For Immediate Release
Saturday, October 11, 2008

ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement:
“Congressman John Lewis’ comments represent a character attack against Governor Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond the pale. The notion that legitimate criticism of Senator Obama’s record and positions could be compared to Governor George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign. I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I’ve always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track.

“I call on Senator Obama to immediately and personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments that are so clearly designed to shut down debate 24 days before the election. Our country must return to the important debate about the path forward for America .”

Okay, let’s take off the gloves.

While Senator McCain and Governor Palin have to show some public civility, those of us often on the receiving end of liberal racist hate do not.

What set this off? Reports from a biased mainstream media of hate speech directed at Barack Obama. As I know the rules of journalism; something some in the mainstream may learn once they achieve first grade industry status, one should not report stories they can’t back up. So far innuendo has been reported as fact to further a rumor they’ve failed to substantiate.

Where’s the videotape of McCain supporters screaming “Kill him!”, referring to Senator Obama? YouTube? Liveleak? I’m waiting to see something, anything backing up the careless and irresponsible reporting by so-called journalists.

Where’s the first hand accounts and quotes with attribution. This is pure rumormongering, exploited by a civil rights era-has been-United States Congressman doing what Democrats do best: squelch speech by any means necessary. The race card has always been their nuclear option, and a lazy, complicit press is their convenient conduit.

It’s ironic that Congressman Lewis cites Alabama Governor George Wallace… a segregationist, racist DEMOCRAT.

Senator McCain and Governor Palin must be striking a nerve.

“Congressman John Lewis’ despicable attack on Senator McCain and Governor Palin gives us insight into his bitter partisan heart, and exemplifies the lengths that the far left will go to for a win. Barack Obama’s surrogates continue to play the race card. Obama should denounce Lewis’ statements immediately but his history tells us otherwise.”
— David Webb, Host of The David Webb Show

McCain/Palin supporters are angry. Now, when liberals are angry they can (and will) freely call Republicans things that can’t be printed in most newspapers or repeated on any broadcast medium. That’s what they call “free speech”. Liberals (white and black) free free to call black Republicans anything they can come up with, the more blatantly racist the better. McCain and Palin have done NOTHING to stoke any racial animus towards Senator Barack Obama.

However, the standard operating procedure from the left is to shout down any criticism deemed damaging to their Messiah. The issues now being brought up are valid. Despite the conventional wisdom offered by the media elite, the American people are intelligent enough to absorb the still-unresolved issues surrounding Barack Obama. Bringing up these issues is not racist.

Those who play the card (to stop the questions from being asked) are.

“The idea that Congressman John Lewis would compare Senator McCain and Governor Palin to George Wallace demonstrates his willingness to “cheapen our democracy.”

“His blatant use of the race card is pure folly on his part. Clearly, he has forgotten the racist he himself mentions is a member of his own party. The irony is the Democrats, who gave us the KKK and Jim Crow laws, are the same party, which routinely takes up one smear campaign after another– aimed at Republicans. If the Congressman wants to remind us of the Democrats racist past; please, be our guest. Next time, he may want to acknowledge the likes of Benjamin Travis Laney (Arkansas Governor); Fielding Wright (Mississippi Governor); Frank M. Dixon (Alabama Governor); William H. Murray (Oklahoma Governor); Mills E. Godwin Jr. (Governor of Virginia); and Orval Faubus (Governor of Arkansas during the Little Rock Nine crisis)—just to name a few. Next time, we’d be glad to list the former Senators if the Congressman decides he wants to play the race card!”
— Eric M. Wallace, PhD, Publisher, Freedom’s Journal Magazine

The Republican candidates’ criticism aren’t stoking hate as Lewis says. Obama’s dodging of the facts are prompting the anger as many feel a genuine mystery man could steal the presidency.

Barack Obama has failed to come clean on his simple qualification to be President of the United States (provide a certified birth certificate). A constitutional crisis may be Obama’s fault. Not the result of racism.

Barack Obama has failed to come clean on the extent of his relationship with William Ayers, ACORN, and new revelations are coming out seemingly every day.

Barack Obama has failed to release his medical records, and we know how much hell would be raised if John McCain did the same. Granted, Bill Clinton declined to do the same, but that doesn’t mean precident should be one-sided. Obama, like most liberals, is supposed to be smarter than the “ordinary” American, yet he won’t release his college transcripts.

Barack Obama’s activities with the Kenyan elections and Christian prosecution aftermath has been blown off by the media, probably because black people dying isn’t considered news unless given awareness as some ditzy Hollywood celebrity’s pet project.

The fact that Senator McCain and Governor Palin is doing a lazy, partisan media’s job at informing the public about the one the world’s been waiting for. If Obama would come clean, these issues could go away. Bringing up these issues is politics, not racism.

“It should come as no surprise that Congressman John Lewis is playing the race card in order to intimidate Americans into voting for Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic Party’s far left-wing radical socialist presidential candidate. Every election cycle, Democrats use this race-bating strategy for partisan political gain.

“Despite the Democrats’ socialist policies that run counter to the best interest of black people, black Americans keep voting for Democrats because Democrats preach hatred against Republicans and get blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans and not a vote for Democrats. Deliberately, Democrats keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Any black person who becomes self-reliant and prosperous is denigrated as a “sellout.” With this reprehensible strategy, Democrats have built their power base on the backs of poor blacks. Democrat demagogues get away with this tactic because Democrats have hidden their racist past and sold Socialism to blacks, a system that sounds good but has proven to be devastating to black communities.”
— Frances Rice, Chairman, National Black Republican Association

Instead of McCain having to answer Congressman Lewis’ third rail allegations, a responsible media (no pun intended) would be asking Lewis to cite specifics. Ask the congressman when he heard these murderous shouts during McCain/Palin rallies. Ask the congressman to be specific on what racially incendiary statements either McCain or Palin made equivalent to the actions of Democrat George Wallace.

Congressman Lewis can throw out baseless race accusations and the media can report them as fact. Both are lazy, increasingly irrelevant, and they both know it.

America is a racially fractured nation, okay? Let’s be honest here. Despite all our overtures and marches and Kumbaya moments, when the rubber meets the road, the race issue is that which always seems makes us swerve into the ditch. You thought the aftermath of the 2000 election was unfortunate? Just wait and see what happens if Barack Obama loses.

It will be beyond a “stolen election”. For that to happen, many Democrats and Independents will have to do the unthinkable: vote for a white man. Should John McCain win, I can hear it now: America is a racist country.

It’s not like the United States has never elected black people. Unfortunately, it’s some of the blacks that we’ve elected that have talked a good game to get elected, but have (in some cases) performed poorly once in office. Precedent can be a hard thing to shake.

The election of former New York mayor David Dinkins was to signal the dawn of a new day. His inauguration speech included the obligatory “references to oppression, human rights, and the need for equality. He vowed to be ‘mayor of all the people of New York,’ and declared: ‘We are all foot soldiers on the march to freedom.’”

However, “Dinkins faced a $1.8 billion budget deficit when he entered office which grew to $2.2 billion by the time he left office. The economy remained sluggish throughout his term, preventing the enactment of much of his agenda.”

There are few examples of Democrats (of any gender or color) leaving an area in better shape than they inherited it.

Today in Massachusetts, Deval Patrick (Massachusetts’ first black governor) has been a disaster, primarily because of his personal behavior, lack of common sense, and outright arrogance.

“Deval Patrick was the one who came into office claiming our state was in a bad financial situation. Yet, the independently wealthy Deval didn’t forgo his salary like Mitt Romney and Kerry Healey did when they took office. Instead, he upgraded his car, started accumulating frequent flier miles on a state police helicopter, got his wife an unnecessary chief of staff, and decided to redecorate his office with expensive furnishings at our expense.

“Deval Patrick has proven himself to be a liberal’s liberal and a Democrat’s Democrat. He sees our tax dollars as play money that can be thrown at anything to help him live a life of luxury.”

These things reflect badly, and are parked in the memories of those just looking for an excuse to vote against a black candidate.

“Patrick has directed a state budget process that is weighed down by deficits and spending, including a gubernatorial office budget that jumped 80% in one year.”

Now while Barack Obama has been touted as a break from the past and has received near-Messiah status from the mainstream media and his supporters (who call those who oppose him “haters”), he won’t easily shake the bad blood left by his electoral predecessors. We have elected blacks who garner questionable respect, like Congresswomen Sheila Jackson-Lee and Maxine Waters, and former senator Carol Moseley-Braun.

Let’s not forget the former mayor of Washington D.C., Marion Barry who served from 1979 to 1991, and again from 1995 to 1999. Despite the fact he was behavior-challenged, he was clearly reelected solely because of the color of his skin. That continues to irk many.

Granted, the Reverend Wright incidents are nowhere near the level of “The bitch set me up”, but Barry Obama has survived his share of media-ignored gaffes. Some people may still have Marion on their minds asking whether Obama will continue the incompetence and embarrassment legacy while holding the highest office in the land.

“I read a funny story about how the Republicans freed the slaves. The Republicans are the ones who created slavery by law in the 1600′s. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and he was not a Republican.”

“I am a great mayor; I am an upstanding Christian man; I am an intelligent man; I am a deeply educated man; I am a humble man.”— Marion Barry

America is not an inherently racist country. While some (blacks and white guilt liberals) will vote for Barack Obama solely on the color of his skin, some will vote against him because they don’t agree with him. The harm will come from those on the left that will see that as an instinctive racist motivation.

While Republicans didn’t bring up Obama’s race initially, we will get the blame should he lose (even though no “real” Republicans would vote for him) and the issue of race in the 2008 election will eclipse the bad blood that remains to this day over Al Gore’s debacle.

So it would appear, either way we’re screwed.

If John McCain wins, we’ll have a Republican who doesn’t respect the conservative wing of the party. If Barack Obama wins, the ramifications on the War on Terror, Supreme Court judges, energy policy, and the economy will all be at risk. The last thing we should be concerned with is Barack’s race.

But then again if that wasn’t a prime factor, we wouldn’t be America, would we?

And the perception is he is receiving a lot of support where it shouldn’t be coming from.

According to a new Rasmussen poll,

Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of election campaigns. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that four times as many—68%–believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win.

The perception that reporters are advocates rather than observers is held by 82% of Republicans, 56% of Democrats, and 69% of voters not affiliated with either major party. The skepticism about reporters cuts across income, racial, gender, and age barriers.

Now while I’ve been documenting examples of media bias for years, it’s kind of comforting to know it’s beginning to stick, and the American people aren’t going to take it anymore.

Pardon my repetition, but the point has to be made: liberals want a black man (or woman) to win this fall’s presidential election. In this case, they have Barack Obama.

Today, the media has selected him. Tomorrow they will work in concert to get him elected. It has everything to do with self-imposed white guilt and condescension, and has nothing to do with his qualifications (or lack thereof).

For example, using this season’s candidates as examples,

If Janet Huckabee wrote a college thesis saying that she felt uncomfortable around her liberal black professors and students in college, would that have been “understood” by the mainstream media, or would Mrs. Huckabee have had the scarlet “R” burnt into her forehead?

I think we all know what the answer would’ve been. Janet would still be on her “apology tour”, would have attended at least one sensitivity training to get her mind right, would have done quality time at some inner city community center, been a guest on Al Sharpton’s radio show to accept her punches with no guarantee of forgiveness, and would still have it all hanging over her head and staining her husband’s campaign (as long as it lasted).

Liberals are morally-equating the John McCain-Reverend John Hagee “relationship” to that of Barack Obama-Pastor Jeremiah Wright. While the length and quality of the associations vary to the point where a comparison isn’t logically possible, imagine the media firestorm if Hagee had a whole DVD library of speeches where he blamed black males for raping white women, and/or black women for ballooning the welfare rolls by giving birth around 70% without a husband to support her kids. In that context, imagine if Reverend Hagee shouted, “God damn America!”

Just what do you think would have happened to John McCain’s campaign if he claimed to have gone on an overseas visit to our soldiers, and dodged sniper fire after getting off the plane, causing him and others to serpentine their way to the nearest cover? What do you think would be the status of his campaign today if video surfaced of him on the tarmac in that country, receiving a flower from a little girl, surrounded by dignitaries from that nation, nary a sniper’s bullet whizzing by?

Let’s be honest here. John McCain would be toast, finis, end of story, with a fork stuck in him.

And let’s not even try and guess how hard the media WOULD be digging if there was a rumor that Ann Romney was videotaped at a private gathering, blaming corrupt “nigger” politicians running unstable governments in Africa that’s resulted in the deaths of millions of Africans. How long would this remain a “rumor”? Do you think the media would be disregarding it, or seeking to prove/disprove it once and for all?

Again, I go back to the statement my very first editor sent me out the door with…

“It’s the job of the media to report the news. Not incite it.”

It’s too bad today’s reporters feel so comfortable blowing off the basic ethics of journalism, as they not only want to report a story of potential historical importance, but they also want to be a part of it. As many of us know, many of today’s liberally trained journalism students leave school not wanting to report the news as it happens.

They want to “make a difference”, and the only real way to do that, as a journalist is to go beyond the job description.

The media knows how much power it has. They know how to use it. It doesn’t matter how many times they get caught red-handed slanting a story to their personal preference, they will continue to do so until they get what they want.

Barack Obama. Selected, and the media is working to get him elected.

The guy who killed my son was in custody. He had a long prison record … and he was let out without any kind of hearing. He was let out into the community on a Saturday night with no supervision and within 24 hours, he had gotten another gun.

– Jamiel Shaw, Sr.

The incident has aroused the passions surrounding the city’s long-standing directive, Special Order 40, which prohibits the LAPD from asking arrestees about their immigration status. Immigrants’ rights advocates are busy screaming their traditional charges of xenophobia and racism, while anti-illegal immigration activists seize on another example of an alien who killed again.

I wonder if the Los Angeles City Council would be so seemingly lenient on illegals if say, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s son or daughter was the teenager shot dead in the street?

In fact, we’ve seen examples where accepted bad things happen (as Barack Obama puts it) to ordinary people, but when they happen to our elected royalty, it’s an emergency of monumental importance. Now while I don’t wish ill upon anyone, except terrorists, can we admit that we’d live in a totally different America if our insulated politicians were subject to the day-to-day hassles and tragedies we all are?

For example, we know that 100% of the children of the Congressional Black Caucus attend private schools. Can you imagine the reforms that would happen in public education if they sent their kids to the same inner city public schools that their constituents’ children are trapped in? Somehow, the Caucus’ public school advocacy chant of “Mend it, don’t end it” wouldn’t wash if their kids came home functionally illiterate, and frightened to return due to threats of being shot or stabbed.

I’d be willing to bet that politicians would be more hands-on in their districts, and more would be done to make the economic environments much more vibrant if their families were dependent on that economy for their survival. There are economically depressed areas in the black community that have been so for decades, and it appears their elected representatives just don’t care. As long as they can point to poverty and redlining and neglect to get them re-elected, the dire plight of their citizens is a necessary inconvenience.

Politicians’ expenses are fairly well covered. Can you imagine how much different our energy policies would be if they had to pay for their own gasoline for their own car? Bet’cha the gasoline tax would’ve been reduced, if not repealed, long ago.

Sex offenders roam our neighborhoods like wolves amongst sheep, ready to pounce at any moment. What do you think would be the legislative sentiment on sexual predators if a congressman’s daughter was raped and murdered by an offender with a long rap sheet? Do you think we’d be talking about preserving the rights of a pervert who did his time and should have his freedom of movement and privacy observed? If a senator’s son were raped by a pedophile, our laws would most surely be more severe than those we have today.

Not to sound like an anti-war activist, but can you imagine the reluctance some of our politicians would be to knee-jerk military action if they (and/or their wives and kids) were subject to an appearance on the front line shortly after the beginning of hostilities? I contend there would be more emphasis on strategy than on posturing and chest thumping. We would go in, kick ass, and get out. No long drawn-out conflicts and partisan declarations of our defeat. We would fight to win and quickly.

If politicians were subject to the same financial limitations we all are, tax policies would be much different than they are now. As of now, they can grant themselves pay raises (try that at your job), thus paying higher taxes aren’t that big a deal as they can still pay their mortgages, utilities, clothes, car payments, and expenses, with cash-in-pocket to spare. If the wasteful spending practices resulted in tax increases that took food out of the mouths of their family members, fiscal responsibility would be more than a bumper sticker slogan.

If lawsuits run amok damaged their employers’ business and their family members were laid off, we may have seen tort reform long ago. If elected representatives had to pay for healthcare like the rest of us, malpractice insurance (which is a cost passed down to the consumers) would be unnecessary, as frivolous lawsuits would be a thing of the past.

If they had to live in the same neighborhoods as their constituents, complete with gang violence, police would be empowered to fight the plague. Imagine congressmen and senators standing on the steps of the Capitol, and gang members driving by, strafing politicians while shooting at a rival. There would probably be an entirely different attitude about gang violence instead of tolerance because this happens in someone else’s neighborhood.

America would be an entirely different place if the bad things that happened to us on a daily basis, happened to those we elect. Until they do, we’re stuck with the America they’ve created and maintain.

Unfortunately, until the Los Angeles City Council’s or Mayor Villaraigosa’s children are victims of violent gang crime, it will not be taken seriously as the problem it is. City residents will continue to live behind the bars in their windows and more Jamiel Shaws will die needlessly.

We are the America we elect.

“You can’t change what you don’t acknowledge.”

– Dr. Phil

Barack Obama had a golden opportunity to really clean the slate, but as it would mean addressing his own party’s sins and its deliberate rewriting of black history, he would have to show bravery beyond party politics. As we all know, bravery is seldom seen during election cycles, and Obama missed his real chance to shine.

During the speech Obama said, “We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.”

Had he taken the opportunity to show real bravery and admonish his own party for their past sins, as well as their successful, concerted effort to erase them from history for their political advantage, that may have not only gone down as one of the greatest civil rights speeches of all time, as he could have cleaned the Democrat’s slate for all time and given them the racial moral high ground they still lack.

In the end, it just came back down to politics as usual. So let’s get back to the presidential campaign as the left still attempts to re-write history.

Within an elongated, sometimes contentious thread on a website I posted the “Wrongs and Wright” column on, I received the following response,

“I think the last eight years of Bush rule has shown what the Republicans have done for America. When Bush took office, he had a fiscally healthy nation. Clinton had cut the national debt and we were not running a deficit every year. The economy was healthy. Look at us now.

“Trickle down economics has been proven wrong. Greed has run rampant in this country, and it was encouraged by the Bush administration. We are a nation borrowing from other nations and giving tax cuts. What is wrong with this picture? Even the “Economic Stimulus” package will cost the country over $600 million and that doesn’t include the checks. We just continue to go deeper into debt.”

The economy is on dangerous ground right now, no doubt. But re-writing history all depends on the ignorance of those who receive it, and the skill of others to perpetually recite it.

Think back. I find it beyond laughable that Democrats are taking credit for the economy President Bush inherited from Bill Clinton, especially when they lecture us all now on the morality of fiscal responsibility.

When Clinton first ran for president in 1992, he did so promising a middle-class tax cut. However, shortly after his victory, he just up and changed his mind. After taking the oath, he and the Democrat-controlled Congress and Senate passed what was (at the time) the largest tax increase ever. The national debt exploded and that became one of the targets of Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revolution.

They proposed

The Contract With America; the American people bought into the proposals, and pushed the Democrats out of power for the first time in 40 years. As part of that Contract, many bills were also introduced. One being The Fiscal Responsibility Act, which read:

“A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.”

In other words, they couldn’t spend what they didn’t have.

While this may be news to some, if not for the Republican Congress of the early 90’s, “fiscal responsibility” would still be a phrase demonized in the liberal lexicon. Because Clinton’s spending tendencies were reined in, there were balanced budgets with newfound yearly revenue surpluses, and the national debt was reduced. That is the financial legacy Bill Clinton left George Bush, by force.

Granted, presidents get the credit and also the blame. So Clinton’s receipt of fiscal responsibility credit goes with the territory. Now let’s fast forward past 9/11 and the Iraq War, two events which forced America to spend money. Our economy was still doing fine.

Last fall, our economy was booming. The stock market was setting new highs, albeit the subprime mortgage crisis was rearing its ugly head. Traders on Wall Street don’t care much for uncertainty. Unfortunately, uncertainty is what happened when Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats regained control of the House and Senate. When did the economy start its downward spiral? During the Fourth Quarter of 2006.

While bragging about their tendencies towards fiscal responsibility, Democrats tried to push through the S-CHIP program, despite the unknown effect on the health care industry. They began their coordinated refrain that the war was “lost”, threatening to defund the effort right from under the feet of the soldiers on the ground. There was talk of impeaching the president for lying about the reasons for going to war, while those very Democrats forget the many times they threatened the forced removal of Saddam Hussein from power for his creation of WMDs, years before George W. Bush was elected.

Democrats killed Social Security reform, and any attempt to allow America to drill domestically for our own oil (thus achieve some semblance of energy independence). The “worst economy since Herbert Hoover” became the party mantra. Democrat presidential candidates began pledging all things to their supporters, totally disregarding little things like how much they will all cost.

If you think the national debt is bad now, just wait until a President Obama or Clinton starts uber-spending with a Pelosi-led congress. I’d like to see the left re-write themselves out of that.

A couple of years ago, a film called “Death of a President” was met with critical acclaim. It was a documentary-style production with George W. Bush’s head digitally composited where needed. Those who found the subject matter tasteless were told to “lighten up”, as it was only a movie.

Harry Smith, anchor of CBS’ “The Early Show”, in a Tuesday morning interview with Senator Ted Kennedy, took it to a dark place in reference to presidential candidate Barack Obama….

“When you see that enthusiasm though, and when you see the generational change that seems to be taking place before our eyes, does it make you at all fearful?”

I’m not alone in the utter dismay of what must be going on in Harry Smith’s mind. Not to say that he’s alone, but to be an anchor of a national morning show and “verbalize” it was just plain tasteless.

Black people have long said that should they ever live to see a Black president, he (or she) would probably be assassinated. For the most part, that was said in jest because most of us believed we’d never see a Black president elected.

“I just, I think, what I was trying to say is – sometimes agents of change end up being targets, as you well know. And that was why I was asking if you were at all fearful of that.”

Yes, we all know what Harry was trying to say, but what I don’t understand is how he could be so cold as to insinuate Obama might be in danger, and say this to a man who lost two brothers to an assassin’s bullet?

While we know the media loves a good story, and you know what I think liberals internally believe when it comes to Black people, do you think there are some in the media that really do want Barack attacked? Not because they want him hurt, but because it would be a great story? Possibly the story of a generation?

Think about it.

Besides the obvious wall-to-wall coverage that would go on for weeks, imagine all the social sub-plots they could, and would, interject. They would go on and on about race, as this would cause a tremendous racial divide in America.

Even if the killer were a poor welfare mother, the media would still attempt to link her to some white supremacists and/or even the Republican Party, somehow. Barack Obama would be likened to Dr. King, and even though he isn’t one, this would give some Muslims around the world just another excuse to riot.

So thanks to Harry Smith at CBS, the unthinkable has been thrown out there. Of course, most of us wish no harm on any president. But the growing lack of taste in our media is disturbing, and the closer Obama comes to winning the nomination, the more we’ll hear about the left’s obsession with death.

Sad, but true.

New Media Alliance Blogs (www.thenma.org/blogs)

www.therealitycheck.org

Bob Parks is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

Democrats now have the shoe on their other foot. They have spent decades honing their skills, planting race IEDs on the sides of the Republican campaign trail, waiting for some unsuspecting conservative candidate to set off a race controversy. Every speech, every appearance, every word uttered from a Republican’s mouth was dissected in search for the intolerance ammunition to be used for Democrat blaxploitation.

It’s not news that Democrats have used blacks for their political benefit. Blacks have been told they are victims of racism. Blacks have been intentionally kept angry because of the lack of campaign promised improvements in their lives. Blacks have been conditioned to look at every syllable uttered by a Republican and insert a racist motive where one didn’t exist. Blacks have been strategically rendered as ultra-sensitive as a bone bruise on the shin.

While Democrats knew where all the bombs were planted, never in their wildest dreams did they think they would forget how to disarm them.

In what were probably typical retorts between candidates, the Clintons are now experiencing the angst caused when their words have been reinterpreted, motives have been assumed, and the unintentional has now been taken as the ingrained.

While the Clintons are probably not racist people, they now have to spend valuable campaign time attempting to convince a portion of our population that they’re not. My only question to them is, “How does it feel?”

When the Democrats created those infamous radio ads in St. Louis in 1996 saying that a Republican president would bring more church burnings and rapes of the sistas, they probably considered themselves geniuses, while thanking their lucky stars that they have a segment of the electorate that would eat that up every two years.

When one of those race bombs went off, the Democrats were never content in the damage caused. The remaining explosives were always left for another day. The bombs are still lying in the road and the Democrats know they will keep going off as they drive by. As they’ve never had to disarm them before, they are in a bit of a quandary.

By the way, while the Republicans know they will soon have to travel down Race Street, for now, they can sit back and watch with a smile while the Democrats partially clear the road.

Can the Democrats bury the hatchet with Black people? They will try, however they’ve done a great job over the years convincing Black people that any overtures of apology are always too little, too late. Blacks have been conditioned to play the race card right up until Election Day and beyond.

So the mainstream media can spend all the time and kilobytes pondering how the Democrats, and Clintons specifically, got themselves into this situation. They can offer up all their suggestions on how Hillary and Bill can make nice with the African American community.

Incidentally, the media never offers up such suggestions after a Republican is effectively set up. Deep down inside, liberals love watching Blacks crucify Republicans. But they now can’t down enough OxyContin to ease the pain of the bear trap they’ve stepped on. Should they be able to free themselves, the deep wound will take a long time to heal, and the predictions that Hillary would be a “polarizing” figure have become reality.

However that polarization has manifested itself into a mini-race war between Democrat whites and Blacks. Hillary now knows how tough, if not impossible, it is to give back the race card once it’s been drawn, and any attempt by Democrats to deflect the anger towards Republicans won’t work. Democrats have fed racism blood to liberal Blacks for way too long, and once they smelled it, the bloodlust has never had to be turned off.

It will be fun to watch the attempt, as that may be an inadvertent roadmap for Republicans. The race card will be aimed at Republicans at some point, and knowing how to discard it will be invaluable.

Until then, it will be fun for some of us to watch the Democrats eat themselves alive. Republicans are doing the right thing by not allowing themselves to be drawn into the bloodletting.

The shoe is on the other foot.

The chickens are coming home to roost.

Payback’s a bitch.

However you may want to depict the current Democrat race dilemma, maybe (just maybe) they’ll be very careful in the future when they do decide to imply the (R) behind conservative’s names stand for “racist”.

In the meantime, who cares about the Writers strike? The Black-on-Democrat crime scene is now the best entertainment any conservative could ask for. However, this program will have a message. Let’s see if the Democrats pick it up.

As we all know, many of these wishes, or “pledges”, are broken within days, so I don’t hold much optimism that these will hold, but there’s nothing wrong with hoping…

The End Of Campaign 2008

Because of the “early” start, many of us are already sick of this campaign season. There are political ads flooding our markets with presidential candidates making promises they know they can’t keep, as they don’t know what the political make up of the Congress will be.

Yet, they’re all over our television sets making promises (and threats), and in the coming months, we’ll “meet” their wives, husbands, and homely kids. They’ll tell us how great we are as Americans, and how much better everything will be if we just trust them with our vote.

Let’s not forget, as we go down this road every four years.

Presidents, outside of during a time of war, have very little to do with our day-to-day lives. The president doesn’t hire all of us. The president doesn’t feed us or pay our rents or mortgages. The president doesn’t heat our homes.

Usually, it’s the Congress that forces us to do things we don’t want to do, and thanks us by taking money directly from our paychecks before we even see them.

But here’s something to watch for.

In the coming months, your local congressional candidates will attempt to show us all their softer sides. However, have you noticed how down right arrogant and mean they can get when while on committees to testifying citizens? These candidates are acting for us now. Too bad they think so little of us they have to “act” in order to get elected.

Hire More Male News Directors

While there’s nothing wrong with having what could be a glut of females at the helm of many news broadcasts, there are many “takes” on news items that are getting real old, especially when “the children” are constantly interjected into the stories.

When a bridge collapses, how will it affect the children? When an assassination occurs overseas, how will it affect the children? When a new bill is introduced on Capitol Hill, how will it affect the children? When Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, she surrounded herself with children, and it became apparent that all legislation would have them in mind.

Now while there’s nothing wrong with children (that is, until you have some of your own), some of us are getting tired of hearing about the effect some news item will have on “the children”. Some of us just want to get the news. Whether or not it will affect the children or not will be up to people who have them.

Maybe if we place less public emphasis on them, they won’t act as if it’s all about them. If a news director or anchor is pregnant, that doesn’t mean we’ll all see a story through the prism of “How will it affect my child.”

Just a suggestion.

Less Public Advertisements of ED

Ever notice how you can find more commercials, during primetime, about male member enhancement? Besides the fact that Elvis is probably rolling over in his grave due to the misuse of the song “Viva Las Vegas, I’m growing tired of all the ads during sporting events and early evening viewing for things that make you get bigger.

Seeing imagery of horny old people is kind of gross.

Setting The Record Straight

I’m hoping someone puts the Recording Industry of America back in its place. Their “place” being an industry that values their customers instead of looking at us a people who are damn lucky to be able to buy their overpriced products in the first place.

We now know that the RIAA considers it illegal for us to convert a song on a CD we bought into an mp3 to play on our computers or cars. Seeing how almost every computer you buy nowadays comes with some kind of software that enables one to do so, why is this illegal?

Because the music business not only demands we buy these CDs, but also buy the same song from that CD as a download.

As I’ve written many times before, the reason for the slumping sales in the music industry is not due to excessive downloading from peer-to-peer sites. It’s because few consumers want to pay full price for a CD that has one good song on it.

Like the television and film industries, the talent is thin at best. How many times do you need to watch a program or DVD with the closed captioning on because the “actors” have never been taught the fundamental of enunciation? How many times do we have to listen to CD’s with “singers” who haven’t mastered the art of vibrato? As long as the “artist” is “pretty”, that’s all that seems to matter.

However, people who BUY the products would like more than looks. It, again, comes down to CONTENT. If the product is lame, so will be the sales. If the RIAA expects us all to buy lame music just because we have no choice, maybe we should show them we do.

2008 would be a great year for a music boycott. We may be one or two high profile lawsuits of ordinary consumers away from a boycott.

We can only hope….

Ditching Pop Culture Role Models

It seems with every Tinseltown or sports icon train-wreck, the question is always asked about what kind of message is being sent to “the children.”

Well, whose fault is it that these people have that kind of power in the first place?

Professional actors (and actresses) and athletes have no business being “role models” for the children. These people live in a fantasy world, are surrounded by leeches that look the other way when their meal tickets do wrong, and we’re always asked how we explain this to our kids.

Part of the entertainment biz is being noticed. Thereby, good (and bad) behavior is the means to the end. Celebrities busted for DUI receive the publicity they crave. They pay the fines, do the time (albeit sometimes reluctantly), and get a reality show.

That’s entertainment.

The Settling Of War Issues

A few things I’d like to see resolved, but this is a wish list.

Some fair and balanced coverage would be nice. When American servicemembers were killed, the media couldn’t wait to announce it, both locally and nationally. But since the success that is The Surge, we see little to no news coming from Iraq. We all know the media has chosen sides and its agenda has gotten the better of their journalistic ethics, but again, this is a wish list.

How about some good news?

Is it “torture” or interrogation tactics?

The enemy really knows how to mess people up, yet we (for some strange reason) never hear about their torture rooms where the terrorist’s victims can be in agony for days. Our human rights activists are up in arms because we “torture” a prisoner (to get hard information about pending terror attacks) for a couple of minutes.

Must be some damn good torturing going on.

It would be nice to have some perspective.

My list will increase as the year drags on. As I said earlier, maybe, hopefully, once this election thing is over with, we may get back to some normalcy.

That’s another wish.

“… University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordan is a fraud. Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up. If there were ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it. She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism.”

“We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”

“There is good news after the L.A. riots. Statewide, gun sales are up 45% over the same period last year. People have been purchasing a record number. If the cops are not going to take care of the problem, the people will.”

“Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists – and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but
it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.”

“Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

“Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics. The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That’s what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn’t ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.”

Needless to say, these quotes caught the liberal Paulies off guard….

“The Simi Valley debate earlier this month was many Kossacks’ first exposure to Paul, and many of them liked what they saw. Before any other well-meaning liberals decide that we and Ron Paul were made for each other, I think it’s important that we dig a bit deeper and learn more about exactly who, and what, he is: a vicious, contemptible racist who comforts the radical right wing like no presidential candidate since David Duke.”In my own opinion, this looks like a shot across the bow to the
many liberals who I said were gravitating toward Paul.

Now it’s time for all real Republicans to jettison this kook before he further stains our party.

When you look at some of the pictures of Ron Paul supporters, you see young and old alike, but you also see the peace signs, the word “love” reversed in the word “revolution”. What one clearly sees is a bunch of disenfranchised liberals who assume they’ve found a welcoming new home.

They’ve clearly identified with the anti-war message of Dr. Paul. Obviously, these people feel betrayed by the Democrats with whom they voted for in 2006 after being promised an end to the Iraq War. Democrats clearly have been unable to make good on their many promises. While that’s not news to real Republicans, the anti-war left has been left dismayed, betrayed, and rudderless.

Dr. Paul has the attention of the anti-war crowd, thus he’s attracted them into his camp, as they won’t trust a Democrat, at least for the foreseeable future.

I say they “assume” they’ve found a new home because these are the same people who’ve over the last few years have loudly and proudly called conservatives every name in the book. They’ve called us “racists”, “homophobes”, “bigots”, “hate mongers”, “sexists”, and more. They’ve called me an “uncle tom”, “wannabe white”, and that’s from white liberals. Look at what they did to Condoleezza Rice, and were damn proud of it.

However, now they’ve found a “man of principle” who just happens to be a… Republican.

Just because they now find certain conservative principles acceptable, doesn’t make any of them the real deal, and like elephants, Republicans never forget.

Paul’s supporters claim to embrace his message of smaller government. However, these are the same people who demanded federally funded student loans and free health care for illegal aliens. These are the same people who always advocate some new program for the poor and disenfranchised. And now, just because they’ve found religion, we’re to just open the door, forget about the years of slanderous shout downs, and say, “Welcome home?”

When certain candidates or a party realizes they are hemorrhaging support, the first thing they ask is “How do we get them back?” I’ve heard no Democrat presidential candidate attempt to lure the Paulies back home. Maybe… just maybe, that’s because they don’t want them back.

After all, would any of us open the door to people who occupy our offices, infiltrate our meetings, protest us in front of your workplaces, throw paint on our war dead memorials, and shout us during presentations in which we were invited? And now they expect us to say, “Welcome to the Republican Party” just because they now demand we listen to them and their candidate?

You’re damn right; there are sour grapes and deep suspicions here. I don’t trust these people for a minute.

In the many emails I’ve received from the Paulies, I’ve been talked down to like a child, had my intelligence questioned, cursed at, and all because I committed the mortal sin of not mentioning their candidate by name in a column where I was taking Republican presidential candidates to my own personal woodshed.

Their emails are all about their feelings. It’s all about “me”, “me”, “me”, and damn anyone who won’t hear THEM out.

Someone has to ask what the real motive is here.

Should Paul get the nomination and bring his supporters into our party, what kind of changes will they demand to bring from within? Will they demand political correctness be instituted? Will they attempt to stifle speech they don’t authorize? Will they shout us down? In fact, all the traits most of these people seem to have on display are those the Democrat Party seems to have no problem jettisoning.

And they’re jettisoning them right into the Republican Party.

That’s my conspiracy theory. I don’t think I’m that far off.