Exhibit D(isillusionment and Discovery)

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)?

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

I'm Waiting...

Monday, October 12 2009

I went on Canadian television on Friday, telling the viewers that I was waiting for Rush Limbaugh to declare that the Nobel Peace Prize became an affirmative action award. I just knew that the self-proclaimed king of conservative talk radio would come out and say that the Nobel Committee was bent on their desire to see the first Black president success that it would drive the media and their own prize in a direction to ensure this “victory.”

Kind of like how Limbaugh said the media wanted Donovan McNabb to succeed at quarterback at all costs just to have a successful Black quarterback to debunk the (now-ancient) myth about Black quarterbacks.

Well, the good news is that Limbaugh didn’t quite go down that path.

The bad news is that other talk show hosts did.

And it’s worse that their opinions seem to carry some merit – even if it’s not true.

And the worst of it is that it will only be another cog in the machine to division in America.

The Obama Peace Prize will fall out of the news cycle soon enough, just as other items do quickly in our 24/7 news coverage world. However, the quickness in which the American president was rewarded - for among other things, not being President Bush, trying to negotiate (through the media and one-off communications) with rogue nations, and downplaying the USA’s status as a superpower – will not stay gone. This angst will linger for those that oppose the president for months, becoming an underlying sentiment of frustration and resentment that will fuel more opposition (and theories) in an invisible way.

Opponents of the Obama will have a point as well. As others have said, this Nobel Peace Prize is a clear attempt of the Nobel Committee (and select others) to influence the president in regards to his impending decisions concerning Iran and Afghanistan. What others have not said is that this is also a clear attempt by other influences to tell the American people what type of president they should look to elect and support moving forward. Not only does this include the type of demeanor this president should take with the international community (conciliatory and apologetic), but it also includes how Americans should expect its leaders to move forward with foreign policy (diplomatic relations, even if unsuccessful or inconsequential.)

And that is the problem, not some rant about “affirmative action” or “not doing anything.”

The problem with President Obama’s global popularity is that he is rapidly becoming famous for being…well…famous, instead of being the type of leader that people expected him to be as he was voted into office this time last year. And if there is a weak link to the president, some are claiming that it’s his vanity, something that may come into play as the Peace Prize is awarded to him in Oslo in the near future. Will the president’s insistent belief that “…the respect of our global neighbors around the world helps keep America safe…” compromise his ability to do everything within his power as our leader to keep America safe? With the award this Friday has come rhetoric that President Obama cannot be a war president and a peace prize winner simultaneously. However, if Obama is to keep America safe from enemies that do not see self-destruction as a deterrent, the only means to keep America safe is to pursue war on the offensive – thus, making Obama a “war president” in much the same way that the global anti-Obama (that would be George W. Bush) was since September 11, 2001.

Even more interesting is this: if the Nobel Peace Prize was given to President Obama for what he was going to do (versus what he has done to date), yet he turns around and applies the Bush Doctrine to Afghanistan and Iran, will he lose the award – or, more importantly to him and his supporters, the esteem he currently garners around the world?

Personally, I’m waiting to see what plays out – not the calls of “affirmative action” and others slurs against our POTUS and the Nobel Prize Committee, but for whether Americans’ confidence and appreciation for safety mean more to the latest Peace Prize winner than does the adoration of a left-leaning international community, especially if that includes a paradoxical military directive in the face of very real international threats.

Second City, Second Priority, Second Chances

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

(The following editorial is a transcript exclusive for Hip Hop Republican. The transcript was read during “The Weekend Countdown with Kaela Harmon” on WGCV-AM in Columbia, South Carolina Friday, October 02, 2009.)

I’m sure that there are plenty of people that are disappointed with Chicago losing out in the race for the 2016 Summer Olympics Games. Moreso, it stinks that the Windy City came in a disappointing 4th place after dropping out of contention after the 1st round of voting.

However, one thing that was worse for the Second City is how the Black youth of Chicago have been given 2nd-rate treatment by one of their own, even as he traveled to secure parades in the streets in 2016 while blood continues to flow in the streets in 2009.

Many bloggers, journalists, and pundits – as well as more African-Americans – are becoming more critical of President Barack Obama’s “true” connection with Black America. The shocking silence coming from the White House after such a shocking death in his beloved South Side only indicates a growing sentiment within Middle America, one that has been noted by Black conservatives for decades now:

Just because they look like you and talk the good game at the polls and during election time does NOT mean that they stand with you through thick and thin.

If the past 60 years of domestic policies in our urban cities have not brought that to light, perhaps this latest episode does.

Don’t get me wrong – Black Republicans have a lot of work to patch up the gashes of mistrust between African-Americans and the GOP. These separations are not misunderstandings – many of them were “hard-earned” mistakes, gaffs, and racial residue from years gone past. With that said, Black America is at a crossroads of experiencing one of the biggest disappointments for Black youth and Black people in a long, long time – and our collective ability to focus on what matters and not what is apparent.

We took Black pride in the election of Barack Obama. It was good to do so from a historic sense. I held that pride as well – in January, but certainly not by June. And clearly, whereas the discussions concerning the causes behind continued unemployment, ongoing wars, and a lagging economy can be jostled behind Bush and Obama, it is becoming more evident that the president may have us on our own with issues impacting Black people in very real levels.

Those that point to his efforts on health care ignore Obama’s education record and actions as president.

Those that highlight his defense of all lives ignore his executive order to fund overseas abortion services, a move that increased abortions of ethnic babies throughout the world.

Those that say that Mr. Obama is a president, not a Black leader and should not be held to that higher standard must now question why Black people defend him at a higher level (as one of connection with “our president”) without enforcing any accountability in reciprocation (as in a relationship with “our president.”)

President Obama is not bigger than Black America. He is not bigger than Black History. He is merely a part of it. Dr. King wore a Noble Peace Prize and died defending the rights of garbage workers – because he was a Black leader and understood this.

Now that was a Black leader.

And before you say that President Obama is not seen as a Black leader, tell that to the scores of people that bought Obama t-shirts, commemorative plates, and the like.

President Obama – like other Blacks that have broken barriers that were previously viewed as impenetrable in America - has the historic and moral obligation to wear two hats simultaneously and successfully: one of competent American leader and one of influential African-American historical contributor. That opportunity was lost (again, some would add) when he failed to make a timely and profound (or even relevant) statement about the violence with Black youth in Chicago (throughout the recent period of spiked terror in these communities), even as he was preparing his statements to bring the 2016 Games to the shores of Lake Michigan.

Hopefully, now that the president is back from championing the Second City for the Olympics, perhaps he will make the Black youth of Chicago – and of other urban centers where they continue to die tragically - his second priority.

Why We Must Lead with Courage and Debate with Love as Americans

This is now another reason why I do what I do.

Thank you for your prayers and support. God Bless.

Why Roland Martin Is Wrong…Sort of

Now, as you can probably imagine, Roland Martin and I are not going to agree on a lot of things when it comes to politics, especially when the subject is President Barack Obama. Love him as a child of God, but it is what it is.


I have heard Roland mention on several occasions that he doesn’t have a “side” in politics since he has voted for both Republicans and Democrats. I disagree – everyone nowadays seems to have a side, even as they have voted for both sides of the aisle in the past. And considering Martin’s reverent defense of all things Obama since 2008, it’s pretty clear that he has a side – and it’s with President Obama. To be fair, in these partisan-charged times, everyone seems to have a dog in the fight.


With all apologies to Mike Vick for using that analogy.


With that said, it seems partisan that Roland Martin would write a column stating that conservatives and Republicans were gleeful that the United States lost in our Olympic bid for the 2016 Summer Games. After all, it sounds like a Democratic rant, hearing that it was just another example of Republicans rooting against Obama at all costs.


Kinda like Democrats rooting against all things Bush –even the war efforts overseas after September 11– during the second Bush presidential term.


I digress.


Roland says that people were rooting against the United States getting the 2016 Olympics because President and Mrs. Obama went to Copenhagen to campaign for it.

And that is where he is wrong…sort of.

I will give Roland this: the anti-Obama bashing is getting old. Or, some would say, IS old. Some of the sense of triumph over the loss that the Second City incurred last Friday is disturbing. When it’s personal, it’s just tacky at the very least, just as it was with President Bush some months ago.


Yes, Roland - some have gone too far with their criticism, but then again, what’s new? For the most part, it’s the same round of criticism from the same crowd, using the same words to get the same result.


And even if their reactions are overboard…sort of…they still have some valid points.


You have to admit: President Obama is making it easier every day for his critics to find fodder to use against him. Going to Copenhagen overconfident of a win there for Chicago and the 2016 Games, only to come back home with America’s collective tail between its legs, is just the latest in a growing trend of overreach for goals, overestimation of the influence of the “Obama Factor”, and overexposure of a president that has had more prime time interviews that legislative or national victories since in office.


The President of the United States is unique office. One should not risk embarrassment of the presidency on the global stage unless the White House thought that the bid was in the bag – or unless the thinking was that the “Obama Factor” – his charm and his influence – would make the difference upon landing in Denmark.


George Will said it best on Sunday: this president has garnered the reputation of thinking that his personal charm alone is enough to broker deals, foster victories, and gain consensus on a myriad of issues. As the Copenhagen loss has shown, this can be a dangerous and arrogant way to waste time and resources at a critical crossroads in American history, particularly as the promises of the 2008 presidential campaign - and our status in the world community - are being lost to the realities of 2009.

What Roland missed in criticizing “Republican glee” in losing the Games for the Windy City is that the origins of criticism are expanding.

Black residents of Chicago are wondering why President Obama is not using that “extraordinary charm” to help heal the violence in the streets of Chicago. The first Black president has, for the most part, ridden the wave of being historic when convenient while being safe as a Black man when most needed. Beer summit aside, more within America are wondering if the president is getting intoxicated off of his own press clipping of greatness versus being overtaken by the obligation to be great for Black America. In 2008, he was a great symbol of hope and change for Americans, particularly African-Americans. In 2009, things have changed little and, as a result, hope is lessening.

Unemployed Americans are wondering why President Obama has not been able to use that charm to persuade benefactors of the stimulus package in February to expand the good fortune into the national economy. As unemployment jumped over the White House’s self-imposed “high-water mark” of 8%, Americans are finding themselves in need of effective leadership as they drown in broad unemployment rates that are frightfully approaching 20%. The charm and rhetoric of the 44th president have not translated into jobs and recovery for everyday Americans, even as Wall Street numbers have somewhat restored. This stagnation of results have come even as a supermajority in Washington should have paved the way for legislative victories for Democrats that, in theory, should have led to resulting victories for the nation.

American allies – and many Americans as well - are wondering why President Obama has continued to be soft on countries such as Iran and Venezuela, attempting to give them every benefit of the doubt despite their records of lies and deception to the international community. For example, the charm and extension of good will that the president has afforded Iran has only led to defiance, threats against the existence of Israel, and the flexing of military muscle both in development (exploring nuclear capabilities) and in practice (firing off of missiles.) Despite leaders saying that the “stench of sulfur” no longer lingers around the American Presidency, the willingness to work with the American president has not changed at all with these same leaders, all in spite of Obama’s personal charm.

It’s not about rooting against the United States or rooting against President Obama concerning the Olympic bid. It’s about wondering when the presidential reality show is going to end so that the star of the show can produce the ratings we really need: lower unemployment rates, higher consumer confidence rates, more cooperation around the globe, and less bickering with varying segments of the government – including the tension with the CIA – even as they work to secure America’s safety.

It’s not about rooting against more Mary Lou Retton moments or Michael Johnson magic on American soil. It’s about the continued blowing of Obama political capital like an over-the-hill real estate mogul in today’s market, burning through resources on targets with decreasing value even as his former genius and flare for success increasingly comes into question.


What have we gained in January? As the victories stay few and far between, people continue to wonder when the “Obama Factor” will yield long-promised bi-partisanship, increase in jobs, more cooperation with rogue nations, and unity amongst the fractionalized and tense of a politically- and racially-charged America. Without any gains soon at a time when we approach more critical issues (such as Afghanistan), more Americans – and more conservatives – will continue to rue seeing the president on a made-for-television reality tour that spreads from Leno to Letterman to landing in Denmark, even as they may find a little “I told you so” satisfaction in his shortcomings.

And then Roland Martin will write another article, slamming conservatives for rooting against the American president, saying that it’s more personal than anything else.

And he’ll be right, again…sort of.