Tag Archives: 700 club

Are blacks hypocrites or stupid? Part 1

Are blacks hypocrites or stupid? Part 1
by Ben Kinchlow

President Barack Hussein Obama’s assertions that 1) “We are no longer just a Christian nation” and 2) “[W]e’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world” do not hold true for black America.

In a 2007 survey, 87 percent of African-Americans described themselves as belonging to a religious group (overwhelmingly Christian). Eighty-four percent of African-American women say religion is very important to them. Nearly 80 percent of all African-Americans say religion is very important in their lives. About one percent are Muslim, fewer than one-half percent are Jewish, and about the same for Buddhist, Hindu and other world religions. Of those African-Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular faith, 45 percent still say religion is very important in their lives. While roughly 39 percent of all Americans attend religious services at least once a week and 58 percent pray daily, 53 percent of African-Americans go to church once a week, and 76 percent say they pray every day (U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, Pew Research Center, Forum on Religion & Public Life).

In other words, of the total U.S. population, African-Americans surpass all other racial and ethnic groups when it comes to religious observance.

Considering that 94 to 96 percent of blacks voted Democrat in the 2008 presidential election (which generated the highest turnout ever for black females and young eligible black voters), we find ourselves facing two serious questions.

Fifty-one percent of blacks who attend church regularly say abortions should be illegal; even among those not attending weekly, 35 percent agree. Fifty-eight percent of the black evangelical church members say homosexuality should be discouraged and among non-church members, 32 percent concur. Roughly 64 percent of African-Americans say they oppose legalizing homosexual marriage, compared to 51 percent of the general population.

There are also high percentages of blacks who say political leaders should be more open about their faith, and an equally high figure say churches should express their views on social issues.

In light of all the above statistics and more, we are forced to address these two questions: 1) Why the dichotomy of supporting, almost blindly, a party that stands in direct contradiction to what they hold as moral truth? And 2) since blacks are demonstrably the most religious of all voters, are they hypocrites or are they stupid?

Since blacks are obviously sincere in their outward devotion (88 percent believe in God with “absolute certainty” compared to 71 percent generally), and as they seek to hear the Bible (55 percent believe it is the literal Word of God), we must give them the benefit of the doubt as to hypocrisy, which is defined as “the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.” Most blacks are not pretending, so there must be another reason.

Stupidity? While indeed their political behavior shows “a lack of good sense of judgment,” I do not believe it is deliberate, and it does not necessarily overflow into all other areas of their lives. Blacks, as a whole, obviously are not stupid, and in many cases they have taken full advantage of the opportunities offered to all Americans. The gross national product of black America, viewed objectively, would make the African-American community the tenth most prosperous “nation” in the world. According to an excellent article by David Horovitz, this, “translated into individual realities, would show that American blacks, on average, enjoy per capita incomes in the range of twenty to fifty times those of blacks living in any of the African nations from which they were kidnapped.”

Could they be simply uninformed? Perhaps the answer to that question lies in a biblical truth given to warn another group being led down the primrose path: “… If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into a ditch.” That does seem to sum up the present situation, as black pastors are treated with great esteem by their flock and in many cases today, the bishop is among the most prosperous in the black community. Actually, very few in the African-American church abide by the biblical injunction, “… they were very willing to receive the message, and every day they carefully examined the Scriptures to see if those things were so” (Acts 17:11).

Today the mindset is: “Never mind looking it up. If Bishop says it, that’s the way it is!”

I think this is more to the point: Blacks vote for a party that practices what they preach against, because they are, like I was prior to doing research for my book, “Black YellowDogs,” simply uninformed. I just didn’t know.

As one blogger put it, “Here is black America’s view on politics: Republicans and conservatives are rich, white and racist SOBs; black conservatives are Uncle Tom traitors to their race; if you are black, you are an Uncle Tom for not supporting Obama; if you are white, you are racist for not supporting Obama.”

Like most black, and many white, Americans, I was just not aware of some historical facts vis-à-vis Republicans and Democrats. For example, the Republican Party was formed specifically to prevent the spread of slavery; Lincoln, the first Republican president, freed the slaves; the Democratic Party seceded rather than give up slavery; the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were all introduced and passed by Republicans.

How serious were the Democrats about keeping blacks “in their place”? “In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes cast. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes cast” (Canada Free Press).

All civil-rights bills were passed by Republican votes over the objections and filibusters of the Democrats up to and including the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. (Just FYI, it was President Eisenhower, a Republican, who sent federal troops to remove a Democrat governor who was literally blocking the door to keep eight black children out of Little Rock High School.)

Speaking of percentages, in 2008, 96 percent of blacks voted Democrat; in 1876, 99 percent voted Republican. Why? Because in 1876, only Republicans allowed blacks to vote.

“But the Democrats passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, didn’t they?”

Yes, and here is why. President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act (a watered-down version, by the way, of the Republican 1957 Civil Rights Act, which Johnson and the Democrats opposed). The 1960s saw blacks take to the streets, and demonstrations that included Jews, white and black church congregants had America glued to the news sources. Something had to be done.

Keep in mind, the Democrats, via state governments, a sympathetic Supreme Court and a powerful bloc at the national level, had blocked or killed all civil rights legislation passed by Republicans, including Civil Rights Acts in 1866, 1870, 1871 and 1875, and then everything from 1874 (when they regained control of both houses of Congress) to 1954.

As for the “liberal LBJ,” keep in mind that Johnson, when he was first elected senator, observed, “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness.”

So why would Johnson make a big deal out of the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for these “uppity Negroes” (beside the fact that the Republican majority in Congress passed it into law)? Johnson, ever the consummate politician, saw this as a political plum. It would change black voting patterns for the foreseeable future and he knew it. Proof? Flying on Air Force One, President Johnson said to two governors, “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years” (Ronald Kessler: “Inside The White House,” 1995, Simon & Schuster).

Mission accomplished!

Are blacks hypocrites? No. Stupid? No. They’re just misinformed and uninformed.

That brings to mind another phrase I have read several times: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

Ben Kinchlow is a minister, broadcaster, author and businessman. He was the long-time co-host of CBN’s “The 700 Club” television program and host of the international edition of the show, seen in more than 80 countries. He is the founder of Americans for Israel and the African American Political Awareness Coalition, and the author of several books.

SOURCE

Homeland Security Targets Anti-Abortion Activists as Domestic Terrorists

Homeland Security Targets Anti-Abortion Activists as Domestic Terrorists

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com

The Homeland Security unit of Charlotte’s Mecklenburg Police Department is working hard to crush the First Amendment rights of anti-abortion activists by re-characterizing protest as “stalking,” ensuring that institutions merely have to complain that they feel “threatened” in order to have police remove demonstrators.

The domestic terrorism branch of the CMPD is targeting the anti-abortion group Operation Save America because of its efforts to dissuade mothers from terminating pregnancies outside abortion mills.

“Rev. Flip Benham, the National Director of Operation Save America, will appear at the Charlotte School of Law in Charlotte to appeal a “guilty’ verdict for “stalking.” The charge of “stalking” is simply the latest of many blatant attempts by the abortion industry and the city of Charlotte to remove from the streets gentle Christians who offer mom’s a real choice at abortion mills. There have been lawsuits, injunctions, temporary restraining orders, and every other imaginable strategy, to silence the Gospel of Christ,” reports Operation Save America.

The group claims it is being targeted because its efforts have saved over a thousand babies from being aborted, representing a huge chunk of “lost revenue” for the abortion industry.

“This new North Carolina “stalking” statute is so egregious because it can be used by virtually anyone to silence the First Amendment rights of another by simply saying that he or she “feels” threatened,” states the press release.

The fact that a local unit of the DHS is flexing its muscles to silence anti-abortion voices is unsurprising given Homeland Security’s routine demonization of right to life activists as hate groups.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

In a 2009 report distributed to law enforcement organizations entitled , “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” anti-abortion activists are put on a par with white supremacists and domestic terrorists.

The wider move to re-characterize free speech activities as “stalking” or “harassment” has accelerated in recent months.

Previous stalking laws have been ruled unconstitutional because they “could undercut free-speech rights, including the media’s newsgathering ability and a citizen’s right to “redress political or legal grievances.”

The ACLU has decried a new bill that would criminalize any speech on the Internet that “has the effect of causing substantial embarrassment or humiliation to [a] person within an academic or professional community.”

Of course, legitimate criticism of public figures would fall under this category. Genuine allegations of corruption would be chilled by this law because it would create fear of reprisals.

FCC leads the way on persecution of religious broadcasters

FCC leads the way on persecution of religious broadcasters

Custom Search

By BROOKS BOLIEK |

If a church broadcasts the word of God on TV without closed captions, it risks incurring the wrath of the FCC.

Some 300 small- to medium-sized churches can expect letters from the commission within the next few days explaining why their closed captioning exemptions were lifted for TV shows like “Power in the Word” and “Producing Kingdom Citizens.”

The FCC has been mailing the letters for the past few days to churches from Maine to California, explaining that the hundreds of exemptions are now rescinded and giving the programmers 90 days to reapply.

The churches were granted FCC exemptions from the closed captioning requirement under a 2006 commission decision known as the “Anglers Order” for the Anglers for Christ Ministries program that had argued for exemption from the rules.

While the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau used the Anglers Order as the model to grant at least 298 other exemptions, the full commission overturned that decision Oct. 20 after objections were raised from a coalition of organizations for the deaf and hard of hearing.

The churches may still be eligible to win an exemption from the rules if they can prove they can’t afford closed captioning, but they now have to make their case individually.

“This was a process that went awry,”
said Craig Parshall, senior vice president of the National Religious Broadcasters, an international association of Christian communicators. “Now, we are going back to Square One.”

Advocacy groups for the deaf contend that the bureau erred when it granted the exemptions en masse because that created a virtual blanket exemption for nonprofit organizations. Under the closed captioning law, programmers can win an exemption if they can prove that the cost of the captioning will cause an undue economic hardship.

The groups wrote to the FCC asking commissioners to overrule the bureau order arguing that the order “improperly and unilaterally established a new class of exempt programming.”

While the commission’s decision has an immediate impact on churches across the country, it isn’t directed at religious organizations in particular, Parshall said. Small- and medium-sized churches just happened to apply for exemptions under the closed captioning law’s exception for TV shows where paying for captioning is an undue economic burden, Parshall explained.

Advocates for the deaf said they were pleased the commission was taking action on the issue, and hoped that it would make more programming accessible to the deaf and hearing impaired.

“Now, we look forward to viewing more TV shows that were not captioned before,” said Jim House, spokesman for Telecommunications for the Deaf Inc. “It is our hope that those producers affected by the decision would see the positive benefits of making their shows accessible to more and more viewers and find that it is the right thing to do.”

Religious broadcasters want to reach the deaf community, but requiring churches across the country to close caption their TV programs could force the programming off the air, Parshall said.

“We believe our message needs to get out to the deaf and disabled communities,
” Parshall explained. “All we want is a sensible regulatory structure that recognizes the plight of the small Christian broadcaster.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 3:25 p.m. on October 31, 2011.

Read more:SOURCE