Skip to comments.An Open Letter To General Powell
Posted on 01/15/2013 7:00:44 AM PST by Kaslin
I was disappointed with the clear implication in your Meet The Press interview that those of us, in the GOP who defend life, protect traditional marriage and advance religious liberty are intolerant.
It was obvious to anyone who watched the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, that NO! had it. There was no way the convention chairman could have heard a two-thirds vote for the YES! position. Three times the chairman asked them to vote. Three times they denied God. Denied Him Thrice!
What has happened to the Democratic Party that,in the 1960's, provided such leadership for the cause of Civil Rights? It was Democrats like John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey who supported the fight for civil rights among the white majority in the1960s. Kennedy, the first Catholic president, was in good company in his church. Roman Catholic bishops were among the first to strike out against segregation in the 1950s and 1960s. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was surely a Baptist preacher, but he could rely on thousands of Catholic priests and nuns to join his great March on Washington in 1963. And when he wrote his famous Letter from the Birmingham Jail, he cited St. Thomas Aquinas to make his case that an unjust law was no law at all.
For the Democratic Party of Kennedy and King to vote three times to reject God was a shock to millions of black Americans. And it must have been especially shocking to black clergymen who have been leaders in the struggle for equal rights and equal opportunity for four decades and more. It is bad enough these pastors and their congregations have been given short shrift by the new elites in the Democratic Party, but we now see that God was not put in the back of the bus. God was not allowed on the bus at all.
Only by an obvious power play did the convention chairman overrule the obvious sentiment on the floor. Anyone with ears to hear knew that the spirit of those delegates was against acknowledging God in the Democratic Platform. How far we have fallen from that great Inauguration Day in 1961 when John F. Kennedy said: "The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God." No one in America yelled NO! on that crisp, clear day in Washington.
What does it mean for a party to reject God? First of all, it means they must reject life itself. We know that God is the author of life. Speaker after speaker demanded abortion, and more of it. No longer would Democrats have any hesitation about abortion. No longer would they say, as Bill Clinton said, it should be safe, legal, and rare. The Democratic Platform dropped those last two words, and rare. Even the usually liberal Cokie Roberts--an NPR reporter--thought the Charlotte convention lineup of pro-abortion speakers was "over the top."
She pointed out that 30% of Democrats are pro-life. And who would those pro-life Democrats be? Disproportionately, they are black and Hispanic voters. And Catholic and Evangelical voters.
Why should black voters be against abortion? Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, made clear her own plans when she addressed the Ku Klux Klan of New Jersey in the 1920s. She wanted to have more children from the fit, fewer from the fit. When you read about her "Negro Ministers Project," you learn that Planned Parenthood has been targeting minorities for a long time. Today, in New York City, 61% of unborn children of black mothers are killed before birth. Planned Parenthood is there, pushing abortion all the way.
President Obama's health care takeover and his HHS Mandate against Catholic and other religious institutions will only increase the daily death toll. Religious freedom is trampled when you force Christians to participate in ending the lives of innocents. Even Herod didn't do that!
In 1866, as historian Allen Guelzo reports, Tennessee recorded thousands more marriages than in the previous four years. That's because newly freed black couples were walking to Tennessee to have their marriages recognized by law. How tragic, then, that the Charlotte convention came out against marriage too. They say they only want to add to the number of happily married couples by allowing men to marry men and women to marry women. But we know that wherever these counterfeit marriages have been recognized, true marriage declines. All over Northern Europe, when civil unions were enforced, true marriage ceased to be that special. Just as counterfeit money drives out true money, same sex marriage drives out true marriage.
Some leading liberals know this. George Washington University Law Professor, Jonathan Turley, told an overflowing crowd at the Newseum in 2008 that critics say "gay marriage will lead to polygamy." He was wildly cheered by the educated, mostly white crowd when he said: "I'm for that!"
President Obama knows that the black community, and especially the black church, is not for that. In North Carolina--just three months before the Democratic Convention met in Charlotte--black voters providing the winning margin for a state referendum that affirmed true marriage. There was no stronger group of voters supporting marriage than black voters.
President Obama seemed reluctant to abandon this constituency that has so loyally supported him. Consider how much has changed and how fast. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act passed Congress by an overwhelming vote. It won 342 votes in the House and 85 votes in the Senate. It was so strongly supported that it would have been approved if there were no Republicans in either House of Congress. Thats why President Bill Clinton felt he had no choice but to sign it.
President Obama has refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act and pledges to repeal it. He has openly joined the Marriage Enders. They're not changing marriage. They are ending it. If two men can marry, why not three? If gays and lesbians can marry, what about bi-sexual persons and persons who have sought to change their sex? Why can't they have one spouse of either sex?
After slavery, after Jim Crow, after the KKK, it is fair to say that among the worst things visited upon black Americans have been the targeting of our families by abortionists and the effort to end marriage.
That is why we are in a crisis. This is what happens when a major party rejects God.
Well said, and of course Colin Powell doesn’t care.
Colin missed all the high black unemployment, illegals taking their jobs, drug violence, worthless schools - all happening to blacks under democrat control.
But he wants a whole race of people to get enraged because a politician called Barack Obama “lazy” - Barack Obama who in fact IS a lazy president.
Powell has an axe to grind and probably for good reason.
ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2004, eight days after the president he served was elected to a second term, Secretary of State Colin Powell received a telephone call from the White House at his State Department office. The caller was not President Bush but Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and he got right to the point.
The president himself made no contact with Powell after Cards call. For two days, the only person at the State Department Powell told about it was his deputy and friend of decades, Richard Armitage. Powell dropped off his resignation letter, as instructed, after typing it himself on his home computer. (The White House later pointed out a typo and sent it back to be redone.) Loath to reveal either surprise or insult, he used the letter to claim the decision to leave as his own.
Armitage tendered his resignation on November 16, 2004, the day after Powell announced his resignation as Secretary of State.
Interesting. Still... I wonder why why Bush didnt call Powell himself. Powell served under Reagan, HW and W.
Powell like Allen West is solid old school military. Something big had to have happened to make him do a 180.
“Barack Obama who in fact IS a lazy president.’
Rush is right when he says the truth can get you in a lot of trouble these days...........
So then according to the Colon Howl, the use of the phrase “shuck and jive” is now racist???
In 1960, no Catholic would ever have admitted to voting for Richard Nixon, when John F. Kennedy (presumed at the time to have bween a practicing Catholic) was on the Democrat ticket.
Time has shown us that Kennedy was not as beholden to the principles of Roman Catholicism as may have been once imagined, and that did leave a little tarnish.
Likewise, virtually no American of African descent would have admitted to having supported either John McCain in 2008 or Mitt Romney in 2012, but the tarnish spots on Bronco Bama have in fact cost him very few votes among the same Americans of African descent, including Colin Powell.
General Powell, do what you should have done all along and declare yourself a Democrat, removing what to many of us is a very confusing view of what you actually think. There is no room in the Republican party for anybody who cannot criticize at least some aspects of the Current Regime in the White Hut.
“After slavery, after Jim Crow, after the KKK, it is fair to say that among the worst things visited upon black Americans have been the targeting of our families by abortionists and the effort to end marriage.”
It comes as no surprise to an educated man that all of these named assaults on black Americans, and more, have come at the hands of Democrats.
Why is anyone surprised by Powell’s statement?
This who he is and has always been.
The man was born a pr!@k and he will die a pr!@k.
Colin Powell is not “old school military.” Officers who were brought up in the “old school” understand the Constitution, and the obligation they take with their Oath. They understand that there was a reason that the Oath included the words “...all enemies, foreign and domestic.” They understand that the Oath is a pledge made for life, and it does not “expire when you retire.
They take that Oath seriously, and they would not break their Oath, in uniform our out.
Powell does not fit into that group.
Colin Powell is not old school military. Officers who were brought up in the old school understand the Constitution, and the obligation they take with their Oath. They understand that there was a reason that the Oath included the words ...all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I think that’s what got him fired.
>>I don’t know why Powell was given the boot, and treated the way he was.<<
Ever thought of becoming a “conspiracy nut”? I give lessons.
Cheneys book, which lays blame on Powells deputy Richard Armitage as the real leaker who revealed Plames identity as a CIA employee, setting off the appointment of a special prosecutor and the eventual conviction of Scooter Libby.
Powell and Armitage never told the president what Armitage had done. Instead, they sat silent as the investigation played out and others, including Karl Rove and Libby, were ensnared in an investigation for a crime.
Did I mention a conspiracy? All I said is that I don’t know why Powell was let go, or treated as he was.
I’m not one of “W’s” confidants, and I didn’t see the interaction. So I don’t know exactly what happened or why. I can speculate. I could give some damned good reasons why I would have fired Powell. But I can’t assume Bush had the same opinions as I, because if Bush shared my thinking Powell would have never been in the position of power he held for nearly the time he held it...if at all.
So, speculation aside, I can’t speak to W’s reasoning or methods.
If there’s “conspiracy” in that, so be it...