Prediction: Embattled Black Congs Will Blame Racism For Their Transgressions
by Daniel Crosby
New York - Here it comes, America. Prepare yourself for the mother of all race-card flops...coming soon to a Congressional ethics panel hearing near you.
Apparently, ethics violations are not a “black thing” in politics. Really. They are the result of the choice to behave badly and capitulate to degenerate character. Just ask any politician, including Chris Dodd, Tim Geitner and Eric Massa.
Setting the stage for another tired, accusatory saga, are two prominent black Democrats who find themselves marred by a litany of ethics violation charges. New York representative Chuck Rangel and California representative Maxine Waters are currently under investigation and will face ethics committee trials for allegedly abusing their positions of power and for the illegal allocation of government money for personal gain...which, by the way, are violations actually based on choices they made in character and behaviors which are unrelated to the fact that they are indeed black.
Say it isn't so. Oh, how we long for the days of a white president lying to a grand jury about his illicit sexual conduct with a white intern...and getting away with it.
Waters will face a public grilling for allegedly using her political influence to allocate federal bailout funds for a Massachusetts bank in which her husband was a member of the Board of Directors and owned stock in the bank. The bank received $12 million in tax-payer money after suffering losses from poor investment strategies prior to the 2008 mortgage market collapse of entitlement-based lending institutions, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Charges against Waters were filed just one day after Rangel was also formally charged with 13 counts of violating Congressional ethics rules. Rangel is charged with attempting to leverage is position and influence to horde money from donor companies for an educational institution which bears his name.
Both Waters and Rangel are both longstanding, black members of Congress, therefore, America can rest assured that this convenient demographic circumstance will be exploited by them and the liberal establishment as a way to divert media resources and, ultimately, justify their criminal behavior.
This pathetic tactic fits the narrative of our times since the O.J. Simpson murder trial in the mid 1990s invoked a myth that criminal behavior is bad unless you are a black person being accused by white people. Then, being a debauched wretch is not a consequence of your own behavior, it is the result of being a dark-skinned victim of some mythological racial bias. O.J. Simpson made the murder of white people by black people okay, as long as it was shown, without context, that suspicions of guilt were being raised by white people accused of racism.
Yet, liberal America continues to fail to realize that being a criminal is a bad thing too.
RANGEL AND WATERS ARE VICTIMS OF THEIR OWN CHOICES, NOT RACISM
America has devolved into a nation of mongerism. Accusations of racism, hatred, debauchery, misogyny, androphobia, derangement and moral regression are only diminishing the severity of actual occurrences of these atrocities. Being a racist is becoming less and less of a bad thing because liberals fling the term around like used socks. Indecency is being justified by the perverted social values of the liberal establishment while actual racists are becoming legitimate aggressors justified by a continually diminishing vilification from psychotic liberals.
Liberals can only accuse innocent people of being racist for so long before their accusations become impotent and dismissed. The consequence of this form of "wolf crying" is that actual racism is gaining legitimacy while decent, hardworking, vintage Americans are victimized by reverse bigotry as they are enslaved in taxation by career liberal legislators, like Waters and Rangel, who build despicable, race-based institutions rooted in their perverted rendition of social justice.
Chuck Rangel and Maxine Waters did not choose to be black. Therefore the justice they receive should be based on that which they did choose. Otherwise, if justice sees color as a precedence, America will soon perish beneath the weight of a collapsing justice system which rewards involuntary benign characteristics while disregarding voluntary bad behavior. Rangel and Waters did choose to conjoin themselves with people and institutions which have a greater potential to press against decency, honesty and morality. They chose to behave a certain way and the chose to make certain decisions which have brought them to this moment of scrutiny about their character and conduct. Only decisions and behavior warrant true justice.
Where does moral bearing originate? What is the source of our understanding of the difference between right and wrong?
A QUESTION OF CHOICE, NOT OBLIGATION
The epic failure of the lost is believing they can legislate decency. Liberal dissonance has caused a lack of moral capacity to understand that Jesus Christ never acted through a government agency to affect the poor. He never hired a lawyer to contrive bureaucracy in order to implement a miracle. Nor, did He elect a politician to issue policy commanding charity. In fact, Christ issued a sermon of "woes" against such ideology and warned world leaders of His time against legal impositions on individual rights of charity.
Regardless of whether or not you are Christian, social justice, as a defined form of reward or punishment, is only legitimate when it is based on independent choice to be charitable by the individual, voluntary participant acting in a personalized manner upon the needful. This is appropriate with the commissions under the authority of any social doctrine, especially that which was espoused by Jesus Christ. This truth is not only elicited through a belief in Christ as the divinely appointed Savior, it is a general directive upon all humanity to preserve its own existence.
However, Christ's commission upon the individual is factually inescapable within the historical message of His life as it is conveyed along the common accounts of His affect upon those less fortunate. Christ was not an elected official acting under the authority of a world jurisdiction to enact some secular doctrine to afford a certain demographic with health care. He simply chose, as an individual, to heal the sick and feed the poor. In fact, the State authority of His time, was threatened by Christ because He preached the importance of independent choice acting in coordination to affect and empower the individual first, not the masses, or the government.
The biblical account of Christ's "social justice" on earth gives countless examples of his defense of the individual against the hordes. No one understands the potential corruptability of the masses like Jesus Christ. He was betrayed by his own Jewish demographic, challenged by thugs, crucified by a tyrannical empire, rejected by whole towns, vilified by the masses, spit upon by a mob, beaten by barbarians, and sacrificed for the cause of billions. Yet, He restored sight to one blind man, forgave the sexual transgressions of one harlot, emparted hope to one adultress, cured one demon possessed boy, raised one dead man, saved one man's soul, resurrected one little girl, forgave one thief, traded his freedom for one convict, gave his own, single life that each one of these acts would cause each of these individuals to choose to convey these blessings to others. He acted as One choosing to act, not a part of many. He did not obligate them to act under exorbitant tax laws, nor did Christ ever impose state sponsored social justice upon the masses with deragatory rhetoric. He was charitable, gracious, merciful and righteous because he chose to be. He chose to implement justice not because he was a jew, or black, or poor, or heterosexual, or gay, or tall, or male. He chose justice because He chose to be just toward the character and behavior, not the race, of others.
Therefore, social justice becomes illegitimate when its implementation is attempted by political power as a means to confiscate resources from masses of involuntary participants and then channel those resources through systemic controls to other masses of recipients based on disseminations of bureaucratically defined, involuntary characteristics...such as race.
It is important to understand the difference between these diametric forms of doctrinal exercise. There is a stark contrast between the legitimate form of interpersonal justice based on voluntary characteristics of decent, generous behavior and humility between individuals, and the oppressive federal policies attempting to impose false justice based on the involuntary characteristics of demography among the masses. The latter form is a lie and does not foster life and peace. It provokes resentment, war and death. It opposes the easily understandable commands from God for humanity to seek peace, reconciliation and stewardship through confidence in Him, not the exaltation of the “first black” someone.
God made it this way for a reason. He wanted us to seek justice through Him, not the gods of this world. He wanted us to understand the importance of justice and charitable service as a reflections of His own loving regard for us, not as the result of guilt-mongering and gullibility under authoritarian lies.
Liberal minded people, like Waters and Rangel, fail to recognize that humanity was brought to justice in the world based on the choice of the individual to be charitable without redress, based on an independent submission to divine authority, on an intrapersonal basis. The ransom paid for our justice did not originate upon the doctrines of the state. Instead, the modern liberal establishment desperately wants the masses to believe that the ruling class has the right to act as some all-knowing, divinely appointed, regulator in conveying and interpreting God’s legitimate message by convincing wholesale society that resources should be confiscated, not allowed to be surrendered based on charity, seeded upon ambiguous boundaries within quantitative affluence, skin color demography, culturalism, geography or stateism.
If reprobates like Waters and Rangel are successful in their entitlement based justice, it perverts the hope for all humanity in its need to find reconciliation from actual racism and injustice. Their ideology demeans the true source of justice, which is Christ, Jesus, by removing the right to choose to “love thy neighbor as thyself”. Liberal ideology removes the reasons anyone should have to follow God’s commission to be loving and generous and it supersedes the supremacy of divine authority in matters of justice among humanity. If one fails to believe in God, then they are subject to wrath from those for who the implementation of artificial justice is attempted.
Therefore, before we even get started with legitimate proceedings intended to levy justice against bad behavior, lets go ahead and transcend the issue of race by dismissing the fact that Rangel and Waters are black.
This is the only way to find true justice for all. Right?