Heathcare: What Would Dr. King Do?

Over the past few weeks, some in the media, along with many left-leaning groups (such as Progressive Democrats for America, Democrats.com, After Downing Street), aided by easily manipulated, everyday citizens (through a letter writing campaign), have inaccurately been trying to invoke the civil rights movement of the past by declaring that Martin Luther King would have supported the current attempts at health care reform. I strongly disagree with these false assertions. Dr. Martin Luther King is one of my personal heroes; imperfect like all of us, but truly committed to a cause greater than him.


Let me say without hesitation that I believe that health care reform is needed (as it relates to cost and individual control over our plans), but the immorality we have witnessed throughout this current legislative process would not be one that Dr. King would support. One only need to read King’s “Letter from Birmingham” to know where Dr. King’s heart and mind were on the matters of injustice and individual liberty, and his deep understanding of our Judeo-Christian values, which were the guiding principles that led to the creation of our Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, and the birth of our nation.


But more importantly, Dr. King would never support any reform that would not only permit, but fund, a system that would advance the genocide that is abortion. Nor would Dr. King support a law that places a choker and chains of overwhelming debt around the neck of future generations - “The Negro cannot win if he is willing to sacrifice the futures of his children for immediate personal comfort and safety. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”


What we have witnessed this past year with bribes, behind the doors dealings, class envy, and demonization of individuals is everything Dr. King stood against! Dr. King would clearly see that there are no “White Only” signs in the windows of our current health care system, but would see an economic injustice that does not allow the free market to provide a fair and equal service to all; instead a necessary service is being subjected to regulations that are more about control and power, and have nothing to do with providing for those that seek that service. Dr. King would see the heavy hand of government (something he knew was easily corrupted), either immorally subjugating the will of the people, or worse yet, binding them to the chains of a new slavery; governmental dependency that does nothing to lift people up, but only serves to place all of us into a collective misery. Equal maybe, just no.


Portability in health plans, flex plans that roll over, tax breaks for the purchase of the plans, and yes when necessary, “locally-controlled” plans that provide for those who lack coverage. Picture the ability of individual groups: church groups, nonprofits, fraternal organizations, small businesses, and even groups such as bowling league and softball teams, being able to pool their resources and negotiate freely for health insurance coverage. And imagine a system that allows each of us to freely donate, within a community cooperative, to provide for those in need of health insurance. People helping people, without the waste of a defectively constructed, and most assuredly a poorly managed, government plan.


Dr. King would want us to do something to help those in need; but he would more likely to support a systems that promotes self-reliance, over a system that only serves to further support an existence of continued servitude.

The Conscience Clause: Doctors Will Not Have A “Choice!”

“If I am faced with the choice between losing my job or being forced to perform an abortion, I will leave the practice of medicine. And I have to wonder, if we are chased out of medicine, who will step into the gap? - Dr. Sandy Christiansen”

Let’s say you’re a very satisfied patient of Dr. Christiansen, and you have a relationship you want to maintain. Let also state that you are pro-abortion, but abortion was never part of your treatment plan with Dr. Christiansen.

You meet with Dr. Christiansen for your annual examine and at the conclusion of your appointment, you are informed that Dr. Christiansen has decided to leave the medical profession. Dr. Christiansen informs you that the reason for her departure is due to the repeal of conscience clause:

CBN Report: Where's The Choice

Now let us pretend you are the parent of a child applying to medical school, and the following happens:

"We're having report after report of medical students not being able to get into school," he explained. "Because they're asked the question: 'What if you had a 14-year-old come in and was pregnant, how would you handle that?' in their admission interview and if you don't offer abortion as an option, you don't get in." - Dr. David Stevens, head of the Christian Medical Association

I am confused, where does "choice" fit into all of this, and is it fair for the goverment to force medical professionals to perform a procedure they are oppose to?

Conservatives: Nothing But A Bunch of Bigots

Conservatives are often falsely accused of “not pay enough attention” to minorities. The truth is that Conservatives are not guilty of ignoring minorities, merely Conservatives are not willing to exploit minorities as Liberals have. Our lack of wiliness to exploit minorities often comes across as uncaring. Nothing could be further from the truth:

Why the GOP Can't Win With Minorities

Shelby makes some valid points. However, what Conservatives really need to do is explain how conservative principals are not about skin color, ethnic background, or gender. Conservative values are not about categories, but about the “content of your character.”

I have always had difficultly even using the word “minority,” mainly because of my glamorized belief that we are all Americans, and as such we are all a majority. E Pluribus Unum, Many Into One, it is not just a slogan on our currency; it is statement of our unity, a testament to our very strength as a nation. E Pluribus Unum is a motto of a nation made up of immigrants from all around the world, brought together by whatever means, to form one nation. Think about it, you can move to Japan, but you will never be Japanese. But you can come to America, and become American.

Conservatives are not bigots, but we are guilty of being naïve. That naivety can come across as being disconnected, or worse, heartless. However, the truth is that the Conservative message does not need to be “adjusted or tailored” to suit the needs of minorities. Simply put, the Conservative message is in need of fusion, a synergy between issue and solution. Which is easy when we not only utter the words E Pluribus Unum, but we live by them.

Employee Free Choice Act: Exposing American Workers To Intimidation

There has never been a more poorly titled piece of legislation than the pending Employee Free Choice Act (well maybe other than FOCA). This piece of legislation has nothing to do with “choice,” and everything to do with a workers right to choose their own destiny without fear of reprisal and intimidation:

Secret Ballots Are Free Choice

The argument by those who support this bill falls right on its face with a simple question – “Is a voter more likely to be exposed to threats, pressure, and coercion if their vote was out in the open or secret?” Repeatedly, whether we are casting our ballot for student council, mayor, or President of the Unites States, the vote is matter between the ballot box and ourselves. It should be no different for union votes.

Do not get me wrong. There was a time when unions served a purpose in this country; and there are some companies still that mistreat their workers and deserve a union presence. But unions are adversarial in nature, and in modern times have become greedy entities feeding off the fears of their members, and holding decent businesses for ransom. This piece of legislation has nothing to do with the rights of employees, and everything to do with political payback to the unions.

Unions in this country overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party. The full weight of union money and personnel are used to support Democratic candidates in almost every major, national election. However, union membership is decreasing, which in turn is reduces membership dues and the union’s political clout. The Democrats need this bill to pass so that dishonest union thugs can try to rebuild a corrupt machine that the Democratic Party needs to survive.

Democrats Plan On Passing Ledbetter Act

In move that will open a floodgate of lawsuits, most of them frivolous, the Democratic leadership plans on reintroducing the Fair Pay Restoration Act (Fair Pay Restoration - The Myth of Equal Pay), also known as the Ledbetter Act:

CNS News: Democrats Resurrect Ledbetter Bill

The Democrats are willing to bring the business community to a gridding halt for the fairy tale of a false injustice. Jobs will be lost and businesses will close because of this act.

Formula For The GOP Recovery

Formula for GOP recovery: traditional values PLUS limited government

by Star Parker

townhall.com

Now that Democrats have won the White House and have widened their margin of control in Congress, does this signify that American voters have moved to the left?

Many Republicans question this claim. And a new report from the Pew Research Center seems to verify that America is still a right of center as a country. But the picture gets murky when you look at the details. And this murkiness presents a considerable challenge for Republicans who are trying to figure out where to steer their party.

According to the just published report, more Americans today call themselves conservative than liberal, and the relative percentages in each category has hardly changed since George W. Bush was elected to his first term in 2000.

Thirty eight percent of Americans self-identify as conservative, 21 percent as liberal, and 36 percent as moderate. This compares to 36 percent, 18 percent and 38 percent, respectively, in 2000.

But taking a closer look at what this means leaves you scratching your head. You have to wonder what it means today to think of yourself as conservative.

When asked if the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent, only 38 percent of those who said they are "conservative" said yes. And 50 percent of "conservatives" said they favor government guaranteeing health care "even if it means raising taxes."

Although 71 percent of "conservatives" said they oppose gay marriage, only slightly more than half, 52 percent, said that abortion should be illegal.

Many Republicans point to the fact that traditional marriage initiatives won in all three states where they were on the ballot -- California, Florida, and Arizona -- as evidence for the conservatism of the country. But pro-life initiatives lost in all three states where they were on ballots -- California, South Dakota, and Colorado.

What can be the message here for those vying for leadership of the Republican Party?

Some argue that the party should lighten up on the social agenda. The party is all white, they say, and there is no future without Latinos and blacks.

But consider the obvious. First, conservatives define the Republican Party. According to this study, 68 percent of Republicans call themselves conservative.

Second, it should be obvious from the above, that if conservatives are rooted anywhere, it's more in the social agenda than in the fiscal and limited government agenda. Where in the world would the party be if the leadership tried to uproot from social conservatism?

Third, consider what is going on with blacks and Latinos.

In this same Pew survey, 25 percent of all Democrats called themselves conservatives. But among these same Democrats, 35 percent of blacks call themselves conservative compared to 21 percent of whites.

Why? Blacks are social conservatives. Blacks understand the havoc that moral relativism has caused in their communities. And, this is also the case with Latinos.

As was widely reported, blacks and Latinos voted for Proposition 8 in California, supporting traditional marriage, despite the majority of them also voting for President-elect Barack Obama.

So where is the logic in Republicans abandoning social conservatism in order to reach blacks and Latinos?

It appears that the message getting lost is the importance of limited government and fiscal conservatism.

Health care is almost 20 percent of our national economy. Too many are not getting what it will mean when bureaucrats will define what health care is and when the IRS comes knocking to check on the policy you bought. Too many seem to have forgotten that prosperity is created by individual freedom and creativity and not government programs.

These are tough times and families are under duress. Perhaps it's tempting to think that opening the door to more government is a good idea. Particularly in an environment where every day another half trillion-dollar check is being cut in Washington for bailout programs.

When most Americans say they are conservative, they mean it. Too many, however, are forgetting that this means limited government as well as traditional values. We need new, energetic Republican leaders to get this message across.

Star Parker is a nationally syndicated columnist through the Scripps Howard News Service and a regular commentator on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News, as well as author of White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.

The Cowardly Character Assassination of Sarah Palin

From Michelle Malkin:

The Cowardly Character Assassination of Sarah Palin

Michelle Malkin

Sunken ships loosen bitter lips. The failed McCain campaign, for all its high-minded talk of honor, duty and courage, is now teeming with unscrupulous gossipmongers. Seems the dishy staffers forgot to crack open their copies of Sen. McCain’s bestseller, “Character Is Destiny: Inspiring Stories Every Young Person Should Know and Every Adult Should Remember.”

Rest assured: Their cowardly character assassination of Sarah Palin won’t be forgotten.

The finks turned to Newsweek and Fox News to spread petty rumors about Palin’s intellect and character. The magazine peddled anecdotes from sources horrified that Palin greeted top advisers at her hotel room—gasp! -- “wearing nothing but a towel” and “wet hair.”

Fox News reporter Carl Cameron breathlessly reported that his unnamed McCain sources told him Palin lacked “a degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate” because, they claimed, she didn’t know which countries were parties to the North American Free Trade Agreement and “didn’t understand that Africa was a continent, rather than a series, a country just in itself.”

Let’s assume for a moment that the McCain rumormongers are telling the truth about Palin (and I don’t believe they are). Who would it damn more: Palin, or McCain and his vetters, who greenlighted her for the vice presidential nomination? Don’t need a fancy Ivy League degree to figure that one out.

In introducing her to America, McCain praised her independence and backbone: She “stands up for what’s right, and she doesn’t let anyone tell her to sit down.” The inside snipers are now roasting her for that very attribute—redefined as “going rogue”—because she had the nerve to try to schedule media interviews on her own. The nerve of her!

Palin’s response to the campaign fragging? At a late Wednesday night airport press conference in Anchorage, immediately upon landing home after the election defeat, she smiled cheerfully. The Alaska governor shrugged off the “foolish things” said by the McCain saboteurs, and simply said, “It’s politics. … It’s rough and tumble and you’ve got to have a thick skin just like I’ve got.”

Hollywood savaged Palin. Journalists mocked her. Liberal blogs slimed her. Opponents cursed her, Photoshopped her, hacked her e-mail, hanged her in effigy, called her bigot, Bible-thumper and bimbo, and attacked her husband and children. But nothing Palin endured during the election season compares to the treatment she’s receiving from these backstabbing blabbermouths who worked on the same campaign she poured herself into over the last three months.

Sarah Palin worked her heart out. She energized tens of thousands to come out when they would have otherwise stayed home. She touched countless families. I didn’t agree with everything she said on the campaign trail. But she vigorously defended the Second Amendment and the sanctity of life more eloquently in practice than any of the educated conservative aristocracy. And she did it all with a tirelessness and an infectious optimism that defied the shameless, bottomless attempts by elites in both parties to bring her and her family down.

Liberty needs a virtuous people to survive; self-governance requires virtuous leaders. “Knowledgeability” is a necessary trait in political life, but it is not sufficient. The elitist critics of Palin, so blindly enamored of Barack Obama’s ability to hold forth for hours on theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, ignored the Founding Fathers’ counsel: Character counts. In times of adversity and crisis, it counts more than IQ points, instant trivia recall and bloviation skills.

“The most important thing I have learned, from my parents, from teachers, from my faith, from many good people I have been blessed to know, and from the lives of people whose stories we have included in this book,” John McCain wrote in “Character Is Destiny,” “is to want what they had, integrity, and to feel the sting of my conscience when I have risked it for some selfish reason.”

John McCain not only failed to make that message stick with the electorate, he apparently couldn’t persuade his own staff to heed his advice and practice what he preached.

Babbling Biden: Say It Ain’t So Joe!

As the media continues its assault on Governor Palin (with feminist either remaining silent or actively participating) in an effort to diminish her accomplishments, people are starting to question the integrity of the “attackers.”

But it is also not the integrity of the attacks that is being called into question, but the lack of scrutiny directed at the living, breathing gaffe machine known as Joe Biden:

Michelle Malkin: The Increasingly Erratic Super Gaffetastic Joe Biden
NY POST: Bidens Bungles A Blatant Bias
Delaware Online: Hey Joe, Katie's Diner Closed 20 Years Ago
City Data Forum: Biden Is A Liar

The media lets Biden slink away while Obama makes a statement that Joe was just "florishing." Closed diners, factious conversations with imaginary gas pump attendants, spelling a “three letter” word with 4 letters, confusing Constitutional Articles and Presidential history……..sure, you just go on believing there is no media bias!!!???!!!

Obama and McCain: How The Media Ignored The Truth

What does integrity mean to you? Do you believe honesty is subjective, something that bends in many directions depending on a person's point of view? Or is honesty absolute, which becomes corrupted by ones own selfishness? Is the omission of facts the same as lying? Is ignoring accuracy to ensure your viewpoint triumphs nothing more than an act of deceit? The sad reality is that depending on the "content of your character," the answers may vary, and that is disturbing.

Journalist Orson Scott Card, a Democrat, is concerned for his colleagues in the Fourth Estate. He is troubled that they may be ignoring the many truths about John McCain, Barrack Obama, Democrats, and Republicans, and that the media may be willing accomplices in a fraud being perpetrated against the American people:

Orson Scott Card: Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

What about the American people who choose to ignore what is happening before their very eyes? What role did they have in the death of the truth? And if what appears in print must always be looked upon as suspect, then can we finally admitted, that except for a few outlets, that objective journalism is dead?

To think that many on the Left feared censorship from their own government, only to now realize that the attack on truth would come from within. Who would have thought that the demise of journalistic integrity would be self-inflicted?

2008 Presidential Election: Voting Fraud Gets An Early Start

The sanctity of the ballot box is the basis of a strong republic. Liberals love to talk about voter fraud when they lose, but actively participle in the execution of massive voter fraud every Presidential election.

Case in point are the numerous stories from around the country:

Ohio (where early voting has already started)

Ohio Secretary of State denies access to observers:

“(Ohio Secretary of Sate) Jennifer Brunner has also directed county boards of elections to deny absentee ballots to thousands of qualified Ohio electors who support Senator John McCain who fail to check a box that was not mandated by Ohio law.”

Gateway Pundit: Ohio Democratic Secretary of State Bans Observers

Michelle Malkin: Homeless Ohioans Registering in Droves

National Review: Boon for fraud, bust for deliberative democracy.

West Virginia (State of one of the most egregious cases of voting fraud during the 1960 election)

Secretary of State finds evidence of voter fraud:

W VA Secretary of State Ireland – “It has been discovered that "several hundred" voter applications have been filed with forged signatures, wrong addresses or changed party affiliation. Ireland's release stated some submitted registration forms contained names and addresses "that have simply been lifted from the phone book."

Herald Dispatch: Secretary of State Issues Voter Fraud Advisory

Wisconsin

ACORN suspected in voting registration fraud:

“At least seven felons convicted of crimes including cocaine possession and robbery were recruited (and paid) by a liberal group (ACORN) to register voters in Milwaukee, raising fears they may have committed voter fraud.”

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: ACORN Involved In Voter Fraud

Charges Filed against Community Voters Project (CVP) Volunteer:

“….Endalyn Adams, 21, is accused of submitting dozens of fake names and addresses as a registration worker paid by the Community Voters Project, one of two primary groups under scrutiny.”

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Community Voters Project Volunteer Charged

National

Various stories have popped up from around the country that also suggests that this could be a banner year for voter fraud.

ACORN at the heart of voting fraud around the country:

“"ACORN routinely says it will clean up its act. Yet, given its decade-long history of voter fraud, embezzlement, and misuses of taxpayer funds, ACORN's pattern of fraud can no longer be dismissed as a series of 'unfortunate events.'

Wall Street Journal: ACORN's Voter Fraud

Obama’s website encourages fraud:

Regarding Obama’s website: “First the site asks, “Where will you be living on Election Day, November 4th?” Next it asks, “Is there another state where you might be registered?” Presumably, many college students who attend school in one state but live with their parents in another will answer this question in the affirmative. The answers to these two questions prompt curious suggestions from the Obama website. If the respondent states that she is registered to vote at her parents’ home in Pennsylvania (a “battleground” state) but will be in her dorm in New York (a safe Obama state) on Election Day, the website recommends that the student vote by absentee ballot in Pennsylvania. No problem there — that is the legal solution in most cases. But if the respondent says she is registered in New York but studying in battleground Pennsylvania, Obama recommends that she register to vote in Pennsylvania (and presumably de-register in New York)!

National Review: Is Obama Encouraging Voter Fraud Amongst College Students?

Did you notice the constant theme running through all of these stories?

The Palin Non-Story: The Mainstream Media Exposed

Some in media are starting to “rethink” their unfair and frankly nasty attacks on Governor Sara Palin, thanks in large part to a public backlash. The bias (and hypocrisy) demonstrated by the media and Left-wing bloggers over the past few days has open the eyes of many Americans.

The Wall Street Journal did an excellent op-ed piece regarding the negativity perpetuated by the Beltway media:

Wall Street Journal Op-Ed: Palin Selection Shows A Double Standard

The Media Coverage Of Governor Palin: Shame In Black And White

There is no doubt that Sarah Palin and her family are strong enough to weather the media storm that they have sailed into. A person’s life is a reflection of their character, and by all accounts the Palin’s are a strong and devoted family. The media scrutiny will only serve to reaffirm that Governor Palin possess the moral fiber that is needed in Washington, DC, but only if the coverage is fair and truthful.

It is unfortunate that there are those in the media and the blogsphere thhat are either choosing to belittle Governor Palin’s accomplishments or personally attacking the Palin Family. Here are just a few examples:

First up is Margarat Carlson:

Ms. Carlson is a reporter for Time magazine, and can often be seen on television offering political commentary. Ms. Carlson recently wrote a piece for Bloomberg on-line:

Bloomberg: Governor "just" an honorary head of the National Guard

“Every governor is honorary head of their state's National Guard.” A State Governor is not like the Queen of England! Ms. Carlson needs to review the US Constitution and most State Constitutions. Each governor is the Civilian Commander-in- Chief of their reprehensive National Guard units, until either the President of the United States or the regional Commander activates such unit. A Governor can activate the National Guard to help in disaster relief or to provide security for the citizens of their State. Honorary……..hardly! Could it be that Ms. Carlson is trying to “downplay” Governor Palin’s experience?

Daily Kos:

Meanwhile, the fine folks over at the Daily Kos decided to just make up the news, allowing rumors and vicious postings on their “website.” There are a lot of disturbed people out there, and it would seem they all write for the Daily Kos. Is it any wonder hardly anybody wants to run for public office?

From the world of academia:

Next, NECN interviewed Law Professor Elizabeth Sherman George Washington University, regarding the impact of Bristol Palin’s “choice”:




“This reaffirms Roe Vs. Wade.” Huh? Bristol Palin gets pregnant. Bristol does the responsible thing and confers with her parents. The Palin’s do not look upon the baby as a “choice,” but commit to the safe delivery and loving upbringing of the baby. The Palin’s are forced to issue a press release on the matter (in large part due to the bloodthirsty mentality of the media), with those on the Left immediately attack them. This is what passes for “reaffirm” in the eyes of Professor Sherman.

In the real world of the Left, reaffirming Roe Vs. Wade would look like this:

Girl gets pregnant. She lies to her family and hides the pregnancy from her them. She sneaks off with her boyfriend to seek an abortion. With limited counseling, with no input from the girl’s physician, and without the knowledge of the parents, an abortion is performed. Baby is killed. The girl almost immediately starts to suffer from guilt and depression because the propaganda of abortion does not stand up to the reality of abortion. The girl starts to experience intimacy issues and contemplates suicide. The boyfriend abandons the girl (if he was still with her), further alienating her. That Ms. Sherman is what the reaffirming of Roe Vs. Wade looks like!

And as far as the NECN report, why were Ms. Sherman’s comments even considered relevant to the story, other than to provide the non-existent “Roe Vs. Wade” connection. NECN’s story was just another example of a detached media.

These are just a few “shining” examples of what is passing for educated thought and profound commentary. There are more examples of media bias, sexism, and hypocrisy on the two links below. The level to which some would stoop to in an effort to falsely smear an incredible person such as Governor Palin, is sickening.

Fight The Palin Smears
Palin Sexism Watch

Who Can Use The Word Nigger?

Please Be Advised – This posting contains frank, and too many, offensive language.

The recent “hot mic” video, featuring Jesse Jackson uttering the word nigger, and the on-air discussion at “The View,” where Whoopi and Sherri Shepard tried to justify the words use, has a lot of people talking once again about the exploitation of the word. It is a conversation that is confusing and scary to many people, and is divided along racial lines.

I purposely did not use the “N-word” reference, which is often bandied about when people try to have a discussion regarding the word nigger. The "N-word" reference plays right into the debate of who can use the word nigger? Is it that no one can use the word, everyone can use the word, or just certain people can use the word? Contrary to the current argument (which is just an extension of the same old argument) words are not owned by any one person, or collection of people. The meaning of a word is determined by what the majority of society commonly assigns to that word. The word nigger has been rightly classified as one of those words that are so filled with hatred it does not belong in everyday language. That is not to say it shouldn’t be spoken, but it should only be used in a setting that respects the words negative connotation.

I detest the word nigger, like I despise most obscene language. But the word nigger is much more offensive, regardless of who is using it. The word nigger is so deeply rooted in human depravity and societal oppression it should only be used in the context of a historical understanding. The word nigger is directly connected to one of America’s greatest failures, slavery. The word nigger was meant to move an entire class of people to the category of “sub-human,” and regardless of how some people try to spin it, the word will always represent the subjugation of African-Americans. By believing that you can use the word to mean something different DOES NOT remove its roots in an evil institution, an institution which violates every principal that natural law stands for.

How ignorant is it for us to debate the vileness that the word nigger communicates? I place the word nigger right up there with cunt. Imaging if it became common place for women to refer to each other as cunts, but in their context, the significance was meant as a friendly greeting between women. Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? But then add a rule that ONLY women can use the word cunt, and that if anyone else (meaning: non-woman) dared to use the word, it would be deemed offensive. Sounds even more ridiculous. Both words are hateful, and are meant to humiliate and cause pain. So why would we want these words to remain a part of our everyday language? The answer is simple, we wouldn’t.

We are doomed as a culture if we decide that it is alright to segregate language, but then expect equality everywhere else. If an entire segment of our society chooses to use the word nigger, then demands that the word has a different meaning when used by others, then it is an affirmation to the obscenity of the word. Try as you might, you will NEVER be able to separate the cruel history of the term nigger by trying to apply your own definition to the word. You will only allow the word to live on beyond its tainted uselessness.

The path to the orgin of the word nigger is simple to trace. The word nigger starts with a group of people being stolen from their homeland and shipped to a foreign land. The word nigger was used as those very same people where paraded around and sold like livestock. The word nigger was used when families were separated for the sake of an evil commerce. The word nigger was used while the slaves were whipped, beaten, raped and maimed because they were deemed as nothing more than a “piece of property. “ The word nigger was used to keep an entire race “in their place” after their “emancipation.” That is the history of the “N-word.” Not the Black history, not the White history, but the true history. No good can come from trying to attach a different meaning to the word. The word nigger is an ugly scab on America, and each time the word nigger is used we reopen that wound.

John McCain Chats With The NAACP

Presidential nominee John McCain won points by appearing in-front of the NAACP, but it is unlikely those points will convert to votes:

Baltimore Sun: McCain and NAACP

There are many, both Republican and Democrats, which believe that all African-Americans are born Democrat, and any attempts to change that is lunacy. What a ridiculous assumption by both parties. What is needed is honest dialogue, not color-coded rhetoric. That dialogue can only happen if Republicans, in particular Conservatives, are willing to sit-down at the same table with our fellow Americans, regardless of color or ethnicity. But that conversation must be a two-way street. Sure, it may be tough at first, but each exchange will help to build a stronger relationship for all involved.

Kudos to John McCain, and the NAACP audience members, for showing their willingness to enter into a conversation. McCain didn’t shy away from answering question at the NAACP conference, devoting 12-minutes at the end of his speech to taking questions from the floor. He also spent some additional time at the end of the Q&A talking with audience members on the floor. It is unfortunates that many in the media chose to only talk about the school voucher elements of McCain’s speech.

There are many Conservative values that would be appealing to any neighborhood, including the African-American community. Our message is truly one of equality, but Conservatives have allowed the Democratic Party to hijack the discussion and define us as no inclusive. The integrity of this debate demands that it not be about votes, but about the two different ideologies that represent Conservatives and Liberals. Point for point, Conservatives values will win over Progressive values, but only if we entered into a dialogue with those in need of the message.

John McCain’s visit to the 2008 NAACP Conference proves that he believes in his principals, and is an indication of his readiness to represent ALL Americans.

Black Genocide: The Sad Truth About Abortion and The African-American Community

The term Black Genocide is an expression that a New Jersey Minister, the Rev. Clenard Childress, uses to describe the epidemic of abortions that is affecting the Black community. There is no truer way to describe this tragedy.

Statistics tell us that 1 in every 2 pregnancies of a Black woman will end in abortion. What is even sadder is the fact the NAACP has turned their backs to this heartbreaking situation:

Wall Street Journal: NAACP Ignores Their Own Members Regarding Abortion

The NAACP seems to want to ignore or forget the words of two of their most prominent members:

Martin Luther King, Jr.:

In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King said, "The early church brought an end to such things as INFANTICIDE."

Rev. Jesse Jackson:

" That is why the Constitution called us three-fifths human and then whites further dehumanized us by calling us 'niggers'. It was part of the dehumanizing process. The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify that which they wanted to do and not even feel like they had done anything wrong. Those advocates of taking life prior to birth do not call it killing or murder, they call it abortion. They further never talk about aborting a baby because that would imply something human. Rather they talk about aborting the fetus. Fetus sounds less than human and therefore abortion can be justified.”

Are these words any less true today then the day they were first spoken? What has changed in the minds of some African-American leaders that they would walkway from Rev. Jackson’s and Rev. King’s statements? Why would the NAACP turn their backs on a crisis that is responsible for killing 50% of their babies? Has a “deal with the devil” type of arrangement with the Democratic Party been needed to achieve other social endeavors?

As I have stated in the past abortion is a human rights issue. In comparison, between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in America. That number is surpassed every three days with the aborting of African-American babies. A fact that many in the NAACP are aware of, yet apparently choose to ignore. I wonder if Martin Luther King, Jr. would have sold out his principles as easily?

Obama: Talk Really Is Cheap!

There is no stronger advocate for the equal pay movement than Senator Obama. Senator Obama strongly supported the most recent attempt to pass the Equal Pay Act ( Ledbetter: Equal Pay Act Fails), and he has often been guilty of promoting the fallacy that woman make less money than men while performing the same job (The Myth of Equal Pay ). But how does Obama really feel about the issue?

With all of Obama's talk, he does not practice what he preaches:

Obama: Less pay for female staff members

Note that the female staffers at Senator John McCain's campaign make more than their male counterparts on average. Funny we didn't hear about this story from the mainstream media; I guess it must not be a big deal. It would only be a big deal if the candidate was a Republican.

I look forward to the excuses and "logical" reasons for this discrepancy; of course they will only be valid for Democratic applications. Go figure.

Obama: I Will Be Attacked Because I Am Black

Last week in Jacksonville, Floridia, Senator Obama warned his “followers” to be prepared for the onslaught of attacks by the Republican smear machine. Senator Obama warned that the Republicans would even attack him for being “black.” I guess this is what Obama meant by unity in his famous speech on race:

"The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black? (pause for applause) He's got a feisty wife.We know the strategy because they've already shown their cards. Ultimately I think the American people recognize that old stuff hasn't moved us forward. That old stuff just divides us."

This was a despicable statement. In one fell swoop, Obama labeled "white, Republicans (or for that matter everyone who disagrees with him)" as racist, and provides a platform in which to repel every criticism of his campaign. The words used in this speech were divisive, not unifying. This is not only a classic Democratic move, to try and create a false controversy, but is a perfect example of Race Baiting 101, taken directly from the text books of Reverend’s Jackson and Sharpton. “Change” indeed!

Without a shred of evidence, and with no current story or ad to point to, ABC and CBC News warned that “attacking Obama may backfire.” The problem is that the Democrats, along with the liberal media, will be the ones that will determine what is considered an “attack on Obama.”

Story after story talks about the 527’s that will come out of the woodwork to attack Obama, as if liberals will produces ads featuring rainbows and butterflies! But with all of Obama’s noble talk, he (in partnership with the media) has completely ignored the liberal 527’s that have already started to “attack” McCain and the Republican Party. MoveOn.org (the touching “Not Alex” dribble), the endless liberal propaganda on YouTube (such as the “No, You Can’t John McCain”), the webpage “The Real John McCain (webpage’s slogan: less jobs, more wars) and “NoJohn.com (whose silly ad sounds like a bunch of spineless dork reprimanding a dog).” But none of these are deemed “negative” or “personal attacks.”

Running for public office, good or bad, is a nasty business. To believe that the Democrats are the “sole proprietors of virtue” flies in the face of history. It is important to remember that the question of race and sex was only an issue amongst DEMOCRATIC voters. Liberals deem any ad negative if it even dares to question the candidates’ positions (GASP!), but it is "anything goes" when they are the ones taking swipes at opposing candidates.

Mr. Obama, you will not be"attacked" because of your race or your funny name. You will be judge by the content of your character, not by the color of your skin. And based on this speech, your integrity is found lacking.

Imus Vs. Pacman

The bad boy of talk-formatted radio, Don Imus, is in hot water again. This time over statements he made about troubled athlete Adam “Pacman” Jones.

AP: Imus Explains Pacman Remarks

Imus claims he was directing his sarcasm at the fact the police arrested Pacman Jones six separate times, inferring that the police were “picking on” Jones (not sure if I buy that one, but it is possible). I am not a fan of Don Imus, and we all know his history and tendency to say outrageous things; that is what he gets paid for. But the thing that is more outrageous was the sanctimonious statement made by Pacman:

USA Today: Mr. Imus has problems with African-Americans

Pacman “will pray for” Imus…perfect. Jones has led a “thug” life off of the football field. Shootings, assaults, obstruction of justice, and public intoxication are just a few things contained within Pacman’s resume. Forgetting all of the second chances he has been granted in his life, Pacman wants to see Imus punished. What a hypocrite!

And if Imus was truly expressing discontent with the police, it will serve to help vindicating him as a bigot, only to reveal him to be an idiot.

Tolerance, Obama Style

Two Muslim women were barred from sitting behind Barack Obama's podium at his rally on June 16, 2008, in Detroit. The “campaign has apologized,” but the women feel betrayed by Obama’s message:

USA Today: Obama Campaign Bans Headscarf’s

One of the offended, Ms. Aref was not satisfied:

"I think this is a much bigger deal than maybe they're perceiving it as," Aref told Politico (the originate source of the story). "An apology from him personally would be better," she said. "If they are true to their word, I think it would suffice to have an invitation to their next rally and have seats behind him and show up on TV."

Spell it with me “H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y”

Side Note:

1. Good-luck trying finding this story beyond only a few outlets.


2. If you read further into the USA Today report, you will see comments from some “Obama apologist.” Some of these comments claim that, had these women appeared in the backdrop, some evil Republicans (Hannity, Limbaugh) would have twisted and distorted the presence of the women. Typical …blame the Republicans for the prejudice of the Obama campaign workers.

Father Pledger Disowned By Obama

Senator Obama announced that he was leaving his church because of the media scrutiny his Presidential candidacy was attracting. Obama felt that he going to be called to task every time something happen at Unity, even for words spoken by a "guest pastor." Wrong again Senator Obama. It is your judgment that is being called into question because a person you described as a "spiritual mentor" is a promoting racism, sexism and bigotry. Reverend Wright got one thing right about Obama, he is a politician, which is the only reason he left the church now.

Father Pledger blamed the media (obviously he believes in the same vast right-wing conspiracy as his girl Hillary) for blowing the story out of portion. I am sorry, but how are we suppose to interpret statements such as these:


ABC Blog On Pledger

Like a teenagers bedroom closet, nobody knows what the hell is in there until it all comes crashing out. What else, or should I say who else, is in Senator Obama closet?