P.Y.C. From the Hip: Musings of a Hip Hop Republican

What is Dangerous for Some is Deadly for Others in Contemporary America

2010-08-09T11:47:00.005-04:00

(Speech from the We The People North Carolina (WTPNC) Event at Covenant Classical School in Concord, North Carolina)
*****************************************************

Good evening, everyone. I hope that you are having a great week so far.

There is a high level of discord currently building throughout the nation, spurred on by everything from accusations of racism and elitism to actual facts and figures showing us that this economy is not rebounding as we need and economic resources for the people are not being as fruitful as we require. It is this discord – this dysfunction in government and this disharmony in our society – that led to the Tea Party Movement that started as a result of our disgust from the 2008 bailouts and the 2009 stimul-LESS bill…two initiatives that spent more American taxpayer money but gave American taxpayers less than we were explained. The disjointed political mindset that has overtaken America has led to our movement. It has led to protests throughout the nation for the past 2 years as frustrated Americans have come to realize that the nation that we have grown to know and love was built as the result of the values of our forefathers, the work of our ancestors, and the daily dedication to an existence of freedom known throughout the world as the American Way of Life. That way of life is currently under attack.

This has led us to this location tonight, just as it led others to assemble at Independence Hall in Robert’s native Philadelphia earlier today. We come together in the spirit of togetherness to decree to our soon-to-be vacationing leaders in Congress and in Raleigh that enough is enough: too much government has equated to too many limitations on the freedoms of everyday Americans. Their actions today and their plans for tomorrow have reached a point where they are taking opportunities, resources, and hope from Americans from all backgrounds. Therefore, we have come to say – as citizens from all backgrounds – that it is time to Take Back America.

When people hear that phrase “Take Back America” – particularly at a Tea Party – the temptation is there to immediately follow the line of thinking that the Rev. Al Sharpton or the NAACP promote: that this 3-word phrase is code to disillusioned White Americans to protest, disrespect, and perhaps even threaten the first Black president of these United States. They believe that the primary energy fueling the Tea Party movement and the increased volume from the protests from We the People comes from racism. They remain skeptical of our actions even as we continue to struggle as a nation. They remain divisive with their viewpoints even as we continue the straight-forward talk that we must have as a community of believers – believers in God and in our nation – as we work to straighten out this mess.

Sadly, their skepticism is natural and, in many regards, very well-deserved.

For decades now, we as conservatives have been too passive in our love for all Americans and too tolerant of the everyday injustices that we see all around us. We have not communicated effectively about why our beliefs in smaller government save all of us from the depression and disillusionment that many people – including today’s youth – battle against. We have said passionately that a high tide raises all boats, but we have not passionately fought to save the sinking ships in our inner city communities. We have not done enough as neighbors and friends to charter the dangerous political waters together so that those that can captain their ships can avoid pitfalls and those that enter the waterways of life without the proper resources can learn how to accumulate them in order to command their lives as fully-fledged citizens.

Therefore, skepticism of our activism and the motivating intent of our movement will be challenged vigorously until we as patriots reach out to our skeptics with a heart full of equality, a mind full of empathy, and a vocabulary full of common sense viewpoints and solutions. Rallies such as ours tonight may spark a nation of millions to act due to taxation and spending, but until we speak to the shootings and devastation in our cities and the lives of millions of African-Americans and others that are impacted, we will continue to be a nation divided. The blood spilled to preserve our nation in the past will be shed in vain due to the blood spilling in our streets today if we don’t speak out of love for a better tomorrow for us all.

What Mr. Jealous of the NAACP, Rev. Sharpton and others miss is that solutions for a better United States are full of liberty and devoid of color. The call to history today is not a call against a historic president; it is a call to be historic in a time where ordinary people can make a world of difference – and a better world for our children and grandchildren.

Last year, there was a call for a tea party movement based on the acronym TEA – Taxed Enough Already. And although there is a clear need for the messages of fiscal restraint and common sense solutions to rebound our challenged national economy, what we are finding is that there is a greater need to communicate a message through a We the People movement in order to heal our land, leverage our ideas into universal truths, and mold our conservative principles into social, economic, and national solutions that work for the citizenry we call family – from the disadvantaged that need hope to those that exhibit to us all that with hope and hard work, the American Dream is obtainable.

Despite the false press releases denoting the decline of America…and despite the notions from current leaders in Washington that detest the belief in American exceptionalism…I stand here tonight to tell you that our nation is still a nation full of visionaries. We remain a nation of dreamers and a nation of inventors. And because we continue to hold dear the truth that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…we know that we must confront the obstacles before us today and push our activism past the point of being a tea party – TEA…Taxed Enough Already…and make a difference in our nation’s development through a BEA Movement – B – E – A….Big Government….Eradication…Throughout America.

It is up to us starting this evening and throughout 2010 to BEA involved. It is up to us starting today to be patriotic with passion that loves, not with emotionalism that fights our brother and sister with malice. And it is up to us to BEA the ambassadors of the conservative message – and dare I say the classic American political and social message – to those that are skeptical of us today. This is because we as conservatives understand – but others that are not do not understand – that with big government today, What is Dangerous for Some is Deadly for Others in Contemporary America.

That is what I have titled these remarks tonight: What is Dangerous for Some is Deadly for Others in Contemporary America.

It rings so very true with the communities we are struggling to connect with conservatives – and it approaches why we are struggling as a nation with race, with unity, and perhaps even with economic vitality in these tough times.

When people ask me as a proud young conservative and as a Black Republican what I think we must do in order to incorporate more young people and more minorities into the conservative political fold, I explain that it takes two things: preaching the “smaller government, bigger people” mantra that I discuss in my book. It takes more neighbors being more visible leaders in the communities of our nation instead of leaving basic decision-making up to bureaucrats that deal with numbers and self-justifying action plans, not people and life-empowering solutions. I tell them that because of the crisis we face in our cities today, we must powerfully and lovingly explain to our friends and fellow citizens that when it comes to big government, What is Dangerous for Some is Deadly for Others in Contemporary America.

That is the message that our young people must embrace for a better nation where America is an economic, cultural, and military leader throughout the world in the 21st century. That is the message that we as ambassadors must take to Black America in order to bridge them back into feeling as though they are full-blooded Americans, living as though they are full-blooded, and embracing their identity as full-blooded Americans.

And I know that many of you may criticize my use of the term “Black America.” I know that many of you will tell me – correctly – that in terms of our nation, there is only one country involved: the United States of America. I agree with you on principle, for people of all creeds and citizens of both genders have shed blood and incur sacrifices for the sovereignty of this great land. However, as ambassadors, we must deal with truth just as we must enact our plans for liberty as visionaries. And, while speaking in truth and with love, we must – as ambassadors – acknowledge the destruction that big government has imposed on African-American communities for decades now.

We cannot unite America with a BEA movement if we will not admit that big government continues to divide America where very different realties, huge contrasts in life expectations, and rampant every day disparities exist in such a way that many live in a different world in this nation even as we live under the same flag as a country.

This is nothing new. Time and time again, expansive big government has been embraced by politicians to separate our nation from within and separate our citizens collectively from their freedom. From the expansion of slavery within an expanding new nation that just declared that “all men are created equal” to the expansion of Jim Crow in response to Constitutional amendments guaranteeing citizenship…and now to the addiction of urban residents and young Americans to the expectations of big government intrusion in our lives…America has allowed big government to write the rules of fairness, the definitions of equality, and the terms of engagement in these United States. But just as we are learning that the continuation of big government sets America on a dangerous course for the future, we as ambassadors must faithfully inform others that continuing the loyalty of urban voters to big government and its toxic results sets Black America on a deadly course of destruction – right here and right now.

It is time for BEA: Big Government Eradication Throughout America.

And to take back America with our BEA Movement, we must disallow the phrase “take back America” from being equated only with national debt, increased taxation, and federalized healthcare programs. As ambassadors for a better future, another 3-word phrase - “Too much government” – must not be code for our disapproval of President Obama’s domestic direction for the nation or the liberal agenda being directed by Speaker Pelosi. As ambassadors, our TEA Party Movement – T – E – A – must mean that we will be tenacious for conservative change, energized by our patriotism, and accountable to God, our forefathers, and our communities with our political activism. As ambassadors, our BEA Movement – B-E-A – must mean that we will break new ground with our conservations about the political direction of the nation, evangelize limited government with examples that show advancement for us all, and actualize a connection between the lost and the willing among us in order to regain the lost potential of our youth within our cities today.

For us, “too much government” means too much regulation that hinders the business growth needed to bring jobs back into our economy. To that, we say as Americans to our government: get your hands out of our pockets so that we can create more employment for the people of this nation.

However, “too much government” must also mean that too many bureaucrats are limiting those within the welfare system while ignoring avenues of independence…that too many liberals are playing God within the court systems and ignoring fairness and justice for families…and that too many government incentives are wreaking havoc within social systems and ignoring people’s God-given rights despite their economic status. To that, we say as ambassadors to big government: get your hands from around the necks of a disproportioned amount of African-Americans and urban young people, for you hinder their ability to live freely. Big government, you choke off any hope for a life of prosperity and freedom with your growing presence in their lives. That is a message we must take to Black America to reunite all of America under our republican form of government.

For us, “too much government” means the runaway control of career politicians that feed us sound bites and call it leadership – all while they devour chunks of campaign funding and bake up schemes of pork for “preferred constituents” – all while giving the rest of us morsels for our families to survive on. To that, we say as Americans to those that mirror this remark: you have ridden on the backs of the American people for your last term. You will serve us with humility in office or you will leave from office in humiliation in November.
However, “too much government” must also mean that too many career politicians represent Americans living in Gerry-mandered districts that prompt no accountability due to high-level brokering over political numbers, not people’s lives. “Too much government” – as ambassadors in this sense – must mean that we go humbly to African-Americans and young voters and discuss the arrogance that career politicians such as Representative Charlie Rangel and Representative Maxine Waters have while in office for decades. As ambassadors, we must show that while Rangel and Waters make money they should not have and hide revenue they are ashamed off, they face ethics violations in Congress while the ethical, moral, and societal fabric of the communities they represent erodes away. We say as ambassadors to those that mirror this remark: you mock the poor and distraught that you represent in office with your elitism and arrogance. You dishonor your ancestors and ours with the lifestyle, view and status you take for granted at the cost of those whose eyes are weary, whose status is meager, whose safety is compromised, yet whose backs you use to carry votes in your re-election bids and personal gains into your coffers. You advocate big government, knowing that it is the life-blood of your legacy, even as you know that it spills innocent blood in the streets in the process – a fact that makes my blood boil with contempt for you and pumps the heart of activism for a change for something better for those citizens that deserve better. That is a message we must take to Black America to reunite all of America under our representative form of government.

For us, “too much government” refers to the self-serving structures of government waste that are in place to increase government funding – even at the risk of increased government spending and taxation…and perhaps even decreased government efficiency. It means to create government jobs even at the risk of ruining small business opportunities. It means to put into place government agencies with no end-goal in sight at the risk of eliminating faith-based and people-centric solutions that foster more results and healthy citizens at a higher clip. To that, we say as Americans: big government, what you are doing is reallocating resources for the select few. What we believe in as a sovereign nation is creating wealth for the masses. You believe in job creation for you the few. We believe in the ability to be successful as We the People.

However, as ambassadors, we must make sure that the phrase “too much government” also informs our skeptics as to why government is our resource, not our ally…that government is to serve us, not to shape us…that big government is our burden, not our benefactor. We must take both history and contemporary times to uphold our points of views as self-evident truths about the big government direction we rally against. We must remind our fellow Americans that limited government defended our God-given rights in the Declaration of Independence. Larger government gave us dangerous fugitive slave laws that endangered freemen throughout the early United States. Limited government provided amendments to secure citizenship and suffrage. Big government created Jim Crow. Limited government gave us freedom of religion. Larger government has removed God from our public places and schools throughout America today. And academically, smaller government wants to ensure that poor children have the freedom of choice for education, allowing tax dollars to be used at schools that will work to ensure that our youth today are prepared for the job markets of tomorrow. Big government wants to expand the scope and cost of failing schools in urban communities – all while ignoring the drop-out rates from our schools and the violence within our schools.

But, of course, why not do that when we have other government programs to handle those issues? A government handling their lives from cradle to grave will eventually ensure that the cradle will fall into despair and that the grave will be swift-coming in their lives.

We must take to these communities this message: any government big enough to give you a piecemeal to get you through tough times is big enough to break up your families for generations, from slavery to today. Any government big enough to give your child a free lunch in school is big enough to create wasteful jobs within the school system that robs your child of the best shot to get a good job once he graduates from the school system….IF he graduates from the school system. Any government big enough to promise you equality with a program is big enough to keep you in oppression with another program.

As ambassadors, we must say to all of America – but particularly to those hurting the most in America and to those isolated through disparities in communities such as Black America – big government has not been the friend of Americans. It has been the ruse to buy more of your votes. It has been the ruse to take more of your money. It has been the ruse to accumulate more power for itself and it has been the ruse to keep true liberty from more of you.

From the unemployed in America to the rich in America…to White folks in America to Black folks in America…from Southerners in America to native Pennsylvanians in America…big government has no place for the citizen, for big government competes against the Will of the People for the sake of its own existence. It will not forsake the rich or the small business owner in its current conquest, just as it has not forsaken the opportunity to devour the disadvantaged and even much of Black America - in its previous conquests to date, particularly those over the past 50 years.

As we have seen with the destruction of the Black family through the Great Society Movement, the destruction of urban school systems through the imbalanced influence of teachers’ unions, and the discrepancies between Blacks and other Americans when concerning health, prison, marriage, jobs, education, and families – bureaucracy cannot exist without burdens, and big government cannot exist without big crises.

The direction of big government has been dangerous for our national debt, our national sovereignty, and our American Way of Life for all of us…but for the disadvantaged, disillusioned, and discriminated fellow citizens among us, big government – has been – and still is deadly.

To overcome big government today to bring back smaller government…more responsible government…and more responsive and representative government….to bring that back for tomorrow, it will take bigger people – and bigger people means all of us, ambassadors: Black, White, women, men, young, old – all of us, fulfilled with who we are ethnically, fighting to improve where we live passionately, and proud to be Americans daily.

Ambassadors: there are similarities within our diversity that call for more limited government and personal liberty. President Jefferson is attributed as saying in concerns to liberty: "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...." Black leaders such as Malcolm X echoed the same message when he said, “Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it.”

Malcolm X also said that, “Power in defense of freedom is greater than power on behalf of tyranny and oppression.” Is that not what we face from big government today – as Americans of all creeds? Are we not in a struggle for power over our lives, a struggle against big government that looks to keep small businesses hampered, everyday people overtaxed, government agencies in the lives of young people, and police forces in the lives of millions of Black people as children or adults? Yet, rest assured: our power to defend freedom will overcome the current power from big government.

It is time for us to act.

It is time to BEA – Big Government Eradication throughout America.

It is the only way to bridge all of America together.

It is the only way to save our cities, reclaim the potential of our youth, and rejuvenate our society as an economic engine and a pillar of moral strength for the nation and for all of world.

It is the only way to truly correct this mess created by our years of personal apathy and government expansion. Thankfully, our republican form of government – one of We the People – allows us to redeem our nation through the patriotism of political activists to defend America and the diligence of grassroots ambassadors to reconnect and heal America.

I believe in you. I believe in us. And I believe that the best days of the United States are still ahead of us – because of you.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you tonight. God Bless you all and God Bless the United States of America.

The Meaning of July Fourth for the New School Negro

2010-07-11T18:51:00.003-04:00

July 4, 2010

Dear fellow citizens - those of us that had been enjoying cookouts, a 3-day weekend, or perhaps an opportunity to take off a week from work due to the celebration of our nation’s birthday on the 4th of July.

Perhaps this week has been marked in your minds due to the aroma of ribs and other grilled items on the barbeque. Perhaps it has been marked by the arrival of summer weather, sunshine, and time to enjoy the fruits of your labor. Perhaps, even, this week has been marked by “The Decision” by a 25-year-old on what city he will take his money-making, basketball-playing abilities to.

These are some of the reasons to enjoy this past week, one where Americans will attempt to forget the escalating tensions in our nation, stemming from continued high unemployment, continued economic stressors on middle-class and working-class Americans, and continue disappointments in leaders from both sides of the aisle to calm down the growing racial, social, and cultural tensions brewing since the 2000 presidential elections.

I come to you today, humbly and perhaps nervously, as I wonder what this 4th of July was supposed to mean to me – and perhaps to us all, not just African-Americans within the United States that are suffering higher rates of negative statistics more than any other racial or cultural makeup other than Native Americans, but also for the rest of the citizens of our great land, even as we continue to hear about why our diversity and colorful differences should be delineations to keep us distrustful of one another, not demarcations to be expanded upon with courage and excitement so that we can leverage our perspectives to bridge ourselves over these troubled times.

I cannot come to you today as a proud Negro freedman such as the great Frederick Douglass did so many years ago. As were the founding fathers of this nation, Mr. Douglass was a man that was an epic leader within the United States of America. Whereas the founding fathers were tantamount with the establishment of our great land starting with the holiday we just celebrated, Mr. Douglass was paramount in pushing the consciousness of a fractionalized culture, a tormented president, and a war-torn nation to a place where building up a stronger nation meant tearing down the immoral comforts of the status quo and challenging the contemporary constructs inhibiting Americans of both genders and all racial backgrounds.

In that regard, I wish that this 4th of July be not like the one that Mr. Douglass endured in 1852, where he asked to his audience in Rochester, NY why he was asked to speak to the beauty of American liberty at a time when humanity of African slaves was still overtly devalued, simultaneously done in the midst of Independence Day celebrations. However, I do expect and demand that we begin to view this new 4th of July cycle as did Mr. Douglass, taking the opportunity to reflect upon how we will be able to take our war-torn nation – a nation being pulled apart at the seams by overseas conflicts, urban terrorism, racial and social disconnect, and economic class warfare – to a place of healing and resolution so that we can overcome these troubled times. As did Mr. Douglass, I hope that this 4th of July cycle can allow us to direct our tormented and currently troubled president to a clearer vision of what must be done to correct our nation’s woes, even as the decisions may seemingly go against his personal beliefs but with a correctness that only the wisest of men around him will encourage and understand, much as Mr. Douglass did in his time. It is my hope that we will have the courage to acknowledge and embrace our fractionalized American culture in today’s nation so that we can fully engage, heal, and foster the fractionalized sub-cultures within the United States – the communities and categories of citizens where unemployment, under-education, and uneasiness from birth to early demise are the anticipated norm for generations of families. In a time where we must be willing to acknowledge our differences within America without discounting our common bond as Americans, it is my hope that we are as strong as Mr. Douglass to take pride in our nation’s diversity as we will need to be courageous in our common knowledge of it to bind the fractures and leverage the impending strength of healing to create a better, more United States of America.

Yet, I am discouraged about our current journey. Perhaps Mr. Douglass was as well, even if his words from 1852 do not exhibit this pain or anxiety. As for him, he rhetorically asked the question: “What is the meaning of the 4th of July to the Negro?” As for me today, I humbly plea to my fellow countrymen and lady citizens: “What is the meaning of the 4th of July to a New School Negro?”

My question today can and does expand into multiple layers of directives for answers.

Although we have moved our nation past the usage of the term “Negro”, I grant that I am, in many ways, a “New School Negro” of the 21st century. As such, I am called to take into account the social conditions around us, the political rumblings affecting us, and the historical obligations pushing us. And when I use the term “us”, that term is universal – used to stand for us, that is, “United States”, including African-Americans that stand on the brisk of the very best and the very worst on this 4th of July.

So, in that regard, I am not the only “New School Negro”, and therefore, I must ask: what does this 4th of July mean to us collectively as a new generation advancing from the legacy of former slaves and abolitionists? Mr. Douglass said to his 1852 audience, “…Fellow-citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions…whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to-day (sic), rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them…” And today, is that not the case with the New School Negro, those that celebrate the achievement of riches and allure while the deafening calls for social change and young Black leadership rings in the inner city cadence of gunfire, violence, and anguish? Have we forgotten the lynchings of the past or the gunfire from yesterday’s news that we have replaced the meaning of the 4th of July’s symbolism for freedom and liberty that our ancestors died for with the shallow pursuit of time off and luxury, even as an increased amount of us are not free any longer – freed by educational liberty, liberated by economic opportunities, or made loose by efforts to leverage the painful triumphs of history with the historic gains some of us enjoy today? I am not talking about economic redistribution, but I am certainly referring to historic reflection and obligation.

Mr. Douglass said in 1852 that, “…whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting.” Yet, what must we say to the New School Negro of today? If we look at the horrible treatment of Black women in the days of lore – when Americans celebrated collective liberty while persecuting its women with horrors of sub-equality, most notably persecuting its Black female slaves – how much more hideous and revolting is our conduct today where we celebrate the objectification of our women and embrace terms such as “player”, “pimp”, “dog” and “nigga’” as our terms of endearment for men we revere and love? If we look at the status of our Black relationships today, were the times more hideous when our families when our families were broken up by government – either through slavery in the 19th century or through bureaucratic programs in the 20th century – or are they more hideous today because we foster the expectation that our bodies, our relationships, our ability to love, and our need for emotional continuality must be disrespected at each crossroads? Even for those that have secured the American Dream that affords many of us to vacation during this 4th of July cycle, I ask: is it more hideous that our ancestors lagged behind in education, economics, social status, and life expectancy because of slavery and Jim Crow or is it more hideous because the current generations post-Civil Rights has not done enough to prevent our slippage and current conditions? Whereas it was deplorable for racism to prevent us from rising up to our highest levels during those times before us, it is despicable that we as New School Negroes have not harnessed the true meanings and sacrifices of the 4th of July – for our people and from all American people – into ensuring that the progress from 1852 onward through the 20th century did not erode into the gunfire, fatherlessness, hopelessness, and death that more Negroes in these new generations face than necessary today. I cry: if what Mr. Douglass spoke to in 1852 were horrible, then what we must speak to today is the hideousness that we will either eradicate from our legacy with our conscious efforts or tolerate in our souls with our lethargic egoism.

And whereas Mr. Douglass spoke to the meaning of the 4th of July for the Negro to provide a deeper understanding for the majority of those listening in Rochester that day – most of whom surely were not Black – I say that the meaning of the 4th of July for the New School Negro has meaning for all Americans.

Many of my political persuasion believe that the time is now to put aside racial designations in order to heal the nation. However, without an understanding of the New School Negro, there is no chance for reconciliation for those that are disproportionately disadvantaged. And if there is no chance for reconciliation of our disadvantaged, there is no hope for the political pursuits of small government, more liberty, and less separation of the masses, for no people depending on the scraps of a nation will advocate for the elimination of those scraps unless there is a collective agreement that decrees and promotes true equality so that the scraps are undesirable.

The meaning of the 4th of July today – for today’s abolitionists and others – must mean fostering a reconciliation where we are no longer intimidated by race and unwilling to acknowledge today’s separating factors on race, particularly if we are going to reclaim the lost potential in our cities and youth from our misguided desire to impress our definitions of life on those that live death daily. It is that plain; it is that simple. Mr. Douglass submitted that “…where all is plain there is nothing to be argued….” I submit the same today. If we are so willing to take back America, reclaim America’s liberty for its citizens, and scale back government for the sake of our children and grandchildren, how can we not be willing to simultaneously reclaim our cities from the confused and tortured hands of children acting like adults? If we are so willing to take back America in elections this fall and moving forward, how can we not be willing to also reclaim our common sense of reality when looking at statistics concerning where we worship God on Sundays, where we education our children during the week, and where our health, work, and leisure opportunities are unequally available? For a culture that rightfully rebels against the notion of predetermined poverty and destitution, our notion of liberty today can not equate to a sense of personal accountability for those that we acknowledge have not been availed the ability to account collectively for 50 years now. Our love for the celebrated 4th of July…our love for our embattled nation at this time…must embrace the American Dream by enacting the principles that realize this dream embraces the lost and the found, the forgotten and the remembered, in a fight to improve our common lot.

This 4th of July – as with the others over recent history – have been opportunities to implore us to champion our individual causes instead of inviting us to acquiesce to the collective cause for American advancement. What is this 4th of July truly mean to me, a New School Negro, or to others of us new generation Americans? Whereas Douglass said that it was a “…a day that reveals to (the Negro), more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim…”, I say that it is a day that makes clear to us that we must turn apart from our cowardice to confront the issues before us before we all are revealed to be constant victims of our apathy, our complacency, and our governments indefinitely. Douglass called our national celebration a sham before the nation was prompted to abhor its hypocrisy; today, our celebration will be hollow and meaningless if we are not urged to upend the hypocrisy of our times – times where Black millionaires mimic Black gangsters and White activists call for urban peace from their suburbs. He called our national greatness mere swelling vanity, yet I call it fleeting glory if our vanity continues us storing up treasures where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal while allowing our brethren to decay and rot and our ability to prosper as a nation dwindles even as our insulation from the problems erode around us. Mr. Douglass said that “…there is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour…” This is not true of our times, but there is no other nation in the world – for the New School Negro or for the new generation American – that can claim to have as many pillars of hope and examples of liberty before them in their history and, therefore, there is no higher shock in the hearts or deeper stain of blood on the hands of those Americans today that refuse to look history into the eyes, search deep within their own hearts, and strengthen their words and hands to act and contravene the misery around us.

Douglass concluded that he did not despair for our nation in spite of his scathing rebuttal of the 4th of July celebration in 1852 Rochester. Despite the years of apathy, selfishness, detachment, blind trust, blind hatred, misunderstandings, and limited growth, I have hope as well, not only because we are still a nation full of worshippers of the Most High God, but we are also a nation that takes pride in the ability to be a beacon to the world around us. Yet, are we willing to accept what makes us different as ethical Americans in order to embrace what makes us great as Americans? Are we now willing to acknowledge the differing levels of American life that exist within American culture in order to uplift the American Dream? As a New School Negro, I ask myself if I am able – and if we are willing – to accept the mantle of history, even as we are called to put down the comforts of this world. As a new generation American, I ask myself if I am able – and if we are willing – to step forward on faith to make the efforts of the past mean something to our children than mere footnotes of history to learn for a scholarly test, a score to be achieved for a moment but a lesson lost for a lifetime? If this 4th of July is to mean anything for the next 51 weeks - and if it is to mean something for the next 51 months or 51 years – it must be time for it to mean something from day to day, as if the 4th of July is July 5th, July 6th, July 16th, and so forth. The waving of our flag and the resonance of our patriotism must be the moxie that holds our debating form of republican government together with honor, respect, representativeness, and resolute honesty for the ethical obligations we hold to the past to bring about the enriching foundation for our future. If we can find this during this 4th of July cycle, perhaps fewer mothers will cry in the streets, fewer children will go without families or resources, and fewer people will rue their government. If we can claim this today, perhaps understanding and unity will ring where mistrust and dissension now reside. If we can make this so right now, perhaps the pessimism of Frederick Douglass’ 1852 speech will rightfully prompt us to forgo the American hypocrisy he loathed in Rochester and we loathe today to find the glory Douglass facilitated in his times, just as we labor to reclaim glory contemporarily.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse is "The Truth"

2010-06-18T13:50:00.003-04:00

June 17, 2010

Ok, well, no, she's not.

Jesus Christ is The Truth.

And in the NBA, Paul Pierce is "The Truth", according to Shaquille O'Neal, although I would have to put my bet on Jesus in a game of one-on-one between Pierce and Christ. Pierce would probably do the same as well, by the way.

With that said, though, Dr. Morse's analysis on the breakdown of families and its impact on the economic systems within America are not only theories to be studies, but are realities being enacted everyday in the lives of Black America, urban American, and in America's young adults.

For example, the willingness to marginalize Americans to the net worth of their personal "gross domestic output" (i.e., their quantifiable, employment-based value) is a misguided notion that has impacted the lives of many Americans over the course of the past several generations. Failing to bring proper credence to the intrinsic value of motherhood (including stay-home motherhood), fatherhood, and marriage has subsequently led to losses in our economic vitality due to a drain of resources headed to social programs, social justice, criminal justice institutions, and rehabilitative services from our national, state, and city budgets.

In essence, Dr. Morse - in projecting what the future may look like at this rate - described the last 40 years of life within urban America, complete with educational failures, relationship issues, broken homes, and economic depravity.

And, to deliver it with wit? Yeah, maybe she is the truth after all, or at least, she brings a lot of truth into the national social and political discussions of our day.

Meeting Immaculee and an Immaculate Moment

2010-06-18T13:40:00.002-04:00

June 16, 2010

People that know me know that I can get through as a "proud young conservative" - considering all of the attacks that I undergo - because of the wife that I have. She is my rock. She is a gift in my life. Proverbs 31? That describes her fully in my life.

With that said, she is also someone that did not enter our marriage unscathed. Like me, she was scarred by the abuse and hatred of someone else's hands - literally. Because of this, her faith (notably her Catholicism and ability to pray regularly and faithfully) deepened even before we started dating. It has grown in the years that we have been married.

For her, knowing the stories of powerful folks such as Immaculee Ilibagiza comes as naturally as breathing.

She knew of Immaculee's incredible story because she watches (and reads) much of Dr. Wayne Dyer's work. She knew of the chance encounter that Immaculee and Wayne had that led to her book. She knew of Immaculee's dedication to praying the Rosary, something that my wife does often as well.

So, as much as it was an honor to listen to Immaculee's speech at dinner this evening...as much as it was an honor to shake her hand and have her sign her book for my wife...it was greater still to do one thing:

Speak to my wife via phone.

Yes, I'm that crazy husband that understands the value of small moments in one's life. To have a woman that overcame domestic violence talk to another woman that she read about and emulated due to her courage and dedication to God in the most deadly of situations meant the world to me. My wife was shocked. I think that Immaculee was honored. I know that it will make an impact on my wife's heart.

And the seal for me? Immaculee's first words after introducing herself to my wife on the phone (my cellphone as I was getting the book signed): "Your husband loves you very much."

Yes, I do, but it is God through me that makes it real.

And, in that regard, perhaps Immaculee made an impact on my heart as well that night with more than just her story. God is very real in everything from politics to the smallest of human interaction.

A Thought on Christian Anthropology and Saving America

2010-06-18T13:20:00.004-04:00

June 16, 2010

As you know, I am here at the Acton Institute's "Acton University 2010" event, held by the organization named after Lord Acton. (www.acton.org)

I came because I wanted to take some of the great information from the classes in order to apply it to the political discussions that we need to have, advance, and "flesh out" in order to create a better nation out of the crisis state that we find ourselves in today.

Truthfully, though, much of what I may need to illustrate my points came from the first lecture, particularly as it comes to the need for Black America to re-adopt Republicanism as a partisan home politically.

Secular determination - the basic social equation of thought that beliefs that heredity + environment = human actions (and, thus, the conditions humans find themselves in) - wraps up the treatment of Black people in America by the liberal left. In essence, the guiding principles of most Democrats - and now, tragically, mostly all Black elected officials (of which the vast majority are Democrats) - center around this notion of secular determination, using the mindset to continue a deadly cycle of limiting government dependency and prospects for the future. At the same time, this theory also proves - in many ways - why the disappearance of the Black church's influence over Black America has had a detriment effect on urban America over the past 50 years.

Why does this matter? Look at the destination of aid, urban solutions, and the like over the past 50 years. Much of those resources are headed into Black America's widening hole of hopelessness because the prevailing initiatives impacting these Americans are guided by the notion that the conditions that they found themselves in are, by nature, the best that they can do.

And they say that the Christian Right is racist?

Looking forward to hearing more throughout the week....

Missing the Point, Perhaps Missing the Boat

2010-05-13T14:09:00.004-04:00

May 13, 2010

(This blog is the unedit version of The Loop 21 article, "Black America is on the wrong side of the immigration issue", found at http://theloop21.com/politics/black-america-the-wrong-side-the-immigration-issue )

At first, I was for the spirit of the law but completely against the legislation as written.

Arizona’s SB 1070 – in its first draft – seemed to be nothing more than an open invitation to profile anyone that looked Latino (including Black folks and biracial Americans) in the state’s attempt to scale back illegal immigration. Under the initial law, the efforts were not contained to any sense of decorum. Despite verbal direction from Governor Jan Brewer, racial profiling was a valid concern for all non-white people residing in or visiting Arizona. It promised to lead to unjust questioning and privacy (and civil rights) violations based on appearances alone.

Like many conservatives and Republicans around the country, I stood with President Obama and others (including including Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) and former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL)) to express opposition to the initial draft of SB 1070. Widespread bipartisan opposition SB 1070 in its initial form prompted changes from the Arizona state legislature.

Once the law was modified to ensure that random profiling and questioning could be deterred – basically codifying that such questioning of legal status in Arizona could only come after “…any lawful stop, detention, or arrest…”, many conservatives and moderates found more common ground on the intent and proposed enforcement of the new immigrant bill. However, many in Black America – led by the Reverend Al Sharpton – instead find common ground between the fight against SB 1070 in its current form and the Civil Rights Movement of the 20th Century.

They are wrong, and in the process, they are spending precious moral capital on an issue that African-Americans can ill-afford to be on the wrong side of history over, especially as we face plenty of mounting issues ourselves.

Vowing to bring “…people into Arizona in the spirit of the ‘freedom rides’…” – as Reverend Sharpton did over SB 1070 – tarnishes the blood spilled by law-abiding Americans that fought for the equality and safety of law-abiding American citizens during previous Freedom Rides. It is shameful to even make the comparison as the two political issues contrast even on the surface of the argument, even when the common threat of deplorable profiling based on race alone (an act I abhor in all situations) is taken into consideration. For example, in the case of SB 1070, race-based actions by authorities– though un-American and intolerable – could lead to the arrest of illegal residents within America, thus solving a criminal situation. As was the case with plenty of African-Americans during the Civil Rights Movement – including plenty of Freedom Riders – race-based interaction with the authorities in those instances often led to violent beatings, violations to their civil rights as Americans (including unwarranted jailing and fines), and perhaps lynching and other forms of death and “mysterious disappearances.”

Being asked to return home and re-enter the line for legalization in America properly (be it through naturalization or some work-authorized status) is not the same as being forced to bleed to death by way of castration or drown after enduring some inhumane beating. There is no civil rights similarity between the two historical issues in recent American memory, particularly since – unlike the struggles of the 1950s and 1960s - there is not a constitutionally-based civil rights issue present in the current illegal immigration issue. Anyone who lived through the Civil Rights Movement – especially any African-American leader – should know this clearly. We can and should defend the human rights of individuals everywhere, but we can only defend the civil rights for those protected by law through our Constitution, as we did with Black folks in America. Today – as was the case decades ago – the moral right of the argument gets its support from the inherent legal rights from overriding Law of the Land.

There is no political justification for Rev. Sharpton and others within Black America for taking an opposing stance on SB 1070 – which is now the immigration check equivalent to further investigating a speeding motorist that was caught with a 9MM on the passenger’s seat – especially if the opposition is based on some manufactured semblance to historical struggles of African-Americans; (of course, some may consider Rev. Sharpton’s recent alliance with the White House – pointing to situations such as the recent Sharpton-Smiley controversy, for example – as the only necessary “political justification” needed.) Dr. King and others would never have been able to take the moral high road today (as they did years ago) while marching with residents wearing “I’m an illegal” t-shirts in the process of protests. In 2010, we are not facing a matter of discriminating against those with civil rights forged by the United States Constitution. Because of that, any true proper political resolution to illegal immigration – ranging from completely amnesty to complete deportation and points between that may be considered– cannot rightfully leverage the moral, political, and spiritual energy that fueled justice during America’s moral crisis of the 20th Century.

Any attempt to improperly marry the two issues on political precedence suppresses the historical resonance of the Civil Rights Movement and, further distances African-Americans from sharing more of a national identity with other Americans in lieu of embracing the rights of outlaws based on skin color primarily – the very rudimentary toxin that drives the racial profiling we detest. If that is the prime criteria that Black America is going to use in siding on national issues such as illegal immigration or other current political matters, then we may have come to a point in time where the vision of uniting the nation despite racial and ethnic diversity (thus, embracing the “melting pot” of America as we were once taught in school to do) has faded, leaving African-Americans in a position of peril. If Black folks in America are no longer willing to follow the paths of their ancestors and demand full inclusion and respect within the American identity – straying from the path through distancing themselves from other Americans on issues through the prism of race or finding political and constitutional kindred with those that possess no civil rights – then what are we collectively pursuing? If proper embrace of the American Dream –a dream of prosperity, lawfulness, safety, respect, and advancement of values that people from around the world risk their lives for both legally and otherwise – is no longer the dream for current African-Americans as it was with our forefathers, then what does our dream entail?

Sadly, that might lead us to other questions as well. Have we collectively missed the point of what the Civil Rights Movement was all about – fighting for the empowerment of citizens’ freedom under the guarantee of the U.S. Constitution? Are we missing the significance of what our collective support of illegal residents’ rights means in today’s America? How that support could signal why, perhaps, a majority of Americans may see African-Americans as leaning towards philosophies that they oppose - including open borders and socialized democracy – and regularly oppose us politically in response? Or perhaps, maybe we have just missed the boat on what our forefathers were willing to die for to secure our equality and freedom as previously-tortured (and many would argue still-discriminated against) Americans as lawful citizens, particularly if we are so willing to equate the calls for justice under the law with the protests of those that willfully sidestep it.

Let's Get Ready to Rumble...or Reconcile

2010-01-31T21:33:00.021-05:00

Monday, February 1, 2010

I like it.

I like the new President Obama.

Talk of utilizing nuclear power.

Talk of off-shore drilling.

Talk of tax cuts to encourage business growth and subsequent job growth.

And the president took on the GOP - on their turf and on their terms.

I like it. I like the feistiness. I like the talk of bipartisan ideas. I like the efforts to talk to Republicans directly.

Perhaps the Tea Party people were heard after all. Perhaps Scott Brown's victory made a difference. Maybe the president sees the need to wrangle in the fringes of the right and try to find common ground.

Now, if only I can get him to do the same with the Democrats that ran things off the rails in 2009.

Many conservatives criticized the president on his appearance at the GOP House retreat in Baltimore on Friday. They felt that President Obama was being rather condescending, professorial, and perhaps revisionist with some of his responses while going through the live televised question-and-answer he conducted with the participants of the retreat. Maybe they thought his answers were, at times, terse. At the same time, they were probably just as packaged as some of the questions coming from a body full of candidates looking to keep their jobs and accumulate more power as mid-term elections loom on the horizon.

Or many this was just the tough love talk that both sides needed to have after a failure of 2009, one where Republican ideas were never seriously considered by a president and supermajority (may it R.I.P.) that felt that it could take political and legislative risks with impunity while Republicans refused to budge much at all to compromise their positions while staring down the wrong end of the Capitol Hill numbers barrel.

If President Obama is serious about becoming the centrist he attempted to run as during 2008 and pull in his party's extremism, he has a good chance of being able to gain some considerable legislative wins during 2010 and, perhaps, lessen the losses for his party in November. Reigning in Pelosi and others may come with the ire of some Democrats and left-leaning media types, but it may also come with victories that translate into betters numbers with employment, energy needs, and support for his initiatives in handling the war effort overseas. A majority of America likes Barack Obama the person but, to date, have not been able to rally behind (or, in some cases, like) President Obama the chief legislator.

The type of tough-talk directness that we saw from President Obama and the House GOP is along the lines that we expected to see in 2009 in order to hammer out the ideas coming from all sides in a process that was supposed to yield the best solutions for a struggling America.

Again, if this is a start to a new way of doing things in Washington: I like it.

And, for the record, I won't hold the president attempting to make his 2009 legislative endeavors (led by Speaker Pelosi and Speaker Reid) appear to be centrist if he doesn't continue to hold President Bush accountable for the growing lack of confident Americans are having in Washington. At some point, we each are only what we believed in, and sometimes that is enough to prompt us to defend even our failures just as the president did in some regards this week. However, as we know, the nation doesn't get much of a puncher's chance of knocking out this recession and other crises without our leaders finally getting in the ring - on equal footing - to duke it out. if this process leads to real conversation, real reconciliation, and real change, then let the combatants in Washington go at it as the results will yield something that Americans can believe in, more Congressman can agree to, and people can benefit from.

Oh No, Justice Alito!

2010-01-28T13:16:00.022-05:00

Thursday, January 28, 2010

The picture shows confidence, calm, and a pleasant demeanor. A smile that indicates that he will not worry about criticism from the right or the left, keeping his focus on the constitutional obligation to uphold our founding document.

If we pull a George H. W. Bush, we can clear see a different story.

Read Justice Alito's lips: that's not true.

And if you read his body language after President Obama's judgement on the Supreme Court's recent ruling on campaign support, you can see that the stoicism from Alito may not be as true, either.

So much for the notion that the Supreme Court is a ruling body that operates outside of the influences of emotion or concern for anything other than a just interpretation of the Constitution.

Perhaps judicial activism - or emotional investment - isn't just a liberal stronghold anymore.

For as bold as the president's stance was to take on the Supreme Court as Commander-in-Chief (and former constitutional law professor) during his first State of the Union Address was, it was also bold for the justice to knowingly mouth "...not true..." during a round of applause in response to the president's statement, especially as he must have known that cameras were catching responses throughout the room (especially after Congressman Joe Wilson's (R-SC) remarks in September.)

Usually, it is the Supreme Court that fits into the role of populist defender, guarding the rights of America and her citizens as afforded in the Constitution against the special interests of politicians and significant policy makers. Everything from defending the premise of equality (Brown v Board of Education) to the very nature of its makeup (the infamous FDR attempt to stack the Supreme Court with his choice of justices with a 1930s quasi-pyramid scheme to expand the number of justices on the court) has been under the umbrella of the Supreme Court in its quest to defend the tenets of the nation as a populist gatekeeper. President Obama's televised rebuttal from the presidential bully pulpit changed that dynamic.

As, perhaps, rightfully so, a point that rubbed Justice Alito - and perhaps judges modeling his style of ruling from this decision - the wrong way in such a public place.

Washington as usual has been defined as the ability of big dollars and big business to influence the manner of everyday politicking moreso than the everyday Americans that congresspeople represent through the election process. This ruling, on face value, seems to jeopardize the ability of the everyday American (i.e., the guy or lady without the "deep pockets" that a select few have) to have a tangible voice in the political process, particularly regarding campaign advertisements and big-dollar donations to campaigns that shift the attention span of candidates from the populace to the lobbyists. Regardless of the legal arguments stating that the risk is minimal at best (it may be true that the law directly speaking to foreign-based corporations was not addressed or changed by the Supreme Court last week), the fact remains that a risk was taken - perhaps inappropriately - by the Supreme Court in reversing this previous statute in favor of big businesses, notably at at time when big business has been able to receive bailout money without much responsibility to the American taxpayer for

regarding ethics (i.e., keeping the big bonuses in place) or recovery (i.e., not using the money to annul this trend of unemployment).

Usually, it is the Supreme Court that has to remind a president of the jeopardy incurred when American endeavors are not in line with basic premises of the Constitution - namely, a republic where the everyday American is represented and listened to by its government without impediments of race, gender, previous servitude, or other labels that do not strip our citizenship (such as socioeconomic background.) In this instance, it worked the other way around.

President Obama got it right - we cannot allow corporations even more ability to buy-and-sell politicians, political agendas, and voting influence if we are going to continue the march towards rebuilding the best of America as we renew our nation. Call it politically convenience (many big businesses may come out against the president during Election 2010 because of his unpopularity at the polls right now) or populist fury (a renewed political personality that the president seems to have taken on since the turn of the year) if you will, but Obama's stance seems to be both anomalous - but correct - turn for the administration to change how Washington "is done" today.

It will be interesting to see how Washington plays out from here after suck a public calling-out by the president towards the Supreme Court. President Obama seems willing to take on perceived naysayers and opponents in a fight to earn back the confidence of the American people. Since day one, that has included Republicans, but perhaps it will now also include Republicans on the non-partisan bench of the highest court of the land. The Court may continue to find itself being criticized by a former law professor that has the rare eloquence, a new (or renewed, based on your view) populist backbone, and the ultimate bully pulpit (the presidency) to cast down judgement even after the final ruling has been sent down from the Court. The non-partisan Court - full of political appointments - may soon find itself reminiscing of the times when being political meant merely taking sides on Roe v Wade. The thoughts of that must make the members of the Court hold firm on the stoicism and disregard of outside detractions needed to clearly uphold the Constitution and the best of our nation's legal realities for freedom, even when Obama and the Court disagree on particular decisions.

Especially if this president continues to take a populist stance to wipe the smiles off of a justice's face.

State of DisUnion

2010-01-27T16:09:00.009-05:00

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Everyone is waiting to hear President Obama's first State of the Union Address.

What I am waiting for: for President Obama to reunify our states - our states of politics, our states of economics, and our states of cooperation.

To me, the most important thing with this evening's address is to restate the union that he campaigned to lead.

Pundits on both sides of the aisle are going to look to see how the president projects his overall message. They will pick apart his words and try to read his intent on the economy, on health care, and on the wars overseas.

However, those will not be the important points, for nothing else will matter if the president is unable to get a majority of Americans clearly on the same page, including those Americans serving on Capitol Hill and in Washington.

Perhaps it will be the losses in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts. Perhaps it will be the daunting realization that while the Congressional leadership led much of this disaster for the Obama Administration in 2009, most of them will be in full campaign mode in 2010, thus leaving him to hold the bag of responsibility for the current status. Perhaps it will be a reflection upon the magic of 2008 and the hope of January 2009. Regardless of what the primers end up being, President Obama will be successful with his address and with his impending presidency if he is capable of finding the true middle ground that will allow a majority of lawmakers and everyday Americans to get behind him as Commander-in-Chief with full force, something that has yet to transpire during his term.

Gathering Republican ideas (such as the spending freeze, an idea that he mocked John McCain with during the presidential debates as a "hatchet job" idea towards the economy) or championing through left-leaning pet projects will not do. At some point, it's not partisanship anymore, just as the Obama Presidency had the promise of being past after his historic election. This point on Wednesday night will be about unifying the nation behind a leader. Obama made it a point to look towards Lincoln as an example as he rode into Washington (literally) 12 months ago. With his State of the Union Address, he has a chance to channel the Great Emancipator again, this time to free America from the chains of disunity brought on by economic peril, proposed historic change, and fears for the future.

Selective Americanism Against Celebrating the Standard

2010-01-26T21:33:00.022-05:00

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

This is why I get frustrated with liberalism.

And sorry - I hate to go all "Beck-Hannity-Limbaugh" on you, but you have to understand - this is ridiculous.

And I'm really not the "I hate liberalism" type of guy. I disagree with it. I stand against it. I don't hate it, though, nor do I hate those that lean in this direction politically.

But, we have yet another example of what frustrates me so.

A series of questions:

Why is it that when we get mainstream liberal messaging such as homosexual parenting ("Jimmy has Two Mommies", for instance) or other alternative lifestyles, there is an argument that roundly states that America must foster this messaging for the good of diversity, even if it means promoting books about gay penguins to kindergarten and 1st grade students in public schools? (And, it should be noted, schools that still fall woefully short on historical books such as the Buffalo Soldiers and other civil rights pioneers.)

Not that I'm trying to prohibit any Americans from their right to free speech as long as it does not physically harm anyone. At the same time, I don't want or need a barrage of messaging going directly to my children at school on issues that are socially controversial or complex. I can do that explanation for them, as I should as a father.

Now, why is it that when it's time to hear the other side of a story - a perspective that leans conservative - there becomes a threat to safety and personal liberty that must be stopped in its tracks.

We hear that civil rights will be rolled back decades if a conservative perspective is shared. We hear that people's rights will be trampled upon if we allow free speech in this instance to be voiced.

In many ways, it ends up becoming an "I love America...but only when it's the America I want" type of situation.

Such is the case coming from the Tim Tebow inspirational story that is becoming a symbol of fervor against the pro-life.

For those of you that don't know the story, it's pretty simple to explain:

Tim Tebow's mother was overseas as a missionary when she contracted an illness that made her pregnancy in 1987 a high-risk one. After being advised to terminate the pregnancy, Mrs. Tebow and her family decided to go forward with the pregnancy due to their Christian beliefs.

The baby that was born of that decision was Tim Tebow, an award-winning and 2-time NCAA champion football player. And, from all accounts, that's the low side of his accomplishments. Known as a proud Christian and a gentleman, Tebow is roundly respected in sports circles for his manner with disadvantaged children, his affability with the media and with opponents, and his leadership within his team.

All Tebow wants to do in a 30-second ad is tell his story as an encouragement for women to consider decisions other than abortion when pregnant, a move that is a lot less powerful than multiple Planned Parenthood buildings standing in urban centers throughout the nation as symbols encouraging women to make that opposite choice.

Yet, to protesters, this move by Tebow and Focus on the Family is a threat to their rights as Americans and a violation of broadcast integrity during the Super Bowl.

Somewhere, Rush Limbaugh is surely yet sadly calling someone a femi-nazi even as I type.

I disagree with his terminology, but I agree with his sentiment 100%.

Only in America can we defend a woman's right to choose while bashing another's right to give both sides of that very complex issue. And regardless of what people want to say about this, it does boil down to liberalism vs. conservatism in a way that makes people draw lines in the sand and refuse to acquiesce to our collective Americanism. The clear contradiction of the left comes across as a response that one would expect from a group of spoiled second graders that are upset that the first graders also got a chance to go on the special field trip that they just returned from. For all of the screaming and anger, there is a clear principle that is being ignored by these protesters from the left: that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander, particularly when it comes to the court of public opinion.

How is it that we can now be at a point of time in America where we can be blitzed with gay characters in prime time dramas, sitcoms, and other avenues in the media on a regular basis - complete with intimate scenes - and not be able to tolerate the social opposite? Again, conservatives are told repeatedly to learn tolerance (which, for the record, I believe in as being accordance with the "love your neighbor as yourself" commandment that many on the Christian right conveniently forget about when addressing these issues), but those following alternative lifestyles are not held to remembering what they truly are: alternative lifestyles. They are not the mainstream. They are not the norm.

Life is, however, and a celebration of a difficult choice and a success story that follows from it is nothing to be scared of.

The same liberalism that wants to prevent this ad from running during the Super Bowl and wants to promote abortion rights without supporting women's right to choose (and, that does include choosing life, not abortion) would continue to block fair debates on complex issues, erect left-leaning institutions in communities that do not need such on-going "influence", and potentially snuff out lives.

This is an issue that is close to home for me. 15 years prior to Tebow's birth, I had a similar story.

My late mother and I were dying while I was being born, a result of my mother's undiagnosed diabetes and me being more than 2 weeks overdue; (I was supposed to be a Christmas baby.) In the midst of childbirth, monitors indicated that my mother and I were suffering greatly during the birthing process. Due to my size (I was born at 10 pounds), my breathing was cut off and my head was being crushed. The stress from the complication caused my mother to have life-threatening issues. Both of our heart rates dropped considerably.

The doctor came out to consult with my father about a painful decision he was giving him to make: save the wife and try again to have another child or save the child at the strong risk that the wife may die.

My father took the third option: go save both the wife (my mother) and the baby (me.)

Perplexed that my father's decision did not include "choice" but only included life, the doctor returned - and we both lived to tell about it.

Not that I'll ever win a Heisman Trophy or throw a collegiate touchdown pass, but I am glad to be here :-)

In a land where life , liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is celebrated as a constitutional right and a backbone statement from our Declaration of Independence, it is puzzling that so many on the left would argue to celebrate choices from abortion that honor the opposite while working so hard to prevent the pursuit of happiness through the choice of life, even in the same annuals of media that their alternative messages have been constitutionally-protected to survive in. Again, I have nothing against the right to hear about alternatives, but I will never stand for the protection of alternatives at the risk of destroying the standards - and, in this instance, if the alternative is abortion through choice, the standard is life.

If the aftermath of abortion - the resentment of lost fathers, the regret by lost mothers, the pain of blotched or repeated procedures - is cast aside by these same liberal organizations in their quest to promote their social agendas, why must the conservative side of the coin do the same by casting aside the joy of choosing life and allowing God the opportunity to present His Glory in what initially appears to be a downturn in one's journey? At some point, if America is going to return to its glory as a nation, it must begin to return to the glory of standards, even as we protect the rights of those from an alternative point of view.

If we can use television to celebrate Super Bowl touchdowns, diversity, alternative lifestyles, and diverging political points of view, why can't we use the greatest American television stage to celebrate the greatest gift we have all received: life?

It may not be politically correct for some, but I'd love to hear an amen to that.

Standing in Congress vs Standing for America

2010-01-26T21:30:00.013-05:00

Monday, January 25, 2010

It's funny...well, not really.

If the Congressional leaders that stand behind President Obama on Wednesday night during the State of the Union Address were more concerned with standing for Americans instead of merely standing up for partisan unity or presidential presence, perhaps the nation would not be as far behind on the path to recovery as it is today.

Wednesday's State of the Union address will probably not include much of the language that President Obama mentioned in his speech to Ohio residents after the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts - namely, that he is willing to take his lumps as president. However, many of those lumps have come from friendly fire as the Democrats have taken their focus away from the primary issues as defined by the American people (jobs) in order to chase pet projects that have become their legislative Moby Dick (universal health care.)

Starting Wednesday, the Democrats will need to do a better job of listening more to the American people. Despite what many left-leaning politicos will say, the supermajority of 2009 was lost in 2010 because of the Democrats' inability to balance the ambition of congressional leaders with the will of most Americans. Some of the failures of the Democrats throughout 2009 have come from overreach by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, risk-taking that led to questionable behavior including the "Cornhusker Kickback" and the "Louisiana Purchase." Instead of standing up for Americans to promote a better and unified nation, they took a stand in order to promote their ideas and avenues for actions.

Sadly, the Democrats did more to follow the lead of the Republican congresses before them this decade and look to please themselves over standing up for the nation while in office. Ironically, the Democrats are the party that is seen as more populist - or, at least, it was seen that way from 2006 through last year. Perhaps bipartisanship leadership - not supermajority status - will make the difference and allow 2010 to be the year where Congress does more for the American people than spend more money, do less for everyday Americans, and invoke President Bush's legacy repeatedly as a cause for their shortcomings.

One MLK Day, Two Needed Messages...

2010-01-26T14:42:00.007-05:00

Monday, January 18, 2010

(The following are speeches given during MLK Day events in Florida)

Lenny McAllister: MLK Day Celebration in Ocala, FL (2010 January 18 (“MLK Day, Furthering The Dream of Yesterday, and Waking Up for a Better Future”))

People may wonder why it was important to me to come with prepared words to address you today. Many of you may state – and rightfully so- that we gather today to honor the accomplishments of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a man that was moved by the Spirit to move a nation towards a better way of life. And you would be right – Dr. King was a man that used his connection to the Holy Spirit to dare to have The Dream. At the same time, my fellow Americans, he also had action items, and without action items – along with a network of leaders and fellow dreamers – we would not have a MLK Day each year and chances are that we would not have the expression of civil rights that we enjoy today. Therefore, I come to you with action items to further Dr. King’s dream and ask that we honor the man and his memory with more than just talk of dreams.

President Lincoln used a speech that started “4 score and 7 years ago” in order to call his beleaguered countrymen to continue their march towards unity of our nation during its most trying hour. Now, here we come today, 2 score and 7 years past the date of Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, speaking up in order to call our beleaguered communities to act so that we can continue our march towards equal rights as Americans, equal opportunities as contributors to our nation, and equal kindred in the brotherhood of prosperity and visionary leadership of this great land.

King’s efforts and sacrifices came those scores of years ago, but our time to continue his accomplishments and dream is right now. It is before us here in the Sunshine State. It is in our hands in each state of Lincoln’s Union.

Without the sustained march towards realizing the fullest details of King’s Dream, we are hampered in our march towards bettering our fellow man. Although we are capable and encouraged to help the victims in Haiti through the epic tragedy they are incurring, we are limited in restoring their communities if we lag behind in our societal, educational, and economic potential here in America. Although it is best to encourage and mentor our schoolchildren today with the pursuits of their youth, we are limited in leading our children into a prosperous future if we impede our discipline, communicative channels, and networking relationships that could make the difference in their lives with limiting stereotypes, outdated misunderstandings, and esteem for others and ourselves. Although we are free from slavery, Jim Crow, and many glass ceilings from the American past, we are boxed into probabilities of failure and disappointment if we are not willing to actively work towards being freer than the previous generation, healthier than we were just a year ago, and better than we were just yesterday.

Dr. King worked aside a network of leaders and everyday Americans. He came at a time when America needed a dream – a new vision for what the United States could be once united past the impediments of racism and self-limitations. He came with a Dream that talked about his children being equal but spoke to America about opening up its potential to becoming a superpower of wealth, might, and ethical esteem throughout the world by shedding its racism of the past and embracing the moment to be historic.

President Lincoln had Americans such as Frederick Douglass to push him to greater heights as the Great Emancipator, just as Dr. King had Freedom Fighters and others that believed in the push for Civil Rights.

Lincoln noted change “4 score and 7 years ago” during his time in Gettysburg to reunite America. King told us 2 score and 7 years ago that he had a dream for a better time for America.

Today, I say that it is time to even the scores throughout America.

It is time for us to even the scores of our schoolchildren with others as they have fallen behind other American children in the classroom. It is time to demand better facilities, better teachers, and better school options with our tax money. A better educated child will be a more active citizen in our communities and a source of pride for Black America as an adult.

It is time for us to even the scores in the job market, as African-Americans are still more likely to be last-hired and first-fired. It is time to even the playing field, one that today sees that Black men are twice as likely to be unemployed with college degrees as other American men with similar levels of education. It is time to ensure that equality is not just a slogan from the past, but it is an umbrella promise for the future for all Americans.

It is time for us to even the scores and lessen the rate of disease, disillusionment, and even death at our own hands. It is time to even the scores within the fields of health care, crime, and chivalry once again with other Americans. It is time for us to stop killing each other with our diets. It is time for us to stop killing each other with weapons. It is time to stop killing each other’s esteem with disrespect for our women. It is time for Black pride to rise up through teaching Black love, Black self-respect, Black family unity, and Black chivalry and stop speaking solely with a tone of blaming others, looking outside our communities for solutions, and embracing sub-standard realities for our children and grandchildren. King led the disadvantaged towards equality with self-empowerment. We must do the same today.

Dr. King spoke of a Dream for all of America, but he knew that he would take action within Black America for this dream to become reality. Therefore, if we are to take one thing from this MLK Day, I ask that it be this:

If Dr. King dared us to collectively Dream along with him, we must now be called to collectively wake up to honor him.

Wake up, brothers and sisters, and act towards better educational opportunities for our children immediately. Do not allow the continuing failure of the school system in our communities to continue to be the box that limits our children’s futures. The status quo of educational poverty must be replaced with a quid pro quo system that rewards educational freedom for our children and nothing else, not political allegiances or backroom deals that cut us out. Be involved as volunteers, as mentors, and as civic activists so that our children receive an education, not just schooling.

Wake up, brothers and sisters, and act towards better quality of life within Black America. Regardless of the health care fight in Washington, if we are unwilling to stop the violence against our bodies with our diets, with our physical confrontations, and with our inactivity, we will always stay behind the health care curve. Wake up to live lest we continue to die prematurely in our sleep. The time is now to change our daily habits so that we change our daily experiences.

Wake up, brothers and sisters, and act towards health care justice for Black America, making sure that we are not the most murdered in the womb and the fastest to lay in the tomb.

Wake up, brothers and sisters, and act towards embracing economic opportunities, equality, and prosperity in America. Embrace Americanism – economically, socially, and historically – with tenacity and insight. This is your nation, too – fully. The red represents our ancestors’ sacrifice. The blue represents the depth of talent that we can contribute to America’s improvement. The white represents the brightness of our future – together - should we remain engaged in upholding America - together.

There was a time for Dr. King to be historic and Dream. It is now our time to be historic and wake up into action.

If you have not contributed or volunteered to improve our communities, do so now. If you already do contribute, thank you – for now, it is time for us to do more. We must be involved in educational changes, economic changes, and personal changes daily if we are going to wake up from crisis and return to the highest pursuit of Dr. King’s Dream.

As I have written in my book, America will only be all that we can be with smaller government along with bigger people. That applies so much more to Black America and the crisis we face today in our communities.

It was a time to dream. Now, it is time to wake up and DO!

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was one of those bigger people when he gave us a Dream to chase after.

Now, we must be those bigger people by waking up into action so that the American Dream – along with Dr. King’s Dream – can become a greater reality for us all.

Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Dr. King, for your love. And thank you all for what you do to improve our communities, save our children, and strengthen our nation. God Bless you all and God Bless the United States of America.

Lenny McAllister: Ocala Tea Party (2010 January 18 (“Martin Luther King Was a Tea Party Patriot”))

Good afternoon, Tea Party Patriots.

Thank you for the invitation to address you this afternoon. In a region that is part of the Sunshine State, it is refreshing to see the sunshine reflecting off of your faces today. It is a clear sign that more Americans are becoming engaged with the political processes of their communities and less likely to tolerate a government that has gone on far too long without a true sense of accountability to the Constitution of the United States, the memory of our founding fathers, and the will of a representative republic constituted by one simple phrase: We, The People.

Today, we gather here to protest the direction of government on a day where the nation commemorates the successes of one of its greatest protestors – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Like you, Dr. King saw the need for a change in how our society and government worked in his day, just as we do now. Like you, Dr. King did not wait for others to make a difference in the world – he believed in the power of people over the power of government. Like you, Dr. King saw the vision of a better America coming through the application of our unique constitution, one that guarantees the enjoyment of inalienable rights from God alone, not through false promises through expansive government that taxes us plenty to give us little. Dr. King knew that holding America to its credos as listed in our Constitution was the way to ensure equality. Just the same, we stand here today knowing that holding our current elected officials to the tenets of representative government is the way to scale back the waywardness in spending and backroom deals that we have seen in Washington, allowing us to regain the effectiveness of our collective voice in government.

In his time, Dr. King stepped outside of societal norms to change the way society operated. That is how he led the Civil Rights Movement.

In our time – right here, right now – we must step outside of politics as normal in order to change the way our government works. That is how we will lead our nation back on track and ensure that America will be a world leader for generations to come.

Dr. King led a movement of people that reclaimed the American Dream 50 years ago. You – the people of the Tea Party movement – are the current leaders that will help reclaim the American Dream for the next 50 years. King fought the good fight against government for American equality for us. Today, we fight the good fight against government for American prosperity for all.

Because of the King example that you are following, if someone comes to you and says that it was inappropriate to have a tea party today or that it was not in line with the message of Dr. Martin Luther King to protest government today, I implore you to remind them with respect that Dr. King rallied against government that restricted personal liberties, just as you are doing today. Remind them that Dr. King marched against laws that contradicted the Constitution, just as you are doing today. Remind them that Dr. King was also called a rabble-rouser, a trouble maker, and a radical without a cause, just as you are called today.

Those that think that you dishonor the memory of Dr. King by speaking out against the continuation of the abomination in Washington on MLK Day obviously do not see one simple fact: that Martin Luther King was a 20th century Tea Party Patriot.
Yes, he was – from protesting for a reality that was needed in America before others joined the fight to believing that the Constitution was a time-honored document to be followed by government, not ignored by contemporary politicians chasing partisan glory, big-money contributions, or political philosophies.

And as a Tea Party Patriot, Dr. King would encourage you to protest your government until your government fulfills the obligations enumerated in the founding laws of the land.

He would tell us something that we already know: change will come, but positive, American change will not come from free-spending politicians or big-government program. It will never come from more taxation or from more spending. It will come from the collective power of the people, not a powerful collection of politicians.

With the power of the people, change for the better does come. We have examples on both sides of the political aisle throughout American history.

Ronald Reagan started his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, a town historically marred by a low point in the Civil Rights fight. Yet, it was the same man – later as President Reagan – that signed into law the Martin Luther King national holiday that we celebrate today.

The Democratic Party was the party that fought for segregation against African-Americans throughout the Civil Rights era of the 20th century. Yet, it was that same Democratic Party that nominated, then supported the first Black president of the United States.

So yes, change does comes, but it only comes through the persistence of the people - people that work through obstacles of name-calling, disenfranchisement, and discouragement from the status quo to remind us of what is right, what is best, and what is American.

Tea Party people today: with your protests against the outrageous spending that is burdening our children and grandchildren with global debt, you are reminding us of doing what is right.

With your demands that we return the government to the will of the people through smaller, representative government that fosters bigger opportunities for everyday Americans, you are reminding us of what is best.

With your persistence to make your voices heard again and again, regardless of race, gender, socioeconomics, political affiliation, or location, you are reminding us of what is truly American.

You exemplify freedom of assembly. You extol the merits of freedom of speech. You make possible the freedom to prosper.

You are reminding us of what is truly American at a time when the leadership in Washington continues to moves us past a point of recognizing what made this nation so great for so many years.

We now see the desire to be popular with our enemies overseas and be seen as fair by those that attack Americans supersede the obligation of our president and his administration to put the safety of the American people first and foremost. It is time for us – the people of the United States – to remind our elected leadership in Washington that while understanding the human rights of terrorists may hold ethical merit, upholding civil rights of terrorists is unfounded at a time when giving terrorists American criminal rights in court is more important to this administration than getting the needed information to keep Americans safe in the war on terror.

2010 is the year to say clearly and continuously:

Mr. President – prioritize protecting Americans over protecting your reputation around the world.

Mr. President – the prize of a peaceful and safe American homeland will always be worth more than your Nobel Peace Prize.

Mr. President – allow us to claim victory in this war on terror without any campaign timetables before the terrorists claim any more lives.

Mr. President – you are called to be a commander-in-chief to protect our homeland from these attacks, not be a commander-in-thief in taking the nation into unmanageable debt with unsuccessful stimulus packages, cash-for-clunker schemes to uphold the broken and stubborn business model of American automakers, and a questionable national health care plan while unemployment stays unbearable and everyday Americans stay anxious about their prospects for recovery.

We cannot and will not spend our way out of this recession. Big government spending never solved our problems. American brainpower and elbow grease always have.

And that is why it is up to us.

It is up to us, fellow patriots, to remind our government that spending our tax dollars to give us more only ensures us that our government will come around for more of our tax dollars. Taxation does not ensure the prosperity of a nation. Innovation does. Commitment does. Education does. Emancipation of the people does.

Yet, we have watched billions given to banks that asked for money to unfreeze the credit market for Americans, only to watch them freeze out everyday Americans from the rebound that Wall Street experienced over the past several months. Banks have played a corrupt game of us versus them in American business, just as American career politicians have played a continuing game of us versus them in American politics for years.

It is up to us, fellow patriots – today and now – to tell these businesses that horde American prosperity with off-shoring and outsourcing during good times and taxpayer-funded bailouts during bad times that the American taxpayer is not a pawn in your personal game of greed. Without hardworking Americans to pay your goods, Mr. AIG, you are good for nothing. Everyday Americans – and their children and grandchildren – bailed you out of your mire of greed and dysfunction that led to the financial crisis, only for you to spend it on bonuses based on your incompetency. Now it is time for you to work to beat back the rising rate of unemployment. Your profit margins can only be maximized through optimizing American prosperity – and that comes only through American jobs, American workers, and American products being made in the United States of America, sold throughout the world, and winning in the global markets just as we have done for decades. I believe in the American worker – it is time that you believe in him again as well.

Big and unresponsive government restricts American workmanship. Efficient and representative government empowers it – and protects us and our prosperity. We have the talent and the willpower. I believe in the USA. It is our time to make sure that our government acts that way as well.

It is up to us, fellow patriots – today and now – to tell these politicians that our history of republican government of the people is not a roadmap for their individual fame and glory, but a structure guiding the freedom and prosperity for a nation of millions. The 4 walls of government were not built for their comfort in making illicit backroom deals to pass billion-dollar legislation with diminishing benefits for the American people. Those rooms are to be used to empower American ingenuity, encourage private solutions without increased government limitations, and invigorate the economic, social, and personal wealth of Americans – not entrench career politicians into office, particularly those that have forgotten that they serve the American people, not the other way around. It is up to us to say to these politicians in 2010 – change is going to come. Either you will change your ways of spending and of handling the business of government starting in January, or you will be surely be changing your location of business after November.

It is up to us, fellow patriots, to do more than just protest, however. Just as Dr. King did, we must protest and be proactive – we must dream while being diligent with our desires. As a politician, I could tell you what party to be involved with, but as an American, I must implore you to be involved regardless of party affiliation. The mindless servant of politics is the person that does not have an active constituency to be mindful of. That part is up to us today – we must be mindful of our role to stay active in the process if we expect the political process and its participants to stay mindful of our high standards and our historical obligations between government and those that truly govern – we the people of the United States.

Be not discouraged, patriots. This seems like a daunting task, but Americans have faced grim realities before throughout our history and have always created greater realities for themselves in the end.

Only in the United States of America can the rich run for the highest offices of the land, only to be defeated at the hands of the poorest voters at the polls. America was never about the royalty of a few but the prosperity of a nation. With your efforts in elections, in town hall meetings, in local government debates, and in building alliances with your neighbors every day, you can reincorporate the everyday American into the fabric of politics every day. A government focused on taxing and spending is solely concerned about your money. A nation focused on your talents and liberty is focused on your patriotism, your desire to work hard and contribute, and your ability to rebuild America. With you, we make our country less about our government and more about our countrymen and women, the people that our government works for.

Only in the United States of America can the competition of business ideas, the competition of schools and their offerings, and the competition of products across state lines make for a better overall system for us all. We embrace diversity, we encourage healthy debate, and we foster a way of life that says that no one group should dominate based on numbers alone, but should lead with the best ideas and the best models for leadership. Health care reform should not come in America by way of the Democrats have 60 senators; it must come through the sharing of bipartisan ideas that embrace the American spirit of competition of choice, business innovation to drive down cost, and the knowledge that government that dictates how to provide health care can also decide when health care is no longer available based on bureaucratic urges and statistical conclusions.

Freedom – whether it is in health care, in educational opportunities, or from societal restraints – can never be taxed and sold, nor can it be purchased in backroom deals and corrupt conference meetings. It is earned with our patriotism. It is earned with our engagement with the issues. It is bonded with our love for every good thing that America stands for as a unique presence in the world. It is through that promise of hope – not the false promise of free health care – that America shines as the city on a hill throughout the global community.

American health care reform will not come from taxation in 2010 without implementation for years down the road. The sanctity of life is too precious for that, despite what Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi will tell you. Health care reform will come from listening to the American people and giving us what we want – more control of our choices, less costs for service and goods, and the same quality of access and care that we enjoy today. Freedom of choice and quality of service will only be gained the same way as it always has been – through free market enterprise…the beauty of the American way of life.

It is up to us, fellow patriots, to be the change that we can believe in, not the lack of change that we have seen in Washington. It is up to us, fellow Americans, to be the primers of change through our willingness to protest and educate and through our persistence to be involved and be heard. Being a rabble-rouser or being on television means nothing if we are not then ready to be a force with our representatives in Washington, Tallahassee, and points of government in between.

We celebrate the accomplishments of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. today because he was willing to be historic at a time when doing so was a threat against his life.

We protest today against the efforts of a tax-and-spend, minimally-effective government because of its threats against our liberty.

We must dare to be historic today and throughout 2010 because without our constant action as respectful activists, candidates, speakers, and citizens, we incur a major obstacle in our collective pursuit of happiness.

The Constitution calls on us to be amenable to these inalienable rights, but the times call on us to be historic to protect these inalienable rights. As I have mentioned in my book, America is in need of recovering through smaller government and bigger people. That means that you are the giants that our nation needs to stop the gigantic debt mounting in Washington. You are the giants that we need to raise the accountability to stop the huge push for a system of change that America has not bargained for. You are the giants to rein in a system that stopped listening to America previously, but now hears your voices loud and clear today.

Be the change.

Be historic.

Be not afraid and be not deterred.

In the face of civil rights challenges, Dr. King was a giant that overcame the negativity, name-calling, and discouragement to beat back government and provide a better way for us all in the 20th century.

In the face of mounting personal restrictions and intense debt, you are the giants to overcome the name-calling and discouragement to beat back government into its rightful place and provide a better way for us all in the 21st century.

So I say:

Be historic.

Be the change.

Be what Dr. King was before you: a protesting patriot with a vision for tomorrow, an unyielding passion for America and equality, and a refusal to stop until life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was once again safe and sound in America in his time.

This is now our calling and this is now our time. Let’s do this – together.

Let’s be historic. What do you say? Are you with me?

The time is now. Let’s be historic.

Thank you for this opportunity. Stay involved with what you do.
God Bless you all and God Bless the United States of America.

Was “Change” Worth It?

2010-01-25T18:10:00.007-05:00

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Two historical candidates bucked the odds and brought change to the two major parties in the nation 12 months ago. But with mounting criticism and public missteps, has change been worth it so far?

Just 12 months ago, there was so much to be proud of for Black America - from both sides of the political aisle.

President Obama was underdog candidate-turned-history’s darling, becoming the 44th president of the United States and the first African-American to garner the post. As president, Mr. Obama would also hold the title of the de facto head of the Democratic Party. He did so after fending off political legacy (e.g., Hillary Clinton) and tenure (e.g., Joe Biden) within his own party before defeating a war hero and a cult hero (e.g., John McCain and Sarah Palin, respectively) in the general election.

Entering into office just mere weeks later was another underdog candidate: Michael Steele, former lieutenant governor of Maryland. After 6 rounds of voting, the former head of GOPAC became the head of the Republican National Committee, head of a grand old party of conservatives best known for being “too old”, losing national affluence, and sustaining Southern Strategy over the past several decades.

Both promised changes for the better – for their parties and for our nation, particularly for America’s up-and-coming generations.

After 12 months, much of the change that we can hope for at this point is a change in perception and direction. However, some of the criticism of both men has been unfair.

Despite both being attorneys, no lawyer without the last name of Cochran could hope to deal with such a tangled web of self-incriminating behavior and bloody debauchery as President Obama and Chairman Steele have been required to over the course of the past 12 months.

Obama and Steele needed to act aggressively to the crises before them, admirable choices that are often forgotten about as both have endured hiccups along the way. In winning as telegenic and affable candidates that found connectivity with young audiences, both men discovered that they overestimated the power of their personality and celebrity (i.e., their “political capital”) to re-direct their teams’ efforts while concurrently perhaps underestimating the severity of the problems facing them as leaders. This immense pressure to make immediate changes under these conditions impacted these men into missteps and miscalculations mixing in some victories during the course of 2009.

In the case of Obama, the 44th president came into office at a time when the nation was at the precipice of major financial collapse, forcing him to act to turn around the increasing joblessness, lack of access to credit, and void in consumer confidence and activity. Despite his affection for President Lincoln, President Obama was not able to follow his lead of uniting the nation under one common cause nor was he able to follow the lead of other presidents (Reagan and GW Bush immediately after 9/11) in creating financial policy that would turn around the economy. Instead, Obama followed his precedent of choice (FDR) without stemming unemployment at 8% (some estimates have the true number as high as 17% and upwards of 25% in some Black communities) or influencing at-risk financial institutions to filter TARP-given funds to the American public to unfreeze credit and stimulate the economy. Further, his willingness to allow Congressional leaders to steer legislation has led to a backlash against his stimulus package and health care reform initiatives, leading to protests nationally and dropping presidential (and Democratic) approval ratings.

In the case of Steele, his experience and media presence have not translated into immediate changes to transform the image of the RNC. Perceived in-fighting with conservative pundits such as Rush Limbaugh (folks that, ironically, do not consider themselves Republicans) and reported conflicts with some old-school Republicans hampered Steele’s ability to broaden the base of the Republican Party and fully leverage the energy of the conservative Tea Party movement, thus leading to continued perceptions that the Republicans and Tea Party goers have remained the same non-diverse activists that many remember from the delegate floor of the 2008 Republican National Convention.

Regardless of the frustrations, the results are indicting but not an indictment yet as their terms are not complete. Further, it is not as though both have had the total support that they require for such a historical job.

For Steele, overcoming the decades-old GOP banter with Southern Strategy (along with Republican experiences that they can win national elections without diversity) and without the newest trends in technology is not a job that will be won overnight. Crafting a new image of the Republican Party (one that is more in-line with its history and Steele’s new vision of conservative inclusion) comes that much harder when Republican insiders continued racist behavior throughout the year, including those working for elected officials in South Carolina and Tennessee. Steele’s verbal gaffes can be overlooked when focusing on the greater picture: Steele has yet to receive the fortified support of Republicans in their efforts to retake seats in Congress and diversify the party, despite a shift back towards Republican candidates (according to major polls), the upsurge of African-American and minority leadership within Republican circles, and major victories in Virginia and New Jersey – all on his watch.

Just the same, President Obama has not received any favors from his Democratic compatriots during his first 12 months. Many were quick to note Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst during the president’s health care speech in September, but fewer remember Obama’s call for congressional leaders to consider Republican health care reform ideas into the final legislation. The president’s critics have been as unwilling to overlook presidential gaffes such as the “Beer Summit” about as much as the Democrats were willing to overlook the president’s directive from that September speech, instead looking to their Democratic supermajority for non-transparent guidance. Further, Harry Reid’s most recent behavior – between his comments about “Negro dialect” and his willingness to purchase the votes of Landrieu and Nelson during the health care debate in the Senate – was one example of many that single-handedly tarnished much of the Obama Promise: a change in the culture of Washington under his administration. Still the same, the president has been able to pass some major legislation, but only because he has been forced to abandon the bi-partisanship that he campaigned on (but has not delivered to date.)

The beauty with history-making figures, though, is that because they have broken the mold, they are capable of creating any mold to fit a new and changing time should they have the courage to grasp the times and ignore the critics, including those within their own camp. It would seem that the two well-intended men made Black America proud with the rise to leadership in 2009, only to bruise their reputations (and perhaps their egos as well) as obstacles both foreseen and others cropped up during a major portion of their tenure. Both still have to time to claim success and carve a legacy of positive American political history for themselves. Better team-building with reliable, talented, and visionary leaders that these men can mentor to, partner with, and be challenged by will be key in determining whether these men will make the most out of year 2 of their leaderships of the major political parties of the nation.

Can both be winners in 2010? Probably not as they oppose each other politically. However, with increased support, tweaking of their methodology and support teams, and insight from 2009, they can both make Black American proud while fostering improvements in America, thus turning around the mixed results under their watches in 2009.

If so, change will be worth it after all.

Unnecessary Casualties of The Culture War

2010-01-13T11:48:00.006-05:00

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

I mentioned this to people numerous times, and I meant it every single time.

The Republican Party is in the midst of a culture war as it fights to become relevant with everyday Americans – and bolster its image (and presence) as a national electoral force in a nation of ever-shifting demographics.

In that war, there will be casualties, including ones that may cost the Republicans a lot more than they are willing to spend in 2010.

One proposed name at the top of the casualty list: Chairman Michael Steele - its leader, first Black chairman of the RNC, and one of the best opportunities to diversify a party that is seen as being too old, too detached, and too exclusive for today's America.

The image may be of Ali decades ago, but today, Michael Steele is one Black man in America dodging a lot of arrows and attacks from all directions, both deservedly and otherwise.

"...honest Injun..."

For all of the admitted verbal gaffes (including the chairman's misstep last week as quoted above) and slow starts during the first 12 months of his term as chairman, one thing cannot be said about the former candidate for the United States Senate: he is not going to be accused of sitting around, not working to affect change for the GOP.

And - regardless of whether anyone wants to say it or not – that matters.

Ironically, the same passes that President Obama has gotten from his gaffes in the White House – from his team promoting him for a Nobel Peace Prize mere weeks into his presidency (and winning the prize despite a dearth of international accomplishments aside from a speech in Berlin) to the “Beer Summit Blunder” and now the “no Negro dialect” oversight – are not afforded to the chairman of the RNC despite many of the same dynamics coming into play.

There are reasons to disagree with the methods and directives of every leader, from Washington to Lincoln and from the Roosevelts to Reagan. However, when personal attacks come in the line of fire as America looks to pivot in accordance to the changing dynamics of the nation, it becomes more than about politics.

As is accurately true about some of the criticisms directed at President Obama, the same applies to Michael Steele.

Some folks just don’t want to see some types of change and will not stop until things…well…stop changing.

After winning the election after 6 rounds of voting, Michael Steele went to work as the new chairman of the RNC by looking to cut the legacy binds within the party, removing many people from the organization in an attempt to rebuild the party’s image into one that reflected more of how America looks in the 21st century.

Do you think that move made a lot of friends, regardless of how much people were saying on both sides of the aisle that the Republican Party looked too much like the “party of old, White men” and needed to change?

The culture war within the Republican Party – one that looks to morph its image and tolerance of other backgrounds while keeping its core principles intact (even in the aftermath of losing those principles over the past decade) – began in earnest 12 months ago once Steele’s victory made it clear that these changes would be coming, starting with the changes within the building. Even with all of the missteps, the tone within the RNC and the branding of conservatism changed in 2009 under Steele’s watch, a fact that very few want to attribute to him. Last year, the Party of Lincoln could speak with a chairman that attended the State of the Black Union and the NAACP Convention while speaking to the DC school voucher issue from a first-hand experience, not a one-off perspective that sounded conciliatory and foreign at best despite some of those that had the best of intentions.

The Republican Party’s history of Southern Strategy could not be argued against a man that stood in clear defiance of that legacy without saying a word.

Then again, things like Southern Strategy, the Jeremiah Wright ad, the Jesse Helms “quotas” ad, and the Willie Horton ad didn’t get out there on their own.

So, yes, there are forces that don’t quite want to see certain types of “change.”

Between the first Steele actions in office to his public missteps and statements, the move was on to make sure that those fighting change could control any further “change.”

The moves to limit the chairman’s ability to spend – a move not seen within RNC circles in some time, if ever.

The rhetoric about “overexposure” of the chairman on television – a call that seemingly ignored the impact that Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and others had on keeping minorities and others away from approaching the party with some of their own unique rhetoric.

The slight within Republican circles after the victories in New Jersey and Virginia – a snub that comes across more as an unwillingness to share the wealth of victory than it does a “truth-bearing initiative” on what happened last fall.

Now, the motion to donate all proceeds of Steele’s book to the RNC and its candidates – a move that screams “share the wealth” from a group of die-hard free market capitalists that reeks of the hypocrisy that hindered the GOP through the last decade and has made the brand an afterthought in 2006 and 2008.

Why am I saying this?

Because the question that everyone is thinking but many are afraid to ask still looms.

How much of these attacks on Steele are really about “poor” or “questionable” leadership?

How many others that could be in the chairman’s shoes would turn down book money at this point of time, particularly as precedent has been set for former chairmen to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars from outside interests? Think that should interests didn’t raise the risk as potential “distractions”?

How many chairmen would sit still and watch their spending power be attacked or limited?

How many other chairmen would be told – silently or otherwise – that his role was little to none in the surprise victories in Virginia and New Jersey without a rebuttal?

Change often does not come without struggle. Inclusion often is not the friend of legacy.

The RNC is in need of both change and inclusion in order to compete successfully in a 21st century America that has shifted its views on gender, race, power, wealth, and success. Without a successful push for inclusion, the conservative principles that the GOP espouses will be lost to a wave of left-leaning followers of the only major party that reflects their demographics, life experiences, and circle of influences.

Because the RNC needs change and inclusion, it will continue to incur bouts of struggle from certain pockets of legacy until the culture war is won. That battleground has its beachhead at the desk of Michael Steele, Esq.

Mind you – not every move that Michael Steele has made has been successful or appropriate. And for those “taking score”, not every Black Republican has been on the same exact page with Steele on every issue; (one example would reflect back to when the chairman publicly asked on CNN that some within the party should “…stop talking so much…” about the Audra Shay controversy with the YRNF – right as I continued to speak publicly about the damage that I felt such a candidate would do to the efforts and image of the Young Republicans.) Some battles will always be fought within large organizations full of diverse leaders. That should not change – in the RNC, the GOP, or elsewhere.

However, it’s not supposed to be about a top-down, legacy-driven mindset that will turn around the Republican Party. Conservatism and free-market principles dictate the best rising to the top. It supports healthy competition that will further the overall effort.

It does not destroy itself from within via greed, jealousy, and worse – unless if we’re applying free market principles to Wall Street.

Or maybe politics.

Whether intended or otherwise, the constant call for Steele’s head on a platter by some (yet not all) factions within the RNC does a lot less to rally the grassroots towards a stronger, more viable Republican Party for America. Instead, it harkens America’s imagination back to the glory days of the party from the past several decades, including many of its inglorious moments – intended or otherwise.

And the casualties of this culture war may bring with it collateral damage - namely, losing a prime opportunity to take back seats in 2010 and take back viability with American voters for a generation - if the Republican Party and the RNC doesn't rescind on its latest round of in-fighting.

Uncle Barack and Mister Reid

2010-01-12T08:08:00.016-05:00

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

To many, this is going to be a ridiculous rant, so please bear with me. You have to understand, to me, it's just as ridiculous as many people calling people such as myself "Uncle Toms" and "sellouts" for staying supportive of people that I know personally - just as President Obama has a habit of doing when it comes to issues of race.

Again, I'm admitting - this may come across as ridiculous to many of you, but go with me for just a second.

As it may come across as unfair or undeserved to many of us - just as those slurs seem uncalled for and undeserved to many Black conservatives when they are hurled by the left side of the political aisle - President Obama may be quickly gaining a reputation for being an Uncle Tom racial apologist for those that he caucuses with on the Democratic side of politics. Looking over his time on the national scene, Mr. Obama has a track record of overlooking racial slights whenever they come from his side of the house, while at the same time taking on an aggressive campaign to isolate and label folks such as Rush Limbaugh, conservative talk radio, and Fox News Network as racists and entities that promote hate throughout America (rightly or otherwise.)

And lest we not forget the racial interjection of President Obama that led him to the "Beer Summit,” either.

We slam those that stand with us but "forgive" (i.e., overlook) the racial slights that come from within our own ranks, Mr. President?

Some media outlets have accurately reported that the comment from Harry Reid was not the first time that President Obama has had to handle issues of racial disrespect within his own party - taking those opportunities to respond with interesting results.

For example, comments very similar to Senator Reid's remarks were attributed to then-Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, saying that Obama represented the "...the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy..." No offense to the other hundreds of mainstream African-American men that were capable of meeting these "requirements" and changing America - from Malcolm X to Dr. Martin Luther King to Thurgood Marshall to Colin Powell (never mind the countless attorneys, politicians, preachers, and businessmen that also have these qualities) - but, to Biden, this Obama must have seemed like a "...new type of Negro..."

How insulting, particularly when it comes from a man that later told the young (but apparently naive) presidential candidate that the presidency was not a "...(position) that lent itself to on-the-job training..."

Ouch!

So, after being called a "new type of Negro" (in essence) and being told that he was not ready to be president by this man, what does Mr. Obama do after overcoming the odds?

He makes him Vice President Biden.

Now, Harry Reid - a man that flippantly compared Civil Rights Legislation (one that prevented Black people from, among other things, from being denied the right to vote, continuing to endure savage beatings and torture, and living a legal second-rate citizenship) to the health care bill he was championing - now comes out in 2008 and equates Obama's chances as a presidential candidate as greater due to his “light-skinned” features and not having a “Negro dialect.”

Let’s overlook the fact that he is – along with many others over the course of the past 30 years (and, in many years, a lot longer than that) – Ivy-League-educated, multi-degreed, and published. Let’s overlook the fact that he was, after all, a United States senator at the time when he decided to run for president. Let’s overlook the fact that he overcame a lot of personal challenges in his life to become an attorney, a legislator, and a national figure.

No – let’s just focus on the fact that those qualities don’t give him the same access or shot that being “light-skinned” or being devoid of a “Negro dialect” will.

Obama’s response? Basically accepting an apology, calling Reid a reliable friend of his and a friend of America, and trying to put it behind him, even as many Democrats defend Reid by saying that the “light-skinned” comments were intended to be “complimentary” – an offense that Mr. Obama’s late father should shudder to hear if he were still walking this earth.

After months of insults from the Clinton camp – ranging from everything from then-Senator Clinton calling Obama a neophyte politician (similar to the remarks from Biden) and President Clinton’s now-infamous comments about Obama only being capable of “serving coffee” to him just a few years ago – President-elect Obama’s response to the vicious slams was to make Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State. That, of course, meant taking on the presidential luggage of Bill Clinton as well, baggage that now includes more racially-insensitive (or blatant racist) remarks from the “first Black president of the United States.”

And, perhaps, those are just good ol’ fashioned political bedfellows playing out.

Of course, that’s until you remember President Obama’s first fundraising tour as United States senator. That endeavor included stumping for Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a known former Klansman for decades.

Political bedfellows is one thing, but does an African-American candidate that won a senatorial election with 70% of the statewide vote need to turn around and campaign for someone that would have looked to hang his late father from a tree around the same time he was conceived in his late mother’s womb?

One thing is for certain – and Americans don’t want to talk about this aspect of the controversy with Harry Reid – it’s this: if a Black Republican (notably, a biracial Republican) would have had the gall to campaign for a known-Klansman so early after winning a historical seat, there is no way that he would have gained enough of Black America’s imagination, support, and votes to even consider running for the presidency in the 20 next years after his victory, let alone in the 20 months Obama turn his victory into a presidential campaign as a Democrat.

One has to wonder: would a biracial president that was a Republican be given the continual pass to overlook racial slights, jaded and antiquated racial ideologies, and divisive comments and viewpoints that equate into the “…well, you’re not really Black…” sentiment that many of us grew up with (and hoped to overcome as a society) that continues to create chasms within America and distrust among many of us?

The longer that President Obama picks and chooses when he wants to address perceived racial hatred and division (see the Tea Party outrage, the Fox News Freeze-out, and the Rush Limbaugh and conservative radio chronicles of this administration to date for examples), the more he comes across as the very stereotype that his counterpart in the RNC (Michael Steele) continues to hear as the head of the other major political party nationally. Obama’s willingness to jump into the racial fray over friends (Dr. Henry Louis Gates) or have the system do it when politically convenient (the Tea Party movement over the historic spending and government option debates last year) reeks of political opportunism and politics-as-usual when it contrasts with the president’s track record of lovingly “turning the other cheek” when similar disgusting comments come from his apparent allies in the Democratic Party.

People say that the president does not garner the respect he should because, in large part, it is due to Mr. Obama being Black. However, looking at issues such as this, it has as much to do with the willingness to flip-flop on his outrage to intolerance than it does with his extreme big-government policies and failure to deliver on the unity and prosperity domestically and internationally that his campaign was built upon. Regardless of history-making endeavors, the American people will not respect those unwilling to call to task their own when the same mistakes made by adversaries are subsequently made by allies. There’s a reason why people have my back when I speak to matters that impact our communities, particularly about race. It has much to do with my willingness to call out the Democrats’ inconsistencies with race just as I did with Audra Shay’s unfortunate stumbling during the Young Republican election in July 2009. It comes from my willingness to question what other civil leaders and I can do to improve the educational opportunities for poor Black children (and say that we are not doing enough to make more of a difference), even as I criticize President Obama for cutting funding to poor Black children for primary and secondary educational pursuits. It comes from being able to speak strongly at a tea party about the changes we need in government today while also being able to speak to some of the racist and hateful rhetoric that was spewed in a minority of events – and speaking to it directly.

President Obama does not speak to these things. He rode the wave as being the first Black president, yet has ducked from being Black at every chance he gets except when it’s politically prudent not to do so. The Harry Reid example appears to be another case in a track record of catering to political allies while overlooking the same racial stereotypical thinking that brands the Republicans as hateful, racist, and separatist – only when it’s convenient to ignore the poison coming from the left. Of course, all bets are off when shunning Michael Steele (as he did to the then-Lt. Governor of Maryland in 2005 when Steele reached out to befriend Obama) or condoning the hate-labeling when it’s done to those on the right (very often wrongly.)

Or, maybe not. Maybe it’s just a rant based off of a string of separate events that have no correlation to each other. Maybe it’s just a perception. But, you know what they say – in politics, perception is reality. And if this were perceived from the other side of the political fence, I know what the reality would be.

Then again, perhaps it would be best to drop these silly slurs and names in the first place, regardless of who is accused and where the accusations stem from.

Racing Through the Politics of Race

2010-01-11T23:36:00.008-05:00

Monday, January 11, 2010

Harry Reid's recent comments (actually, "recent" in this instance means 2008) concerning how the viability of President Obama's 2008 campaign was tied to him being "light-skinned" and without "Negro dialect" just shows yet again how much we are tied to issues of race in most - if not all - aspects of our society.

Even when we are not Black...Negro...or African-American.

Former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich's latest claim that he was "Blacker than Obama" brings the sentiment of race back to pay in yet another way. Not so long ago, the complaint about then-candidate Barack Obama was exactly that he was not Black enough for America. Now, you have well-known White men making that case, in effect saying that he was a viable candidate because, well, there were other White men that could be Blacker than he was.

And we heard that we were post-racial because of Obama’s victory?

Please. I will say this, though. The evidence is clear: race matters.

In the 21st century, racing through the politics of race has everything to do with perception of acceptance, not the reality of breaking down barriers that divide us. Sadly, the latest comments from two nationally-renowned Democrats only highlight this fact: that both sides of the aisle still have a propensity to celebrity diversity as a means to delineate culture for the benefit of gaining a political victory versus teaching future generations the best ways to be tolerant, accepting, and comfortable with societal changes.

The Obama Presidency – once thought to be the symbol that we have overcome our racial demons – may now indicate to us just how much we haven’t move past these obstacles at all.

Fair and Open? Talk about Faux News...

2010-01-11T22:21:00.016-05:00

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Funny - when people usually talk about "Faux News", it's a satirical take on the slanted viewpoint of the conservative-tilted network, Fox News. The criticism - often well deserved - comes from left-leaning followers of politics that find themselves reviling the opinions and stories that come from Fox News. To them, Fox News provides too much propaganda and not enough openness with all sides of the issues.

In light of the recent developments coming from the Obama Administration and the supermajority leadership in Washington, perhaps that moniker is best worn by those propagating falsehoods concerning the "open and fair debate" in Washington concerning health care reform that was supposed to epitomize the new era ushered in last January.

Just last week, word came from Capitol Hill that the president and congressional leaders would not invite top Republicans into private negotiations over the compromises that will shape the rest of the health care legislation proposed for passage early this year. Of course, this is a huge contrast to the "C-SPAN open" debates on health care that President Obama mentioned in earlier times. Perhaps it was the blowback that came at the town hall forums across the country during last summer or perhaps it is the fallout from repeated Republican pushback on Democrat-led bills since the beginning of last year. Whatever the case may be, this stands clear: that after successfully convincing Americans that government would be fairer and more open under Democrat-driven rule post-2008, the Democrats have consistently and repeatedly shut out a significant portion of American ideas and proposals simply based on political affiliations regardless of whether or not the solutions could improve America.

The lack of openness is more detrimental than just the broken promise of healing the heated partisan divide that America suffered in the media and beyond over the past decade or so. It goes back to reminding us of a painful reality that has yet to be addressed properly in Washington - namely, that both major political parties are full of leaders and support systems that are more interested in the power-grab that comes with winning elections than they are with service to the people and focus on the solutions needed for the nation, even if that means coming up with appropriate compromises with viable ideas from rival American leaders.

After all - it is still one big nation, working together for common goals, right?

And that is what has preached by the Obama Team in 2008 but has been constantly overlooked since Barack Obama became president #44. The inability (and, now, apparent unwillingness) of the new administration to harken to this sentiment during such a critical time in American history only reeks of more political deception and pandering than it resembles any sort of true leadership. Through the first quarter of this presidency, there has not been enough chance-taking outside of the party structure set for #44, a clear break from the gameplan set by Candidate Obama that now has led to unpopular and unsuccessful spending programs from Washington that has had minimal impact on turning around the economy, unfreezing the credit market, and putting more Americans back to work. This direction - if appplied to the health care reform initiative - will only have similar results in 2010 to what we have seen in 2009: one-party-driven legislation that ratchets up America's debt while hampering the recovery for Americans across the land.

Why Fume over Hume?

2010-01-06T11:32:00.016-05:00

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

I heard the comment on Sunday. I didn't think anything of it.

Then, I started looking around at the folks upset with the inference.

Geez. Really?

The comment from Fox News political commentator Brit Hume concerning the troubles of Tiger Woods was not the culturalist, mean-spirited, and naughty sentiment that many (and, yes, I'll say it - most of them on the political left) are saying that it was.

Usually, I'm not in the choir of people actively saying that proud Christianity is not welcome in America anymore, but situations such as this one making me rethink the issue.

Only in the Land of the Free, the Home of the Brave, and the original Bastion for Religious Expression can a man's honest advice as an older, proud Christian get so much flak as a nose-thumbing culturalist.

To those that are taking the position that Brit Hume meant hurt or was looking down his nose at Tiger Woods by suggesting that he should consider switching from Buddhism to Christianity in order to help get his life back in order should heed this:

C'mon, folks.

And yes, that includes you, too, Mr. Stewart, although your wit more often is served to prove a point rather than be malicious.

Duly noted, but have we lost the ability of older Americans to be able to impart on us items and actions from their experiences that helped them along the way?

Any believer that practices a religion will compassionately offer assistance to those that are suffering life challenges (self-inflicted or otherwise.) Furthermore, anyone that gives their spiritual energy and time (and, in many cases, financial resources) to a religious institution such as Christianity will carry the de facto belief that their faith is the best. At a time of need, they are going to offer the best that they can in order to help, even from afar. Hume's sentiments on Fox News Sunday this week does not lend to the cultural (or religious) elitism that many felt that it did.

Organizations such as Alcoholics Anonymous and others use the Christian faith to successfully turn around the lives of addicts everyday, using the principles of the faith in order to help previously non-practicing Christians and non-Christians alike to pry folks away from the grip of addiction. From the sounds of reports, it seems as though Mr. Woods may have an issue or two with addiction. What else would cause someone to intentionally sabotage a billion-dollar, self-made, one-man industry? There's not that much pride in the world to cause someone to be that reckless.

And that leads to the point that Hume was alluding to when he made his statement.

If Tiger Woods was simply seen as an arrogant athlete that controllably threw caution into the wind with affair after affair, it would be one thing. However, most of the reports coming out indicate that Tiger now has a life that is rapidly spiraling out of control as allegations come out about multiple affairs circulate, complete with careless, nondescript behavior that left "tiger prints" everywhere.

When the Christian soul of a man sees another in need, he offers him the one thing that he knows - from experience - that will not fail him in recovery from a major life crisis: a deeper experience with God. This is what Brit Hume - a surviving father of a son whose life troubles led to suicide a decade ago - did for a young man that was not much older than his late son was. Sadly, this well-intended public act of compassion was instead scorched in the media as a strike against Buddhism.

When the selfless intentions of a Christian man in America cannot be seen as a well-meaning invitation based off of experience in a nation where Christianity was the rock for the vast majority of our founding fathers, we are truly headed to an abyss as a nation that will only be averted through the Grace of God. Spinmeisters and talking heads alike need to give back to America a dignity that commonly understands what criticisms are in-bounds and which ones are nothing more than opportunities to make something out of nothing - acts that often create division out of good intentions.

Calling Off the Dogs

2010-01-05T01:04:00.009-05:00

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

You would think that Senator Ben Nelson would have known that it would come to this.

You know that the Democratic leadership in the United States Senate knew - and didn't care to allow this senator to be thrown under the bus in order to get its precious 60th vote a few weeks ago.

Having the slightest bit of foresight would allow one to see that the attacks from the right (and the moderates) without much protection from the left was coming.

So, to hear the "mea culpa" asking for the dogs to be called off was - well - surprising.

If the senator from Nebraska thinks that the dogs are coming after him through the use of several states' attorney general' offices, he - and the Democrats in Washington, for that matter - have yet to see who the real dogs are going to be that need to be "called off."

The American voters in 2010.

A nation filled with discomfort from the economy, disillusionment from the "results" from the stimulus package and other initiatives from the Obama Administration to date, and the disapproval of Congress overall (including approval ratings in the 20s-30s% for both Democratic leaders in the Congress) will be armed and ready to strike back at a government that they voted to put into place in 2008 but has yet to provide the change from Washington's status quo that they hoped for after the Democrats took control of both the White House and Capitol Hill 12 months ago. The event captivating this entrenched behavior - the non-descript purchasing of votes to lure both Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) to put forth votes to secure the "magic 60" in the Senate for health care passage - only highlighted the cause for anger, mobilization, and continuation of the Tea Party movement in grassroots America and the general media assault on the left-leaning supermajority that is seen in conservative circles.

Calling off the dogs - even in legal circles - will not calm down the firestorm within America that was touched off when news of these "secret deals" was "leaked" to the media, not because people are fed-up with Democrats exclusively (especially after the recent dismissal of Republicans in '06 and '08), but moreso due to the promises of ethical change that were campaigned upon by Democrats led by now-president Barack Obama. The failure to see this change in Washington while, at the same time, yielding blank check of legislative power to one party has done less to eliminate the woes of the GW Bush Era but has, instead, led to the reminder that any 1 particular party left in absolute power without the willingness to abide by its own campaign promises of lobbyist- and cronyistic-reform or a direct tie to the people it represents to acquiesce to their whims will march forward without delivering the change requested by the people through their previous votes. The shine that Democrats wore as change agents for the populist has been tarnished throughout 2009, completed with a self-induced plattering of mud coming from the "Cornhusker Kickback" and the "Louisiana Purchase" during the health care debate in the Senate.

Sadly, what Democrats may learn in 2010 (particularly if the GOP plays its cards right) is that the dogs from the attorney general offices may be called off due to Obamacare Controversy, but the chicken may be coming home to roost nonetheless soonafter.

Closing the Gap

2010-01-04T08:30:00.023-05:00

Monday, January 4, 2010

There are a lot of places where we must close the gap.

We must close the achievement gap in academia between Black America and other segments of our melting pot if we are going to ensure true, unmitigated equality for all.

We must close the gap between our spending and our revenue as a nation (and, as well, as states and individual families) if we are going to reclaim our independence as a free people capable of steering our own destiny.

Most importantly, though, is that we must close the gap in how we approach terrorism - particularly regarding ideology, methodology, and delivery.

The ideology that many of these "isolated" incidents coming from the skies, within the homeland, and overseas is rapidly becoming a recipe for a repeat disaster. Only the miscalculations of a young, rookie terrorist stood between the United States and another terror attack conducted on a domestic flight. Despite the reluctance of the Obama Administration to be portrayed as a Bush successor when dealing with the problem of international terrorism, it is evident that the domestic approach of high moral and ethical dealings with suspected terrorists (including providing them access to the rights afforded American citizens within the criminal justice system) only extends a gap in protection where fearlessness on the part of al Queda and their cohorts has been utilized to make headway in the fight against America. In the improper view that this is less of a war (as undertaken by the Bush Administration) and more of a retaliation against those that caused September 11, the United States has promoted an underestimation of the efforts our combatants will go in order to cause harm and, thus, an underestimation by the American public as to the depths that the government may take (e.g., resources, fronts, etc.) in order to secure victory - and safety - for Americans. People have long since chimed in on President Bush for his actions throughout his presidency concerning the globe due to 9/11. However, many seemingly overlook the role that the Clinton Administration had on the development of this terror situation, losing opportunities to snuff out the bin Laden influence before it reached its current heights. This miscalculation included a misstep by the Clinton Administration to treat the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as a criminal act, not an act of war against the nation.

Sound familiar?

That leads to the problem with methodology. Granted, opposition to the current positioning by the Obama Administration does not mean that the problems within the Bush Administration - everything from the disagreements between Cheney and Powell that led to the general's resignation as Secretary of State to the behavior coming out of Abu Ghraib. However, where the Obama Administration must look to take a page from the previous presidency is on the methodology to maintain security of American citizens. The current prospective that "ethical persuasion will ensure protection" is inaccurate as evidenced by 2009. Obama's Peace Prize aside, nothing that the president and his staff have "won" over the course of the past 12 months through the moderated viewpoints on Israel, Islam, and U.S. presence in the Middle East has persuaded our terroristic enemies to move away from the all-out, do-or-die (literally) mentality that has shaped their efforts for years now. Continuing to give terrorists the American criminal treatment of "innocent until proven guilty" when these combatants are caught red-handed and proudly admitting their guilt is an extreme case of oversight on the part of foreign policy leadership at this time.

And with a misguided view on the methodology to employ in combating terrorism, it is no wonder that the delivery has been frightfully full of gaps, most recently found in Newark, New Jersey.

The "disappearance" of a suspect that broke security lines in the New Jersey airport this week echoes the same issues of concern that were highlighted in the Christmas near-miss. Without a mentality and a method that understands and promotes the reality that we live in - that we are a nation at war with a nationless and dangerous enemy - we are incapable of providing the types of solutions that will be necessary to overcome this situation. The gaps in security coming from TSA pale in comparison to the gaps in leadership that we are seeing regarding the guidance that those on the ground need from Washington in order to proactively win these battles before any drama plays out. Until we get to a point where the gaps between the obvious and the elitist points of view are closed out with any sense of urgency and success, we can continue to expect to find gaps in Homeland Security that, while praised incorrectly and prematurely by its leader, will be exploited by al Queda until we suffer another tragedy on American soil.

When #1 is Staring Back At You...

2010-01-03T23:56:00.009-05:00

Thursday, December 31, 2009

And you think that President Obama is either the #1 go-to guy in America or the #1 reason why this nation is facing so much hardship going into 2010?

I disagree.

It starts with #1.

It starts with us.

We may be paying back the interest on our sins from the 1990s and further back, and I'm not just talking about the Clintons' imitative to get more Americans into the home-buying business - even if they couldn't afford to stay in those homes.

Alas, I regress.

If we are to look at any one lesson to be learned in 2009 to take forward in 2010, it is this: the power of the individual will never be completely irrelevant, so if there is a problem with the nation as we see it unfolding, make sure that it is not unfolding with #1 on the sidelines.

As we saw with the health care debate, buying...I mean...persuading the vote of one key senator here or there can make the difference between hearing the merits of the debate, voting on a bill, and modifying it to please 60 or so senators. As we saw with the foiled plot on Christmas in Detroit, it only took one brave soul to make a difference in saving lives, even as the whole of the US Homeland Security team failed (even though its leader, Janet Napolitano, noted that the system works in wake of the December 25 near-tragedy.)

We saw the difference that the death of one Iranian woman - Neda - could make in bringing into focus the challenges faced by our global neighbors living under the threat of dictatorship and non-cooperative aggression. We saw the aftermath of failing to live up to the promise of 2009 with one high-profile and senseless death in the south side of Chicago - that of Derrion Albert.

We saw the impact that one man could have on the direction of a nation, as President Obama - directly or otherwise - affected the winds of change in RNC leadership, 21st century protests and messaging, political media, global perception of the United States, and the confidence (or lack thereof) in the nation's ability to bounce back on current course of policies.

Even with my "beloved" Pittsburgh Steelers, we saw how the decision of one man (James Harrison) to alter the plan just a bit made all the difference in the world.

All this evidence to say - simply - Happy New Year. We saw a year full of people holding accountable #1 first and foremost to make a difference. In 2010, don't blame Obama, Bush, Democrats, Republicans, or unnamed enemies without first asking if #1 had move forward to make a difference in the end result.

2008 had a historic election. 2009 had historic spending and opposition. For 2010 - it's simply time to be historic.

Terrible 2's

2010-01-03T23:02:00.015-05:00

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

You have to admit - it's one heck of a mess.

You have billions being bantered around Washington, at the whims (or frustrations, depending on what side of the aisle you lean towards) of two parties in Congress...

...and it's leading to- on continuing, again, depending on what side of the aisle you lean towards - one big headache.

And, to think - 2009 was only the beginning.

With midterm elections coming up, it's no surprise that the fervor in Washington is pitching up. Students of American history will note that this is nothing more than the typical ebb-and-flow of politics in action in the United States. However, with the influx of new politically-minded Americans due to the Obama Effect (both more conservatives protesting the supermajority under President Obama as well as young voters attempting to make their mark on America as a generation), this high-stakes drama that continues to come from the tone set in Washington also has a damning effect on the nation.

Primarily, it highlights that there always seems to be 2 Americans, regardless of what dynamic we are facing.

There is the American political structure that works as a 2-headed machine that often continues living in an alternate universal that segments their reality away from the tug-and-grind that everyday Americans are experiencing at this time. During a year when Americans are facing record unemployment, terror threats both abroad and here at home, and micro-economic crises centering around paying mortgages and basic bills, the Congress has spent money like it's going out of style, pushing through record spending bills that have, to date, yielded low results.

There is the American reality that finds itself splitting - yet again - along socioeconomic and racial lines, differences that show us with clarity how far we still need to come as a nation despite being in the Obama Era. For example, hearing that young Black men with college degrees are 2-3 times as likely as their White counterparts in this recession to be unemployed only makes one wonder how much race has become a barometer in America after 2008, especially as Black unemployment during this bad recession has hit 25% in some areas in the country.

There is the American media that has gone from being the seemingly unbiased filter for the news for the American public to the 2 blatantly polarizing bastions of right-wing talk radio and left-wing conspiracy theorists and "protectors of the common man." Never before has some politicization of the airwaves led to such hard swings within media where the truth becomes concentrated with entertainment, propaganda, and hatred to become a strange elixir that viewers and listeners are now addicted to through the use of radio, television, and new media. Sadly, this comes at a time when the United States needs more active and educated citizens to be involved.

And, of course, there is the separating 2 schools of thought after year 1 of BOPE (The Barack Obama Presidential Experience) - one school that says that the president has only put in 1 year so far and must get more time before any "grades" on his performance can truly be given, while the other school of thought notes that there has been plenty to see from the 44th president to elicit increased apprehension for this administration's policies both domestically and internationally.

This is not the diversity that Americans have been looking for.

At this point, the terrible 2's that we have experienced in 2009 have not pushed America to any new heights of greatness. The competition that could come from honest debate and legislative evolution (or even some sort of bipartisanship at times) has devolved into a lockout of ideas and backroom bargains that may be challenged on their constitutionality. Racial and social delineations have shown the disparities between groups, particuarly as Black America was primed for an upswing in pride and performance after the Inauguration of the first Black president, something that it woefully dropped the ball on during 2009 without including statistics that indicate that perhaps we are not post-racial after all. The positioning of ideas across the airwaves has not been a battle of wits it could be but, rather, it has become a battleground for witty one-liners and bomb-throwing statements motivated primarily to yank ratings back and forth throughout the media, not just inspire its viewers. The fighting between the Obamicans and the Tea Partiers? Well, lost in the erosion of civil debate is respect for the presidency, respect for the Constitution and rule of law, respect for freedom of speech, and shame - shame that prevents folks from saying the nastiest things about their neighbors, their representatives, and the American people that they work for, as everyday Americans and their legislators often showed the worst in themselves on a regular basis.

In a year where we had double-digit unemployment, 2 senatorial buyouts on healthcare, 2 Black men taking charge over the major political parties in the country, and 2 major rounds of debate on health care, we cannot afford 2 straight years of the Terrible Twos. Continuing this trend may just be taking the American patience level a bit too far for comfort.

Trails of Tears Unless...Looking Back and Ahead #3

2009-12-29T13:38:00.011-05:00

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

I'm sorry. I tried to buy into it - a little.

I wanted to believe that having a Black president would have a different effect on Black America, one that would wake the masses of Black people up in order to change the conditions of our communities.

It didn't happen. I kinda blame Obama. He could be a stronger leader that isn't afraid to be seen as a Black man - and yes, even a Black president.

At the same time, I'm not delusional. I know that Obama should not have been expected to single-handedly change the lot of Black America as many Black people seemingly expected at the end of 2008. I did expect, however, Black people to rally around themselves as much as they rallied around the first Black president in order to change the conditions within the communities.

If President Obama sold Black America false hope with his historic race, Black America lied to itself when it said that change would come as a result of the Hawaiian becoming the 44th president.

And if there is more to come in 2010 of this type of rhetoric, we can expect to bury more African-American children - both figuratively and literally.

The pride and inspiration for having the first Black president seemingly left the Black community roughly 2 minutes after President Obama took the Oath of Office. Being in Washington in January 2009, I was shocked to see the waves of people that bore the cold winter air of the Inauguration without sticking around long enough to hear the president's words after taking the oath.

From there, I was saddened to see the lack of active pride that came through the Black community to make appropriate changes by the time Black History Month rolled around.

Where were the marches to institute peace in our communities? Where was the outrage to fight for better schools now from the current school structures without the need to dump additional millions into a system that's broken? Where were the cries for accountability when President Obama cut money to poor Black students for primary and secondary education? Where were the cries of outrage when Derrion Albert and others feel dead needlessly? Aside from some successes as the 40-Day Fast for Our Future, there was relative silence from the Black community - and notably from the White House - during a historic first Black History Month with an African-American president.

This snowball towards a tragic status quo merely continued throughout 2009.

All of the partisan fighting by President Obama has been met with a willingness by Democrats to overlook the plight of Black Americans concerning health care, education, and jobs. Even as the Congressional Black Caucus and others have slowly come around to criticize the administration's failures to specifically address these issues, the crime really comes from the group of Americans that bought into a politician's historic rise without capturing the momentum as a chance to be historic themselves.

And that doesn't fall on any one politician - or president. It falls on us as African-Americans.

If the record of 2009 shows us anything, it is this: we can ride history, we can watch history, but the ways that we have taken over the past 4 decades will not lead us to making any significant historical changes for everyday Americans without the efforts of those Americans in the history-making events around us.

There are now Americans that can claim a Black city councilman, governor, and president, yet we continue to have African-American males going to jails at record and tragic numbers. We continue to see a waste of American talent as children succumb to substance abuse, school dropout rates, and premature death due to failure of leadership from adults and community leaders. The Obama Effect was supposed to be that "silver bullet" that allowed Black America to take that next step towards true equality in this country. It was supposed to be that boost that allowed Black people to contribute at a higher level to close the achievement gap in school, the math and science gap in the world, and the economic gaps we endure as a nation in the global economy. So far, not of those things have happened as status quo Black America has engulfed the pride of January 20 with a persistence to take a broken approach and continuously apply it to a broken community.

President Obama broke the mold as a candidate in order to create a new reality in American politics. It is sad that Black America hasn't taken a similar approach to break the mold of approaching urban blight issues from the past 40 years of Great Society politics and civics to create a new (and better) reality within American urban centers. Unless if Black America sidesteps its collective fear to approach the unknown, cast aside the stereotypes of the past, and resurrect the courage of past generations, we will continue to walk a 21st century trail of tears that is marked with premature death, unnecessary disease, and lack of education - all endured while watching the height of the Civil Rights Movement epitomized in the White House while the 2nd worst days of Black America play out elsewhere throughout the nation.

What In Store from 2009 for 2010 - #4

2009-12-29T10:31:00.013-05:00

Monday, December 28, 2009

And I thought that al-Queda didn't believe in Christmas...

As we can see from the thwarted Christmas surprise on Friday, nothing is scared for our enemies when it comes to attempts to defeat America through the use of terrorism. If there is something to take from 2009 into the coming year, it is this:

The more we focus exclusively on domestic matters as a nation, the more that our international enemies will hope that we continue to do so, even as they plan to harm America.

The continued march of terrorism against the United States only feeds into a cycle that has been repeated earlier in American history. From FDR to Reagan, those on the left have argued that "war-mongering" presidents have been too focused on international threats such as Hitler and the Soviet Union, thus taking away precious resources from domestic issues desperately in need of attention and money.

History shows us that even with liberal calls for "negotiations with Hitler" in order to avoid war (including some questionable positions by Ambassador Joe Kennedy regarding the growing war in the 1930) and other demonstrations against Reagan for ending the Cold War, without FDR's foresight and Reagan's push, we would not be the same nation (that is, free and independent) as we are today.

Many times, history serves as a mirror to reflect our current realities and serve as a roadmap for near-future endeavors.

We can go ahead, continuing to think that President Obama and the folks in Washington should make health care and other domestic issues top priority over international affairs. If we do, the scares from the terror plots in Dallas, New York, and (recently) Detroit will become screams stemming from the successful plots of al-Queda and other enemies, causing us to see another tragic situation unfold on American soil.

The "esteem" coming from our global neighbors through the election of President Obama has not yet materialized. Many European nations have scoffed by American notions that European nations have some accountability in regards to issues blamed exclusively on the United States. Nations such as Iran have ignored the well-wished and intentions for diplomacy by the United States, continuing down their paths to creating more turbulence for the global community. All of this - and other incidents from nations such as North Korea - comes at a time when more Americans (similar to the times post-World War I and pre-World War II) believe that the nation's focus must move away from these threats and towards (almost exclusively) domestic issues. Rallies stating that there is a waste of resources (including money and, more importantly, lives) keeps incurring with losses in domestic affairs as a result miss the point: the American government exists with the primary purpose of protecting Americans.

If we take this continue persistence to look inward towards our domestic challenges with a big government perspective while looking away from our government's big responsibility to be proactive in advancing American sovereignty, we will continue to hear of terroristic "near-misses" until one day, we incur another 9/11 on our soil. We will have only more stories of terror plots on American soil that found ways to beat the system, even as domestic policies concerning health care reform, open borders or amnesty, and increased pressure to divert money from the military and into education and universal healthcare will be hammered through the media into the collective psyche of everyday Americans.

Domestic issues are important, but international issues threatening the USA always take precedent. Failure to be proactive in this realm will no longer provide us the opportunity for second chances as it did in previous times. As the world is shrinking, so, too, is our protection without the proactive focus of the United States towards its primary duties to ensure "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

If we continue to lose out on this important principle, expect 2010 to incur more losses internationally - with a strong prayer and hope that that does not include too many American lives due to our collective negligence for both the signs around us and the cues from history before us.

What to Take from 2009 - #5

2009-12-28T14:50:00.013-05:00

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Merry Christmas to those of you that celebrate the Christmas season.

As we celebrate the holiday, it is also a time when we begin the countdown to 2010 - not just politically, but socially. And as we start that countdown, what better time to look around (versus looking back) at the results from Washington as we close down 2009 for the history books.

With that said - as with other shows, blogs, writings, and the like - why not move through a small list of issues and items that impacted us as a high level in 2009, issues that we will be discussing both now and in the future as "game-changers"?

Of course, we could be here for quite a while, but there are some issues that continue to crop up through the year that have reached heightened notoriety over the course of the past several days.

Like the health care debate.

Of course, the Senate will pass some sort of health care reform bill on this Christmas Eve. Not surprisingly and sadly ironically, this noted reform for the nation will come from only 50% of the political equation - the supermajority in Washington that has continued to push through their agendas with the glee of 12-year-olds that are stuck in a gym class dodge-ball game with the 3rd graders. Without any regard to doing what's best for the nation in the spirit of patriotism, accountability, or fiscal responsibility, the Democrats have continued to push through radical spending measures in 2,000-page bills that have not been read by the majority of the Senate and have been promoted as cost-saving measures through questionable explanations.

For example, this current directive from both houses of Congress will include a mandate on "able" Americans to purchase health care insurance at risk of facing a fine enforced by the federal government. In a current time when the federal government cannot properly and efficiently impose border controls and illegal immigration laws, we are to believe - for the good of the country, no less - that federal enforcement of health care procurement is a good and prudent thing for the federal government to undertake.

So, in a nation where the cost of living is going on and the wages Americans bring home are going down, the best alternative for health care reform does not include measures that ensure that health care-related costs will go down. Instead, we are going to force people to buy health insurance to save money - of course, forcing many of the same underemployed and under-privileged people that don't have health insurance now because of job situations or family economies to scourge for money for another monthly bill.

This will be going on at the same time that additional taxes on health procedures, health care plans (those deemed "too good" or "too generous" by the bureaucracy in Washington), and the well-to-do will place an additional burden on the small business owners and other economy drivers of the nation.

So, what can we take from this "reform", aside from the fact that even the bipartisan ideas (and effort) that President Obama mentioned in his September speech (famously noted for Congressman Joe Wilson's "You Lie" comment) were never considered seriously by the Democrats in Congress?

Mainly, that the Democrats' reputation for tax-and-spend policies - said to be a oft-quoted misnomer during election season - was shown to be a deadly accurate protrayal of the supermajority in Congress today. Each solution given by the Democrats so far during the Obama Administration has centered around government spending, increased taxes on business-creators and economy-movers (i.e., consumers with money to burn), and a blinding belief that government is the solution to problems, not the entity that creates problem-solving environments.

If 2009 was an indication of what we can expect from Washington spending under the Obama Administration, the same issues of government expansion that upset Americans in 2006 will come back to play in 2010. If the same regarding spending (as we have seen repeatedly from Congress, epitomized in the health care bills) continues in Washington, we can also expect the same results in 2010 - heated opposition, lack of bipartisanship when crafting bills, increased spending (and deficits), and minimal results for everyday Americans.

If this is the change that we were supposed to believe in, then it's clear that not much as changed in Washington, DC except the residents in the White House and the seatholders on Capitol Hill - and, of course, the increasing price of admission for everyday Americans to watch the fiasco unfold.

American Apathy

2009-12-23T01:08:00.012-05:00

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

What's sad is that the Obama Administration - fresh off of the high of creating history as the first Black president and the president that would usher in an era of a post-partisan, post-racial America - has either lost its ability to capture America's imagination past the rush of January 20, 2009, or it has completed lost its desire to keep its finger driving the pulse of American activism as we approach 2010.

Either way, it's a sad state that we're in as a nation.

At the beginning of this presidency, we had a well-intended president-elect - along with this wife - spending MLK Day doing community service projects, calling on other Americans to help rebuild America while looking forward to working across the aisle in an open Washington environment that would be free of lobbyist rule, political cronyism, and partisan arm-twisting.

Ah, how the hope has become nope in such a short year full of many disappointments.

And the culmination? The epitome of Washington at its worst during this health care debate, from the president's insistence to "...inject (himself) into the Senate's version of the bill..." to ensure that question of abortion was injected back into the mix to the Landrieu Compromise, the Full Nelson, and the Joe Lie(berman) Job done in the Senate during the debate.

And during all of this maddening mix of broken promises, backroom deals, and backtracking with jobs, what have many Americans - particularly those that adamantly supported the president as a candidate with their campaign efforts and spouting off of Obama Rhetoric in 2008 - done during the much of 2009?

Nothing.

The rhetoric that the Obamas' presence in the White House could help to heal the Black community? Violence is going on within the communities as much as it has over the past 10 years.

The rhetoric that Obama's presence as Commander-in-Chief would bring prestige to America overseas and allow diplomacy to be a better option? Lost on apathetic Americans overlooking that fact that nations such as Iran and North Korea ignored American threats for much of the year and allies in Europe take opportunities to diss America whenever convenient, even as they handed President Obama a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.

The rhetoric that there will be bipartisan ideas and cooperation to fix America's economy and issues with health care, education, and equality went out of the window with the words "I won" from the president to the minority party before winter ended.

And the American people - again, mainly those young, Black, and eager voters from 2008?

Nothing.

And if there is a dearth that we experienced during 2009, it's nothing that should be exclusively pinned on the 44th president, regardless of how misleading, unsuccessful, or misinterpreted his efforts (or, more accurately in many instances, the efforts of those within his party's leadership on Capitol Hill) have been. AAS (the American Apathetic Syndrome) has reared its ugly head, showing us that the truth health care reform has to come from our interaction with the uncontrollable political animal that is...well...modern-day politics.

The tea party movement of 2009 may be a chance to keep people engaged and going step-for-step with (and, in many ways, toe-to-toe with) their governments, but sadly, this often represented only the conservative side of the American equation. The apathy of the one-time voters that promised political investment (many of the same folks that "understood" when Mrs. Obama claimed to finally be "proud to be an American" during her husband's ascent to the White House) have sold out much more than the president did when he preached "education justice" for poor Black children, only to cut funding to poor Black children in primary education and funding for poor Black young adults for college education during mid-2009.

The unapologetic backslide to partisan mud-slinging and -wresting by both sides of the aisle in Washington has a direct tie to the apathetic American voter - that young, short-memory-riddled citizen that refused to take hold of history in 2009, instead choosing to watch history unfolded as if it were some strange reality TV show where the amount of zeroes behind the big digits concerning the money being spent by Washington has no real impact on them. Without that person being actively involved, there remained the opportunity to regularly polarize the nation into a "us vs them" division into teams at a time when the United States stood ready to unite more than ever - past the perception that it was too racist to have a Black president, that it was too shallow to have spirited and respectful debate to find the best solutions regardless of political origin, and that it was too entrenched in the politics of old to follow the spirit of 2008 with a freshing renewal of hope to make a new path for America in 2009.

That person - that young, energetic, Obama-ized voter (even though that voted against him in 2008, though few and far between with that demographic) - stay home in 2009. In fact, based on what I saw in Washington first-hand, that person left Washington right after the Oath of Office at the Inauguration, not even staying around long enough to listen to the Inaugural Speech.

If the glitz and glamour of this 44th presidency does not invigorate more young Americans to claim their piece of history, then we are looking at the very sad - and real - possibility that America as we know it will be history before too long. The moves of Obama, Congress, and others will just become nothing more than the two-step that we have seen in Washington for the last few decades - without accountability from an apathetic American populace that would rather find history handed to them from on high instead of finding the high in lowering the boom to a political culture that needs a true paradigm shift, not just a partisan change that we believed in...for a little while.

United Yet Unequal

2009-12-22T13:09:00.015-05:00

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

What did Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) expect?

Really?

Once the word got out that business as usual hit a new low in Washington during the course of the health care debate, did he really think that he would be the only one able to cash in for some earmarked goodies for the sake of getting to the magical 60?

We've had the Louisiana Purchase. We've had Joe Lieberman's lasso holding back the health care vote single-handedly. And now, we have the 50 united and unequal states of the Union.

Senator Ben Nelson's shrewd business deal to sweeten the health care "reform" deal for the citizens of Nebraska (at the inconvenience and fiscal cost of the other 49 states) left a horribly bad taste in the mouths of any American paying attention the latest round of "change" coming from the ranks in Washington.

One can ask: if this is change that we can all believe in, why did we have to bait several left-leaning senators in order to get the deal?

With this being the case - states such as Louisiana and Nebraska benefiting from the negotiations of their senators - what is next on the horizon for the holdout senators that sit on the "needing 60" fence on this health care debate, particularly as we approach the conference to mend the two bills.

Will a state holdout from another Democrat flip-flopper - for example, say Senator Arlen Specter threatens to go back to the Republican Party and vote against the final bill in the Senate (that is, of course, if they would ever have him back) - could Mr. Specter hold out his vote until, say, Pennsylvania gets another member in the Senate? Perhaps he would bargain for another few representatives in other house of Congress instead? Or many concession for more electoral votes in 2012, just in case the race is close for the White House and President Obama's reelection bid? (Which, at this rate, it will be.)

Does this sound odd, as if this is an overexaggeration? Hardly - when you consider the amount of earmarks and other perks that have been included in the current legislation in order to "persuade" members of the supermajority to walk the party line and ignore their conscience to the nation at large.

And if the congressional (more likely, the senatorial) precedent has been set - that driving a hard bargain with one's vote (instead of treating that vote with the historical reverence and temperance that it deserves) is a recipe to "bring home the bacon" for a re-election bid - what else are we losing in the process of gaining health care reform?

People may lament the excess of taxes being proposed in the legislation. Others may highlight the introduction of universal government bureaucracy into the health care equation. However, the greatest risk to Americanism during this health care "reform" is the lack of reform that it has exhibited within our political system. If the process for instituting "change" has come with the additional (and immeasurable) cost of blatantly buying votes, there is a daunting challenge in front of all Americans and it has nothing to do with health care.

How are we supposed to uphold a country where 50 states are strengthened and sound through their unity as equal partners in running this country from a senatorial perspective? If the bargaining for health care can exhibit such discrepancies between how states will be treated? Are some states seen as being beneath others, thus viable options for securing more Americans to die in overseas wars that others states may direct with additional political powers accumulated through backroom deals? Are some states justifiable in directing other states to pay for the free ride of other members of the Union? Should New York state residents pay a high federal tax rate because they have a higher population? Should border states such as Texas and Arizona pay more towards the federal solution resolving illegal immigration, even as states such as North Carolina and South Carolina suffer a similar fate away from Mexico?

Thank you, Senator Nelson and the Democratic leadership in the United States Senate. The very thing that our forefathers were fearful of - being able to purchase votes in the annuls of Congress - is now occurring, thus making a Union of equal partners at risk of devolving into a hodgepodge of 50 disjointed members. Ironically, all of this at the cost of pursuing what some call "health care equality."

Students of history and common Americans see the problem of pursuing legislative perfection through the imperfections of hidden personal agendas. Sadly, there are not enough equal, focused, and studious historians in the Senate today to share the same concerns that their constituents have repeatedly voiced. The inequalities from American to American regarding health care - also reflected in how Americans are represented in Washington - may spread its poison further to how states treat each other in Congress.

If this is the sickness of thought that we are willing to pursue to heal more Americans, then I shudder to consider the richness of possibilities when corruption, ambition, and opportunity meet during our next "must do" legislative endeavor sponsored by this administration and its supermajority cronies.

Snow Job

2009-12-20T15:53:00.013-05:00

Monday, December 21, 2009

I know that's snowing up a storm in Washington.

While many are focusing on Frosty, Santa, and the Tiger Woods Mistress List, we should look at the orgin of this critical storm.

Capitol Hill.

Fellow Americans, the rush to health care reform has been a race to spend money in a time of recession while the benefits for needy Americans have been given a multi-year timeout by the supermajority in Washington. Never before has there been a time in American history where such a race against the clock has been performed by legislators intent on spending historic amounts of dollars, raising taxes on a plethora of items, and expanding the role of government without the American people and their representatives having a prudent opportunity to examine the facts and debate the merits.

This bill – perhaps well-intended – is un-American and wrong. The rush to get it down under the cover of night proves to be nothing more than one historic snow job coming on the cusp of a significant snowfall on the nation’s capital.

It’s ironic and appropriate, actually.

Any amount of spending coming from the fat cats in Washington must be challenged on its merits to find the levels of responsible spending that is required during these tough times. Yet, it is not to be found in the Senate’s version of the bill. Fiscal responsibility has been summed up as robbing Peter – in this instance, robbing Medicare – in order to pay Paul – in this instance, expansive coverage paid for by the same inefficient manager that we are cutting money from – federal government-led health care – because of its inefficiencies.

Yes. Only in Washington does this circulate round of thinking make sense, sense enough to the politicians racing to work under the protection of political power to rush this bill through.

And with the level of spending found in the bill as well as the questions concerning the actual procurement of American-quality health care for more Americans, many Americans will be left out in the cold, between increased taxes (a broken Obama promise), dampened business opportunities (another broken promise), and without bipartisan ideas and solutions (yet another broken promise.) In essence, the statements earlier this year of working together with the GOP’s legislators have become nothing more than the precursors to a huge snow job of partisan politics, acting as if only one party has the monopoly on the best interests of Americans.

And with this going on, the true inefficiencies in health care management in America – monopolies within states borders, lack of tort reform, increased employment and educational levels within the communities of everyday Americans – issues that have been shown to improve the quality of care while reducing the cost of health care in America – all items have been ignored by the supermajority intent on using this bill as a means to an end – namely, the end of civil liberties, job-creating environments, and lower taxed communities throughout America.

A mandate to buy health insurance despite one’s personal and professional standings in life is not liberty. It takes Americans back to the hard choices – paying for mandated health insurance for a single woman just out of college or paying rent and lights. Increased taxes on medical procedures make more bureaucracy impeding health care improvements for everyday Americans. Do women move forward with elective procedures that prove to improve quality of life or risk having the surgeries be deemed “elective”, and thus hit with a luxury tax courtesy of Obamacare? What do the additional taxes on “Cadillac plans” do for job creation? How does this health care reform allow for job creation?

If this bill was so great, why did it cost $300 million to buy the vote of Mary Landrieu? If this bill was so great, why did it take another round of convincing to get buy in from Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson? If this bill was so great, why are we rushing to pass this bill before Christmas 2009?

The more that the government tells you that it is going to do more for you, the more that it is going to charge you for it, the more structures that will be built to provide less service to you, and the more that – in essence – government will have to expand in order to fix what comes as a result.

Doesn’t seem to fix an already problematic issues does it?

It does seem to be shoveling it deep, though, even as we continue to dig ourselves into more debt daily.

And the more we hear about historic change, the more we see that we're being blinded by the definition of change as it is being whitewashed by a snowjob blowing in from the left.

If this type of reform and change only comes from this type of direction (particularly with all of the spending coming from the Obama Administration and the supermajority so far in 2009), perhaps it's time to change - course, that is - coming in 2010.

Inconveinent Villains

2009-12-20T14:11:00.018-05:00

Thursday, December 17, 2009

We're never quite going to get the climate change people are looking forward until we get some needed change in areas that people refuse to address.

Like, for example, a commitment from the toxic wonders of the late 20th century.

Any sort of climate change agreement that allows billion-member nations such as China and India to give a scant commitment to change without any viable and enforceable measures in place only amounts to the current conditions that we face regarding the global climate change debate - namely, a lot of blame on the Western world, a lot of guilt assumed by the Western nations for sins of the past, and a growing call for Western nations to pay for it economically.

Now, I'm not saying that many of these nations are without flaws. Granted, much of industrialization (and its impact on the planet) have some from these nations. At the same time, it is also from these nations (particularly their tax base and their native ingenuity) that a climate to address these situations comes regularly. Without the funding within the borders of these convenient global climate villains, we lose valuable opportunities to allow the best and brightest to chase down these solutions that will help us all.

Calling for rich nations to subsidize poorer nations for global climate care is misguided at best and guilt-driven and unethical at worst.

This "distribution of wealth" mantra that has taken over Washington is only a small sample of what has been ramping up around the world for decades now without a clear understanding that there is no true thing called "distribution of wealth." Any "distribution" of wealth always leads to the destruction of wealth - or the accumulation of wealth from private individuals to public governments that eventually lead to controlling the populace.

What the poorer nations of the world need are more initiatives that lead to building wealth, not scattering money around the global as band-aid efforts that never heal the underlying issues. Initiatives coming from Copenhagen should include more of this.

If you want to help the poorer nations more with global climate change efforts, provide more exchange programs for their students to come to the United States and other Westernized nations in order to study specifically science and math in order to take this knowledge home to their native nations after 4-7 years of study in order to impact their homelands in this climate change endeavor. If you want to help the poorer nations more with global climate change efforts, incentivize the business leaders of those nations (even if they come from external sources) to attempt to provide green incentives to businesses within their borders; (of course, the college initiative plays into this.) If you want to help the poorer nations more with global climate change issues, help them find greener methods to excel at their top business successes. If you want to help the poorer nations more with global climate change efforts, provide more exchange programs for their students to come to the United States and other Westernized nations in order to study specifically science and math in order to take this knowledge home to their native nations after 4-7 years of study in order to impact their homelands in this climate change endeavor. If you want to help the poorer nations more with global climate change efforts, incentivize the business leaders of those nations (even if they come from external sources) to attempt to provide green incentives to businesses within their borders; (of course, the college initiative plays into this.) If you want to help the poorer nations more with global climate change issues, help them find greener methods to excel at their top business successes.

Shifting money from nation to nation is not the answer to build from a long-term perspective in business and the same is true when regarding the climate change fight. It's that much worse if we focus on the Westernized nations and not on the growing nations of China and India, particularly their impacts on the world's ozone level and overall environment.

Shifting funds around without holding these two nations at a high level of true accountability (e.g., shutting down the continued progression of Chinese-built coal furnaces and plants weekly) only makes one set of nations a target for scorn and blame without addressing current challenges, culprits, and conceptions that could lead to 21st century solutions.

Perhaps we as a nation continue to play into this game of Inconvenient Villains because we know that the Chinese and Indians are not as willing to acquiesce to the whims of other nations, changing their routines and causing their economies while sending valuable resources outside of their borders.

And we are - again - willing to fund the whims of others (as we were with abortion services and other "needs") - at a time when many Americans are suffering throughout a historic economic crisis here in the USA.

Then again, we are a convenient - and willing - participant in the blame game for most things wrong with the world. And as long as we are willing to financially pay for it without looking into the true economic - and rudimentary - costs and causes of today's climate issues, we as a nation will remain willing to over the Inconvenient Villains in 21st century climate abuse while paying the cost to slide back as a world leader.

Too Much Power for One Man in a Republican Government

2009-12-15T22:56:00.013-05:00

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

If nothing else aside from seeing the outrageous amounts that government has grown comfortable spending, there is something else clearly frightening about the direction that we see in Washington today, particularly with the health care debate.

There is just too much power that rests in the hands of one man.

No, conservatives - that man is not President Barack Obama, although a case could certainly be made for that with the hard-left lean that Capitol Hill has made since January 2009.

It's Joe Lieberman.

No, granted, at this time, Ol' Joe is being thought of more along the lines of "Ol' Faithful" when it comes to his determination to keep "health care reform" from equaling another government episode of wasteful spending and inefficient service delivery.

However, the paradigm is still the same, fellow Americans.

Too much of the fate of the many is held by the too few of the people there to represent the masses.

And that's a problem, regardless.

As we have already seen with the cloture issue a few weeks ago, all that it takes is a few holdouts on each side and, lo and behold, legislation flies through - or gets held up.

I guess it's the American way? Really, this is how republics are supposed to advance "change"?

Don't tell me about the change that can when Mary Landrieu (D-LA) decided that it was more important to get $300 million for her state than it was to think about the long-term costs her change in vote would have on her constituents. Perhaps Lieberman is doing the same, thinking about the long-term implications that this bill would have on the people of Connecticut or throughout the nation.

And if Lieberman remain as the one holdout, who lines up next once he falls? Landrieu, asking for more money? Nelson?

This is still not bipartisan leadership coming from Washington. This is not balance. This is not change.

What we are seeing playing out are the same sorts of back-and-forth exchanges that hamper the balanced progress that maintains a sense of Americanism and a commitment to fiscal responsibility and global independence.

What happened to the portability that President Obama mentioned in his speech back in September? Doesn't matter - not a top priority of the one man that could be holding back this bill from getting 60% approval.

Folks - 60% approval is a very low D in school - and that's in the worse schools. Many schools, a 60% gets you a solid F.

And that is what this health care bill may end up being remembered as - a failure of the American legislators in Washington to create a balanced, responsible, and long-reaching directive that creates better health care, lower costs, and opportunities for more economic vitality for Americans (yes, including jobs) despite the temptation to "do it my way" because the numbers are right.

From the rush to get this done before Christmas to the push to get Lieberman on board, this has been the height of political expediency, not the promise of togetherness and effiency we expected in January 2009.

What a difference a year makes - or maybe it doesn't. And sadly, because of that, it's back to addressing the whims of the mighty few at the cost of the masses.

For everyone of us, one does end up making the loneliest number.

Iranian Countdown and the Ramp-Up Overseas

2009-12-15T00:02:00.019-05:00

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

I know that you may tell me that they are not related - Afghanistan and Iran. On the surface, you may be right. However, a deeper look will reveal that in many ways, they are one and the same regarding goals and relevancy to American sovereignty.

And, again, American sovereignty - not health care reform, "cash for clunkers", or bank bailouts - is the number one business that the American federal government is around for. With the crisis in Afghanistan (prompting a ramp up of 30,000 troops) and the latest in Iran, it is clear that our military must receive our support on all fronts in order to secure American safety on all accounts.

The question of winning the wars in the Middle East was always about securing the nation from terrorism. However, the Bush Doctrine of the 21st century took this initial goal to another level, understanding that by stabilizing the region with American-friendly leaders (if not exclusively American-leaning allies), we are more capable of lessening the threats of both terrorism from groups such as al-Queda as well as threats from nations such as Iran. Where the threat of a dirty bomb coming into the nation is one that keeps many Americans up at night (in fear but also in thoughts working to hold off such attacks), the continued march of a nuclear Iran is a bigger threat that casts a long shadow over the makeup of the region moving forward.

With the establishment of a nuclear Iran, the environment of the Middle East shifts dramatically. Israel becomes more of an antsy nation more inclined for self-protective measures (including preemptive strikes) that can quickly destabilize the region. Iran's desires to be a strong leader among Islamic nations could prove to rile up extremist factions favorable to Iran's positions (both secular and religious) that could lead to increased terrorism - both organized and self-perpetuated. The strength of a nuclear Iran could lead to an expansion of risk-taking activities by other rogue nations. Countries such as North Korea need no further excuse to move forward with actions that contravene the goodwill of the international community.

Which is why the Iranian countdown to nuclear armament and the ramp-up of troops for Afghanistan are related, even if the immediate military goals are not.

Victory in both Iraq and Afghanistan are vital to long-term stability and safety for the American people. Because the nature of threats against our nation's sovereignty are diverse in nature in today's times, America must use war theatres in ways that signal multiple messages throughout the world community simultaneously. The battles to secure regions previously held by terrorist-friendly regimes must also secure opportunities to pressure Iran and other like-minded factions within the Middle East to return to the table with the global community with the best of intentions and the most honest of declarations. These victories - done with honor, respect, and with might - are our best chances to provide Iran a clear roadmap on what next steps may be as their leadership continues to lie, conceal, and press on with their nuclear dreams: either you will pursue open peace with us or you will be handled along with other shadowy forces attempting to spread destabilization and horror through freedom-limiting threats, ill-intended pursuits, and violent behavior.

Those upset with President Obama's decision to send additional troops to fight "...an unwinnable situation in Afghanistan..." miss the point. Without victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, we open the doors to increased terrorism domestically (as even the battles being fought overseas has not completely stopped domestic sympathizers from attempting to ramp up their efforts) but also invite Iran to fill the void of nationalized terror that was previously occupied by the late Saddam Hussein, now with the additional nightmare of nuclear weaponry and an expressed disrespect for the state of Israel. In a situation where we can prevent two political travesties (and global threats) with one collective blow, filling that void and restarting the process of a galvanizing force in the Middle East focused on creating a syndicate against the Western world is not acceptable.

With one collective blow, we can temper this effort. We may be able to help win the ideological and diplomatic war with Iran through ensuring that we win in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, it starts again with Obama's 30,000, a ramp-up in troops that perhaps comes in the nick of time to halt the Iranian countdown to inclusion in the global nuclear community.

Lieberman, Moderates Hear America; Will Obama and Liberals Also Listen?

2009-12-14T09:03:00.019-05:00

Monday, December 14, 2009

It took a while, including multiple tea party protests around the country and heated town hall debates on health care. However, it looks as though the middle in Washington finally gets what the American people have been saying throughout 2009:

Listen to me - we don't want this level of spending and this is not the change that we voted for.

American lawmakers voted on party lines and ignored the will of the people in early 2009 regarding the high levels of spending in Washington, particularly for institutions that now are willing to pay back taxpayer loans without giving anything back to taxpayers in regards to jobs, unfrozen credit, or economic stimulus - the very reasons the loans were given in the first place. American citizens were left on the sideline to watch moderate Democratic senators be forced into voting for cloture on Senator Reid's health care bill some weeks ago, seeing that democracy in today's America has a heavy hand and a bully's heart.

Through it all, the American people protested, blogged, talked, and pursued some champions in Washington, all in the interest of getting a better handle on things within the country.

Finally, with Senator Joe Lieberman's stance to join Republicans in protesting the Senate's version of health care reform along with some moderate Democrats, many Americans are now able to breathe a small sigh of relief.

Finally, someone decided to listen to me. After all, I am their boss.

How far this will go depends on the American people from here. The misnomer that the Republicans do not have a viable set of options for successful and beneficial health care reform is as inaccurate as Senator Reid's slavery comparison to this health care legislative debacle from last week. Lieberman's thoughts - along with others including Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) - echo the sentiments voiced by everyday Americans since the beginning of 2009: Congress must stop instituting legislation that adds to taxpayers' burden and increasing the deficit, particularly at a time when America is holding a historic deficit while facing discouraging unemployment, urban crisis, and 2 war efforts. Health care reform is necessary, but spending our way to it is not, much in the same way that getting out of this recession is vital but President Obama's opinion that we must "spend our way out of this recession" is misguided historically.

True reform within America never comes from its republican government. It only comes from those represented within that republican government. Thus, the call for true, successful, and non-toxic health care reform in a systemic fashion will come only from a successful message being carried throughout our system of government, starting with the foundation.

You.

Namely, you going to representatives, senators, and government operatives that you support in Washington, letting them know.

Listen to me. It's my money. It's my government. It's my nation. And I know what I'm talking about, particularly when it comes to what I want.

And if they won't listen to you, you have to propose:

Listen to me, or leave in November.

Lieberman, McCaskill, and some others are saying it. Health care reform is not an excuse for more irresponsible spending, something that recently started under President G.W. Bush and Congress but the Obama Era has taken it to a whole new level. It's time that we listen to folks like Lieberman when it comes to the proposed health care spending in Washington. It's time for us to remind our government represenatives and elected officials through blogs, office visits, radio comments, and the like that excessive spending does not equal effectiveness or success.

And it's time that they hear you when you say: listen to me.

Nevada Compromise

2009-12-08T13:13:00.041-05:00

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

And they say that Republicans are the racists always playing the race card?

Amazing.

However, it's certainly not as amazing as Senator Harry Reid's (D-NV) comments comparing the health care resistance from Republicans and conservatives on Capitol Hill (namely, to the universal health care option) to prior legislative resistance to slavery years ago.

Those mean-ol' Republicans, always trying to keep the moral directives of history down, Reid would argue from the Floor. That same spirit from the Republicans and conservatives now (a universal sentiment coming from more Americans daily, it must be noted) is akin to the anti-abolitionist movement in pre-Civil War America.

Ironic that Senator Reid would say such a thing, considering history - and current times.

Did the irony ever hit the Senate Leader that the faction attempting to hold back the passage of slavery-limiting and -ending legislation (to the point of dividing the country legislatively, then literally, for several years) were not those "mean ol' Republicans" but were, in fact, his political forefathers? Such a statement from Reid shows a political willingness to paint such a complex issue (i.e., health care reform) into a corner where the sides are only black and white - not bad for the leader of a political party that has manipulated the social fabric every November with catcalls of racism and separatism against their opponents for the greedy purpose of gaining electoral victories with the hopes that a Rush Limbaugh comment here or there would seemingly valid their political poison. A decision to demonize opponents on such an important issue would only seem to promote the view that Reid, Pelosi, and others pushing this type of health care reform see this imitative more as a must-win political battle (to "keep hope - and change - alive", to paraphrase two historical Democratic presidential candidates simultaneously) instead of a problem requiring the best and most comprehensive solutions possible regardless of political origin or affiliation.

In referring us back to the days of the Kansas-Nebraska Act (which repealed the Missouri Compromise) led by Democrats to uphold slavery, Mr. Reid has instituted the Nevada Compromise - a move designed to compromise an increasingly-fragile nation's psyche through throwing verbal bombshells intended to push folks into an "us-vs.them" situation through some "winners take all" dysfunctional and misguided prism that many congressional leaders are seeing the health care debate through. Although, it must be said - after witnessing the arm-twisting by Reid to get apprehensive senators to vote with Reid for cloture earlier in November, it is no surprise that the "hope and change in Washington" that people voted for November 2008 was officially given a half-Nelson through brow-beating Nelson and others to get to 60 votes. Reid's Nevada Compromise is the next step in compromising the best long-term solution for health care that Americans need and deserve for the self-serving needs of Democratic leaders that have squandered their supermajority status with misguided legislation, inappropriate spending, and negative economic results that now need a "win" to stave off an electoral repeat of 1994.

I'm sure that the Senate - and Nevada as well - is wondering if that is the type of focus from leadership we need on Capitol Hill as 2010 rolls in.

Incorrectly, Reid - along with other left-leaning politicos - tries to demonize conservatives' objections to their health care proposals by comparing this to the slavery debate, notably saying that there are only 2 sides to this current issue: for health care reform with a public option or against health care reform overall. Sadly, the Nevada Compromise has no true "compromise" incorporated into it at all aside from the compromise of America's ability to get the best from both sides of the political aisle in this all-important debate. Health care reform is not a black-or-white issue as slavery was. Republican proposals to allow portability, encourage insurance competition, cover the poorest of our society (while pushing for lower costs for others), reevaluating regulations that skyrocket drug pricing, and disavowing the Democrats' mandate for private health care coverage (at the risk of fees and penalties) represent the grey area that Reid and others hope that Americans forget about. Even conservative Democrats have issues with the proposals that Reid, Pelosi, and others have advocated, most notably the issue of government-issued abortions at-will (i.e., pro-choice abortions, not per-crisis abortions) in one of the few common ground items that both Democrats and Republicans have been able to find, much in contradiction to the terms of the chief conspirator of the Nevada Compromise. Rather than compromise a personal and political preference to get an American result, Reid would rather compromise America's decency to expose raw emotion in an attempt to gain a political advantage with moderates and minorities.

Further, it's interesting that Senate Leader Reid is so concerned about the historical plight and current feelings of Black America, considering the dangerous unemployment levels among African-Americans coupled with the years-long issues of Black-on-Black crime, Black youth educational issues, and Black health care discrepancies are issues that he has been silent on despite his willingness to find legislative inspiration from the Republican-led efforts to end slavery.

I wonder if President Obama shares Reid's belief that this legislative endeavor is akin to the debates of the early-to-mid 1800s. Further, I wonder if Reid's statement reflects a common ground between the men on their concern for Black America in these dark times.

If the president's responses to the Congressional Black Caucus and others on specific focus on Black unemployment, Black education (DC vouchers and HBCUs - historically Black colleges and universities), and Black crime are any indication, it's clear that Reid's comments have nothing to do with their caring nature and much to do about their conniving political aspirations.

Reid's comments - and Obama's previous comments and actions to do little to specifically address the plights of Black America in crisis as the first Black president - serve as yet another episode that shows Black America and others that Democrats are more than willing to pimp out Black history and African-American emotionalism for their own self-serving interests without any desire or effort to provide an avenue for long-term prosperity, safety, and development for Black America. Since the election of the first post-racial president, this administration and the leadership of the supermajority has shown a toxic and divisive willingness to cry out calls of racism on a plethora of issues ranging from tea party protests to the extreme spending in Washington to the opposition to 2,000-page legislative overkill parading as health care reform. Knowing that racism has yet to make its way completely through the American system, Reid and others hold out for the residual racist sentiments clinging in our nation to rear their collective presence, willfully compromising the gains of the past 50 years racially and socially in America to create a "us vs them" mantra that may allow them to win in the short term on passage of legislation, but serves to wreck the nation's good will and possibly take race relations and tensions back decades in the process. Evidence of this occurring may be seen in the spike of Black unemployment in these times (where Black men with college degrees are twice as likely to be unemployed as their White counterparts as recent studies have found) and various reports of increased racial tension in many parts of the nation despite the presence of the Obamas in the White House. The good racial direction set by King and others generations ago found its apex in the election of Obama, Patrick (in Massachusetts), and others this decade, but those historical accomplishments have been compromised over the past months by a disrespectful disdain for responsible leadership and deference to history led by opportunists that have personally won while Americans everywhere continue to lose.

Harry Reid's Nevada Compromise may not have ceded land as did the slavery-inspired statements did in the 1800s, but his statements from the Senate Floor this week served to draw the same types of lines in a hypocritical claim to history, especially in line of how this bill will impact average Americans and how his leadership- along with the leadership of President Obama and Speaker Pelosi - have failed Black people throughout 2009 even as their supporters continue to pull the race card and brandish racial feelings in America like a 6-year-old with a machine gun. At this point, the Nevada Compromise cannot be the line in the sand dividing Americans on health care reform in a black-or-white fashion towards an issue with many grey areas. It's time for Reid's debacle to serve as confirmation that current Democratic leadership will do anything and say anything to win legislatively, leaving all else be damned - including a respect and understanding for history and a people used as political props in the process for their political gain.

Seeing the Light in These Dark Times

2009-12-06T19:48:00.005-05:00

Monday, December 7, 2009

It took months of double-digit unemployment, a series of questionable moves, a clear statement of disconnect and disloyalty, and a year of failures and disappointmennts before groups such as the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, and a larger portion of African-Americans are starting to see the light.

But, it's finally happening, just as many Black conservatives and Republicans have said since 2008.

It doesn't matter that Obama is the first Black president in regards to Black America's loyalty if the 44th president is going to treat Black America as many of the other 43 presidents have previously.

And, if a matchup with Obama's precedessor's accomplishments for Black America is any indication - with regards to issues such as the Washington, DC voucher program, government-led abortion funding, and the termination of funding for historically Black colleges and universities ("HBCUs") - the results are not kind to President Obama. Coupled with high unemployment rates and increased racism and urban violence in the nation without much said by the post-racial president, and one thing is clear:

Maybe more African-Americans are starting to see the light during these dark times for America.

When the Post-Partisan Needs to Stop Being Partisan

2009-12-06T19:43:00.004-05:00

Thursday, December 3, 2009

When should the "post-partisan" president stop being so partisan with his policies and initatives?

Well, it hasn't happened with his domestic policies to date - especially as he moves with a job summit and talk of a stimulus package (haven't we done this before?) to try and move the unemployment rate back underneath the double-digit barrier.

However, a good start to cut partisan ties with his party would be now regarding the wars overseas. This week's announcement to send 30,000 troops in an Iraqi-type surge seems to be a move in that direction.

And, if he continues to trump the whims of those driving the supermajority in 2009, perhaps he will be able to provide the type of leadership America is desparately in need of as we approach 2010.

Decisions, Decisions: Deployment or Diplomacy

2009-12-06T19:40:00.005-05:00

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Later this evening, President Obama is going to announce a decision on our national direction with the war in Afghanistan. The main question, among the others swirling around, is this: will the president follow the advise of his military leaders and deploy more troops in the effort to overcome the stagnation found on the ground in this key region, or will the president acquiesce to the demands of the more-liberal factions of his supporters and defer to diplomacy in the region as the primary resource to change the climate in the fight against American-opposing terrorists?

Protection from the Cult of Personality

2009-12-06T19:38:00.006-05:00

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

And, to think that the image of the first pop-culture president since John F. Kennedy has taken a hit on his image of proficiency from one of his biggest factions of supporters.

The pop culture posse.

The Real Turkey Day

2009-12-06T19:35:00.004-05:00

Monday, November 30, 2009

And you thought that last Thursday - Thanksgiving Day - was Turkey Day?

If you listen to the sentiments coming from Nancy Pelosi and the gang otherwise known as the supermajority in Washington, you may hear that it's actually coming a little later than Thanksgiving 2009.

And the turkeys on display, according to the President Obama and the Democrats? The American people, particularly American taxpayers.

Compare and Contrast

2009-11-25T02:05:00.055-05:00

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

There is a pretty famous quote that lives on in America's lexicon. It goes something like this:

"...The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated..."

About 100 years or so ago, this quote was attributed to Mark Twain. Today, it should be attributed to RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

See, it's amazing how things work in politics, based on one's perception. For all of the chatter about how and why President Obama should be given more time to allow his policies to take root and work, there is a greater amount of rhetoric that keeps feeding into the notion that the Republican Party is ripping apart at the seams, taking everyone from Steele and others down for the count with it. With this being the first time in American political history where the proverbial (i.e., the White House) and literal (i.e., the Republican National Committee) heads of the 2 major parties in the nation are headed by African-Americans, it is no wonder that many national pundits and media outlets continue to tie the two gentlemen together, yet often rooting for their successes inversely. Just as each step within the Obama White House is noted for its historical nature with a fawning over that can be downright embarrassing at times, every single "indicator" that Steele is failing as the national leader of the GOP is analyzed, criticized, and theorized, each considered another step into the implosion that many are certain will occur within the party soon enough. Early occurrences in the Steele Era at the RNC of this included the Steele-Limbaugh controversy (and questioning of "who was the actual head of the RNC"); more recent incidents center on the Sarah Palin book and the resignation of the RNC's communications director just this week. Each day has its media reports that foretell of a turnaround for the Obama White House, just as there is a series of rumors and innuendos that supposedly indicate the end of the Republican Party as we know it and a journey towards a new third-party full of GOP rejects that are frustrated with the traditional conservative party.

Just as the optimism for post-partisanship on Capitol Hill, cooperation in Washington, job creation by the president's stimulus package throughout the nation, and confidence in bringing societal and community tensions to a halt under Obama's leadership have been greatly embellished (symbolized by the Nobel Prize earned in just 30 days of in-office work as the President), the tumbling downfall of Michael Steele as the RNC Chair - along with the effectiveness and cohesion of the Republican Party as a national force - have been inflated at best.

Further still, if you compare the effectiveness of each man 10 months or so into their tenures, you might be surprised in what you see, for the rumors of the RNC's demise - and Steele's with it - have been greatly exaggerated.

In stark contrast to the legislative and national failures that President Obama and the Democrats have experienced throughout 2009, the RNC has been a leader in the country as the wave of electoral momentum has swung back to the GOP. Decisive blows in Virginia and New Jersey - both areas where President Obama and the Democrats campaigned hard, extended resources, and spent money in order to win the gubernatorial seats in play earlier this month - only seem to serve as an indicator to the level of comeback that the Republicans will infuse into the 2010 midterm elections. Under Steele's leadership, the Republicans have been able to consistently out-raise the Democrats in terms of fundraising and outmaneuver the Democrats in terms of shaping the financial landscape of the future coming as a result of the directives being passed by this presidential administration and its allies on Capitol Hill. As well, under Steele's leadership, the RNC has expended resources and funding strategically to change the political tide - a move that, evidenced by the victories in Virginia and New Jersey, the national responses to health care proposals over the summer, and the change in branding for the Republican Party as the "Party of No" earlier in 2009 to a party with hope for 2010.

Where Obama has taken on a difficult task as president to shift the fortunes of America - meeting this challenge with very mixed results, Steele has taken on a more difficult task (from a political standpoint, that is) as RNC Chair to rebrand the GOP away from the image of an out-of-touch, isolated, fringe party incapable of being a viable option in urban states and with growing new voting blocs in the country - meeting his challenge with resiliency that has yielded major victories under his leadership this month as the 2010 elections come on the horizon.

Even opportunities to bury Steele and the Republicans politically have not been capitalized. In lieu of taking advantage of perceived Steele missteps in public forums (such as the Feb 28 incident surrounding Limbaugh on the now-cancelled "DL Hughley Breaks the News"), President Obama continued to up the ante, becoming personally involved in embarrassing issues such as "Beer Summit" while being painfully behind the curve on relevant matters such as the DC Voucher program debate (where he initially moved to cut off funding to poor Black children only weeks after proclaiming his devotion to the educational pursuits of at-risk kids) and the Derrion Albert tragedy (an incident occurring right in his beloved South Side of Chicago, one that was ignored by several days by his press staff while he made a rush trip overseas in an attempt to secure the Summer Olympics as a called-in favorite for fellow Chicagoans.)

Whereas the blitz of Obama in the media has caused a dulling effect on the nation as his "cult of personality" continues to dwindle, the effectiveness of Steele's nation-wide tour is only beginning to yield fruit. Early appearances at events such as the State of the Black Union (in Los Angeles), multiple coffee house talks with constituents across the country, college forums in various locations, and regular media appearances on Sunday political shows and weekday morning shows have resulted in a consistent and measurable move of independents, young voters, and other voting blocs away from the allegiance that they gave Obama and the Democrats since 2008. This shift in voter persuasion also comes as the president and Democrats have failed to articulate their plans for fixing the economy, capping unemployment at single-digit rates, and improving the lives of everyday Americans. Not only has the White House and Congressional Leader failed at using their supermajority in Washington to convince America that their directives are sound and just, but they have also failed to convince moderate Democrats of the same, especially after the rounds of economic failure coming earlier with the stimulus package, the lack of job creation and credit availability, and the increase in unemployment to depression-like levels in many American communities. All this has been occurring while the Republicans have lined up in unison to oppose the historic deficit spending and other directives that have hampered the American comeback.

Just in time for the Republican comeback.

Coupling this with the frustration of young voters with the White House snub they have received to date and the call to task of the Obama Administration by the NAACP, AFL-CIO, and La Raza is the RNC's continued movement to infuse a more visible sense of diversity and inclusion - in essence putting Steele's money where his mouth in a fashion that the Obama Administration never really has with the very people that elected the first Black president. In sharp contrast to the White House's tendency to ostracize critics (i.e., Fox News) in a clear indication that the jabs were getting underneath the administration's skin, Steele and his team at the RNC have displayed a focus that looks past intended death knolls both within aspects of the party structure and the national media and rumor mills, thus enabling a continued march towards reversing the supermajority in Washington electorally and the tide of unemployment and disillusion socially as next November nears.

Steele has not won a Peace Prize as Obama has, but at this rate, the bigger historical prize coming in 2010 seems to be his.

In an era where President Obama's promise of post-partisanship, bilateral support domestically and a return to American prestige internationally has fizzled into the malaise of status quo in Washington - the exact opposite of what Obama campaigned on as a candidate last fall - Steele's leadership at the RNC has been the example of being a trendsetter, one where conservative values and principles have garnered a positive response from a growing section of Americans while independents and moderates continue to support Republican leadership against the massive spending coming from Washington. For every one Obama move behind closed doors that contravenes the will of the American people (e.g., the after hours deal between the White House and AIG executives to pay out millions in bonuses with bailout funding), Steele has similar back-room moves that build a stronger, better, and more diverse Republican Party despite the media back-biting and de facto calls of failure. Despite the Democrats' strong-arming to create unity at a time when confidence in their direction continues to wane, the Republican brand continues to strengthen as a viable option for more Americans nationally coming into 2010 under Steele's watch regardless of perceived rifts. Between the Tea Party Movement, the surge in conservative conservation in the media, and the shift of independents and others away from the Obama Administration, there is evidence that the Republican brand is strengthening despite the lack of credit being given to a man perceived as nothing more than a token in response to Obama's presence in the White House.

Tokens campaign well but never live up to campaign promises. Results yielding from Steele's RNC throughout 2009 serve notice that Michael Steele is no token - and that the results in Virginia and New Jersey may only be the beginning for a party that is on the cusp of reclaiming America in a way it never has before after a historical election of its own.

With all of these examples in tow, a summary look at the The One's sliding approval ratings, two major victories in gubernatorial races in November, and three rounds of proposed unpopular spending from the supermajority (i.e., the stimulus package, the bank bailouts, and the health care bills), it's becoming clear that the superlatives of Obama's excellence in the White House (i.e., the Nobel Peace Prize) contrast with the exaggerations of Steele's demise as well as that of the RNC. And where Obama's mantra increasingly seems beholden to one Mark Twain quote ("...better a broken promise than none at all..."), Steele's legacy is being forged slowly but surely with another ("...do the right thing...it will gratify some people and astonish the rest...")

Man Up!

2009-11-25T00:44:00.021-05:00

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

I know that it's not supposed to be appropriate to write behind the news cycle. In this line of activity (i.e., work, profession, or passion - depending on who you are and what you do it for), you are supposed to be avant garde with your writing, finding the story before the rest of the pack does. And that has merit. There is certainly something to be said about being the one that breaks the news, finds the nugget of relevancy that others have overlooked, and ties the argument together for a fascinated readership. More often than not, these stories are the sexy stories - the ones that have sizzle for pundits, tabloids, and water cooler conversations.

Other times, however, it is important to look back at a story and see its relevance to us, even after the news cycle has informally told us that the issue is dead.

Such is the case with the latest from the camp of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr.

A public comment from the reverend came last week as he criticized U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) for voting against the health care bill passed in the House of Representatives a few weeks ago. Congressman Davis - a candidate for governor in Alabama - was the only member of the Congressional Black Caucus to vote against the massive health care overhaul, one that could end up costing Americans over $2 trillion over the course of its first decade of implementation without guarantees that Medicare would not adversely impacted, that quality of American health care would improve, and that health care premiums would not go up as a result.

Rather than attacking the vote on its perceived merits, Rev. Jackson - a one-time highly-respected civil rights activist and leader - took Davis to task by saying that "...(one) can't vote against (this) health care (bill) and call yourself a black man..."

Very interesting in how the definition of being "Black" - a term that people such as Jackson's mentor, the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, fought so eloquently and passionately to ensure that the word was inclusionary, not monolithic - has been laid down again based on political expediency, not practicality or reality.

Not surprisingly, I took an interest in this, being that I am often criticized as not being able to "call myself a Black man" for my political and social beliefs. Thus, I looked deeper in this story and to the deeper meanings therein.

In a time when America seems to focus on the inclusive practices of the national Republican Party (or, at times, the lack thereof at the state levels of the party) while turning a blind eye towards the intolerance that Black America has shown towards thought, cultural, and political inclusion and diversity over the past 20 years, it is ironic that the definition of "being Black" keeps getting laid down in accordance to hot-button issues. With that enslavement from many to the trend of the day, however, comes the probability that one's inconsistencies on positions will go hand-in-hand with one's shifting needs in an ever-changing worlds of politics and society.

Rev. Jackson only serves as an example.

Not long ago - roughly 30 years in the mid-1970s, to be exact - Rev. Jackson could be seen rallying against the upswing of abortion and population control activities in the Black communities of America. Not only did Jackson - a man of the cloth - abhor practices such as abortion, he compared these activities to genocide. On more than one occasion did the civil rights leader publish positions through media quotes and prepared statements that indicated his clear position against abortion. Rev. Jackson was anti-abortion, and it was clear - no self-respecting Black man that fought to protect the rights of Black people to exist peacefully on this earth would support abortion.

Until the reverend made it clear that he wanted to become President of the United States.

By the time he was to run for the presidency as a Democrat, things changed - starting with Jackson's need for deep pockets to run an effective campaign. By then, the Democratic Party was the party of choice, one that was supported in many ways by organizations with deep ties to pro-choice initiatives, including Planned Parenthood and others - the exact organizations that Jackson protested just a few years earlier. Instead of keeping his prior position with a sense of honor, the reverend flip-flopped his position, quickly taking a pro-choice position to "honor the rights of women to control their own bodies" - a position that sounds good in media quotes but starkly contradicts his pro-life position of a few years earlier.

The same could be true for his most-famous utterance in the 1980s. After all, no self-respecting Black man - particularly a disciple that taught equality and love for all men in the face of bigotry - would ever be caught making a ethnic slur against another group of people.

Nor could a man ever call himself a Black man for making a reference to the days of lynching and castration - horror inflicted upon Black men nationally (and notably in the South) for decades before civil rights laws chased away this terror - based on some personal frustration. Further, a self-respecting Black man would not make such a statement on national television, speaking of no less than the first Black major-party presidential nominee, a reality that past civil rights leaders help to procure with their sweat and blood.

Unless, of course, it is politically expedient to do so, at which point the definition of Black manhood and its expectations therein - similar to the pros and cons of the abortion issue beforehand - are merely up to interpretation based on the political and social landscape of the times.

Say it isn't so, Rev. Jackson, especially since I grew up as a young Black man admiring the good things that you had done in your career.

When the definition of "being Black" is left up to the whims of a cantankerous lot of manipulative public personas that have wrestled away the freedoms fought for by King and others 50 years ago for the sake of mind-control over a set of people concerning a series of issues, it leads to a bastardization of the Civil Rights Movement as it takes the "content of our character" aspect of King's Dream and degrades it to "consolidating our collective thought based on color." When the definition of "Black manhood" can be thrown around by a select few with the sorry, self-prescribed standards that date to racial realities and attitudes that were current around the same time as plaid suits, goldfish platform shoes, and parachute pants, it is no wonder that Black manhood continues to take a beating from everyone ranging from Rush Limbaugh and some conservative talk show hosts to President Barack Obama at NAACP events - all acting as if every Black man must think the same, act the same, and fail the same, from the way we vote to the way we parent. This outdated and cancerous monolith of thought - intended to bind us together - serves as the very structure that holds Black America (and, as a result, the United States in general) back from achieving more in a tough economy and a historic age. If the monolith of Black manhood (and, in general, Black political and social thought) is held to the standards of a mighty few, only to watch those few flip-flop on issues in accordance to their personal and political whims, then how will this manhood ever be expected to take on the challenges facing our communities, families, and nation?

Maybe it's good the self-respecting Black male conservatives aren't considered "Black" by those of Rev. Jackson's philosophy, as it would get confusing to follow the cues to switch our positions on issues based on the needed rallies of support in Congress and beyond.

As argued by Black men including RNC Chairman Michael Steele, diversity within the breadth that is Black manhood is only a positive occurrence that should be fostered in order to optimize the talent and perspectives found therein for the improvement of the nation. Sadly, as America's media machines constantly look at Republicans and White people to take them to task for perceived slights on African-American men, perhaps they - and the rest of us as well - would be better served if they kept an eye on those containing Black manhood based on their ever-changing personal and political needs, not the ever-growing needs of Black people and Americans in general.

Political Pressure, Post-Partisanship, and a Prideful Prize

2009-11-23T09:45:00.031-05:00

Monday, November 23, 2009

It's good that we are past the area of partisan politics, isn't it?

I mean, after all, we know that Republicans would line up and attack anything that the Democrats would propose. Regardless of the hazardous amounts of spending, the increasing debt, the diminishing returns on the spending that the American people are receiving, and the amount of personal liberties (by way of government control and mounting taxes) that are building under the Democrats' control in Washington, we all know that the Republicans are only forging unity out of political allegiances, not because of their ideological beliefs as individual legislators.

It's good to know that in President Obama's era of post-partisanship, we would not see one Democrat be pressured into acquiescing to the whims of a political party against one's established - and public - stances.

No, we saw three.

And in the era of change and hope for the political landscape of America, we see that current climate of haggling and partisan pressure means more to the Democrats than does standing up for the will of the people. Post-partisanship on the part of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid (and anyone that does not think that the three are tied together like combatants in a highly-political game of tug-o-war isn't paying attention) went out the window once the egos and pride of the Democrats launched this air of "winning" this legislative chapter in American history, a sad display in contrast of our real need as Americans - a set of legislative initiatives that will allow the American people to win, not politicians.

Wasn't that the whole point of throwing out the Republicans from Washington in 2006 and 2008 - to rid Washington of the self-serving level of corruption and angst that American endured through their previous leadership in the decade?

The Fall of Nelson, Lincoln, and Landrieu sounds more like the failure of a law firm after a big lawsuit but, in reality, it was the failure of the post-partisan reality that Americans voted for in historic numbers just this time last year. The nation saw yet another campaign promise of the supermajority fall to the waste side as Democratic senators with genuine concerns about the $2+ trillion health care bill (the official number is $849 billion or so, but that includes the years of head-start taxing before actual services are offered as well as the discounting the notion that sitting politicians are actually going to cut services to the one bloc of consistent voters - the elderly) were pressured by lobbyists, left-leaning politicos, and more liberal fellow Democrats to vote to continue this trillion-dollar-trial run of government-mandated and -directed health care for the majority of Americans.

Of course, the political pressure did not come without purchasing the prize. It has been reported that the cost for Senator Landrieu's vote has been $100 million in pledges to the state of Louisiana, a sad occurrence considering that the state is in need of stimulus but should not have come at the expense of a massive health care bill.

However, this is not the biggest price we paid on Saturday.

With the actions of the Democrats in the Senate, we now see that this legislative initiative is more about a win for the president and the two leaders of the Congressional houses than it is about winning solutions for Americans. With the failures coming from the Democratic supermajority in Washington by way of the February stimulus package, Cash for Clunkers, and the bailouts (to unfreeze credit to small businesses and everyday Americans, thus helping the economy as well), the health care initiative is clearly the win that the Democrat-controlled White House and Congress would like to hang their proverbial hat on as the 2010 mid-term elections rapidly approach, especially as unemployment has risen above 10% nationally. Despite the clear objections to major portions of both bills went through the House of Representatives and the Senate (including the existence of a government-run plan and its authority to fund at-will abortions), the Democrats have shown a propensity to push for legislative success over the will of their constituents, notably those in the districts and states where political arm-twisting made the difference in creating winning votes. If the health care legislative issue has become a victor's prize for the Democrats to win at all costs (notably, at the cost of trillions of dollars in a time of economic hardship) as it does appear after this weekend's political machine-like strong-arming, what else have the American people purchased with their votes in 2008?

The levels of spending, the processes for legislative debate, and now the health care debate in Washington have continued to highlight what conservatives have been saying since 2008: that the promise of responsible spending, bi-partisanship problem-solving, and cooperative and respectful governance under this White House and Congressional leadership is much like the current health care plan for government insurance - something that Americans have paid for dearly already but will not receive anytime soon, should they receive it at all moving forward. If this is the prize that Democrats have been waiting for since the initial wave against the GOP began in 2006, then it may be up to more Americans from all political beliefs to apply their own political pressure to ensure the republican government many have paid for in a multitude of ways. Without us, the promised pot of gold by the Democrats at the end of all this may end up being nothing more than a booby prize.

Exhibit D(isillusionment and Discovery)

2009-11-19T09:01:00.018-05:00

Thursday, November 19, 2009

It hardly seems a week since hearing about these radical Black conservatives on "Glenn Beck" on Fox News, yet we continue to see evidence that only is there a pocket of African-Americans that did not support Obama's rise to the presidency in 2008, but there is a growing number of African-Americans - and others previous supporters - that are going weary today due to President Obama's failure to produce promised results.

Exhibit D as to why I can support Mr. Obama respectfully as the President of the United States yet I cannot get behind his philosophies, his politics, and his directives for this country.

And, sadly for a growing number of his supporters, they are feeling a bit of what I have been exhibiting for a while in regards to this president.

Disillusionment.

Perhaps they are starting to discover what many others in America felt back in November 2008: the poise is impressive, but the policies are misguided for a nation at a time of great need.

On Tuesday, organizations such as the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, and the National Council of La Raza - three organizations that lined up behind President Obama if there were every any that did in 2008 - came out to criticize the White House this past Tuesday for its failure to stimulate job growth with its nearly $800 billion bailout package earlier this year, even as Wall Street has recovered during this period of growing unemployment. Cautious to agitate the administration, groups such as the NAACP stated that they merely want to prod the president in a direction he already seems willing to move in.

However, according to much of America - and now supporters such as these three organizations - a direction not pursued enough despite the record level of spending coming from the supermajority in Washington led by the first Black president.

What is striking to me in view of the "Time to Be Heard" show last Friday is this: the issue of race is always a talking point whenever criticism of Black Republicans and conservatives such as Colin Powell, Thomas Sowell, and Condi Rice are mentioned, yet race must be avoided whenever criticism of President Obama is noted. Regardless of the egg-shell walk that America is prompted to take on while engaging this president, the results are becoming clearer each day: the level of spending coming from Washington without the campaigned-upon results are making even the strongest of supporters walk away from the president's corner - albeit slowly - as the economic snowball of unemployment and shrinking prosperity for everyday Americans builds.

The inspiration that President Obama embodied as a candidate in 2008 has clearly become disillusionment in 2009 as more minorities, young voters, and crossover voters stoke their disappointment and disapproval of the bailout scenarios of 2009, particularly as they have seen their jobs continue to disappear. The pride of Black America oversaw the exodus of jobs from Black America as he jammed through a historic spending bill with the use of the electoral supermajority on Capitol Hill. The numbers of unemployed Americans - particularly those represented by the NAACP, AFL-CIO, and La Raza - months after the stimulus was passed is frightening. For example, South Carolina - a state that played a key role in Obama's primary victory over now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - has a Black unemployment over 20%. Michigan - a state that handled over 17 votes on Obama's march to 270 in November 2008 - has a Black unemployment rate of nearly 25%. Those that wore the Obama paraphernalia in November 2008 are now wearing those shirts and hats in extended unemployment lines despite the record level of voter turnout, campaign spending, and government spending stimulated by Mr. Obama.

Slowly, they are discovering that the "we" in "Change We Can Believe In" did not include as many of the underclass and working class of America as we thought just a short time ago.

These folks - the under-appreciated "we" - do not need the doled-out figures of jobs that are "saved" in the president's stimulus package, particularly as we discover that many of those numbers listed by the White House are invalid. These folks - as well as many others Americans - need to see directives that will create and sustain full-time employment opportunities for the nation to enjoy. That is how America will bounce back, not with a round of rhetoric, a pound of television persona, and a ton of government spending.

As some of the president's staunchest non-political allies start to increase pressure on the White House, the rest of America must take notice and push their governments away from this current legislative path, lest we seek to embrace another exhibit in the "why can't you support the president's policies?"

Exhibit EED: Enduring Economic Downturn

Exhibit C(riminal Courts)?

2009-11-18T02:27:00.018-05:00

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

I know that there is a thirst for revenge in the streets of New York City after 9/11. The temptation is there for each New Yorker to personally address the men responsible for the most horrific act of terrorism ever seen on American soil. Yet, even with this sting of extremist-led terrorism still painfully apparent (including after the recent tragedy at Ft. Hood in Texas), it is clear that the planning and execution of the events of that sorrow-filled day in 2001 was not a random domestic act but was, instead, a carefully-plotted attack on the United States of America with the clear intent to wreak havoc on the American way of life.

So, to place the march to justice for the plotters of 9/11 - including mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - in the hands of the criminal courts of New York City despite the clear war-like intentions of the conspirators is a move that follows a dangerous trend of ignoring the global vibes around us by the Obama Administration.

In the global community, President Obama attempts to bring a level of connectivity with the rest of our allies and global neighbors through good will gestures and the like. I know the expression, "...when in Rome, do as the Romans do...", and this seems to apply to Mr. Obama's stance on many things. However, in the case of these terrorists and the New York courts, another statement seems to more aptly apply to President Obama and Attorney General Holder:

Gentlemen, when at war, do as warriors do.

And yes, it has been pretty clear through the evidence and unfolding of the last 8 years that we are at war with an enemy that has continued to plot terroristic acts on American soil. As a result, we are engaged in a 2-country war effort that is designed to keep the battles on foreign soil away from the American homeland. Yet, in regards to our march to justice, we choose a legalistic approach that is akin to dealing with 21st century mobsters.

With this same logic in place, the Nuremberg Trials for Nazi leadership would have been seen as a political overreach. After all, Jeffery Dahmer mutilated and horrifically killed many, albeit on a smaller scale that that of the Nazis. Why not just present the leaders of Nazi Germany for a jury of their peers?

Exactly - because the Nazi plotted and led a war effort that killed innocents, just as the conspirators of September 11 had done. Anything other than a war tribune minimizes the war actions against the innocents that lost their lives.

In a round of minimalism and disrespect of those that paid the ultimate price, the Obama Administration is missing the mark in so many ways by sending this matter to our criminal court system. In addition to providing valuable legal avenues to non-citizens and enemies of the state in their attempts to beat the charges, it also affords our combatants access to the information granted to all criminals facing murder changes - namely, lists of information, witnesses, and techniques used to assemble the evidence against them in the trial process. This occurrence is bad move that plays out like a bad movie, one destined to have a worse sequel.

Remember World Trade Center 1.0?

The Clinton Administration, reeling after the attempted tumbling of the World Trade Center in February 1993 by Ramzi Yousef and others, brought the terrorists behind this action to justice. Yousef today sits in a maximum security prison in the continental United States despite his pride in committing this heinous act and in being "...a terrorist, and...proud of it as long as it is against the US government..." (Does this sound familiar, Obamicans?) Despite clearly spelling out his intent in striking against America (his letter noted reasoning behind the bombing as "...(declaring) our responsibility for the explosion...in response to the American political, economical, and military support of Israel..."), Yousef basically received the same treatment a gang banger might should he had taken the lives of 6 innocents that cold February day.

Sadly, WTC 1.0, with its labeling as a criminal matter and subsequent treatment by the Clinton Administration, served as a teaching mechanism that bore its hideous head as WTC 2.0 on September 11, 2001.

Yet, we seem to be willing to take that same chance again for the sake of global political correctness and our failure to learn from our painful past. It looks as though President Obama, Attorney General Holder, and the rest are willing to follow the footsteps of the Clinton Adminstration and hope that they don't step into a bigger mess of war and terrorism than we are already in.

Of course, this overlooks the mess of confusion that it creates, even as it did during WTC 1.0 process that led to WTC 2.0.

This is not doing what warriors do, Mr. President and Mr. Attorney General. Taking this case through the criminal courts weakens our morale to address the evils facing us on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. It diminishes our position on worldwide extremism against us and our allies. It challenges the notion that this is a cause against the American way of life overall and instead views it through the prism of domestic acts, not international directives.

If the Obama Administration is willing to expose pertinent details to our enemies as we engage them in the march of justice, how can we expect to win a war against an enemy that has no borders, lands, or reliable demographics or characteristics? If the Obama Administration is willing to treat the most detestable war act on American soil in our history as a criminal act that can be handled outside of a military hearing, how can we fully expect the nation to be united in a war effort that we must win in order to save future American lives? If the Obama Administration is willing to risk failure in the march to justice for these terrorists on the same American legal system that has allowed multiple murders to walk free (OJ?), that has forced repeated men to serve decades in prison on crimes they did not commit (until DNA evidence years later), and that has a knack for ignoring facts for technicalities, how can the nation have confidence that those plotting murder and mayhem against the citizens of the United States will fear any true retribution should their deeds be found out by an Obama-led country?

The march to justice in New York will highlight just how dastardly these men of terror were in their schemes to murder innocent victims in 2001, but the decision by the Obama Administration to allow our terroristic enemies to take the easier path to justice has a tinge to it that seems more criminally faulty in nature.

Exhibit (un)B(elievable)

2009-11-17T11:38:00.022-05:00

Tuesday, November 16, 2009

Unbelievable.

Really, it is - and I'm not a medical professional.

Yet again, it's not surprising, especially for those paying attention to the direction that this nation is headed in.

Anyone that questions why many people are opposed to a government-run health care option only needs to look at Exhibit B.

That's B - for breast cancer.

The recent "recommendation" from a government task force stating that women should wait an additional 10 years before having regular mammograms smacks in the face of the hard work of valiant organizations such as the Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the conclusions of the American Cancer Society - ironically, not long after Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

This "recommendation" from the government task force is a dangerous move that reeks of government-mandated cost-savings just as the nation is crowing over the proposed cost of a government-run health care plan.

At a time when professional athletes such as the men of the NFL wore pink throughout October to bring awareness to early detection and continue research in the fight against breast cancer, this government task force attempts to take the wind out of the sails in this much-needed campaign against an unnecessary and preventable killer.

Those that think that it's just about cost - in terms of money and anxiety - may have a point, but it does not support the case of the government in this instance. Not only does this appear to be one of the few times in modern medical history will a group of medical professionals advise people not to take the path of precaution and early detection (as they do from everything from annual checkups to dietary habits), but it also comes as a move that seems to benefit insurance companies that would increasingly become unwilling to financially cover a number of tests designed to catch cancer in its earliest forms, a move that would save these companies billions of dollars annually but would also - and more importantly, we must remember - save thousands of American women's lives annually as well. Isn't that what insurance companies are supposed to do - ensure that we have the avenues and resources to optimize our health as prudently and swiftly as possible? Instead, this move encourages these companies to do the exact opposite, providing an opportunity where bureaucracy via paperwork and policies can prevent women from the life-saving tests and preventive measures that they desperately need while these insurers save billions of blood-tinged dollars.

Just in time for the potential new kid on the insurance block to get into the game and save some bucks with this government task force "recommendation" in the process - the federal government.

And this is a huge example (Exhibit B, if you will) of why government-run health care for the masses is a very bad idea.

Under a government-run option that insures a significant portion of our nation, this "recommendation" from the government task force to push back the annual mammogram age from 40 to 50 would have quickly and effectively become an edict from on high, thus making law (without using the law-making powers of the populace-elected Congress) a statement discouraging health care professionals and women from actively searching for breast cancer for another 10 years. Further, the strength of this de facto edict would have enabled the government-run option to deny women that have concerns about their bodies the opportunity to investigate possible issues before they become fatal problems.

Even still, under this same plan with what we have seen of the wishes of the White House and the government bureaucracy this week, American women would be able to get abortions on demand - and in many cases, taking lives needlessly- with taxpayer funding but could not get the taxpayer funding needed (under this "recommendation") to detect a growing killer in America for another 10 years - thus, in many cases, losing lives needlessly.

The more we hear from the health care arm of the federal government, the more that we should walk away from a health care bill that includes anything that involves the term "government-run." Washington is exhibiting clear signs of what we will have in health care should our resources be directed towards the government-run option for all Americans. We will not buy reform, but a twisted bureaucracy where the select few - not American women or the nation overall - will have ultimate power over the decisions to prevent life and death.

So, simply of the exhibits on health care we have seen so far this week: Buyer Beware.

Exhibit A(bortion)

2009-11-16T08:20:00.019-05:00

Monday, November 15, 2009

Alanis Morissette sung a classic song many moons ago. The catch phrase of the song was, "...isn't it ironic....don't cha think?"

And believe me, that is how I'm feeling today, especially after appearing on "Glenn Beck" on Fox News Channel last week. It was a special show (apparently now one of several that will air) that featured Black conservatives and Republicans (if you saw the show, you may have seen that those two are not always the same) commenting why they opposed the direction that the country is headed as guided by the supermajority in Washington. Further, a good segment (but again, not all) of the African-American audience were able to offer points of contention with the Obama Administration and why they did not vote for the first African-American president in history.

For me - someone that has vocally opposed the president's policies while appreciating his historic presence in the White House on a regular basis - it seems as though President Obama was watching the show this weekend and wanted to help further the Black Republican cause.

First, Roland Martin (one of his staunch supporters) sent out an editorial that challenged Black America to stop the name-calling and reactionary rejections of Black Republicans without merit (http://hiphoprepublican.com/general/2009/11/14/roland-martin-are-african-american-republicans-sellouts/)

Not to be outdone, the president moved forward through his top adviser to illustrate further why Black Republicans and conservatives oppose Obama so fervently.

Look no further than Exhibit A - that's A, for abortion.

The post-partisan president was not content on leaving the House bill for universal health care alone, one that passed after conservatives from both sides of the political aisle pushed for anti-abortion legislation in the bill to ensure that the federal government did not provide funding for elective abortions. Rather than acquiesce for the sake of the little bi-partisanship the House was able to garner, President Obama lashes out against it in the name of the extreme left and some notable left-leaning lobbyists.

The post-lobbyist president has sent word via David Axelrod that he will position the White House into the universal health care debate in the Senate in order to strip away from the House-mandated amendment restricting government-funded abortions, a move that powerful Washington lobbying groups such as Planned Parenthood and others on the extreme left are certainly thankful for. After all, that would be the only way they got their money's worth out of supporting Obama in '08.

Sadly, the post-racial president that has stripped away funding for poor Black students in secondary education (the DC voucher program) and post-secondary funding (with taking funding away from historically Black colleges and universities) - both programs started under that "notorious white supremist", President George W. Bush (you know, the one with the Latina sister-in-law) - now is looking to strip away an amendment protecting against government-run abortion-at-will. Anyone looking at the numbers and history of abortions, Planned Parenthood, and its ilk will see quickly that if Obama is successful, the impact of such a move will be felt disproportionately in the African-American communities.

Obama's first presidential executive order was to send American funding (at a time when the nation is in an economic crisis) overseas to aid in overseas abortions, a move that undoubtedly included impacting babies in his father's Kenya and other nations around the globe. Now, his perceived crowning legislative achievement this year will be to have the US government again fund the killing of children, including a disproportional number of ethnic children in America.

Some Exhibit A.

Aside from the conservations on the set of "Glenn Beck" - both on-air as well as off-air comments - the moves coming from this historic first Black president give rise to a growing swell of opposition throughout the country with much of it coming from a conservative segment of Black America that prioritizes their personal values over the intoxication in setting trends. Christians, conservatives, moderates, and Republicans alike have no recourse but to oppose such dastardly actions by a president that, in one fell swoop, has reversed the new directions on partisanship, race relations, and lobbyist influence that he campaigned to guide America past. Tragically still, that fell swoop happens to be one of the most divisive issues in America over the past 40 years - an issue that the House of Representatives (including extremely-liberal Nancy Pelosi) compromised on in order to get passage of a bill, only for the president to attack that small strand of unity with a dividing measure that only ensures continued discord in Congress. Just as polarizing politicians found a first measure of peace on the health care issue, the president has thrown down the gauntlet on abortion for the sake of the extreme left and its lobbyists (such as Planned Parenthood) and, thus, is taking the country towards another philosophical and divisive domestic war.

No amount of Glenn Beck, talk shows, or "Party of Lincoln" rhetoric can convince America more about why Black Republicans and conservatives oppose President Obama's policies in Washington than the president's actions themselves. Even when the criticism of people like me reaches a feverish pitch, there is always something coming from the Obama Administration that just moves to prove our point, from opposing the educating of the disadvantaged to supporting destructive measures such as government-funded abortions.

For someone that was supposed to help heal this country past race and partisanship, President Obama has found a way to keep re-opening old wounds and making the case for those that oppose his positions.

Phiday Photo of the Week (November 13, 2009)

2009-11-15T09:31:00.006-05:00

Friday, Novermber 13, 2009

Here's a clip from Friday's show on "Glenn Beck" on Fox News Channel.

Straight Talk on the Health Care Bipartisanship...Sorta

2009-11-12T16:03:00.003-05:00

Thursday, November 12, 2009

It’s good to see some bipartisanship on Capitol Hill during this health care debate. If we can work together during these difficult times, we can see a better future on the horizon.

You may be wondering what I’m referring to, especially since only one Republican – Congressman Joseph Cao – voted for the actual bill in the House of Representatives. Where Cao was the lone Republican to agree to the bill, he was among a larger group spanning across the political aisle that rallied for changes to the legislation before it passed. These adaptations made sure that elective abortions were not covered in any form of government-run health care.

And where Cao’s efforts as a staunch Catholic and former seminarian leading this effort were opposed by some, there is a growing bipartisan assembly of legislators and citizens that are reexamining the issue of abortion and its presence in the national discussion.

This is a development that comes not one minute too soon for the African-American community.

Statistics show that abortion impacts our communities at a rate that is daunting and disturbing. The invisible wounds for survivors of abortions – both men and women - keep the burden of depression and pain ongoing in a community that already incurs its share of death and urban decay between issues of Black male incarceration, Black families in disarray, and Black youth drop-out rates. Despite being 12% of the nation’s population, Black people account for 35% of the nation’s annual abortions.

From the suffering that we can measure to the pain that we cannot, this is a pattern that must be scaled back in the African-American community if we are going to heal as Americans. Whether we realize it or not, this bipartisan move between congressmen on Capitol Hill last Saturday – both Democrats and Republicans – helps Black America move in the right direction on the issue of abortion.

The funding of abortion by a universal health care option would levy a swathe of additional physical, emotional, and spiritual destruction in our communities, an encumbrance that may have put our people on a journey from challenged times towards genocide. We may have our disagreements on how to provide more health care coverage for more Americans, but it is clear that more Americans are certain about the government’s role on abortion – particularly government money towards abortion.

This may be small common ground in politics right now, but it will have big consequences for the Black community moving forward.

Turning a Cub Into a Foxx

2009-11-12T16:00:00.003-05:00

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

One week after Election 2009, we see that change has a lot more to do than just President Obama.

I picked up a copy of a local newspaper to read one of the front-page stories:

“President Obama Calls Mayor-Elect.”

As a Hip Hop Republican, I really didn’t know how to feel about the reality I was reading, considering that it crystallized two recent electoral defeats.

As a Davidson Wildcat, though, it did make me smile.

After all, not long ago, there were several young Black men sitting at the dining commons as college freshmen, talking about how we were in rarified air: we were Black men on the Davidson College campus. During those first few weeks of first semester, the talk escalated about what we were, what we symbolized, and what we could achieve during the course of our time in college. Several took the risk to proclaim where they thought that they would be in 10 years.

Ironically, one of us knew where he would be in 20 years, and despite the coincidence, it has nothing to do with the Obama Effect. In fact, much of it happened without it.

And where the victory of Anthony Foxx as Charlotte’s second African-American (and youngest-ever) mayor-elect will be seen through a prism crafted by the Era of Obama, it would be short-sighted to attribute this as a trendy win due to a historic presidential election a year before. As I learned once again after seeing long-lost classmates over the course of a 2-day span last week, there is always the temptation to ignore the steps walked from planning goals to making history – a dangerous rue to alienate people from understanding the process of discipline that often determines our level of prosperity. Seeing the successful people they are today reminded me of the challenged students we were not too long ago.

It is a lot easier to accept that there is power in the examples of select “rock stars” than it is to harass the power of people that is exemplified in those select few. Granted, there is inspiration found in the historic victories in rising politicians. Just as I had the opportunity to tell the first Black mayor (Harvey Gantt) the impact his example had on both Mr. Foxx and me as college students, someone will one day tell Foxx how he served as a muse for young people to pursue challenging and meaningful goals. However, the true examples that we must look to in these victories are the accomplishments of progress over complacency and lethargy that keeps us from investing in the future.

Both Obama and Foxx were prepared behind the scenes for years by mentors and supporters that saw the potential they had. These supporters took time and resources to cultivate winners – in politics and in life – in order to provide these men opportunities to succeed. If we are going to find more victories in our communities, we must challenge ourselves to look past the images of the winners standing at podiums on Election Night and focus on the examples of giving back to our young people, molding them into winners long before the cameras, newspapers, and fame learned how to pronounce a funny-looking first name and remembered to put an extra “X” on a common last name.

In an era where uncommon people can come from simple beginnings, it is up to us to begin claiming common victories in the midst of unacceptable conditions in our communities. For every Obama or Foxx, there are scores of Derrion Alberts in the nation, struck down by needless violence and our inability to stay engaged enough to make the needed change.

And perhaps we can help our cubs from running wild and guide them towards the right goals to pursue.

Health Care Victory

2009-11-10T13:48:00.015-05:00

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

I know that it sounds a little weird after Saturday's health care vote on the House floor, but if Speaker of the House can claim victory after losing two gubernatorial races because of beating one third-party candidate, then I can claim victory on the passage of a massive health care bill that may impact millions of Americans.

Particularly those directly affected by the pro-choice political machine.

The power of pro-life choices stood tall as the deciding factor in moving any legislation forward towards health care reform. Granted, I believe that this direction towards government-run health care is not the best direction to provide more Americans with quality health care. With that said, seeing that Democrats and Republicans can come together in a bi-partisan protect of elective abortions on the taxpayers' dime.

Those opposed to this development can look towards one of two sets of facts in order to see why this is the best move for America, particularly if we continue towards this public-funded option.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute did a study a few years back that concluded that only 13 percent of abortions in the US were covered under private health insurance. The Kaiser Family Foundation's findings conclude that roughly half of those women that have employer-based insurance have abortion coverage included.

Most would not argue the procedure on the grounds of danger to the women's well-being, but the polarizing rhetoric from the left concerning the insistence of a public option that includes carte blanche abortion accessibility was misleading as it was slanderous of those that opposed this use of public funds. It is bad enough that President Obama already made public-funded abortions possible (by way of this January 2009 executive order - his very first presidential executive order - to fund overseas abortions with American tax dollars.) What would be worse would have been our willingness (through a political supermajority, not a majority of American citizens, by the way) as a nation to extend this practice of elective state-run genocide on American soil.

And let's call many of the elective abortions what they are - genocide. Many African-American leaders continuously point to the numbers of abortions endured by Black women as a sad sign of the times for Black people in the USA, a cycle that keeps many Black women in fiscal and spiritual poverty and despair. Other communities within the Christian realm note similar findings from their experiences providing counseling and support for women survivors of abortion.

Do we really want to dip the hard-earned money of Americans into - at the very least - a well of controversy and divisiveness? At the worst, do we put it towards a perceived cesspool of depression and destruction?

People can put this argument in a frame of their personal choosing (just as I did), but there is a slew of complicated facts that transcend the abortion issue past considering it a mere women's health care issue that should be included in federal funding. Even if Congress collectively got it wrong on Saturday, they got the abortion aspect right. Perhaps that was the bi-partisanship that the White House was looking for.

Then again, after again looking back to January and throughout the record, perhaps not.

Tumbling Down the Wall

2009-11-10T12:56:00.008-05:00

Monday, November 9, 2009

There was a time that many Americans do not remember and cannot relate to in these current times. However, it is a time that we should reflect upon as we begin a special week.

With the tragedy of Ft. Hood fresh on our minds and Veterans' Day approaching later this week, we will be reminded (and rightfully so) of the sacrifices that our military men and women make daily in order to keep America safe. We will hear about the risks that they make regularly - risks that are often the difference between being sub par, being status quo, or being great.

Today - November 9 - marks another day when American dedication to being great mattered enough to take that risk. The world, in many ways, is better as a result.

Just as the defenders of the wars overseas are being told that it is an impossible task to take on - and thus no need for us to continue the endeavor any further - there were a similar lot of people telling us for years that the way to protect America is not through the staunch build-up of military might against the Soviet Union. Diplomacy - and even compromise with the communist imperialists - was the best way to keep America safe from the Russian threat and keep us away from the real possibilities of nuclear war. Despite watching the developments of the Cuban Missile Crisis in the early 1960s, there were plenty that felt that the Cold War was an impossible endeavor to win, one that only stole money away from the domestic agenda while failing to improve the nation internally and keep her safer globally.

President Ronald Reagan disagreed - and took a military risk. He challenged the nerve of a mighty nation that leveraged communism to pursue its agenda of global domination and inhibitions to capitalism and freedom based on its twisted view of society.

And yes, it was a risk, although many of us not old enough to remember "fall out shelters" at schools across the country or recall the tensions of US-USSR relations and its intrigue with spy espionage. There was a years-pursued passion to win "an impossible war" in order to keep the freedom espoused by the United States of America intact throughout the world. Just as it takes our proud countrywomen and men to have nerves of steel in order to face death and separation from family daily in order to be historic in the face of adversity and controversy, it took vision to face the task of ending the Cold War and writing a historic chapter in our era with a happy ending that reunited families, ended a nuclear threat, and brought peace where most thought it would never reside.

President Reagan and his allies had the nerve and the vision to look ahead and see a world where the Wall would fall. We look back today from that world to see it tumble once again to remind us of the power of persistence.

And as we tackle the wall of our times - terroristic extremism - it is important for us to note that these battles take nerve to take risks, and even with history and morality on our side, it does take time. It took mere months to build the Berlin Wall, a physical and mental structure that stood for decades. It took nearly as long for that wall to come down, crashing at the feet of those willing to hammer away bit-by-bit. Just the same, we must continue to support our troops as they work with history and righteousness on their sides so that they can make good decisions, project the best of America with each action they do on our behalf, and face tough choices with honor and courage.

After all, if they are risking their lives to keep America great, we must risk to be personally greatness when fatigue, trends, and fear persuade us otherwise.

Phriday Photo of the Week - November 6 2009

2009-11-09T09:41:00.003-05:00

November 6, 2009

So, what's it gonna be?

Do we get a brand new health care system - along with a brand new level of spending?

Or can we get actual reform without risking fiscal failure? Saturday begins the decision process...

The 10-Finger Theory and Pulling the Rope

2009-11-09T08:46:00.011-05:00

November 5, 2009

Everyone has a role in politics. The people. The politicians. The pundits. The politicos.

Everyone has a role, but not everyone knows their roles. In many ways, it’s about 10 fingers working together to handle victories for the Republican Party – and for the citizens that they are representing.

Not that it’s the worst thing in the worse, nor is it intentional. However, it is important.

The large victories for the Republican Party nationally – and the mostly-large defeats seen for the Republicans in North Carolina (aside from Greensboro, a significant city of victory but not quite the same national banter city like Charlotte is) – have been earned through the application of knowing how to work together as a team. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans have had an inconsistent time of putting together the plans and processes to move people into the voting booths for Republicans candidates. The inability to coordinate the moving parts of the political players of the process have hampered the successes in a multitude of ways.

Without the grassroots being the foundation, there is no way for the party to build successfully.

Without the pundits to hold the Party accountable, there are no avenues to check the efforts in an unbiased and academic fashion.

Without the leadership within the party structure that takes chances to be involved and to be in front, the shot to win each November resembles more of a shatter shot, giving a random chance for victory for their candidates.

And without the candidates that know how to balance the philosophy of the party, the needs of the people, and the discipline needed within the campaign and governing worlds, there is no way to change the direction of the party's fortune - nor the direction of the nation's cities and states individually.

Each finger needs to grasp the rope - in faith and in the spirit of cooperation.

And each finger cannot be afraid to point out flaws, point back personal shortcomings, and indicate new directions for the people to move in. A finger incapable of pointing, grasping, and directing - through arthritis, gangrene, or muscle weakness and failure - must be made new and healthy again as we need all hands on deck.

And as with skin of hands, there needs to be a shedding when flakiness, dryness, and inflexibility inhibits the fingers from having the full range of motion needed to point, grasp, and direct in its roles effectively to pull the rope in this political tug-a-war back towards Republicans as victors.

And, consequentially, pulling America back towards the tenets and actions that made the nation the beacon of the world.

The Non-Allure of the Young

2009-11-03T23:37:00.010-05:00

November 4, 2009

If the Republican Party is going to catch a foothold on the hearts and minds of more Americans - and, in this case, North Carolinians and Charlotteans - it is going to have to take a page out of the Democrats' book and build some wealth and legacy.

In the case of Charlotte's next mayor, Davidson College grad Anthony Foxx was supported to a narrow victory by Democratic help from all over the country, soliciting and receiving help from the NC Democratic Party and notable Democratic figures. In stark contrast, not only was the Republicans notably silent regarding similar styles of support, but moreso, their approaches to providing widespread support for candidates with all-encompassing de facto endorsements watered down a brand. Moreso, it hampered the efforts of several strong young GOP candidates in their attempts to win significant seats this November.

Whereas Foxx got support from the state Democratic party, the NC GOP did not have enough effort or muscle to support young candidates including Tariq Bokhari and former Mecklenburg County (NC) YR Chairman John Ross. Further, blanket endorsements given to both their opponents (many of which were Republicans uninvolved with the GOP structure until running for office) and to them only distanced their invested efforts to build relationships with the grassroots.

Subsequently, those roots were flying with the barn house when the strong winds of Election Day.

Which leads to the question: why does the GOP have such a hard time supporting its young elephants in the charge to create gains in electoral races and footholds with voters?

It must be because their meat tastes so sweet, for one way or another, the party structure continues to eat their young, particuarly those that are not selected by the party elite as "the chosen ones" to represent the GOP. Ironically, the more this model is followed, the more voters show the local parties that regardless of who the GOP selects as their "chosen ones", local voters will reject them just the same.

Perhaps it is Republican pride that causes this continuation of "politics as usual" - and the forthcoming losses as expected with each ensuing November in the Carolinas. And with each subsequent rejection - now culminating with a supermajority on the Charlotte City Council and the unseating of a Republican incumbent on School Board (although that was in a Democrat-controlled district) after a clean sweep of at-large candidates on the county commission and gubernatorial, and US Senatorial levels in 2008 - there comes an indictment of leadership within the Republican Party at the state and local levels. It is quite possible that the vision that Democrats hold when supporting their young, tenuous candidates such as Mayor-elect Foxx and state representative Nick Mackey (allowing them to win, even by the slightest of margins at times) is lacking on the Republican side to support and foster their young candidates in reply.

Of course, this does nothing to remove the label of the GOP as an aging, non-inclusive party, especially as pride serenades them into thinking that doing things the same way despite previous failures will miraculously lead to new results.

Or perhaps this is a strategy or non-concern as refreshing, young candidates are overrated as a political resource for the NC GOP. If so, it is a dangerous path to take.

With the re-election bid of those such as US Senator Richard Burr coming up in 2010, there will be a need for young backs to carry the day for an incumbent that narrowly won in 2004 and now faces the possibility of losing after solid-red North Carolina turned for Obama and the Democrats in 2008. Young backs carry campaign signs, campaign energy, and campaign hope a lot better and a lot further than most others; (ask the Obama campaign from 2008.) Young electoral winners that cover a broader base of Americans play to more potential voters for future campaigns. Young people that represent differ aspects of the Republican Party help to attract the moderate and independent voters that helped candidates in Virginia and New Jersey on November 3.

The same type of voters, by the way, that didn't help Republican candidates in Charlotte, quite possibly due to the blood on our hands from eating our young. Or, at the very least, watching with a lack of focus while we see our young devoured by consolidated power from the other side of the aisle.

They are the same voters that cost Pat McCrory and Elizabeth Dole. And if Republicans are not careful, it will cost them a chance to take advantage of the national referendum going out against the Democrats in North Carolina and their supermajority in Washington. After all, the combined speed for the sprint and the endurance for the marathon that is campaign politics is best served with a spice of youth and energy. Without leadership that understands this and captivates it selflessly (without motivation to exclude or dictate in very, well, un-republican manners), Republicans will be more apt to look back to recent failures than they will to look forward to future victories in 2010.

The Presidential Price of a Nobel Prize

2009-11-03T21:56:00.011-05:00

November 3, 2009

Is anyone really surprised?

Tell me, really?

No more than one month after President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on potential - not substance (remember that his nomination was submitted before he was one full month in the Office of the Presidency) - he has been found doing more campaigning for Democratic gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey and Virginia than he has been found agreeing with his commanders on the ground in Afghanistan.

After he won a Nobel Peace Prize from an international committee with no ties to American sovereignty - one that is openly and actively pursuing him to honor diplomacy at all costs, even at the behest of American interests.

Are you surprised that the president has been seen as "dithering" on the issue of sending more troops, even as those from both sides of the political aisle (can you imagine former VP Dick Cheney and US Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) agreeing on anything, yet they do with McChrystal's recommendation) are pressuring him into making a decision to turn the tide overseas and keep America safe? I'm not, especially after hearing the explanation of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee when discussing why a first-term, first-year president was able to win the Prize after a nomination submitted mere weeks into his presidency. (Side note: isn't it ironic how the same people that don't think that President Obama has been in office long enough to change things also think that he was in office long enough to change enough to garner a global prize given for time-tested changes for the better?) The Committee's desire to promote the president's stature around the world and persuade him to pursue diplomacy at all costs (i.e., not increasing the threat of violence with increasing troop volumes) may not be in place with the Afghanistan decision, but it sure looks like it, doesn't it?

And that's a problem.

People were roundly noted for saying that President Obama would have a hard time winning a Peace Prize while promoting the continuation of two wars simultaneously. In essence, in order to live up to the esteem that a Peace Prize presents, the president may, in fact, compromise the best interests of Americans if those interests prompt Obama to take a more aggressive approach to international affairs, particularly in the Middle East. Although many initially stated that the Prize's connotations would not impact the administration's decisions moving forward, the hesitancy surrounding a decision that involves military recommendations given by his hand-picked team only brings a round of pause to many Americans.

Is there a price to having a presidential prize-winner? And, if so, are we seeing the beginning of those payments on the international front?

If this is so, then we must caution ourselves against keeping the 44th president accountable to the people of the United States on a regular basis. The foreign affairs realm, although better with a solid round of cooperative efforts and good cheer, is clearly an arena where popularity pales in sharp comparison to safety and respect in the global community. Granted, this respect and subsequent safety does not have to stem exclusively from fear, but fear of doing what is required to keep America's people safe is worse than fear of America by our enemies or, worse still, fear by America to lose popularity in the global community based on self-motivated interests. Very rarely will you see others within the international community rallying to the aid of Americans in time of military need, much less see them take the lead in some endeavors. Since World War II, it has been the Americans that have ponied up the costs of war, from financial resources (e.g., funding before Pearl Harbor) to weaponry and soldiers on the ground. Unfortunately, that has always been the cost of freedom, respect, and safety throughout the world, particularly as we deal with some rogue nations.

Which is all the more reason why it is dangerous when a new price is commissioned by a committee of few with requirements for one with obligations to us all.

Telephone

2009-11-03T08:55:00.013-05:00

November 2, 2009

We have heard from weeks now - or since the last time I have been able to get away from an adorable but fussy newborn baby :-) - about the missteps that the Obama Administration has taken regarding our overseas missions. That, perhaps, we should be willing to commit more troops to the effort in Afghanistan, thus taking the advice given by General Stanley McChrystal. Or, rather, we should continue to strengthen our efforts in Iraq, particularly with the latest bombings and other disturbances that are costing lives on the ground - both American and otherwise.

Or, most notably, we should stop dancing around the Iranian nuclear issue, especially as Iranian leadership continues to show a willing to move towards acceptance into the world's nuclear community.

Recently, everyone from former Vice President Dick Cheney to former presidential candidate and Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has criticized both the Iranian government's actions as well as President Obama's continued "dithering" on the plan to move forward.

Conservative critics are getting their message to the president: be tough with a regime that has yet to respect the order of day, the people of other cultures, and the will of the free world - do not acquiesce. Now, the question is whether that same message will be agreed to and passed along from the Obama Administration to Ahmadinejad and others within Iran, with the pressure of that message making the difference between continuing a covert nuclear weaponry campaign and reeling in a government more intent on rogue intentions than global cooperation.

Like the childhood game of "Telephone", the question on the American side of the equation comes down to how much that message of stern resolve on the Iranian nuclear issue comes to bear once incorporating the varying opinions and approaches that encompasses our foreign policy over the past several years. What can be easily forgotten is that the holdover of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, combined with the new direction that President Obama is taking, provides an interestingly crossroads of perspectives tying the past two administrations. So far, America has taken a diplomatic approach towards Iran, only to be rewarded with inflammatory rhetoric and hidden nuclear facilities. Will the influence of Gates (and, by proxy, the Bush Administration) and a dose of Cheney and conservative viewpoints impact the next steps with the Iranians, especially if their public actions do not equal a stoppage in their secretive march towards nuclear weapons?

The message has been sent many sides - not only a side of American politics that longs for tougher actions against those that threaten American liberty and her allies overseas, but a side represented by the Nobel Peace Prize coalition, one that seeks to influence more diplomatic efforts by the Obama Administration through encouragement that included the 2009 Peace Prize. Very rarely does a message come "crystal clear" from one source to the next, but in this instance, there will be a clear influence of one tactic over another in the messaging that is sent to Iran, al-Qaeda, and other enemies to American allies and interests overseas. Obama and his team will speak clearly, but what is ultimately said boils down to what line of communication (and subsequently what tactic) he keeps open to him to use.

Pay Attention

2009-10-15T18:22:00.007-04:00

October 15, 2009

I’m sitting here at my laptop, incapable of putting together the exact words that I want to say in reaction to political consultant Raynard Jackson’s comments on www.foxnews.com recently.

Saying that GOP Black candidates are a “…total embarrassment…”

Saying that GOP Black candidates are “…more intent about being accepted into the party than calling a spade a spade…”

Then, following it up in his personal op-ed with “…White people are supporting you (Black Republican candidates) because you are Black so that you can speak out against the Black president, so the white people won’t have to (because they can’t call you a racist since you are Black). Oh, I get it now. You know we have a term for people like that and it begins with the word UNCLE!”

In an editorial titled, “Black Republicans Running From Race”, no less.

At first, I was in need of a title that was appropriate and tempered.

It took me a moment, but at least I can say.

Ah, yes. I have the words now.

Mr. Jackson, “Pay Attention.”

First, pay attention to the Black Republicans– the candidates as well as party activists, elected officials, and pundits alike - that are out there fighting racism within America as well as the degradation of the Black community simultaneously.

I assure you, it’s a thankless job, one that prompts criticism from all sides:
• from many Democrats that state that Black Republicans don’t really love Black people even as we work to help the community with our efforts, speaking to political issues that impact our communities, especially Democrat-controlled urban centers;

• from many Republicans that question Black Republicans’ loyalty to the party’s message and values when we call for accountability on issues from all sides, including Republicans; and

• from Black people themselves, many of whom put us through unnecessary, repeated rounds of validations to proof how Black we are.

Apparently, that criticism now also comes from Black conservative pundits that seemingly feel more comfortable in calling out the rising crop of Black Republicans in the media versus using their platforms to reflect and uplift the current movement – and even hold them accountable constructively without calling them an “embarrassment” and devaluing their candidacies.

Offering them time on your radio show to address your concerns is, well, to paraphrase your own words, very “uncle” of you, Raynard. Perhaps next time it would be better to offer it proactively versus giving a reactive response to a public slam.

Not only would it give them a chance on your platform, but it would also involve the leadership – on your end as well as theirs – to pursue solutions, not just raise opposition, filling the void you allude to with your opinion.

Again I say: pay attention.

Pay attention to how these Black Republican candidates are following the pattern that Black Democrats (including President Barack Obama) have played out over the years – a pattern that has allowed the previous candidates to win unlikely seats, including the White House. What is that pattern? Namely - talk about race only when pressed and it is politically comfortable, but do not fixate themselves on issues of race, lest they become marginalized as solely a “Black candidate” – and one incapable of winning a larger race.

As a political consultant, you should know this: it’s not advantageous to be a political anomaly (Black conservative) when you are trying to be a winning candidate. Novelty is only successful on television; familiarity and comfort are what’s successful in the voting booth.
Just as Black America collectively does not hold President Obama accountable for the race-related issues going on in the nation (including Black-on-Black crime), we must not demand that these candidates do so, particularly as they are in the process of fundraising, brand-building, and networking. It is not their calling at this point in time. When repeated calls for President Obama to be more vocal concerning the plight of Black people in this nation, the overwhelming response includes rhetoric explaining that the president is “the president of all Americans”, thus exonerating him from speaking out. Just the same, if these candidates are of the business of the whole electorate they seek to serve, why must people (and Black Republicans, no less) go out of their way to force them to – in many ways – validate their Blackness by speaking out and jeopardizing their electoral chances? Don’t they have enough obstacles to overcome as historical figures?

I thought that we Republicans believed in “We the People”, not the monolithic model we see elsewhere?

Raynard, if these candidates are running to represent whole districts or states, why must we force them to go off-task, especially as they rally against being underdog candidates that have to fight stereotypes, funding challenges, and perhaps even the “good ol’ boy” network that still exists in certain segments of the GOP at the state level in some regions of the country? It doesn’t do them any good to speak to the racism that they have to overcome as candidates – both with the state structures and perhaps within the electorates they must bond with. Let the untouchables tackle the tough issues, for after all, not every political animal (especially Black Republicans) needs to become a sacrificial lamb. Do we not have enough public figures that are Black, conservative, and active in the on-goings of politics and community development to speak out in the void of leadership concerning race relations that you are mentioning? If we don’t have enough, why are not the few filling the need of the many right now? The harvest is ripe but the harvesters are few – and must get busy. And if we do have enough, wouldn’t it make more sense for Black Republicans to support historic political hopefuls in an off-election year than it would to attack Black GOP candidates with a double standard not applied to the likes of Roland Burris, Deval Patrick, and a host of other Black Democrats that often tip-toe around issues of race during campaigns and terms in office?

Maybe, unless, of course, you’re not paying attention.

So, I say again: pay attention.

Namely, pay attention to your role in the game as well as the other roles of other players in this political game that impacts our society – and Black people throughout the nation as well as all Americans.

There is a time and a place for the words of rhetoric to meet with the actors in history and windows of opportunity. For that time and place to be maximized, it must be pursued and enacted by the right people with the right motives. The power of the pen influences the pulse of politics. The power behind the pen has the ability to write a better history if motivation with the pen is rightfully paying attention. Thus, there is a historical and ethical obligation that you hold, Raynard, particularly in regards to your opinions with the current crop of Black Republican candidates. There is an obligation to ensure that your words and deeds hold people appropriately accountable, making sure that your actions are more BENeficial (even as you hold them accountable) instead of just being Ben-like – uncle, that is.

And let me say as one that gets called “uncle” much despite only having one niece – that is such a dirty term, particularly coming from another Black man. Use it as you would use a gun, because just as with a bullet, neither can be put back into the chamber once fired.

Putting words in their mouths (saying that they stand with the folks that called President Obama a Nazi or saying that they echoed Joe Wilson’s disrespect in September) isn’t beneficial or, from what I can see, accurate. Saying that they believe that their Blackness is only an asset when criticizing President Obama (even as many would say that their Blackness is NOT an asset as a candidate running for office as a Republican) seems to misconstrue their positions on being Black and Republican (something that each candidate seemingly is equally proud of simultaneously) in 2009. Saying that they are distancing themselves from race only because they will not fixate on it as candidates applies that aforementioned double standard that Black Democrats use to their advantage, even as Black Republicans must validate their Blackness at every mention of race relations. It hampers Black Republicans. It hampers the GOP. It hampers America.

And saying that there has not been any opposition to the incidents of racial insensitivity within the GOP’s ranks by Black Republicans? All I can say to that is, well, pay attention.

For fellow Black conservatives like you, Raynard, there is a considerable and historic requirement to pay attention to the rules of politics post-Obama and subsequently apply them with every political maneuver. There is an absolute need to pay attention to history calling us to benefit America, save Black America, and change the dynamics of politics in America. We must start using that call as a guide to determine best steps daily. Calling a Black Republican the “U” word or holding up double standards to Black Republicans (even at the risk of defending Black liberalism – as a Black conservative, no less) only earns one a place in a long line of haters, race baiters, and the disillusioned. It does not answer the calls to leadership. It does not prompt a viable call for accountability. It does not bridge people to better social and political realities as Americans. It does not even prompt more people to…well…pay attention.

So, I’m asking that you do just that – pay attention: to the rules, to the goals, to our needs, and to the call of history before us. And just know that others are paying attention as well – to you and to others - to written and spoken words being offered as ropes regarding our Black Republican candidates. Let’s make sure that they are used to pull up – not hang up – these candidates as they gain momentum.

After all, the nation is paying attention.

A National Pastime

2009-10-13T14:11:00.011-04:00

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

At this rate, I'm looking forward to hearing from the North Koreans again around Flag Day, unless they consider Halloween a true "national holiday" here in the United States.

The way that they say "hello" really has a way of catching one's attention, doesn't it?

The North Koreans insistence to continue firing off missiles each American holiday (this time, yesterday on Columbus Day) is playing to a current weakness of the White House's image to date, especially in light of the recent Nobel Peace Prize that the president "earned" last Friday.

As we have learned from the playground, diplomacy only goes so far sometimes. With the playground bully, the kid continues to take your lunch money until you put up for yourself. It doesn't matter how many teachers you tell or how many times that kid goes to detention - when the next chance comes up to do the same thing without getting caught, he (or she) is coming back to collect. The same is true with some of the rogue nations that we are dealing with internationally. North Korea and others are going to push the limits of decency and international safety until someone checks them back into a place of civility, cooperation, and compliance. And at this rate, it is not going to come about through pure diplomacy.

People incorrectly view our national pastime as being one of imperialism and oppression. Although there is a history that supports some of those claims, we must not overlook the more important tactic that the United States now takes on - bully-checker.

As with the Iranian nuclear march, North Korea will continue to be a problem around the Korean Peninsula until there is an equal or mightier threat to push them towards reverting back from this dangerous trend. That is becoming more clear. Unfortunately, diplomacy only works when sides share a common goal or belief that can be used as the bridge to connect adversaries to a beneficial solution for all. However, when the world view is not shared by opposing sides (as we have found through human history, not just American history), the main recourse that eventually ends being effective is military presence, be it through threatening means or through actual discourse.

In this matter, it means having the North Koreans looking over their collective shoulder, knowing that the United States will eventually respond.

Being the bully-checker has its advantages.

Our national pastime for the past thirty years has been to be that presence within the international community that can do the most persuasion with the least amount of loss of life, mostly due to the might of the American military and our unique standing as the world's military superpower. Often overlooked is that this reality limited the length of Desert Storm and other military actions that the USA and her allies have engaged in over the course of the past 30 years. Even in instances where matters have lingered on longer than expected (Iraq and Afghanistan clearly come to mind), our power keeps matters from exploding into a bi-continental battleground as it was on 9/11 (or, some could argue, as it was with the recent arrests here in Dallas and New York City.) Our exclusive power has kept another power (can anyone say Iran? Iraq vis-a-vis Saddam Hussein? the PLO?) from escalating their actions and rhetoric further against Israel. In fact, our power has also been used to temper Israel in some of its actions (although not all, as with the case with some Muslim nations) against its neighbors in the Middle East.

Being the bully-checker has its advantages, and it is a pastime that the latest Nobel Peace Prize recipient should not abdicate merely to create equality amongst the nations. As the North Korean actions have shown us, the pursuit of equal nations across the globe threatens the existence of the equality of all people around the world. The void left by the disappearance of the American superpower will be chased by a nation (or set of leaders) without noble intentions. North Korea's recent pastime has been flying the skies at key times in the American calendar. America's recent pastime as the world's superpower post-USSR, albeit flawed, should not wither away lest we wrestle with some international bully that won't go away until all of us lose a lot more than lunch money.