Obama Urges Taunting Of Talk Radio On Health Care

The Obama Reich can't get enough of health care.  After telling the Republicans at the summit meeting that if the American people don't want it, we'll just push it through anyway, Obama is now deploying a new tactic.  He is afraid that the message isn't getting heard because of talk radio.  (When, it is quite the opposite: the message is being heard.)  So, Obama has created a webpage that encourages health care supporters to call these talk radio shows and be armed with talking points.  These talking points are designed to hit the talk radio audience in a spot they are perceived as not having - their emotions.  Let's take a brief minute and examine these talking points.  (Go to http://radio.barackobama.com/ for the list)

1.  For most Americans, their health care plan covers too little and costs too much. Far too many people delay or even skip the care they need because they simply can’t afford it.

Covers too little?  Costs too much?  According to http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/26/health-care-reform-simple-explanation-updated/ 60% of Americans get their health insurance through work.  These people are not buying their coverage.  Their company is buying the coverage and the employees are able to take advantage of the coverage through small deductions from their pay checks.  So, this "most Americans" is whom?! 

Allow me to translate "covers too little" - if you don't get EVERY service, visit, test, etc. covered, then you don't have the right coverage.  Allow me to translate "costs too much" - if you have to pay for your health care, then it costs too much.  These Democrats are once again just trying to get the federal government into the driver's seat of the American society. 

The notion of "too many people skip care" because they "can't afford it" only seems to exist in these talking points/tv ads.  Many ILLEGAL immigrants are getting the health care they need, free of charge.  Well, not free of charge, it came out of my pay check!

2.  The plan the President laid out includes the largest health care tax cut for middle class families in history and makes coverage more affordable for tens of millions of families and small business owners and expands coverage to over 31 million Americans who are currently uninsured.

Federalizing 1/6 of our economy is not a tax cut for the middle class!  Health care costs are high because we are in desperate need of TORT reform.  Frivolous lawsuits against doctors cause doctors to have more mal-practice insurance.  To pay these premiums, they need to have more income.  Therefore, health care costs MUST increase.  If you want health care to be more affordable - bring us TORT reform!  Nationalizing health care only deals with the symptom (and very poorly at that). 

Secondly, it is said that over 31 million Americans who are uninsured would now have coverage expanded to them.  This is prime territory to cause a Lib to jump ship and go to another point.  Here is the poignant question:  What is the reason for being uninsured?  Is it because when the poll was taken, many were in between insurance plans and have since gotten insurance?  Is it because those who used to have work coverage lost their benefits due to tax increases and increased federal regulations on businesses?!  According to http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/38/12/1.2.full about half of this number are just in and out of coverage - shopping for lower rates, changing jobs, etc.  So, that takes our number to 15 million uninsured.  What is interesting is that unemployment has been at 10%.  10% unemployment equals out to be about 15 million people.  (http://cbs11tv.com/national/unemployment.10.percent.2.1299266.html) So, it would seem to reason that if we fix unemployment, we fix the number without insurance.  Companies, however, are afraid to hire because any profits gained are in the cross-hairs of Obama.  What's the point of making profit just to have it taken away?!  Exactly, there is no point - therefore, there is no point in hiring any new workers.

3.  This plan will give millions of Americans new choices in health insurance by making coverage more affordable, ending the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, putting power in the hands of consumers instead of insurance companies and providing one of the largest tax cuts in history while also reducing our national deficit.

This is the most asinine group of words I've ever read.  Pre-existing conditions exists as a way to KEEP COSTS LOW!  I sell life insurance.  We can offer term plans for pennies on the dollar per thousand because of requiring great health.  If an insurance company is forced to take on ALL risks, premiums will go UP!!  How else is the insurance company going to pay for the claims that will be hobbling in day after day?!  Secondly, this puts the power in the consumer's hand??  The power is already there!  If you don't like the health coverage you have, then go down the street and buy from someone else!  You decide where your dollar is spent, not the insurance companies.  And, thirdly, this will reduce our national deficit?!  How does government spending reduce our deficit?  Obama has already taken our deficit, sorry libs, well past your coveted Bush deficit.  You honestly think Obama is worried about the national deficit?! 

 

4.  Reform couldn’t be more urgent – just this month consumers in California were told their premiums could go up as much as 39 percent.

Then go buy from someone else!  What about tax rates that just went up because you let the Bush tax cuts expire?  Don't patronize us about reform because rates are increasing.  IF WE HAD MORE OF OUR MONEY, WE'D HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR BETTER HEALTH INSURANCE!

 

5.  Too many in Washington are now saying that we should delay or give up on reform entirely, but Americans understand the stakes for our economy and our lives, and we want action

 

Americans do NOT want this bill!  Even Obama at the health care summit said he would just ram it through if he didn't get the cooperation he wanted.  Too many in Washington are out of touch with their voting base and come November, they will be out of touch with Congress.

 

Don't back down from these guys!  Hold their feet to the fire!

Black History Month Part 6: The Good Part

I’d like to close out Black History Month on a positive note - in a few short days, it will be over! Come Monday, we will get back to normal history and end a month of celebrating segregated information and racism. The best part of Black History Month is March 1st.

We are Americans. Let’s truly live Dr. King’s dream where the content of our character stands center stage rather than what color our skin is. By the way, that is what a Conservative sees. We see the character of a person. Liberals are focused on the “minority groups” – groups they’ve created.

Now, Black by popular demand, here are a few quotes from Dr. Walter E. Williams

Equality before the general rules of law is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty that can be secured without destroying liberty. It is an equality that neither requires nor assumes people are in fact equal. Our attempt to make people equal in fact by rigging law to produce equal results destroys civility and generalized respect for the law. Government cannot create an advantage for one person without simultaneously creating a disadvantage for another.

Democracy and liberty are not the same. Democracy is little more than mob rule, while liberty refers to the sovereignty of the individual.

No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong

If we wish to be compassionate with our fellow man, we must learn to engage in dispassionate analysis. In other words, thinking with our hearts, rather than our brains, is a surefire method to hurt those whom we wish to help

President Obama could rise several notches in my book if he refused the Nobel Peace Prize, with a nice letter to the Nobel Committee that might read: Since you did not see fit to award Ronald Reagan, the U.S. president who did the most for world peace in this century, by peaceably shutting down the Soviet Union, I respectfully decline your offer

Suppose I hire you to repair my computer. The job is worth $200 to me and doing the job is worth $200 to you. The transaction will occur because we have a meeting of the mind. Now suppose there's the imposition of a 30 percent income tax on you. That means you won't receive $200 but instead $140. You might say the heck with working for me -- spending the day with your family is worth more than $140. You might then offer that you'll do the job if I pay you $285. That way your after-tax earnings will be $200 -- what the job was worth to you. There's a problem. The repair job was worth $200 to me, not $285. So it's my turn to say the heck with it. This simple example demonstrates that one effect of taxes is that of eliminating transactions, and hence jobs

Jobs Bill Misses The Mark

Yesterday, the Senate was giddy about passing a "jobs creation bill." The media has been proclaiming how even Republicans are jumping on board with this bill. They are making a big deal out of Scott Brown, R-MA, voting yes since he just got to Congress. But, let's slow down. What is this bill about?

This bill is supposed to be a $15 Billion job creation package. First, let's remind our good friends in Washington that the only jobs Congress can create are Government jobs. Congress cannot create jobs in the private sector. Their policies can hinder or encourage job growth in the private sector, but they are not the ones responsible for any new jobs. Now, Congress wants the credit for jobs creation because then Obama can take credit for it as well.

One of the focal points of this bill is that it frees any company that hires the unemployed from paying their 6.2% social security tax for 2010. If the company retains the employee for at least a year, they get a $1,000 tax break.

So, with less money going into Social Security, Congress will have to go after it somewhere else. And, that somewhere else will be from those who are already employed. Secondly, a $1,000 tax break?! Is that per new hire? And, by the way, companies don't pay taxes anyway - we pay them through their prices they set for their goods and/or services. So, giving a company a "tax break" would actually be giving us a tax break. But, a $1,000 tax break isn't a tax break. That's like letting the couch cushions fund your kid's allowance. If you want to encourage more corporate participation in the hiring game, then do something big. How about eliminate a lot of the taxes and regulations that are imposed upon them and that stifle their ability to be able to afford to hire additional help. Why not suspend and even eliminate the federal income tax - give people more of their money to spend in the economy. This is the real issue, folks. Giving companies "tax breaks" is only a symptom of the problem.

Jobs are created based on two simple things: Supply and Demand. If demand is higher than supply, then companies need to hire more workers to get supply back even with demand. If we had more of our own money to spend, demand would start to increase, companies would begin to hire more to meet the demand with more supply and two things ultimately happen: the economy is back on its feet and unemployment falls. Companies do not just arbitrarily decrease their work force. This bill suggests they do by virtue of it focusing on the corporations and their hiring practices. Jobs exist for one reason - a company needs to make money and they need workers to make supply to meet demand. If the demand isn't there, then the need for employees decreases. Companies are not going to keep an employee on the books at 20k/year or 30k/year just to get a 1k tax break. That's like the common practice of hanging on to a mortgage because of the tax write off. So, you send 10k to the bank in interest so you don't have to send 3k to the IRS in taxes?! (By the way, if your CPA suggests that you do that, then fire their sorry carcass and get one that can actually do math.) Frankly, this bill is insulting to private business.

The Government that has given us this economy and this deficit are now the ones who are going to fix it?! The Government that hates the private sector now are seen as their savior? Don't fall for it - these people want one thing only and that is full government control over business industry - and you take that to the bank...well, don't take it to the bank because they will be taxed more for the TARP money they've already paid back.

Middle Class Tax Cuts? You Lie!

I think this needs to be revisited. Earlier this month, Reuters reported that Obama's budget was full of back-door tax INCREASES for the middle class. The White House promptly grabbed Reuters by the crotch and demanded they pull the story. (So much for freedom of the Press). Reuters, with a backbone the consistancy of jello, pulled the story. But, what do you expect from the State-run media?! So, the story is only found on blogs at this point. (i.e http://www.thehotjoints.com/2010/02/02/reuters-does-story-on-obamas-backdoor-tax-increases-then-withdraws-it/). The portion I want to focus on is the actual tax increases for the middle class. Now, on Feb. 11th, 2010, Obama said he was going to be "agnostic" on tax increases. He was going to establish a "bi-partisan" group to investigate debt reduction proposals. This "bi-partisan" group is 60% Democrat and they are going to demand tax increases to fix the debt problem. Obama is going to play dumb and say "Well, uh, we've made progress, and un, the commission has worked hard, uh, and, they've determined, that uh, we need to increase taxes to pay for this debt." THE VERY DEBT YOU'VE CREATED! This way, he can say he didn't flipflop on his no taxes for the middle class promise. Come on, folks - his promises are about as pointless as Russian Roulet with a semi-automatic pistol. So, without further delay, here, again, is some insight to what will be coming down the pike to us middle class folk. Here is the story that wasn't protected under freedom of the press.

NEW YORK (Reuters.com) –The Obama administration’s plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year — effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.
The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration’s Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 — though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year’s levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy — the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don’t itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

Reuter's pulled this story and promised a new story to run in its place a week later. No such story ever was ran.

Black History Month Part 5: The "Party of Minorities"

It is often proclaimed that Democrats favor minorities and Republicans are racists. However, is this true history or just another lie by the Left to try to steal more votes? History once again will shed light on this ignorant position. What preceeds below was taken from http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html so, all the research credit belongs to them. This is great information. Feel free to research it for yourself.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Franklin Roosevelt, the long time hero and standard bearer of the Democrat Party, headed up and implemented one of the most horrible racist policies of the 20th Century – the Japanese Internment Camps during World War II. Roosevelt unilaterally and knowingly enacted Japanese Internment through the use of presidential Executive Orders 9066 and 9102 during the early years of the war. These orders single-handedly led to the imprisonment of an estimated 120,000 law abiding Americans of Japanese ancestry, the overwhelming majority of them natural born second and third generation American citizens. Countless innocents lost their property, fortunes, and, in the case of an unfortunate few, even their lives as a result of Roosevelt's internment camps, camps that have been accurately described as America's concentration camps. Perhaps most telling about the racist nature of Roosevelt's order was his clearly expressed intention to apply it almost entirely to Japanese Americans, even though America was also at war with Germany and Italy. In 1943, Roosevelt wrote regarding concerns of German and Italian Americans that they t0o would share in the fate of the interned Japanese Americans, noting that "no collective evacuation of German and Italian aliens is contemplated at this time." Despite this assertion, Roosevelt did exhibit his personal fears about Italian and German Americans, and in his typical racist form he used an ethnic stereotype to make his point. Expressing about his position on German and Italian Americans during World War II, Roosevelt stated “I don’t care so much about the Italians, they are a lot of opera singers, but the Germans are different. They may be dangerous.”
Roosevelt also appointed two notorious segregationists to the United States Supreme Court. Roosevelt appointed South Carolina segregationist Democrat Jimmy Byrnes to the court. Roosevelt later made Byrnes a top advisor, where the segregationist earned the nickname “assistant president.” Byrnes was Roosevelt’s second choice behind Harry Truman for the VP nod in his 1944 reelection bid. Roosevelt also appointed segregationist Democrat Senator Hugo Black of Alabama to the court. Black was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan with a notorious record of racism himself.

Hugo Black: A former Democrat Senator from Alabama and liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice appointed by FDR, Hugo Black had a lengthy history of hate group activism. Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920's and gained his legal fame defending Klansmen under prosecution for racial murders. In one prominent case, Black provided legal representation to Klansman Edwin Stephenson for the hate-induced murder of a Catholic priest in Birmingham. A jury composed of several Klan members acquited Stephenson of the murder, reportedly after Black expressed Klan gestures to the jury during the trial. In 1926 Black sought and won election as a Democrat to the United States Senate after campaigning heavily to Klan membership. He is said to have told one Klan audience "I desire to impress upon you as representatives of the real Anglo-Saxon sentiment that must and will control the destinies of the stars and stripes, that I want your counsel." In the Senate Black became a stauch supporter of the liberal New Deal initiatives of FDR and a solid opponent of civil rights legislation, including a filibuster of an anti-lynching measure. Black led the push for several New Deal programs and was a key participant in FDR's court packing scandal. Roosevelt appointed Black, a loyal ally, to the U.S. Supreme Court. During the Senate confirmation of Black's nomination, the issue of his strong Klan affiliations caused a public controversy over his appointment. Following the confirmation Roosevelt claimed ignorance of Black's Klan past, though this claim was dubious at best. Black's first Senate election, which occurred with Klan support, had been covered nationally a decade earlier in 1926. Black's Klan affiliations were a well known part of his political background and recieved heavy coverage in the newspapers at the time of his appointment. On the court, Black became a liberal stalwart. He also continued his career of supporting racism by authoring the opinion in favor of FDR's Japanese internment program in the infamous Korematsu ruling.

Senator Robert Byrd, D-WV: Byrd is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and is currently the only national elected official with a history in the Klan, a well known hate group. Byrd was extremely active in the Klan and rose to the rank of “Kleagle,” an official Klan membership recruiter. Byrd once stated that he joined the Klan because it was effective in "promoting traditional American values" (Source). Byrd's choice of words speak volumes about his bigotry considering the fact that the Klan is a notorious hate group, and the racist "values" it promotes are anything but American. One of the earliest criticisms of Byrd's Klan ties came in 1952 when he was running for Congress. Byrd responded by claiming that he had left the Klan in 1943 while noting that "(d)uring the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." Byrd was lying, however, as he engaged in correspondence with a Klan Imperial Wizard long after he claims to have ended his ties with the hate group.

In a letter to the Klan leadership (Source) dated 3 years after he purported to have ended his ties with them, Byrd wrote "I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state. The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." Byrd continued his racist diatribe "It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union" and followed with a request for assistance from the hate group's leadership in "rebuilding the Klan in the realm" of West Virginia.

Byrd's racism extends far beyond his Klan membership. In a letter he wrote on the subject of desegregating the armed forces, Byrd escalated his racist rhetoric to an appalling level. In the letter, Byrd vowed that he would never fight in an integrated armed services noting "(r)ather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds" (Source).

Byrd's racist opinions have shown their ugly face in his behavior in the Senate. Byrd led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, according to the United States Senate's own website, filibustered the legislation to the bitter end appearing as one of the last opponents to the act before a coalition of civil rights proponents led by Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen invoked cloture so that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could pass. At the time, Byrd was in the the midst of a 14 hour and 13 minute filibuster diatribe against the key civil rights measure (Source). Throughout the 1960's, Byrd was was one of the staunchest opponents to civil rights in the U.S. Senate. Byrd’s racist history drew attention recently when he went on national television and repeatedly used the n-word, one of the most vicious racial slurs in existence, in an appearance on national television. Byrd uttered the slur on Fox News Sunday with Tony Snow on March 5, 2001. Despite the appalling nature of the remark, it went largely ignored by the mainstream media and the self appointed "civil rights" leadership. Whereas a similar remark by anyone other than a leading Democrat Senator would assuredly prompt the likes of Jesse Jackson to assemble protest rallies demanding resignations, the Jackson crowd was eerily quiet following Byrd's remarks, issuing only low key suggestions that Byrd should avoid making such bigoted remarks.

In a sickening recognition of Byrd's appalling political career, the national Democrat party has done nothing but embrace the West Virginia senator with leadership roles and practically every honor imaginable. To this very day the Democrats call former Klansman turned U.S. Senator Robert Byrd the "conscience of the Senate." They have embraced him as their party's central pillar in all ways possible. Byrd has been reelected more times than any other Democrat senator, has served as a Democrat in Congress, a Democrat State Senator in West Virginia, and a Democrat State Delegate in West Virginia. Democrats have made repeatedly elected Byrd into their national party leadership and into the U.S. Senate leadership. He became secretary of the Senate Democrat Caucus in 1967, and Senate Democrat Whip in 1971. The Democrats elected former Klansman Byrd as their Senate Majority Leader from 1977-1980 and as their Senate Minority Leader from 1981-1986. Byrd was again elected Democrat Majority Leader from 1987-1988. Democrats made Byrd the chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee and President Pro Tempore of the Senate from 1989 until the Republicans won control of the Senate in November 1994. Following the defection of Jim Jeffords in June 2001, the Democrats again made Byrd the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and elected him to the highest ranking office in the Senate: the President Pro Tempore, a position which also put this former Klansman 4th in line for the presidency. Byrd lost his position when Republicans retook the Senate in late 2002, but continues to serve as one of the highest ranking members of the Democrat Senate leadership today.

Senator Ernest Hollings, D-SC: Hollings is liberal Democrat Senator from South Carolina who is also notorious for his use of racial slurs. He rose out of the Democrat Party's segregationist wing in the 1960's as governor of South Carolina. While in office as governor, Hollings personally led the opposition to lunch counter integration in his state. The New York Times reported on March 17, 1960 that then-governor Hollings "warned today that South Carolina would not permit 'explosive' manifestations in connection with Negro demands for lunch-counter services." According to the article, Hollings gave a speech in which he "challenged President Eisenhower's contention that minorities had the right to engage in certain types of demonstrations" against segregation. In the speech Hollings described the Republican president as "confused" and asserted that Eisenhower had done "great damage to peace and good order" by supporting the rights of minorities to protest segregation at the lunch counters.
Governor Hollings' support for segregation continued throughout his term and included his attendance at a July 23, 1961 meeting of segregationist Democrats to organize their opposition to the civil rights movement. Hollings was one of four governors in attendence, all of them Democrats. The others included rabid segregationists Orval Faubus of Arkansas and Ross Barnett of Mississippi. The New York Times reported on the meeting, noting that among the strategies discussed were using the segregationist White Citizens Council organization to mobilize political opposition to desegregation.

In more recent years Hollings, a senior Democrat senator, has made disparaging racial remarks and slurs against minorities. Senator Hollings, who was a contender for his party's presidential nomination in 1984, blamed his defeat in the primaries by using a racial slur against Hispanics. After losing the Iowa Straw Poll, Hollings stated "You had wetbacks from California that came in here for Cranston," referring to one of his opponents, Alan Cranston. A few years later Hollings reportedly used the slur "darkies" to derogatorily refer to blacks. He also once disparagingly referred to the Rainbow PUSH Coalition as the "Blackbow Coalition," and called former Senator Howard Metzenbaum, who is Jewish, "the Senator from B'nai B'rith." Hollings gained international criticism for his remarks about the African Delegation to the 1993 Geneva GATT conference, where he crudely remarked "you'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva." Hollings was also the Governor of South Carolina who raised the confederate flag over the state capitol in the early 1960's in what was considered at the time to be an act of defiance to civil rights. The press ignored Hollings and his role in the flag issue at the same time the political correctness police were smearing George W. Bush during his campaign after Bush correctly remarked that the flag was a state issue to be decided upon by South Carolina and not the national government.

Jesse Jackson: Jackson was the featured prime time speaker at the 2000 Democrat Convention. Jackson has a history of using anti-Semitic slurs and derogatorily calling New York City “Hymietown.” Jackson, a prominent self proclaimed "civil rights leader," is himself guilty of the same bigotry he dishonestly purports to oppose.

Dan Rather: Rather, the well known television anchor for CBS, is also a liberal Democrat who has spoken at fundraisers for the Democrat party in the past. The notoriously left wing reporter appeared on the Don Imus radio show on July 19, 2001 where he was interviewed about his long term refusal to cover the Gary Condit (D-CA) scandal involving an affair with a missing intern despite the scandal's national prominence. Rather noted on the air that CBS had basically forced him to cover the story that was on every other network and on the front page of all the major newspapers, all this after Rather avoided it for months. Rather stated on the air, refering to CBS, that "they got the Buckwheats" and made him cover the Condit scandal. The term "Buckwheat" is considered an offensive racial stereotype that stems from an easily frightened black character named "Buckwheat" on the Little Rascals comedies. It is widely regarded as a racial epithet and has long been condemned as an offensive stereotype by several civil rights organizations. In several past incidents (see here and here) the use of the epithet "Buckwheat" has recieved condemnation by the NAACP, Al Sharpton and other left wing organizations. These left wing organizations and personalities have demanded that other media personalities be fired over using the epithet, and even staged a protest at a school over the mere allegation that the racist stereotype had been used by a teacher. Yet these same liberal groups have, to date, remained completely silent now that one of their own, Dan Rather, is guilty of using the same offensive racial stereotype they have condemned elsewhere on a national radio show. It's just more proof of how the left wingers who cry the loudest with accusations of racism against others turn a blind eye when somebody of their own left wing ideology is the undeniable culprit of a blatantly racist act or statement!

Cragg Hines: Hines is one of the most rabidly partisan DC based Democrat editorial columnists to work for a major newspaper, and he makes no attempts to hide it. To Hines, pro-lifers are "neanderthals," as is often the case with those who differ in opinion with him. Ironically, Hines, a columnist who regularly touts himself as an enlightened progressive, is also known for racial remarks and religious intolerance. He attacked Senator Jesse Helms in an August 26, 2001 editorial with not only the usual liberal name calling, but also with a racial epithet. Hines used the racial slur "cracker" to attack Helms. He used the epithet not only within the article's text, but he even included it in the piece's title. In a sense of heavy irony, Hines' article accused Helms of bigotry for, among other things, opposing liberal policies like affirmative action. He didn't seem to object to himself for his own bigotted language in the same article. Hines has also drawn heavy criticism from Catholics including a letter to the editor from the former President of the U.S. Catholic Bishop's Conference for his seemingly agenda-driven criticisms of Catholicism and its religious leaders, often based on little or no historical evidence, which he has expressed in numerous editorial columns.

Al Sharpton: Sharpton, a perrenial Democrat candidate and one of the rumored candidates for the Democrat's 2004 presidential nomination, has a notorious racist past. Sharpton was a central figure who fanned the 1991 Crown Heights race riot, where a mob shouting anti-semetic slurs murdered an innocent Jewish man. Sharpton also incited a 1995 protest of a Jewish owned store in Harlem where protesters used several anti-semetic slurs. During the protests, a Sharpton lieutenant called the store's owner a "bloodsucker" and declared an intent to "loot the Jews." A member of the protest mob later set fire to the store, resulting in the death of seven (source).
Representative Dick Gephardt, D-MO: Gephardt, the former Democrat Minority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, gave several speeches to a St. Louis area hate group during his early years as a representative. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Gephardt spoke before the Metro South Citizens Council, a now defunct white supremacist organization, during his early years as a congressman. Newsmax.com further reported that Gephardt had openly asked the group for an endorsement of his candidacy during one of his many visits with the organization. Gephardt has long avoided questions about his past affiliation with this group.
Andrew Cuomo: Cuomo, Bill Clinton's former Housing Secretary and a prominent Democrat political player in New York, was tape recorded using racially inflamatory rhetoric to build opposition to a potential Democrat primary opponent while speaking to a Democrat group. Cuomo stated that voting for his rival for the New York Democrat gubernatorial nomination Carl McCall, who is black, would create a "racial contract" between Black and Hispanic Democrats "and that can't happen." Upon initial reports, Cuomo denied the statement but later a tape recording surfaced. Cuomo later dropped out of the race for governor (source).
Lee P. Brown: Brown, Bill Clinton's former drug czar and Democrat mayor of Houston, engaged in racist campaigning designed to suppress Hispanic voter turnout during his 2001 reelection bid. Brown faced challenger Orlando Sanchez, a Hispanic Republican who drew heavy support from the Hispanic community during the general election. Two weeks prior to the runoff, Brown's campaign printed racist signs designed to intimidate Hispanic voters. The signs featured a photograph of Sanchez and the words "Anti-Hispanic." The signs drew harsh criticism from Hispanic leaders as their message was designed to intimidate and confuse Hispanic voters. Around the same time the signs were being used, Brown supporter and city councilman Carol Alvarado made a series of racially charged attacks on Sanchez, implying a desire to see the supression of Hispanic voter turnout in the runoff. Brown staffers also went on record claiming that Sanchez was not a true Hispanic. The racist anti-Hispanic undertones of Brown's reelection bid were so great that liberal Democrat city councilman John Castillo, himself Hispanic, retracted his endorsement of Brown in disgust and became a Sanchez supporter in the final week of the campaign. Following the harsh condemnation of the racist signs and tactics, Brown purported that his campaign was removing them even though many still lingered around Houston up until the election. When election day came along, Brown placed more of the racist signs at polling places, despite his claim to have stopped using them. The large campaign billboard style election day signs featured, in Spanish, the word "Danger!" on them followed by Sanchez's name with a large red circle and slash through it. The signs identified the Brown campaign as their owner on the bottom. Brown's racially charged reelection effort barely squeeked by Sanchez on election day, winning 51% to 49% following a series of racially motivated advertisements in which the Brown campaign appealed to the fear of black voters by invoking images of the gruesome lynching death of James Byrd, Jr. and by attempting to pit them against Hispanics. While Brown had the audacity to declare himself a mayor for all people and all ethnicities at his victory party, many in Houston fear the racial wounds inflicted by his campaign will take years to heal.
Mary Frances Berry: Berry is the Democrat chair of the US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR). She purports herself to be an "independent" in her political affiliation in order to hold her job on the civil rights commission where partisan membership may not exceed 4 for either party, but is in fact a dedicated liberal Democrat who openly supported Al Gore for president and has given a total of $20,000 in personal contributions to the Democrat Party, Al Gore for President, and other Democrat candidates over the last decade. Berry is an open racist who is affiliated with the far-left Pacifica radio network, a group with ties to black nationalist causes. Berry once stated "Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them," indicating that she believes the USCCR should only look out for civil rights violations against persons of certain select skin colors.
Billy McKinney: Former Democrat State Representative Billy McKinney of Georgia, who is also the father of former Democrat congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of the same state. During his daughter's failed 2002 reelection bid, McKinney appeared on television where he blamed his daughter's difficulties on a Jewish conspiracy. McKinney unleashed a string of anti-semitic sentiments, stating "This is all about the Jews" and spelling out "J-E-W-S." McKinney lost his own seat in a runoff a few weeks later.

The Democrat Party and the Ku Klux Klan: Aside from the multiple Klan members who have served in elected capacity within the high ranks of the Democrat Party, the political party itself has a lengthy but often overlooked history of involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. Though it has been all but forgotten by the media, the Democrat National Convention of 1924 was host to one of the largest Klan gatherings in American history. Dubbed the "Klanbake convention" at the time, the 1924 Democrat National Convention in New York was dominated by a platform dispute surrounding the Ku Klux Klan. A minority of the delegates to the convention attempted to condemn the hate group in the party's platform, but found their proposal shot down by Klan supporters within the party. As delegates inside the convention voted in the Klan's favor, the Klan itself mobilized a celebratory rally outside. On July 4, 1924 one of the largest Klan gatherings ever occurred outside the convention on a field in nearby New Jersey. The event was marked by speakers spewing racial hatred, celebrations of their platform victory in the Democrat Convention, and ended in a cross burning.
II. Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Movement:
A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. In some cases, the Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the civil rights movement.

Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including: - Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia - J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton - Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to the Civil Rights Act. - Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame - Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore
The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators:
- Hill and Sparkman of Alabama - Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas - Holland and Smathers of Florida - Russell and Talmadge of Georgia - Ellender and Long of Louisiana - Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi - Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina - Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina - Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee - H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia - R. Byrd of West Virginia.

Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.
It took the hard work of Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Republican Whip Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act (Dirksen was presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Upon breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Republican Dirksen took to the Senate floor and exclaimed "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!" (Full text of speech). Sadly, Democrats and revisionist historians have all but forgotten (and intentionally so) that it was Republican Dirksen, not the divided Democrats, who made the Civil Rights Act a reality. Dirksen also broke the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was signed by Republican President Eisenhower.

Outside of Congress, the three most notorious opponents of school integration were all Democrats: - Orval Faubus, Democrat Governor of Arkansas and one of Bill Clinton's political heroes - George Wallace, Democrat Governor of Alabama - Lester Maddox, Democrat Governor of Georgia.

The most famous of the school desegregation standoffs involved Governor Faubus. Democrat Faubus used police and state forces to block the integration of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. The standoff was settled and the school was integrated only after the intervention of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Even the Democrat Party organization resisted integration and refused to allow minority participation for decades. Exclusion of minorities was the general rule of the Democrat Party of many states for decades, especially in Texas. This racist policy reached its peak under the New Deal in the southern and western states, often known as the New Deal Coalition region of FDR. The Supreme Court in Nixon v. Herndon declared the practice of "white primaries" unconstitutional in 1927 after states had passed laws barring Blacks from participating in Democrat primaries. But the Democrat Parties did not yield to the Court’s order. After Nixon v. Herndon, Democrats simply made rules within the party's individual executive committees to bar minorities from participating, which were struck down in Nixon v. Condon in 1932. The Democrats, in typical racist fashion, responded by using state parties to pass rules barring blacks from participation. This decision was upheld in Grovey v. Townsend, which was not overturned until 1944 by Smith v. Allwright. The Texas Democrats responded with their usual ploys and turned to what was known as the "Jaybird system" which used private Democrat clubs to hold white-only votes on a slate of candidates, which were then transferred to the Democrat party itself and put on their primary ballot as the only choices. Terry v. Adams overturned the Jaybird system, prompting the Democrats to institute blocks of unit rule voting procedures as well as the infamous literacy tests and other Jim Crow regulations to specifically block minorities from participating in their primaries. In the end, it took 4 direct Supreme Court orders to end the Democrat's "white primary" system, and after that it took countless additional orders, several acts of Congress, and a constitutional amendment to tear down the Jim Crow codes that preserved the Democrat's white primary for decades beyond the final Supreme Court order ruling it officially unconstitutional.

Hispanics in South Texas were treated especially poorly by the Democrat Party, which relied heavily on a system of political bosses to coerce and intimidate Hispanics into voting for Democrat primary candidates of choice. Though coercion is illegal, this system, known as the Patron system, is still in use to this day by local Democrat parties in some heavy Hispanic communities of the southwest.

The next time Democrats take to the national airwaves to dishonestly accuse Republicans of racial hatred, remember who the historical record up until this very day points to as the real bigots: The Democrat Party. In all possible ways, the Democrat Party is built around the pillars of ultra leftists, many of whom are known participants in racism and/or affiliates of racist hate groups. Consider the Democrat Party of today's heroes and leaders:

- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrat icon and orchestrator of Japanese Internment - Ex-House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, former affiliate of a St. Louis area racist group - Ex-Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd, former Ku Klux Klansman known for making bigoted slurs on national television - Rev. Jesse Jackson, Democrat keynote speaker and race hustler known for making anti-Semitic slurs - Rev. Al Sharpten, Democrat activist and perennial candidate and race hustler known inciting anti-Semitic violence in New York City - Sen. Ernest Hollings, leading Democrat Senator known for use of racial slurs against several minority groups - Lee P. Brown, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat mayor of Houston who won reelection using racial intimidation against Hispanic voters - Andrew Cuomo, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat candidate for NY Governor who made racist statements about a black opponent. - Dan Rather, Democrat CBS news anchor and editorialist known for using anti-black racial epithets on a national radio broadcast - Donna Brazile, former Gore campaign manager known for making anti-white racial attacks. Brazile has also worked for Jackson, Gephardt, and Michael Dukakis.

The simple truth is that the Democrat Party's history during this century is one closely aligned to bigotry in a record stemming largely out of the liberal New Deal era up until the modern day. Bigots are at the center of the Democrat party's current leadership and role models. And in a striking display of hypocrisy, many of the same Democrats who dishonestly shout accusations of "bigotry" at conservatives are practicing bigots of the most disgusting and disreputable kind themselves.

Also check out these references:
http://nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=401
http://newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/democratic-racism/2008/02/25/id/323000

You'll enjoy this one. Note at the end the poor attempt to recover from this statement.

Local Misery Indices Are Out: No Suprises Here!

Top 20 Miserable Cities in Americahttp://www.forbes.com/2010/02/11/americas-most-miserable-cities-business-beltway-miserable-cities.html

Check it out for yourselfhttp://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

And, what do you know! The top 20 most miserable cities in America reside in Democrat controlled counties. The Misery Index was introduced by Economist, Robert Barro in the 1970s. It basically measures unemployment rates and inflation rates. It can be measured on a national level or local level. Forbes has put together the latest for us. I’m sure glad the democrats are for the little guy. These places sure could use them right now!

1. Cleveland, Ohio – Cuyahoga Co, Democrat
2. Stockton, CA – San Joaquin Co, Democrat
3. Memphis, TN – Shelby Co, Democrat
4. Detroit, MI – Wayne Co, Democrat
5. Flint, MI – Genesee Co, Democrat
6. Miami, FL – Miami-Dade Co, Democrat
7. St. Louis, MO – St. Louis City Co, Democrat
8. Buffalo, NY – Erie Co, Democrat
9. Canton, OH – Stark Co, Democrat
10. Chicago, IL – Cook Co, Democrat
11. Modesto, CA – Stanislaus Co, Democrat
12. Akron, Ohio – Summit Co, Democrat
13. Kansas City, Mo – Jackson Co, Democrat
14. Rockford, IL – Winnebago Co, Democrat
15. Toledo, Ohio – Lucas Co, Democrat
16. New York City, NY – Brooklyn, Democrat
17. Sacramento, CA – Sacramento Co, Democrat
18. Youngstown, Ohio – Mahoning Co, Democrat
19. Gary, IN (former murder capital of the world) – Lake Co, Democrat
20. Philadelphia, PA – Philadelphia Co, Democrat

Israel: The Unsettled Battleground

This was posted on the Jewish Internet Defense Force (a blog I follow).

http://www.thejidf.org/2010/02/more-jew-hatred-on-facebook-80000.html

I think it is natural for people to try to make light of terrible events in our history. Yes, there are some that make light of it because they have no compassionate or loving bone in their body, but I think the majority that do such things do so because it is better than the alternative - just dwelling on the negative. That being said, I also think there is a fine line between levity and callousness. If you go to this page on facebook, you'll see even Jews cashing in on this opportunity-which goes to show that being a Jew isn't all inclusive anymore. So, this got me thinking. What kind of Jew would I be if I were Jewish?

There are basically 3 different types of Jews: Liberal, National, and Zionistic. Liberal Jews, much like Liberal Americans, couldn't care less what happens to their country. That's why Liberal Jews are in favor of turning over their land to the Palestinians and why Liberal Americans are in favor of turning our country over to the EU or the UN. National Jews believe that the land of Israel belongs to them because it is a land that is historically theirs. Many of these may ascribe to the first Aliyah from 1882 to 1903. This was the act of Jews fleeing anti-Semitic cultures of Europe and Muslim (go figure) controlled countries and settling back in Israel.

Ever wonder why Jews and Muslims are always fighting each other? Well, this is where the Zionist's have an answer. I wrote this a few years ago and published it on my MySpace blog at the time. But, once I realized that MySpace was nothing more than an online Hot Topic Store and once I quickly realized I wasn't a 14 year old girl, I dropped MySpace. However, here is the post:

In 2007, the tension bubble burst in the Middle East. Israel, a sovereign nation, was taunted by Hezbollah (Lebanese terrorist group) when they captured two Israeli soldiers. Well, Israel had enough and decided to get nasty with them. However, Hezbollah's cheerleaders (US Democrats and the UN) have taken the opportunity to either blame Israel for Hezbollah's actions or to tell Israel, basically, they have no right to defend themselves. The Jews are being told by countries that felt Hitler's wrath, not to defend themselves. In light of all of this, whose side should we be on? Should we, collectively as a nation and as individuals, support Israel; or should we support Hezbollah and their Palestinian liberation? Perhaps a little history lesson will help clear the air on why this fighting is happening and who we should support.

Jews and Arabs have the same ancestry. Both groups go all the way back to Abraham of the book of Genesis in the Bible. In Genesis chapter 12, God is going to institute a Covenant with Abraham called the Abrahamic Covenant. In chapter 12, verses 1-3, God says, "Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee..." God promised Abraham that out of him would be a great nation. Furthermore, in chapter 13, God told Abraham this, "....Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth..." In Genesis 15, God promises children to Abraham because up to that point, Abraham was childless. God says that Abraham's seed would now be as the stars of heaven. To keep this promise, God caused a great sleep to fall upon Abraham and while he was sleeping, God conditioned the covenant upon himself. To make a covenant in those days, two people would cut animals in half, lay them down to make a pathway. Then both would walk the path while interlocking arms. It was a blood contract and the split animals represented that if one of the parties failed to keep his end of the deal, he'd be split in half like the animals. But God, in an act of sheer grace towards Abraham, walks down the path himself -- there's nothing Abraham can do to hinder this covenant, because God made it.

So, we see a land, and a people promised to Abraham. Now, Abraham was already in possession of the land, but it was time for the children. Abraham had a wife named Sara. Sara had an Egyptian maidservant named Ha'-gar. Abraham had a child with Ha'-gar. The child's name was Ish'-ma-el and therefore because of his mother, was not full Jew. God tells Ha'-gar that Ish'-ma-el "will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren." (Genesis 16:12) God gives a prophetical look at Ish'-ma-el. He (his descendents) will be a wild man. He (his descendents) will be at war, continually. He (his descendents) will live all over the earth. 5,000 years later, and we see that exact thing happening. When God makes a promise, you can expect it to happen. Now, when we get to Genesis 17, Abraham is repentant of his actions (being unfaithful to Sara, his wife) and prayed to God on behalf of Ish'-ma-el. God heard his prayers and promised to make Ish'-ma-el a great nation, but that the Covenant, that which was made between God and Abraham, would pass through Isaac. Isaac was the first real son of Abraham, born of Sara. Isaac was full Jew. Isaac was the propagator of the Jewish people, while Ish'-ma-el was the propagator of the Arabic people.

Therefore, since the Covenant (of a LAND and to be a GREAT NATION) was given through Isaac, a Jew, and not through Ish'-ma-el, an Arab, the land of Israel belongs to the Jews. You might ask, where did the term "Israel" come from? Well, Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau. Jacob, as his name means, was a trickster. He, with collaboration of his mother, tricked Isaac into giving him the family blessing (the passing of the Covenant) that was intended to go to Esau. Jacob, later in life, actually wrestled with the Lord and at that point, God changed his name to Israel. But before his name was changed, God promised this to Jacob (Israel) in Genesis 28:13-14, "And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed: And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north, and to the south: and I thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed."

The choice is clear. Israel belongs to the Jewish people. This whole conflict is just a long history of family feud. The descendents of one brother are fighting the descendents of another, but only one brother, Jacob/Israel, will be victorious. But, you don't have to take my word for it. Let God be true and every man a liar...

Black History Month Part 4: The Conservatives!

Black History month likes to promote a very tunnel visioned view of black people. They celebrate the struggles of Dr. King, Rosa Parks, the Little Rock Nine, etc. and generally anyone who escribes to liberal thought (i.e. Maya Angelou, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.). However, if Black History month is to be fair, let's consider a few in society that are definately worth mentioning.

Our journey begins with the Dean of Economics at George Mason University. Since 1990, Walter E. Williams has been a professor of economics at the university. Williams' takes a firm stand on Free Market Capitalism as well as showing the positivies of the so-called US Trade Deficit. Williams makes regular stand-in appearances on the Rush Limbaugh radio show. Walter Williams is a Conservative. http://www.gmu.edu/depts/economics/wew/

One of Williams good friends is Thomas Sowell. Thomas is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover institute and also heavily involved in Economics. In fact, he has written a book Basic Economics that has become a standard text on the subject. Sowell is a Conservative.

Going away from the University, our next stop is the US Capitol. This is where we will find Supreme Court Justic Clarence Thomas. Thomas succeeded Thurgood Marshall as the second black jurist on the Supreme Court. Thomas prides himself as being a judge that puts the Constitution before him. Thomas is a Conservative.

Remaining in D. C. gives us the rememberance of the former Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice. She has since returned to Standford University as a Political Science professor. She also is a Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institute. A very interesting tidbit of information came to light at the 2000 Republican Naitonal Convention when she said, "My father joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did." Condoleeza Rice is a Conservative.

As Chairwoman of the National Black Republican Association, Frances Rice champions the Republican Party platform and desires to see it fulfilled in the lives and homes of the "black community." Frances Rice is a Conservative.

Here is a list of others that you can research on your own.

1. Star Parker

2. Angela McGlowan

3. Alfonso Rachel

4. Joseph C. Phillips

5. Ken Blackwell

6. Homer Plessy

These are just a few of many black conservatives in the country. Black History month just wouldn't be the same without these mentions.

Bawney Fwank, In His Own Words

The Banking Queen, Bawney Fwank, is going to discuss the "need" to tax the wealthy and hold CEOs accountable. This is Socialism at its best, folks! If you tax the wealthy, the wealthy won't spend their money, you won't get hired at any new jobs, and the economy remains in the toilet. The last clip is just a prime example of Bawney Fwank's elitist attitude and his, like all liberals, inability to answer a simple question. Watch that clip first, then watch the following clip by Ronald Reagan.

Non-Conservative Thought

I'm a little fired up today, boys! My nephews had rolled some big snow balls in their back yard only to witness a neighbor coming over and taking them for a snowman for his own yard. This morning, my nephews went to reclaim their snow balls only to be confronted by his wife claiming it was "community snow." Well, Mrs. Stalin, if it is community snow, then my nephews have every right to take it back! Furthermore, your husband was trespassing on private property to obtain these frozen materials.

I know Obi-wan Kenobi was referring to Mos Eisley in the movie, but one could easily say, "Communism. You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."

Black History Month, Part 3: Cultural Diversity

Just a quick thought today --

As the age of political correctness continues its path of destruction through each new generation, I’d like for us to stop and consider something – something that has become mainstream in society but yet, society doesn’t realize its harm. Often, in an attempt to avoid so-called “racial” terminology in describing a person, we are forced into using a more acceptable method. This method seemingly demands us to use ethnic heritage. Therefore, we give terms like Asian-American or African-American to “non-white Americans” so we can have an appeasing way to categorize them.

Thus, the problem festers. By thinking we are being “culturally sensitive”, we are actually destroying our culture. The American culture is simply this: it is the many people from over the years that have populated our land and have sought out their dreams under the bountiful protection of freedom. When I say that I’m an American – what factors determine such a statement? Is it my social status? Is it my racial status? No. Being an American isn’t defined by those terms. Being an American is defined by capturing freedom and holding on for dear life. Being an American is defined by letting my abilities take me as far as I want to go. Being an American is looking around at every other American and realizing that we all are equal under the Law and we all have the same right to succeed.

The problem is, we have become far too ingrained into thinking that the American culture is a culture of ethnic diversity – a living UN if you will. The very reason we have different countries in the world is because different cultures do not mix. We do not need a plurality of cultural influences invading American thought and legislation; which serves nothing more than the give favor to “minorities” and take favor from the “majority” because they’ve had it long enough. America will only survive if we stand firm on the American culture (as defined above.) The idea of an African-American cannot exist in the American culture. It is oxymoronic! You are either African or you are American! If you want to see an end to racism, then quit masquerading race under the guise of pseudo-ethnicity! –just be an American! And, I say “pseudo-ethnicity” because those that claim the title “African-American” weren’t born in African and then migrated to America. They were born in America – which makes them an American.

This way of thinking has even infested our politicians. As an American, I’m not worried about the “black vote” or the “Hispanic vote;” I’m worried about the American vote. It wasn’t diversity that gave us our country. It was uniformity. Yes Libs, it is “One Nation, under God, Indivisible!” It was the urge to press on and defeat the British that gave us the greatest nation in history. It wasn’t the urge for cultural diversity. We pressed forward as one people and only as one people will we survive.

Black History Month, Part 2: The Issue of Slavery

For more entertaining drivel on Reparations, check out one of the leading groups for Reparations.

“We want our just inheritance: the trillions of dollars due us for the labor of our ancestors who worked for hundreds of years without pay. We demand the resources required removing all badges and indicia of slavery”

The National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in American (N’COBRA)

http://www.ncobra.com/ncobra_info.htm

This week, we'll look at the institution of slavery and some things you probably won't hear in history class. It is not my goal to glorify slavery nor to condone it, but merely to show that the slanted view we get in class doesn't stand up to objective, historical analysis.

"N'COBRA, is a coalition of organizations and individuals committed to the economic, cultural, intellectual, political, social, and spiritual empowerment of black people in the USA. We are the descendants, and thus the heirs, of Africans kidnapped, transported, and enslaved in the Americas"

They claim that they are descendants of kidnapped Africans. It is worth noting that many slaves were slaves before they were sold to Europeans. In fact, many families and tribes betrayed their own people to make a quick buck. African Kingdoms such as the Ashanti, Benin, Oyo, Dahomey, and Kongo played their role in selling their people. But, let's not confine ourselves to a few examples. Let's dig deeper!

In about 1000 A.D., the Songhai state emerged in western Africa. This became one of the largest Empires in West Africa in the 15th and 16th centuries. However, this empire didn't exist forever and many of the people of this empire were enslaved by other West African empires. Hmmm...African slaves and the slave owners were African! Many of the African nations that had a large dependence on trade were also heavily involved in capturing and selling other Africans. (i.e. the Ashanti people of Ghana and the Yoruba people of Nigeria) Later, these sales would be made to the Europeans that were in a triangular trade route between the Americans, the West Indies, and Africa. Thus, many of the slaves that came to America were slaves already - now they just got to enjoy the benefits of life in America rather than what some desert offered in Africa.

Yes, I said benefits. The fact of the matter is, many slave owners in America, nay, the majority of slave owners in America only had 7 to 10 slaves. The slave owners worked in the fields with their slaves and they were treated very well by their "masters." Think about it. A slave, at the time, was a purchased possession. They weren't free. To deliberately torture and beat a slave would be economic suicide for the slave owners. Now, I'm not suggesting that that sort of thing didn't go on. However, history shows us it was far more scarce then we are led to believe.

To summarize, to claim that you are a descendant of such slaves, one is impossible to prove, and two would mean that you might be a descendant of an African who sold out their own people. So, dig in your own wallet and pay your neighbor this "deserved" reparation!

Now, here's the fun part. Without a little censorship from Dixie you'd never know about this. During the Civil War, there were black slave owners in America! Any why not? It happened in Africa, why not here as well! I found a great essay on this issue. Click the link and read more http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm. If you further want to get riled up, read this http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,635175667,00.html.

I'm sorry if this doesn't flow with your PC idea of history, but it is the truth. The issue of slavery is important in our history. But, as history has shown, it isn't someone else's job to try to make me feel guilty for it.

Open Your Wallets! It's The State Of The Union!

Strap yourselves in folks. We are about to ride the Liberal express and the only hopes to stop it is a barricade of truth and Conservatism. I'm going to comment on the opening of his speech, but if I were to go line by line, this would be an extremely long post. The major part of his speech was centered around his wonderful economy. I'll spend the balance of my post dealing with this issue.

Obama began his speech by boasting a Constitutional truth about the timing of the speech. He can't even get a full minute into his speech and he is already demonstrating his apparent grasp on hypocracy. Show me were the Constitution requires giving the rights it speaks of to terrorist?! Show me in the Constitution where it is ok to favor tax breaks for some in society and deny them to others - all the while touting that we are all "equal" under the law.

He goes on to say, "But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt." What?! When the Union was defeated at Bull Run it ignited a feeling of revenge and resolve to preserve the Union and defeat the Confederacy. Secondly, do you think our boys who stormed the beaches of Normandy had defeat on their mind? What kind of military leader are you?! Victory was the goal! Typical Liberal here - always gloom and doom and victory is only achieved when America lays down at the feet of the world.

"One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed." A year later the worst storm has passed? The storm has just begun! First, note all of the indirect blame on Bush (which is made clearer later in the speech). Secondly, our unemployment is now 10% and climbing. The national debt has grown well beyond where the Bush Administration had taken it. You blamed the financial sector for poor decisions - decisions Democrats forced them into by their legislation - decisions that ACORN forced them into. Now, after the banks receive your bailout money and they've paid it back, with interest, you want to nail them again with taxes. The only aggressive action that was taken was to further place our economy into the hands of the crypt keeper. This isn't that difficult, Obama - aggressive action would be a tax cut, across the board, by 50%. Aggressive action would be to eliminate Capital Gains taxes to encourage more investing. Aggressive action would be to put pressure on states that have an income tax and a sales tax to end one or the other. Aggressive action would be to admit you have no business making these decisions. The storm hasn't passed, folks, it has just begun.

He goes on to start with the economy. "Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal." Again, WHAT?! The banks "helped" to cause this crisis through federal coercion. What steps did you take to shore up the damaging policies of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank?! And, you admit we all hated the bailouts...then why did you do it?! Now, you say it was "necessary" because unemployment may have "doubled" what it is today without it and we could have lost more houses than we did and had more business close than we did. So, your party's leadership in Congress forced banks to lend money to those who couldn't pay it back and now you want to come and rescue them while saying the banks are at fault. You can't create problems and then come to the rescue because all you will do is set yourself up to create a new problem, thus needing a new rescue. It is a government death spiral that just leads to more regulation of the market and less freedom for you and me.

He claims that this action has stabilized the markets and that most of the money given to banks has been returned. Hmmm...10% unemployment...hmmmm...a DJIA that is struggling to remain at 10k...hmmm...tax increases are coming to all. The markets have NOT been stabilized! Again, the banks which borrowed the money have paid it back, with interest by the way, and now you are proposing a tax on banks because their CEOs got bonuses. The financial meltdown was not because of CEOs getting bonuses! IT WAS YOUR PARTY ENGAGING IN COERCIVE ACTS, LED BY ACORN, THAT FORCED THESE BANKS INTO MAKING BAD DEALS! The only stability in the market that Obama will approve of is if it is totally under the strangling grip of the government.

He claims that this was helped by the 25 different tax cuts he proposed. Keep in mind, these "tax breaks" didn't go to the "rich." And, last time I checked, I never got a job from a poor person. But, you're right, Obama, tax cuts for the "rich" would be foolish. And, the credits these tax breaks offered were paltry in measure. One time tax credits are not tax breaks! Here's a tax break for you: pass federal legislation to ban the federal income tax and go to a national sales tax (no higher than 15%). "Oh, but you don't understand, so manyneeded government programs wouldn't have any more funding." EXACTLY! It's time to close the doors on these unconstitutional programs and departments! And we start with one of the biggest sucklers of the people's money, the Department of Education.

"Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95% of working families." As Ronald Reagan once said, "There is a non-Soviet word for that kind of talk. And extremely useful, time tested, original American word, one with deep roots in our rich agricultural and farming tradition." Turning over a couch cushion and giving me the proceeds isn't a tax cut. The very fact I am getting back a refund this year is because I OVER PAID IN TAXES. And, sorry for you unlucky 5% that didn't receive the tax cuts. What's the matter with you? Why would you want to be successful?! If you want to get angry, read this lovely piece from the Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_14319271). Furthermore, get what's coming for taxes in 2011 according to the President's new budget proposal - charitable deduction will be gone, mortgage interest deductions for the 250k earners and higher will be gone. However, if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, the top tier tax bracket will go from 35% to 38%. The 25% bracket will go to 28%. The 28% will go back to 31% and the 33% bracket will go back to 36% (all pre-Bush tax cut rates). The 10% tax bracket will BE ELIMINATED. So, those making enough to be taxed at 10% will now be taxed at 15%. THAT'S A TAX INCREASE FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS!!!

Investors will also pay more - tax on dividends will jump to 39.6% from 15%. Does the middle class own stock? YES! The capital gains will go from 15% to 20%. For 2010, the estate tax is eliminated, but just for this year. So, make sure you die this year. But, some democrats are ready to have the estate tax come back prior to 2011. Something else that is curious: The Alternative Minimum Tax was never adjusted for inflation, so now it also is affecting the middle class. And, this year, the first $2,400 of unemployment wages are taxable and you can verify this with your payroll department. All of this, and we have a 1 trillion dollar annual deficit. Yes, Obama, the economy is doing fantastic! You can't spend your way out of a bad economy. You grow your way out of a bad economy by massive tax cuts to give us more of OUR MONEY to infuse back into the economy.

http://www.nodeathtax.org/article/legislative-alert-death-tax-in-the-2009-budget-proposal

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=519783

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/79161-presidents-budget-seeks-an-end-to-tax-break-for-the-middle-class

I'm telling you folks and have been for a while - Obama will drive this economy in the ground that all we have left is to rely upon the government. The evidence would show this is reality, not conspiracy.

"People are out of work. People are hurting. They need our help...and I want a job bill on my desk without delay." I'm not going to keep going line-by-line through this part because he just keeps heaping it on. GOVERNMENT CANNOT CREATE JOBS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR! The private sector will create jobs based on the money it has to do so. Massive taxes and regulations limit the private sector's ability to create jobs. Again, to fix this simply cut taxes!

The 2010 Congressional election may be one of the biggest of our time. Let's hope we can get Conservative leadership back into the Capitol and stop this train wreck of an administration from destroying America for good.