Saturday, November 22, 2008
Obama is NOT the Antichrist, to be certain, but he is hardly worthy of the mantle of leadership or the office of President of the United States.
I had hoped the first black President would be elected because of his integrity, selflessness, sense of duty and service, and wisdom. I am ashamed that the best the black community could offer America is a confidence man whose appeal required a lack of scrutiny and a lowering of standards.
Alas, here we are.
While I am highly disappointed with 52% of Americans’ judgment, or lack there of, I know my duty to the office, to the Constitution, and most importantly to my God and country (in that order).
Friday, October 17, 2008
“What’s that, Joe, you’ve tried the kool-aid and you don’t think it tastes good? Well, screw you, Joe! We don’t need your vote, anyway.”
I find it interesting that when Obama and the folks that claim to represent “Joe Public” were confronted and exposed by a real everyday Joe asking a real everyday question, when they couldn’t meet Joe’s need or answer Joe’s problem, they just turned on Joe.
I guess they only represent the Joe who doesn’t ask any questions…or the Joe who will simply swallow whatever answer he’s given, and Obama has definitely identified that group.
It’s unsettling to me, though not really surprising, that Obama is capable of simply dismissing and disparaging a common voter who, though he fits the demographic of those whom Obama courts, still finds cause to question Obama’s plans.
After demonstrating an obvious and unquestionable hole in Obama’s socialist agenda, Obama practiced his usual sleight-of-hand and dismissed his own failings by pointing out that Joe is not a licensed plumber. Americans are told to ignore the truth of Obama’s answer and what that means for America, because Joe isn’t actually a licensed plumber.
So, once again Obama is exposed as an unsuitable candidate for President, and once again he waves his hand over the ignorant masses, makes a few affirming populist statements, and convinces them that “these aren’t the droids you’re looking for….move along.”
While Obama definitely seems to have sway over the average undiscerning person, one thing is clear:
Obama does not know Joe…and he doesn’t really want to.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
The young men in the video repeatedly recite, “because of Obama.”
Are they saying that before Obama, they had no skills or intelligence, no desire or ambition, no drive or motivation, and no resources or opportunities?
Yes, that’s exactly what they’re saying.
It isn’t remotely true, but that’s the kind of thinking that helps keep the Democrats in power over black America: You can’t do anything yourself, because they (e.g. Republicans, whites) are going to hold you down; only with our help will you succeed.
It’s an insidious message that keeps black Americans from recognizing their own potential and makes them beholden to the Democratic Party to such a degree that while they are absolved of owning their failures, they are inhibited from owning their successes.
The same tactic is evident in Obama’s Presidential campaign; he enjoys political success due to America’s racial unity, yet claims America’s racial unity is due to his political success. Obama asserts that only his election to the Presidency will prove or demonstrate America’s racial unity, obligating Americans to elect him or forfeit decades of racial progress.
So, just as America can accurately state, “because of Democrats” America is continuously chained to a racial past that has no rational application in our day and only prevents us from recognizing and capitalizing on decades of racial progress,…
…the young men in the video could just as accurately state, “because of Obama” black children are unable to accomplish anything or think for themselves unless someone of their own race does it first, depriving black youth of the ability to identify with their peers and achieve equal success even in their own eyes.
What happens when Obama doesn’t win the White House?
The fire, dependent on Obama, will go out, and just as an external force was attributed the credit for success, an external force will be attributed blame for the lack of action.
In reality, Obama is just another politician America deems unqualified for the job, and the young men in the video are just young kids witheld from their own culture, ripe with role models of different skin color than their own.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Maryland Democratic Representative and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and his political colleagues were right about one thing, America is in trouble.
Today, marked the day that Congress chose a way ahead in full awareness that it was not what “We the People” wanted.
Today, our elected officials, on whom the Supreme Court ruled we cannot impose term limits, took action in complete contradiction of the majority, “We the People,” and imposed a bill on us.
“We the People” spoke, and they did not listen. “We the People” raised our voice and they ignored us. Next, “We the People” will vote, and our vote will be overturned…wait, been there, done that.
Entitlement politics got us here, and now those same politicians (i.e. Massachusetts Democratic Representative and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank) want credit for the proposed solution for the mess they made…$700 billion in credit to put it plainly.
Excessive credit debt is the issue; people borrowed too much and aren’t repaying it. To make matters worse, our politicians, who allegedly understand something that we do not, decided the solution was $700 billion of additional credit.
Why didn’t “We the People” think of that?
I guess the politicians were right about that, too; “We the People” just don’t understand.
Democracy is dead.
“We the People…”
…are most definitely in trouble.
(I am ashamed that President Bush and Senator McCain were apart of this, and I find myself genuinely desiring another viable candidate for whom I could cast my vote.)
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
While I had not previously heard the comment, nor did I care, after being bombarded from every angle on the subject, including by angry liberal bloggers, I took the time to watch Obama’s remarks or at least the portion in question. Granted, I did not see the full context of the remark, but it does not appear to me that Obama was referencing Sarah Palin…at all.
While I can empathize with Green’s angst over the media, I have to disagree with his assessment that this represents new heights of stupidity. Apparently Glenn was out camping in the remote wilderness for the past six years as the media screamed fire in the crowded theatre of US politics. Of course, the media folly previously benefited liberals; that might explain why Green failed to recognize and classify the previous heights of stupidity.
Previous media stupidity culminated into a successful Congressional coup leaving Democrats squarely in the seat of power. While that stupidity failed to derail efforts in Iraq, it did manage to marginalize all progress. That same stupidity eventually evolved into the “failed administration” platform that Obama is currently running for President on. With such distinct media victories under their collective belts, it’s no wonder liberals like Green failed to recognize the media stupidity. Ironically, they were dependent upon it.
Obama benefited immensely from the pro-bama-razzi in the primaries. He managed to quench Biden’s political thirst for the Presidency without ever really addressing him (sorry Joe, white guys are so 80’s). He even managed to beat Hillary Clinton, a formidable and determined adversary, while carrying his racist pastor and congregation on his back. After pulling out all the stops, the last media darling standing won, but did he have anything left? Is there more substance…or any substance…to Barack Obama?
Currently, the best thing that Obama has to offer voters is “You hate Bush and so do I. McCain is the same as Bush. They’re both rich and white…er…I mean Republican, and they should both be equally blamed for bad stuff that happened in the past eight years.” Obama’s main anti-Bush push is music to the ears of his devoted party-liners, and the media has tons of cliché material to support his effort, but I think he may be giving that angle too much credit.
There is a limit to the media’s influence; not everyone believes everything they see on the news. Green’s sour grapes aside, the mainstream media has backed Democrats since I was a Democrat. Republicans have known this for quite sometime, even before FOX came along and ran a story on that 800lb gorilla. So, if Barack was depending on favorable anti-Bush media to convince Republicans to punch his name on the Ballot in November, the great unifier is sorely mistaken.
Maybe Barack hoped to win the fence sitters: the swing votes. I’d like to think that the fence sitters are such, because they have not yet sized up the candidates or the issues (hint: they are going to think things through). Consequently, they aren’t so easily swayed by rhetoric, media-hype, or party-line divisiveness, so if one side is working the issues while the other is simply trying to work the crowds…oops, you lose.
The lipstick debacle may indeed be new heights of stupidity for the media; it is a dumb non-story, but even we bloggers covered it. Considering that the story and the public response to the story drives media, maybe the greater stupidity is thinking the media will “stay the course” (pro-Obama) throughout the race. Maybe the greater stupidity is calling yourself a unifier and running on a populist, hate platform thinking such a single faceted strategy would win the hearts and minds of the political masses. I’m sure the debate would be endless.
As long as we avoid the greatest stupidity in November, but don’t let me tell you how to vote.
(was that my out loud voice?)
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Rather than tell all Americans that the type of hatred Jeremiah Wright preached and his congregation celebrated was wrong, and any American, white or black, harboring such vile hatred in their hearts was wrong, Barack Obama made excuses for Wright, and ultimately rejoined Wright’s non-repentant congregation.
Rather than celebrate the fact that Americans are free to vote as they choose and promote Americans voting according to their beliefs, Barack Obama postulated and perpetuated the belief that white Americans that did not or would not vote for him made their decision based on race, but he made no such assertion with regard to the incredible majority of black voters that supported him.
Rather than attempt to unify voters/Washington and continue on his alleged quest for hope and change by choosing a running mate that embodied his new call to arms or assisted him in representing a larger swath of America, Barack Obama chose for his Vice Presidential running mate, Senator Joe Biden. Biden is entrenched in Washington as a special interest Liberal and arguably one of the most venomous and divisive political figures the left has to offer, wholly unrepresentative of independents, moderates, and conservatives.
Rather than explain to Americans that personal decisions brought many of their economic woes and personal sacrifices would be the cure, Barack Obama promised to take from the “haves” and give to the “have nots.”
Rather than recognize or acknowledge the reality and responsibility of leadership and war, Barack Obama simply perpetuates the notion the US government is wrong/evil. Here in the US it’s the “failed administration/bad Republican” mantra and when echoed by complicit liberal media it makes for excellent “us/them” campaign fodder, but shortsighted and naïve individuals fail to recognize the butterfly effect that such media has with respect to international relations(unfortunately for the anti-war crowd this has historically proven more detrimental than preemptive strikes).
So, under Obama, racism by or in favor of black Americans is justified, white Americans who oppose him are racist, all Americans will be represented by a liberal agenda, all rich people are undeserving of their wealth, and international hatred of the United States is universally justified.
Aw crap, we are so in trouble.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
After all of his rhetoric about change, Barack Obama selects for his Vice Presidential running mate one of the most deep-seated, old-school, partisan, party-line politicians that Congress has to offer; the same Congress that has accomplished nothing in the last two years and has lower approval ratings than President Bush, even though they do not suffer from the same mass media maligning.
So much for hope and change; political expedience wins again.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Open: A slightly past middle-age, lower middle-class white couple sits at a table over a check book, obviously anxious over their bills littered across the table. The couple looks at one another in obvious concern.
“In trying times…”
The couple looks up at the viewer.
“…America needs a President that understands,”
Scene change: A young black woman, on the front porch/stoop of an inner-city shack. She turns from looking forlornly at something over her shoulder and fixes her despairing gaze on the viewer.
“…a President that knows where Americans are coming from,”
Scene change: Slow motion shot in the front of an unemployment office; an obviously tired and beaten middle-aged white male makes his way dejectedly into the office as a homeless woman sits on the sidewalk eating out of a can, and to the right the police wrestle a young Hispanic man into a squad car.
“a President that recognizes where things are going,”
Scene change: Show a picture of Obama with that stern, half confident, half cocky smirk and that gleam in his eye as he looks at something in the distance that only he can really see.
“and has the courage and character to change our course.”
Dramatic pause with background music, fade a flag into the bottom half of the screen with Obama’s face.
“But he can’t do it alone.”
Scene snaps: Flash back through the characters and capture their inquisitive and hopeful looks; the couple, the mother with child, the unemployed male, the homeless woman, the police and the suspect.
“He needs Americans like you by his side, and his Vice President will be someone like you,"
Scene snaps: Capture genuine relieved smiles…leave out the suspect.
Scene change: Strong patriotic Obama standing near a flag ready to take on the world.
“So, keep your BlackBerry close.”
Scene snaps: Smiles slightly fading into confusion…include the suspect (minus the confused look), and introduce a well dressed and obviously employed black male walking confidently through the scene past the homeless woman and the unemployed man.
“You will be the first to know who will stand by Obama to make certain your voice is heard,”
Scenes snaps: The couple is now completely confused, anxiety creeping back in; the mother sits down on the steps in renewed and resigned despair; the homeless woman and unemployed man stare at the well dressed man as his BlackBerry ring-tone sings out Hail to the Chief and he slows down almost to a stop in their midst to address the incoming message (completely unaware of their presence); the police pull a BlackBerry from the suspect’s back pocket (almost clueless as to what it is) as the suspect strains indignantly to look over his shoulder, obviously interested in the incoming message (his ring-tone is Ludacris).
“and together, we will change the course of our nation…(slight pause)”
Scene snaps: The couple embraces to console each other; the man eyes the viewer in disgust and disappointment as his wife, her face hidden, begins to sob. The mother on the porch has set the child down and has her head down in her hands. The man checking his BlackBerry is pleased with what he sees and looks up in a celebratory manner and his countenance changes immediately when he notices the homeless woman and unemployed man staring at him; the man casually disengages and hurries off to the safety of his office (inside the unemployment office), giving only a slight, anxious glance over his shoulder as he reaches for the door. The police, ignoring the suspect, both stare dumbfounded and incredulous at the viewer as the suspect coolly finishes reading the message on his BlackBerry and stuffs it back in his pocket (unfazed).
“…and restore hope.”
Scene change: Phase into a screen shot with Obama and his BlackBerry, and slow to a stop on his smile.
“Barack Obama, change you can believe in.”
Thursday, August 21, 2008
I’m confused about what the latest attack ad approved by Barack Obama is saying.
It starts by implying that McCain’s faith in the economic fundamentals that made the US what it is today is misplaced. For example: the fundamental that if you spend/invest $200,000 on a $400,000 home you will likely make out like a bandit, but if you spend/invest $400,000 on a $200,000 home, you will likely lose your shirt.
You can appreciate the economic fundamentals without appreciating the current economic state, because the fundamentals are sound. In fact, it is a lack of appreciation and understanding of those sound economic fundamentals that has gotten many in their current situation.
The economic marketplace is no picnic, and for years people hoping to get rich quick have been having their butts handed to them by a market that does not share the Democratic Party’s bias for the less economically fortunate or intellectually diligent. How the failure of many Americans to perform even a basic risk/benefit analysis amounts to a federal fiscal responsibility is well beyond my comprehension.
The attack ad went on to portray McCain’s response to a question ultimately about Cindy McCain's, his wife, portfolio as evidence that he is so wealthy he can’t even recall how wealthy he is. I’m not sure how McCain’s inability to answer questions about his wife’s economic ventures is proof that he cannot relate to the needs of Americans.
If you ask most non-wealthy Americans how much money is in their savings account, they couldn’t tell you; imagine if you asked how much was in their spouse’s account. Most people have to check their pockets before they can tell you accurately how much money they have on their person, so there’s no way they’ll be able to tell you how much money their spouse is carrying.
You don’t need to know how many jellybeans are in that jar at the carnival, how Barack Obama could be a friend and parishioner of Jeremiah Wright for nearly twenty years without ever tasting the Kool-Aid, or how much money your spouse may be carrying in order to know that if Americans spend more money than they have (even if they spend it on those they deem less fortunate...versus dreams of getting rich quick flipping real estate), they will ultimately go bankrupt.
It seems to me that the Obama campaign’s latest derisive and divisive attack ad demonstrates clearly that Obama does not understand the fundamentals of economics in America, and one obvious reason is likely his inability to relate to real people’s real situations; real people like me.
Americans need to answer one simple question when it comes to the nation’s money: do you want someone who knows economics (Republicans) or someone that simply purports to “know your pain” (Democrats) making the economic decisions? Just because a person has had a heart attack does not qualify them to perform open heart surgery; leave that to the surgeon who has likely taken better care of his body using the same knowledge that he’ll use to operate on others.
Republicans and Democrats alike are filthy rich. Are Republicans being truthful when they say they know economics? You better believe it. Are Democrats being truthful when they say they “know your pain?” Not even a little.
I’m me, and I approved this message.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
My family has been living in apartments for the last 8 years watching the housing bubble grow and grow. We make a very reasonable income, but we stayed (were forced to stay) out of the housing market, because it required an excessive financial investment with only a premise of potential return, and we felt it was only prudent and reasonable to avoid such risks due to the potential dire consequences.
Judging by the rapid and ever expanding bubble, and the bank’s offer of a loan we felt was well beyond our means, it seemed that not everyone was as prudent as we were. We realized we might be mistaken and could end up so far behind the market that we’d never catch up, but we decided we’d rather risk missing the market and postpone our dreams of owning a home than risk our family’s financial wellbeing and lose everything.
Then, what seemed reasonable…happened. The market that was skyrocketing out of control lost its momentum, turned, and began plunging back to reality. As we watched and waited for the market to naturally correct and get within reach of prudent would-be homeowners like ourselves, news of the bailout began to spread.
The bill was signed, and now the natural market correction is being unnaturally arrested. Houses will remain out of reach, propped up by the tax dollars of prudent citizens like us; unless of course we borrow beyond our means for a house that costs more than it may ever be worth and rush anxiously into an unstable market. Ironically, that's what got the market where it is today and what we've worked so hard to avoid.
How exactly does this promote or ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for my family? Prudent and fiscally responsible people like my family are the backbone of this nation and its economy, and this may be the straw to break this camel’s back.
I cannot see how this can possibly be constitutional. Where in the constitution is it guaranteed that people will be relieved of the consequences of their poor decisions? How is it constitutional for one group to be rescued from their own ignorant decisions and misfortune at the forced expense of another alleged free group?
If I am free, I choose not to give my tax dollars to such fiscally irresponsible behavior/endeavors.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
"You know, God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States, a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject," Pelosi replied. She then tsk-tsked Bush for "challenging Congress when we are trying to sweep up after his mess over and over and over again."
The Democrat controlled Congress’s approval rating is at 18%; down 5 points from last month. That’s a full 10 points lower than President Bush’s steady rating of 28%, yet Pelosi has the nerve to call the President a failure.
Pelosi’s statement epitomizes what seems to be the Democratic Party’s media backed strategy of divisive and subversive negative propaganda. The strategy has served the Democratic Party well, even making Obama look good by comparison to the excessively demonized President Bush, but at what price?
Only 16% of Americans have confidence in the direction the nation is heading. Is it because things are so bad, or because they have been hearing how bad things are for almost four years consecutively?
I was at a restaurant the other day and my waitress…correction, my rude waitress finally recognized my existence. She came over to the table, spattered with tattoos and with something stuck through her nose…and eyebrow…and lip…and ears…and who knows what else. I looked around at the bustling crowd and two things occurred to me. If the economy is so bad, why is everyone out here spending all this money, and if there are so many people out there without jobs, why is the bride of Frankenstein the best they can offer in terms of a customer service oriented face for their business?
There are two possible answers. Either the people who suffer are responsible for their suffering, and someone else is being held accountable; or things are not nearly as bad as we are being led to believe. The former is the Liberal Democratic political curse or platform (depending on your point of view), and the latter is the Liberal Democratic political strategy aided by complicit and politically biased media (what free press was meant for, I'm sure).
Sunday, July 13, 2008
History thrusts him to think about “IT?”
What is “it?”
It must be giving in to the culture of oppression, or maybe it is rallying the divisive use/cry of racism and injustice to milk the loyalty out of an obligingly ignorant community. Wait, I’m trying to think like Barack Obama.
In order to understand it, maybe I should examine what Williams said: he doesn’t like Obama’s policies and he doesn’t like what Obama advocates. That’s it. It is suddenly so clear and unmistakably obvious.
It is completely betraying the truths that your life has been based on and that you’ve advocated to others, and completely following a path wholly incongruent with objective rationale and throwing your lot in with a media driven frenzy bent on making history rather than making a real difference.
Why didn’t he just say that, instead of trying to make it look like he thought it out and applied some sense of logic, or moral or political value to the decision?
To vote for Barack Obama because you’re proud that a black man has a chance to win the Presidency is to say that you aren’t genuinely considering what it means to be President. It’s to say that you are not looking past his skin color.
DO NOT PRESUME TO TELL ME IT IS NOT ABOUT RACE! That is an insult to reason. His race should not make any of his politics more or less palatable. If you are considering his race at all, it is inappropriate.
If it was not about his race, any chance for him to be seriously considered as the nominee would have and should have been eliminated by his connections to and reflections of a culture that is completely contrary to the American mantra of justice and equality, by his overt displays of inexperience and cultural intolerance, by his almost complete lack of an articulated political platform beyond 'hope and change,' by his ignorant idealism and ineptitude with regard to foreign policy, by his continual political pandering and backpedaling, and by his demonstrated weakness in the polls in key states.
If nothing else convinces you that Barack Obama is not suited for the Presidency of the United States, just consider that he does not represent all Americans, he’s made it clear that he cannot and will not represent all Americans, and neither the Democratic Party nor the mainstream media will hold him accountable to represent all Americans.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
When most people reference fascism, they are thinking of specific ideologies rather than a form or manner of government. When I consider the whole of the Liberal Democratic agenda and how they go about establishing their utopia, it strikes me as fascism. Now, it occurred to me that maybe I shouldn’t toss that word around too lightly; after all, I am thoroughly put out when allegedly educated and rational people irresponsibly compare President Bush to Hitler.
So, I went to the dictionary:
Fascism: A system of government marked by centralized dictatorial authority, stringent socioeconomic controls regimenting industry, commerce, etc., forcible suppression of opposition and criticism through terror and censorship, and emphasizing an aggressive nationalist ideology and often racism.Is anyone else as wigged out as I am right now?
“A system of government marked by centralized dictatorial authority…”Correct me if I’m wrong, but it is the Democratic platform that continues to advocate additional federal (centralized) oversight governing all manner of American life, including our beliefs. If you think it’s not dictatorial, try telling the IRS you’re not paying taxes because you don’t support certain government programs.
“…stringent socioeconomic controls regimenting all industry, commerce, etc…”Consider entitlement programs, proposals to tax the rich in order to redistribute their wealth more equitably, blind support of unions over industry, and my personal favorite, socialized medicine. There is little argument against this qualification as fascism, one only need look at his paycheck.
“…forcible suppression of opposition and criticism through terror and censorship…”Many people might balk at this one, but consider that it can take as little as one phone call to the authorities for the police to show up at your door and spirit your children away. If you so much as think about questioning the Liberal groupthink on affirmative action or “diversity,” you will immediately be labeled a bigot and ostracized. Where debate has been unquestionably excluded by doctrine, freedom will eventually be quenched by fascism.
“…emphasizing an aggressive nationalist ideology…”Some in our nation rally around the nation; others rally instead around the word “freedom.” The specific agenda is irrelevant, if it is adopted and propagated as the nation’s banner, it is a form of nationalistic agenda. Our nation has always championed freedom, only in recent generations have we advocated freedom without responsibility. This progressive perception of freedom is sweeping the nation and is the rally cry of Liberals from sea to shining sea.
“…and often racism”Any law that discerns between races and sanctions different benefits, rights, or freedoms for one race over another is racist, regardless of its intention; affirmative action is institutional racism.
Now, obviously we’ve yet to cast aside pretenses and embrace fascism…yet, but we do seem to be moving in that direction.
Most, if not all, fascist movements have started as populist movements which fed on the fears, misfortunes, and perceptions of injustice of the nation’s poor. The poor supported the movement because it promised “hope” and “change,” but by the time they realized power and not justice motivated their would be leaders, their suffering had increased ten fold.
Most, if not all, fascist movements have railed against religion, many against Christianity. Is it a coincidence that our government is continually being moved toward the adoption of an atheistic/anti-Christian agenda under the auspices of “separation of church and state?”
Most, if not all, fascist movements eventually oppress the people and ultimately use the nation’s military against its citizens. I’d like to say the Second Amendment prevents that from ever happening in the US, except that the Second Amendment is continuously under attack by you know who.
Now are you wiggin’?
In conclusion, I think this is the point where we congratulate Barack Obama on winning the Democratic Presidential nomination. In his honor, I will goose-step around the room shouting “African American power” for a full five minutes.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
I’ve got about as much experience as Barack Obama, and I can find the nose on my face without staring at it in the mirror for 20 years. So, there’s absolutely no need to worry about my judgment or how I’ll handle pesky issues like Iran.
According to my high school yearbook and my blog sites, I am more popular (according to the thesaurus, you could read that as “democratic”) than Hillary Clinton…even though I’m honest…and I’m not embellishing or exaggerating or caught up in the moment or anything.
Thanks to my military experience, I can be as supportive as John McCain of the effort and troops in Iraq without feeling the need to throw my President under the bus. In John’s defense, I am informed, so I have no excuse.
Add these meager, yet defining qualities to my Christian values, fiscal conservatism, and rugged good looks; I’m a shoe in. Quick, everybody on the bandwagon.
OK, I’ll take a few questions from the floor, then I’ll announce my running mate.
“How would you address Iran?”
Well, I’m not dumb enough to pet a rabid dog. If you tell me it’s not rabid, while I’ll err on the side of caution and refrain from shooting it, I’m still going to need to see some proof before I extend my hand.
“How would you address health care?”
I don’t believe in entitlement. If others must make sacrifices for you to have something, you will have to rely on their compassion not the forceful hand of the federal government. Stealing from the alleged rich to give to the alleged poor is still stealing.
Healthcare is expensive, and it is that cost that has put it out of reach of the average citizen. If we do nothing about the cost, but then we try to extend coverage to all 270 million US citizens and 30 million unlawful extra-nationals via taxpayer contributions, we will either break the system or the bank. If we do not address those things which have raised the cost of healthcare, we are not actually addressing healthcare.
“How would you address global warming?”
Obviously, we need to be good stewards of our resources, and I would definitely address the issue within reasonable perspective, but I cannot justify setting a course for an entire nation based on unsubstantiated theories or alarmist perceptions…or Al Gore. If it can be empirically proven beyond a doubt that our actions are having a detrimental impact on our survival, drastic action would be warranted. As it stands, policy is insufficient to restrain immediate and direct threat to mankind, so it is futile to assume to curb potential or indirect effects.
Now, I intend to run with my wife as VP. I trust her with my children, so if as President I were to kick off, you bunch of miscreants would be in better hands than you deserve.
Crap, "miscreants" just shot the election for me, huh? Quick, I need a scapegoat, someone get Jeremiah Wright on the phone.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
One day, I was walking along with reasoning in one hand and racist conspiracy in the other. I wasn’t paying attention to where I was going; I was distracted, busy wrestling with the notion of applying myself faithfully and diligently toward a productive life in a system which would allegedly frustrate and marginalize all my obviously futile efforts. Needless to say, I tripped and fell.
As I stumbled, to my shock (quite unintentionally I assure you), I accidentally applied the reasoning in one hand to the racist conspiracy in the other. When I picked myself up, I couldn’t find the racist conspiracy anywhere, and I was covered with this kind of strange potential. It was everywhere; all over my hands and face, even in my eyes. I was soaked to the skin with it. Worse, I couldn’t move without getting it all over everything. My life would never be the same.
At first, most black folks just laughed and made fun of me, but things seemed to take a very serious turn once it was clear that I couldn’t shake the new found potential, and I no longer had my racist conspiracy. Almost without warning, ten years of hard work and clean living erupted into success. It was as if I had a disease that slowly mutated me into some sort of freak. I was ostracized and even attacked; I was an anathema, and everyday was a trial. So, I decided it was best for me to leave the city…and go off to college.
College proved to be an even greater trial when I discovered, to my dismay, that the potential wasn’t the problem, it was my reasoning.
One day in class, the professor was teaching the political theory that reasoning and racist conspiracy can be combined to form a type of Liberal Democrat. I was intrigued, because it seemed to be the answer to all my inner turmoil (and guilt). Having grown up within the black community, when I brought my reasoning to the discussion, it was like nothing the professor had ever seen. He was even further astonished when I asserted that mixing reasoning and racist conspiracy resulted in the complete annihilation of the conspiracy.
Then, the professor asked to see my racist conspiracy. When it became clear that I had no racist conspiracy, suddenly it was as if I had nothing further to offer the discussion. My life experience had no value within the discussion of Democratic politics. This thoroughly confused me since I had grown up a Democrat. Why, when I had managed to find the ever elusive "success" and knew exactly how to truly enable the black community would I suddenly have no place as a Democrat? Hmm, strange.
Anyway, I dropped out of school, because I seemed to fit there even less than I fit in the black community I had grown up in. I decided to focus on what I had come to do best, working hard. I wandered the earth working. I worked and worked and worked. I never could shake reasoning and consequently applied logic and rationale to all that I did. Success haunted me wherever I went, manifesting itself in the completion of my degree and distinguished serivce to my nation. I thought I was cursed…then I met God, and He showed me the Truth…I am blessed.
Now, I embrace the Truth. I embrace reason and logic. I test everything. Then, it happened…
God came to me through a Bush that the media constantly reported was on fire…yet he was not consumed. He commanded me to go to the Democrats and tell them….
(...wait for it…)
“Let my people go.”
Friday, May 2, 2008
Someone call Geraldine Ferraro, I think she deserves an apology.
Is the Democratic Party’s goal to win the Presidency, or is it to pander to black voters? Granted, among Democrats pandering to black voters is an integral strategic element necessary to secure an election, but in this reversed “either, or” situation, Democrats are showing their true colors…so to speak.
According to the Washington Post, some Democrats believe “the party could suffer irreversible harm if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton maintains her sharp line of attack against Sen. Barack Obama.” What “sharp line of attack” are they referring to? Oh, you mean the I’d-make-a-better-President-than-he-would line of attack. How dare Sen Clinton assert such things…and in an election year. Why, you’d think she wanted to be President.
Hillary Clinton’s current course will not destroy Barack Obama…per se, but it will force the Democrats to choose between being the party of the people and being the party in power. Unfortunately, in an election year that initially looked like a Democratic slam dunk, neither Hillary nor Obama seems to lead to the White House, and both threaten to disenfranchise a significant portion of the Democratic voter base. That is the racial divide Democrats fear.
This must be a Democrat’s worst affirmative action nightmare: the right candidate, the Wright candidate, or the white candidate. The choice of one is dictated by its perception as the other. Do they maintain their stranglehold on the black vote by continuing to perpetuate the irrational culture of oppression embodied in Sen. Obama, the so-called Rev Jeremiah Wright, and the “unashamedly black” flock at Trinity United Church of Christ, or do they risk alienating black voters by calling Obama’s racist kettle “black.”
Democrats cannot win without the black vote, but they cannot even compete without the white vote. At a mere 13% of the US population and typically a little over 11% of the voting population, 90% of black voters tend to vote Democrat. That means black voters represent almost a 10% Democratic lock in the popular vote. Yet, with 10% of the popular vote perpetually secured, Democrats have still failed to achieve the meager 47% of non-black voters needed to capture the election in 5 of 7 of the last Presidential elections. In the words of James E. Clyburn, “It's almost saying black people don't matter.”
Black voters have been segregated within the US political forum, and while distinctly separate, they are not equal. Neither party genuinely or vigorously competes for the black vote; Republicans can’t, while Democrats don’t need to. Bought with simple, divisive, populist lip service and held in place by chains of oppression, the black vote has been taken for granted, its significance limited to the sad fact that it is free to be exploited without further investment.
Hillary’s ambition threatens to pull back the veil. Shhhh, nobody tell her.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Yet, I digress.
To a large degree, I see McCain, Obama, and Clinton (from here on referred to as Hillary) as exactly the same: politicians. It wouldn’t be unusual to hear me say, “I trust politicians about as far as I can throw ‘em.” It would be more accurate, however, to say that I take everything that politicians say with a grain of salt, and while I try to give them the benefit of the doubt, their position as elected/public officials (allegedly leaders) and the responsibility that such a position carries prompts me…requires me… to apply a rigorous degree of scrutiny to the stances they take and the claims that they make. At this point, you may feel enlightened about my motivations, but if you’re an Obama supporter I’m sure you still feel that I am unfairly focusing on Obama.
Get over it.
So, why haven’t I posted anything about McCain or Hillary? I haven’t posted anything on McCain or Hillary for the same reason I haven’t addressed every single aspect of Obama; I have a life and can only spare so much of it to focus on the circus which is US politics. There is so much fodder related to each of the candidates, I can’t possibly blog it all.
So why did I choose Obama? I didn’t, he did. When he made it clear that he buys into the “culture of oppression,” he espouses the conspiracy theory that some external force continues to thwart black Americans’ success in our time, he accepts and practices racism against non-minorities in America, and he not only believes the lie, but bolsters and spreads the lie, and is depending on that lie to secure his election to the position of President of the United States… well heck, I realized that someone with two firing brain cells ought to point out the obvious to the rest of the US.
Originally, I realized that plenty of rational people recognize Obama’s most crucial shortcoming, and I almost decided not to blog. Then I realized that there is an incredible Obama following that have shut their eyes to this most important issue, and no matter what lengths Obama goes to to point out his own pointed prejudice, these blinded believers cling to the notion of change…strictly for the sake of change.
“Quick, I think we’re headed right into the ditch, steer left toward the cliff.”
If this blog can help at least one poor, guilted soul to cast fear aside, I’ve fulfilled my civic duty. If it helps… I’m black, and I forgive you.
Now, snap out of it, and help me steer this damned thing!
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Barack Obama met the overt and distinctly racist comments of Jeremiah Wright, his long time pastor and mentor, with an allegedly enlightened reasoning and understanding that he proposes America needs to adopt in order to “heal” from past racial afflictions. Obama begrudgingly distanced himself from Wright, but loyally upheld his ties to the congregation that celebrated in Wright’s pro-black racist expression and belief. In contrast, Obama has demonstrated little enlightenment, reason, or understanding with respect to Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski.
Ramirez-Sliwinski, a delegate to the Democratic National Convention, was reportedly asked by the Obama campaign to resign after she made a remark that was interpreted as racism. She apparently used the word “monkey” with regards to the dangers and appropriateness of children climbing around in a tree near her home, and unfortunately for her, those children just happened to be black.
Let’s take a look at why this might be offensive.
Analogous idioms are possibly the most common and effective method of expression used in verbal communication. It is remarkably commonplace, exceptionally helpful, generally expected, and widely accepted that some sort of comparative example will be used to emphasize or articulate accounts of even the most mundane ideas, occurrences or situations. While analogies can be used for the purpose of offense, and often are, there is no inherent quality of analogous expression that implies offense.
Monkeys are typically perceived to be cute, active, and mischievous, and they spend a great deal of time living in, climbing on, and swinging from trees. Our understanding of monkeys influences us to reference them in relation to cuteness, particular degrees of activity and mischief, and…trees. It would be highly inaccurate, inappropriate, ineffective, and absurd to reference alligators, stallions, or ostriches when describing or comparing play or mischief within a tree, monkeys enjoy that distinction almost exclusively.
It is highly common to reference children as “little monkeys.” It is a charge made against countless children by countless individuals in countless situations. Since it is not uncommon to endearingly reference or rebuke any bouncing, running, screaming, or merely cute child as a little monkey, we have to rationally conclude that to become offended by such usage would be irrational.
To assume a racial connotation, especially in the context of Ramirez-Sliwinski’s comment, is more to demonstrate racial bias than to recognize it. We would not be justified to assume a racial slur referencing “a bull in a china shop” or “a dog with a bone,” so why are we upholding or justifying the asininely hypersensitive assumption that “a monkey in a tree” is somehow inherently and universally racist.
In the same fashion that Obama failed to immediately and unconditionally denounce Jeremiah Wright’s words and/or sentiments, he has also failed to address the obvious injustice committed against Ramirez-Sliwinski. Obama’s very well written and well delivered rhetoric try to portray his awareness, disapproval, and sensitivity of racism, but his actions instead clearly demonstrate his ignorance, acceptance, and practice of racism.
Because this is a fairly recent development, I haven’t had time yet to completely vet every aspect of the story (I do have a life you know). I offer that caveat because the story seems way too cut and dry to leave any doubt in American minds about Obama’s racism, yet the veil is still in place. So, rather than jump to any immediate conclusions about the political biases or intellectual deficiencies of Obama’s supporters, I will instead assume that there are details about this story that have yet to come to light. I’m not particularly familiar with the source of the article and cannot speak to their credibility, so I invite readers to search out additional sources for information on this story. Please post your findings, so all may expand their visibility and understanding of the issue.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Why have Americans embraced Barack Obama’s racism?
Growing up, I was always perplexed by how my parents and many family members could so casually practice racism while accusing “the white man” of all manner of conspiracy and treachery against blacks. When racism was defined and explained, it was absolutely obvious that anyone and everyone could practice racism. I was always confused that many in the black community practiced almost unrestrained racism (sometimes even accompanied by violence), allegedly in the name of justice and equality, but it was never called racism. It was all justified by fixing our gaze doggedly on the wrongs of the past.
As I grew older, I was astonished to discover that under that same justification many in the black community made no attempts at being equitable. On the contrary, when I was in college the African American Student Union focused almost completely on separatism; they stoked the fires of resentment, nursing an age old grudge, and maintaining the “us/them” mentality in all facets of student life. Ironically, the charter for the group was to “heighten the awareness” of the student body to the presence and culture of the colleges black students.
When I joined the military I was confronted with institutional racism, again justified by the wrongs of the past. At one point during a leadership training session, when I brought the shortcomings of an insubordinate soldier to the leadership, I was told in confidence that as a black female she was “untouchable.” The cadre understood all too well that even an implication of racism would end their careers, and the proud, black, disrespectful, underachieving soldier had already demonstrated she was more than willing to play the race card.
Upon joining the private sector, I discovered that racism is alive and well in most diversity programs (atonement for past corporate sins). I am amazed by the venues in which Black Leadership, Black Engineers, Black Economists, and all manner of Black Professionals are singled out and celebrated: whites are not eligible for such recognition. Of course, let’s not forget the not-so-unwritten rules about hiring blacks.
I have been more and more astounded by the somewhat sanctimonious racism rampant and unchecked in the black community. Don Imus was all but burned at the stake, while black rappers and comedians are embraced and raised up. Senator Joseph Biden and once Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro were both vehemently criticized for stating facts while heralding Barack Obama, but Jesse Jackson’s accusations that Obama was “acting white” were barely noted or addressed. While protesting racism, people have actually alleged on national broadcast media that “black people can’t be racist.”
In light of all this, I guess it should be no surprise to me that a black Presidential candidate might be so steeped in such racism; American’s have not embraced Obama’s brand of racism, Obama is simply practicing America’s modern brand of racism.