by La Shawn on March 29, 2007
in Faith
Many of you have read about how I came to Christ. If not, follow this link.
There’s much, much more to the story, of course. But I had only 1,800 words to work with. 
Each believer has come to Christ in his own way. No two roads are alike. Whether 50 years or 50 days ago, we can see, retrospectively, how Christ saved us and under what circumstances we went looking for him or tried to run from him. For some people, becoming “saved” was a dramatic, emotional event. For others, it was methodically studying the evidence for Christ’s claims — including his resurrection — and weighing arguments for and against, which convinced them that he indeed was who he said he was. Believing the claims and recognizing their need for a Savior, they took the leap of faith.
For me, it was a gradual process, a deepening need to confess and to see myself for what I really was. It was painful and joyous at the same time.
Testimonies fascinate me, and today I’d like to read yours.
Christ followers, what is your when-and-how-I-became-saved story?
by La Shawn on March 29, 2007
in Faith
This blog is undergoing a transformation. I love blogging and writing, but I’ve grown increasingly dissatisfied with this blog’s format. I’m running into the same issues I dealt with about a year ago: disenchantment with politics, finding time to do more off-blog and faith-focused writing while keeping up with client work.
My blogging has slacked off the past few months because I feel directionless. My intent in starting this blog was to share my views, and that goal has been accomplished. Plenty of people know exactly how I feel about race preferences, race hustlers, illegal aliens, child killing-supporters, and people who call “good” that which is perverse.
My focus in life is gradually shifting away from maintaining a daily political blog and everything that goes with being a “top” blogger: recognition from other political bloggers, invitations to political events, blog conferences, lots of links, high traffic, etc. It’s startling to think my desire for those things is receding when I’ve spent the past three years pursuing them. Who in her right mind, one may ask, would give that up?
Maybe turning 40 (in May) has something to do with it. Certain birthdays seem to signal big changes for me. As I approached 30, I was determined to stop drinking before my birthday. When I turned 35, I knew I had to get serious about writing. Now that 40 is approaching, it’s time for another change.
I doubt I’ll ever give up blogging, but perhaps it’s time to give up La Shawn Barber’s Corner as it currently exists. I’ve been thinking of closing shop and reopening under a new banner, so to speak, a blog that is less focused on politics and more on faith, writing, and things that make me happy instead of what makes me angry (although this blog would remain accessible as archives). While I could just as easily do that on this blog, LBC has too much baggage attached to it. Starting a whole new blog would feel like a proper “new beginning.”
I believe God gave me this burning desire to communicate through the written word because that’s how he wants me to boldly proclaim his word and reach the lost. As long as I’m able, I’ll blog. But I feel that it’s time to “mature” into something different, something better and more purposeful. I’m reminded of this passage in Revelation 2:
I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary. Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first.
In the course of my blogging pursuits, I’ve slacked off in a lot of areas of my life. I’m blessed beyond anything I deserve, yet I’ve put my prayer life, Bible study, and the very pursuit of God on a shelf, where they sit collecting dust.
Before I make any rash decisions, I need to contemplate these things in prayer.
Addendum: In case anyone misunderstands the post title, I’ll clarify. The “first love” I refer to is Christ and my relationship with him, not this blog.
*** Scroll down for updates ***
Isn’t this…unconstitutional?
I mean, separating prisoners by race? Doesn’t that violate a clause about treating people equally without regard to race, or some such?
In cotton-comes-to-Harlem fashion, the California-style black-hispanic race war isn’t confined to California. It’s occurring wherever there are significant enough numbers of blacks and hispanics fighting over scraps, which, incidentally, neither group even owns.
The Washington Post found out about an internal memo at the Prince George’s County Detention Center calling for segregation of blacks and hispanics during recreation. (Play nicely, boys!) There’s also an “unofficial” policy of assigning prisoners to cells based on race.
Referring to the practice as “jailhouse law,” a supervisor at the prison said, “It’s nothing written, but you try to keep the calm.” (The article states that blacks and hispanics in the PG prison “found themselves in conflict over relatively minor issues.” That’s PC euphemism for “fighting over stupid sh**.” )
If you recall, the government once mandated separation of black and white prisoners. That, as well as separating black and white children in government schools, was declared unconstitutional. Should prison safety override the Constitution and ignore decades of blood, sweat, and tears spilled to dismantle government-mandated racial segregation? If black and hispanic prisoners are at each others throats and segregating them during recreation time eases some of the tension, what’s the harm?
[click to continue…]
by La Shawn on March 27, 2007
in Faith
Update (3/28): A commenter drops a link about a Roman Catholic enclave in development.
——————————————————-
Have you ever wanted to retreat from the world? Just go someplace where there are no stupid or mean people, where everyone is selfless and thoughtful?
I daydream about living in a gated community town of nice, thoughtful, kind, and smart Bible-believing Christians. We have our own grocery and office supply stores. Christians run and work in the utility companies and gas stations and the DMV. School administrators and teachers are all Christians. The movie theaters, owned and operated by Christians, show Christian-friendly movies. The few people in town who own televisions watch Christian-friendly shows and documentaries that don’t distort the history of Christianity or feature so-called Christian scholars hostile to Christian doctrine and the Bible.
And no unbeliever would be able to enter through the gate.
You see what I’m getting at? I know Christians have their faults. We’re still sinners, after all. But I think about how much better life would be if everyone I met, everyone I heard, everyone I worked with, every writer I read…was a Christian.
When I shared this gated-community-of-Christians fantasy with my sister, she said something like, “You’re not talking about a gated community, Shawn. You’re talking about heaven.”
Indeed! That’s what I want…
Addendum: Loyal readers! I’m not “back” two hours, and people already are intentionally misreading a post. Gee whiz. I know such a place doesn’t exist on earth, and it’s not meant to exist on earth. The Bible teaches that my place as a believer is in the world, allowing God to work through me to reach the lost. I’m simply sharing a fantasy, for crying out loud. I have this longing for heaven, and every cell in my body cries out, “Come, Lord Jesus!” And he said he would.
Then again, I suppose I invite contrary-just-for-the-sake-of-being-contrary comments whenever I open a post, so there you go. I guess that means…I’m back! 
by La Shawn on March 24, 2007
in General
I’m taking a brief LBC (and politics) break, but I’ll return soon. You might find me over here next week.
While I’m away, visit these and other sites on the blogroll:
So much for a black-brown coalition.
A black principal at some majority-hispanic school in Chicago was voted out by a majority-hispanic school board in favor of an hispanic principal. A supporter of the black principal was heard shouting “Speak English!” to a woman speaking Spanish, and there was chair-kicking going on. Some allege the whole thing is racial. No! Really?
This is what happens under a system of racial spoils. Blacks have been propped up as THE preferred minority group for decades, ostensibly because of slavery and government-mandated segregation.
Today’s racial spoils system is based not on slavery and Jim Crow, but on whichever group, black or hispanics, has the “power” at any given time to push its agenda. You’ll notice that Asians and other racial/ethnic minorities aren’t wasting their time fighting over scraps. Or “turf.” Why? (Also see Black and Hispanic “Hate” in LA County)
[click to continue…]
by La Shawn on March 13, 2007
in General
I’ve heard of these people.
Never heard of these people.
According to Wikipedia (I’m citing Wikipedia), these six men are the “official” Republican presidential candidates for 2008.
Since no infanticide-supporting, “pro-choice,” open borders-advocating, pro-homosexual “marriage” person will get my vote, that excludes all Democratic frontrunners.
[click to continue…]
This fool impregnated six women. That’s six babies who’ll have no residential father and a slothful criminal for a biological father. And taxpayers will support them. Sad, yes, and it happens every day.
Quotable Quotes
Two weeks ago, a Duke Chronicle reporter interviewed me about my coverage of the Duke “sexual offense” case. Though we talked for close to an hour and I said many things about the power of blogs to cover and report what the mainstream media ignore, this is what appeared in the article:
Regardless of which side they take, for many bloggers on the lacrosse case, it’s a labor of love, rather than a means for profit, because they say accepting advertisements would risk their independence.
But LaShawn Barber is different from most of the online commentators, and not only because her site is ringed by advertisements. As a black, female, Christian conservative, Barber naturally attracts attention in a case dominated by issues of race.
She has made a profession out of blogging, spending up to four hours per day on her own site-which receives 4,000 hits per day-and offering her consulting services to others.
“I’m not a feminist, and I don’t shout racism at the drop of a hat,” Barber says. “I’m very open about my faith and my politics, and that tends to make a lot of people mad-it makes a lot of black readers angry.”
With her picture and contact information directly available on the site, Barber stands in contrast to blogs written anonymously, such as John-in-Carolina, who will only identify himself as a Duke alumnus.
I’d hoped to see my blog-as-new-media quotes included, but as someone who’s interviewed people and had to leave out quotes that didn’t align with my story’s angle, I know that’s the way it goes sometimes.
Allow me to clarify one thing. My “independence” is not at “risk” because of advertisements on this site. Pajamas Media asked me to join knowing full well how edgy and controversial I can get. If I thought for one second that I’d have to be careful about what I blogged because of advertisers, I never would have signed up.
Rape in Durham
Have you heard the latest news about this rape case? Neither have I. 
Duke Bloggers
The other “Duke bloggers” are running circles around me. Hey, I can’t keep up, so I concede the in-depth analysis about liberal academia and news round-up skills to them. With the exception of John in Carolina, those blogs focus exclusively on the Duke case:
- The Johnsville News, with the most comprehensive Duke news round-up posts;
- Durham-in-Wonderland, by history professor KC Johnson, currently co-writing a book about the lacrosse case with journalist Stuart Taylor. I’d advise certain “Group of 88” members to steer clear of KC in any public discussions about this case.
- LieStoppers, which has one of the most popular Duke case discussion boards on the web;
- Crystal Mess, by lawyer Mike McCusker, who’s feeling the pressure to blog frequently ;
- John in Carolina, by a Duke grad; investigating a possible conflict of interest between CrimeStoppers, Duke faculty, and the Durham Police Department
[click to continue…]
*** Scroll down for updates ***
When I saw the headline “U. Michigan courts minority applicants despite affirmative action ban,” I thought the story would be another example of leftist reporting. The headline, egregious though it is, is misleading. It seems to express the sentiments of Mary Sue Coleman, president of the University of Michigan and hater of Proposal 2, rather than the college reporter. If that’s the case, I’ll cut the “junior journalist” some slack.
Coleman, on the other hand, is a different story. In the minds of leftists, anyone who favors equal treatment in the college admissions process is somehow against “diversity” (read: blacks).
Pandering to a black audience at a black church (sound familiar?), Coleman “delivered a resounding reaffirmation of the university’s dedication to diversity” and got a “standing ovation.” Based on her previous statements about Proposal 2, the Michigan law that bars skin color preferences in government hiring and admissions, I suspect her pabulum speech was a rant against the people of Michigan for having the gall to believe in equal treatment over preferences. What the article fails to mention and what liberals rarely get right is that being anti-race preferences is not the same as being anti-black.
[click to continue…]
Monday, March 12: A law-abiding black man with a gun. I like…
———————————————————————–
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (commonly called the D.C. Circuit) today declared D.C.’s stunningly stupid, misguided, and ineffectual 30-year-old gun ban unconstitutional. (via How Appealing and Instapundit)
Download a PDF copy of the opinion here.
One of the arguments gun ban supporters make is that since D.C. isn’t a state, the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to it. But some of those same anti-gun rights folks are pushing for D.C. to be recognized as a state so liberal, non-voting House of Representatives delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, will get to vote.
D.C.’s crime rate shot up after the gun ban went into effect, and the city has remained atop the high crime rate list. As I explained years ago, gun bans don’t stop criminals from owning and carrying guns. Breaking the law is what they do. My seven-year-old nephew has better reasoning skills than the D.C Council!
If the ban is indeed lifted, I plan to exercise my constitutional right to own a gun in the District of Columbia. I can’t wait to buy my first piece!
Recommendations?
Reactions: MM, Hot Air, Cato, Blinkered Thinker who writes: “Would-be crooks should stay clear of the District; you’ll never know if your intended victim is a gun-toting, conservative blogger…”
Monday, March 12: Howard Kurtz notes that I was “wrong” about my prediction that this story would get blanket coverage. So I underestimated the media for a change. How refreshing.
——————————————————————-
Will someone please explain to me why I’m seeing headlines like “Gingrich In Affair During Clinton Probe,” as if it’s a revelation? Newt Gingrich reportedly told James Dobson of Focus on the Family that he’d had an affair during Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton’s impeachment proceedings. But it isn’t news. It’s practically common knowledge.
During the impeachment hearings and subsequent trial, the press began digging into the lives of Republican politicians who criticized Clinton’s caddish and reprehensible behavior. A few things they uncovered:
- Pornographer Larry Flynt offered $1 million to anyone with dirt on Republicans. Someone sent him information that Congressman Bob Livingston, House Speaker-Elect, had cheated on his wife. Livingston resigned.
- Decades earlier, Congressman Henry Hyde, lead House manager of Clinton’s impeachment hearings, had cheated on his wife.
- Newt “Conservative Cad” Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, was screwing one of his aides while publicly condemning Clinton. Turns out that Gingrich had cheated on his first wife, discussed divorce proceedings with her while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery, and told his second wife over the telephone while she was attending her mother’s birthday party that he wanted a divorce. So far, he’s still married to third wife Callista Bisek, the aide he was screwing during the impeachment hearings.
[click to continue…]
Update: Commenter Renee dropped a link to this story, one I’d planned to look into:
“The Cherokee Nation’s vote this weekend to revoke the citizenship of the descendants of people the Cherokee once owned as slaves was a blow to people who have relied on tribal benefits…In Saturday’s special election, more than 76 percent of voters decided to amend the Cherokee Nation’s constitution to remove the estimated 2,800 freedmen descendants from the tribal rolls, according to results posted Sunday on the tribe’s Web site. Now the tribe is defending itself against accusations of racism.”
I haven’t followed this incident, so I don’t quite know what’s going on. If you do, feel free to discuss it in this thread.
—————————————————————————-
In another “You’ve got to be kidding” moment,†I received an e-mail from Senator Sam Brownback’s “people†about a resolution apologizing to American Indians “on behalf of the people of the United States to all native peoples for the many instances of violence, maltreatment and neglect inflicted on native peoples by citizens of the United States.†(See The Politico story)
First, Brownback is probably a nice enough man, but I’m disappointed that a conservative would come up with this tripe. And this isn’t the first time he’s drafted such a resolution; I’m just now finding out he’s been “pushing” this nonsense for some time.
Second, Brownback uses the term “Native American” (on his blog) I have just as much claim to that label, since I was born right here in America. I am a native American. Anybody born in America is a native of America (children of illegal aliens, too? not if I ran things). If by that term one is referring to the people here long before white Europeans arrived, then find a more accurate term to describe them. “American Indian†may not be accurate, either, but it seems to work just fine. It offends no one but bored white liberals with nothing better to do than bit** and moan about…I’ll let it go for now.
[click to continue…]
*** Scroll down for updates ***
A western feminist stepped down from her Ivory Tower and moved to a Muslim country with her Muslim husband and received the kind of education she never would have received in any left-leaning western university.
Phyllis Chesler, a professor of “women’s studies,†witnessed Muslim barbarity firsthand. She married a Muslim she’d met at an American school, then moved to his country. She writes:
When we landed in Kabul, an airport official smoothly confiscated my US passport. “Don’t worry, it’s just a formality,†my husband assured me. I never saw that passport again. I later learnt that this was routinely done to foreign wives — perhaps to make it impossible for them to leave. Overnight, my husband became a stranger. The man with whom I had discussed Camus, Dostoevsky, Tennessee Williams and the Italian cinema became a stranger. He treated me the same way his father and elder brother treated their wives: distantly, with a hint of disdain and embarrassment.
…
Individual Afghans were enchantingly courteous — but the Afghanistan I knew was a bastion of illiteracy, poverty, treachery and preventable diseases. It was also a police state, a feudal monarchy and a theocracy, rank with fear and paranoia. Afghanistan had never been colonised. My relatives said: “Not even the British could occupy us.†Thus I was forced to conclude that Afghan barbarism was of their own making and could not be attributed to Western imperialism.
Naysayers will claim Chesler’s account is an isolated story or merely one woman’s account, but it is not. Though some Muslim countries may not be as brutal and backward, there is no such thing as “women’s rights” in Islam or even “individual rights.” This is why people say that Islam is incompatible with western societies. The suppression of individual rights is an integral part of living under Sharia, and it is not racist or bigotry to say so.
My problem isn’t with “radical†Islam. I have a problem with the entire religion, especially the desire of its followers to live under religious law and to have that law imposed on westerners. In western countries. Every time I blog about my issues with Islam, somebody somewhere calls me a religious bigot. Whatever. Sticks and stones, you know?
[click to continue…]
