Coming to America -- Reparations

One June 18, 2009, the U. S. Senate did what it seemingly does best: engaged in inanity and tripe. A resolution was passed that officially apologized for slavery and the Jim Crow laws that followed it. The measure was then sent to the House of Representatives. It is the typical emotion-driven symbolic nonsense liberals are known for. This apology will be heralded as some significant accomplishment and will give the sanctimonious Left (as well as some Republicans) the moral superiority they believe they possess.

This purely symblolic gesture will do nothing and is pointless. It is akin to someone around the block from me raping someone's daughter and the apology coming from me. The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) knows this to be true because they refused to endorse it. In their thinking, an apology lets whitey off the hook. Only monetary reparations -- introduced yearly by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) since 1989 -- will wipe the slate clean.

However meaningless this apology, it is still a dangerous propostion. Such an apology could be used to open the doors to the ultimate goal of the those shakedown artists within the civil rights/grievance/racism industry: a cash settlement. When you apologize for something, you are admitting guilt. Though I could be wrong, I don't believe Sen. Harkin (D-IA) or any other denator ever owned a slave. Nor do I think any member of the CBC was ever a slave. So why an apology? My guess is to get the admitted wrongdoing on record and in writing so some sort of class-action lawsuit could be thrown together by the race-hustlers. The sad part is with President Obama, who loves to apologize for America and truly loves to spend money, reparations could happen. Nevermind that the entire issue is ludicrous on so many fronts.

I have never owned a slave, nor have I ever oppressed anyone of color. Born 96 years after the end of the Civil War, how in the hell am I even remotely responsible for an institution in which I (nor any of my family) never participated in? I had nothing to do with it. Should I even apologize? Not "No," but "Hell No!"

Legally, the entire reparations movement has no leg to stand on, though this will not stop the parasitic legal eagles with the movement from twisting the law and torturing logic and the language surrounding the issue.

First, slavery was not illegal in the United States until 1865 when the 13th Ammendmant was passed. There is not legal argument to be made for reparations because not a single law was broken.

Secondly, the current U. S. Government didn't exist until June 21, 1788 when the Constitution was ratified. Therefore, the government can't be held for liable for a situation created by Europeans.

Thirdly, the statue of limitations for filing a lawsuit has long expired. Courts can't grant relief because any suit brought forth is illegitimate.

Lastly, there comes the formula for any reparations. Who gets how much from whom? Many blacks are of mixed heritage. Our beloved leader is as much white as he is black, though he oddly prefers to claim the heritage of the deadbeat Kenyan father who abandoned him as opposed to the white Kansas mother who dumped him into her parents' lap to raise. In President Obama's defense, it is tough to decide which deadbeat you want to claim. Should whites who arrived in the country after 1865 be forced to pay also? Should blacks who are descended from black slave owners both pay and receive reparations? Oprah Winfrey is a billionaire through her won efforts. Should she get a check too?

Reparations is a hornet's nest that I am afraid will be opened before Obama leaves office. It could be the lynchpin that starts a culture war -- possibly a shooting one -- like we've never seen before.

In 2001, former Communist David Horowitz enraged the Left when he purchased ads in college newspapers across the nation. The ad, entitled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks Is A Bad Idea and Racist Too," destroyed the entire argument for reparations. Here are Mr. Horowitz's ten reasons:


Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks - and Racist Too
By: David Horowitz
Wednesday, January 03, 2001



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Black Africans and Arabs were responsible for enslaving the ancestors of African-Americans. There were 3,000 black slave-owners in the ante-bellum United States. Are reparations to be paid by their descendants too?

One
There Is No Single Group Clearly Responsible For The Crime Of Slavery

Two
There Is No One Group That Benefited Exclusively From Its Fruits

Three
Only A Tiny Minority Of White Americans Ever Owned Slaves, And Others Gave Their Lives To Free Them

Four
America Today Is A Multi-Ethnic Nation and Most Americans Have No Connection (Direct Or Indirect) To Slavery

Five
The Historical Precedents Used To Justify The Reparations Claim Do Not Apply, And The Claim Itself Is Based On Race Not Injury

Six
The Reparations Argument Is Based On The Unfounded Claim That All African-American Descendants of Slaves Suffer From The Economic Consequences Of Slavery And Discrimination

Seven
The Reparations Claim Is One More Attempt To Turn African-Americans Into Victims. It Sends A Damaging Message To The African-American Community.

Eight
Reparations To African Americans Have Already Been Paid

Nine
What About The Debt Blacks Owe To America?

Ten
The Reparations Claim Is A Separatist Idea That Sets African-Americans Against The Nation That Gave Them Freedom

For his explanations, the link is below.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24317