity.  Black theology is a theology of "blackness' which liberates black people from white racism.  In the 1960's, black churches began to focus their attention beyond helping blacks cope with national racial discrimination in particularly urban areas.  The notion of "blackness" is not merely a reference to skin color, but rather is a symbol of oppression at the hands of "rich white people."  Black liberation theology believes capitalism is evil and has been used to enslave the black people.  The overall emphasis of Black Liberation Theology is the black struggle for liberation from various forms of "white racism" and oppression. 

James Cone is the chief architect of Black Liberation Theology.  He wrote a book in 1970 entitled, "A Black Theology of Liberation."  It develops black theology as a system.  In this new formulation, Christian theology is a theology of liberation--"a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel, which is Jesus Christ.  One of the tasks of black theology, says Cone, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in light of the experience of oppressed blacks.  For Cone, no theology is Christian theology unless it arises from oppressed communities and interprets Jesus' work as that of liberation.  Christian theology is understood in terms of systemic and structural relationships between two main groups: victims "the oppressed) and victimizers (oppressors).  In Cones context, writing in the late 1960's and early 1970's, the great event of Christ's liberation was freeing African Americans from the centuries-old tyranny of white racism and white oppression.  American white theology, which Cone has never defined, is charged with having failed to help blacks in the struggle for liberation.  Black theology exists because "white religionists" failed to relate the gospel of Jesus to the pain of being black in a white racist society. 

Black liberation theology sees whites as the oppressors.  Cone believes in this theory that whites consider blacks animals, outside the realm of humanity, and attempted to destroy black identity through racial assimilation and integration programs--as if blacks have no legitimate existence apart from whiteness.  Black theology is the theological expression of a people deprived of social and political power.  God is not the God of white religion but the God of black existence.  In Cone's understanding, truth is not objective, but subjective.  Cone's theology teaches that "rich white people" are the oppressing class and are incapable of understanding oppression.  However, Jesus knows what it was like because he was "a poor black man" oppressed by "rich white people."  While Black Liberation Theology is not mainstream in most black churches, many pastors in Wright's generation are influenced by Cone's categories which laid the foundation for many to embrace Marxism and a distorted self-image of black "victims".

I will continue this thought in another post explaining that Black Liberation Theology is the same as Marxist victimology.

The New Black Panther Party

Last week Fox news commentator Glenn Beck and Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly covered the story of the incident at a Philadelphia polling place where the New Black Panther Party members were standing outside the polling place. New Black panther Party member King Samir Shabazz was brandishing a billy club. Voters were complaining about feeling intimidated by Shabazz holding that nightstick at the polling place. Police eventually escorted Shabazz away from the polling place. On January 7, 2009, the United States Department of Justice filed a civil suit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 over the incident at the polling place in Philadelphia. The suit accused members King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson of being outside a polling location wearing the uniform of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, and that Shabazz repeated brandished a police-style baton weapon. The suit sought an injunction preventing further violations of the Voting Rights Act. After the defendants didn't appear for court, a default judgment was entered. On May 29, 2009, the Department of Justice requested and received an injunction against the member who had carried the nightstick, but against the advice of prosecutors who had worked on the case, department superiors order the suit dropped against the remaining members. On July 6, 2010, J. Christian Adams, a former lawyer for the Justice Department, testified before the Commission on Civil Rights and alleged that the case was dropped because the Justice Department didn't want to protect the civil rights of white people.

What is this New Black Panther Party? The formal name for this party is the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. It's just now called The New Black Panther Party. It's a U.S.-based organization founded in Dallas, Texas in 1989. It's not an official successor to the original Black Panther Party in the 60's and 70's. Members of the original Black Panther Party such as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale contend this new party is illegitimate. They have blatantly stated that there is "no new Black Panther Party." The Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center have branded this party as a hate group. The New Black Panther Party attracted many breakaway members of the Nation of Islam when former Nation of Islam minister Khalid Abdul Muhammad became the national chairman of the group from the late 1990's until his death in 2001. The current chairman of the NBBP is led by Malik Zulu Shabazz. Khalid Abdul Muhammad is considered the de facto father of their movement.

What are the origins of the New Black Panther Party? In 1987 an alderman in Milwaukee threatened to disrupt white events throughout the city unless more jobs were created for black people. A "state of the inner city" press conference in 1990 at city hall brought this situation to a head as the alderman, Michael McGee, announced the created of the Black Panther Militia, which inspired Aaron Michaels, a community activist and radio producer, to establish the New Black Panther Party. Michaels rose to widespread attention for the first time when he called on blacks to use shotguns and rifles to protest against the chairman of a school board who had been taped calling black students, "little niggers." In 1998 Khalid Abdul Muhammad brought the organization into the national spotlight when he led the group to intervene in response to the murder of James Byrd, Jr., in Jasper, Texas. He also made the NBPP well-known for their school board disruptions and public appearances.

The New Black Panther Party self-identifies itself with the original Black Panther Pary and claims to uphold its legacy. However, the new party is seen by the general public and the original members of the old party as illegitimate. The party sees capitalism as the fundamental problem with the world and "revolution" as the solution. However, the new party doesn't draw its influences from Marxism and Maoism as the original party did. In a careful, roundabout form of ethnic nationalism, they say Karl Marx based his ideology and teachings on indigenous African cultures. This group is starkly anti-white and they are anti-Semitic. Some of the ideology of the NBPP are black nationalism, Pan-Africanism, black supremacy, and they are anti-capitalists, to name a few. I'm going to start posting some philosophical beliefs of the NBPP. This will give the blog readers an idea some of the beliefs of groups such as the NBPP. I'm going to start introducing tomorrow one of the major philosophical beliefs of black separatists, and that is liberation theology. You don't want to miss this.

There have been some recent controversies concerning the New Black Panther Party. Following the September 11 attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., the party promoted the 9/11 conspiracy theory that 4000 Israelis who worked at the World Trade Center were warned ahead of time by Israel and called in sick the day of the attack. It was a theory propounded by Amiri Baraka in his poem, "Somebody Blew Up America." The party also participated in reparations for blacks marches on Washington, D.C. in 2002 that drew hundreds of African-Americans. In 2006 the New Black Panthers were in the spotlight again when they interposed themselves in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal, organizing marches outside of Duke University and made numerous media appearances where they demanded the jury organized by Disrict Attorney Mike Nifong convict the accused lacrosse players. Of course, the Duke players were eventually exonerated. Malik Zulu Shabazz appeared on the O'Reilly Factor and stated that he wouldn't apologize for his actions in the leadup to the Duke University lacrosse rape scandal. He stated that he believed the rich, white families of Duke had placed political pressure on the investigation and forced the charges to be dropped. When he was questioned by guest host Michelle Malkin, he labeled her a "political prostitue" and "mouthpiece for that racist Bill O'Reilly." Critics have called the NBPP extremist, citing Muhammad's "Million Youth March" , a youth equivalent of the Million Man March in Harlem in which 6000 people protested police brutality but also featured a range of speakers calling for the extermination of whites in South Africa. Former Nation of Islam and New Black Panther Party member, King Samir Shabazz, had a long history of confrontational racist behavior, advocating racial separation and making incendiary racial statements while promoting anti-police messages in the media and on the streets of Philadelphia.

The New Black Panther Party is very racist indeed. I don't care whether it's white against black, black against white, or any race, it's all racist. Racism needs to be condemned. There's no excuse for it. God created the races. Any type of organization that promotes hate of another race should be condemned and exposed regardless whether it's this party or the Ku Klux Klan, or any other racist organization. This is an abomination.

NAACP Resolution Condemns Racism in Tea Party

(Yahoo) Leaders of the country's largest civil rights organization accused tea party activists on Tuesday of tolerating bigotry and approved a resolution condemning racism within the political movement. The resolution was adopted during the annual convention in Kansas City of the National Association of the Advancement of Colored People spookesman Chris Fleming said. Local Tea Party organizers disputed claims of racism and called on the NAACP to withdraw the resolution. The resolution called for the NAACP to "educate its membership and the community that this is not just about higher taxes and limited government. It suggested that something could evolve and become more dangerous for that small percentage of people that really think our country has been taken away from them." "We felt the time had come to stand up and say, "It's time for the Tea Party to be responsible members of democracy and make sure they don't tolerate bigots or bigotry among their members." That's what NAACP President Benjamin Jealous said ahead of the debate. Tea Party activist Alex Poulter, who co-founded a Kansas City-area group called Political Chips, disputed the allegations. He said the movement is made up of a "diverse group of folks who are upset with what is going on with this country."

Almost a couple of years ago one of the members of the New Black Panther Party was outside a polling place on election day in November 2008. He was outside brandishing a billy club. Many voters that day had felt intimidated by his presence. He was finally escorted out by the police. The New Black Panther Party, not to be confused with the original Black Panther Party of the late 60's and early 70's, is labeled as a hate group by the Anti-defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Samir Shabazz made racist comments and called white people crackers. He went even further than that. He said that they need to go out and kill some white crackers and their babies. That kind of statement can incite violence. However, we don't hear anything from the NAACP condemning racism from this hate group. Why? Because the New Black Panther Party isn't a threat to the NAACP's liberal agenda. The NAACP claims they are the champion of civil rights and they supposedly are opposed to any form of racism and bigotry. Whose racism? Is it only racism where a white says something derogatory about a black person? Or is it supposedly anything that could give a hint that a white is being racist toward a black person? I know the New Black Panthers are just a minority in number and probably an anomaly, but their comments are racist. Shabazz was very profound in his racist comments. Racism is racism.

There's been allegations that there are some in the Tea Party movement that are racists. There was an incident supposedly cited where a Tea Party member shouted racial epithets at a Georgia Congressman. Whether that member yelled racial slurs at the Georgia Congressman, I don't know. However, any movement as diverse as the Tea Party movement is bound to have some members that are racists. That doesn't define the Tea Party movement as a whole. There are all kinds of organizations that are opposed to racism that have individual members that are racist. I would venture to say that the NAACP probably has racists in its organization. I wouldn't be surprised there are probably some NAACP members that are racist towards whites or other races. Would it be fair for someone to characterize the NAACP as a racist organization because there could be some individual members in its organization that are racist? No it wouldn't. Racism is a condition of the heart. Racism is a result of sin in man's heart. One of the sins in the Bible that God despises is pride. Racism is the result of pride in man's heart toward another race. There are people that believe that some races are inferior and they believe that some races are more superior than others. That's the result of pride. As wrong as that may be, that's how man is. I'm not condoning that. It's not realistic to think we're going to live in a world where racism will be totally eradicated. As long as man is sinful, there will be racism. And racism isn't just limited to white against black. There are all sorts of ethnic groups in this world that are racist towards one another.

I'm a believer in condemning overt racism (or racism that's obvious), in any organization, especially if it's an organization or business that's open to the public. It's not right to define a group by just a few individuals that are racist. There are always going to be racists in all walks of life. There are doctors that are racist, more than likely. Does that mean we should brand all doctors as racist? Of course not. From what I've witnessed thus far, I don't believe the Tea Party movement is racist. No doubt there are some individuals that probably are racist that are a part of the movement. However, the that doesn't mean the Tea Party as a whole is racist. It happens to be that the goals and views the Tea Party promotes runs counter to the views of the NAACP. That's why the NAACP wants to brand the Tea Party as racist.

Homeschooling is a Liberty that Requires Diligence, Dedication, and Responsibility (Part 2)

Before I proceed any further I need to state from the outset that I've never been homeschooled in my life nor have I ever homeschooled children. I'm not even an expert on homeschooling. My goal isn't to establish myself as an expert. Like anyone else, I make observations. I engage in critical thinking. I'm a concerned citizen that cares about education. I've known a number of people that have homeschooled. Some have been very successful in that endeavor, some haven't. I've spoken at length with people over the years that have homeschooled. I've asked questions on their method of homeschooling and the types of curriculum they used. The purpose of this post is not to say whether or not homeschooling is for those parents that may be in the process of considering that for their children. That's a decision that Mom and Dad have to decide for themselves. Starting a couple of weeks ago, I was writing posts from chapter 5 in the book of Galatians that dealt with the word "liberty." This past weekend I was thinking about homeschooling and the fact that it's one of the liberties that American parents have in this country. It's an option that they can choose. It's not the only option. I will say up front some parents aren't fit to homeschool. Homeschooling is very taxing. It's demanding. It requires a lot of work. It's not recreational. It's not teaching a Sunday school lesson. The future of your children are hanging in the balance. You don't want to attempt to homeschool if you and your husband aren't willing to dedicate yourselves to it. Both have to agree that's the best option for their children. Once they agree upon that, then they need to utilize their time and resources to make homeschooling successful. Now I'm going to conclude this post and go straight to the heart of the matter.

For those parents that are leaning towards homeschooling their children, the question that needs to be asked is what is your motivation for leaning towards homeschooling? I believe that's very important. Whatever lies behind your motivation to homeschool could have an impact upon the success of it. In some religious circles, including some fundamental Independent Baptists, homeschooling has become a fad in some of those churches. I know because I attend an Independent Baptist church. At our church we have a Christian school so most of the families send their children to the Christian school. The mentality of the circle of Independent Baptists I know of is "There's no way we're going to send our children to a godless public school system, so therefore, the only choice we have is to homeschool." In some of these churches, it's a socially acceptable thing for families to homeschool. It's the expected thing. That's not necessarily a good thing. Many times whenever a person does something because it's a socially acceptable practice, there's a tendency to be complacent and for them not to invest their time and resources to make certain that what you're attempting to accomplish is successful. That's what I've observed with some of the homeschooling that's taken place in some Independent Baptist churches. Many of those parents don't follow a rigid schedule with their children. As a result, their children are deficient in certain subjects. Also, there tends to be disciplinary problems that arise when there's not a rigid schedule that's required of the student. A student doesn't possess a reality about life and therefore will have a difficult time when it comes to applying for a job when they're adults. They think life is laid back and you can do whatever you desire at your own time, which is not how life works. I'm not insinuating all parents in Independent Baptist churches where homeschooling is a fad is slothful with it. But many parents are slothful when it comes to educating their children when homeschooling is socially acceptable in those churches. I've witnessed that.

Most of the success stories about homeschooling you read about in some magazines are represented in homes where homeschooling is not the socially acceptable thing in their church. I've known of families that homeschool and they were the only family in their church that homeschooled. The rest of the children in their church attended public schools. In those particular situations, the parents that chose to homeschool did so by conviction. That's very important. If both parents choose to homeschool due to a conviction they have that they can provide a more quality education to their child than the public school system, then chances are they're more likely to be succesful with it. When you make a choice out of conviction, you'll live by that conviction. Everything you do is motivated because you believe that's best for your child. When your motivation is based on a pure conviction, you're not concerned whether or not all the other families in your church are homeschooling. You are doing what you believe is best for your child. Therefore, the tendency to be slothful is greatly minimized. You're homeschooling because it's a heartfelt conviction; not because it socially acceptable.

Homeschooling is one of the great liberties parents have when it comes to educating their children. Nevertheless, there's a price to be paid for homeschooling. Homeschooling is very demanding, taxing, and time-consuming. Those parents that are educating their children are preparing them for the future. They are trying to prepare them not only to serve God but also to find a vocation which matches their talents to make a living. Those parents that make a choice to homeschool their children have to prepare long before they actually begin the process. They, first of all have to determine what kind of curriculum to teach their children. There are various kinds. In Christian education, some of the different types of curriculum are Pace, Abeka, and Bob Jones, to name a few. The degree of difficulty in some of them is different. Parents have to determine what type of curriculum is best for their children. They have to know what their educational needs are. Then once the parents begin educating their children, they need to establish a strict schedule with them every day. The children need to head to bed at a decent hour, arise at an early hour, then start homeschool the same time every morning. Maintaining a schedule is very crucial. It helps children learn about the importance of time.

Parents have to be diligent with homeschooling. I've known of mothers who would stay up late at night preparing lesson plans for her children the next day. Parents have to stay on top of what their children are doing. They need to be up-to-date with everything. Parents have to periodically evaluate their children through testing to determine their progress. Parents need to be able to teach their children hard core subjects in high school such as science and math. Even though I know of homeschooling mothers that don't possess a teaching degree, I believe it's a benefit if a mother or father obtains a teaching degree, for no other reason in case a state makes it mandatory that homeschooling parents obtain a teaching degreee. If homeschooling is administered properly, parents will be very busy. Homeschooling is very time consuming if parents are serious about their responsibilities in educating their children. Your children are the future of our country. Their education is in your hands. Slothfulness in homeschooling can impair them and make it very difficult for them when the time comes they graduate and have to apply for a job. Homeschooling is no Sunday school class. It requires hours of work, review, lesson plans, and preparation. Homeschooling requires a team effort. It requires dedication from the mother, father, and the children. Parents have to see to it their children are learning and mastering the subjects they are being taught.

In closing, I need to say it's important also that children who are homeschooled have proper social skills. Requiring your children to give speeches is very important. It's important they know how to speak before the public. They may be required to do that someday in their adult life. They need to know correct grammar and basic public speaking skills. Children also need to communicate with other people outside the four walls of your home. As true as it is you don't want your children to spend their time with people that will influence them negatively doesn't mean that they don't need people to spend time with. They need to know how to communicate with people across a broad spectrum. They need to know how to communicate with people of all age groups. It's good that they know how to socialize with people in their local church and other places. Taking your children on field trips can be helpful in that area. Social skills are important. Your children need friends to have a relationship with. A lack of social skills could impact them negatively when they become adults. The reason why more parents don't homeschool is because they know homeschooling is demanding and it's a difficult job. It's troubling when parents in religious circles are lackadaiscal when it comes to educating their children at home. You don't homeschool your children because it's the socially acceptable thing at your church. If that's the attitude of the parents, then there's a great likelihood they will be slothful with it. That's reprehensible. That's one God-given liberty parents can't afford to abuse. The government is looking for an excuse to clamp down on parents that educate their children at home. When parents are slothful and don't invest their time and resources into homeschooling, they are in essence giving the government an excuse to outlaw homeschooling. I'm not for the government clamping down on parent's liberty to homeschool. However, what's going to happen in a couple of decades if the best and brightest we send out into the work force can't write or spell their name? To me homeschooling is sacred. When we abuse liberty, when we are irresponsible with liberty, we will lose it. One of these days parents will lose their right to homeschool simply because of the slothfulness of some parents that don't understood the necessity that their child receive a proper education. We must not take our liberties for granted.

Homeschooling is a Liberty that Requires Diligence, Dedication, and Responsibility (Part 1)

(Galatians 5:13) "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." A couple of weeks ago I used this verse to write a few posts about liberty. First of all, liberty must be accompanied by responsibility. Liberty will be of no value if we're careless with it. We'll wind up losing it if we're irresponsible with that freedom. Many people in our society today complain about the state our political system is in. The reason for that is several generations ago Americans became apathetic about the political system and they didn't involve themselves in the voting process like they should. Another problem was many people voted for a politician on the basis of what they could give them instead of passing laws that are good for the country as a whole. You have to be vigilant when it comes to liberty. Liberty can be lost. We must be vigilant to maintain that liberty. In order for liberty to endure, we must work to preserve it. We cannot forget God and the founding principles of our nation. People from generations past knew liberty wasn't an excuse for license. They were grateful and cautious with their liberty. They were responsible with their liberty. Neighbors helped each other. They didn't depend upon the government to take care of them. Today people want to use liberty as a license for pleasure, sin, etc. We must be vigilant with our liberties.

Today I want to spend a little time mentioning about the liberty of homeschooling. Homeschooling is a liberty or an option parents have when it comes to educating their children. I thought about this topic yesterday and I felt it would fit well concerning the liberty posts that's been written the last couple of weeks. I don't dispute the fact that the Bible tells parents to train up their child in the way they should go. Education is the first responsibility of the parents. Parents have the responsibility in choosing the type of education they desire to use upon their children whether it be the public school, private or charter schools, Christian, parochial, or homeschooling. Homeschooling, of course, is not a new phenemon. Homeschooling was the first type of education that was used by parents during the first colonial settlement in Jamestown. It was not a matter of choice. Homeschooling at that time was a necessity. Of course, the materials that parents had to educate their children were meager but they used what they had to educate their children with. The Bible was the only book many families had at their home at that time, so it became the textbook used by the children. Even when the children were finished with their lessons for the day, they had other chores to accomplish such as farming, milking the cows, splitting wood, and the list continues. Eventually that changed when America grew as a nation and other educational options became available. However, for the sake of time, I'm not going to chronicle the progression of America's educational system.

The recent homeschooling movement as we know it today probably began around 35 years ago. The reasons for the growth of the modern day homeschooling movement vary. Some of it is due to the negative influences of the public school system, some of it is for religious reasons, and other reasons are some families feel they can offer their children a better education that what the public school can offer. As said, before, homeschooling is a liberty that parents have. It's a liberty that's not to be taken for granted. It's a liberty that requires dedication, responsibility, and diligence. I'll speak on those particular aspects tomorrow. There have been many successes in the homeschooling movement. Many of the children that have been homeschooled have excelled beyond imagination and were accepted into some of America's elite universities. Some have won the spelling bee and the national geography quiz. There have been numerous examples where parents were successful in educating their children at home. However, just as there are successes to the homeschooling movement, there are also problems with it as well. With liberty you have a choice: use it wisely and accomplish something with it or waste and abuse it. The latter is what some parents have done with homeschooling.

Last year somebody through email mentioned to me that they were opposed to homeschooling. The reasons were varied but that individual cited two reasons why they opposed it. One reason for their opposition was there parents didn't set them on a strict schedule. The second reason was their children lacked social skills. I shared both of those sentiments with the individual that stated that to me. I stated that I approve of homeschooling as long as it's administered properly. That's the key: Administered properly. Homeschooling without a strict schedule or any type of structure is doomed to failure. Parents can't homeschool properly if they don't organize a schedule and enforce it upon their children. Children should be made to go to bed at a decent hour every night, they should wake up early every morning, dress themselves in proper attire, and start school at a certain hour. Failure to do so will inhibit their children in the future. There will come a day when they graduate they'll have to arise at a certain hour to head to work every morning. The time for children to learn that concept is when they are in school. Homeschooling shouldn't be treated differently because it's not in a public school facility. Homeschool students should be placed on a strict schedule or it will be destined for failure.

I have never been homeschooled in my life nor do I have children. I've never been involved in the process of homeschooling children. However, there are numerous families that I know of that have homeschooled and their success was due to maintaining a strict schedule as well as knowing how to teach the material. I've also seen some families who were a failure at homeschooling and the reason was partially because of the lack of a set schedule. Another problem that arises as well is some parents, especially when their children are in high school, may have some difficulty in teaching their children some of the hard core subjects in Algebra and the hard sciences. It's important for those parents that are involved in homeschooling their children to know the material that they teach their children. Tomorrow I'll conclude this post.

Racism isn't Always White Against Black

YouTube - Megyn Kelly Interviews Black Panthers Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz!

Anytime you hear the news media report on issues revolving around race, it usually is about an incident where a white police officer shoots a black man, which is the case in Oakland, California, or the police officer named James Crowley who arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates because he was trying to find a way to break into his own house because he couldn't unlock his own door. There was all kinds of media hype surrounding that situation. It was alleged that Crowley was being racist in his motivation when he placed handcuffs on Gates. The neighbors beside Gates called the police because they heard somebody supposedly trying to "break in" a house. President Obama said what Crowley did was a stupid thing and then Obama eventually invited both men to the White House for a beer. There was another incident in 1991 in Los Angeles where a police officer used "excessive" force to tame Rodney King who was supposedly trying to resist arrest. The media and many civil rights groups tried to say that the police officer was using excessive force because he was racist. We could spend time debating whether the police officer used excessive force against Rodney King but the point is the news media and civil rights "leaders" such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are always quick to look for a case to exploit so they can prove their point blacks are always being bullied by whites. I could point out a few other examples, but I think the few I just mentioned are sufficient.

Anybody that has studied U.S. history has studied about slavery in America for over two hundred years since the first colony was established in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607. We know there were slave owners that were harsh and cruel to blacks. I strongly condemn the institution of slavery. I also condemn the Ku Klux Klan that began following the Civil War to intimidate blacks from voting in the South. That was also wrong and racist. I also condemn racism towards blacks or any other minority. History has been replete where whites have been racist towards blacks in some fashion. Racist attitudes towards blacks started changing following the civil rights laws that were passed in the sixties. I believe Americans today as a whole view blacks as human beings and don't view them as inferior or have the same attitude towards them like Americans once did at one point in history. We still have our racists in America. We still have our Ku Klux Klans. I'm not one that believes that there aren't still a few whites that are racist towards blacks. That happens. However, when listening to the news, you would think it's a one way street. That's not the case. There are situations where blacks are racist towards whites as well. That's equally just as wrong. I'll expand it even further. Being racist towards any type of race is wrong. God created the races and we're to treat people as human beings regardless of race. It's wrong to be racist toward black, white, yellow, Chinese, Jews, Arabs, the Koreans, the Indians (from India), and the list continues. However, there are those that like to perpetuate the myth that anytime a white does something to a black person whether it be fire them from a job or when a black person is arrested by a white police officer, it's always due to race. I classify that as race baiting. These so-called civil rights leaders are looking for an issue to exploit so they can say that white America is racist.

Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly interviewed Malik Zulu Shabazz yesterday about the incident in Philadelphia in the November election of 2008. There was an incident where there was a man named King Samir Shabazz who was outside the polling place carrying a stick. Many voters complained of feeling intimidated by the New Black Party Panthers standing outside the voting place. The police escorted the man with the stick away from the polling place. Who are the New Black Party Panthers. The Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center have branded the Panthers as a hate group. The New Black Panthers are a black separatist and black supremacist group. They are anti-capitalist and they are anti-Jews. They don't believe in civil rights for everyone. The beliefs of the New Black Panthers don't resemble the beliefs of former Civil Rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. They are in a totally different class. Samir Shabazz calls white people "crackers" and he's even urged blacks to kill whites and their babies. That's hate speech. The Department of Justice sought an injunction against them because of the November 2008 incident at the polling place. Attorney General Eric Holder decided to drop the case. However, Holder is investigating the case where a white police officer in Oakland, California shot a black man. Why? Is Holder a racist? His actions make me wonder. Why is it justifiable to drop the case with the New Black Panthers carrying a stick outside the polling place in Philadelphia but the case where a black man was shot by the white police officer in California must be investigated? It sounds like a double standard.

This double standard when it comes to racism is abominable. Racism is racism. PERIOD! Samir Shabazz should be held accountable for his actions just like a Ku Klux Klan member should be held accountable for their actions. The federal government and the media want to downplay racism when it's a black person or a black group racist towards whites. I want to be perfectly clear and say I'm not insinuating that I believe there are many blacks that are racist towards whites. There's probably not. There are a few that are just like there are whites that are racist towards blacks. Why doesn't the New Black Panther Party receive as much scrutiny as the Ku Klux Klan does? They're both racist and hate groups. They're both just as equally wrong. The problem is the federal government and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton make it appear like it's one-sided. That's not the case. Racism isn't one sided. Our government wants to polarize Americans and one of the means of doing so is through race baiting. They try to give the appearance race is one-sided when it isn't. Enough with the double-standard and hypocrisy!