The American Spectator : Created Equal

Text Size

Created Equal

By Lisa Fabrizio on 8.4.10 @ 6:06AM

We are living in a post-racist era, though it may not be post-racial.

As the winds of prevailing opinion blow, I would seem to be a pretty vile individual. I am a faithful Catholic which, in the eyes of most liberals, makes me a bitter homophobe. I am a woman who celebrates the differences and roles of men and women which, in the feminist playbook, makes me a traitorous misogynist. And worst of all, I have the audacity to be a white conservative and therefore, according to the powers that be, I am a racist.

Now, in the real world where folks actually pay attention to the meaning of the words they use and not to the baggage attached to them by passing whims, I am none of the above. How do I know this? Because the simple application of labels in of themselves cannot dictate thought or behavior. Just as you can judge a true Christian, not by any jewelry they might wear or books they're seen carrying, but by the way they carry themselves, so too a real racist gives himself away by his actions and words. True racism infects hearts and consumes them with a hatred that cannot be hidden. And that is why we can say that racism -- at least the grand-scale type said to have hindered minority access to the American dream -- is dead in this country; just take a look around.

Now, this hasn't much to do with the election of our first black president; he is but a beneficiary of a trend that might have happened sooner had it not been for the mischief that has been perpetrated on our nation for years by an odd alliance between the Democratic Party and those who profit from racial discord. They use the regrettable history of slavery in this country as a way to foment the resentment they need to keep the flames of hatred alive.

For years, many of us -- including black conservatives who of course have been branded as "Uncle Toms" -- have been pointing out that purveyors of class warfare use phrases like "black robes, white justice" and "speaking truth to power," which have served them well, as they point out that all of their miseries are the result of power in the hands of evil white (Republican) men whose sole desire is to keep them in "their place." But those days are over. Again, take a look around.

A recent spate of political scandals involving black politicos has engulfed the pages of some newspapers. I say "some," because due to the party affiliation of most of the no-goodniks, their hijinks have, shall we say, flown under the radar. In New York alone, a raft of minority legislators, led by Governor David Paterson, are in the political soup. And the plights of black U.S. congressmen have dominated the news lately.

Rep. William Jefferson, former congressman from Louisiana, was convicted in November on four bribery counts, three counts of money laundering, three counts of wire fraud and one count of racketeering, after investigators found $90,000 stashed away in his freezer. Then there is New York's own Charlie Rangel, whose official charges include the non-reportage of over a million dollars of income but whose general malfeasance was wonderfully and graphically captured for posterity in a photo that ran on the cover of the New York Post, where he snoozes in the lap of luxury on the beach of his Punta Cana Yacht Club complex in the Dominican Republic. And now, to complete the coast-to-coast picture, it is reported that Maxine Waters, (D-CA) will also face three charges of House ethics violations later this year.

The key point in all this is that Rangel, Waters and friends -- Democrats accused by a Democratic Congress -- won't have their old friend the race card to bail them out this time. Proof of this is the advice to Rangel from President Obama who, rather than fight for him along party and racial lines, recommended a sort of political euthanasia, telling an interviewer that the liberal warhorse should end his career "with dignity."

Am I celebrating the fact that these folks may be crooks, liars and thieves? In a way, yes. It fulfills the dream of Martin Luther King; that men should be judged, not by the color of their skin, but on the content of their character. It proves what our Founding Fathers stated in the Declaration of Independence: that all men are created equal. There is no difference between the races when each is given the same chance to grasp the reins of power; a power that can easily corrupt the best of us. What a wonderful place is America; where this is no longer true only of evil white men.

About the Author

Lisa Fabrizio is a columnist who hails from Connecticut (mailbox@lisafab.com).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (23) | Leave a comment

Ret. Marine| 8.4.10 @ 7:38AM

The term "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" are not the facts as far as the CBC is concerned, and never has been. As a matter of fact, that they continue to call whitey, i.e. all males of european decent, whitey is racist statement alone. Cracker too is offensive, but how many "cracker caucuses" are there, none. Oh but you can bet your last dollar if it were to be established, they, the CBC- professional race hustlers, would find it offensive even though they alone came up with the term. Why? because to admit they are part of the American experience will have the in a rather embarrasing situation. After claiming whitey has kept them on the plantation under their thumbs, the would have to admit they are at best of weak disposition in their character, creating the need for all the affirmative actions they have legislated to this day. So which is it there CBC, are you with us, all men are created equal, or are you against us, the very meaning of the established organization of the Congressional BLACK Caucus.
Enquiring minds need to know.

Alan Brooks| 8.4.10 @ 8:46PM

Then reparations would be the only way to go;
blacks would as a result have enough funds to hold their own against whites.

Jacobite| 8.4.10 @ 8:53PM

Reparations or welfare; call it what you want. The fact is that US blacks, with an average IQ of 85, are not going to participate in the 21st century economy, and it's far better to pay them a living amount than to have them affirmative-actioned into jobs they can no more perform than my dog can build a dog-house.

Louis Jenkins| 8.4.10 @ 8:15AM

The way I look at, these 8 or so individuals happen to be black. And while racist thoughts may twirl around in my head, I do not state them nor allow them to emerge in a foam speckled rant. Better to let the Ethics Committee do their job and go from there. But then, they're all crimminals aren't they?

Petronius| 8.4.10 @ 9:17AM

There are insular cohorts among all races who simply refuse to become Civilized. Whether a union slacker, Black Panther, La Raza rabble, or some C.U.N.T: ( Can't Understand Normal Thinking); from Code Pink, bleats in public that they are "owed", treats demands and threatens violence, these overgrown brats should get a solid ass kicking.

Tim| 8.4.10 @ 9:47AM

I always respected MLK even though I may not have agreed with him 100% of the time.

However, given the vast polarization that has been created since Obama became president it is safe to say that if MLK were alive when Obama and his ilk are kicked out of office in 2012 you would even here "him" say:

"Free at last, Free at last, Thank God Almighty we are free at last"

PolishKnight| 8.4.10 @ 10:12AM

The very notion of bashing "white men" as the puveyors of racism is, itself, as racist as anything the so-called civil rights continually displays indignation against.

3 of my great grandparents were from Poland and 1 from East Germany. They had NOTHING to do with racism or slavery in any way and, in addition, neither did their descendants including me. Not only do the followers of MLK and his "judging on character" continue to malign my ancestors' reputations, and mine, but these hypocrites then demand that recent non-white immigrants share in the racist spoils of "white guilt."

If MLK were alive today, would he object to this? We can't be for sure, but it's clear that he was a political opportunist and marxist who used a religious pulpit for a political agenda in a manner that the left expresses disgust for when Jerry Falwell does it.

Tim| 8.4.10 @ 12:39PM

But whatever MLK would agree with or disagree with if he were here today,

I believe that most of us agrree that MLK'S mission on earth was to bring people freedom and Obama's mission seems to be to take freedom away from people.

MOS was 71331| 8.4.10 @ 4:39PM

As I've posted in other discussion chains, the best political sign I've seen in the current election cycle is one televised at a tea party assembly. On its top half, there's a large photo of MLK on the left and the text "He had a dream." on the right. On its bottom half, there's a large photo of 0bama on the left and the text "We got a nightmare." on the right.

To me, that sign says it all.

Jacobite| 8.4.10 @ 8:56PM

If not their real goal, at least a major side dish for MLK and the Freedom Riders was to have sex with pathetic white women. MLK liked to bang white gals two at a time. When will the FBI release those tapes?

RCV| 8.4.10 @ 11:59PM

Your remarks are utterly disgusting and reprehensible. Go crawl back under your rock.

Qwilly| 8.4.10 @ 11:22AM

Reconstruction, and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, have always been Reprerations to the the affected set of Americans those actions specifcally spoke about. Running over the border and droping a baby here, never had nothing to do with either.

martin j smith| 8.4.10 @ 12:03PM

The Socialist Left has played the race card while Conservatives become defensive and thos in the middle say " not me ". This is disgusting. I think it is time to call out the phoney politicians who use race to avoid criticism of their own wrong doings or those of others. And, the i use the race card to discredit those who disagree. tis time to say enough. What issues have the race card been used: Obama care,immigration the WTC Mosque,Tea Partiers, in fact any criticism of BHO.
Is it not time to take back the right to judge others from the Socvialist Left--I think so.

Al Adab| 8.4.10 @ 12:24PM

We will not be post-racial until neither side gains political advantage from "playing the race card". The fact that the only racist demagogues today are on the Left should tell us something.

Can we not agree that they are racist who view all issues and events through the prism of race?

Jacobite| 8.4.10 @ 9:01PM

That the only racist demagogues are on the Left tells me that white people better wake up. Blacks, Mex, and Asians are using the law and government to gain preference over white people for employment, political power, sentencing guidelines, and college admissions. These minorities have their party (the Dems) who work tirelessly for their votes. What's wrong with this picture? White people have nobody representing their interests, and white people don't seem to be able to do so themselves.

Derek Leaberry| 8.4.10 @ 12:32PM

The term "racist" tends to be thrown around quite liberally these days, so much so that it means nothing to me. But to the modern egalitarian mind, and count many conservatives as having modern egalitarian minds, the Founding Fathers must be considered not only "racist" but "sexist" and "homophobic". None, including racially liberal Alexander Hamilton, considered blacks or women as equals. No Founder wanted to extend the franchise to blacks or women or Indians. In fact, the wiser Founders wanted to limit the white male franchise to those with certain amounts of property. Conservatives who respect the Founders and their country's history play with fire when they resort to the sort of name calling that the egalitarians on the Left revel in.

Nancy in NC| 8.4.10 @ 5:14PM

Actually, you are wrong. Women did get to vote in some places, if they owned property...or that was true for a period of time.

The Founders were men of their times, and to point at their shortcomings is to diminish their value. In fact, there is quite abit of disinformation floating around about the Founders...rich, white, racist deist. It's simply not true. At a given time that might have been true about SOME of the Founders; the left tends to lump them all together. Very disingeneous. And no man is perfect. I prefer to dwell on the virtues of the Founders...and they had many.

In fact, we would be hard pushed to find one as honorable as any of the Founders. (IMHO)

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.4.10 @ 1:07PM

Derek, Drek

Our founders had it right...AT THAT TIME...women, blacks and Indians were NOT equal.
The women died young in childbirth dreadfully often, with little chance for mature judgements.
The blacks were desperately ignorant.

heh...sorta' like hoodies today.

The "Native Americans" were busily murdering each other...as well as settlers.

Joe D.| 8.4.10 @ 1:18PM

Lisa - that is why we need to get back to what the constitution says about their job, powers and things they can't do. If we do that the corruption will go away. Because they are not suppose to be doing 75% of what they are doing (spending, regulating, taxing and favortism).

David | 8.4.10 @ 5:11PM

What I am about to say is not racially motivated, but just stating the facts about something which very few people know.

About 10 years ago there was the huge scandal involving most members of Congress. It was the check kiting/floating scandal. Members of Congress were writing checks in amounts well over their salaries and other income.

I recall watching C-SPAN all day and night when every repub who spoke in the well of the house said things such as "the American people are really upset with us; we need to disclose everything; we need to open up our personal financial books, etc.". Almost all democrats said things such as "we have rights of privacy, too; we didn't do anything wrong, etc.". The absolute most vocal about not coming clean with Americans were members of the black caucus. The yelled and hollered about their rights, etc.

It turned out after months of looking at all members of congress who were under suspicion, that most of them were cleared of any wrongdoing.

The Wall Street Journal was the only place that I saw how the entire investigation into the check scandal turned out. They reported it on either May 5 or May 21, but I don't recall the year. It was about 10 years ago.

So how did it all turn out? If I correctly remember, 30 of the 31 members who were found to have done illegal (that means simply unethical to when applied to congress) were democrats. Wait..............there's more................and 28 of the democrats were black. Yes, the WSJ reported that, too, although it was buried.

I have had not seen the little blurb that day, I would not have known about it. Did ya'll hear about how the check scandal in congress turned-out?

I think I am going to see if I can find that article.