African American Voters, Listen Up

The following videos are part of a video blog series. I do not know the gentleman's name but he can be found at youtube.com under machosauceproduction. He has some important political insights which should be of particular interest to the black community.

African Americans need to ask themselves a few questions;

-Who or what is really to blame for the sad state of black education in America? Read this.

-Is it really a racial issue that the prison population in the U.S. is up to 70% black? Read this and this.

-Which political party stands to gain the most, politically, from the status quo of race relations in the U.S. remaining unchanged? Read this.

-Democrats pushed banks into making more home loans to those with low and moderate
incomes, mostly through Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Read this and this. They defended Fannie and Freddy when Republicans started sounding the warning bells in 2004. Watch this and this. Now, those who purchased homes under these programs, many of whom are African Americans, find that their homes are worth less than the principle remaining on their mortgages. Since many of these homeowners got their loans with no money down, and therefore, had no skin in the game, are walking away from these mortgages. With the economy collapsing and it looks as though every American will be paying a huge price for it, of what benefit has any of this been for the black community? Misery may love company, but is this the type of equality that the black community hoped for when they voted for Democrats?

-In America, the land of opportunity, liberal Democrats tell African Americans that their success or failure depends upon who wins elections. That is insulting enough, but the fact of the matter is that Democrats, by positioning themselves as the saviors of the black community, have a vested political interest in maintaining the status quo. As long as black students are under educated, the Democrats have the black vote. As long as black unemployment exceeds the national average, the Democrats have the black vote. As long as crime in America's inner city communities remains high, the Democrats have the black vote. As long as Democrats can convince African Americans that racism is at the heart of all these problems, the Democrats have the black vote. Why would the Democrats, as a party, want any of these things to change?

These are questions which every voter, not just those in the African American community, should seriously be considering.

Rebuking the Toad

I received a comment to a recent post which demands a reply. The following is the comment just as it appeared;

Toad734 said...

That's funny because it always seems it's the conservatives who are trying to implement a state religion which everyone one else has to adhere to, always trying to stifle free speech or even in McCain and Palin's case, freedom of the press. The Right are the ones who want to attack the constitution with a new marriage amendment, it's the Right who is always trying to take away our civil liberties for "our safety", its the right who is always trying to get music, lyrics, videos, tv, movies, radio, art, etc. censored. It's conservatives who fought against ideas such as the 15th amendment.And by activist judges would you be referring to ones who sneak in to the court house grounds in the middle of the night to install a big statue of the 10 commandments? That's what I call an activist judge. Just because some judges are non partisan and smart and can actually acknowledge the intentions of the founding fathers doesn't make them activists just because you, uneducated in the law, disagree.

Toad makes several charges in his comments that are so outlandish that I have to wonder how he could have established their credibility in his own mind.

1). That conservatives want to stifle freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and censor the media.

Since Ronald Reagan abolished the 'fairness doctrine' we finally have a situation in this country in which freedom of speech is flourishing. I realize that the Left is unhappy with this situation and many want it reinstated. This charge may seem a little like the 'pot calling the kettle black', but in the mind of the Leftist the fact that there are so many voices now actively opposing their views it must be an effort to silence them. The Left does it's fair share of criticism of the Right as well. But the right to criticize the speech of another falls under the category of free speech. What the Left calls an effort to stifle free speech is really nothing more that healthy political debate. Conservatives have as much right to be engaged in the political debate as does the Left. However, if the Left finds that they no longer have the stomach for it, we would be agreeable to accepting the Left's capitulation.

2). That Conservatives fought hard against ideas like the 15th Amendment.

This charge betrays a great deal of ignorance. On Feb. 26 1869, the 15th Amendment passed the Senate with not a single Republican voting against it, and not a single Democrat voting in favor of it. The next day the House vote was 144 to 44 in favor of passage. All 144 in favor were Republicans and all 44 against it were Democrats. It was the Democrats who opposed the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, as well as much of the civil rights legislation which was passed during the civil rights movement of the 1960. For Toad's edification, may I recommend Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. It is an excellent book on the history of the civil war and offers a perspective thereof which is not often heard.

3). That Conservatives are trying to establish a 'state religion' and that an activist judge is one which violates the religion clause of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment clearly states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." No Conservative has proposed such a law, nor has any Conservative stated that he would be in favor of such a law. However, Conservatives do insist that efforts to respect the first portion of the religion clause not lead to gross violations of the second. There in lies the problem. The Left has interpreted the first portion of the religion clause in such a way that in naturally leads to violations of the second.

This 'uneducated' blogger has read no less than two books on the subject of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, as well as the essays of the Federalists and the Anti-federalists. The original intent of religion clause of the First Amendment was to prevent the federal government from interfering with state laws regarding religion and their establishments. The concern of the framers was not that the states would use public authority and money to favor one religion over another, many did exactly that and it was an acceptable practice. The worry of the framers who insisted upon this provision was that the federal government would establish a national church interfering with churches favored in the various states.

The concept of a constitutional 'separation of church and state', established solely by activist judges, has done much to greatly curtail religious freedom in America. Communities are being restricted from using their local tax dollars to erect any type of religious monument or even a Nativity display at Christmas time. Teachers and students alike are forbidden from expressing their faith on public school property. Families or church groups visiting public monuments at our Nation's Capital are fined for engaging in prayer. Just this week, in my own state of Virgina, five state troopers have resigned following a directive that banned them from using the words Jesus or Christ in public prayers. In recent years there have even been those (mostly on the Left) who argue that the religion clause of the First Amendment makes it unconstitutional for members of a religious institution to engage in political activism.

Palin and Women's Rights

The runaway popularity of Sarah Palin, especially with women, is enough to throw the radical feminists into fits. In some cases, feminist may be mistaken as sufferers of Tourette syndrome. One blogger characterized her as pure evil. Then there is this rant at the Daily-kook.

In an Aug. 29th press release, NOW PAC chair, Kim Gandy, emphatically pontificated that Sarh Palin is no more a supporter of women's rights than John McCain, but admitted that "like Sarah Palin, not every woman supports women's rights." Which rights? Apparently, only the right of a woman to flippantly murder her unborn child.

Chicago Sun Times columnist, Mary Mitchell, echoed the same sentiments yesterday in a piece entitled Palin should be laughingstock to all feminists. Rather than comprehensively prove the 'laughingstock' premise of the title, Ms. Mitchell spends a good portion of the piece lamenting the much chagrined popularity of Sarah Palin. The following are a few examples of this:

"Sarah Palin makes me sick. I hate that she was able to
steal Barack Obama's mojo just by showing up wearing rimless glasses and a
skirt."


"I hate that she makes Joe Biden look like John McCain
and John McCain look like the maverick he is not."



"I hate that Palin reminds me of Susan Sarandon's
feisty character in "Thelma & Louise." I loved Sarandon in that movie, yet I
couldn't stand Palin's feistiness at the Republican National Convention."


"Sarah Palin makes me sick -- not because she may speak
in tongues -- but because she is a fast talker."



"It irks me that Palin is being painted as some kind of
"New Age Feminist" by the so-called 'elite' media."


"She isn't."


"Palin is a fresh face on a weary campaign trail, and a
jack-in-the-box in this election.
But Palin isn't running against Barack
Obama. McCain is, and the media seem to have forgotten that."

Having delt sufficiently with her 'cry baby' issues, Ms. Mitchell moved on to more substantive matters, like the claim that Palin is a reformer.

"But we know that the "reform-minded" is a bit of a stretch.
Palin is under investigation for allegedly abusing her power by trying to have
her ex-brother-in-law fired."

Ms. Mitchell fails to site any instances in which feminists have opposed the firing of a dangerous, child abusing, male, state trooper. Ms. Mitchell continued her piece by pointing out the ways in which Sarah Palin is a typical politician, but fails to recount the long list of atypical politicians that feminist typically have supported in the past.

From this point on in the article, Ms. Mitchell waxed hypocritical. She tried to cast doubt on whether Palin could be both a career woman and mother. How does doing that which feminists have always supported and encouraged women to do make her a 'laughingstock' to feminists. Even a former Leftist like myself cannot explain the logic.

Finally, at the end of the piece, she gets to the real heart of the matter.

"Palin's extreme views on abortion (she once said she
would be against her daughter having an abortion even in the case of incest or
rape) and her support of abstinence-only programs should make her a
laughingstock to feminists."

Yes, it is true that a woman who chooses to give birth to a child because she believes that abortion is wrong, is a choice that feminists mock. It is true that the notion of preventing a pregnancy through the advocation of abstinence is repugnant to feminists. It is also true that feminists are the the advocates of women's rights save but one; the right of a woman to have an opinion which differs from the feminazi party line.

Goofy Brit Lectures Americans

At the MTV Awards last night British comedian Russell Brand took advantage of the opportunity spew his political views on American politics, taking it upon himself to urge Americans "on behalf of the world" to vote for Barack Obama. The following are a few of his comments.

"Some people, I think they're called racists, say America is not ready for a black president. "But I know America to be a forward thinking country because otherwise why would you have let that retard and cowboy fella be president for eight years? "We were very impressed. We thought it was nice of you to let him have a go, because, in England, he wouldn't be trusted with a pair of scissors."

I don't know who Mr. Brand thinks he is that he can come to the United States and make these kinds of insulting pontifications, but sitting here, clinging to my gun with one hand and my religion with the other, and considering his comments in the context of his physical appearance, I think that I am perfectly capable of figuring out who the retard is!

Liberal Tyranny

The original intent of the liberal ideology of 'political correctness' was to curtail speech and actions which might offend someone. Through it, the left has been able to declare that particular ideas, expressions of speech, and behavior, which are legal, should be forbidden. While most, so called, 'politically incorrect' speech and behavior are unwritten prohibitions, some have been written into law in many jurisdictions; i.e., hate speech statutes. Today, 'political correctness' has grown far beyond its original design.

PC is the rule of law on the vast majority of university and college campuses in the U.S. where it is being used to marginalize conservative ideology and activities. In a free society the people have a right to speak and to write freely. They also have the right to support the advocates of ideas and policies which best represent their interests with their time and their money. Tyranny begins with the suspension of these basic human rights.

In 1949, the FCC adopted a general policy to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues was fair and balanced. This policy was interpreted by many to require station owners and operators give persons with opposing viewpoints equal time to air those viewpoints, usually free of charge. Because broadcast stations were not disposed to giving away air time and were also not to fond of having the FCC breathing down their necks, the 'fairness doctrine', as it came to be known, had the effect of limiting free speech.

Since the FCC was an agency of a Democratic party controlled government, broadcasters soon learned that avoiding government scrutiny was simply a matter of avoiding the airing of conservative Republican opinions. Conservatives found themselves in a crippling situation. Broadcasters were unwilling to give them a forum and the vast majority of publishers were liberal. Free speech effectively suspended! That is, until the 'fairness doctrine' was abandoned during the deregulation of the Reagan administration.

When Rush Limbaugh exploded onto the airwaves in the late eighties, broadcasters all over the country realized that there was a huge market for conservative talkers. Today, there are enough conservative talkers in so many markets, that one can literally listen to conservative talk all day long, even while traveling. Additionally, the popularity of conservative talk has opened up many other opportunities for conservatives to get their message out.

Liberals are in a panic. They desperately need to stop all this unwanted free exchange of ideas. 'Political correctness' works well to suppress free speech in the microcosm of a university campus, but it can hardly be applied to the same extent to the whole of a free society. Liberal Democrats in Congress are currently trying to reinstate the 'fairness doctrine', as well as using 'campaign finance' law to again suppress free speech.

Fortunately, I believe that that horse has been too long out of the barn. Conservative authors are turning out a great number of best selling books each year. Conservative bloggers are confounding the efforts of the left wing media to misrepresent the facts. Newspapers lose subscribers when they publish blatant left wing opinions. Fox News Channel is now the #1 cable news network, and it already has an arguably fair and balanced format. And, worst of all, at least as far as the left is concerned, conservative students have begun to organize to fight the PC system on our nations campuses.

The monopoly that the left has held over public discourse is diminishing, and they are understandably frustrated. They know, or ought to know from their experience trying to compete with conservatives on talk radio, that in a 'real' fair and balanced atmosphere, their ideas will not prevail. They have no choice but to return to their radical revolutionary roots. In fact, they have already begun. Conservative speakers have been attacked during their lectures by left wing radicals at universities across the U.S. Bill Kristol, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, and Pat Buchanan are a few of those who have been attacked with a pie in the face or doused with salad dressing.

It is the beginning of what will eventually become a campaign of domestic terror, the purpose of which is to intimidate Americans into allowing a return to the tyranny of the past. However, the movement at present is to small. The radicals need an issue, a catalyst which they can use to recruit thousands of young idealist across America. They may have just what they are looking for very soon. Should Barack Obama fail to be elected President of the United States, the radicals will have the catalyst they are looking for. In fact, I would be willing to bet that they are counting on it.

The Myth of Bipartisanship

I recently saw a poll online which showed that nearly ninety percent of Americans want the two major parties to work together in a bipartisan way to solve problems in America. I was really surprised by that number. Clearly, the vast majority of Americans do not understand how widely divided the two major parties are ideologically. Probably the only issue in the past year that Republicans and Democrats could agree on is that Michael Vick is a really bad person for running a dog fighting ring and being party to the death of a few dogs.

Americans need to come to an understanding of the fact that for the last fifty years there has been an ideological civil war going on in this country. The battle ground of this war has been the hearts and minds of the American people. There is a 'right' and a 'left', a 'conservative' and a 'liberal', a 'capitalist' and a 'socialist' viewpoint for every single issue, and, they are as far apart as they can be. Bipartisanship can only maintain the status quo. It isn't as if the two parties are trying to get to the same place and are just in a disagreement on how to get there. They are trying to go in opposite directions.

Republicans want less government and Democrats want more. Republicans believe in an uninhibited free market economy and Democrats want more government control bordering on socialism. Republicans believe that Americans know better how to spend their own money and Democrats think that the government would do a better job. Republicans believe in supporting America's interests abroad and Democrats seem to be more interested in supporting the interests of our enemies.

Where is the common ground?In this election season there has been a lot of clamor about change. Americans want change and are sick and tired of the status quo. If Americans want change they need to join the fray. They must stop sitting on the fence. They are going to have to examine the ideologies of both parties and pick a side. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke.

It is time to choose!