Atlanta BlackStar: Arkansas State Rep: Slavery Was a ‘Blessing in Disguise’

[Jumbo]

While I was going to make the required barb about "gee, an 'R' after the guy's name---who'd a thunk it", kudos to the R's who are calling these dimbulbs out.

http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/10/...g-in-disguise/

Rep. John Hubbard of the Arkansas state senate believes that for blacks in America, slavery was a “blessing in disguise.” These claims are taken from his 2009 book, Letters To The Editor: Confessions Of A Frustrated Conservative, in which Hubbard identifies himself as a “true American.” Hubbard, a staunch Republican, characterized African-Americans as ignorant and lazy, and responsible for many of the country’s problems.

“The institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise,” Hubbard wrote. “The blacks who could endure those conditions and circumstances would someday be rewarded with citizenship in the greatest nation ever established upon the face of the Earth.”

Interestingly enough, Hubbard also lists himself as a practicing Baptist, but his racism runs throughout the pages of his books. He asserts that African-Americans are better off having been entrapped in slavery than they would have been if left in sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, he blames integration for the decline of American public school systems.

<more at link>


Another link, and this one with a " companion" story.

Arkansas Republican Rep. Jon Hubbard calls slavery ‘blessing in disguise’; GOP Republican State House candidate Charlie Fuqua advocates deporting all Muslims

Arkansas Republican Rep. Jon Hubbard calls slavery ‘blessing in disguise’; GOP Republican State House candidate Charlie Fuqua advocates deporting all Muslims

Hubbard, who sponsored a failed bill in 2011 that would have severely restricted immigration, wrote on his website that the issue is still among his priorities, as is doing “whatever I can to defend, protect and preserve our Christian heritage.”

On Saturday, state GOP Chairman Doyle Webb called the books “highly offensive.” And U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford, a Republican who represents northeast Arkansas, called the writings “divisive and racially inflammatory.”

Fuqua, who served in the Arkansas House from 1996 to 1998, wrote there is “no solution to the Muslim problem short of expelling all followers of the religion from the United States,” in his 2012 book, titled “God’s Law.”

Fuqua blogs on his website. One post is titled, “Christianity in Retreat,” and says “there is a strange alliance between the liberal left and the Muslim religion.”

“Both are antichrist in that they both deny that Jesus is God in the flesh of man, and the savior of mankind. They both also hold that their cause should take over the entire world through violent, bloody, revolution,” the post says.

In a separate passage, Fuqua wrote “we now have a president that has a well documented history with both the Muslim religion and Communism.”

Note that Fuqua, as far as I can tell now, is not currently serving as an elected official, though is running again as a candidate.

<more at link>

[NoCalMike]

You have to wonder how folks like these ever get elected in the first place in 2012.

[Jumbo]

You have to wonder how folks like these ever get elected in the first place in 2012.

Real Americans vote for them?

[mistertim]

I really don't get why African Americans aren't thanking us for the whole "slavery" thing. We were just showing some "tough love". Toughening them up to get them ready to be "real Americans" one day. I don't see the problem.

Also, on Fuqua:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1948490.html

Charlie Fuqua, the Republican candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives who called for expelling Muslims from the United States in his book, also wrote in support for instituting the death penalty for "rebellious children."

[jnhay]

I really don't get why African Americans aren't thanking us for the whole "slavery" thing. We were just showing some "tough love". Toughening them up to get them ready to be "real Americans" one day. I don't see the problem.

Also, on Fuqua:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1948490.html

I'll believe that one when I see it. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that was at least taken out of context.

[Dan T.]

I'll believe that one when I see it. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that was at least taken out of context.

Here's the direct quote, from the 2012 book "God's Law" written by Fuqua (from the Arkansas Times):

The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21.

This passage does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children. I cannot think of one instance in the Scripture where parents had their child put to death. Why is this so? Other than the love Christ has for us, there is no greater love then [sic] that of a parent for their child. The last people who would want to see a child put to death would be the parents of the child. Even so, the Scrpture provides a safe guard to protect children from parents who would wrongly exercise the death penalty against them. Parents are required to bring their children to the gate of the city. The gate of the city was the place where the elders of the city met and made judicial pronouncements. In other words, the parents were required to take their children to a court of law and lay out their case before the proper judicial authority, and let the judicial authority determine if the child should be put to death. I know of many cases of rebellious children, however, I cannot think of one case where I believe that a parent had given up on their child to the point that they would have taken their child to a court of law and asked the court to rule that the child be put to death. Even though this procedure would rarely be used, if it were the law of land, it would give parents authority. Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents.

Evidently he's given much thought to this proposal.

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog...lious-children

[twa]

Evidently he's given much thought to this proposal.

Cosby said I brought you into this world and I can take you out.....guess he skipped the judicial review.

[No_Pressure]

Here's the direct quote, from the 2012 book "God's Law" written by Fuqua (from the Arkansas Times):

Sounds like this guy had a really tough time controlling his kids while they were growing up or perhaps going through adolescence so his favorite option to regain control is being able to threaten a child with death. I guess it's better in his mind to be feared than loved. Regardless in order to think something like that is a good idea you have to be a colossal idiot, even if it is in a theoretical or hypothetical sense. Hypothetically National Socialism could work as a pretty strong form of government, but I doubt most people would go to work, stand around the water cooler and tell anybody about it. We've sort of learned that it isn't a very good idea. I remember a primary source document from an old Russian law code I read in one of my upper level history courses in school which dealt with protecting the rights of parents and metaphorically the relationship between the state and its subjects. Anyway, there were like 100 things that a parent could appeal to have their children put to death for. That law code was repealed in the 1700s if I recall correctly.

So in other words a bunch of Russian orthodox leaders 300 years ago knew it was probably a bad idea to give parents rights to kill their own children for being rebellious, but some southern political wanna-be today is too stupid to know that his little plan isn't such a hot concept.

Oh well.

[jnhay]

Evidently he's given much thought to this proposal.

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog...lious-children

That's so crazy. You'd think that people like that wouldn't be so opposed to abortion (also ironic, I'm sure he probably was against the "death panels" of Obamacare).

[AsburySkinsFan]

Here's the direct quote, from the 2012 book "God's Law" written by Fuqua (from the Arkansas Times):

The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21.

This passage does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children. I cannot think of one instance in the Scripture where parents had their child put to death. Why is this so? Other than the love Christ has for us, there is no greater love then [sic] that of a parent for their child. The last people who would want to see a child put to death would be the parents of the child. Even so, the Scrpture provides a safe guard to protect children from parents who would wrongly exercise the death penalty against them. Parents are required to bring their children to the gate of the city. The gate of the city was the place where the elders of the city met and made judicial pronouncements. In other words, the parents were required to take their children to a court of law and lay out their case before the proper judicial authority, and let the judicial authority determine if the child should be put to death. I know of many cases of rebellious children, however, I cannot think of one case where I believe that a parent had given up on their child to the point that they would have taken their child to a court of law and asked the court to rule that the child be put to death. Even though this procedure would rarely be used, if it were the law of land, it would give parents authority. Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents.

Evidently he's given much thought to this proposal.

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog...lious-children

Yes....fear the fundamentalist Muslims.

[zoony]

More power to the states! Let's turn Medicaid over to them.

/dumbass

[AsburySkinsFan]

More power to the states! Let's turn Medicaid over to them.

/dumbass

No joke right! But then I get why they want to do that, states are easier to manipulate and infect with their brand of stupid.

[stevemcqueen1]

Seriously, the GOP has got to start kicking these types out of the party if they're going to have any chance with ethnic minorities and the younger generations of voters at all. You can't alienate so many people and expect to make it the next thirty years.

[MattFancy]

Seriously, the GOP has got to start kicking these types out of the party if they're going to have any chance with ethnic minorities and the younger generations of voters at all. You can't alienate so many people and expect to make it the next thirty years.

Agree 100%. I believe our generation is more tolerant of other people's differences. So when they make ignorant statements like this, it doesn't help their cause at all.

[Corcaigh]

Agree 100%. I believe our generation is more tolerant of other people's differences. So when they make ignorant statements like this, it doesn't help their cause at all.

And yet the trend in politics has been to cull those from the party that embrace the center. It started with Newt and is bordering on a religious war within the GOP when you see the candidates that are winning the primaries. The moderate lions are getting killed off by their own party. Lieberman suffered a similar fate from his own party.