PoliWax

Equal vote, equal rights, equal taxes…period.

2012-02-15T19:01:00.000-08:00

If you found yourself in a debate with the Ku Klux Klan, would your counter argument to white supremacy be “sure, whites are indeed the supreme race, but some non-whites aren’t all bad?”

I didn’t think so.

Why then do Republicans always begin discussions about America’s obviously broken tax scheme (as in confidence game), by acquiescing some measure of acceptable disparity in tax rates? Such appeasements completely undermine the constitutional argument of tax equity.

The political argument that those Americans deemed to be rich should pay more than other Americans is asinine. It’s the complete equivalent of arguing, “It’s not wrong to steal from the rich, they can afford it.” Never mind that stealing is wrong. The only thing more absurd than such arguments, are the masses who blindly give the government the authority to trample the rights of their fellow Americans.

Certainly all Americans cannot pay the same amount, but they can and should pay the same percentage. At the risk of straying off topic, I offer that we should tax equally at let’s say 10% across the board. Tax season would consist of one simple question: did you pay your 10%. The simplicity alone would likely save billions. Tax preparation services would be a thing of the past.

To those who would argue 10% isn’t enough, I say it’s enough if the American people say it’s enough. With ALL Americans paying taxes, when asked whether 10% would be enough to run the government, all Americans would be equally motivated to consider the full impact of that question. Furthermore, the government would be held accountable for spending within its means.

Currently, scores of individuals contribute little or nothing to the government coffers, and many take far more than they contribute. Meanwhile politicians devise scheme after expensive scheme to purchase votes, such as the political bribery of the tax argument to take from the alleged rich minority and give to the alleged poor majority. The staggeringly apparent conflict of interest is the beloved 800 pound pet gorilla that the mainstream liberal media adores beyond reason and objectivity.

One question: Where is the constitution in all this?

Equal vote, equal rights … graduated taxes?

Where are we headed, what’s with this hand basket, and why are we in such a hurry?

So much for unity.

2011-01-28T19:47:00.000-08:00

First, allow me to admit I did not listen to the entire State of the Union address…or any of it for that matter. I’ve never been one for pep rallies, and I’m allergic to malarkey. I did, however, catch a few of the sound bites, courtesy of CNN and FOX, confirming for me the SOTU is a strain of the plague and to be avoided.

In the CNN bite President Obama urged unity, while in the FOX bite he renewed his class warfare on the rich.

Now, I know main stream media claims FOX is biased, but FOX simply played the words that Obama spoke. CNN also only played the words Obama spoke. So, the question is which message was the truth.

I think it’s pretty easy to realize the typical “rich folks need to give more” is not a message of unity. How exactly do you get credit for crossing the aisle when you only crossed over to try to pick someone’s pocket?

According to Obama, CNN, and the rest of the left, unity is defined as the rich ponying up their dough to the state. I can’t imagine why that would constitute an insurmountable ideological obstacle to unity.

I’ll cut CNN some slack this time and chalk up their interpretation of the SOTU to optimism, rather than propaganda.

Ushering in Righteous Racism

2010-07-15T17:54:00.000-07:00

What would you call an organization which held at its foundation the mission of advancing a specific ethnic/racial group?

The KKK?

What about a specific sex?

Chauvinists?

I know, let’s call it the “Office of Minority and Women Inclusion,” the latest addition to the Financial Regu...hey, what does that have to do with finance? Anyway...the “Office of Minority and Women Inclusion."

PERFECT! Because everyone knows that if you deny a white male a job or opportunity because he’s a white male, that’s neither racist nor sexist; after all, he’s just a white guy.

Of course, this type of popular bigotry is endorsed and practiced all across the nation, even in the White House, but it's all good because the black guy won.

A wonderful example of such institutionalized “popular racism” is the NAACP, yes that is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People…that’s the National Association for the Advancement of non-whites (for those of you who think the NAACP might have something to do with college sports).

In case you don’t know where you’ve heard of the NAACP before, that’s the group that has recently attacked the Tea Party for racism; just watch the news for a few seconds, I promise they will run the spot again.

People wonder why this country is so stuck on racism. It’s because we purposefully refuse to put it behind us. We enjoy nursing our wounds and flaunting them for pity or guilt induced acquiescence. And let’s face it, racism still has a place in this nation; the race card has value.

Just ask the President.

Obama's Watershed Moment(s)

2009-11-08T09:18:00.000-08:00

Obama was almost right about one thing:

“…it was also a watershed moment in how change is made.”

America has officially seen the day where the voice of America was ignored in favor of propaganda. We have officially seen the day when Americans spoke out and big government ignored us in its own interest. We have officially seen the day when freedom took a back seat to entitlement. We have officially seen the day when our own government, with the help of a complicit state advocate media, undermined the very constitution that this country was founded on.

Obama missed the boat ever so slightly. We’ve seen change made exactly like this in numerous dictatorships and pseudo-democracies all over the world, but this is truly “a watershed moment in how change is made”…in the united States of America.

Of course, since we saw this with the stimulus bill, too, maybe the watershed moment isn't that it occurred, but that this method of stuffing "change" down Americans' throats is becoming the rule, rather than the exception. Now that is indeed change, but if we continue on this path, Americans will soon discover there is no hope in this kind of change.

Because I Say

2009-08-19T18:59:00.000-07:00

In case you doubt that many politicians live in their own little world according to their own rules and reality, check this out.

According to Senator Harry Reid (D), paying taxes is "voluntary." I'd like to say that he was referencing an earlier time, except I don't recall any time or place in the history of any culture when taxes were voluntary. The very notion of tax implies force or strain, so I’m not sure where Reid is coming from.

Perhaps he’s referencing the notion that our elected representatives were allegedly doing our bidding (according to their job descriptions) when they proposed and passed laws mandating alleged free citizens to surrender their income so it might be doled out according to the political expediency, whim, and fancy of the elite...er...I mean, enlightened...class.

If all it takes for taxes to be considered “donations” is Harry Reid’s creative phraseology, it is no wonder the current administration is able to follow the current path and call it constitutional; because they say so.

When the definitions of freedom, prosperity, and justice are wholly bound by the subjective constraint of authority, that is the true mark of tyranny.

The Government...with a capital "G"

2009-06-25T18:23:00.000-07:00

The Government is officially justifying itself; of the Government, for the Government, by the Government.

The public outcry against the Government exerting control within private industry is repeatedly justified by pointing out that “they (private industry) took TARP (bailout) money, so now the Government has the right.”

So, the Government proposed the use of taxpayer funds to rescue (bailout) private industry. Taxpayers overwhelmingly responded to their elected officials indicating our majority disapproval of the concept. The Government proceeded over public outcries and objections. Later, the Government starts exercising unconstitutional influence over private industry. The taxpayers object, but are told that because the private industry took bailout money, the Government now has a justifiable stake granting it otherwise unconstitutional authority.

So, if the Government had heeded our voice and not forced the bailout on us, then the Government would have heeded our voice and not forced private industry to bend to its will?

Now I understand.

Initially, the Government, by its own authority, usurped our freedom unconstitutionally because the Government deemed its will superior to the will of the people. Then later when the Government overtly extended its unconstitutional reach into private industry, the justification was the Government’s original usurpation of the people’s will and constitutional rights.

How is the Government doing this? They have a conman at the helm, the media in their pocket, and they have bought off the uneducated masses with empty populist promises of redistributed wealth.

Representing the Majority Could Prove Fatal for Republicans

2009-04-18T13:24:00.000-07:00

Press reporting alleges that according to Steve Schmidt, a former advisor to John McCain, the GOP risks becoming the “religious party” with its opposition to same-sex marriage.

There are a couple of very large problems with this argument.

It’s What the People Want

The most important point is that time and time again Americans have demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of voters, while not opposed to the lifestyles of professed homosexuals, are indeed opposed to laws declaring the union between two people of the same sex to be equal in nature and value to the union between a man and a woman. Even a large portion of Democrats oppose such measures dictating what people should believe with respect to homosexuality.

It seems to me the argument is actually saying Republicans should follow the Democrats and start representing the will and opinions of the special interest minority over the voting majority if Republicans hope to remain a political power. Considering main stream media marginalization of non-Liberal/non-Democratic opinions, the argument does carry some merit. The media is the playing field and often deemed the referee, so conservative political ideas that run contrary to media bias will not do very well as they are filtered to the public.

It’s a Religious Argument

Another important point stems from the idea of the “religious party.” That should actually read “the religious party;” as if only one side of the argument contains religion. Science, history, and logic fall squarely on the side of the heterosexual majority, yet people have been convinced the beliefs on the homosexual side of the argument outweigh the facts on the heterosexual side, and the beliefs on the heterosexual side are null and void because of faith in God. Liberal media strikes again.

Of course, Steve also made the point we should not invoke religion as the rationale for a political position. The problem with that is everyone on both sides of the argument is religious; for some reason it is only deemed detrimental for Christians. Religion/faith in anything but God seems to be a substantial argument to support almost any position. Ironically, if you have faith in God, even your non-religious arguments somehow lose all merit. Gay marriage, abortion, and pornography are all condemned in many different forms by science, statistics, history, experience, logic, reality, and public conscience. Yet amazingly, the only arguments the media ever seems to focus on are the religious arguments.

Manipulative Media Prophesy

The most dangerous aspect of the media is its ability to shape the future with misinformation. The media told us we lost in Iraq, and even as victory reigns and our troops settle in to ensure victory lasts under the new President, people continue to denounce “the lost war.” The media advocated Barrack Obama, and even as duped voters are already asking themselves “what have I done,” people continue to demonize Bush and praise an ideal in Obama that he himself has already cast aside.

Consider the latest media announcements of the decline of Christianity; and now the dead end course of the Republicans who represent Christians. The Democrats and their media cohort have asserted “Christian values” and “right-wing fundamentalists” as the reason George Bush was elected…twice. The quick rise of mega-churches was all the media (out)rage just a year or two ago. The main thrust of Obama’s affront, his full deception and misrepresentation, was aimed at Christians.

Persevere

The fact is this nation is still a Christian nation; lost, but Christian. If you believe your faith no longer matters, it doesn’t; and those who hate your faith know it. So, beware those who attempt to convince you your faith no longer matters. If you forsake your faith, so will your representatives, so will your nation, and so will your children. Pray and hold fast to your faith.

Definitely A Bow

2009-04-10T20:56:00.000-07:00

He’s up to the old Jedi mind tricks again.

I’m sure every President has tripped over his own shoe laces at least once in the first 100 days. While I’m less concerned with faux pas than I am with policy, that is a luxury I have; I am not the President of the United States.

Personally, I wouldn’t care if he curtsied and then skipped merrily down the red carpet singing “I’m a little tea pot” at the top of his lungs. Frankly, his foreign policy (and I use the term loosely) isn’t much less of a spectacle.

The thing that chaps my hide is the inability of the administration or its supporters to call a spade a spade. It’s almost as if honesty just isn’t on the menu.

WE HAVE THE VIDEO YOU IDGITS!

I feel like I’m in a bad Monty Python skit. Then Robert Gibbs wants to try to take the high road:

“I can only imagine it is of great cause and concern for many people struggling with the economy.”

Gibbs, you’re absolutely right. Of course…well…you see…if the President can’t be honest with something we can all plainly see for ourselves…if his party and supporters can’t admit the truth about something that is in plain sight…if you can’t answer a cut and dry question on something as evident as a videotaped bow…

WHY SHOULD WE TRUST ANYTHING THAT OBAMA, LIBERALS, (DEMOCRATS AND MEDIA), AND YOU SAY ABOUT THE ECONOMY OR ANYTHING ELSE?!?!?!?

The bow definitely confirms what Obama’s record and experience plainly indicated before he was elected, what 48% of Americans knew and proclaimed in the voting boothes during the election, and what he himself has demonstarted countless times since assuming office; his inexperience in office and leadership, and his naïve, uniformed assumptions on economics and international politics make him a detriment to U.S. interests both home and abroad.

Pregnancy: An Interpretive Oppression

2009-02-27T10:10:00.000-08:00

According to the Obama administration, or more accurately and hopefully just one of his crack(pot) appointees, any law which presumes to recognize the human life cycle prior to a consensual labor/birthing event and extend any form of human rights to the human being/life prior to the birthing event, and thereby hold others accountable for the well being and/or protection of that human life, is tantamount to slavery.

Dawn Johnsen, Barack Obama’s appointment to head the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, filed a brief with the Supreme Court that stated:

Statutes that curtail [a woman's] abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest.

…and…

[The woman] is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not wholly her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends. Thus, abortion restrictions "reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal containers.

The good news is the brief was filed 20 years ago. The bad news is 20 years later the person who filed the brief is in an official position to influence the fabric of our entire culture. I think the intellectual expression that would summarize the collective feeling of most humane, conscientious voters is “yikes.”

Realistically, if Johnsen’s argument were given any credence, the same logic would quickly do away with taxes. Additionally, since pregnancy is a process, unless the entire process is forced, coitus and conception included, it is an intellectual and constitutional contortion - or perversion - to call the tangibly obvious developmental stages of pregnancy servitude. Furthermore, a happy, willing, or just plain ignorant slave is still a slave, so if the Supreme Court holds to Johnsen’s logic, they would have to outlaw pregnancy in general.

Hopefully there’s not much to worry about, but be vigilant and, most importantly, prayerful.

In Johnsen’s defense, the argument was probably a superficial aftershock of the 60s' enlightened and overly dramatic sensitivity to oppression mixed with the propensity for liberals to site such flagrant philosophical folly while eloquently plucking the bleeding heart strings of America. The only thing the argument lacked was interpretive dance. Then again, I wasn’t there; indeed Johnsen may have delivered the brief neck deep in leotards and leg warmers, panting under the strain of rhythmic legal expression.

I know what you’re thinking, “Where was You Tube when we needed it most?”

The Confidence Man

2008-11-22T19:43:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama has been elected as the next President of the United States.

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).

"O" Don’t Know Joe

2008-10-17T22:00:00.000-07:00

“I don’t know any plumbers making $250k a year.”

“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.

Misplaced Devotion

2008-10-04T13:08:00.000-07:00

The young men in the video repeatedly recite, “because of Obama.”

What?

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.

America Is In Trouble

2008-10-03T16:40:00.000-07:00

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.)

Pigs and Lipstick?...what?

2008-09-10T20:12:00.000-07:00

I was reading Glenn Green’s New Heights of Stupidity, posted on Salon. He is obviously angry and just as obviously liberal, and he is quite plainly taken (in) by Obama, and he apparently believes the media and Republicans at large, though it seems he may not differentiate between the two, are treating his candidate Obama-nably (tee-hee) over the whole lipstick debacle.

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.

NO-bama!
(was that my out loud voice?)

Divide and Conquer?

2008-09-06T23:12:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama justifies and perpetuates division.

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.

Change?

2008-08-23T19:33:00.000-07:00

If Joe Biden is change we can believe in, then I'm the Easter bunny.

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.

Campaign Ad

2008-08-22T21:26:00.000-07:00

Disclaimer: Sometimes my sense of humor is very wry and over-the-top. Please accept my apology if this is too vivid or harsh. I often wrestle with writing to inform, to affirm, or to inflame; I think I may have lost this battle.

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.

“…like him.”

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.”

Economics or Empathy

2008-08-21T18:41:00.000-07:00

Who better to answer the nation's housing market woes than a guy whose family securely owns seven houses?

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.

Socialism…here we come!

2008-07-30T17:53:00.000-07:00

“Live Free or Die” has become “live free, others will pay the bill.”

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.

Hearsay!

2008-07-17T20:14:00.000-07:00

According to Nancy Pelosi, President Bush is a “total failure.”

"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).

Don't even think about "it."

2008-07-13T19:07:00.000-07:00

Black conservative talk show host Armstrong Williams says of Barack Obama "I don't necessarily like his policies; I don't like much that he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it.”

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.

Progressive Fascism

2008-06-07T15:02:00.000-07:00

I am inclined to view the ideology and goals of the Democratic Party as being akin to Fascism.

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.

Other comparisons:

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.

"Hail to the Chief"

2008-05-21T18:45:00.000-07:00

I’m running for President.

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.

The Real Reason

2008-05-04T12:43:00.000-07:00

Growing up I was inundated with the politics and culture of oppression which asserted I would be continually and maliciously thwarted by...“THE WHITE MAN!” (cue thunder and lightning)

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.”

Racial Divide, Courtesy of Hillary?

2008-05-02T21:13:00.000-07:00

It seems that the voter base needed to win the Presidency cannot be won by Barack Obama, but Democrats are still contemplating giving him the job…because he’s black.

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.”

He’s right.

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.

A Hard Left Isn't Necessarily the Right Direction

2008-04-19T11:27:00.000-07:00

In case anyone is wondering, I have nothing personal against Obama; though I do take offense to being classified…stereotyped…judged…as an irrational xenophobe.

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!

Racism: Barack’s Double Standard

2008-04-12T06:00:00.000-07:00

Contrary to his sales pitch, Obama isn’t even remotely attuned to the racism prevalent in our nation today, even though it’s as plain as the nose on his face or the plank in his eye.

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.

New American Racism: Embracing Obama

2008-04-01T10:14:00.000-07:00

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.