N-----, N-----, N-----! Dr. Laura Loses Her Damn Mind!

Wow... Dr. Laura is trippin! Her nine million listeners got an earful when the good "Dr" (a dubious distinction at best) decided to take one for the team and try to fight the "white people can say the N-word, too" battle all by herself. She lost - and she lost BIG!

But its not just that she failed miserably, she punked out. If your gonna take on that battle, stand up and fight for your right to be ignorant. Sure, you have the right to use the N-word, but apparently your advertisers will have something to say about it.

A quick re-cap: earlier this week Dr. Laura fielded a call from an African American Listener who was concerned about commments from the friends of her caucasian husband. When the caller expressed her concern about Dr. Laura's response, the good "Dr" said that "Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic, and all you here is nigger, nigger, nigger." And then she REPEATED IT, as if to make a point.

I get that Dr. Laura was attempting to score one for post-racial America by taking the power out of the N-word, she did it in very poor taste and with little logic to back her up. To say that two black people using it amongst themselves makes it okay, or that hearing it on HBO makes it okay, are non-starters. HBO is a subscription service, and consumers pay for it. A radio show on the open airwaves are NOT the place for waging that touchy culture war.

What's Good For the Goose is Good For the Gander

Pres. Obama as a Witch Doctor

I cannot be the only one who is tired of the left trying to characterize any criticism of President Obama (no matter how legitimate) as racism.

This morning I received the following mass distributed email castigating the right for our unfair/racist treatment of the first black President of the United States of America:

Arogance of Being President While Being Black

I don't think anyone was under some real illusion that the election of Barack Obama actually means the end of racism in America . I'm pretty sure that the president-elect knew it better than anyone. After all, he saw it every day, from the moment he announced his candidacy. To some degree, he saw it within his own party during the primaries. And he saw it in all ugliness during the general election. For half of this country, he was "That One". No matter how big and clear his victory was. No matter how smart he is. No matter how decent he is. No matter what a true patriot he is. No matter how optimistic and positive his vision for America was. All that didn't matter. Because at the end of the day, he was still black.

Pres. Bush as a Witch Doctor

I'm quite old. I remember, vaguely, where my parents were on November 22, 1963. I've seen so many presidents. Some were feared, some were hated, some were adored, some popular and some not. But all of them, without exception, were treated with the highest respect deserving the office of the president of the United States.

That is until a black man won the right to occupy this office. It's been 13 months now, and in the eyes of so many, Barack Obama is still that one. He is being disrespected and at the same time being held to the highest standard of any president I've ever seen – and not just by the Republican side! He has to perform three times better than any president in history, and even that may not be enough.

Pres. Obama Compared to a Monkey

For the media, he is many more times just "Obama" than "President Obama". They create scandals out of nothing issues. It took them at least 6 years to start giving Bush a small part of the shit he deserved. It took them 6 months to begin crap all over Obama because he's yet to fix the catastrophe that was left for him.

Pres. Bush Compared to a Monkey

They use condescending tones when they talk about him, and only mildly less condescending when they talk TO him. With anyone else, CNN wouldn't dare go to commercials every time the president speaks, like they did during that summit on Thursday. They wouldn't dare be counting how many minutes George Bush or Bill Clinton were talking. Chris Mathews wouldn't dare make an issue out of Ronald Regan calling members of congress by their first name, like he is not actually the president. They fully cooperate with the Right-Wing smear machine when it comes to president Obama's national security performance – even if almost every independent and military expert actually thinks that he's a terrific Commander-in-Chief. You'll never see them on TV, and virtually no one from the Left, in congress and outside, defend the president on this matter.

Pres. Obama as a Pimp

I don't care about the Far-Right. They're just crazy ignorant Neanderthals. It's the way the beltway and the mainstream treats this president that is shocking. On Thursday, almost every Republican had no trouble interrupting him in the middle of a sentence. They looked like they're going to vomit every time they had to say "Mr. president". They all had this Eric-Cantor-Smirk whenever he spoke. Then they went out and started to spit their stupid talking points, to the delight of the media. Sarah Palin, a woman who can hardly read, thinks that he was "arrogant" towards John McCain, and somehow this is an important news. Because you see, "Obama's Arrogance" is the talking point of the day.

Pres. Bush as a Pimp

Oh, those talking points. He is arrogant (because he knows the facts better than all of them combined). He is an elitist (because he uses big words that they don't understand). He is weak on national security (because he actually thinks about the consequences). He divides the country (well, he did that the day he had the audacity to win the election). Worst of all, he actually thinks that he's the president. He even dared to say so on Thursday. How arrogant of him. You'd think that previous presidents didn't have any ego. Somehow it turned out that the one president who treats even his biggest opponents with the utmost respect – is the arrogant one. I wonder why?

Pres. Obama as a Muslim

I expected that his winning the Presidency would bring out some ugliness, but it's been far worse than I imagined. The racism coming from the Right is obviously clear and shameless, but there's also some hidden and maybe subconscious and disturbing underline tone behind some of the things that I read here and throughout the Left blogosphere, even before the end of Obama's first year - 'He's weak, he's spineless, he's got no balls, primary him in 2012'. It'll be dishonest to deny that.

The fact is that for millions in America , Barack Obama is this uppity black man (Not even a "real" black), who received good education only due to affirmative action, and has no right to litter the sacred Oval Office with his skin color. They just can't accept the fact that the president is a black man, who unlike his predecessor, was actually legally elected. But what's really sad is that it's not just the fringe, its deep deep in mainstream America.

Barack Obama's ability to remain above all this slob, to keep his optimism and his strange and mostly unjustified faith in people, while continuing to gracefully deal with an endless shitstorm – is one of the most inspiring displays of human quality I have ever seen. And I can only hope that the Cosmos is on his side because God is and He never makes a mistake.

Pres. Bush as a Muslim

Well here was my reponse...

I’m sorry… This email is a bunch of crap!

President Barak Obama has been subjected to no more criticism than his predecessors President George Bush or President Bill Clinton.

The left compared President Bush to Hitler, Bull Connor and even likened his re-election to dragging a black man to his death. Many of the caricatures of President Obama that the left complain about are nothing more than remakes of those the left created to mock President Bush. You know… a Nazi, a terrorist and even a witch doctor. And the right didn’t treat President Clinton any better. Heck…. They impeached the guy!!!

Pres. Obama as The Joker

The truth is that over the top criticism of political figures (including the president) has been a practice dating back to our nation’s founding. And the advent of new communication and media tools have only added to it’s escalation. I’m not saying that it is a good thing or that it hasn’t gone too far. But please stop acting like this is something new created just to undermine the first black president.

Furthermore, it appears that it’s not only the over the top caricatures that offends the left, but any criticism no matter how legitimate. The man has tripled the national deficit to $1.5 trillion. Unemployment continues to rise, despite his promises. He bows down to our enemies, while at the same time slapping our allies in the face. Why do you think his approval ratings are sinking like a rock? And that is not just with those on the right who voted for him. Independents who supported him overwhelmingly are now against him two to one!

Pres. Bush as The Joker

President Barak Obama is not being criticized because he is black. He is being criticized because he is doing a poor job.

But ask your self this… Are defending him because he is black? Did you come to the defense of President Bush when he was treated the same exact way? I doubt it. Otherwise I would have received an email like this one in his defense.

It is hypocritical to ask that President Obama be treated fairly and then turn around and complain when he is treated like every other president before him.

As the saying goes, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

The Reality of Race in America: Why we can’t handle the truth

If there is one good thing that has come out of America electing Barak Obama to be the nations first black President, it is the way in which the issue of race and race relations has been drawn, kicking and screaming into the public square. Whether we like it or not, old wounds that have never properly healed are now reopened for discussion and debate. Unfortunately though, I am not confident that any real solutions will come.

I am just not sure that we (white, black, liberal or conservative) are ready for such an open and honest discussion. On one side you have those who just want to sweep the past under the rug, like it never happened. On the other side you have those who are stuck in the past as though nothing has changed. Both sides are insistent on living in their respective states of denial, preventing us from really communicating on how we move forward from here.

For example, I am told by blacks that if I am a conservative, then I cannot really be black. And at the same time, conservatives claim that if I choose to identify myself as black then I cannot truly be a conservative. The truth is that unlike some would have you believe, the two are not mutually exclusive. And here is why.

At 41 years old, I am a part of the first generation to grow up after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. So unlike my father, or his father before him, I was born “Equal under the law.” But that did not mean that I was born in a system that promoted equality. 400 years of slavery, the subsequent 100 years of Jim Crow and the liberal led welfare/entitlement state did much to weaken the black man and destroy his family and community. These systems were designed to keep blacks down and that is exactly what they did. The reason many blacks have a victim mentality is that not too long ago, they were victims.

Take my father for example. He left the Air force after World War II as a fully trained and certified electrician. But he could only get a job washing cars. You see, the unions would not let him join their ranks because his father was not a union member. Never mind the fact that at the time my grandfather was working, they did not allow blacks to join the union.

My mother experienced whites only drinking fountains and lunch counters. She remembers “Bull” Conner turning police dogs and fire hoses on innocent blacks like it was yesterday. These experiences are not easily dismissed by those who experienced them. They play a major role in shaping one’s world view.

For my parents, everything in society told them that it was government and whites who were in control…not them. And this is the world view that they have passed on to us, their children. This was their reality.

My reality is somewhat different. I can eat where I want. I can go where I want. The law states that I can not be denied any opportunity because of the color of my skin. And there are teams of lawyers, judges and politicians willing to fight to protect these rights. There are no laws preventing me from starting a business, getting a good education or supporting the political candidate of my choosing. This is part of my reality; the only part that many conservatives are willing to acknowledge.

I also realize that there are those whom I will encounter who will prejudge me based on the color of my skin, whether they admit it or not. Racism is not dead, just diminished. I also must acknowledge that the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not undo the 500 years of indoctrination and brain washing black Americans underwent. Nor did it create a level playing field in regards to asset wealth.

There were “The Haves” and “The Have Nots” and nothing happened to change the fact that blacks would start off overwhelmingly in the category of “The Have Nots.” This meant that they would have much less capitol to start businesses, purchase homes or to pass on to future generations. As hard as my parents worked and as much as they tried, they did not have a home or any other significant assets to pass on to their children. This is too often the norm in black America. This too is also part of my reality; the only part that many liberals are willing to acknowledge.

I don’t believe that we will ever truly address the issue of race in America until blacks and whites; liberals and conservatives are willing to accept the truth about where we have come from and where we are now. Whites cannot celebrate creating equality in the rules of the game after attempting to knee-cap the other team’s players and spotting themselves 20 points. Along the same lines, we cannot be so preoccupied with the unfairness of how things started that we spend all our time complaining to referees, thus letting the other team run up the score. This is exactly what has been taking place the last 50 years.

As for my perspective; I will say this: Being black is part of who I am. But it does not dictate who I am or who I will become. And while I cannot control the fairness of the circumstances around me, I can control how I react to those circumstances. I can choose to learn from them or whine about them. As I approach each challenge, I can choose to see it as a stumbling block or a stepping stone; as an obstacle or a building block. I can choose to fight against ignorance and poverty or I can pawn it off on my children for them to fight it. These are my choices.

I have a message that I encourage every black parent…scratch that… every parent to tell their children. It is what my father told me many moons ago and it has served me well.

Life isn’t fair…GET OVER IT!

Your future will mostly be shaped by the decisions that you make, and no one else. Where you end up in life will be the result of all the choices you make, big and small. And when it is all said and done, your success or failure will be determined, not by the circumstances which you had to face, but by how you responded to those circumstances.

What is the purpose of marriage?

Following the recent decision regarding California's law defining marriage as being one man, one woman; I was asked by one of my readers to discuss the following question, outside of the context of religion-“What’s the purpose of Marriage?”

This is a question that can be answered in a myriad of ways. Since the beginning of civilization this institution has come to carry religious, cultural and legal significance. And while one cannot fully understand the purpose of marriage without discussing all three; for this conversation, I will focus primarily on the purpose of marriage as defined by legal precedent.

How is marriage defined?
Black’s Law Dictionary Fourth Edition had three definitions of marriage.

The first definition was a “... condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life ...”.
Subsequent editions inserted “or until divorced”.

The second definition in Black’s Fourth was “A contract, according to the form prescribed by law, by which a man and woman, capable of entering into such contract, mutually engage with each other to live their whole lives together...”
Please note that the legal definition refers to a man and a woman. As a matter of fact, since the beginning of time, marriage has always been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.

• Marriage: “That honorable contract that persons of different sexes make with one another.” A New General English Dictionary (1740).
• Marriage: “1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife . . .” Merriam-Webster online, April 20, ( 2005).
Now this is not to say the people don’t change the definitions of words. But in order to properly deduce what the authors of the follwoing legal opinions are trying to say, we must understand their words in the context in which they used them.

What role should government play in marriage?

When discussing the purpose of marriage from a legal standpoint, we must first understand government’s relationship to marriage. According to Meister v. Moore (1873) Marriage is not a right conferred by the state.

…everywhere is considered a civil contract. Statutes in many of the states it is true, regulate the mode of entering into the contract, but they do not confer the right.
And the reason that the state cannot confer this right is because the courts have deemed that it finds it roots in a power above even their own. As stated in 1892 by the Washington State Supreme Court regarding. McLaughlin’s Estate
marriage is a natural right, which always existed prior to the organization of any form of government, and all laws in restraint of it should be strictly construed in consequence thereof. It is held it should be the policy of the law to sustain all such contracts and relations whenever possible, and that this should always be done ...[590 marriage has] its origin in divine law”
So why does government regulate and promote marriage?

Legal precedent tells us that it is to create the optimum environment to have and raise children. As stated in Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971)
The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”

The same logic was part of the Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942):

Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
Understand that this does not mean that the only people who can get married are those who desire to have children. In this case, the law has and educational function- to tell what is normative. And while not all opposite sex couples will produce children, it is still normative for them to do so. However, it is impossible for any same sex couple to naturally produce children. Therefore, it cannot be normative.

So why does the state ascribe certain rights only to married couples?

Well first of all , it is wrong to think of these benefits as rights. A better description would be to call them incentives.

In Maynard v. Hill (1888) the court acknowledged that just how important marriage is to society:

“Marriage... having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature... the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations... for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress... It is a relation for life...”

This means that how we handle this institution as a society will have a lasting effect on generations to come. This is why every effort to change the definition of marriage has failed. In Williams v. North Carolina (1942) the court ruled against efforts to legalize polygamy because of the effect it would have on the children.

That choice in the realm of morals and religion rests with the legislatures of the states... Within the limits of her political power North Carolina may, of course, enforce her own policy regarding the marriage relation-an institution more basic in our civilization than any other. But society also has an interest in the avoidance of polygamous marriages and in the protection of innocent offspring of marriages deemed legitimate in other jurisdictions.

And according to the US Supreme Court in Maynard v. Hill (1888) marriage is not a right granted by the state. It is an institution that the state has an interest in regulating and promoting. And that interest is rooted in protecting the offspring:

“marriage is a thing of common right... any other construction would compel holding illegitimate the offspring of many parents conscious of no violation of law”

This is why the court quoted Skinner when it opted to once again to preserve the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in Loving v. Virginia (1967).

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
So what is the purpose of marriage?

While there are other cultural and religious purposes for marriage, when it comes to regulating marriage, the state has made it clear. The purpose is to create the most positive environment to have and raise children.

(Government) Jobs Bill overcomes filibuster and now has smooth road ahead

Once again Democrats with the help of a few soft minded Republicans have passed a massive spending bill to help keep state and local governments from having to make the tough decisions it will take to balance their budgets.

According to the Associated Press:

The $26 billion measure would help states ease their severe budget problems and - advocates said - stop the layoffs of nearly 300,000 teachers, firefighters, police and other public employees.

Where have we seen this before? Oh yeah… the Stimulus Bill. Remember that massive spending program that was supposed to stimulate the economy and create jobs? But what it mostly did was plug holes in state and local government budgets.

For example, in California stimulus spending was reported to have saved around 100,000 jobs. But a closer analysis found that 90% of those were government jobs; this at a time when the Golden State has actually increased the number of government jobs.

The sad part is that because the funding was for only one year, many of those jobs are on the chopping block this year. Not so fast! Here come the liberals to the rescue.

And what is their solution? Give states more money! This is like giving an alcoholic the keys to the freshly stocked liquor cabinet. They may be content for a while. But as soon as the well runs dry, they’ll be asking for your credit card to go shopping for more.

Any clear thinking individual has got to see that these same jobs are going to be on the line again next year as budget dollars will continue to be in scarce supply. Why keep putting off the cuts you know you are eventually going to have to make? A political payoff is the only explanation.

The current measure is heavily backed by unions for teachers and public employees, key allies of the Democratic Party. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees ran ads Wednesday in four Maine newspapers urging Collins and Snowe to help break the filibuster.

Bailing out those who refuse to make responsible choices is a surefire way to ensure that they never have to. That is until we are no longer able to borrow or simply print the money to do so.

Talk About Being Soft...

David wrote in a facbook post that he thought RNC Chairman Michael Steele was soft. SOFT? Based on what?

Well speaking of soft, I wonder if David remembers when his party leader, President Obama was so soft, he wouldn't even meet with the Dalai Lama.

It was so bad that even a liberal comedian, Jon Stewart had to chime in.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Hell No, Dalai
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Father of the Bride Part II: The Honeymoon is Over!

When President Barak Obama was inaugurated back in 2008, I wrote a piece called “Father of the Bride: My View of the Inauguration of Barak Obama” in which I likened my feelings to that of a father who’s daughter was about to marry a man of whom he did not approve. Well now the honeymoon is over and it is time to say, “I told you so!”

The new addition to our family has inserted himself all up in family business where he doesn’t belong. The smooth talking suitor who claimed to bring unity to the family, has not only created massive divisions within the family, but has offended long time family friends while at the same time reaching out to those who would do our family harm. And to top it all off he has up all the credit cards, mortgaged the family house and now expects all of us to foot the bill.

I wish I could say that I didn’t see this coming. But all the signs were there. But like a blushing young bride, head over heals in love America couldn’t see passed Obama’s handsome smile and enticing promises.

Think about it! A man who had never led anything in his life was all of a sudden going to lead the greatest nation on earth? A man who believed in spreading other people’s wealth was now going to help Americans be able to actually create their own wealth? And a man listened as his pastor preached divisiveness to him for 20 years and didn’t say a word was going to help us bridge the divide of relations in America? I think not!

Now I realize that as young brides often do, there is a contingent of the American people who, despite his abysmal record are holding on to the hope that he will become the man he once claimed to be. They will exclaim: “But he loves me!” “He would never do anything to hurt me.” “It wasn’t his fault.”

All the while, he continues to head down a path of destruction asking us to trust him. Well I can’t do it. I’ve seen where he’s taking us. And while his intentions may be good, the results will clearly be bad.

The time has come to accept that to date, this marriage is not working out. And if things don’t change pretty darn quick, divorce is inevitable. In fact, he should consider the 2010 General Election as official notice to shape up or ship out!