Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Am I Free, Now?

Am I Free, Now?

There is no doubt about the unprecedented, historically mind-blowing events of this day, January, 20, 2009. The first African American was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States of America. Incredible!

As someone who grew up in a home of civil rights and Christ, I cannot ignore the stunning accomplishment of Mr. Obama. My father, a civil rights and political activist in Beaumont, Texas, where I grew up, is so very proud. He should be. My feelings on the matter are quite clear. I praise God that my father, my mother, and all those that went through "the struggle" and are still alive were able to witness this event. Yet, I praise God that I live in a country that allows me to oppose the new president with all the breath in my body because of his party and his policy positions. This I will do and you can be confident of that.

And with this historical day a greater question must be posed: Am I free, now?

Now that we have our first Black president, am I free to vote for whomever I desire without taking into consideration that person’s race? That didn’t seem to be the case in 2008. Anyone that dared oppose the Obama candidacy was labeled a pejorative – and, in my case, even on a live radio show. I must admit, I was pretty bold to establish a conservative talk radio show on an urban/black, liberal, Democrat, pro-Obama radio station. The very things that happened, the very names I was called (if the truth be told) I expected to happen.

And is anyone buying the myth that Blacks didn’t vote for Obama because he was Black? Of course not. We see the exit polling. We know the facts. And because of these indisputable numbers, we are fully convinced that Obama’s election is NOT the fulfillment of Dr. King’s dream.

Am I free, now? May I now vote for someone and with a party that agrees with my values and principles? May I now vote for a candidate that stands against abortion? Chances are that if I vote for an African-American Democrat candidate, I’m voting for the continued abomination of abortion that is devastating the Black community.

Am I free, now? I ask my fellow African Americans, may I vote for someone that agrees with me that a marriage is between one man and one woman as defined by the Bible? Chances are that if I vote for an African-American Democrat candidate, I’m voting for someone that supports the homosexual agenda of redefining marriage and, thus, literally attempting to openly defy God and have that defiance ratified by governmental action representing the very entity that this nation is.

Am I free, now? Is it okay for me to vote for a candidate that I agree with when it comes to the reduction of governmental scope, intrusion, and power? How about a candidate that holds a position that the lower the tax burden on our citizens the easier it is for the citizens to garner wealth? Chances are that if I vote for an African-American Democrat candidate, I’m voting for someone that believes in the ever-increasing power of government, wealth redistribution, socialist tenets that are self-destructive and unjust, and the abridgment of guaranteed liberty as promised within our nation’s Constitution.

I could go one, issue after issue. I think you get the point by now. Black voters have not been free since the 60's to vote as they believe. They’ve existed on the political plantation of the Democratic Party – openly and not-so-openly forbidden to step off the plantation or run the risk of being socially ostracized.

Now, I ask them: Are YOU free? I AM!
2009©Claver T. Kamau-Imani


  1. Mr. Kamau-Imani,

    While you may feel socially ostracized, the fact of the matter is you ARE free to vote for whomever you wish. That you, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, JC Watts and other African-American social conservative Republicans are characterized by some in ways too ugly to print, welcome to the big leagues of American politics. This screed smacks of whining and a pathetic need for affirmation. Accept that you are a minority within your race and your party. 'Tis nothing of which to be ashamed.

    As for exit polls, they do not determine motivation unless the specific question was asked and I'd like to see the poll that asked the question, "did you vote for Barack Obama because he is black?" If you can provide a link or other source, I'd appreciate it.

    Between 2004 and 2008, the increase in percentage of vote won by the Democratic candidate among African-Americans was 7%. If this somehow determines African-Americans voted for Obama simply because he is black, would you make a similar argument Hispanic-Americans voted for Obama simply due to the color of his skin? Using the polling data from the same elections, the Hispanic swing to the Democrats was 11%. Did young people (18-29) vote for him simply because he is black? Their swing was 12%. Catholics? Their swing was equal to the African-American swing of 7%. Was that because Barack is black?

    The answer, quite simply, is no.

    Lastly, if the Republican Party insists on continuing to fight the social battles of the 70s, 80s and 90s as you have fought them in the past, you will remain the minority party. It's a matter of simple demographics.

  2. The election certainly demonstrates the need to talk to the issues within minority communities. While one may be free to vote however one chooses, there is inherently something wrong AND DIVISIVE with almost monolithic voting patterns. It's a mission field for Republicans, and there isn't time to waste. The increase in black votes going to Democrats over time was already trending this way, Obama just capped it.

    Suit up, conservatives! If you want in the door you have to go to the street first!

  3. Baby you have been free all along. But I think you know that. Just as I cannot and will not sit at the same big table with Rush, Clarence, Bush and Ronald your are free to sit in whatever section you feel. Thing is, while you want to know if you are free you refer to the Democratic party as a plantation. Careful you don't end up blinded by that plank.

  4. I think that it is pretty clear that Blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama both because of his color AND his policies. The turnout for Colin Powell as a Republican would be substantially less, but still be there. The turnout for Thomas Sewell would be even less, I suspect.

    Having said that, I think the real problem is that too many blacks (AND whites!) see the solutions to their problems to be the standard litany of liberal solutions, irrespective of the effectiveness of those solutions.

    The GOP had a real opportunity to do what they were hired to do, and failed. For example, President Bush could have taken five minutes in his first State of the Union to explain how farm subsidies hurt people by doubling the price of food and distributing 80% of the subsidy to 10 large corporate farms, etc.

    Such things would have shown that capitalism and GOP policies were NOT designed to help business, but to help the commmon man, regardless of race.

    Alas, the many opportunities to fix things like this, whether it was farm subsidies, or to demonstrate the value of federalism by allowing CA to have its medical marijuana, or to encourage the auto union workers by allowing their employers to purchase steel without outrageous high tariffs (raised to assist a single senatorial race!).

    It goes on and on, one squandered opportunity after another. The GOP is merely reaping what it has sown. And back to the point at hand - black voters look at the GOP and see it, quite correctly, as an organization bent on keeping power, and quite uninterested at doing what is right for the common man (white OR black).

    I wouldn't have any problem with that analysis, except that voters should understand that the Dems aren't any better.

  5. Great blog.I sure hope you will be free, but truly, I am not sure.

  6. To Kellerfan,
    So then, wise one, how SHOULD the Republican Party fight the social issues?
    Please do tell... inquiring minds would like to glean from your wisdom.

    Are you trying to say that Ronald Reagan didn't fight it the right way given he won by a landslide on a conservative platform?

    Are you trying to say that the Contract With America as lead by conservative right wing Newt Gingerich was done wrong, since it got more black (and white) people out of poverty than any other program.

    Are you trying to say that Prop 8 was done wrong in frothing liberal California, as voted into law by minorities, including Blacks and Hispanics who on the other side of the ballot voted Liberal?

    Just what ARE you trying to say?

    Dude, you gotta be more clear when you say they have fought it wrong, when in fact, every time they stand on conservative principles, proud and strong, they win?!

    If you don't make yourself more clear (whatever it is that you are trying to say) then your argument is invalid and we will choose just to ignore it.

  7. Mr.,

    Who is the "we" for whom you claim to speak?

    Don't look to me to solve the GOP's issues but ignoring problems or pretending they do not exist is no way to grow the party. For the GOP's sake, the leaders of the party understand this - even if you do not.

  8. To kellerfan,
    That word "we" is a generic we, as in those of us (you knew what I meant) who understand the subjects of how the Republican party has fought correctly and won elections and changed history for the better and made life better... for example the Welfare-To-Work program that came out of the Contract With America as run by a Republican controlled Congress in 1994.

    But of course, nooo you choose to ignore my questions and plea to get you to clarify your argument. Instead you distract by focusing on the word "WE"..... !!!

    Now, if you have something further to say or debate that makes sense, let's keep talking.

    But... if you do not have anything sensible to say then what is the point?

    That's just a question brotha not an insult.

  9. And by the way kellerfan, why don't you get involved and help the GOP improve their methods (my apologies if you already do) in where they are lacking.

    They need people like you to get a different perspective.

    We should help the party that we most agree with on improving their methods, not attack them and vote for the other party (my apologies if this does not describe you).

    I have criticized the Republicans in more ways than I care to describe here, but my take now is, that, voting for the opposition (I never have) to teach the Repubs a lesson is not doing any good in the long run.

    Don't you agree with me on that at least?

  10. Mr.,

    Most often if one wishes to engage in dialog then one does not open with insult, no?

    My comment to the apostle was coherent, intelligent and factually based. That seems "sensible" to me. I'm sorry if it does not seem that way to you.

    In a nutshell, here's the problem with the GOP as I see it. After the inauguration I sent the following quote to more than a dozen of my hardcore conservative friends: "How can we love our country and not love our countrymen, and loving them, reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they are sick, and provide opportunities to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?"

    Every single one of them send back hateful replies that 1) ripped Obama, 2) ripped liberals and 3) ripped government in general.

    When I responded that those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan during his first inaugural address they either denied it or I got no reply.

  11. I'm with you there, kellerfan.

    I'm at the point now, where I'm really tired of plopping down criticisms without suggesting solutions.

    When you made a blanket statement that the GOP doesn't do it right, I was merely pointing out, what and where they have done right (and that's not minimizing what they do wrong).
    But since you merely responded with a hiccup over a generic "we", I assumed you didn't care about engaging in problem solving debate.

    So my apologies.

    So tell me, what did Reagan do that promoted his theory, specifically as it relates to this quote of his: "provide opportunities to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?"

    As I pointed out, that is what happened with The Contract with America (just as an example).

    So my point is, we have to begin with recognizing what did/does work regardless what party it originated from.

    Does that make sense?

  12. Unfortunately, we are not free--not as long as most of "us" (African Americans) continue to have the wool pulled over our eyes by the Democratic Party.

    Using Plato's analogy, we are in a Cave. We ARE enslaved, but we don't know it because we've never been out of the Cave. This is not to say that the Republican Party wants to lead us out. Bush and others like him have enacted big-government policies consistent with "the Democracy" for the past 8 years. (Think NCLB). Although he came close, Reagan spent like a drunken sailor. We haven't seen a true Conservative Republican as President in our lifetimes.

    Blacks were lured away from the Republican Party with the promise of Civil Rights legislation and Welfare. They don't even give the 1964 Republicans in Congress credit for passing the Civil Rights act, without whom it would not have happened. Ignorance is the Democrat's greatest weapon against us. Neo-Cons (former Democrats who joined the Republican Party for racial or religious reasons, and are still collectivists at heart) are their second greatest asset.

    Slavery was the first collectivist idea brought to this country--the idea that some groups were more privileged than others. The Democratic Party was the Party of Slavery. It took the Republican Party to destroy it. This alone is reason enough for me to vote Republican for the rest of my life. But we should also look for candidates who believe in Individual Liberty and Freedom. John McCain was as eager to support big-government collectivism as Barack Obama. Currently, the Democrats are pushing toward a Socialized State, which always lead to Totalitarianism.

    With no grasp of history prior to 1960, African Americans can't appreciate that this foolhardy rush toward socialism has already happened before. So, Apostle Claver is right. He is one of the wise brothas who have stepped into the light, and are trying to show us the way out of the Cave. The Democratic Party IS a plantation, and as long as we stay on it, we are not free.

    --Robert Broadus

  13. Fabulous post, Robert. Very insightful. I hope you will be a consistent contributor to the blog, and I think we can work together on a lot projects together in the very near future. The Lord's blessings on your political endeavors.

  14. Robert,
    On your swipe at Reagan for: "...although he came close, Reagan spent like a drunken sailor"....
    I have one comment: Re-read the Constitution, Robert. Only Congress can spend.
    If memory serves, when Reagan was President, the Congress made a point of doing a big PR presser with the President’s proposed budget on a gurney, announcing that it was “DOA.”

    These hypocrites were happy to go along with the tax cuts, but never followed through on their promise to reduce spending. It wasn’t our military buildup that drove the deficit through the roof…it was the same-old same-old, the Potomac Two-Step that Democrats have done since the days of FDR…
    ...a trick they picked up from the Roman Senate: Bread and Circuses.

    I am glad that you are making the efforts to educate the people, but let's set the record straight and put the blame squarely where it belongs.. straight on top of the liberal democrat party who have "stolen" the mantra of being for the people.

  15. Robro,

    Would you not agree that most people tend to distance themselves from those who oppress them?

    In the 1960s, the African-American population in this country still predominantly lived in the South. With the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which would not have been accomplished without bipartisan support and support of a Southern Democratic President, the white vote in the south went from overwhelmingly Democratic to Republican and we witnessed the birth of the GOP's racist "Southern Strategy".

    Now, you can insinuate African-Americans are foolish but how much more foolish would one be to embrace the neighbor who wishes, at best, to diminish him or, at worst, to kill him?


    It may surprise you to know that the difference between the proposed Reagan budgets and Congressional outlays during Reagan's entire presidency was less than 3%.

  16. kellerfan,
    Again, getting the facts straight is the tricky challenge isn't it?
    Exactly right, Kemosabe?
    The Democrats went along with Reagan's tax cuts but NEVER kept up their promise to cut spending and then when Reagan vetoed their spending bills, the only way for them to get around this was to introduce supplemental spending bills, outside of the budget... which Reagan summarily vetoed.
    Unfortunately, some of these vetoes were overridden by the liberals in Congress. It started with the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1982 (HR6863 of the 97th Congress. You should see how much it was larded up with pork!).
    Again you can go on and justify your support for the lying weasels called the Democrat Party (not to say that Republicans haven't lied on occasion) but at the end of the day if you want to start off on truthful ground you have to come to grips with the fact that the Democrat Party has been OVERTAKEN by extreme leftist liberals that DON'T HAVE the peoples concern as their guiding light!!
    Rather, they only have their own self-interested power-grabbing ambitions at any cost and the sooner you come to grips with that, the sooner you will be free.

    Here's hoping that you will choose freedom.

  17. Mr.,

    No, getting the facts straight is not all that difficult. In fact, I'll admit to a mistake. The number is not 3%, it's actually less than 1% and that number comes from the Congressional Almanac.

    Domestic, non-defense discretionary spending FELL during the Reagan Administration. And of over 100 regular, supplemental or omnibus appropriations bills that came across his desk, Reagan vetoed only 12.

    It would be just as easy for me to say the GOP leadership has only their own self-interested, power-grabbing ambitions at any costs mentality. But that does nothing to further legitimate debate nor does it put us on a path toward finding common ground in the interest of all.

    While there are many issues I had with the Reagan Administration, as well as with the Democratic Congress of that period, the one thing I hope happens in the Obama Administration is that he will have the kind of relationship with GOP Congressional leaders that Reagan had with Tip O'Neill.

  18. kellerfan,
    Show me one case where a true conservative Republican, following the principles of limited government as laid down in the founding principles of this country, who did NOT vote for pork barrel spending, who did NOT cave in to lobbyists, who did things that enables us to empower ourselves, EVER WAS POWER HUNGRY/GRABBING for the sake of getting or keeping power?
    One example, please...!! Just show me one!!

    I can show you many examples of the reverse though in either party.
    THEY HAVE NO POWER if they cannot get the money, or the votes to keep them in!!

    Also, what good does "legitimate" debate do, if it put us on a path of least resistance, that empowers our politicians to GRAB MORE POWER and further limit our freedom (whether overtly or sublimely) even though that debate makes us all "feel good" as though we are working toward finding common ground in the interest of all.

    WHAT GOOD, does a "feel good common ground, in the interest of all" do, if it takes us further away from individual liberty and freedom of movement, personal freedom of our choice and the ease of pursuing personal happiness as we see fit?!

  19. Mr., Representative Ron Paul regularly votes against unconstitutional bills in Congress. For that, he gets excoriated by many in his own party, but is reelected by greater margins at less effort every year.

    Senator Tom Coburn regularly tweaks the entire political establishment by stopping or attempting to stop the bad idea du jour.

    SO, that's two. There are others. Jeb Hensarling, rep from Dallas, also does a pretty fair job. There are probably at least two dozen good representatives and senators whose profile we should elevate on a regular basis as supporters of a limited government and will take a hit. Of course, that number will go up because Bush is no longer there to support and reward bad spending policies. (That man set back limited government at least three decades.)

    I belong to the GOP and support it so long as it has people in it worth supporting. The ideals in the platform are largely correct. They screw up routinely. The difference between the GOP and the Dems is that the GOP apologizes and is sorry when it stabs me in the back, as it does a solid 50% of the time with its actions, but the Dems do it happily and with great enthusiasm about 95% with their actions. For example, Bush's drug prescription plan was horrible policy, but it is nothing compared to the damage that the Dems are going to do with a real socialist medical system.

    When it comes to the social issues, I believe that the solution lies in the original federalist approach that our government used. Capital punishment, abortion, marriage, gambling, drug use, and a whole plethora of serious issues were all state issues for the first 180 years or more of our nation's history. It was only the Supreme Court that ignored the Consitution and allowed the feds to make rules for all 50 states when it didn't have that power. Their intrusion was deemed publicly acceptable in some cases, such as Loving v. Virginia (ending racial restrictions on marriage), but that set up the intrusion in all other areas.

    So fixing difficult social issues means to take the high road and say that states are the right place to see those issues addressed. AND whenever we have the power at the federal level, to pass laws encouraging that way of thinking. (And that means that California should be allowed to sell medical marijuana if it it wishes, as opposed to the way that the Bush administration handled it.)

  20. Free to attend underperforming schools when we know that education is the only way out of poverty--but BHO is against vouchers

    Free to pay taxes although no society has EVER taxed and spent its way to prosperity--we're just load our children and grandchildren with debt (because we're already loaded with it)

    Free to have an abortion (it's only "choice" to me if the baby gets to choose)

    At least we're still free to hear what we want on the radio (for now)

  21. Great post friend keep saying it loud so all can hear. This is going on right now in Illinois. I am doing a little volunteer work for Randy White for Lt. Govenor of Illinois. He running with a Black Conservative Christian Brother and they both are taking a beating from not only the left but the so called right in Illinois politics as you can imagine. Visit to see the rest of the story. http://www.randy4ltgov.com/index.html
    Keep up the GOOD work,