Poll shows most ethnic voters support ban on same sex marriage & Democrats believe that voters, not the legislature should decide…

In 2000 California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22, which declared that “only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in the state of California”. And an interesting side story was the fact that ethnic voters were amongst the measure’s most ardent supporters with 65% of Hispanics, 62% of Blacks and 57% of Asians voting to protect marriage.

Well, it looks like not much has changed as a recent poll shows that California’s ethnic voters are still vehemently opposed to allowing same sex couples to wed and are among those most likely to support a measure that would protect Prop. 22 from activist judges by making it state constitutional amendment.

According to a Survey USA Poll conducted on April 24, 2008, 58% of Blacks, 60% of Latinos and 57% of Asian voters in California still do not support same-sex marriage. Furthermore, 57% of Blacks, 46% of Hispanics and 55% of Asian voters said they would be willing to support a state constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Another interesting fact: Only 14% of Democrat’s polled believe that the legislature should decide the fate of same sex marriage. As a matter of fact, a whopping 45% of Democrats said that the voter should decide. This flies in the face of the Democrat controlled California Legislature who has for the last two years in a row, violated the law and voted to legalize same sex marriage.

Should Republicans compromise their values in order to win? A lesson from the Compromise of 1877...

There are many in the Republican Party who claim that the only way we can win is by changing our positions on some of the more controversial issues. Specifically, they would like to see us eliminate our Party’s opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, as is outlined in our party platform.

It is for these folks that I offer this brief history lesson, outlining what happens when we compromise what we knew to be right in order to win an election. It was Republican's agreement to the Compromise of 1877 eventually ended reconstruction and ushered in 100 years of Jim Crowe and oppression of blacks, all so we could have a Republican in the white house .

Here was the agreement- The 1876 presidential election ended with no clear winner. So, Democrats agreed to accept the Republican presidential electors (thus assuring that Rutherford B. Hayes would become the next president), provided the Republicans would agree to the following:

• To withdraw federal soldiers from their remaining positions in the South
• To enact federal legislation that would spur industrialization in the South
• To appoint Democrats to patronage positions in the South
• To appoint a Democrat to the president’s cabinet

Once the parties had agreed to these terms, the Electoral Commission performed its duty. The Hayes’ electors were selected and Hayes was named president two days before the inauguration.

This deal effectively ended reconstruction. As it died, Republicans and Democrats made promises that the civil rights of all Southerners would be respected. And for a few years this was the case.

However, by the 1880s it was clear that the northern troops would never return. Thus, as the threat faded, Democrat officials were less likely to investigate and convict those implicated in voter intimidation, making Democratic victories even more lopsided as black voter participation (the most important Republican in the south at the time) began to decline.

Then, by the 1890s, the “redeemer governments” began to segregate facilities by race and the lynching of blacks began to accelerate greatly and soon more blacks than whites were being killed without the benefit of a trial. The final "approval" of the redeemer governments came in 1898 when the Plessy v. Ferguson decision legalized segregation with the famous phrase, "seperate but equal."

With that victory segregationists accelerated the separation of the races and soon did not even bother to worry about the "equal" part. Also in the 1890s, the great denial of civil rights to Southern blacks became commonplace as poll taxes, literacy tests and intimidation effectively ended the practice of voting by Southern blacks.

This 19th century version of "postpartisanship" would in the end, ruin our nation and our party for the next 100 years; all because of our willingness to sell out our values, simply to win an election.

Star Jones Lynches Bill O'Reilly for saying he wouldn't lynch Michelle Obama...Huh?

Here’s the deal…

On his radio show, Bill O’Reilly was responding to a caller regarding some recent allegations against Michelle Obama, wife of presidential candidate, Barak Obama. O’Reilly responded to the caller declaring that:

“…I DON'T WANT TO GO ON A LYNCHING PARTY AGAINST MICHELLE OBAMA UNLESS THERE'S EVIDENCE, HARD FACTS, THAT SAY THIS IS HOW THE WOMAN REALLY FEELS. IF THAT'S HOW SHE REALLY FEELS -- THAT AMERICA IS A BAD COUNTRY OR A FLAWED NATION, WHATEVER -- THEN THAT'S LEGIT. WE'LL TRACK IT DOWN.”

Well in response to his comments former TV personality Star Jones felt it necessary to write an open letter to her fans on her website in which she stated:

I'M SICK TO DEATH OF PEOPLE LIKE FOX NEWS HOST, BILL O'REILLY AND HIS ILK THINKING THAT HE CAN USE A RACIAL SLUR AGAINST A BLACK WOMAN WHO COULD BE THE NEXT FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES, GIVE A HALF-ASSED APOLOGY AND NOT BE TAKEN TO TASK AND CALLED ON HIS CRAP.

Where was the racial slur?

He was saying that he did not want to join the rest of the right wing media (what little of it there is) in going after Michelle Obama without some proof that she had said or done something wrong. He wanted here to have her day in court.

Back in the days of the “wild west” people used to bring together mobs to go after and punish people whom they believed had done wrong. These mobs were not concerned with justice, they simply wanted vengeance. We used to call these mobs "Lynching Parties". And they did not only lynch black people!

Like most liberals who attack conservatives, Star Jones is pretending to play mind reader; acting like she has a crystal ball that allows her know the motivations behind what someone says. She then plays on people's fears and biases (in this case black people) to make a declarative statement that has little to know basis in fact.

It is a stretch to say that O' Reilly was advocating for the "lynching" of Michelle Obama. And it is absurd to say that he said it the way he did because she was black.

Let's not be so quick to judge the motives of others when they say something questionable. Bill O'Reilly wasn't willing to "lynch" Michelle Obama without giving her a chance. So let's return the favor and not be so quick to lynch him.

Powell For V.P.: It Could Happen!

While most of the country is now focused on selecting the next American Idol or "Dancing with the Stars", some die-hard political junkies are engaged in the futile practice of handicapping the most important yet insignificant decision to be made this year: selection of the major party choices for vice president.

Before the ink has dried on the pundits' prediction that race and gender no longer matter with the success of Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, both parties are scheming to find ways to both take advantage of the energy brought by the race for the Democratic nomination, and to blunt the potential impact of the race and gender demographic bump that will no doubt propell the Democratic Ticket.

Without going through all of the boring prospects (and there are many – trust me!), I have found some intriguing candidates:

The Washington Post offers a nice primer on the usual suspects, however there have been some very interesting names that have come up lately – particularly on the Democratic side. New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg has been whispered as a possible choice for Obama, as he helps to firm up the Senator’s economic gravitas; Colorado Senator Ken Salazar has also been mentioned as a surprise choice.

On the Republican side, it was revealed today that Dr. Condoleezza Rice, our esteemed Secretary of State, is now actively campaigning for the spot on the Republican ticket. Previously, Dr. Rice has shied away from expressing any interest in the VP slot, which makes this latest revelation a big surprise. Despite this reluctance, she makes an intriguing choice, providing some ethnic balance to Obama and lending some serious credentials to the Republican ticket that no other choice can provide (Note to my peeps: Do NOT sleep on Dr. Rice).

The name creating the most buzz???? Colin Powell. Yes, that’s right – Colin Powell. He is intriguing because, under the right conditions, he could actually be a good choice for either party.

No, I am not high! Read on.

Matt Cooper on Portfolio.com argues that McCain would do well to select Powell for a variety of reasons, the least of which is that Powell counters the potential impact of Obama's presence on the ticket. While conservatives are not in love with Powell, he does bring something to the table other than racial balance that can have a significant impact in the fall.

The real intrigue, however, comes with Powell as the Democratic choice. Now, before you dog me here, it would pay to remember back to 2000, when Powell actually had his pick of either party’s nomination. Desipte his Republican connections, Powell has served in both Republican and Democratic Administrations. A war hero, Powell was The Man. While family obligations kept him out of presidential politics, he could have easily earned the top spot and been the first Black President (sorry, Bill). And despite the best efforts of President Bush 43, Powell remains popular with large segments of the African American community.

If Obama wins, this scenario is Dead on Arrival for obvious reasons. However, if Hillary pulls this thing out, Powell could be the choice that appeases African Americans for defeating Obama, while helping Hillary to win over moderate Republicans and giving her candidacy real military experience that can rival McCain.

The Republicans would have no answer for Powell, other than... Dr. Rice.

Former President John Adams once said that “My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." You would not know it from all of the energy that goes into the selection process.

Stay tuned… this is bound to get even more interesting this summer.

Conservatives Are More Liberal Givers

Liberals would have us believe that they are much more caring and giving than conservatives. Well in his recently published book, "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University details his study proving that conservatives are much more giving of their time and money than are liberals.

In a recent column at Real Politics, George Will writes:

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

These findings are consistent with those of the Catalogue For Philanthropy who for the last 10 years have produced the Generosity Index. According to their findings New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland and Connecticut (all blue states) rank the highest in per capita income, yet all five are in the bottom half of states in per capita giving. In fact, every single blue state ranks in the lower half, with New York holding the highest position at #26.

Conservatives do believe the society has a responsibility to aid elderly, care for our children, protect the environment and provide a helping hand to the less fortunate. But over time we have allowed liberal “feel good” programs to be put in place that have slowly but surely heaped society’s responsibility upon government.

This has summarily relieved Democrats of any guilt over the fact that they have done nothing to fulfill their responsibility to their fellow man and the world in which they live. As long they have lobbied for the government to do it, they feel that they have done their part.

Why give should I feed the homeless when the government can do it? Why help my neighbor find a job when the government can do it? Why should I do anything to help others when the government can do it? But who winds up paying for these programs? The middle-class tax payer… That means me and you!

And despite the recent liberal wave of tax initiatives aimed at fleecing high income earners to pay for their “feel good” social programs; we will still wind up paying the bill. Why? Because as California Assemblyman, Ray Haynes once put it- There is nothing more portable than a rich man and his money. And when their henchmen get through rewriting their financial books (ala John Kerry and Theresa Heinz-Kerry) they wind up paying close to nothing in taxes.

Then they have the nerve to say that THE RICH AREN’T PAYING ENOUGH!!!!!!! And they accuse conservatives of not caring about children, the elderly, the poor or the environment. Well I think this study shows that this is simply not the case.

This study just goes to show that Liberal’s generosity begins and ends with other people’s money!

Memo to Blue States: How about you start putting YOUR money where your mouth is instead of MINE!