by ·Comments Off on Barack Opposes Original Intent of Constitution, Just Like Just Like Jim Crow Democrats did in the South

Barack Obama is in the chorus of liberal Democrats who continually oppose strict constructionists who want to honor the original intent of the Constitution instead of seeing it as a “living, breathing document” that takes on the cultural nuances of the day. It is not surprising though that they still hold that view of the Constitution after more than 100 years of applying their own interpretations to very clear and concise Amendments to the Constitution. It is surprising though, that a black man, who wants to be president, would buy into that position since it was the politically motivated interpretations of the Constitution that prevented total and complete racial integration. And ironically, the penumbra of equal protection, that was opposed on its face by Democrats to allow blacks equal access to all benefits of American citizenship, is the very foundation of the legal process of abortion, which finds 40% of its victims being black babies.

Ironically, as we remember the heroic, historic stance that Rosa Parks took against institutionalized racism, we have to unravel the reasons as to why she was forced to object to being considered less than equal to the white men and women on the bus. And that ball of yarn rolls right to the feet of the Democratic Party.

In 1868 the 14th Amendment was passed giving equal rights to all citizens regardless of race. It states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Republicans in congress passed it unanimously while not one single Democrat voted for it. This was the case with every other civil rights bill passed in the 1800s. By 1875, ten years after the end of the war to abolish slavery, almost two dozen civil rights laws were passed by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.

By 1892, when the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, they began to repeal all of the Civil Rights laws and the Supreme Court chose to ignore the 14th Amendment and saw the Constitution as a “living breathing document” that reflected their racists, segregationists views. In 1896 they ruled in Plessey v. Ferguson that equal didn’t necessarily mean that blacks and whites should share in the same things at the same time, and that institutionalized segregation was acceptable despite the fact that the 14th Amendment was clear that it wasn’t. This ruling was overturned almost 60 years later in Brown v. Board of Education. The Democrat’s response to this was to issue the Southern Manefesto which repudiated this ruling. It was signed by 100 Democrats from the House and Senate . . . but not one Republican signed it.

But it wasn’t only the 14th Amendment that the Supreme Court and the Democratic controlled congress ignored. The 15th Amendment, which passed in 1870, giving blacks the right to vote was passed by 100% of Republicans in Congress, and again, not one single Democrat supported it. It wasn’t very difficult to understand what their position was on the issue of blacks voting, or being equal members in society. But, as with the equal protection Amendment to the Constitution, they chose to ignore and reinterpret that ruling. They determined that blacks could vote IF, they could pass literacy tests, pay poll taxes, dance on one leg while reciting the Crispin Day speech from Shakespeare’s Henry V. Anything to make sure that blacks could not vote. And why didn’t Democrats want blacks to vote? Well, could it be because they voted almost unanimously for the party of Lincoln . . .the party that was founded specifically to abolish slavery . . . the Republican Party? If blacks were voting equally in both parties, the southern Democrats would never have instituted the Jim Crow laws because that would have disenfranchised their constituents. Instead, they worked to disenfranchise every black vote because they were voting 100% for Republicans who had risked their lives to not only free them, but ensure equal partnership in the American experience.

So we have seen what happens when the original intent of the Constitution is transformed into a document that suits the whims and desires of one class of people to totally oppress another. And, that perfect illustration was played out when Rosa Parks, who was denied a strict constructionist view of the original intent of the 14th Amendment, was forced to reject that ruling, make her voice known, and ignite a revolution that would never have been necessary if one party had not held to its views that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” to be interpreted by the whims and nuances of the day. Unfortunately, that is how Barack Obama sees the Constitution today, and how he would select judicial candidates to sit on every court in the land, including the Supreme Court.

He has one of the most radical voting records in the Senate on the issue of abortion and sees nothing wrong with the debauchery of killing a baby that has been partially delivered and then held in the vaginal canal to be murdered before the head is out. This of course is a deadly procedure for women to endure and in the days before modern medicine, this “breach birth” was one of the main causes of death for many women who could not endure the trauma to their system. Supporting not only laws, but unconstitutional interpretations of the law, shows his total disrespect for viable human beings, one second from birth, and the lives of women who are forced to endure this traumatic and sometimes fatal torture. He would not only work to keep these unconstitutional laws on the books, but would enforce their strength by appointing judges who approve of this debauchery, very much like Democrats 100 years ago appointed judges who ignored the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution and allowed blacks to be, symbolically, aborted from a functioning society.

Barack does not seem to care that 40% of the abortions in America are performed on black women resulting in a virtual genocide of blacks in the country. Because of his callous position on this issue, and his fervent desire to protect the right of a woman to be exploited, abused and even killed by these methods, he has declared that he will appoint judges who feel the same way he does. This is in spite of the fact that every single Republican judicial nomination goes through a gauntlet of impossible, improbable questions that point blank, ask how they would vote on a case that would involve abortion, and if they would work to overturn Roe v. Wade. If they do not adhere to the liberal position on abortion, they can usually not even make it out of committee, and if they do make it out, they lose to a Democrat majority.

With Barack as president, with a Democrat controlled house and senate, it is a certainty that pro-abortion judges will be appointed. Liberal judges, like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who have been waiting for a Barack to be elected before retiring, will usher in a new generation of people who ignore the original intent of the Constitution which is to protect the lives of all citizens, born and unborn, and provide for the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And even after seeing the incredible harm, destroyed lives, and divided nation that this type of thinking has caused, Barack Obama, and the majority of Democrats in congress, still hold to the flawed belief today, that the Constitution is open to interpretation based on their current political agenda. If they had not worked so hard to misinterpret the Constitution for almost 150 years, we would have had many black presidents by now, and all the racial issues that exist in the country today would be stories in history books but never experienced by citizens today.

Barack has already chosen to belong to the party of Jim Crow and segregation, but could redeem himself by rejecting their views and positions on genocide for black children, and abuse of black women. But since it is evident he won’t, it is important that he does not rise to a position where he can do even more harm than he has already.

Originally seen at townhall.com

by ·Comments Off on Finally, Leadership in an Election Cycle

Within two days I had two people meet me on bicycles for appointments. It was surprising at first to think that someone would be out in this heat, riding miles on a bike to meet someone for business. After a quick trip to the restroom, they emerged fresh and ready for work. It reminded me of days before cars when it was not unusual to walk miles or ride horses to reach a destination. There was a time before gas stations and SUVs when books were read by lamplight or candles and heat was provided by hours of hard work, chopping and splitting wood.

So, America has survived without oil, foreign or domestic, before. And now as prices are rising, it is forcing everyone to make even small adjustments in their lifestyles. Some not as drastic as dragging the 10-speed out of the garage, but many are combining trips, foregoing the extra distance to their favorite restaurant, or opting to take the bus and subway to work. The rising cost of fuel is having an impact on everything from delivering mail to planning the dinner menu. This cause and effect is lost on liberals who cling to their trees as though they were guns and Bibles. They, of course will still run their air conditioners, drive their cars, fly to their national Save the Environment meetings while refusing to allow us to plunk our drills along side eleven other countries off our own shore who are sucking it right out from under us.

Politicians, unfortunately, have driven this bus, and it is heading off a cliff. They don’t seem to realize that the three major issues that are of most concern to Americans are intricately intertwined. The issues are the economy, the war on terror, and energy independence. We import 70% of our oil and have allowed ourselves to become energy dependent upon countries that have exported terrorists that have attacked and killed our citizens. Because we refuse to consider the lives of humans as being of greater value than a moose or a caribou, we are not allowed to drill in areas that could ease the pain at the pump and keep hundreds of billions of dollars in the US every year that is currently being pumped out. And all this is happening as the dollar is slipping in value, the pri ce of gas and all commodities related to it, are rising, and the people who breed contemptible adversaries are virtually terrorizing the nation into the reality that gas might continue to climb to $10 a gallon. And why shouldn’t it? If they control over 70% of what we purchase and use, why do they have to put a limit on anything they sell us? They literally, could destroy our economy as we sit back marveling at the pristine beauty of tundra moss.

The person who steps forward with a working solution to this energy crisis is the person who is best equipped to lead the country. Sadly though, that person isn’t a candidate for President, and the ones who are the selected nominees of the two major parties have not grasped the urgency in this issue.

The only person who truly is out there, putting his money where is heart is, is T. Boone Pickens who has picked up the mantel, thrown down the gauntlet and is leading a battalion of willing warriors to solve this crisis together. (Go to his website and see his plan at www.pickensplan.com/theplan.)

It is refreshing to see someone who cares about something greater than himself, is not consumed by the idea of power, and is willing to put his talents and resources behind something that will help the entire nation. It is exciting to see momentum in the stagnant political waters that are choking us with apathy and despair at the realization that we have no clear choice for leader this election. The contrast to political maneuvering and posturing is exciting as we see Picken’s true bipartisan plan to basically give us all a reprieve from partisan entrenchment, and a do-over of common sense problem solving. The solution in Washington is not how they can do the right thing, but how they can get credit for doing something that they can convince the American people is right, but it is really in their own best political interest.

They blame the oil companies for making a ten cent profit on a gallon of gas while they make almost three times that in taxes for doing what? They are the silent partner of every successful endeavor in the country but are nowhere to be seen if a venture fails. You take on that entire burden yourself, while you continue to pay them just for the right to own property and live in your own country.

I have always thought it was a big mistake for the national presumption of office holders to be that only politicians can ascend to the level of Commander in Chief. The title itself suggests that someone has commanded something pretty large. Aside from John McCain’s honorable leadership in the Navy, neither he nor Obama have any management experience. The role of Senator is basically one of a glorified bureaucrat who passes laws that determine how the rest of us lead our lives . . . sort of a duly elected emperor’s club.
With two of the three major issues facing our nation, being the economy and energy, it seems logical to have, as a leader, someone who has proven himself in those fields. The US government should be run more like a business and less like the mafia where it is the silent partner in every aspect of your life, and if you don’t willingly comply, there will be dire consequences. If it was run like a business, we would not have spending outpacing income, systems would be streamlined, the lumbering bureaucratic nightmare would come to an end, production would be rewarded, and children could be educated instead of indoctrinated into believing that a failed and bloated government is a success. Decisions could be made that are truly in the best interest of the entire nation, not just one political party, and the people would be considered partners in the affairs of state, not slaves to it.

For the millions of people who are totally dissatisfied with the choices this election cycle, and feel their voices are totally drowned out by the demands of those who want to tighten the harness to try and squeeze out more hard earned money to pay for their political vanities, they might have an option. Why not write in a proven leader, who does not want the position, but would be great at it? If T Boone Pickens can run the country like he has successfully run his businesses . . . the concerns we have today could be a distant memory tomorrow. But it takes courage to do the right thing . . . like riding a bicycle when everyone else is still sitting comfortably in their cars.

Originally seen at townhall.com

by ·Comments Off on Conservative Blacks Choose Pigment Over Principle

In the mid 1980’s I debated Gloria Steinhem on the Phil Donahue show, during the presidential campaign where Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman Vice Presidential candidate. The assumption by feminists, like Gloria, was that all women should vote for Geraldine because she was a woman. I asked her if she would be supporting Phyllis Schlafly if she were the candidate instead of Geraldine and if she would be offended if I made that same assumption.

When Allen Keyes was running for president, as probably one of the most brilliant candidates we have ever seen, he was ignored by the liberal media and the black community because, as a black Republican, he was deemed either irrelevant or out of touch. I often wondered if he had been the first black Democrat running for office if he would have been treated better, and then I had my answer in Barack Obama.

What is it about this man that has thoughtful, conservative blacks like Armstrong Williams and JC Watts saying they might vote for him? It can’t be his left of left politics that makes even Ted Kennedy look conservative. What thinking conservative could actually support a man who is going to raise taxes, increase the size of government, redistribute wealth, burden small businesses and the working class, and play nice with people who want to destroy us? It can’t just be about his skin color otherwise they would have been huge supporters of Allen Keyes when he ran for president, and as I recall, neither were.

Armstrong explains his position by saying, ”I don’t necessarily like his [Barack’s] policies; I don’t like much of what he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it.” JC Watts, former Republican congressman from Oklahoma, who is obviously more blinded by the light of Obama, says he expects Obama to take on issues such as poverty and urban policy, adding ”Republicans often seem indifferent to those things.”
No, JC, Republicans try and deal with these issues in a logical, private sector, community involvement way and they are shut down and called racists. Unless a huge tax bill is attached to every single social ill in this country, liberals think a solution is impossible. When Bush instituted faith based initiatives to allow the private sector religious and community groups to do what they do best, and partner with them instead of letting bloated bureaucracies handle personal and community problems, they are vilified for not sufficiently extricating church from state. When welfare reform bills were passed over the vehement objections of Democrats, and then actually worked, guess who stood up and took credit for them . . . Bill Clinton.
Of all the billions and billions of dollars through the years that have been thrown at poverty, each person living in poverty today would be a multi-millionaire if the money had just gone directly to them along with a financial advisor to help them keep it growing. But if the government had done that, there would be no need for the huge, bloated, out of control leviathan called “government” that is never sated. And that is the big distinction in this race; those who think higher taxes and bigger government are the answer, like Barack Obama, and those who want their liberties back. Unfortunately, the later group has no candidate this term. If they did, I am sure people like Armstrong Williams and JC Watts would not be doing the two-step with Barack because they would see a clear distinction in the candidates, beyond race, and vote accordingly.

This news should be a shot across the bow to the tone deaf McCain campaign that has adopted a fortress mentality while killing the peasants inside the walls. They still believe they can win without their base, and think their base is a handful of disgruntled Hillary voters and disillusioned moderates who are dissatisfied with the lack of leadership from both parties. Why would they vote for two candidates who represent exactly why they are disgruntled and dissatisfied with politics in general?

It is too bad that neither Armstrong nor JC saw our movie, “Emancipation Revelation Revolution”, even though Armstrong is actually in it. They would understand that this “historic” thing that they are expecting to happen was actually prevented from happening over 100 years ago by the very party that Barack so proudly hails from.

This is not a white vs. black issue that has its roots in slavery because there were too many white men and women who gave their lives trying to end the practice of slavery and Jim Crow. It is time to transcend past injustices, stop wearing counterfeit grievances on our sleeves, and work to fulfill the simplicity and sincerity of the American creed.

The battle to end slavery was fought by whites, against whites. It was not black vs. white. The battle to keep blacks from integrating fully into society, have a place at the economic and political tables were battles that pitted the racist white society against huge segments of the white population who supported equal rights, and many gave their lives in that battle. The Republican Party was actually founded by white abolitionists who were reviled and ridiculed, much like pro-life advocates are today. But thankfully they clung to their principles and ended slavery at great personal cost including for many, the loss of life.

Republicans today are clueless about their history, they don’t think it matters, or they have taken a permanent powder. Who are these people anyway? I used to think I knew. I switched parties years ago when I became ashamed to be a part of a political party that elected racist governors who would keep young black kids from attending white schools. I was ashamed of a party where all the Democrats were happy racists and to oppose them was dangerous.

I now find myself ashamed of the Republican Party for a myriad of reasons, but unlike 30 years ago, I have no party to turn to now. And neither do millions and millions of disgruntled, disenfranchised, marginalized conservatives who see two giant parties pressing in on them from both sides. The Republican Party today is “Democrat-lite,” and reminds you of the nerd in school who wants so desperately to be cool and does all the cool things that are so pitiful it actually pains you to see how ridiculous he looks. That is this party today. They want so much to be hip and cool, and with it, and tolerant and popular and generous with your money, and accommodating to every stupid, costly idea that comes down the pike. There is no leadership in the party and it is a very pale, faded image of a party that was formed to champion the cause of freedom and liberty for those enslaved.

That entire conflict and portion of our history is written in the blood of innocent victims, by the hand of a small group of power hungry people who are motivated by greed and control of others. They are the very same people who today, have elevated a man who talks in the grand sweeping phrases of third world dictators who rise out of the dust to throw pedals of empty platitudes at the feet of the adoring crowds. To see men of the stature of Armstrong Williams and JC Watts, fall for the con of a party using a divisive symbol to intimidate the country into following a path of virtual slavery to government is appalling and quite sad.

If more women in 1984 were as gullible and easily swayed as these two male leaders are, Geraldine Ferraro would have easily become the first woman vice president. But we resisted the temptation to indulge our fantasies of feigned oppression. She would have only been a symbolic success to those who agreed with her policies and would have been a dismal failure for everyone who opposed them. Would that have been a reflection on her ability to lead as a woman? No, no more than Margaret Thatcher was a raging success by those who approved of her every policy.

If Armstrong and JC want true leadership and pigment is that important, and like millions, are totally dissatisfied with the idea of a McCain presidency, then I challenge them to do something really courageous without selling their souls. They can write-in someone like Michael Steel as an alternative choice who, in my opinion is better than both the choices we have now. If color is what they want great . . . let’s do it. If conservative is what they claim they want, then, he’s the person for that too.

I challenge the country to stop whining and take control of this situation before it totally controls them and they wake up one day without choices. If you don’t like either candidate, settle on a write-in and just do it. That actually might be the only way to get McCain’s attention, and the only way to break this Obama spell off of people who usually have more sense than this.

Hey JC, Armstrong, and others who are being seduced by pigment; if young women, 20 years ago, could resist the feminist seduction of Gloria, Phil and Geraldine, then surely, you can resist the siren’s call to socialism.

Originally seen at townhall.com

by ·Comments Off on Hillary’s Hubris?

I was leafing through the 1987 copy of Outstanding Young Women of America and was amazed by the resumes of the over 32,000 women listed in the book. It was the year that Elaine Chao was featured prominently as a national winner. Her resume was amazing as were all of the ones featured in the front part of the book who were each given a full page to extol their virtues. The bulk of the book was reserved for us slackers who had only accomplished two inches of 8-point type in a three-column page. But even the slackers were pretty darned impressive. And over 40 years of harvesting the brightest and the best young women leaders, which is, I am sure a fraction of all the women leaders in the country, it is amazing that only one woman is considered qualified to be president.

Two examples of women who are more qualified to be president than Hillary are Oprah Winfrey and Condoleezza Rice. If you do a side by side of Condi’s resume and Hillary’s, it is sort of like comparing my two inch column to Elaine Chao’s full page in the OYWA book.

The question should not be, “what is it that qualifies Hillary to be president?” but it should be, “Why does she think she is qualified?” I mean, when you break it down, she basically was a lawyer, who married a man who became president, cheated on her, bringing home a senate seat instead of the usual box of flowers and chocolate. And???

Does anyone actually think that Hillary Rodham Clinton could have waltzed into New York from Arkansas, with the carpetbag tucked securely under her arm and been a serious contender for the U.S. Senate Seat, against the Mayor of New York City to boot? Then I would suggest that any of the 32,000 women in the 1987 copy of Outstanding Young Women of America, should be considered as legitimate contenders for any public office they would want to serve in.

All discussion of resumes should now be universally determined as irrelevant for any person who wants to pursue public office, even the White House. That standard has been lowered to the point that literally half the country would qualify to run for that position. And according to Hillary, just existing as an adult, for 35 years prior to running for office is sufficient to suggest a lot of really neat things were accomplished.

The jewel in her vitae crown can’t be that she got a law degree from Yale, because according to the liberal elite, George Bush, with a degree from both Harvard and Yale is a blanking idiot. When not one individual from either of those two laurel-resting institutions will rise to contest the assumption that they graduate idiots, it can only be assumed, that every Yale and Harvard graduate is an idiot.

So, let’s see, what else is on her resume . . . a lawyer. That means that both Laura Ingraham and Anne Coulter would both qualify to be President, and they have written more books that Hillary with actual substance. Not Children’s books and a self-promoting tome of unbearable proportions. And because I took that leave of absence in my third year of law school, because the business I was owned was growing exponentially, I am only six months behind being qualified to be president. But, I have a second-degree black belt and Hillary doesn’t. I am and artist, producer, director, can drive a Bobcat and rip the bulls eye out of a target with a gun, among a myriad of other accomplishments that I would love to challenge Hillary to compete with. Could we put those accomplishments in a column opposite the tough duty of traveling the world as a pampered First Lady?

Let me see . . . someone arranges your itinerary, picks you up, flies you some place on a private plane, lands you amidst adoring crowds, wines and dines you, shows you what is photogenically the best representation of their country, or what could bring in the biggest bucks in handouts, you get back on the plane and go to another country and repeat those same predictable steps. Sounds a lot like a video game.

How many countries was she saying she has been to? Eighty? Just for fun I was counting all the countries I have been to and she has me beat by 10. That means with a few more frequent flyer miles, I could either be president or First Lady. I love when life gives you choices. But in my travels I have slept in the middle of the Sahara dessert, have showered in cold rusty water in Mongolian orphanages, rebuilt villages in Guatemala after earthquakes, observed the media distorting the truth in South Africa, painted in Monet’s garden in France, run out of gas in England, been attacked in Mexico and Costa Rica, held hostage in Egypt, and stranded in New Zealand after the attack on Sept. 11. Oh my, the list is long, involved, and certainly more colorful than having handlers sanitize a world experience and then pass it off as being an expert in foreign affairs.

Tens of thousands of people have been in meetings with presidents, kings, chiefs, prime ministers, and members of various parliaments and congresses, and it is always the same . . . kiss kiss, smile smile, isn’t it wonderful that we are in the same room chatting. Golly this diplomacy stuff sure is fun isn’t it Gomer.

Ok, so she is a lawyer, married to a guy who got her a senate seat and she travels a lot . . . on the taxpayer dime and has spent most of her time as a “Senator” running for president. What’s that? What kind of qualifications are those to have the audacity to even think you can lead a nation that is at war with people you clearly don’t see as dangerous. She wants to give out driver’s licensees to illegal aliens to keep them safe on the road but doesn’t think it is important to keep the country safe from people who have proven they want to destroy us. See, I would be a better president; I at least get the basics.

But I think the thing that is so annoying about the arrogance that she demonstrates, by practically demanding that we kiss her ring and bow at the altar of self-indulgence, is that she has been myopic in her insatiable desire for unbridled and absolute power. And she will stop at nothing to get it, from being the femme fatal to the shrinking violet, blaming all men for her failures. And ironically, as she claims her run is a first for women everywhere, and they will benefit greatly by her service, we can’t help but reflect upon the Bill factor and remember that his legacy toward women is less than exemplary.

In all the accusations by women who claimed he exploited them for sexual gratification, Hillary’s concern was never for them. She never admitted that her husband was a danger to women and should be muzzled because his proclivity to indulge in unfettered sex would become an impediment to her perverted desire for power.

For her to claim she is the voice of women is not only laughable it is downright dangerous. With her in the role of the Commander of Enabling, no woman in the country would be safe, with her husband on the prowl. And no feminist worth her salt would hang on her husband’s coattails to catapult herself to a position of power then claim she got there on her own merits. What merits?

Hillary is a modern day Evita Peron seeing all other women in the country as the illiterate, unwashed masses, that she has to single-handedly represent, even if it means dropping some of them in the cenote of greed, convenience and naked power. She thinks we are all back in 1970, burning bras and marching for equal pay for equal work. I bet Bill O’Reilly wishes he had equal pay with Oprah, and every man I know would love to have the sweetheart book deal that Hillary got.

Hillary is not only stuck in a time warp of the heady days of US-bashing 60s and 70s, but she is myopic in her understanding of the complexities of human nature and individuality. I know, it is hard for socialists who adore the halcyon illusion that Marx could have been right, to embrace the fact that all women are uniquely different, as are men, and have unique needs based on their own life experiences.

For Hillary supporters to claim that ALL women should support her because they have matching genitalia is an insult to all thinking women who are not intimidated by that type of exploitive dialogue. But then, these are the same people who called Paula Jones “white trash”, debunked Juanita Broadrick’s accusation of rape by Bill, and laughed at Kathleen Wiley’s detailed incident of unwanted groping by Bill, and winked at his molestation of a teenage intern which personified sexual harassment in the work place. They really think that all women fantasize about having sex with Bill and they secretly desire to be Hillary.

Women today actually think for themselves, and know a con when they see it. And no woman worth her salt is going to vote for a woman who willingly allows her husband to prey on other women while she works a political ménage et tio to get to the White House.

If Hillary really as the smartest woman in the world she would realize that she is not equipped to handle this job and her raw hubris and arrogance is proof that she is out of touch with reality. If she really loves this country and claims she wants what is best for it, she will realize she is not the answer and that her predatory husband should never again be unleashed upon unsuspecting women who look up to Hillary as a spokesperson for helpless women.

But when you are blinded by an insatiable desire for power, born of an elite smugness reminiscent of benevolent dictators who defer to the masses and acquiesce to lead, because only they can . . . then you really are out of touch with reality. And the enablers, like the aging feminists and sycophant media, don’t care about substance or qualifications because she becomes a convenient caricature of a flawless leader they have created in their minds, detached from reality.

It is sad, that out of the millions of amazingly qualified women in this country, we are stuck with one who truly will cause women to go DOWN in history if she is elected.

by ·Comments Off on Are Black Americans Monolithic?

Democrats want everyone to think that blacks are monolithic. Take, for example, that little statistic of the voting habits of black Americans. It ranges anywhere from 90% to 96% of the vote going to the Democratic candidate, depending upon the race, the region of the country and the contest. One small detail is missing though . . . less than 30% of blacks even vote. So if you take 90% of 29%, you will get about 26% or about one quarter of the black population that actually votes for the Democratic candidate.

What about those other 74%? Why don’t they vote?

We discovered while filming our documentary, Emancipation Revelation Revolution, that the reason most blacks feel disenfranchised from the voting machinery is that they don’t feel comfortable with the Democratic platform and have been
intimidated into believing that the Republican Party is the spawn of Satan.  They reject, as a matter of conscience, most of the social positions the Democrats espouse. They have seen the figures and realize that 40% of all abortions are performed on black women and can see the finger of genocide pointing in their direction. At the same time, there is an erroneous belief that the Republican Party has been wrong on civil rights and lacks compassion. (Our movie sets the record straight on that fallacy . . .  www.ERRVideo.com)

They have seen the devastation of the black family at the hand of the party that replaced personal responsibility with government handouts laced with immoral, impossible conditions. Conditions like forbidding the father of a woman’s child to live in the family if they are to receive welfare, or the restriction on returning to school if they are in the government system. They have seen the black family smeared in the Petri dish of social experimentation for several generations and realize the same monolithic mentality exists that identifies blacks as victims of society, dependent upon “the man” for their very existence. Sound familiar?

What is happening to those who are breaking out of this mindset, in the year of the “black candidate,” declaring that the color of Barack’s skin color is irrelevant because the content of his character is a bigger issue? But that is not what the mainstream media wants to focus on, because if they did, they would be admitting that blacks are not monolithic, do not en masse support one party over another, and don’t all attend churches as divisive as Rev. Wrights.

The debate should be about whether someone who lacks judgment and attends a divisive church that pits one group of people against another is qualified to lead an entire nation, not whether Obama should have thrown Rev. Wright under the bus for political expediency.

What we are witnessing though, in this entire debate, is another example of the smugness of the liberal press and the ignorance of those who oppose the liberal media, because they always let them set the agenda in any debate. The assumption has been for years, that there really is only one black America with only two main spokesmen  . . . Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. When Barack Obama broke through that glass ceiling erected by those who have a vested interest in maintaining the misperception that blacks can only achieve with government handouts and welfare policies, the powers-that-be had to restack the deck in order to maintain their position of power and influence over self-proclaimed leaders who have forfeited real authority for personal gratification and aggrandizement.

Obama was allowed to slip through the velvet ropes of low expectations because Hillary Clinton had already torn the doors off the presidential clubhouse and demanded her time at the helm. With the common denominator being lowered to the point that a woman with zero administrative experience, other than being married to a man that had some, could declare that she was suitable to serve as president, it now was easier for everyone to cross that threshold. Barack was whispered to be the only tool powerful enough to derail the queen from ascending to the thrown and was seen as a uniter of the party with a flawless resume that offended no one . . . except the liberal power base that expected all newcomers to make their bones before making such brash declarations.

But now that his campaign is unraveling with Rev. Wright permanently tattooed on his forehead, there has to be an easy explanation that will dismiss the reality of his extreme rhetoric, and the naiveté of Barack to continue learning at his knee all these years. The liberal . . . white media has to now spin the discussion away from extremism, and back toward the nuance of wisdom in order
to keep their age old stereotype alive, that all blacks are the same, are a monolithic group of like-minded people who are so similar that almost 95% vote the same way.

The discussion that is not being aired is the divisions within not only the black communities on key issues, but within the churches as well. There are thousands of black churches across the nation who are appalled by the rantings of Rev. Wright and are very upset that the mainstream media has shrugged and suggested that this is the typical black church, and they have earned the right to hold
such racist views because of past injustices. It is an easy way to keep the plantation of bitterness and victimization open for business. It is not in the best interest of liberals to set the captives free from anger and racist ideology, because once they are free, they speak and think for themselves, they realize the government has not made their lives easier, but placed impossible restrictions on their livelihood, their lifestyles, their hopes and dreams for a brighter tomorrow. The government welfare systems have robbed people of their dignity while refusing to give helpful alternatives to personal growth. And those who keep that machine running, keep it fed and churning out new welfare recipients are liberals who must have that vote to stay alive. They would literally shrivel up like a salt-pelted slug if that plantation ceased to exist.

So it is imperative that they convince white Americans that all blacks are helpless, angry, disenfranchised, bitter, victims of racism and they will never be able to accomplish anything without assistance. They even think they are helping Barack by suggesting that all black churches are like Rev. Wrights and this is what happens in black churches every Sunday, and it is fine that Barack has attended that church for 20 years. Who are we to say how and where someone should worship? Who are we, as oppressive, racist whites to condemn Rev. Wright and his church?

But what if the condemnation was coming from other black pastors . . . would that be different? It might be different, but you won’t hear it because the liberal media doesn’t want that voice to be heard. You won’t hear from Bishop Waymond Burton in North Carolina who is very upset with the McCain campaign for coming into his state and castigating an ad that tells the truth about Rev. Wright. You won’t hear from Rev. Bill Owen, Bishop Harry Jackson, Rev. Jesse Peterson, Rev. O’Neill Dozier, Bishop David Perrin, Mason Weaver, etc. etc., who all have churches or ministries that truly do teach the love of Christ, forgiveness, mercy and a need to unite and not divide. We don’t see or hear from brilliant black scholars like Shelby Steele, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, and
thousands of others who are quietly achieving and destroying stereotypes that have been erected by a class of elitists who must keep blacks forever in this victim class to maintain their political power and control.

I once had the opportunity to host the president of an African country in the U.S. and took him, with several others, to two black churches in DC. Many people asked why we were going to two since all black churches were the same. It was an odd statement that was repudiated at the end of the second service.

The first church we attended was a Rev. Wright type church, complete with racial vitriol, anger, intimidation and oppressive messages that served only to keep that slobbering spirit of racism fat and happy. It was a frightening experience, and other than the two secret service men assigned to the visiting president, there were only three of us who were white. We honestly did not think we would make it out of the church alive. The pastor, who ironically is a friend and had been at our home the night before for a reception, was going on and on about whites being the cause of all of their problems, that there didn’t need to be accountability for any actions because they could not be blamed for anything . . . only white men could because of blah blah blah. There was no love, there was no joy, mercy, forgiveness, impartation of empowerment or sense of purpose . . . there was no Jesus in this “Christian” church that sang the same hymns I grew up with in a Baptist church. The façade of Christianity was embarrassing and an affront to
what the true teachings of Christ are all about.

We did not relish the thought of dragging ourselves to the second black church, certain we were going to, once again, be berated and condemned for lacking sufficient pigment in our skin. I was not sure my eardrums could handle another two hours of screaming and rhetorical abuse. But thankfully we went to the second black church only to be greeted with warm hugs, smiles of delight and colored-blind eyes that accepted us as members of the Body of Christ. You could feel the peace and love of the congregation that emanated from the gentleness and strength of their pastor. The presence of the Holy Spirit was palpable and
by the end of the service, there was not a dry eye in the room, and even one of the secret service men had tears rolling down his face. What was intended to happen in the first church, but was met with anger and resentment, was accepted with gladness and humility in the second church. The visiting president had wanted to ask forgiveness from the first congregation for his country and his countrymen, selling the ancestors of these black Americans, into slavery. His attempt was heartfelt but was totally rebuked.

At the second church, he was reluctant to say the same thing, but felt compelled to get down on both knees and beg for forgiveness on behalf of his country for the way they had treated the ancestors of this group. Even though not one person in that room had ever sold a slave or been a slave, the spirit of racism, oppression and bondage is very real in people’s lives as though a reality occurred in the flesh. His offer of forgiveness was met with tears and the most amazing outpouring of love and mercy I have ever seen. We were all hugging each other, crying, laughing, loving . . . just experiencing the pure love of Christ in our midst. He told us it was worth his trip to America, just for that one moment.

But that is not the black church we see or hear about in the news. We keep seeing the angry clips looped over and over to give the very erroneous impression that all black churches are like Rev. Wrights and all black parishioners are like Barack Obama being fed this angry bile every single week, for years and years. This stereotype continues to divide the nation, feed the racism monster, and
keep a political party in power.

That is why the focus is no longer whether or not Wright’s church is a typical black church or not. That discussion is irrelevant and wholly unacceptable. Besides, based on the liberal manipulation of the masses it would be almost impossible to believe otherwise. How different is Rev. Wright from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Micheal Eric Dyson, Louis Farrakhan who all say the same things but
just with their own personal twist to it. Where are the faces of Bishop Harry Jackson, or Bishop Burton who, as black men, will denounce this anti-Christian “Christianity” and the charlatans who are creating negative stereotypes of an entire class of people? Why aren’t these other voices of reason and wisdom allowed air time to show the American people that blacks don’t hate whites, or
that to go to college and do well in school should not be considered “acting white.”  Or to succeed as a conservative black in a “white man’s world” does not in anyway justify names like Uncle Sam, Aunt Jamima, Oreo cookie or other hateful pejoratives.

I don’t blame Rev. Wright for fanning the flames of racism, or Barack Obama for warming his political career on their embers. They are the real victims in this whole charade because they have bought the lies and distortions of the people who have historically oppressed them and their ancestors in one form or another . . . whether in physical chains, philosophical and cultural chains, or now the chains of victimization and validation of a lifestyle that does nothing but rob them of the true life of love and joy that God has destined them to have. If the scales fell off and they realized the man they should hate is the one who has robbed their dignity by categorizing all blacks as congregating in the same huddled, victimized masses, then they would stand up and say, no more. They
would say, “We will not allow this blind prejudice to suck our souls from us” while the forces who have everything to gain, walk away laughing at these fools who fell for the biggest con in the world.

Blacks are no more monolithic than whites . . . or women, and to suggest it, to treat them as such is insulting, demeaning and . . . oh my gosh . . . really racist.

by ·Comments Off on Response to Movie “Expelled” Proves Its Point: Man Has Not Evolved

In our office on Capitol Hill, we have a graffiti wall that has been there for almost 30 years. One of my favorite benign scribblings is not only humorous, but in a cute way, shows who will ultimately win in this pitiful battle of man vs. God. The little ditty was, “God is Dead . . . Nietzsche, 1891,” followed by . . . “Nietzsche is dead . . . God, 1900”. At first blush you laugh, but then the reality of what that statement says, should cause true believers to be sad, not only for Nietzsche’s fate but also for those today who share his beliefs.

It is not that they should be forbidden from having these beliefs, or forced to accept any other belief system. But the reality of those who deny the existence of God is that they want to foist that limited view on the rest of the world, and have been successful in several cultures throughout history in perpetuating that very myopic opinion.

There is a wonderful new documentary out, called Expelled, produced by Ben Stein, that looks not only at the conflict between the two views of whether or not God created all we behold, or if it just happened by accident. It looks at the move by the unbelievers to keep the concept and even discussion of a “God possibility” out of the marketplace. The film successfully tracks the history of “godless” nations, their inhumanity to man, and the ultimate failure of their systems while tracing the move to eradicate God from the educational system in the U.S., intimidating professors and scientists who even suggest that creative design is not only possible, but a reality.

As interesting as it is to track the desperation of god-denying apologists, it is more interesting to read their rantings in response to the very simple supposition in the film that creationism should at least be allowed to be discussed as a viable alternative to . . . well . . . to what? It reminds me of the joke where man claims he is God and can do anything God can do and better, so God says, cool, make a man like I did, out of dust.

The arrogant atheist reaches down to grab a handful of dirt and God says, “Uh ah, make your own dirt.”

So where did it begin, and if it was as simple as a big bang, then recreate it. If man really did evolve from an ameba . . . a simple one celled creature, then certainly he should be able to make a man from one today. With all the science, the technology, the internet, and the huge crowd of followers desperate to prove there is no God and that man, in his total stupidity, really thinks he can become one, then prove it. Has anyone seen a perfect man yet . . . besides Jesus of course? How many have come back from the dead, walked the earth for 40 days then ascended into heaven leaving men and women willing to die to keep that truth alive?

These men and women went forth into a godless world where the smallest infraction could find you hanging on a cross for hours until you literally drowned from the fluid rising in your lungs. They would be the weekly entertainment in lion infested arenas, with the cheers of a ruthless, godless crowd, being the last sound they would hear on earth. We have seen brutal dictators who reject God, setting themselves in that lofty position only to exemplify the very opposite characteristics by slaughtering, torturing, dehumanizing and devaluing all life. Yeah, that’s the kind of god we want to follow. And with all that power, none of these self-appointed gods have ever been able to make a flower or a hummingbird.

As though it is a new idea to discuss creationism in the arena of science exploration, and this movie has exposed a truth that has never been discussed, the responses to its release have been amazing. But oddly, the most venomous attacks have been responses to a press release, to the media, which are on “press lists.” It is so cute to see these professional journalists send back, expletive deleted responses ending with, “Take me off your list.” ……..Oooookkkkk. So that means, you, oh brilliant journalist, want to be taken off the key media list that disseminates all the press releases for all the major activities in the country. Yeah, you could be god. Here is a sample of the brilliance of man . . . “Expelled will open wide on the 18th, but mostly in rural and poor neighborhoods. It’s got just one theater in all of New York City, in Times Square, none in places like Beverly Hills or wealthier, better-educated urban neighborhoods where more “evolved” people might live.”

Wow, that statement, in a review of the film, is a perfect illustration as to the dangers of the very elitist, arrogant supposition that man slithered out from under a rock, sans divine coercion. A person who thinks they are god sees everything through a prism of shifting absolutes and a sense of superiority over those he does not know, and what he can not see. To suggest that people in Beverly Hills, New York City, Times Square, etc. are better educated and more “evolved” is a perfect illustration of what the movie Expelled is trying to say.

The great thing about this discussion, is the blatant hypocrisy when you consider the fact that this film is being vilified by the very open-minded left, who will argue to the death that alternative lifestyles should be celebrated, embraced and encouraged. Yet the alternative lifestyle of believing in a creator, who made each of us in His own image, is not only reviled and marginalized, but those who express this belief are condemned as not being smart enough to even engage in the discussion. We are the inner-city ideologies, while the brilliant bourgeoisie live in Beverly Hills and New York City.

The polemics of the discussion of the theory of evolution versus creative design, is that it is so reminiscent of the flat earth society where any discussion of the possibility of a rounder playing field was met with not only similar elitist derision, but certain death. I guess it is a good thing that these poor “journalists” took up that profession and not that of bloody dictator otherwise, poor Ben Stein might not be with us much longer. And that would be a shame because not only is he funny, brilliant, talented and creative . . . he is right. And arguing against truth will not alter that fact that it is. Sorry Nietzsche.

Originally seen on townhall.com

by ·Comments Off on It’s the Economy, Stupid (Until Nov 5)

I can still hear the James Carvell orchestrated mantra of the Clinton campaign in 1992, drilling it into all our thick heads that the economy was the only issue that mattered that year. In his own, inimitable way, he summarized the three points of that campaign as being, “change vs. more of the same,” “The economy, stupid” and “Don’t forget health care.” It is refreshing to know that with all the hyperbole about change, that some things actually never do change . . . like Democrats and elections.

It is easy to understand why Hillary would rely on those three successful points to hang her campaign on since they were prominently posted at the Clinton headquarters in 1992 as a constant reminder to employ the KISS method of political strategy . . . Keep It Simple Stupid. But, that doesn’t explain why Obama has adopted exactly the same three points, not straying off subject to even feign originality.

There are a few very interesting points about the two democratic contenders, who are using pages from the old Clinton playbook as though nothing has changed in 16 years. One is that in 1992, Clinton won with less than 43% of the vote and did just four points better in 1996, never, ever getting a full majority, or “mandate for leadership,” as they like to say. When Clinton benefited from the dot com boom, inspite of having raised taxes, the assumption was that he was doing something to stimulate the economy. That’s like taking credit for the rain just because you got wet. And when Bush came to office, not only did he inherit a recession, but less than nine months later he presided over one of the most horrific attacks on US soil in our history. He still refused to raise taxes as a result of it, and saw eight years of stable and consistent economic growth, a robust stockmarket, and a real estate bubble that was bound to burst as things always readjust to natural levels.

If you dust off the old script that was disseminated to the mainstream media in 1992, it is almost a verbatim argument for voting for the Democrats today and throwing the Republicans out. Even though, at the end of Clinton’s 8 years, with a recession, they weren’t clamoring to throw out the Democrats and elect the Republicans, so it can’t really be the “economy stupid.” And even up until election day of 1992, the talking heads were shaking theirs, so concerned that if the Democrats did not regain control of the White House, it would be certain economic disaster for the country. Sound familiar? The only problem is . . . if you go back and check the newspaper headlines the days leading up to the election, you will find the term “faltering economy” over and over. But if you look up the headlines just a few days after the election, there is not a mention of the economy. It is as though it miraculously healed itself overnight. And oddly, it did, because it was only bent, not broken, and the constant drum beat of impending economic doom was silenced because the political battle had been won.

It is called a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you are told over and over, and believe that you are going to fail, or you will get sick, or something horrible will happen to you, that idea begins to control your actions until you define yourself by that statement. If people hear over and over that the economy is bad, a recession is coming, housing prices are falling, even it is to adjust for an outrageous spike in prices, then they will be on edge about the calamity hitting them. That is not to say there aren’t people who are hurting financially. I know people who have been hurting financially through 6 presidents from both parties. But statistics show that more people today are earning more, owning homes, starting small businesses, investing in the stock market and using their tax cuts to stimulate the economy by purchasing goods and services.

The reality of a discussion about an economic slowdown is that first of all . . . there are no experts on the subject. It is all total speculation based on several moving parts that rely mostly on human behavior. And if that behavior is driven by fear and apprehension, then not only are you able to recognize it, you can actually manipulate it. And that is what we are seeing in the 2008 elections. But the big difference is that liberals who deny that the economy really was totally broken under Carter, refuse to acknowledge normal adjustments and fluctuations that occur when several factors are in play . . . the least of which is not telling people daily, that the economic world as we know it, is coming to a screeching halt. Will someone please get a memo to Starbucks . . . . encourage your customers to save that $5 they are splurging on a latte, to put one more gallon of gas in their car.

For most people, according to polls, if you ask them if they are doing OK, they will answer in the affirmative and then tell you how they are concerned about those less fortunate. But those less fortunate are always with us, even when the economy is booming, the stock market is soaring, housing is skyrocketing and things look rosy for everyone, except those few who are forgotten in the years between elections.

It is interesting to note though, that as the Democrats insist the economy is tanking. . . they have magically been able to come up with millions and millions and millions of dollars to see either Hillary or Barack win the election. And if you look at the leaders of the Democrats, especially, Bill and Hillary Clinton, you will discover that they have made over $100 million dollars in the eight years since Bush has been in office. Wow, that’s pretty cool. Even Bush and Cheney didn’t come close to making the same amount while the Clintons were in office. It is still a little confusing as to how with just one salary of about $200,000 while he was President, that they were able to buy the multi-million dollar house in New York without ever even owning a home before. I wonder if it was one of those risky sub-prime loans. And going from being a Whitehousewife for 8 years, to being a US Senator, now worth millions and millions of dollars, it is no surprise that Hillary wants to parlay those earnings into greater earnings by being president . . . again.

So, Bill and Hillary, Obama, John Edwards, Al Gore and all the other wealthy Democrats have gotten very rich under Republicans, yet they want change. That doesn’t make sense. They should want to keep Republicans in office, keep taxes down, keep the Capital Gains Tax capped . . . or even eliminate it, and consider a flat tax. That way, they can continue to get wealthy, fly around in private jets, ride in limos, buy their huge mansions that the rest of the country only dreams of, and try and convince all Americans that they are not better off than they were 8 years ago. That dog just won’t hunt any more, and the tune is getting old.

The reason people are at the malls on Monday and the gym on Tuesday and continuing to cause long lines at most restaurants, sold out screenings of movies and packed stadiums is because they wink and nod at the economic figures knowing it is that season again. It’s that time every four years when they are supposed to appear concerned, but really they just want to get their vente caramel machiata, jump in their SUV and head off to play racket ball. It’s not really the economy stupid . . . it’s the stupid economy that takes on a life of its own every four years, only to readjust naturally, the day after everyone stops telling them . . . “It’s the economy stupid.”

Nina May is the producer/director of the award-winning documentary, Emancipation Revelation Revolution (www.ERRVideo.com).

by ·Comments Off on It’s the Economy Stupid . . . Until Nov. 5

I can still hear the James Carvell orchestrated mantra of the Clinton campaign in 1992, drilling it into all our thick heads that the economy was the only issue that mattered that year. In his own, inimitable way, he summarized the three points of that campaign as being, “change vs. more of the same,” “The economy, stupid” and “Don’t forget health care.” It is refreshing to know that with all the hyperbole about change, that some things actually never do change . . . like Democrats and elections.

It is easy to understand why Hillary would rely on those three successful points to hang her campaign on since they were prominently posted at the Clinton headquarters in 1992 as a constant reminder to employ the KISS method of political strategy . . . Keep It Simple Stupid. But, that doesn’t explain why Obama has adopted exactly the same three points, not straying off subject to even feign originality.

There are a few very interesting points about the two democratic contenders, who are using pages from the old Clinton playbook as though nothing has changed in 16 years. One is that in 1992, Clinton won with less than 43% of the vote and did just four points better in 1996, never, ever getting a full majority, or “mandate for leadership,” as they like to say. When Clinton benefited from the dot com boom, inspite of having raised taxes, the assumption was that he was doing something to stimulate the economy. That’s like taking credit for the rain just because you got wet. And when Bush came to office, not only did he inherit a recession, but less than nine months later he presided over one of the most horrific attacks on US soil in our history. He still refused to raise taxes as a result of it, and saw eight years of stable and consistent economic growth, a robust stockmarket, and a real estate bubble that was bound to burst as things always readjust to natural levels.

If you dust off the old script that was disseminated to the mainstream media in 1992, it is almost a verbatim argument for voting for the Democrats today and throwing the Republicans out. Even though, at the end of Clinton’s 8 years, with a recession, they weren’t clamoring to throw out the Democrats and elect the Republicans, so it can’t really be the “economy stupid.” And even up until election day of 1992, the talking heads were shaking theirs, so concerned that if the Democrats did not regain control of the White House, it would be certain economic disaster for the country. Sound familiar? The only problem is . . . if you go back and check the newspaper headlines the days leading up to the election, you will find the term “faltering economy” over and over. But if you look up the headlines just a few days after the election, there is not a mention of the economy. It is as though it miraculously healed itself overnight. And oddly, it did, because it was only bent, not broken, and the constant drum beat of impending economic doom was silenced because the political battle had been won.

What we are witnessing is a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you are continually told that you are going to fail, that idea begins to control your actions until you define yourself by that statement. If people hear over and over that the economy is bad, a recession is coming, the stock market is crashing, etc., then they will be waiting for the calamity that is prophesied to hit them, and change their actions to fit it. That is not to say there aren’t people who are hurting financially. I know people who have been hurting financially through six presidents from both parties. But statistics show that more people today are earning more, owning homes, starting small businesses, investing in the stock market and using their tax cuts to stimulate the economy by purchasing goods and services.

The reality of a discussion about an economic slowdown is that first of all . . . there are no experts on the subject. It is all total speculation based on several moving parts that rely mostly on human behavior. And if that behavior is driven by fear and apprehension, then not only are you able to recognize it, you can actually manipulate it. And that is what we are seeing in the 2008 elections. But the big difference is that liberals who deny that the economy really was totally broken under Carter, refuse to acknowledge normal adjustments and fluctuations that occur when several factors are in play . . . the least of which is not telling people daily, that the economic world as we know it, is coming to a screeching halt. Will someone please get a memo to Starbucks . . . . encourage your customers to save that $5 they are splurging on a latte, to put one more gallon of gas in their car.

For most people, according to polls, if you ask them if they are doing OK, they will answer in the affirmative and then tell you how they are concerned about those less fortunate. But those less fortunate are always with us, even when the economy is booming, the stock market is soaring, housing is skyrocketing and things look rosy for everyone, except those few who are forgotten in the years between elections. It is interesting to note though, that as the Democrats insist the economy is tanking. . . they have magically been able to come up with millions and millions and millions of dollars to see either Hillary or Barack win the election. And if you look at the leaders of the Democrats, especially, Bill and Hillary Clinton, you will discover that they have made over $100 million dollars in the eight years since Bush has been in office. Wow, that’s pretty cool. Even Bush and Cheney didn’t come close to making the same amount while the Clintons were in office. It is still a little confusing as to how with just one salary of about $200,000 while he was President, that they were able to buy the multi-million dollar house in New York without ever even owning a home before. I wonder if it was one of those risky sub-prime loans. And going from being a Whitehousewife for 8 years, to being a US Senator, now worth millions and millions of dollars, it is no surprise that Hillary wants to parlay those earnings into greater earnings by being president . . . again.

So, Bill and Hillary, Obama, John Edwards, Al Gore and all the other wealthy Democrats have gotten very rich under Republicans, yet they want change. That doesn’t make sense. They should want to keep Republicans in office, keep taxes down, keep the Capital Gains Tax capped . . . or even eliminate it, and consider a flat tax. That way, they can continue to get wealthy, fly around in private jets, ride in limos, buy their huge mansions that the rest of the country only dreams of, and try and convince all Americans that they are not better off than they were 8 years ago. That dog just won’t hunt any more, and the tune is getting old.

The reason people are at the malls on Monday and the gym on Tuesday and continuing to cause long lines at most restaurants, sold out screenings of movies and packed stadiums is because they wink and nod at the economic figures knowing it is that season again. It’s that time every four years when they are supposed to appear concerned, but really they just want to get their Vente Caramel Machiata, jump in their SUV and head off to play racket ball. It’s not really the economy stupid . . . it’s the stupid economy that takes on a life of its own every four years, only to readjust naturally, the day after everyone stops telling them . . . “It’s the economy stupid.”

Originally posted to TownHall.com

by ·Comments Off on Democrats Have Kept Racism Alive

There was a big problem with Barack’s mea culpa speech in Philadelphia, defending his racist pastor, Jeremiah White. He failed to mention that over 300,000 white Americans gave their lives to end slavery. He didn’t mention that in 1854, abolitionists left the Democratic Party and founded the Republican Party specifically for the purpose of ending slavery and giving equal rights to all those who had been in bondage. And when he does mention the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution, he totally got it wrong, the way most Americans do. News flash . . . it was the abolitionists who insisted on it so that the slave holding states could not have their slaves counting as constituents so they could get more pro-slavery representation in congress. This is one of the most powerful battles fought by whites, to end slavery, which has been mischaracterized as being racist.

He needs to read the history of this battle for equality and realize that the party he embraces today was the party that voted against the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, while the Republicans supported them unanimously. He needs to acknowledge that the two dozen civil rights bills that were passed by the Republicans were overturned by the Democrats when they regained control of the House, Senate and White House at the end of the 19th Century.

It was at this time that the Democratic Party instituted Jim Crow laws. It was not whites that did this against blacks, it was bigoted, racist Democrats who would choose to divide a nation rather than give freedom to those they considered inferior. Had blacks been voting equally in both political parties, there never would have been literacy tests, poll taxes or other restrictions to voting. But because all blacks at this time identified with the party of Lincoln and were actually the ones starting Republican parties in southern states, and running and getting elected as Republicans, the Democrats knew that to kill a Black person was killing a Republican.

If he watched the award-winning documentary, Emancipation Revelation Revolution (ERRVideo.com), he would learn that the first Black Democrat, Barbara Jordan, was elected in the south in 1972, 100 years after Black Republicans had been running and winning for years. And it took a federal law to force redistricting in Texas to get her elected. He would be reminded that almost all the southern governors fighting integration, standing in school house doors, firing water canons at innocent people were all Democrats. And if his parents really were a part of the civil rights movement, he would realize that without whites fighting side by side to overturn laws that had been put in place by his very own party, it may have been another generation before the civil rights movement could happen.

It was not white versus black; it was racists, bigoted Democrats against blacks and whites who disagreed with them. If he saw our movie he would be reminded of three young white men who worked with CORE who were murdered, just for doing the right thing. He would see the incredible sacrifices that white men, such as Senator Charles Sumner endured for the cause of liberty for oppressed slaves. He was attacked on the Senate floor by pro-slavery Democratic congressman, Preston Brooks, who stormed the Senate side of the Capitol and tried to beat Sumner to death with his cane because he dared to introduce yet another piece of anti-slavery legislation. Brooks received hundreds of canes from adoring fans, while Senator Sumner struggled for three years to survive. When he did, the first thing he did when he returned to the Senate was to re-introduce a bill that would abolish slavery. This man was a white Republican. Preston Brooks was a white Democrat. Race had nothing to do with their individual passion to destroy or preserve slavery. It was a passion born of moral values and an understanding of good and evil. That is the discussion today that pastors are supposed to be having and preaching and encouraging their flock to understand. Rev. Wright did not get the memo and gets an “F” in Black history.

For Obama and his pastor to preach the “audacity of despair and racism” is an affront to all the people who have given their lives through the years to see racism destroyed. But that death blow has always been deflected by the Democratic Party that has had a vested interest in class and race warfare to keep their power base motivated and returning to the polls. Barack says, “I have asserted a firm conviction that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds,” yet he sits week after week listening to sermons that say just the opposite. But those days are gone as we rip off the tacky, thin veneer of elitism and bigotry that has propelled them to power.

It is ironic that in his speech he challenges the listener by saying, “We can’t accept politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism,” when he belongs to the very party that has always done that, to the point where the new liberal plantation has erected philosophical barriers around all blacks, condemning those who dare to challenge the liberal status quo and escape this manipulation and intimidation. They are called Aunt Jamima, like Condi Rice, or house Negroes like Colin Powell, or forced to endure high tech lynchings like Clarence Thomas. They have Oreo Cookies thrown at them like Michael Steele and are accused of acting white if they identify themselves as Republicans or conservatives.

That is “the racist spectacle we are not allowed to talk about.” When Blacks have to whisper at polling booths that they are Republican, for fear of reprisal from their liberal neighbors, then Barack really doesn’t get the real conflict that is alive and well in this country, and why should he? He belongs to the party of the overseer of the philosophical plantation that intimidates and marginalizes Blacks that dare support conservative values or Republican ideas.

So, if Barack was honest about his desire to “heal the nation,” he needs to learn American Black history, and take his pastor aside and tell him about it and challenge him to be more Christ-like when he preaches. If he knew real American Black history, he would not belong to the party of segregationists and bigots and would not have allowed himself to be sucked into that dark undertow of racial politics that has already robbed our nation of too many amazing blessings.

Originally Posted to TownHall.com

by ·Comments Off on If Barack Obama Really Understood Black History, He would not be a Democrat

There was a big problem with Barack’s mea culpa speech in Philadelphia, defending his racist pastor, Jeremiah White. He failed to mention that over 300,000 white Americans gave their lives to end slavery. He didn’t mention that in 1854, abolitionists left the Democratic Party and founded the Republican Party specifically for the purpose of ending slavery and giving equal rights to all those who had been in bondage. And when he does mention the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution, he totally got it wrong, the way most Americans do. News flash . . . it was the abolitionists who insisted on it so that the slave holding states could not have their slaves counting as constituents so they could get more pro-slavery representation in congress. This is one of the most powerful battles fought by whites, to end slavery, that has been mischaracterized as being racist.

He needs to read the history of this battle for equality and realize that the party he embraces today was the party that voted against the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, while the Republicans supported them unanimously. He needs to acknowledge that the two dozen civil rights bills that were passed by the Republicans were overturned by the Democrats when they regained control of the House, Senate and White House at the end of the 19th Century.

It was at this time that the Democratic Party instituted Jim Crow laws. It was not whites that did this against blacks, it was bigoted, racist Democrats who would choose to divide a nation rather than give freedom to those they considered inferior. Had blacks been voting equally in both political parties, there never would have been literacy tests, poll taxes or other restrictions to voting. But because all blacks at this time identified with the party of Lincoln and were actually the ones starting Republican parties in southern states, and running and getting elected as Republicans, the Democrats knew that to kill a black was killing a Republican.

If he watched the award-winning documentary, Emancipation Revelation Revolution (ERRVideo.com), he would learn that the first black Democrat, Barbara Jordan, was elected in the south in 1972, 100 years after black Republicans had been running and winning for years. And it took a federal law to force redistricting in Texas to get her elected. He would be reminded that almost all the southern governors fighting integration, standing in school house doors, firing water canons at innocent people were all Democrats. And if his parents really were a part of the civil rights movement, he would realize that without whites fighting side by side to overturn laws that had been put in place by his very own party, it may have been another generation before the civil rights movement could happen.

It was not white versus black, it was racists, bigoted Democrats against blacks and whites who disagreed with them. If he saw our movie he would be reminded of three young white men who worked with CORE who were murdered, just for doing the right thing. He would see the incredible sacrifices that white men, such as Senator Charles Sumner endured for the cause of liberty for oppressed slaves. He was attacked on the Senate floor by pro-slavery Democratic congressman, Preston Brooks, who stormed the Senate side of the Capitol and tried to beat Sumner to death with his cane because he dared to introduce yet another piece of anti-slavery legislation. Brooks received hundreds of canes from adoring fans, while Senator Sumner struggled for three years to survive. When he did, the first thing he did when he returned to the Senate was to re-introduce a bill that would abolish slavery. This man was a white Republican. Preston Brooks was a white Democrat. Race had nothing to do with their individual passion to destroy or preserve slavery. It was a passion born of moral values and an understanding of good and evil. That is the discussion today that pastors are supposed to be having and preaching and encouraging their flock to understand. Rev. Wright did not get the memo and gets an “F” in black history.

For Obama and his pastor to preach the “audacity of despair and racism” is an affront to all the people who have given their lives through the years to see racism destroyed. But that death blow has always been deflected by the Democratic party that has had a vested interest in class and race warfare to keep their power base motivated and returning to the polls. Barack says, “I have asserted a firm conviction that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds,” yet he sits week after week listening to sermons that say just the opposite. But those days are gone as we rip off the tacky, thin verneer of elitism and bigotry that has propelled them to power.

It is ironic that in his speech he challenges the listener by saying, “We can’t accept politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism,” when he belongs to the very party that has always done that, to the point where the new liberal plantation has erected philosophical barriers around all blacks, condemning those who dare to challenge the liberal status quo and escape this manipulation and intimidation. They are called Aunt Jamima, like Condi Rice, or house negroes like Colin Powell, or forced to endure high tech lynchings like Clarence Thomas. They have Oreo Cookies thrown at them like Michael Steele and are accused of acting white if they identify themselves as Republicans or conservatives.

That is “the racist spectacle we are not allowed to talk about.” When blacks have to whisper at polling booths that they are Republican, for fear of reprisal from their liberal neighbors, then Barack really doesn’t get the real conflict that is alive and well in this country, and why should he? He belongs to the party of the overseer of the philosophical plantation that intimidates and marginalizes blacks that dare support conservative values or Republican ideas.

So, if Barack was honest about his desire to “heal the nation,” he needs to learn American black history, and take his pastor aside and tell him about it and challenge him to be more Christ-like when he preaches. If he knew real American black history, he would not belong to the party of segregationists and bigots and would not have allowed himself to be sucked into that dark undertow of racial politics that has already robbed our nation of too many amazing blessings.