LETTERS


Minister issues challenge to take back the cities

Dear Editor:

I have a message to the churches’ men. Let’s take back the cities.

The men are so much on drugs and alcohol and into gambling and etc. and love doing their own things until the young boys are killing and stealing and selling drugs and in deadly gangs.

Dear Editor:

First off I’ll say this to your readers. I am a Liberal Independent. Do I lean more to the left, No. Some of your readers think because I defend some or most of the Democratic views, that I am a Far left Liberal, or just a plain old Democrat.

Well I’ll have them know, that before (he went out defending his so called friends, that cost him his job) I voted for Richard Nixon, (twice). Why, because he was good for the country at that time in our history, as was Bill Clinton. They both did their jobs for the country, but they both let friends get in the way of clear thinking.

Maybe this will sum it up: politicians and morals don’t go together. Politicians may go into office from the beginning with good on the brain, but like Jimmy Carter learned, church and state don’t mix.

Now let me get to the real reason I’m writing this letter. Apparently, someone didn’t like the joke I sent to the Soapbox. So he took it on himself to express his view, or should I say, his opinion of my joke. Now years ago, as a lad, I was told that “hurt dog will howl” and I hope he won’t take it that I’m calling him a dog. He chose to call me a (biased individual). Now, I looked and found this definition of biased in the Urban Dictionary of biased: “Someone who already has their mind made up and preset towards a one sided view of a situation.”

Most of the things I see in the Soapbox are funny. It was my intention to try to be funny, but truthful and I thought I was. There was nothing descriptive about what I said, and as far as I can tell, everything was true. As for the millions of people he claims I don’t know, he’s the only one that got his feelings hurt. As for my position, there’s nothing weak about it.

There’s a few things I need to inform him on, and it breaks my heart to do so. (1) As an Independent, I also vote for the best person I think will do the best job, not only for me but, for my district, be it city, county, state, or these United States, and that’s with no regards for his or her race, creed, religion, or color.

(2) But for those that he so nobly wants to defend, I’ll say this: All of 2010, that party was on TV with all kinds of descriptive language, descriptive signs, automatic weapons strapped to their hips, talking about taking their country back. All of a sudden, we have a black president and they feel as if they have lost their country.

The majority of voters in this country voted this president in that White House and I was one of those voters.

Where was this party in 2008 when he was running for president? They came out in 2010 with their foul mouths, hateful signs and their guns to scare the masses to vote back in the Republicans, and they got what they wanted, from the voters across the country, with giving The House of Representatives back to the Republicans. If my memory serves me correctly I warned the voters after the election, that the Republicans were the losers, because they would regret welcoming that other party into their fold. Here it is June and the Republicans are held hostage by this other party. Now pray tell me who were the winners back in November.

(3) And Lord did he say we haven’t had a good President since Ronald Reagan. Oh no, you didn’t go there. Were you blind or deaf? Are we talking about the guy who didn’t know he was President in the last two years of his second term? The guy who’s wife ran the country, because she didn’t trust George Bush Sr. and didn’t think that those of us didn’t pick up on his Alzheimer’s. This same guy that raised taxes more than any Democratic president, and he’s calling him a good president. Now there’s a really funny joke.

(4) Finally, and I really dislike getting ticked off about a subject, but I’ll explain this to him, as gently as I can. (To be considered black in the United States not even half of one’s ancestry must be African black. But will one-fourth do, or one-eighth, or less? The nation’s answer to the question ‘Who is black?’ has long been that a black is any person with any known African black ancestry. This definition reflects the long experience with slavery and later with Jim Crow segregation. In the South it became known as the “One-Drop-Rule,’’ meaning that a single drop of “black blood” makes a person a “black.” It is also known as the “One Black Ancestor Rule,” some courts have called it the “Traceable Amount Rule,” and anthropologists call it the “Hypo-Descent Rule,” meaning that racially mixed persons are assigned the status of the subordinate group. This definition emerged from the American South, to become the nation’s definition, generally accepted by whites and blacks.)

I hope I educated not only him, but others as well. So please don’t fool yourself with calling the president a “tan color,” because his mother was white. He had a black father which makes him by Southern thinking, back in the day, black...period.

Now, School is out.

Clyde D’Antignac
Future Resident of Wadley