Visit Counter

Monday, December 1, 2008

National Black Republican Association



http://www.trustedpartner.com/images/library/000143/Tampa%20MLK%20The%20Buzz.jpg






Frankly, I never knew the National Black Republican Association existed.
During the presidential campaign I thought this billboard would have sent a powerful message to the Black community. Whites as well.

Judging by the results no heed was paid to it.

I thought to myself.....should this be the end of welfare as we know it?

Will Obama's presidency mark the end of Affirmative Action?

After all, a Black man has attained the most elite position in the world. Therefore they are on a level playing field. Right? White people made a Black man president. It really didn't matter how Black's voted. Can anyone deny that? 

Look I'm not naive enough to believe racism is dead and buried. But it would be nice to see the twin race baiters, Jesse and Uncle Al, go out of business.


Shelby Steele is an author, columnist and senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

This is what he had to say:


For the first time in human history, a largely white nation has elected a black man to be its paramount leader. And the cultural meaning of this unprecedented convergence of dark skin and ultimate power will likely become -- at least for a time -- a national obsession. In fact, the Obama presidency will always be read as an allegory. Already we are as curious about the cultural significance of his victory as we are about its political significance.
Does his victory mean that America is now officially beyond racism? Does it finally complete the work of the civil rights movement so that racism is at last dismissible as an explanation of black difficulty? Can the good Revs. Jackson and Sharpton now safely retire to the seashore? Will the Obama victory dispel the twin stigmas that have tormented black and white Americans for so long -- that blacks are inherently inferior and whites inherently racist? Doesn't a black in the Oval Office put the lie to both black inferiority and white racism? Doesn't it imply a "post-racial" America? And shouldn't those of us -- white and black -- who did not vote for Mr. Obama take pride in what his victory says about our culture even as we mourn our political loss?
Answering no to such questions is like saying no to any idealism; it seems callow. How could a decent person not hope for all these possibilities, or not give America credit for electing its first black president? And yet an element of Barack Obama's success was always his use of the idealism implied in these questions as political muscle. His talent was to project an idealized vision of a post-racial America -- and then to have that vision define political decency. Thus, a failure to support Obama politically implied a failure of decency.
Obama's special charisma -- since his famous 2004 convention speech -- always came much more from the racial idealism he embodied than from his political ideas. In fact, this was his only true political originality. On the level of public policy, he was quite unremarkable. His economics were the redistributive axioms of old-fashioned Keynesianism; his social thought was recycled Great Society. But all this policy boilerplate was freshened up -- given an air of "change" -- by the dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch he dressed it in.
This worked politically for Obama because it tapped into a deep longing in American life -- the longing on the part of whites to escape the stigma of racism. In running for the presidency -- and presenting himself to a majority white nation -- Obama knew intuitively that he was dealing with a stigmatized people. He knew whites were stigmatized as being prejudiced, and that they hated this situation and literally longed for ways to disprove the stigma.
Obama is what I have called a "bargainer" -- a black who says to whites, "I will never presume that you are racist if you will not hold my race against me." Whites become enthralled with bargainers out of gratitude for the presumption of innocence they offer. Bargainers relieve their anxiety about being white and, for this gift of trust, bargainers are often rewarded with a kind of halo.
Obama's post-racial idealism told whites the one thing they most wanted to hear: America had essentially contained the evil of racism to the point at which it was no longer a serious barrier to black advancement. Thus, whites became enchanted enough with Obama to become his political base. It was Iowa -- 95% white -- that made him a contender. Blacks came his way only after he won enough white voters to be a plausible candidate.
Of course, it is true that white America has made great progress in curbing racism over the last 40 years. I believe, for example, that Colin Powell might well have been elected president in 1996 had he run against a then rather weak Bill Clinton. It is exactly because America has made such dramatic racial progress that whites today chafe so under the racist stigma. So I don't think whites really want change from Obama as much as they want documentation of change that has already occurred. They want him in the White House first of all as evidence, certification and recognition.
But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites -- especially today's younger generation -- proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer's ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.
Certainly things other than bargaining account for Obama's victory. He was a talented campaigner. He was reassuringly articulate on many issues -- a quality that Americans now long for in a president. And, in these last weeks, he was clearly pushed over the top by the economic terrors that beset the nation. But it was the peculiar cultural manipulation of racial bargaining that brought him to the political dance. It inflated him as a candidate, and it may well inflate him as a president.
There is nothing to suggest that Obama will lead America into true post-racialism. His campaign style revealed a tweaker of the status quo, not a revolutionary. Culturally and racially, he is likely to leave America pretty much where he found her.
But what about black Americans? Won't an Obama presidency at last lead us across a centuries-old gulf of alienation into the recognition that America really is our country? Might this milestone not infuse black America with a new American nationalism? And wouldn't this be revolutionary in itself? Like most Americans, I would love to see an Obama presidency nudge things in this direction. But the larger reality is the profound disparity between black and white Americans that will persist even under the glow of an Obama presidency. The black illegitimacy rate remains at 70%. Blacks did worse on the SAT in 2000 than in 1990. Fifty-five percent of all federal prisoners are black, though we are only 13% of the population. The academic achievement gap between blacks and whites persists even for the black middle class. All this disparity will continue to accuse blacks of inferiority and whites of racism -- thus refueling our racial politics - - despite the level of melanin in the president's skin.
The torture of racial conflict in America periodically spits up a new faith that idealism can help us "overcome" -- America's favorite racial word. If we can just have the right inspiration, a heroic role model, a symbolism of hope, a new sense of possibility. It is an American cultural habit to endure our racial tensions by periodically alighting on little islands of fresh hope and idealism. But true reform, like the civil rights victories of the '60s, never happens until people become exhausted with their suffering. Then they don't care who the president is





Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

This was totally preventable


Manuel Contreras-Galdean


Manuel Contreras-Galdean


I wrote about this so many times that I'm sick of it. How many people have to die before we get rid of these illegals? This bastard while driving drunk killed a 16 year old girl named Kelly Tracy. Only 16 years old! Her young life snuffed out. Why does this continually happen? I just can't understand it! Does anyone in ICE or other branches of law enforcement give a damn? Apparently not:

According to police records, Contreras-Galdean was arrested in July 2000 in Salt Lake City on suspicion of interfering with a police officer. He served 10 days in jail. And was set free.

In April 2001, he was arrested in West Jordan, Utah, on suspicion of giving false information to police. He served 10 days in jail. And was set free.

In May 2001, the Utah Highway Patrol arrested him on suspicion of DUI. And set him free.

In 2003, he was stopped by a New Mexico cop who called the Border Patrol. Contreras-Galdean accepted a voluntary return to Mexico.

In January 2007, he was arrested in Tempe on suspicion of extreme DUI. He pleaded guilty to DUI and served 24 hours in April 2007. And was set free.

Why wasn't he deported? This is so ludicrous I can't even comphrend it. But I can tell you one thing. The complete break down of law enforcement is why Kelly Tracy is dead. How many more Kelly Tracy's have to die before we do something?

,


Share/Bookmark

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Why we are...Where we are


As I write this please bear in mind I respect the man and his service to our country.


Definition of John McCain


Why we are.... where we are!

In a nutshell both of these definitions apply to John McCain.

mav·er·ick:



1. An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother (The Republican Party.) Traditionally considered the property of the first person who brands it. (The Democratic Party)

2. One that refuses to abide by the dictates of or resists adherence to a group; a dissenter.

Documented Facts:


CO-Sponsor of the "Shamesty Bill" with Ted Kennedy! (Need I say more?)


Votes with the like's of Hillary Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, and Kerry to give illegals Social Security
benefits. (Unbelievable!)


He twice opposed the Bush tax cuts. Then advocates extending the Bush tax cuts that he twice voted
against.


This went over real big when he said: "I don't know as much about the economy as I should."

He said the economy was rock solid. About 4 days later Paulson announces a 700 billion dollar
emergency bailout!


He doesn't know how many house's he has?

Add all this up, with the MSM in the tank for Obama, and we saw the end result.

According to some blogs I have read we have become a party of stodgy old men. This has got to change. We need fresh blood. New ideas. We need new leadership.

http://yrdominion.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/17/michael_steele.jpg
Maybe you have seen Michael Steele on FOX.
When asked by FOX News as an African-American how he felt when Obama won he said. "As an African-American I feel proud. Too bad it had to be a Democrat."




I understand Michael Steele is going to run to become Chairman of the RNC. Excellent choice. When your team ends the season 3-11. You got to do something. So you might as well start at the top.

Share/Bookmark

Thursday, November 13, 2008

AIG at it again.... repeat 2nd time!



Yesterday the federal government agreed to increase the bail out money to AIG.

CEO Edward Liddy referred to the influx of money as "an arrangement with the federal government." All this time I thought it was a bail out. Isn't spin a wonderful thing?

Anyway they got caught sending financial planners (if you think about it, that in itself
is a joke.) to a posh luxury resort complete with cocktails parties, limousines, and dinner at top restaurants. This new fiasco cost. Get ready. $343,000.00.

Wait it gets better. This is killer. AIG instructed the hotel to keep their visit a secret. No signs allowed. When CEO Liddy was asked why was it a secret with no signs, he said the lack of signage was a result of cost cutting measures!

"We are really cutting corners. We're doing the same thing the American taxpayer is doing," Liddy said. "We are tightening our belts. We didn't use any signage."


PS: It's funny but in a way it's not. How in the hell are you going to control $700 billion? What percent of this money is going up in smoke? What branch of the government is checking how this money is being spent? I wonder if they thought this through before rushing it through Congress!

Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Fairness Doctrine


http://www.foxnews.com/images/268793/1_61_schumer_chuck.jpg
Chucky Boy


Allow me start off by saying this is something all of us should be very concerned about.
As you know the vast majority of the mainstream media is in the tank for Obama. They openly supported his candidacy. As you have in football, Obama has his own built in cheerleaders.....the media.
The prominent people on the right are Cavuto, O'reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Dennis Prager, Michelle Malkin, to name a few....there are others.....but they fail in comparison to the avalanche in the print media, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC. Not to mention Hollywood! Lets face it. The list is endless!
So why am I telling you something you already know?
I'll try to put it in a nutshell. The liberals want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Even the name is a misnomer. This was passed during the Democratic Truman administration. January 5th 1949 Truman delivered the State of the Union message asking for strengthened liberal program characterized as the "Fair Deal."



A quick summary:


FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

U.S. Broadcasting Policy The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

On the surface the Fairness Doctrine seems.....well fair.
The truth is it is far from it:
This is why liberals want to reinstate it and why conservatives are against it:

(wikipedia)

The Fairness Doctrine has been strongly opposed by prominent libertarians and conservatives who view it as an attempt to regulate or mandate certain types of speech on the airwaves. Editorials in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times have said that Democratic attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine have been made largely in response to and contempt for the successes of conservative talk radio. 

What's next FOX News?
Isn't freedom of speech a right under the 1st Amendment?
This is nothing more then a blatant attempt by Schumer and is band of bastards trying to suppress what little is left of the conservative media.
He told Megyn Kelly (in a snide way, with a shit eating grin on his face) he supports reinstating the Fairness Doctrine because he wants... "all of the media to be like FOX...fair and balanced."
Want the Fairness Doctrine Schumer? Apply it to Obama Headquaters aka MSNBC and the rest of the main stream media! 





Share/Bookmark