Sunday, November 16, 2008

To clear the air...

Today I got into a well heated conversation over the fact I am venomently opposed to President-Elect Obama’s policies. Heated to the point that I was accused of being blinded so much by the fact that “my guy lost” that I’m missing the historical significance of Obama’s election to President. I will say this once again to all who may have the same opinion. I truly understand the historical aspect of the occasion. The struggle African Americans had to endure not that long ago. The fact that an African American was not only able to get his party’s nomination but win the election is something I will be glad to share with my children and grand children. African Americans as a race on January 20th should be proud and take that moment to reflect on how far we have come and appreciate the struggles of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and others.

With that said, here is my question. Can someone appreciate the moment and fear it at the same time? Let me explain. I think Barack Obama is a fascinating man. I believe if I ever got a chance to talk with him, it would probably go down as a highlight of my life. With him being a constitutional law professor and me interested in constitutional law, I would probably learn a lot from him. My issue with Obama is his political ideas. Ideas like wealth distribution, universal health care, sitting down with our enemies without conditions. There are many more but those are the top ones. He as a record of supporting policies that scream socialism, and believes the United Nation should have more control of our armed services. These policies scare me. I believe Capitalism works if the government stays out the way. I believe government should be small and military strong. I believe in the sovereignty of America and believe the UN is not looking out for our best interest. I truly believe with Obama a President and a Democrat majority in Congress, America may be heading down a path we may not be able to recover from.

When January 20th 2009 arrives and Barack Obama becomes the 44th President of the United States, I like the rest of the African American community will have a since of pride and know we are witnessing history. I also will be looking on in concern because if Obama gets to enact some of his more extreme policies I fear America’s best days may have past us by.


Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Another Question for My Democrat Brothers

Recently my cousin pronounced on his blog "WE DID IT!"

My first question is "WHO IS WE"?

We Democrats?

We Barack Obama Supporters?

This can't be it. As I assure you that such message would not have been distributed had Democrat John Kerry had prevailed in 2004.It is clear to me that the "WE" is "WE BLACK FOLKS"!!!Everyone is so caught up in the historical aspect of the election this was not a "WE victory.Black folks make up about 13% of the population. Obama's Transition team does not appear to have but one Black person on it at the core.

WE ain't running a thing.
Carol Browner
William Daley
Christopher Edley
Michael Froman
Julius Genachowski
Donald Gips
Governor Janet Napolitano
Federico Peña
Susan Rice
Sonal Shah
Mark Gitenstein
Ted Kaufman

Some of you are living so vicariously through BARACK OBAMA that it is going to be difficult for you to detail HOW YOU HAVE BENEFITED after 4 years - even if you haven't.

Monday, November 10, 2008

'Obama Ready to RULE on Day 1'

The co-chair of Barack Obama's Transition Team, Valerie Jarrett, appeared on Meet the Press this weekend and told tom that "Obama was ready to RULE day 1." Someone needs to inform Valerie Jarrett that in America our leaders don't "rule" they govern. Unless that's what the "Annointed One" believes.





Friday, November 7, 2008

Burning Question

OK, Obama has won. The Grand High most Exulted one will be our 44th president. Let me clear one thing up before I continue. As an African American, I do recognize the historical significance of Obama’s win and will give him his due. As President Elect I will give him the respect he is due. This is far and beyond more that was given to George W or Dr. Rice or Colin Powell by the left. With that out the way let me get to my question.

What has Obama done to warrant this world admiration? Has he cured any diseases? Has he authored any laws that changed the betterment of man in his 320 days as Senator? Made any major contribution to the world beside speeches and condemnation for his country? Why is it all of a sudden “good to be an American” now and was something you were ashamed of just 48hrs ago?

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

The Founding Fathers On Redistribution



We just finished the constitution and the Founding Fathers, While reading some quotes from them I came upon this list from them about wealth distribution. I'm sure my History Professor would get a kick out of this.


“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

But maybe they were wrong and Mr. Obama is right. After all, he is a Constitutional scholar.








Tuesday, October 28, 2008

ABC News: Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

A great editorial by columnist Michael Malone on the clear bias in the news coverage of the election. We should send this to all media editors and see if they respond. Probably not. Also note that while your reading the piece on media bias, notice the "Vote Obama" banner to the right of the artical.

ABC News: Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

Sunday, October 26, 2008

5 Question Quiz

With the coronation of Lord High Barack Obama just a few weeks away, let me clear one thing up. I am not a supporter of Barak Obama. I’m sure that is not news to anyone who knows me. When expressing my discuss of the situation, I was advised to "Calm down, you may like what he does the next 4 years." Ahh no. Everyone is so into this “Next step in History”, that they are willing to send America down a path it may not be able to recover from. Let me explain that last statement. When you attack the ideals that made this country what it is, you risk losing it altogether. Everyone is so focused on “Change”, were about to elect someone into the highest office in the land with no experience, a shady background and a Socialists agenda. When you go to vote on November 4th ask yourself these questions.

1. Are you ready to have our military laughed at and mocked when we run out of Iraq with are tails between or legs?
2. Are you ready to roll back the Patriot Act that has kept us safe for the last 8 years?
3. Are you ready to have the Government owning our homes, controlling our healthcare , running our banks and controlling the free market?
4. Are you ready to stifle economic and job growth by taxing those who provide the jobs?
5. Are you ready for more than a Trillion dollars worth of spending in the next 4 years?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, then you will vote for Obama. If you answered no then you need to do whatever legally possible to make sure John Mc Cain gets elected. He may not be the best person for the job, but he is a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Obama Tells Tax-Burdened Plumber the Plan is to ‘Spread the Wealth Around’


The Obama finally tells the truth about his tax and economic plan for America. Income Distribution!

Monday, October 13, 2008


Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to "spread the wealth around" -- a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a "socialist" at the Republican's rallies.
Obama made the remark after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.


"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked.
"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."


Obama frequently rails against what he calls a Republican concept that tax breaks for the wealthy will somehow "trickle down" to middle-class Americans.
Obama says he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.



The Media Play The Race Card For Obama

US Senator Barack Obama campaigning in New Ham...Image via Wikipedia
The news media have been shamefully stoking the idea that the only way Barack Obama could possibly lose the presidential election is if American racists have their way. Indeed, the fact that Obama isn’t leading in polls by a wide margin “doesn’t make sense ... unless it’s race,” says CNN’s Jack Cafferty. Slate’s Jacob Weisberg says Obama is losing among older white voters because of the “color of his skin.”

Many journalists are so committed to the racism-explains-everything line they are labeling any effective anti-Obama ad as an attempt by John McCain to “viciously exacerbate” America’s “race-fueled angst,” in the words of one New York magazine writer. For example, a McCain ad noted that Franklin Raines, the Clinton-appointed former head of Fannie Mae who helped bring about the current Wall Street meltdown, advised the Obama campaign. Time’s Karen Tumulty gasped that because Raines is black, McCain is playing the race card. Why, she wants to know, didn’t McCain attack Obama’s even stronger ties to the even more culpable former Fannie Mae chairman, Jim Johnson, who had to resign from Obama’s vice presidential search team because of his sketchy dealings with mortgage giant Countrywide Financial? “One reason might be that Johnson is white; Raines is black,” Tumulty suggests. Or another reason might be that the McCain campaign was saving that attack for its next ad, which is what happened. According to critics, McCain’s “celebrity” ads featuring Paris Hilton and Britney Spears were nothing but tawdry race-baiting because they subliminally played on white America’s fear of black men violating the delicate flowers of white American womanhood.

You’d think a cognitive warning bell would have gone off the moment anyone started suggesting that Paris Hilton and Britney Spears are icons of chastity. This spectacle is grotesque. It reveals how little the supposedly objective press corps thinks of the American people - and how highly they think of themselves ... and Obama. Obama’s lack of experience, his doctrinaire liberalism, his record, his known associations with Weatherman radical William Ayers and the hate-mongering Rev. Jeremiah Wright: These cannot possibly be legitimate motivations to vote against Obama, in this view. Similarly, McCain’s experience, his record of bipartisanship, his heroism: These too count for nothing. Racism is all there is. Obama wins, and America sheds its racial past. Obama loses, and we’re a nation of “Bull” Connors. Much of the argument for the centrality of race in this election hinges on the so-called Bradley effect. In 1982, Tom Bradley, Los Angeles’ black mayor, was polling well among white voters in the race for California governor.

Bradley lost, suggesting that large numbers of whites had lied to pollsters about their intention to vote for him. I have no doubt that the Bradley effect is real. But the Bradley effect does not reflect racism; it captures voters’ fear of appearing racist. There’s no reason to assume those who lie to pollsters are racists. But for Obama supporters and the media, poll results are some kind of sacred, binding covenant. If voters don’t keep their promise, the media have no problem seeing racism at work. The media’s obsession with race in this election is probably fueling the Bradley effect. Repeating over and over that voting against Obama is racist only makes non-racist people embarrassed to admit that they plan to vote for McCain. Another rich irony is that the only racists who matter in this election are the ones in the Democratic Party. News flash: Republicans aren’t voting for the Democratic nominee because they’re Republicans. A new AP-Yahoo News poll claims that racial prejudice is a significant factor among the independents and Democrats Obama needs to win, specifically among Hillary Clinton’s primary voters. According to the pollsters’ statistical modeling, support for Obama may be as much as 6 percentage points lower than it would be if there were no white racism.

I’m skeptical about those findings, as well as the overemphasis on race generally. But to the extent that race is a factor, here’s the richest irony of all: Obama’s problem is with precisely those voters the Democratic Party claims to fight for, working- and middle-class white folks. Of course, Democrats can’t openly complain that their own vital constituency is racist. If the media were more objective, we’d be hearing a lot more about the racism at the heart of the Democratic Party. (Imagine if the black nominee this year were a Republican!) But such objectivity would cause too much cognitive dissonance for a press corps that defines “racist” as shorthand for Republican and sees itself as the publicity arm of the Obama campaign.
By Jonah GoldbergReprinted with permission from National Review Online.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

2004 Video: Democrats Defend Fannie/Freddie from Regulation

Democrates suffering from "Selective Amnesia". Maybe this will help jog the memory.



Monday, September 29, 2008

Democrats Blame McCain for Why Their Majority Can't Find a Majority of Votes

http://speaker.Image via Wikipedia ABC News' interpretation of things:

Sen. John McCain may or may not have broken the bailout bill — and surely he didn't do so all by himself.
But he owns it now.

In the battle over perceptions, it really is this simple: There was a deal before McCain came back to Washington. There was not a deal by the time the evening ended. And now there might not be a bill — or a first presidential debate Friday in Mississippi.

Wait a minute. The House Republicans were never on board. And you don't actually need their votes to pass this bill; the holdup is that the House Democrats are terrified of having sole responsibility for the bill.

What changed between yesterday afternoon and evening is that the Democrats position changed from "we're comfortable passing the bill without many House GOP votes" to "we're NOT comfortable passing the bill without many House GOP votes."
How is that John McCain's fault again?

Obama said McCain "injected presidential politics into delicate negotiations." How? By showing up to vote on legislation?

Notice that they never explain how John McCain, simply by arriving inside the Beltway, somehow broke up a consensus that was there earlier in the day. If McCain had come in and persuaded people to oppose the bill, it would be a different story. But the message of Pelosi, Reid, Dodd and Obama is, "McCain is here, so it must be his fault."

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Why Sarah Palin Has the Democrats Running Scared.

Alaska governor {{wSarah Palin}}Image via Wikipedia Commentary by Caroline Baum


Sept. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Alaska Governor Sarah Palin electrified the Republican National Convention with her acceptance speech two weeks ago.
And why not? The GOP vice presidential candidate is attractive (hold the accusations of sexism, please), articulate, poised, enthusiastic, homespun, a fresh face with a girl-next- door appeal.
She's everything, in other words, that John McCain is not.


After watching the McCain campaign sleepwalk through the summer, the Democrats can't get their arms around the Palin phenomenon. Who is she -- a Mayor from Nowhere! -- to come along, light a fire under the GOP ticket and threaten our path to the White House?
The spirited response to Palin by the Republican delegates in St. Paul is one thing. These are her people, the almighty GOP base.


When her popularity spilled over to the public at large and manifested itself in fundraising and opinion polls -- the GOP ticket is now tied with or ahead of the Democrats -- it was a real affront to the Democrats.
After all, ``this is our moment,'' ``this is our time,'' Barack Obama said in a June 3 speech after wrapping up the Democratic presidential nomination.
He's right. The 2008 presidential election is the Democrats' to lose.
An attitude of inevitability, of entitlement even, pervaded the Democratic Party -- until it was rudely punctured two weeks ago by the Palin phenom.
Co-Opting Change


The bursting of the inevitability bubble was on view in the real-time reaction to Palin's acceptance speech. The liberal pundits on cable news were clearly caught off guard by Palin's poise in front of an audience just a bit larger than the population of Wasilla. They were speechless. Seriously. Their jaws were moving, but nothing comprehensible was coming out.
It was on view in Barack Obama's demeanor on the campaign trail following the GOP convention. The candidate has gone flat.


And it was on view in the sheer glee the press took in turning over rocks, or icebergs, in Alaska to find some contradictions in Palin's assertions about the fabled Bridge to Nowhere.
On top of that, McCain and Palin have insinuated ``change'' into their campaign. How dare they steal our thunder, the Dems complain. We're the party of change. We're running against the incumbent president. They can't run as anti-incumbents, too.
Experience Boomerang


In short, the Democrats are running scared. And it's not for the reasons you think.
The fear has nothing to do with Palin's views. She likes guns, opposes abortion, wants to drill, is against a windfall profits tax on oil companies, wants to cut spending and earmarks, believes raising taxes hurts small business. She pretty much shares McCain's views on those issues.
The fear has nothing to do with Palin's inexperience -- six years as mayor of small-town Wasilla and two years as governor of Alaska, the largest, albeit a sparsely populated, state. If elected, Palin would be a ``heartbeat away'' from the Oval Office, her critics like to point out.
If she's a heartbeat away on Day Two, President Obama, with zero executive experience, is at mission control on Day One. Accusations of Palin's inexperience ultimately boomerang back to Obama's slim resume.
Loser Image


Besides, no one votes for vice president. The last time a vice presidential pick had a clear impact on the election outcome was John F. Kennedy's selection of Lyndon B. Johnson, who helped JFK carry Texas, according to presidential historians. (Why, then, do we spend endless hours handicapping and analyzing the VP choice every four years?)
No, the real reason the Democrats are scared to death of Palin's popularity is because if they lose this election, it will mean they are bankrupt as a party.
If the Democrats can't win a presidential election after eight years of an unpopular president, five years of an unpopular war, in the face of a lousy economy, a collapse in the housing market and overwhelming sentiment that the country is on the wrong track, it means something is terribly wrong.


This is as good as it gets for a party out of power. A loss in November would be embarrassing -- no, humiliating -- to the Democrats.
If they lose in '08, they will have no one to blame but themselves. Sarah Palin has raised the odds of a Democratic loss. That's why she has to be destroyed.

Wrong For America

NEW YORK - APRIL 23:   (FILE PHOTO)  NewsCorp'...Image by Getty Images via Daylife Murdoch: Obama's economic policies are 'naive'
News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch said he doesn't regret the New York Post endorsing John McCain, even as some say the Republican ticket is the weaker choice for voters concerned about the economy.
"I am very worried," Murdoch said during an interview Friday with Fox Business Network. "I like Sen. Obama very much. I have met him. He is a very intelligent man. But his policy of anti-globalization, protectionism, is going to be -- and card checks -- are going to do two or three things. It's going to give us a lot of inflation. They're going to ruin our relationships with the rest of the world. And they are going to slow down the rest of the world, too. And they're going to make people frightened to add to employment. You are going to find companies leaving this country if it's -- if you put a protectionist wall around it. You're going to get -- his policy is really very, very naive, old-fashioned, 1960s."

Murdoch also was asked about the television business, asked if he thinks if GE's CEO Jeff Immelt is being truthful when he says the company has no interest in selling NBC.
"Well, I take his word for it," Murdoch said. "I can assure you, it's not doing as well as it used to do. Not only because of its prime-time ratings, but because of its local stations. I know, as far as we are concerned -- and we compete with them -- that whole local station market is performing very badly at the moment. Anything that depends on consumer advertising is having a tight squeeze on it."

Murdoch also said that even if GE decided to sell the network, News Corp. would never be allowed to buy it. And NBC Universal's cable networks, he added, are not tempting.
"Take USA Network," Murdoch said. "It's a mature channel. It makes a lot of money. But why pay a high multiple for that when you can't work out how you can double its profit every five years? We like -- we like startups, like Fox News."
Also, Murdoch on the credit crisis: "One has got to go back on this and say, look, this started 15 years ago, with Barney Frank and people pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make a lot of bad loans, until they finally had $11 billion -- or nearly $11 billion out there. I don't say all bad, but it became a racket.

On whether government bailouts send to wrong message to the financial community: "I don't think so. I think the people who have done it will have lost a lot of money and their jobs. You know, some of them may even lose their freedom, from what I hear."
On Sarah Palin's call for regulation: “I think they have been sending out different signals, but I think what she says is right. Clearly, there has to be some more regulation, but we have to be careful what that is. It could make things a lot worse. The more you get the politicians in that don't know the first thing about banking, even less than me, and God knows what might come out of it.”

On Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson’s handling of the credit crisis: “I think Secretary Paulson has done a fantastically good job. Now we have got to get it through the Congress, and that is going to be the nightmare.”

Friday, September 19, 2008

Quick To Point The Finger, Senator?

1100 B‎illion or 1.1 Trillion Dollars to save ...Image by KRISnFRED via Flickr Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.
But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.
As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.
Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.

Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.
In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.

But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.
At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.
The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.
There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.

But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts.
Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions.

While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.
Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it.

Wako Hollywood at it again.


The Washington Post isn’t the only daily D.C. newspaper to rave about Sandra Bernhard’s anti-Palin ranting. Wednesday’s Washington Examiner joined in, with the headline "Comedienne delivers enraged optimism." Barbara Mackay claimed "in the end, oddly and subtly, Bernhard’s message is positive."
That’s not the impression you’d get from the blog of Theater J, where Bernhard is appearing. It has video of Bernhard calling Palin "Uncle Women," a "turncoat b—h" and a "whore." One complaint on the blog that Bernhard crosses a line of political incorrectness draws a defense from Ari Roth of Theater J that really drops the curtain on how coarse this show is:
In fact, the play wears its politically VERY correct heart on its sleeve with its indictment of America as "A Man’s World, It’s a White Man’s World, It’s a F–ked Up White Man’s Racist World" and can only be suggested to be racist in its content if one is hell-bent on protecting White Folk for Sandra’s blistering indictment.When Sandra warns Sarah Palin not to come into Manhattan lest she get gang-raped by some of Sandra’s big black brothers, she’s being provocative, combative, humorous, and yes, let’s allow, disgusting.

The fact that the show has a few riffs like this does not — to my mind — make it a "disgusting show." there’s too much beauty, variety, vitality, and intelligence to label the entire show as "disgusting." I’ll agree with you that we produced this show because we did find it to be edgy — because we wanted to give right wing conservative Jews a good run for their money by being on the receiving end of some blistering indictments from Sandra.Does it go over the edge sometimes? On the gang-rape joke, yes. Sure. Not much else. It goes over the edge and then comes right back to the cutting edge. [Profanity editing is mine.]
Forgive me if gang-rape jokes don't greet my ears as oddly and subtly positive, as the Examiner suggests, and forgive me if gang-rape jokes aren't "a rotating sprinkler that a spectator washes in most happily," like the Washington Post insists.

Roth insisted to the complainer that the D.C. Jewish Community Center is loving their Bernhard show, and partied with Bernhard on opening night. They’re in tune with her right-bashing rage:
We’re proud of our producing -- proud of Sandra’s sense of timing -- taking the fight out to the house and to the street beyond, channeling so much of our rage and frustration at the bizarre recent twists of fortune since Karl Rove trotted out Sarah Palin for John McCain to briefly meet and then get in bed with.Sandra’s face is hanging 10 feet tall in a banner over the DCJCC steps and we’re proud that she’s a new emblem and ambassador for our theater and our center. She’s not the only one who represents us. But her large heart, her generous talent, and her big mouth are all a big part of who we are.

"Who we are" at this theater clearly isn't someone who's interesting in presenting anything other than rage. The video itself, presented like a commercial for the show, explains who the show is intended to please. The average person probably wouldn’t find it the least bit funny. But if you really, really hate Sarah Palin or Christian conservatives, this show is for you.
Here’s some of what she says in the promo:
Now you got Uncle Women, like Sarah Palin, who jumps on the s--t and points her fingers at other women. Turncoat b---h! Don’t you f--kin’ reference Old Testament, bitch! You stay with your new Goyish crappy shiksa funky bulls--t! Don’t you touch my Old Testament, you b---h! Because we have left it open for interpre-ta-tion! It is no longer taken literally! You whore in your f--kin' cheap New Vision cheap-ass plastic glasses and your [sneering voice] hair up. A Tina Fey-Megan Mullally brokedown bulls--t moment.

Is it too broad an interpretation to suggest that when Bernhard attacks Palin's "new Goyish crappy shiksa funky bulls--t," she means the New Testament? It sounds like she's telling the Christian to stay away from "her" Old Testament, as if Christians don't have an Old Testament in their Bible. It's quite clear that the D.C. Jewish Community Center is not attempting an interfaith dialogue with this rantfest



Thursday, May 29, 2008

Clinton, Obama, and Racial Politics

by Paul R. Hollrah

Watching Democrats commit politics is an intriguing pastime. In recent days they’ve engaged in some especially outrageous behavior as the Clinton and Obama campaigns sparred over the issues of race and the Nevada caucuses.

The first shot in the internecine battle was fired when Barack Obama made a primary-night victory speech in New Hampshire… celebrating his second place finish. [The battle continued all the way through Obama's landslide victory in South Carolina where he received 78% of the black vote compared to Hillary's paltry 19%.]

In his [New Hampshire] speech, Obama said, “… in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible odds; when we've been told that we're not ready, or that we shouldn't try, or that we can't (Obama failed to mention that it was white Democrats who were saying those things to minorities in order to keep them from wandering off the Democratic plantation), generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people…

“It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballot; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land…”

His reference to the “King who took us to the mountaintop” was a clear reference to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It was a tribute to Dr. King that no member of the Republican Party… the party that was founded out of opposition to slavery, the party that has always been at the forefront of civil rights for all Americans… would ever object to.

However, it was not a statement that white Democrats could take lying down because it totally ignored what has been the single most significant factor in Democrat political success for the past fifty years: the party’s shameless exploitation of the black vote through the “soft bigotry of low expectations” and promises of bigger and better government handouts.

Within hours, Hillary Clinton rose to the challenge. She said, “I would point to the fact that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964… The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said, ‘We are going to do it,’ and actually got it accomplished.”

Well, almost. The fact of the matter is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was almost identical, word-for-word, to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which was passed into law by a Republican Congress and a Republican president, and which Democrats subsequently had overturned by a Democrat-dominated Supreme Court. It is also a fact that the 1964 Act became law only because of the strong support of congressional Republicans. The bill was supported by 80% of House Republicans (138-34) and only 61% of House Democrats (152-96), and by 82% of Senate Republicans (27-6) and 69% of Senate Democrats (46-21).

Yes, Lyndon Johnson supported passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but only because he was forced to do so by Supreme Court rulings and by pressure from the increasingly militant civil rights movement. But how did he really feel about equal rights for African Americans?

As columnist Bruce Bartlett tells us in his forthcoming book, “Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past,” then-Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson said in a 1957 speech, “These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us (Democrats) since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their (Republican) allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Those were Lyndon Johnson’s thoughts on the subject just three years before moving to the White House as Vice President of the United States.

Finally, on Tuesday evening, January 15, the American people tuned in to NBC, hoping to see a lively debate between Senators Clinton and Obama and former senator John Edwards. What they saw, instead, was a political softball game with Meet The Press host Tim Russert and NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams serving up batting practice softballs for the Democrats.

As the candidates engaged in a hastily-arranged love fest, their lawyers were working feverishly, drafting rules requiring all participants in the upcoming Nevada Democratic caucuses to show photo IDs before being allowed to participate in a caucus. These, of course, were the same Democrats who argued passionately before the U.S. Supreme Court just a week earlier that Indiana’s law requiring voters to show photo IDs before voting should be declared unconstitutional.

Who ever said that Democrats didn’t know who they are and what they’re about? If they are so convinced that they can’t trust each other, then how can they expect any of us to trust them? But they are fun to watch.

Continuing to be Fair and Balanced

May Ratings: FNC Stays On Top

For the 77th consecutive month, FNC finished first in total day and prime time ratings during May. FNC was the sixth highest rated cable network on all of basic cable during prime time for the month (CNN and MSNBC finished 19th and 26th) and the seventh rated network in total day (CNN and MSNBC were 19th and 27th).

FNC also had 11 out of the top 13 programs in cable during the month in Total Viewers. The O'Reilly Factor was the #1 program in cable news for the 90th consecutive month, and saw gains in Total Viewers year-to-year (26%).

Amercia's Newsroom (9-11amET) was up 30% year-to-year, with the program averaging more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined during the time period.

Meanwhile, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren has been #1 for 73 consecutive months in Total Viewers while Hannity & Colmes has been #1 in its timeslot for 54 consecutive months.



Liberalism at it's Finest

CBS: Melissa Barton says Morningside Elementary teacher Wendy Portillo had her son's classmates say what they didn't like about 5-year-old Alex. She says the teacher then had the students vote, and voted Alex, who is being evaluated for Asperger's syndrome -- an autism spectrum disorder -- out of the class by a 14-2 margin.

Click on the video below to watch the interview.

Clinton Exaggerates Poll Lead

BILLINGS, MONT. -- During an evening rally in Montana’s largest city Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton explained to the crowd why she should be the Democratic Party’s nominee, but what ensued was a list of overstatements and exaggerations as she made her case. “You have to ask yourself, who is the stronger candidate? And based on every analysis, of every bit of research and every poll that has been taken and every state that a Democrat has to win, I am the stronger candidate against John McCain in the fall,” she said.

The problem is, there are a number of polls that show Clinton in a close race with John McCain, many within the margin of error, not including a few that show Barack Obama beating McCain by a larger margin than Clinton. The comment was intended to prove to voters that despite Obama’s popularity, she has what it takes to beat John McCain. Clinton said that voters have to ask themselves, “Who is the stronger candidate against John McCain? We have not gone through this exciting, unprecedented, historic election, only to lose,” she said.



For days, Clinton has been grasping at almost anything to make her case to voters as the clock in the campaign winds down. Most recently Clinton compared the plight of Florida and Michigan voters to the struggles of the early suffragists and likened the primaries of those states to the fraudulent election that took place in Zimbabw

Election Year Politics


(CNN) — Former White House counselor Dan Bartlett lashed out at Scott McClellan in a telephone interview Wednesday, saying the allegations that the media was soft on the White House are "total crap," adding that advisers of President Bush are "bewildered and puzzled" by the allegations in McClellan's new book.

"It's almost like we're witnessing an out-of-body experience," Bartlett said of McClellan. "We're hearing from a completely different person we didn't have any insight into."

Bartlett added that intimates of the President feel McClellan has violated his trust. "Part of the role of being a trusted adviser is to honor that trust," said Bartlett. "It's not your place now to go out" and criticize the President like this.

"What did he really believe when he was serving as press secretary?" Bartlett asked.

While he said McClellan himself has to "answer as to motive" for writing the book now, Bartlett said, "I do question his judgment."

Bartlett said the bewilderment stems from "Scott's decision to publicly air these deep misgivings he's never shared privately or publicly" with fellow Bush insiders. "To do it now, through a book, is a mistake," he added.

Bartlett asserted that McClellan did not play a major role in key events, noting that the former aide was serving as deputy press secretary for domestic issues during the run-up to the war in Iraq, raising questions about how McClellan could claim the President used "propaganda" to sell the war.

"I don't think he was in a position to know this," Bartlett said flatly. He said it's "troubling" that McClellan is now "gives credibility to every left-wing attack" on anecdotes that are "either thinly-sourced or not witnessed by him" in the White House.

Bartlett bluntly said it was "total crap" for McClellan to suggest the media was too easy on the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war.

"The problem is the intelligence was wrong," said Bartlett. "But this debate has been conflated into either we lied or on your side the tough questions were not asked. I think the truth is the intelligence was wrong."

On the Hurricane Katrina allegations, Bartlett refused to confirm or deny McClellan's claim that he and Bartlett believed the President should not have flown over New Orleans but were overruled by Karl Rove. "I'm not going to rehash internal deliberations," he said. "We've all acknowledged the whole Katrina experience could have been handled better."

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Say What?



When did it become a crime for Americans to speak English? In Kansas, a family is suing a Catholic private school because it has a "English Only" policy. English should be the national language of the USA but it's not. The fact that every major country that is a world player requires that their students learn English yet for some reason some people believe making folks not only learn but understand English is discrimination or demeaning. The fact is the only reason this boy was speaking Spanish was not because of some pride of being Latino but to bully and talk about other kids without them knowing. Why else would he only speak Spanish when everyone else around him does not. He can speak Spanish on the way to school, after school and all weekend if he wants but for 8 hours while at school, there should be no reason why he can't speak English.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Missed the memo



"Your a what?" That is the response I get whenever I tell someone I'm a Republican. It's like I just reveled some deep dark secret that I should be ashamed of. I've had people come to me and say "I'm sorry to hear that" or just stare as if I just grew a third eye. I must have been absent the day that the memos were passed out evoking this unwritten yet mandated law that all blacks must be Democrat. One person even had the nerve to tell me that being black and a Republican was like being a roach working for Raid. Oh come now! If this person would have done any research, they would have quickly found out that some of America's most prominent and respected African Americans were Republican. Fredrick Douglass, Mary Mcleod Bethune, Denzel Washington and many more including Martin Luther King Jr. Yes he was a Republican.

If this person would have opened up a history book they would have known that up until the New Deal most African Americans considered themselves Republican. It was Republicans who were the driving force to push through civil rights legislation. It was Republicans who pushed and made Martin Luther King day a national holiday and it was a Republican who appointed the first Black Secretary of State and first black woman to hold the office.

When confronted with this information the person just waved it off and said "I can't believe anyone who is black would want to be a Republican" I just walked away knowing I wasting to many brain cells trying to talk to this person, quick to denounce my political beliefs but yet unable to defend theirs. The sad thing is that there are many in the black community who think the same way that somehow black people are somehow obligated to vote Democrat.

Instead of felling sorry for me or wondering what's wrong with me for being a Republican, why don't you give me good reasons why I shouldn't. They are quick to denounce me as some kind of "sell out" but when asked why they are a Democrat I get blank stares and broken answers. Yes I am a Republican and I can defend my reasons why, can you?