Why are Democrats resorting wedge issues?

Liberals are always accusing Republicans of promoting divisiveness and campaigning on wedge issues. But this election cycle it is Democrats appear to be doing the dividing and fear mongering; two Sacramento area Democrats in particular.

Assemblyman Dave Jones who is a candidate for insurance commissioner and Dr. Richard Pan have chosen to inject the controversial issue of abortion into the heart of their campaigns. One has to wonder why they have chosen to focus on an issue that has consistently ranked outside the top five issues concerning voters, especially during these trying economic times.

In this campaign speech, Asm. Jones is talking about how he plans to use the office of insurance commissioner to fight for government funding of abortions, an item that was so controversial it was removed from the national health care bill.

Dr. Pan has purchased millions on TV, radio and mail to emphasize the fact that his opponent, Andy Pugno is pro-life. This commercial is just one small example of how Pan is attacking his opponent on the issue of abortion.

So, one has to wonder why these Democrats are so focused on such a divisive issue that voters seem less concerned about than job creation and the economy? I believe it’s because they know that they are on the wrong side of the issues that voters are truly concerned about.

Voters don’t want higher taxes. Both Jones and Pan support higher taxes on Californian’s. Voters want to see government spending reduced. Both Jones and Pan support increased government spending. Voters want to see stranglehold that public employees have on our elected officials ended. Meanwhile, both Jones and Pan are running campaigns that are largely funded by these very same unions.

Dave Jones and Richard Pan are hoping that voters won’t recognize the fact that their campaigns do not speak to the issues Californians are really concerned about. This is because democrats cannot win on the issues. They can only win by demonizing Republicans.

Democrat consultants know that were they to campaign on the Stimulus Bill, Obama Care or tax increases they would lose most swing voters and many of their supporters. So instead, they are focusing on wedge issues and demonization of Republicans. This just goes to show how desperate they really are.

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!

Conservatism & The Black Community

Earlier this year, I had a chance to participate in the Frederick Douglas Foundation's 2nd Annual Conference. Particpants came from all across the nation and shared their thoughts on our values and how they pertain to the black community.

California government grows as private sector shrinks

With private sector jobs disappearing at an alarming rate, Assembly Republican Leader Martin Garrick, of Carlsbad, says in his weekly address that California must reduce the size of government to balance the budget. Here is the Assembly Republicans’ compilation of job statistics titled Real Facts: California Private Sector Job Loss vs. State Employee Job Cost.

California Unemployment Rate - 12.3%
Source: California Employment Development Department

Californians Currently Listed as Unemployed- 2.24 Million
Source: California Employment Development Department

Private Sector Jobs Lost in California Since 2005- 1,298,700
Source: California Employment Development Department

State Government Jobs Added Since 2005-  38,100
Source: California Employment Development Department

Average California Private Sector Job Salary- $55,000
Source: California Employment Development Department

Average State Taxes Paid by Each Private Sector Employee- $3,600
Source: Franchise Tax Board / Board of Equalization

Average Cost to Taxpayers to Pay Salary and Benefits for Each California Government Job- $90,000
Source: California Department of Finance

Number of Private Sector Jobs it Takes to Support One Government Job- 25
Source: Franchise Tax Board / Board of Equalization

So what is the Democrat's answer to these alarming numbers? RAISE TAXES AND CONTINUE TO GROW GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS...

Expectations dwindle from "Change we can believe in" to "It could be worse"

As the 2010 midterm election approaches, President Barak Obama is no longer talking about change we can believe in. Instead, his rhetoric has shifted back to blaming Bush and the Republicans and declaring that things would be much worse if he wasn't in charge.

 A recent Associated Press article made note of the significant change in messaging:

President Barack Obama, who rocketed to the White House promising "change you can believe in," is now telling voters they shouldn't change a thing.

His message for the fall elections, which are looking ominous for his Democrats, is that Republicans caused the nation's economic troubles, but he and the Democrats are starting to fix them. So stick with the Democrats and don't go back to the GOP.

"This is a choice between the policies that led us into the mess or the policies that are leading out of the mess," Obama said recently in Las Vegas.

Trouble is, it's a tough sell to voters who've seen little progress.

Unemployment is stuck near double digits and polls show many voters have decided Obama's policies are to blame, not his predecessor's.

This is despite the President's attempts to continue to blame the previous administration that has been gone for over a year and half as well as congressional Republicans who haven't been in the majority in either house since 2006. The voters recognize that this is his  mess and he needs to own it. But, we all know that is not going to happen.

Obama often frames the argument by saying that Republicans had their chance to drive, then drove the car into a ditch and shouldn't get the keys back. But voters may be concluding that Democrats, who control the White House and both chambers of Congress, have had their chance at the wheel, too, and haven't gotten very far.

"From the American public's point of view, the people in charge at this point are the people who own the problem," said Andrew Kohut, head of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.  

The truth is that the Obama Campaign created a level of expectation that the Obama Administration would never be able to live up to. And now that reality has set in for the voters, the blame game is al the Democrats have left. 

But Obama's pickings were slim when it came to campaign themes.

The narrative that worked so well when Obama was a presidential candidate offering himself as a transformational figure who could change Washington is no longer at his disposal. He can hardly claim to have delivered on that promise because he hasn't changed Washington, at least not much, as he's acknowledged.

NAACP accuses Tea Party of racism while ignoring blatantly racist acts by it's friends!

Today, the National Association of Colored People’s National Conference voted to approve a resolution that accuses the Tea Party Movement of “blatant racism”, while at the same time ignoring voter intimidation by their friends in the New Black Panther Party and a violent hate crime by their friends from SEIU.

As a part of their national campaign to regain some semblance of relevance again the NAACP has taken to attacking the most relevant political movement today, the Tea Party Movement. Keep in mind that this is the same NAACP that is pushing to legalize pot and make Neverland Ranch a State Park in California. And they have the nerve to claim that no one takes the Tea Party seriously?

If they truly wish to denounce “racism”, why don’t they put forth a resolution denouncing the blatant racist thuggery and voter intimidation of the New Black Panther Party who brandished pipes as they stood outside a polling place in Philadelphia? Furthermore, why won’t they call on the White House to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law?

Or maybe we can get the NAACP to encourage prosecution of the those who are guilty of the only violent hate crime ever committed at a Tea Party? But then again that would mean turning against their friends at SEIU who brutally attacked a Black man at a Tea Party Rally last year calling him the “N” word repeatedly. Instead the Missouri NAACP chose to hold a press conference supporting those who were guilty of the hate crime.

Sounds to me like the NAACP is desperately trying to overcome it’s irrelevancy by attempting to tear down a movement that is actually making a positive difference in this country.

This comes right out of the NAACP playbook: If you can't beat'em, call'em racist!

Eric Holder refuses to prosecute hate group for voter intimidation.

“The time is now to provide justice to victims of bias-motivated violence and to re-double our efforts to protect our communities from violence based on bigotry and prejudice.”

These were the words uttered by Attorney General Eric Holder a little more than one year ago, as he sought passage of new federal hate crimes legislation. What he didn’t say was that he wasn’t referring to all “bigotry and prejudice” especially if it was aimed at whites. Case in point: the Justice Departments refusal to prosecute the New Black Panther Party members who stood outside a polling place, brandishing weapons in an attempt to intimidate white voters during the 2008 presidential election.

This dismissal was so egregious that Former DOJ attorney J Christian Adams who actually worked on the case resigned as a result of it. He recently wrote a commentary in the Washington Times outlining his objections to the Obama Administration’s handling of the case:

On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.

Keep in mind that these are the same folks who declared that black should "...kill some cracker babies..." I wonder if this case would have been handled the same way if the perpetrators had been flag waving Tea Partiers? I doubt it.

Justice is supposed to be blind. But in this case, it is blind as a bat!

The people’s Prop 23 would reverse the politician’s AB 32… Bizzaro World? No, Just California….

When the people California began gathering signatures to overturn the politician’s Global Warming Initiative, who would have thought that irony would be played out so perfectly?

Should it pass, Proposition 23 (The California Jobs Initiative) which was put on the ballot by the people, would REVERSE AB 32 (The California Job Killer) that was passed by the politicians.

As pointed out by California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) AB 32’s higher energy prices will increase the cost of doing business here and cause economic “leakage” to occur: meaning that businesses will leave the state in search of greener pastures.

Jack Stewart, president of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association stated, “California has already lost 630,000 manufacturing jobs in the last decade, and the state is far below the national average in new industrial job growth. The Legislative Analyst’s most recent report makes it clear we’ll lose even more jobs and manufacturing activity if AB 32 implementation proceeds as scheduled.”

But needless to say, environmentalists will argue that despite the facts, AB 32 will not cost jobs and that those who want to repeal it simply want free reign to pollute California’s air and water.

I can see the commercial’s already- The BP oil spill… George Bush… and somehow referencing children and minorities…

NAACP supports legalization of marijuana... They're fighting for your right to get high!

The California Conference of the NAACP has offered it’s unconditional support for an initiative that would legalize the recreational use of marijuana in the Golden State.

The Sacramento Bee reports:

In a news conference today, the California State Conference of the NAACP is due to throw its support behind the initiative to legalize marijuana for adults over 21, allow small residential cultivation and permit cities to tax and regulate pot sales.

In a statement, Alice Huffman, the state NAACP president, said the organization is backing the initiative, Proposition 19, to counter marijuana arrest rates that she contends unfairly target African Americans.

"There is a strong racial component that must be considered when we investigate how marijuana laws are applied to people of color," she said. "The burden has fallen disproportionately on people of color and young black men in particular."

The NAACP’s enthusiasm on this issue is not widely shared amongst African American leaders.

…(Ron) Allen, president of the International Faith-Based Coalition, a Sacramento group representing 3,600 congregations, said he is stunned the state NAACP would favor legalized marijuana.

"Most African American pastors are disappointed, absolutely disappointed with the decision," said Allen, bishop of the Greater Solomon Temple Community Church in Oak Park. "If anyone should know the effects of illicit drugs in the black community, it should be one of our most respected civil rights organizations."

The primary issue here is the fact that a greater percentage of blacks seem to be prosecuted for crimes involving marijuana than other ethnic groups.

"There is a strong racial component that must be considered when we investigate how marijuana laws are applied to people of color," she said. "The burden has fallen disproportionately on people of color and young black men in particular."

The problem is not that these young men are arrested for these crimes. It’s that they are involved in these crimes at all. If they did not have possession of illegal substances, then they would not be arrested for having them. And making that substance legal does not fix the underlying problem of drug usage and criminal behavior in the black community. If you want to reduce the number of young black men being arrested for possession, then get them to stop using and selling!

It’s hard to believe that this is the same organization that fought against the proliferation of liquor stores in the black community. I cannot believe they honestly support the idea of unleashing the plague of legalized drugs on those very same neighborhoods.

Vote to Boycott Arizona Prompts Recall of Sacramento City Council Members

Voters have had enough of the Sacramento City Council's refusal to do something about it.

After the Mayor and six council members voted to institute a boycott of the state of Arizona (in protest of their new immigration enforcement law) a group of Sacramento area residents opted to organize a recall of those who voted in favor of the boycott.

Congressional District 5 candidate, Paul Smith; Conservative Radio Talk Show Host, Eric Hogue; and Tea Party Express Organizer Mark Williams have put together RecallSacramento.com to gather the names and addresses of city residents who would be willing to sign a recall petition. The plan is to move on each member of the council, once they have commitment from enough voters in each district.

Organizers admit that it is unlikely that they will gain enough support to recall all the members of the council. But they feel that if they are able to remove even one, their point would be made. And the truth is, there are plenty of other reasons to want a change in city leadership.

Sacramento is facing a budget deficit of at least $43 million. Crime, including violent crime is on the rise. And despite gathering more than enough signatures to put a referendum for a Strong Mayor on the ballot, the city council refused to allow the people to vote on the idea. In fact, there is such dissatisfaction with the council that in the most recent election, two incumbents (Robbie Waters and Ray Tretheway) failed to win reelection.

If there was ever a time to take back our city government from these "Not so ready for prime time players" now is that time. The only question is going to be whether or not folks are actually going to fully invest in this effort. Because without a commitment of time, talent and treasury this recall will go nowhere.

Mexico joins legal challenge to Arizona's illegal immigration law

In what can only be described as an act of shear audacity and hypocrisy, Mexico (that's right the nation of Mexico) has filed a brief in the court case challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's new law addressing illegal immigration.

According to CNN:

Mexico on Tuesday filed a brief in federal court in Arizona supporting a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a tough new immigration law, Mexico's foreign ministry said.

The lawsuit seeks to overturn SB 1070, a recently passed law due to go into effect late next month, which stipulates that police can ask the residency status of people being investigated for a crime.

"The government of Mexico has requested the court that SB 1070 be declared unconstitutional and that it does not enter into force," the foreign ministry said in a written statement.

The Mexican government gave its support to the lawsuit filed by a group of civil rights organizations, including the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the National Immigration Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union.

In its brief, Mexico "underscored that it is fundamental and imperative that the human and civil rights of its citizens are duly respected while present in Arizona or in any other state of the United States," the foreign ministry said.

In filing the brief, Mexico said it was upholding its duty to protect its nationals in the United States and ensure that they are not discriminated against based on their ethnicity.

The case is Friendly House, et al v. Michael B. Whiting, et al.

Considering how Mexico treats immigrants to their county (illegal or legal), it is unfathomable that they would have the nerve to challenge anyone else. To place their hypocrisy into proper perspective here are excerpts from an article that ran in the Washington Times on 4/6/06 entitled “The Mexican Solution,” by Frank Gaffney, Jr.:

Under . . . [the Mexican] constitution first adopted in 1917 and subsequently amended, Mexico deals harshly not only with illegal immigrants. It treats even legal immigrants, naturalized citizens and foreign investors in ways that would, by the standards of those who carp about U.S. immigration policy, have to be called "racist" and "xenophobic."

For example, according to an official translation published by the Organization of American States, the Mexican constitution includes the following restrictions:

• Pursuant to Article 33, "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics like those much in evidence in Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere in recent days.

• Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable."

• Jobs for which Mexican citizenship is considered "indispensable" include, pursuant to Article 32, bans on foreigners, immigrants and even naturalized citizens of Mexico serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports.

• Article 55 denies immigrants the right to become federal lawmakers. A Mexican congressman or senator must be "a Mexican citizen by birth." Article 91 further stipulates that immigrants may never aspire to become cabinet officers, as they are required to be Mexican by birth. Article 95 says the same about Supreme Court justices.

• In accordance with Article 130, immigrants -- even legal ones -- may not become members of the clergy, either.

• Foreigners, to say nothing of illegal immigrants, are denied fundamental property rights. For example, Article 27 states, "Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters."

• Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country."

• What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen's arrests. Article 16 states, "In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities." In other words, Mexico grants its citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. Imagine the Minutemen exercising such a right.

• The Mexican constitution states that foreigners -- not just illegal immigrants -- may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."

And in April 2010, Michelle Malkin wrote a piece "How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens" where she points out the following:

--Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years' imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama's illegal alien aunt -- a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).

--Law enforcement officials at all levels -- by national mandate -- must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens' arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

-- Ready to show your papers? Mexico's National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens' identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

So, the next time the Mexican government decides to chime in when it comes to how we conduct ourselves here in the US, I would encourage them to first clean up their own mess

Inmates Claim $9 Million in Home Buyer Tax Credit

President Obama wasn’t kidding when he promised to spread the wealth. And apparently, some of it has been spread to folks serving life sentences.

In a recently released government report, it appears that 1300 prison inmates recieved mor that $9 million from the Federal Home Buyer’s Tax Credit…. 241 of them are serving life in prison!

According to CNBC:

In all, more than 14,100 taxpayers wrongly received at least $26.7 million in tax credits that were meant to boost the nation's slumping housing markets, said the report by J. Russell George, the Treasury Department's inspector general for tax administration.

Some taxpayers received the credit for homes purchased before the tax break was started. In other cases, multiple taxpayers improperly used the same home to claim multiple credits. Investigators found one home that was used by 67 taxpayers to claim credits.

I guess the good news is that they found out about the discrepancies. But I wish them luck trying to get that money back.

Another good idea mucked up by government bureaucrats.

Black Republican Nominated to Congress in South Carolina. Democrats lament, "He's no Alvin Greene!"

In 1854, the GOP is founded in opposition to slavery. In 1964, we elected segregationist Strom Thurmond. Now in 2010, we nominate an African-American to fill Thurmond's old seat. The circle is complete!

Unlike their Democratic counterparts, South Carilina Republicans have nominated an African-American man who is undoubtably qualified and ready serve his constitutents in Washington DC.

The Associated Press reports:

Voters in South Carolina nominated a black Republican lawmaker for an open congressional seat Tuesday, rejecting a renowned political name and potentially changing the face of the national party.

State Rep. Tim Scott defeated Paul Thurmond, an attorney who is son of the onetime segregationist U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond. Scott, who won the runoff with 69 percent of the vote, is poised to become the nation's first black GOP congressman since 2003.

Scott, 44, owns an insurance business and became the first black Republican in the South Carolina Legislature in more than a century when elected in 2008.

He's now the favorite in the coastal First District, which has elected a Republican congressman for three decades. He would become the first black Republican congressman since Oklahoma's J.C. Watts retired in 2003.

I think the fact that Mr. Scott defeated the son of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond is a wonderful bit of irony.

It will be interesting to see how the national establishment reacts to him. Will he be a game changer the way that JC Watts was during his tenure; helping the party develop policy to address issues beyond the usual GOP focus? Or will he be an establishment guy trying to sell the party as it's ambassador to the black community?

I don't know him. So, I cannot say which he will be. But I everything I have heard about him is that he is a conservative, independent thinker. That should bode well for the type of leader he will be in Congress.

The one thing I do know is that he is no Alvin Greene!

Congratulations Mr. Scott!

House Dems Declare, “Budget? We don’t need no stinking budget!”

In 2006 Rep. John Spratt(D) declared of Republicans, “If you can’t budget, you can’t govern.” Well now that he is in charge of the budget, he has changed his tune!

House Democrats have chosen not to even pass a budget this year. Instead, they will pass a “Budget Alternative” which will continue spending at last year’s level. So what’s the big deal?

Well this alternative budget leaves out some very important facts; like a projected annual budget deficit averaging over $1 Trillion a year for the next 10 years!  As reported by The Hill:

House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.) said the alternative would be the “functional equivalent” of a full-fledged budget. But because it won't be a traditional budget resolution, it will be silent on future deficits, which are expected to average nearly $1 trillion for the next decade.

Democrats have expressed concern about voting for a document showing lots of red ink in an election year.

Even those who are fond of comparing the spending during the Bush years to that of our current President are silent. The truth is that the highest deficit under President Bush was $450 billion. Back in 2009 The Heritage Foundation Reported”

It is true that, between 2002 and 2009, the budgets largely shaped by President George Bush will have run cumulative budget deficits of $3.35 trillion. This calculation credits the entire 2009 budget deficit and TARP costs to Bush, even though Obama will have signed most of the discretionary spending bills and overseen much of the TARP spending.

But Obama does not have much high ground. The “stimulus” bill alone will create more debt (approximately $1 trillion including interest costs), than Bush’s first three years of budget deficits combined ($948 billion).

So, if the numbers are already out there, what are Democrats trying to hide? One has to wonder if the projected deficits are even greater that we know. And if President Obama signs this "Budget Alternative", what does that say about his commitment to "Transparency"?