Commission To Study Reparation Proposals For African-Americans Act (HR 40)

In other words, "reparations." That's right, Congress will be looking into ways to make people who have never owned a slave pay money to people who have never been slaves. If there was ever a sure-fire way for permanently damaging race relations, this is it.

I know, there are many blacks out there who blame their own personal conditions on the injustices of the past, but that is a cop-out. Many prominent African-Americans made successful lives despite the history of the United States. Here are a few: Barack Obama, Thurgood Marshall, Jesse Jackson, Bryant Gumbel, Tiger Woods, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Oprah Winfrey, Montel Williams, Beyonce, etc. There is no reason why other blacks cannot be as successful. Blaming past slavery is nothing more than coming up with an excuse for personal failure in present.

This proposal is two things: 1) An attempt to act on white guilt and 2) an attempt at further socialist redistribution of wealth.

The problem is that those of us born after the Baby Boom have no white guilt to give.

Here is the executive summary of HR 40

To acknowledge the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States and the 13 American colonies between 1619 and 1865 and to establish a commission to examine the institution of slavery, subsequently de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African-Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other purposes.

So, why should I pay for something I am not responsible for? Before anyone goes out and says that my white skin makes me responsible, let me first say that my ancestors hail from Amherstburg, Ontario, the northern terminus of the Underground Railroad. In other words, my ancestors helped freed slaves find safety in Canada. If ancestry makes one responsible for slavery, ancestry also absolves one if one's ancestors opposed slavery.

If this abomination somehow manages to pass, it will be just like any other spending bill. Money will be apportioned, then spent and then be gone. The people who recieved and spent that money will then be back in line demanding even more money.

This reparations bill will be nothing more than a foundation for a new welfare system. That will guarantee racist attitudes for a long time to come.

You can access the bill text on-line here:

Commission To Study Reparation Proposals For African-Americans Act (HR 40)
OpenCongress.org
January 6, 2009

Barack Obama: The New Race-Baitor In The White House

Yes, you read the title correctly. I purposely wrote it that way and will stand by it, especially after an interview he gave that was published in the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. Basically, Obama reasserted his promises to make sure that Hispanics and blacks are scrutinized less by the criminal justice simply because of their skin color, no matter what the severity of the crime or how much evidence is against them. Obama might as well have said that if a white person commits a crime, prosecute them to the full extent of the law, but if a non-white commits the same crime, let them go because of their skin color.

It may be that I am being blunt, but taking someone's skin color into consideration is a complete departure from Dr. Martin Luther King who said that "content of character" was paramount and "color of skin" should not be considered at all.

Writing for Front Page Magazine, John Perazzo looks at the issue more closely and brings up some very thought provoking points. It turns out that racial profiling does not play a significant role in the judicial system decision making process, but that other factors do:

The most exhaustive, best designed study of this matter—a three-year analysis of more than 11,000 convicted criminals in California—found that the severity of offenders’ sentences depended heavily on such factors as prior criminal records, the seriousness of the crimes, and whether guns were used in the commission of those crimes. Race was found to have no effect whatsoever. In fact the researcher, Joan Petersilia, was forced to admit that these results contradicted conclusions she had drawn from an earlier study—in which she had not taken prior convictions and the use of firearms into account.

But what about the race issue? Where is that coming from?

Read this:

Black overrepresentation is almost entirely at the arrest stage—reflecting the simple fact that the “average” black breaks the law more frequently than the “average” white.

And this:

The National Crime Victimization Surveys, conducted annually by the Census Bureau, show that statistically the “average” black is far more likely than the “average” white to be identified, by a victim or witness, as the perpetrator of a violent crime. This racial gap, moreover, is approximately equal to the racial gap in actual arrest rates. “As long ago as 1978,” says Manhattan Institute scholar Heather MacDonald, “a study of robbery and aggravated assault in eight cities found parity between the race of assailants in victim identifications and in arrests—a finding replicated many times since, across a range of crimes.”

The fact that blacks engage in more crimes than whites is never mentioned by Old Media and was certainly not mentioned by the Barack Obama campaign or transition team. It is an embarrassment to them to tell the truth about this issue. If they did tell the truth, they wouldn't be able to play the race card.

In fact, the decisions after the arrest tend to favor blacks more than whites:

More:

At all the decision points subsequent to arrest, the outcomes are virtually identical for blacks and whites alike—and the slight differences that do exist tend to favor blacks.[2] In studies that consider all relevant variables—such as the defendant’s prior criminal record, the severity of the crime in question, the offender’s demeanor with police, whether a weapon was used, and whether the crime in question was victim-precipitated—no differences have been found in sentencing patterns, either in relation to the victim’s race or the offender’s race.[3]

Barack Obama's comments about the alleged disparities in the criminal justice system are nothing more than attempts at race-baiting a la Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright. For a man who says he didn't know about Wright's racial tirades and would have left the church had he known, Obama sure does seem to want to implement Wright's philosophy of racial hatred in his policies.

While Obama harps on this, notice that he is also ignoring things like the fact that inter-racial crime is more likely to be black-on-white than any other scenario. If Obama really wants to be the "post-racial" candidate, rather than the same-old, same-old race-baitor of the past thirty years, he will demonstrate "change" by taking the racial rhetoric out of his policies and go foward with Dr. King's dream of "not by color of skin but by content of character" fresh in his mind.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama: Tilting At Racial Windmills
John Perrazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com
December 16, 2008

Dennis Prager: Minorities Should Express Shame, Not Only Pride

Let's start off with Dennis Prager's first few paragraphs:

Gay Pride. Jewish Pride. Black pride. Hispanic Pride. Multiculturalism. Ethnic pride. Minority rights vs. tyranny of the majority.

That's right. You can't turn anywhere these days without seeing something about celebrating any one of these issues. But what you don't see is any celebration of white Christian heterosexual males.

In fact, usually, the only time you ever hear about white Christian heterosexual males is when some activist group has something bad to say about them or is criticizing them for some imagined transgression.

Why does one almost never hear expressions of group shame from members of any American group other than white Christians (specifically, white Christian male heterosexuals)? Are the only evildoers in America white male heterosexual Christians? Is there something inherently wrong about members of minorities expressing anything but group pride? Are there no minority sins worthy of shame? The latter is in fact the argument advanced by many intellectuals concerning black racism, for example. For a generation, college students have been taught that it is impossible for blacks to be racist because only the racial group in power, i.e. whites, can express racism. Of course, that is nonsense. A black can be a racist just as a white can be one. A minority race might not have the power to implement racist national policies but that hardly means that no minority group, or any individual, can be a racist.

Yes, it is nonsense. Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a prime example of a black racist. So are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan and several recent leaders of the NAACP.

From Old Media, we are bombarded with ideas that only whites can be racist or prejudicial. Reality shows otherwise. For example, the FBI's Uniform Crime Report shows clearly that most inter-racial crimes are black on white crimes. Further, it also shows that blacks are more likely to be victims of crimes committed by other blacks than by whites. And yet, only the white on black crime ever makes the news.

And gay pride? Where is the pride in being the major group vector for HIV infections? I never hear any gay leaders expressing regret that the homosexual community is still leading the spread of AIDS. Or how about terrorizing a little old lady in California? Where is the pride in that?

Prager has more examples of a serious skew in pride vs. shame:

The relative absence of expressions of shame in the Muslim world over the atrocities committed in Islams name is an example of the above. The labeling of blacks who express shame over disproportionate rates of violent crime and out-of-wedlock births in the black community as Uncle Toms is another. The absence of any expression of shame in the gay community over the current blacklisting -- and attempts to economically destroy -- anyone who donated to the California proposition defining marriage as between a man and a woman is another example.

This column is very thought provoking on many levels. Read it and then ask yourself, "Would I be proud if my ethnic/social group engaged in such shameful behavior?"

Prager's parting shot:

Expressing group shame when morally necessary is not airing dirty linen or giving solace to ones ideological enemies. It is, rather, one of the highest expressions of moral development. And it is therefore universally applicable. Being a minority doesnt exempt its members from moral responsibility. It will be a great day for America and the world when minorities begin to express shame as well as pride. In fact, there is real pride in expressing shame. Minorities should give it a try.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Minorities Should Express Shame, Not Only Pride
Dennis Prager
TownHall.com
December 16, 2008

Bristol Palin Pregnant, And An Alaskan On Sarah Palin

Well, I hope everyone had a nice relaxing Labor Day Weekend. I spent the weekend with the in-laws down in the Northern Neck of Virginia swimming, walking through Westmoreland State Park and boating on Nomini Creek and the lower Potomac River. Got some sun and enjoyed some good college football games too.

Now, it's back to work and dealing with the realities of the world again. One of those realities came up yesterday when Governor Sarah Palin issued a pretty surprising press release. It turns out that her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant. To be sure, I was a little surprised at this and even a little disappointed as well. Conservatives are supposed to uphold good family values. This seemed to put a crimp in that.

Well, maybe not. At least, Barack Obama doesn't see it that way. In a stunning show of class, he came out and said that this wasn't even an issue and that families should be off limits in campaign debates. He further said that no one in his camp would be allowed to make use of this issue. Unfortunately, people like James Carville didn't get that memo as he was on Larry King Live last night openly defying Barack Obama's wishes, much to the delight of Larry King himself.

It must be disclosed at this point that the reason given for this particular announcement was that leftist bloggers, as well as other who are desperate to find any dirt on Sarah Palin whatsoever, have been floating rumors that somehow, Gov. Palin faked the birth of her Down-syndrome son, Trig, to cover for her pregnant daughter. Not only does the timeline not work for that idiotic claim but you can do a Google search and find many pictures of a very pregnant Sarah Palin from earlier this year.

But the negatives of this issue are outweighed by certain other aspects that I can guarantee you Old Media will let go unreported and unresearched. First, the honesty angle. Gov. Palin made no attempt to cover this up, nor to lie about it, nor to pay anyone to keep quiet about it. Second, it wasn't Old Media that broke this story, it was Gov. Palin herself. That speaks valumes about her character when compared to other politicians who found themselves embroiled in scandals like this.

For example, Rev. Jesse "Love Child" Jackson used Rainbow/PUSH Coalition funds to pay hush money to a former secretary that he got pregnent. The payments were for her to keep quiet about the whole thing. Gov. Palin made no effort to pay anyone to keep anything quiet.

Or how about John "My Wife's Cancer Is In Remission" Edwards? He tried to keep his extra-marital sexual activities secret by arranging a 2:00 a.m. meeting at the Beverly Hills Hotel. Gov. Palin's press release clearly shows that she was not trying to keep this secret.

And here is a big one: Gov. Palin did not try to deny everything by uttering the words: "Britol did not have sexual relations with that boy" the way a certain other politician used similar words in an attempt to lie his way out of his own sex scandal.

So, for all those partisan Dems who think that somehow being honest about a pregnant daughter is a scandal worthy of tossing someone out, please remember your own support for for the dishonesty of the three politicians mentioned above. One who paid money to keep it quiet, one who set up secret meetings to keep it hidden from his family and one who simply told a bold-faced lie to the American people.

Further, this situation with her pregnant daughter shows exactly how Sarah Palin comes from the ranks of Joe and Jane Average American. From Michael Graham at the Boston Herald:

Her daughter’s pregnancy highlights another part of Palin’s appeal. Her normalcy. Here’s a woman who has run a business, raised a family, who is sending a son off to Iraq, who has another son with a disability, and now has to help her teenage daughter face motherhood. These are experiences that millions of American moms have shared, can relate to and understand. Sarah Palin is as accessible as Obama is exotic. Her life story is simultaneously exciting and mundane. All the way from Alaska, she comes to America as The Girl Next Door.

Sarah Palin is a refreshing change from the old ways.

You can acces the original column on-line here:

Millions Of Mothers Can Relate To Palin
Michael Graham
The Boston Herald
September 2, 2008

---

And if you really want to know how Sarah Palin is better qualified to be President than either Barack Obama or Joe Biden, read the following and learn exactly how different Gov. Palin is from the two Dems. It was written by a resident of Alaska:

Feel free to agree or disagree, but here is an Alaskan's viewpoint on our new VP candidate (and I believe it is an opinion shared by the vast majority of Alaskan residents). Sarah Palin is the USA's answer to Margaret Thatcher! Anyone who thinks she cannot handle the job or deal briskly and efficiently with ANY issue, including foreign governments; well, they haven't met our Sarah . She is not "just a woman", she is not "just a way to get votes" and if anyone expects her to smile, simper and be quietly sweet - they don't know Sarah. She is *more than* qualified for the job and the best possible choice McCain could have made. As an Alaskan resident as well as a resident of Wasilla, (AK), where Sarah Palin was at one time Mayor, I feel I can speak with confidence. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska is exactly what she portrayed during her introduction this morning and exactly what our US Government needs. She is ethical to a fault (if there is such a thing), a refreshing change to the status-quo and as smart and determined a PERSON (gender really isn't an issue here as far as I'm concerned) as anyone could ask for at the head of government. Sarah is no naïve "small town mayor" - she just *started out* there. Btw, as Mayor of Wasilla, she brought this "small town" through a lot of GOOD changes and left it at the end of her term having grown to the 4th largest CITY in Alaska - a lot of growth and a stronger economic base than ever before. She has EXECTUTIVE experience *running a government* something NONE of the other candidates can actually boast, (even John McCain) as Governor of Alaska and got there by defeating the *incumbent* Republican Governor, who was definitely part of the "old school" and who WAS very much in the pocket of the big oil companies. We in Alaska wanted change - and we got it in the person of Sarah Palin! Sarah Palin is everything she looks to be and more. Her approval rating as Governor of Alaska has been as high as 95% and is currently leveled out consistently in the upper 80 percentile throughout the state (and in both parties) - the HIGHEST approval rating of ANY sitting Governor. Sarah has been turning around corruption in the Legislature of Alaska - turning things on their ear for that matter; cutting spending in spite of the increased income the state is currently receiving due to the high oil prices - she has insisted on putting a huge amount of the "windfall" into savings for the future rather than spending, spending, spending - and has insisted from the get-go on what she refers to as "honest, ethical and transparent governing" - no more closed door meetings and dealings - the big oil companies thought she would be a pushover and have learned better to their chagrin. She understands the "real people" and the economic issues we all face (Alaskans along with the rest of the country) - she was one of "us" not long ago. Rather than passing useless "laws" or throwing money at pet projects, she (most recently) temporarily suspended the state gas tax (on gasoline at the pumps, fuel oil and natural gas for homes, etc.) and has ordered checks issued to ALL residents of Alaska this fall in an attempt to assist with the burden of high fuel costs for the upcoming winter. I could go on and on, but that's enough for now. She isn't doing these things to be popular - she is doing it because her constituents are HURTING financially and she is in a position to help. She became Governor of Alaska by defeating the Incumbent Republican Governor and doing it *without* the money or the support of the Republican Party, which was amazing in itself - and she won by a landslide. The "powers that be" at that time totally underestimated Sarah and learned better the hard way. Let's hope Obama does the same. Sarah has done exactly what she claimed she was going to do when elected and is just as popular today as the day she was elected - perhaps more so since even the Democrats up here seem to like her - she works well with both sides in the Legislature here. Sarah "belongs" to us (Alaskans) ... and although we are going to be terribly sorry to see her leave before she finishes the job she started here (two years ago) straightening out OUR State ... we understand she is needed for a bigger purpose and hopefully her Lt. Governor will be able to fill her shoes here and continue the job. As for worrying about what would happen if McCain were to die or step down or whatever ... here in AK we've only been wondering how long we would be able to KEEP Sarah in Alaska and have seen her as our first woman President of the USA from the start. It's always been a matter of whether she would wait until the end of her TWO terms as Governor (no doubt at ALL that she would be re-elected if she ran for a second term at the end of her current term) ... or end up in Washington sooner. She could do the job TODAY. Personally, I feel a lot better about McCain now that I know he has someone as savvy, as strong, as ethical and as steady as Sarah at his back. She will be an excellent Vice President ... and my guess is will be our US Republican Presidential candidate in four years - AND by then the country will KNOW her - will love and respect her as we do here - and she'll win by as much of a landslide as she did here in Alaska. I only wonder if McCain has a clue what he is unleashing on the US of A . She is going to be a fresh wind, but also a strong wind. Is that enough of an endorsement? If not, I'll add this .... Jerry and I have for many years felt the best "vote" was to vote for the lesser of two "evils" and hope they didn't do too much damage. Two years ago during our State Governor's race was the first time EVER that we actually asked for not just a little sign to put in our yard showing our support of our candidate (something we've never felt the desire to do at all before) - we asked for a full 4' x 8' "SARAH PALIN FOR GOVERNOR!" sign and were proud to display it. She hasn't let us or Alaska down. She will do the same for the USA if given the opportunity. Feel free to pass this on to anyone who may be interested (and spam those who aren't!).

We'll have to look at the Repbulican National Convention this week and watch Gov. Palin's speech. I have a feeling that given all the attention that the leftists have been giving to their ridiculous tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories about Sarah Palin, her speech may draw a higher rating than Barack Obama's did.

Democrat-Controlled Congress Still A Do-Nothing On Energy Prices, Obama's 'Post-Racial Reparations' And How Networks Use Blacks

Okay, some good stuff to look at and chew on today as you go through your daily life. We have a Do-Nothing, Dem-Controlled Congress doing everything in its power to ensure that gas prices remain high. Sean Lengell of the Washington Times has written a pretty comprehensive article about this.

Excerpt:

Lawmakers failed again Wednesday to reach a compromise on how to address the rising cost of gasoline, with no deal in sight before Congress adjourns for its five-week summer break on Friday. The impasse centers on Republican demands that any energy plan include a provision to expand domestic oil drilling to areas currently off-limits, including a wildlife reserve in northern Alaska and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Democrats oppose the idea, saying oil companies already have millions of available drilling acres on land they're not using.

But the Dems seem to be completely incapable of grasping the fact the reason the oil companies are not drilling on the lands they're not using is because ... (hang on to your seats) ... there is no oil under those lands! The Dems and libs are actually complaining that there is no drilling on lands under which there is no oil!

But this gets better:

Senate Republicans Wednesday blocked a wide-ranging Democratic measure that would extend tax breaks to an array of renewable-energy entrepreneurs. The measure, which also called for tax breaks for teachers, businesses and parents, failed to proceed on a vote of 51-43, with 60 votes needed to end a filibuster.

Another concept that the Dems are completely incapable of grasping is that alternative energy is not a viable solution to the problem we have now. If you look at what energy sources compose what percentage of our energy supply, you will see that alternative sources are less than eight percent of the total. Getting that percentage over even twenty percent is not feasible at our present level of technology. Further, there are no prospects for any massive breakthroughs in research on these alternative technologies to make a large increase feasible. The Dems are literally trying to fund a pipe-dream while simultaneously punishing energy suppliers who have proven track records of supplying the energy we need.

But really, the problem is that Democrats Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are worshipping at the alter of environmental extremists and are constantly maneuvering to in order to satisfy that small minority to the detriment of the majority.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, had earlier this week offered Republicans four amendments after Republicans requested dozens. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, on Wednesday said he agreed to the offer, but Mr. Reid denied a compromise had been reached. "We've tried so hard to do something on energy. We've been trying for months," said Mr. Reid. "But Republicans have basically rejected everything." Republicans said Democrats balked after calling their bluff, adding that Democratic leaders are afraid to allow a vote on any Republican proposal to increase domestic oil production because they fear many of their members would cross party lines and support such a measure. "Democrats keep moving the goal posts," said McConnell spokesman Don Stewart. "They can't take 'yes' for an answer."

Given Reid's questionable ethics and Pelosi's antics over in the House, I am more inclined to believe Senator McConnell.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Energy Compromise Elusive As Recess Looms
Sean Lengell
The Washington Times
July 31, 2008

---

Barack Obama claims to be "post-racial." But is he? Will his actions equal his words? Not according to James Taranto over at the Wall Street Journal.

Here is what he writes:

One of the most appealing features of the Barack Obama candidacy is the idea that Obama is "postracial"--that he is a candidate who is black and does not practice the adversarial politics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. ... But a story in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin raises serious questions about Obama's postracialism. The paper describes an Obama appearance at Unity '08, "a convention of four minority journalism associations": "I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged," the Democratic presidential hopeful said. "I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

That sounds to me exactly like the politics of race used by Jesse "Love Child" Jackson and Al Sharpton. Taranto takes it even further:

Exactly what Obama is advocating here cannot be determined, but it seems to be something of an endorsement of the idea of "reparations for slavery," which is usually taken to mean cash payments. In this view, the following deeds are insufficient to balance the ledger between America and the descendants of slaves: the Civil War, the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the continuing practice of racial preferences. The idea of reparations is highly unpopular, and with good reason. Unlike the Japanese-Americans who in 1988 received compensation for their internment by a Democratic administration in the grips of wartime hysteria, no one alive today has ever been a slave. The idea of the government cutting checks to compensate people for a wrong that they did not personally suffer is unlikely to appeal to anyone except perhaps those who stand to receive those checks.

That's it. It's all about buying votes from the black community. Too bad. It shows that King's dream of "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" may have been completely thrown under the bus by a black candidate.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Check, Please
James Taranto
The Wall Street Journal
July 30, 2008

---

And what does Old Media think about race-relations? Larry Elder exposes that very nicely with a letter he received from a friend who participated in one of those racial "specials." From Larry's TownHall column:

Dear Larry, OK, Larry, I grew up a bit last night. Those (unflattering descriptive deleted) at that news network on cable used me like a two-dollar whore! I interviewed with them for almost 10 hours, and all that talk was whittled down into five-second sound bites that put me in a rather negative light. Part of our talk was about the crack epidemic. I spoke about the way we are fighting this drug war, which we should approach as a health issue as opposed to a law enforcement problem. I talked about the impact single parenthood has on crime rates. … I talked and talked. They edited it all down to, "If you don't want to go to jail, don't sell crack." I am really angry. The "wretched blackness" slant was so clear. I was on live for the half-hour preceding the beginning of the program. They ran a long segment with a black comedian/actor, talking about how he tells his son each and every day about how to talk to the police and how black men must be wary of cops. They cut to me, and I said that I was certainly in agreement that we need to talk to our children about respecting authority, but I also wondered if the comedian/actor talked to his son about the proper color shirt to wear in case some knuckleheads have a dislike of the color red or blue. The truth is that his son has more to fear from other young black men than he does from the police. I then quoted a homicide statistic: 94 percent of black homicide victims are killed by other black people. It was dismissed by the moderator so we could focus instead on how racist the cops are. Unbelievable. It should not surprise me, then, that producers and editors would give liberal, hypersensitive blacks room to make their points -- even if they were factually untrue. They spoke to a professor from Columbia, who was droning on about how the legacy of slavery is to account for blacks' out-of-wedlock birthrate. Slavery?! This nonsense was seconded by another panelist. When I corrected them and said that the out-of-wedlock rate was lower during Jim Crow … eyes began rolling, and my point was ignored in order to move on. And I was reduced to sound bites. Had to vent a bit. --Your friend.

If anyone here is the least bit surprised, please leave a comment and tell us why.

But Larry gives the real reasons for what is happening in the black community:

The problems of the "black community" have to do with the welfare-state-induced breakdown (or, more accurately, non-formation) of the family. This causes a disinterest in education, and leads to poor values, reckless and irresponsible breeding, as well as a lack of the job skills necessary in an information-age society. We also have grievance groups -- black "leaders"; the oh-so-sympathetic media; fear- and guilt-laden whites who refuse to say (as they do to their own children) work hard and play by the rules; and many reluctant blacks who refuse to preach the message of "no excuses, hard work" for fear of being labeled "Uncle Toms."

You can access the complete article on-line here:

A Black Conservative Lament
Larry Elder
TownHall.com
July 31, 2008