Friday, December 27, 2013

Phil's Right. The NAACP Is Wrong

(Brought over from 180 Degrees True South)

Josh Barro: Robertson thinks black Americans were treated just fine in the Jim Crow-era South, and that they were happy there.

The NAACP: "As you may know, Phil attacked both African Americans and LGBT people in a recent GQ interview (January 2014) – saying that African Americans were happier under Jim Crow laws, and equating being gay with bestiality and promiscuity."

First, Phil didn't attack anybody. Second, I've already dealt with Barro's first lie, that Phil equated homosexuality with bestiality Here.

Now let's expose the NAACP's lie, and see whether or not Phil's memories are accurate.

Phil said,
"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."
I don't have any problem believing he never personally saw mistreatment of a black person. As a kid in the same era, I didn't, either. I heard about it, read about it ... never saw it with my own eyes.

Judging by his reference to welfare and entitlement, he is not talking about the effects of Jim Crow laws or the changes made by the civil rights movement. His use of the terms "pre-entitlement, pre-welfare" indicate he was talking about the poverty programs of the 1960s -- i.e., the Great Society and the War on Poverty, not civil rights legislation. And what were the effects of those poverty programs?

(Note: these programs had the same effect on all poor families, but the subject of the question, the subject of the answer and the subject of the "outrage" is blacks, so that's what I'm discussing here).

Did the poverty programs end poverty for blacks? No. According to, the poverty rate for all African Americans in 2012 was 28.1% which is an increase from 25.5% in 2005. Not a good track record for anti-poverty legislation that's been clipping along for fifty years or so.

But the poverty programs did far more damage to the black family than simply failing to end poverty. The absolute worse effect, with horrific consequences, was the removal of the husband and father from the black home -- which resulted, basically, in the dissolution of the black family.

Studies show that the safest place for women and children is in a home where there are two parents married to each other. Conversely, the single most accurate predictor that a child will live in poverty is being born into a single parent household.

In 1963, the black out-of-wedlock birthrate was 23%. Today it is 72% and growing. Again, according to, black families with children under 18 headed by a single mother have the highest rate of poverty at 47.5 compared to only 8.4% percent for married couples.

Do you suppose they're happy in their government-created, father-absent existence?

The marriage penalty built into welfare programs has basically destroyed the black family by removing husbands and fathers from the black home. The effects are far, far worse than mere poverty. Fatherlessness is the cause of some of the worst social pathologies in our society.

Children from fatherless homes are:

   15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
   4.6 times more likely to commit suicide
   6.6 times more likely to become teenaged mothers
   24.3 times more likely to run away
   15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
   6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions
   10.8 times more likely to commit rape
   6.6 times more likely to drop out of school
   15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenage
   73% of adolescent murderers come from mother only homes
   6.3 times more likely to be in state operated institutions


ItÂ’s a Fact!  HereÂ’s why:
     · 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census).
     · 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
     · 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. (Source: CDC)
     · 80% of rapist motivated by displaced anger come from fatherless homes. (Source: Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 403-26).
     · 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. (Source: National Principals Assoc. Report on the State of High Schools).
    · 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. (Source: Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. Of Corrections, 1992).

These statistics translate to mean that children from fatherless homes are:

     · 5 times more likely to commit suicide
     · 32 times more likely to run away
     · 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
     · 14 times more likely to commit rape
     · 9 times more likely to drop out of high school
     · 20 times more likely to end up in prison

So, blacks weren't better off before the "poverty" programs that didn't erase poverty but did erased the black father and destroyed the black family?  They're happier living with these horrific social pathologies than they were living in intact families working the fields? Black mothers in that situation weren't happier than black welfare mothers today who lose their children to behavioral disorders, crime, joblessness, hopelessness, suicide, murder and prison? Would YOU be happier with that?

Phil is right.

And the NAACP not only lies. They are enabling the destruction and misery of blacks by supporting toxic policies and effects that accompany welfare programs.


  1. While I would not equate stability with "happiness" I do agree with the stats.
    Jim Crow had a lot of ugliness to it, and that cannot be ignored, yet having said that I cannot see that the Left has done any good for the black community. If anything they have made it worse for them and virtually everyone else in America.
    Leftist ideals are not about raising everyone up its about tearing everyone else down to the same level.

  2. Jim Crow actuality produced MUCH good for all of society. It was the right thing to do. However what was bad concerning it was where *some* used violence in order to force their views onto others on and individual basis, like personally attacking others.

    The latest on Phil Robertson:
    Ya'll do know that A&E caved in; right?
    I will say this though; It doesn't change the stripes on a tiger's back!

    Michael-- Deo Vindicabamur

  3. I personally don't have a problem with voluntary segregation or voluntary integration, but when either one is government forced, it is not good. There was much more to Jim Crow than segregation -- and I know of little good it did for society.

  4. Ms Connie, I agree with you in it being voluntary. Originally Jim Crow Laws started as a way to limit voters, similar to a poll tax. Then it was expanded. When it was expanded to force individuals and or businesses to cater to a specific way of dealing with the public, it became wrong and caused a lot of problems, some of which we see the effects of today, and in reverse. It was NEVER the intent of US Constitutional Law to force people to accept social laws which FORCED people to treat people equally or in any specific way, and this includes business. (When EQUALITY is referred in/under the US Constitution, it is meant to refer to all people being EQUAL before the government and its' established law.)

    I mean Jim Crow laws were good from the fact that it limited unqualified and non-vested people from voting. People who has no education, no property, and nothing of worth will be voting to gain anything that profits them. We see the affects of this as all these government welfare programs today. Of course it was those who didn't have that voted those politicians in that gave it to them. This disregards the morality or the commonsense of laws. This is what turns a Republic into a Democracy, which is nothing more than 2 foxes and a chicken voting on what's for dinner.

    Such limited voting and using Jim Crow laws correctly doesn't affect just one group of people either, it would affect anyone regardless of color equally. But of course Jim Crow laws were ignored when the voter would vote the right way.

    All I'm saying is Jim Crow laws are a good thing in helping determine which people are best qualified to vote. And to be honest, I personally think some people are too rich to vote or even take part in politics. (Good quote from Aristotle on this.)

    Michael-- Deo Vindicabamur

  5. Being educated and propertied is no guarantee somebody will vote the right way, and pretty much everyone votes in their own interest. Also, politicians give tons and tons of corporate welfare money to companies and whole industries. Poor folks don't have K Street Lobbyists. Jim Crow laws were aimed specifically at blacks.

  6. PART 1

    "Being educated and propertied is no guarantee somebody will vote the right way,..."

    No it is no guarantee, BUT accordingly, if education doesn't matter; why not let 15 year olds vote? Or children? Or babies? Or illegal immigrants (New York city now is considering a bill to let non-us citizens vote.) Why not let the dead vote as they are anyways in the moral-less North?

    The answer is simple. If a person has a certain level of education, they can read and understand politics and what it entails. Can any of the others do that above?

    Of course some 15 year *may* qualify, but there is more to consider than education alone. Commonsense, wisdom, morality and living life itself is a moral teacher, and hardly any, if any 15 years has this ability, much less the other groups I listed. Even 25 year olds has a hard time associating and equating those aspects of life when voting. Being *allowed* the privilege to vote is in NO way a Right! You have to earn the privilege to vote, and along with other qualifications makes you a *vested* citizen in the country, meaning you have earned the privilege to have a say in how the country is run.

    "...and pretty much everyone votes in their own interest...."

    Of course that's true. That's Law of Nature and it had been considered in detail when forming the US Constitution. So I ask; what is in your best interest concerning politics? What is in my best interests? And this would actually include the majority of the people. Does anyone have any general idea?

    First we must establish what would be the majority of the people. First we would have two extreme sides of society; one being the chronically poor and destitute, the other being the overly rich. Both these sides are so extreme their self-interests would oppose that of the middle.

    The poor are poor for many reasons; They may be lazy, they don't care, they would rather have *fun* while not interested in anything that doesn't benefit them. Meaning they are also self-centered. OTOH there are some people, though very few that really can't make it because of health, or mental health. Yet these people are just as self-serving in their interests to a point. Many of which understands that they do not wish to live off others.

    And then we have the super rich. They are extremely self-centered, and to the point they wish to rule and control others for their benefit. And they have the money and power to make much of this a reality. As another extreme these people are extremely intelligent and can be very thrifty. Yet it is all in their self-centered attitude and love of money that they would destroy the goose that lays the golden eggs in order to get that last egg! These people are vile and corrupt they never need to be related to anything concerning the voting process. It should be illegal for these people to even associate with any politician!

    Second we would have to assign the 3 sides a % of society they would compose. I've see various stats and all differ slightly. But from a general and average standpoint we'll assign the poor as to representing app. ~20% of the population. The super rich would be app. ~4-5% of the population. This leaves about 75% making up the middle class or the average American society.

    These people as a whole from a sociological standpoint wishes to live their lives pretty much as you, I and the rest of us Confederates here sees life. Mainly keep the government out of our business and life as much as possible. Yet we are not getting this from government. But we are getting many average Americans voting for government control over our lives; Why? Which is another topic of discussion.

    "..Also, politicians give tons and tons of corporate welfare money to companies and whole industries. Poor folks don't have K Street Lobbyists..."

    The above quote actually is in relation to my last question and statement above. It'll take another topic of discussion to explain but the reasons can be shown as self-evident.

    End Part 1

  7. PART 2

    "..Jim Crow laws were aimed specifically at blacks...."

    I knew this one was coming! I was laying in ambush for it! Who fits the criteria of the poor extreme above? In reality most blacks do not care about proper government, except what they can get for free. Their voting patterns consistently support this.

    It is also true that most blacks does not have enuff education to qualify to vote in maintaining proper government. This is extremely true when one understands that the black society has an average IQ of about 75-80, which is borderline mentally incompetent. (I'd bet you the farm that Obammie's IQ doesn't exceed 100. The average IQ for the white population is 100 which is also the standard for the test. The test comes from the WHO and is conducted all over the world.

    I am all for letting blacks or anyone in society vote, IF they show they have enuff intelligence and sense to vote. OTOH I can't help it if one group shows to be less capable than others, which would mean certain laws, IE Jim Crow laws would more adversely affect them. The POINT is in keeping competent controlling the country.

    Aristotle himself said that the best government comes form the middle class.

    Michael-- Deo Vindicabamur

  8. Everyone should have some say in how they are governed in a country that purports to be governed by we, the people.

  9. "Everyone should have some say in how they are governed in a country that purports to be governed by we, the people."

    Even people who are not capable or competent of having a say? A person MUST have a certain amount of intelligence and commonsense before they are capable of having a say that will affect millions of people. I personally do not care to be governed by a vote that is at least partially dependent upon allowing incapable people of deciding what is best for me. It is IMMORAL to allow incapable, incompetent people to have any say in a country's affairs! PERIOD!

    My own self-interests tells me that I am more capable than many people, if not most people, in knowing what I should and should not do, as well as whom I wish to help and not help, including in any wars that may be fought. Why should I have incapable and or incompetent people having any say in telling me I should give them part of my money for the simple reason they are disadvantaged? Why do these people tell me what I can and cannot eat, smoke, or even the drugs I am or not allowed to take? And how can these people tell me which wars I am to fight in and for which side? It's the same principles as Bwooks trying to deny your rights to fly the Battle Flag, and him attacking you for your beliefs. Do you not think that he would make it law banning such dissent if he could? And even fine you for it? Of course he would, but he can't afford to publically say this; now can he?

    And this is just a simple starting point!

    Michael-- Deo Vindicabamur

  10. Michael, that is not what Jim Crow laws were for. I'm not going to discuss this with you any more.

  11. "Jim Crow Laws" was a name given to *EXPANDED* rules on limiting the vote. YES, Jim Crow more severely affected black people than white, but there are several reasons for this.

    The fore-runner to Jim Crow Laws were the very laws enacted by state legislatures before and after the US Constitution in order to allow *VESTED* people vote. You can look up any State Constitution today and see where the laws still apply to a degree. These laws were for the PROTECTION of the middle class and unfortunately the most wealthy.

    Lincoln's War bought *Carpet Baggers* and military control over the defeated state governments after the war. They actually *CONSPIRED* with *Jim Crow Laws* of their own in order to shut out certain classes of people, specifically the war veterans. States of TN, SC, GA, LA and MS were especially hard hit and states like SC for example had majority black legislatures all because of Reconstruction which disallowed Constitutional voting. These states lead the way in actually instituting the first laws specifically designed to affect blacks and they were known as Jim Crow Laws. HOWEVER it was originally in regards to what the carpet baggers and military had caused to the state populations concerning whites. OTOH, don't forget Northern states had their very own form of Jim Crow Laws.

    All I am saying these laws were necessary, TO A POINT. However it became unconstitutional when it affected blacks in doing business and on a personal social level. The Constitution cannot regulate how people interact or favor one over the other. But limiting the vote it MUST do in order to elect qualified individuals instead of people who will sell the public largess for the poor vote. It is no way meant that no black people should vote. That would be just as wrong as letting everyone vote.

    It is because of attitudes you present, that the Marxists like Bwooks will WIN their cause and agenda. Eventually our flags and symbols WILL be totally removed from public. Eventually we will not be able to even fully state our side of the issues.

    Saddest thing is, your beliefs and those like the Rainbow Confederates that Bwooks picks on so much, actually would be similar, only from another direction. Both derive it's ideology based Democratic ideology and politics. Both lead to ruin....

    BTW-- Ms Connie, I was raised in large part by a *colored* man. His mother was a slave, and I was told many stories passed down by her. So I have no specific bone to pick in NOT wanting black people to vote.

    Michael-- Deo Vindicabamur

  12. BTW, look at this video on MSNBC. It mentions Jim Crow Laws in reverse.

    Michael-- Deo Vindicabamur

  13. Jim Crow laws were about a LOT more than voting.

    "All I am saying these laws were necessary, TO A POINT." Really. You started out saying they "produced MUCH good for all of society."

    "Rainbow Confederates" is a made up pejorative. Don't come in here to my blog and call me that. I have an idea, Michael. Why don't you start your own blog, build your own soap box? I think you need to do that and post your thoughts there.


Comments are welcome, but monitored.