David Duke: Huge mistake characterizing Black Lives Matter as racist

07131601David Duke is making a huge, fundamental error lumping all Blacks together who say or chant "Black lives matter," as if they all believe the same thing regarding all White people.

Okay, this is important and I want to be very, very clear about it. Please read all of it. It's not very long. (This is the video I want to discuss.)

There are Black racists. However, there are millions of non-racist Blacks who say "Black lives matter." Those non-racist Blacks are members of the Black Lives Matter Movement simply by stating that Black lives matter. The Movement is not top-down. There are Black people who have organized around the expression, but they don't have a lock on the Movement nor have racists co-opted it and taken it over. Most importantly, those non-racist Black members of the Black Lives Matter Movement have completely understandable and reasonable grievances that have not been properly addressed, not even close. Read this: http://kuow.org/post/ive-been-stopped-8-times-seattle-police-not-because-im-bad-driver

I have posted about David Duke a few times not to defend his every current position or view but only to say that everyone deserves an opportunity to grow and change and renounce former positions, etc., not be treated as if he or she hasn't done that. It's like when Malcolm X converted from being a member of Wallace Fard's Nation of Islam (Fard was a Black racist) to the broader Sunni Islam and denounced racism. I don't know Muhammad Ali's full story on it, but there's this: http://uproxx.com/smokingsection/muhammad-ali-malcolm-x-fallout/ (and this link to Malcolm in that short article https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRC5jN5I-wU .)

David Duke has openly stated that he no longer believes as he once did. He says racism is evil. He has stood up for Palestinians against the racism of right-wing Zionism. That said, it is important to state where and when and concerning what David remains over-the-top. This video is a prime example of David being over-the-top.

I'm not saying he is completely unjustified in sounding the alarm against Black racists. I'm saying that he's being reckless in:
1) failing to point out the millions of non-racist Blacks who are Black Lives Matter Movement supporters
2) failing to state that all Whites should be extremely careful not to lump non-racist Blacks in with the racist Blacks and
3) failing to say that Whites ought not to assume that if Whites become a minority in the US that all Black and other non-Whites will turn around and allow Whites to be treated as Blacks were treated by those Whites who were racists, often brutally so and worse.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.