LISTEN to BLACK MAN THINKIN’


Which Battle Are You Watching?

Every day, the faux battle continues – party vs. party, conservative vs. liberal, etc. – frustrating the country and its citizens. Issue after issue becomes kindling for the sordid fire whose smoke is the stuff of political and legislative gridlock; they are talked at, not about. Those who should lead instead examine polls and rally their “bases”, and those who seek meaningful change are mocked or scorned. Blame is plentiful, progress is scarce and, more importantly, truth is nearly absent.

Interestingly, it seems the political class, with few exceptions, prefers this. Those furthest left or right tug at each other, accomplishing nothing, while “moderates” posture for loose votes, with all honing their pitch as either the “champions of their view” or the “voices of reason.” While the political class, well, politics, they ignore the concerns of voters and citizens.

For example, the economy and jobs are the number 1 issues with the American electorate today. This was also the case in 2008 , 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. However, since the last general election, the political class have devoted most of their time to bickering over gun control and immigration reform, two issues about which Americans are largely indifferent.

The last major effort by the 536 Keystone Cops in D.C. (435 Congressmen, 100 Senators, and 1 President) to impact the economy and jobs was the 2009 “Stimulus” Bill. Criticism and praise aside, the Labor Force Participation Rate, or the proportion of the “working age” population that is willing and able to work and is either employed or actively seeking employment, is down nearly 2.5 percentage points since January 2009, to a 34-year low, and continues to decline. The current administration promised to add jobs. However, since January 2009, 9.5 million Americans left the workforce instead. Compare that to the 1.2 million jobs created during the current administration. Not only does the political class pay little attention to the citizens’ concerns, when they do take action, it makes matters worse.

Yet, the media provides regular reports of the improving economy and job market, bantering back and forth about the political implications. It would seem much of the press is more interested in political intrigue than in the political accountability of elected officials.

Meanwhile, 15% of Americans are in poverty, and that is likely a low-ball number. Food stamp enrollment has increased more than 70% since 2008, to a record near 48 million people. Thirty-three municipalities have filed for bankruptcy since 2010, including 7 cities. The national debt, which the government decries, even as deficit spending continues, has grown to 105% of annual GDP; under the previous administration, it only once went above 40%.

Instead of addressing these matters, the political class tells the nation that a decrease in the government’s ever-increasing spending plans is somehow a budget cut, lies about the events in which four Americans, including an US Ambassador, were killed on American soil in Libya, and throws itself into a frenzy of self-investigation.

American voters, by a 7 to 2 margin, view the economy and unemployment as bigger issues than the multiple Obama scandals. Apparently, all that dust in the air has not blurred their of what matters to them.

Yet, public discourse often demonstrates a kindergarten level of sophistication: blaming racism for the government’s ills, blaming the last administration for what’s wrong (even though the exculpatory information, about taxes, job creation, or the Great Recession is undeniable). And while people defend this president and bash his predecessor, or vice versa, they do nothing about a government that seeks more power while ignoring the people’s problems and priorities.

…and that is the real battle…

The American people are battling the federal government for control: of their lives and liberties; of identifying, defining, and addressing problems; of whether the American Experiment can continue, in any form, as the Founders delivered it to them. And the American people are losing.

As government power grabs increase (the administration recently issued Executive Orders which essentially nationalize state elections, plus a host of other things), Americans are witness to the most significant flaw in government today: the inability, or unwillingness, of one branch of government to check and balance another when it works against the people’s will.

Obamacare remains unpopular among voters, yet the Supreme Court essentially re-wrote to find it constitutional, and Congress has failed repeal it. For its part, the national press, instead of chiding the Legislative and Judicial Branches of government for failing to uphold the people’s will, mocks the attempts in Congress to do what their constituents want, even as those in government acknowledge Obamacare will be a “train wreck”. When the federal government misses multiple opportunities to do the people’s will, opting instead to increase its own power…”Houston, we have a problem…”

And that problem will snowball, as the federal government prepares to unleash the IRS to implement the health care law. When $20,000 per year becomes the least expensive health insurance option for a family of 5, making $120,000 per year (and that ain’t as much as you think with 3 kids), and failure to comply means quality time with the tax collector, what recourse will the American people have, after two branches of government have failed to protect them, and the third believes nothing is wrong…and controls the IRS?

Speaking of (no) recourse, let’s not forget the 23 Gun Control Executive Orders issued earlier this year, which include having doctors ask patients about guns in their homes, and encouraging a national health care database to authorize gun purchases. So if anyone plans armed resistance against the government, then they should buy their guns early and lie to their doctor about it.

And all the while, the government assures us that it has no tyrannical characteristics:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIOF5R-7rx8[/youtube]

However, the founders who gave us a Constitution, had different thoughts. James Madison said, “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”

Does anyone else look at this government and not either feel abused, or fairly certain they might easily be abused?

And Thomas Jefferson said, “When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Does anyone else look at this government today with no fear of what it might do to them?

When you boil it all down…does anyone really not understand that the political battles that dominate the headlines are a head fake to distract from the real battle between the government and its people? And does anyone actually believe the people are winning?

The Good Dr. Carson Had Breakfast

Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: February 14, 2013

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFb6NU1giRA[/youtube]

The National Prayer Breakfast, held on 7 February this year, is normally not newsworthy, though that is not always the case with a Democrat president in attendance. Bill Clinton sought national sympathy, after his Lewinsky lie collapsed, by inviting 125 clergy to a prayer breakfast in September 1998. Fortunately, Barack Obama lacks some of Bill Clinton’s personal weaknesses. Perhaps that is why, instead of seeking something he might receive, he received something he did not seek at this year’s event.

The breakfast usually has two special guest speakers. One is the President of the United States; the other’s identity remains a secret until the event. Dr. Benjamin Carson was this year’s other special guest speaker, and his remarks generated so much interest that…does anyone recall what the president said? The media attention has made forgetting what Carson said a difficult task.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) introduced Carson as a man who:

    1. Loves Jesus,
    2. Has a compelling life story, and
    3. Is a distinguished man of science and healing

and said that he hoped Carson could “help us sort some things out”.

Now, America likes “compelling life stories”; even cop-killer Christopher Dorner found social media fans with his “manifesto”. However, the country struggles with accomplished people, outside of sports and entertainment, speaking to “political” issues, and too many Americans believe no one can love Jesus and be scientific. Consequently, many consider Dr. Carson to be a leprechaun or a unicorn — a figment of someone’s imagination. So, when this man — raised by a single mother with a third grade education, who knew poverty and suffered from being a poor student, and who yet became Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, while maintaining faith in God — dragged his pot o’ gold and spiral horn to the lectern for 25 minutes, he surprised many.

Predictably, Carson’s eloquent challenge to Obama’s policies and ideology, while the president sat, noticeably displeased, several feet away drew the most attention. Yet, his remarks on deficits and debt, tax policy, and healthcare were less than a quarter of his speech, coming toward the end. The media overlooked his other, powerful points, more concerned with the “trials” of the president than they are with the trials of the republic.

Dr. Carson called political correctness a horrible and dangerous thing. His reason: instead of encouraging honest debate, it seeks to create unanimity of speech and thought, stifling honest conversation by holding people hostage to the fear of offending someone. Political correctness shuts down the true marketplace of ideas by keeping certain ideas from being widely heard. Consequently, the country does not consider the broadest range of ideas when looking to address problems, nor does it easily reverse policies that fail. Given where the nation stands today — politically, economically, socially — that is dangerous indeed.

The doctor did not mention was that those playing the “offense” card normally lean left, politically.

Carson spoke of his mother: married at 13, 1 of 24 children, and possessing a 3rd grade education. Yet Carter recalled, despite dire poverty, she “believed in me…would never allow herself to be a victim, no matter what happened…never made excuses and she never accepted an excuse from us”, forcing him to seek solutions instead. That, he said, allowed him to overcome poverty, a horrible temper, poor self-esteem, “all the things you think would preclude success”. A memorable thought expressed here was, “if you don’t accept excuses, pretty soon people stop giving ’em and they start lookin’ for solutions.”

But we now have a body politic with no shortage of victims or excuses…and no solutions. Whether the “fault” lie with the 1%, or corporations, or racism, or being born poor, or the lack of some resource or another, all who “have not” are the victims of those who have. And the “haves” are, of course morally, ethically, and financially accountable for the “have not’s” predicament. Countering that idea, Carson offered the following:

    …the person who has the most to do with you and what happens to you in life…is YOU! You make decisions…and I came to understand that I had control of my own destiny. And at that point, it didn’t hate poverty anymore, because I knew it was only temporary. I knew I could change that…”

This exposed the ideology gap between Ben Carson and Barack Obama. Dr. Carson believe people change their own lives when they decide to do so, a classic American thought. Barack Obama believes changes only comes when “everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

Carson’s statement is proven by millions who, like himself, leveraged their talents and efforts along with those of neighbors and countrymen to escape poverty. The president’s comments are proven nowhere, and his egalitarian utopia has never existed, yet more people have succeeded in an “unfair” United States than anywhere else. Successful people don’t need a fair shot…just the courage to take the shot they have.

Carson defended the idea that accomplished people, not simply sports and entertainment celebrities, should take part in government and the debate of important issues, reminding the audience that 5 physicians signed the Declaration of Independence.

Carson also sounded the primary reason for the Founder’s support of an effective education system, stating, “…our system of government was designed for a well-informed and educated populace and when they become less-informed, they become vulnerable…”

And many Americans are vulnerable. The have become low-information people who know more about what happens in the lives of athletes and celebrities than about what they can do to maintain their liberty, or even why liberty is important. They are more sensitive to personalities than ideas, though the former always has a shorter shelf life and is of lesser consequence.

It was a brilliant speech of powerful ideas. Some say it was rude to the president. However, I can never recall a time when truth’s timing was welcome, or when those who opposed it did not complain when it appeared. The fortunate thing is, while many Americans are not as informed as they should be, the vast majority can understand the truth in Dr. Carson’s words.

May that same majority embrace what I am confident they can understand.

Much Ado About Guns?

They’re ba-ack! Anti-gun activists, axes in hand, looking to fell the Second Amendment tree, spurred on by the recent spate of mass shootings, including:

    • Newtown, CT school shooting (14 Dec 2012): 26 dead, 2 wounded,
    • Aurora, CO theater shooting (20 Jul 2012): 12 dead, 58 wounded,
    • Tucson, AZ shooting (8 Jan 2011): 6 dead, 13 wounded, and
    • Ft. Hood, TX Massacre (5 November 2009): 13 dead, 30 wounded.

Mother Jones compiled a list of US mass shootings, going back to 1982. They found 62 occurrences, which killed 513 and injured 494, 1,007 victims total…in 30 years.

However, gun control supporters could argue the “problem” has worsened…since Obama became president. Since 2009, 15 shootings killed 139 and wounded another 129; more than one-quarter of the deaths of the last 3 decades have occurred in just the last four years.

Still, the “problem,” for which some want new federal legislation, kills 35 people….per year…in a nation of more than 310 million. While the low numbers comfort no one who lost a loved one, they do call into question the true urgency of the matter.

Interestingly, 513, the number of US mass shooting fatalities in the last 3 decades matches the number of Chicago homicides in 2012; guns killed 441 of the victims. This carnage occurred, despite Illinois gun laws which forbid concealed or open carry, and prohibit the transport of loaded firearms. No one seeks to explain how gun laws which allowed Chicago to kill, in one year, as many people as died nationally from mass shootings in 30 years, would reduce deaths nationwide. However, this is liberal politics; logic is not a prerequisite.

Using the time-honored “compassion” chant of “we must do something,” liberals have bum-rushed the national legislature, trotting out a sympathetic mass shooting victim (conveniently, a gun-owner) to testify before the Senate, saying “we must do something”, without saying what “something” should be. Chicago Mayor (and former Obama chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel wants banks to boycott gun manufacturers, as though that removes any of the more than 300 million guns already made from anyone’s hands.

Obama dutifully made his proposals, announcing them with elementary-school-aged gun control advisers present, and an expanded “we must do something” mantra: “…if there’s even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try…”

The president then signed 23 Executive Orders that, had they been in place on 14 December 2012, would have spared no one in Newtown, Connecticut….or Aurora, Colorado before that….or Tucson, Arizona before that.

Perhaps gun control advocates are unaware that they want as law has been the law since the Gun Control Act of 1968. The act made it illegal, more than 4 decades ago, to sell weapons or ammunition to anyone the seller knows or has reason to believe:

    1 – is indicted for, or convicted of, a crime punishable by a prison term exceeding one year,
    2 – is a fugitive from justice,
    3 – is a substance abuser or addict
    4 – is ruled a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution,
    5 – is an illegal immigrant,
    6 – is dishonorably discharged from the military,
    7 – is an American that renounced his citizenship,
    8 – is subject to a restraining order, or
    9 – is convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

Despite the law, Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson occurred. If that could not prevent the tragedies, then what would, aside from dismantling the 2nd Amendment itself? Despite all assurances to the contrary, logic dictates that to be the aim of gun control advocates. In the meantime, more workable issues receive short shrift:

    Adam Lanza’s mother sought to commit him to a mental facility, but the ACLU has fought hard to make sure that committing a person against their will is a long and difficult process.

    The man who shot Gabby Giffords was a known loon, but it is not “politically correct” to remove a nut job from among us, so 6 people are dead and a U.S. Congressperson nearly became a vegetable.

    James Holmes had 3 folks shrinking his head before he opened fire in Colorado, but they apparently told no one, and Mr. Holmes may have used federal grant money from the National Institutes of Health to buy his weapons and ammo.

I’ve heard no call to ease the process of institutionalizing the mentally unstable; to look at how mental health professionals evaluate warning signs, and decide which ones to report and which ones to ignore; to keep federal grants from financing weapons purchases.

All emphasis is upon reducing the rights of those who do no wrong, and have nothing wrong with them, from exercising a constitutional right, and a right put in place precisely to protect people from a government that would seek to infringe upon that right. Consequently, the government wants to change the subject when it comes to the 2nd Amendment’s purpose.

When Andrew Cuomo screams, “No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer”, and Obama says gun control advocates should be sensitive to hunting traditions, they restate and mis-state the entire debate.

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or firing at targets. It is about resisting government tyranny. Heck, even Ice-T knows that.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPMfWqLhFGU[/youtube]

How can a rapper have clarity on the issue, yet the smartest man ever to be president seems confused?

Obama’s not confused. He has an agenda – to increase government power at the expense of individual liberty. He knows an armed citizenry will not bow to government, even if outgunned by law enforcement or the military (has the Arab Spring taught us nothing?). And Americans do not back down from “unwinnable” conflicts. However, a people unable to defend themselves are much more pliable.

This is not about guns, never has been. It is about whether we remain a government of, by, and for the people, or become a people of, by, and for the government. And, while Obama deflects with gun control and immigration, the economy that escaped recession before any of his policies took hold is contracting under Obamanomics.

Obama’s attack on the economy will last much longer than any mass shooting and is poised to make victims of us all.

The Fiscal Cliff: What the Obama is Going On Here?

For those who wondered, I am not depressed by last month’s election results. Since October, I have worked on changing careers. Staring deeply into technical documents and prepping for certification exams has left little time for blogging. My apologies but…I’m ba-ack…..

Both sides in the so-called “fiscal cliff” (the combination of looming tax increases and spending cuts) debate have voiced their public positions. Here is a summary of Obama’s:

    The Obama administration is “absolutely” willing to go off the so-called fiscal cliff if Republicans refuse to increase taxes on the nation’s top earners.

    • Obama’s current spending cuts proposal looks eerily similar to his budget plan, which failed to garner a single vote in either the GOP-controlled House or the Democrat-controlled Senate. Obama’s plan is so flawed that Senate Democrats kept it from coming to a vote on December 5.

    Obama wants authority to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling, effectively transferring to the Executive Branch of the federal government a power constitutionally given to the Legislative Branch, or Congress, even though in 2006, then Senator Obama called increasing the nation’s debt “a leadership failure”.

Here is a summary of the GOP position:

    • Individual income tax rates stay unchanged; , additional revenues would come from subjecting more of an individual’s income to taxation, by removing provisions that shield income from taxation (closing loopholes) and limiting current deductions.

    • Reduce government spending, including raising the age for Medicare eligibility, and reducing annual Social Security increases.

    • It does not seem that the White House proposal for unilateral presidential authority to increase the debt limit will receive serious consideration.

Critics of the GOP plan note that the Bush era tax cuts gave money to upper income earners and, in part, led to the 2008 recession. However, those rates, implemented in 2003, after the 2000 – 2001 Clinton recession and the September 2001 terror attacks were, by 2005, generating more income tax revenue than in any year of the Clinton administration. Since lower rates generated higher revenues, the argument that low tax rates either hurt the economy or deprive the Treasury is a difficult one to make.

The press, for their part, appears more focused on identifying Republicans with a willingness to “break ranks” and raise taxes than reporting the objective consequences of either position. They could look to Europe, where the higher taxes, lower spending approach is en vogue. The results are not encouraging:

    • Greece raised taxes to bring in more revenue, only to see its deficit increase. Worse yet, tax receipts actually declined after taxes were raised. Additionally, the street demonstrations, protesting budget cuts, continue.

    • Great Britain was harder hit by the Great Recession than the US. After 6 T, after 6 quarters of decline, he British economy began to grow again in late 2009 at an annual rate of more than 2.5%. Then the government enacted an Emergency Budget in June, 2010, which contained a ratio of more than $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increase. GDP growth retreated to less than 1% annually. And, as with Greece, there are the protests.

    Spain is taking the same approach with, predictably, the same results.

Bottom line, the “fiscal cliff” approach of raising taxes and cutting spending, to get government finances in order and to boost the economy has failed in Europe. According to CBS News, “Across Europe, six countries are in recession and economists predict the entire region could be heading for recession by the end of the year.”

Then why would the president be absolutely committed to going off the cliff if Congress refuses to raise tax rates? Well, he did say he wanted to “fundamentally change this nation.” Perhaps he is now revealing into what.

History teaches that economies are more likely to grow when taxation decreases and not increases, and now is a time when America could use more economic growth. The trustees of both Medicare and Social Security continue to sound the alarm that those programs are in deep financial trouble and need reformation to stay viable. And the Founders made it clear that one man should not control the nation’s purse strings. Yet, on each of these points, Obama seeks a path that demonstrably runs counter to American success or future prosperity. Further, he is not given to cogent explanations of how his approach would change the country’s current financial or economic plight.

Nevertheless, the president who claims to care for the middle class, would rather plunge them, and everyone else, into economic adversity that would bring more pain, debt, and poverty, rather than allow 2% of the nation’s income earners keep their current tax rates – just like everyone else. The revenue projected from what Obama desires, over a decade, is less than one year’s annual deficit. More than 4 times what the president seeks from the top 2% would be raised if all tax rates were allowed to rise (if the economy was so good under the Clinton rates, then why only bring them back for some of the nation?). If the nearly half of income tax filers who pay nothing contributed only $1,000/year, that would raise more revenue than the president seeks. So why the insistence?

The Defense cuts could cause more problems for an already troubled job market. No action on Social Security or Medicare could leave one or both of those programs unable to help seniors, Yet, Obama presses on, insisting he is right, but without saying what would happen should he get his way.

The president is an “all or nothing” negotiator, when anyone can get him to the table. His approach: “I won re-election, so now you must do whatever I want.” This ignores that every Republican in the GOP-controlled House also won an election on November 6, that there are more elected Republicans than Democrats in D.C., and that it is unlikely that voters sent Republicans there to bow to Obama. If only this were simply political drama, and not potential economic madness.

What the Obama is going on here?

The Debate: Blacks Didn’t See It Coming – Don’t Believe It Happened

debate

I recall being doubly flabbergasted watching my Facebook News Feed during the debate. The first flabbergasting item was the pitiful nature of the president’s performance in the first debate with Mitt Romney. Obama got pimp-slapped – told he does not understand business (which he doesn’t) and compared to a child who tells his parent the same tall tale over and over, in hopes it will be eventually believed. Obama showed no spark, seemed disinterested, and said nothing different from 4 years ago about what he wanted for the country. It was not pretty; even those who do not support the president found it painful to watch.

However, the second flabbergasting item, even more than the first, was how many black people could not quite get the idea that Obama was actually losing the debate while it was ongoing, and did not believe he had lost once the bloodletting ended. The expectation had clearly been that Obama, being the better orator, would more than hold his own against an opponent he had consistently described as a tax cheat, a felon, a murderer, and uncaring, sometimes with Gov Romney’s help.

Despite Romney’s negatives, both real and manufactured, Romney dominated Obama in the October 3rd presidential debate in Denver. A CNN post-debate poll had 67% of those watching declaring Romney the winner, with only 25% believing Obama won the debate.

That result is extraordinary, given that at least one poll said voters, by a nearly 2 to 1 margin expected Obama to prevail in all the debates. However, even more extraordinary is the level of black surprise at Obama’s debate showing, despite the many signs pointing to what did occur.

What signs?

Begin with these remarks in the days leading up to the debate:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv-FWP-40Vs[/youtube]

While it seemed the president was self-deprecating to keep expectations reasonable, how closely did his assessment before the debate, match each man’s performance during the debates?

Then there is the aversion this president has to difficult discussions. Obama walked out of tense debt ceiling talks last summer. He walked away from his promise to craft comprehensive reform during his first year in office, though his party held strong majorities in both house of Congress. He walked away from a potential budget agreement with House Speaker Boehner (each blames the other). He walked away the Simpson-Bowles recommendations, even though he put together the commission that made them.

Obama avoids the press. He avoids world leaders. He avoids political rivals. It is hard to recall many times that the president engaged in any defense of his views in any more hostile environment than the View:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFowtgmGa6g[/youtube]

Obama acquitted himself well against a daytime talk show host. However, there was also the Univision interview…. that did not go quite as well:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHCZQUWlcTA[/youtube]

The Univision interview also included this gem:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlkD4pN3G4o[/youtube]

Had Obama countered Romney as strongly as he did Elisabeth Hasselbeck, there might have been a different result in Denver. However, however, had that line about being unable to change Washington from the inside come up in Denver, then the election might have ended that night.

Barack Hussein Obama does not do well without a script, or a teleprompter, a fact not lost on his supporters in Wisconsin. It is his preference to speak unchallenged and uninterrupted, something that warms the hearts of blacks and liberals. However, that is something unknown to presidential politics.

It is a willingness to endure constant intellectual challenge, to stand in against verbal and ideological opposition that helps great leaders transform their ideas from pretty speeches to working ideas that benefit a country. It is also the thing that ensures that a leader’s ideas evolve with the challenges that he, and his country, faces. Unfortunately, this president has avoided those challenges. Consequently, what President Obama says today is not different from what candidate Obama said four years ago.

That Barack Obama struggles when challenged is well-known to all but his most die-hard supporters – the majority of black people. But our apparent love of his speaking style, and admiration for his historic election have blinded us to two, now obvious truths: 1) Barack Obama needs a script to sound or be good; and 2) he is out of ideas for improving the affairs of this country.

This is how a majority of black people seemed to think the first debate night go:

Unfortunately, the 90-minute ordeal looked more like this:

Obama supporters say Romney was rude and would not let Obama speak. But the truth is the president spoke for three more minutes than his challenger. Former Vice President Al Gore blamed altitude sickness. There are no words that can do justice to the MSNBC reaction to the debate.

Nevertheless, what happened on October 3rd was a long time coming. It should not have surprised anyone, but it shocked many liberals and progressives, and most blacks. We never saw it coming, many of us still either do not believe or will not accept that it occurred.

However, if we want to make sure that our views our respected by whoever wins next month, then black people need to step away from personalities, step up to the issues, and figure out who represents our interests and values before the next Obama-Romney debate, because the worst time to figure out that you’ve backed the wrong horse is win the race is over.

Fewer Black Leaders = More Black Leadership?

Do you remember this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPrHwmiUMH0[/youtube]

I recall the above, and white governors fighting to keep blacks out of universities, church and house bombings, the King assassination… What kept all I saw and heard from destroying the belief that I could accomplish anything? Good parents, and the influence of black church leaders.

In my youth, church officials were the most powerful and influential black political leaders, whether they held elected office or not. Blacks WENT TO CHURCH then, even more than now, including those who would not know Jesus if He slapped them upside the head. The black church dealt with families. It caused businesses to thrive or die. It directed the vote. It impacted nearly every aspect of black life.

Consequently, most black leaders were found in the church. Even many of today’s black leaders got their start in the church – there’s nothing wrong with that. But things are different now from when I was younger.

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s broke the back of segregation in the United States, and made many segregation practices illegal. Blacks could compete in areas previously closed to them. As more opportunities appeared, capable blacks did what other capable people do in a competition: they won when they were better than the competition.

As integration progressed, the church was no longer their only source of validation for blacks. The church maintained its influence, but the road to black success and respectability no longer had to run through the pews or the pastor’s study.

This gave rise to other leaders, not “birthed” in the church. “Min.” or “Rev.” did not appear before their names, nor the letters “D.D.” or “Th.D” after them. The Old Guard of black leadership, primarily male clergy, began to give way to others with different leadership pedigrees.

And so, blacks, and their leaders, took another step in the progression followed by Italian, Irish, Russian, and other ethnic immigrant communities, though those groups did not come to America via the slave trade. Those progression steps include:

    • Shunned – As outcasts by the larger society. This compels the people to gather themselves together for support until their numbers grow,

    • Massing – As their numbers increase, the gathered people form self-contained “mini-societies” that include familiar practices and traditions, and encompass aspects of the larger society,

    • Bridging – The mini-societies support strong bonds, for the group and individuals, with the larger society. Some traditions and leadership constructs are challenged or changed, and

    • Releasing – Group members feel less need for comfort and support from the group. Many prefer living and working in the larger society and are more likely to have their views shaped by influences apart from the group.

Most European immigrant groups usually reach that last step in the progression. It may be because their physical characteristics are less distinct one from another; they are all considered “white”. Blacks and others of color tend to linger on “Bridging”. But now may be an opportunity for blacks to take that last step.

A widening values disconnect challenges black leadership constructs today. Traditional black values are basically unchanged since at least the 19th century, including: respect for God and the church; the importance of family and children; and respect for hard work and those who do it.

Black leaders still champion those values. However, the vast majority also identify themselves as Democrats. As that party’s values move further away from traditional black values, many leaders, especially those with a church affiliation, are under pressure to “choose this day whom ye will serve” – whether the values that sustained black people through slavery, then Reconstruction and Jim Crow, or those that reflect modern liberalism.

That biblical foundation for traditional black values further complicates matters for black church leaders who are Democrats; some scriptural teachings conflict with party platform positions. For example, while the conflict between no “respect of persons” and affirmative action is negotiated, conflicts about abortion remain. More recently, homosexual marriage pitted traditional black values against Democrat party values.

In response, the Old Guard is divided. Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton and others fully support homosexual marriage; Jackson has said he would officiate an homosexual marriage. On the other side, Coalition of African American Pastors’ founder and president, Rev. William Owens, denounced the president’s support for homosexual marriage and the more than 3,000-member organization wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder saying Martin Luther King, Jr., would have opposed it. Still others try an awkward balance of supporting Obama while opposing homosexual marriage.

This turmoil among the Old Guard leadership is an opportunity for blacks to reach that last progression step of “Releasing” by finding and supporting a less-compromised leadership structure – or no structure at all – that will facilitate their connection to the larger society.

Perhaps it is time for blacks to choose what they consistently believe, not accept guidance from leaders whose positions are increasingly inconsistent.

This is not a call for blacks to abandon the black clergy or the church. It is, however, a call for individual blacks to form and hold to their own beliefs instead of being counted on to believe certain things simply because they are…well…black.

There are consistent black leaders, with and without church affiliation. Consider Furquan R. Stafford, Sr., Chairman & CEO of C.P. Plasma Center, Inc., who occasionally shares information on this blog; he is a Democrat. Or Sebrena Kelly, President and Founder of Caribbean & American Global Business Connections, who affiliates herself with the People’s Party.

Or Jennifer Freeman, the “Conservative Liberal” Founder and CEO of Freeman Young Consulting LLC; or Minister Helena M. Titus, a Democrat who founded PowerGirl Ministries.

These are not necessarily well-known leaders, but they are examples of people with clear views, not given to compromising their values, and desire to help others.

Blacks are a substantial people, with a core set of values that mirror the best of America. They also hold a variety of views which are not well-represented by Old Guard leaders who risk groin injury by trying to keep one foot on Holy Ground, and the other on the Democrat Party platform, as those two viewpoints move further apart.

While some of those leaders struggle, it creates an opening for an even greater number of new leaders. Leaders who are less compromised and more focused on seeing results than on being seen. Perhaps, this is their chance to be heard and to be effective. Sometimes, less (Old Guard) is more (black leadership).

Can We Get Any More Ridiculous Than The Obama and Romney Tapes?

Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: September 20, 2012

In a campaign that lingers far too long, while discussing far too little about major issues, we have hit a new low, though I doubt this will be the lowest point. We have Barack Obama voicing his support for the socialist standard of wealth redistribution back in 1998:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4[/youtube]

Hard to understand why this is news. There was “Joe the Plumber” during the 2008 campaign:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqI5PSRcXM[/youtube]

Redistribution, spread the wealth around, tax the top 2% – no matter what shade of lipstick one puts on this pig, it oinks socialism. For his part, Mitt Romney is on video saying this at a fundraiser earlier this year:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvqHERTcytI[/youtube]

So, one candidate, the incumbent, tacitly admits to being a socialist while the other candidate believes 47% of the electorate will not vote for him because they prefer the “free” benefits provided by an increasingly socialistic government. Each man’s view and vision of America is starkly different from his opponent. The Obama and Romney tapes do nothing more than express those differences in sound bite and video bite form. However, the reaction to the tapes – more emotional than political, and more political than substantive – is much ado about nothing new.

Interestingly, the reaction to the Romney 47% statement is more pronounced than the reaction to Obama’s socialism. One reason, of course, is that very few people are ignorant of the president’s ideology. Another reason is the remarkably poor wording of Gov. Romney’s statements, provided he was not seeking to offend. However, the more important reason for the unequal reaction likely has more to do with how Obama and his supporters want to frame the campaign than it has to do with what is on these tapes.

There is a significant ongoing effort by the Obama campaign, with help from pollsters and some in the press, to keep the focus of the campaign on ANYTHING other than the Obama record on the economy and jobs. Regarding the polls, it is now known that pollsters skew their results in Obama’s favor. They query greater numbers of people who are more likely to support the president than they do of people more likely to support Romney. NBC has admitted as much on air:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzCB_tXSf0A[/youtube]

Some members of the press actually believed Romney’s quick reaction to the attack on the US Embassy in Libya was bigger news than the attack itself:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uUvi0hYBaM[/youtube]

Others are quick to seize on any economic headline that trumpets potential recovery, even when the larger picture remains bleak. As major news organizations seized on a small decrease in initial jobless claims prior to the presidents DNC nomination acceptance speech, they did not report that the US economy needs to create 150,000 jobs monthly just to keep pace with the growing labor pool. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy has not done that since February of this year.

So, while the ranks of the un- and underemployed have grown in each of the last 6 months, the press reports instead that things are improving. The number one issue in this presidential campaign, as it was in the last one, is jobs and the economy – and the press will not report accurately on the subject. Instead, the current focus is on what Obama said 14 years ago, and what Romney said in a closed gathering of donors.

There is even less attention paid to the budget deficit, which has topped $1 Trillion again this year, according to the CBO. Medicare could go broke four years from now, but the media presses neither candidate for a plan. Social Security is staring at unfunded liabilities of more than $20 Trillion (as is Medicare), but the press is asking no question about what either campaign believes is the answer for helping these programs continue. Neither are they asking how the administration’s current cuts in the payroll tax, which funds both Social Security and Medicare, are impacting the short and long term outlook for either program.

It’s hard to find either candidate answering questions about these topics, or immigration, or energy policy, or any other topic that affects the future of the country. Instead, the current focus is on what Obama said 14 years ago, and what Romney said in a closed gathering of donors.

And the election is less than 50 days away.

For me, this is simple. The Obama campaign, with help from pollsters and the press, do not want to talk about the issues. They realize that as long as the campaign is a pure popularity contest, Obama should run away with it. However, if Obama has to defend his record: on the economy, on entitlements, on budgets and the deficit, and now – with the torture and death of the US Ambassador to Libya – foreign policy, it is difficult to see how Obama avoids tar and feathers.

Nevertheless, America has pressing problems that demand a serious debate among those who seek to lead her. Unfortunately, it does not seem that the incumbent wants to debate those issues. It does not seem that the press wants to orchestrate such a debate. And we are running out of time.

Funny, but no one can find time to talk about the country’s future. But somehow, we have enough time to talk about what each candidate has said in the past.

How did “Yes We Can” become “No One Ever Could”?

On Election Night, 2008, a new president-elect called the nation to the ready:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiskE1Jsr6A[/youtube]

On the canvas of Ann Nixon Cooper’s 106-year life, Barack Obama painted more than a century of American victories: over wartime enemies, over slavery and oppressive segregation, over financial catastrophe, over travel to a world away. Each eloquently recalled conquest of American resolve brought tears to American eyes, not just in Chicago’s Grant Park, but across the country, and increasingly louder repeats of the campaign slogan: Yes We Can. Each mention built confidence that the nation’s challenges on that night were no greater than those already overcome. The recession would end, jobs would abound, prosperity would increase because America, like the God in whom she trusts, was able: Yes We Can.

By 2012, however, many of 2008’s economic challenges remained; some were worse. The recession ended, but prosperity did not reappear. More than a year after the “stimulus” bill, which the administration said would cap unemployment at 8%, President Obama told the nation 9.6% unemployment wasn’t so bad:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6utL1Gl6VQU[/youtube]

Labor participation rates decreased; the percentage of Americans working or looking for work hit a 3-decade low. In February 2009, 141.7 million Americans held jobs (see page 2); by August 2012, the number was 142.1 million (see page 4), an increase of less than a half million workers, despite the Obama campaign website’s claim of 4.6 million jobs created in the last 30 months. While CNN and others dispute the Obama claims, the president told the nation, in June 2012 regarding job creation, that “the private sector is doing fine.”

More startling than the Obama economic record was the explanation for it given at the 2012 Democratic National Convention:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3-eknQ5nlM[/youtube]

When the current president’s “lawyer” in this case is a former president who once offered to a federal grand jury,

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHlt1W83JFU[/youtube]

because of another statement he made,

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBe_guezGGc[/youtube]

the question is just how hard is one’s leg being pulled? And Clinton’s credibility issues include things other than what led to his impeachment.

Wagging the same crooked index finger that assured the nation he did not have sex with Monica Lewwinsky, Clinton excoriated the GOP and said the “Arithmetic” he brought to Washington, D.C. led to 4 consecutive balanced budgets under his administration.

Really?

Clinton, like Obama, had Democrat majorities in the House and Senate at the start of his first term. Clinton, like Obama, saw his party suffer harsh defeat in his first midterm election. The 1994 GOP “Contract with America” gave Republicans their first House majority since 1954 and a Senate majority; the GOP maintained both throughout the Clinton administration. Once the GOP held the nation’s purse strings, the Clinton budgets came into balance.

Bill Clinton’s “Arithmetic” did not balance the budget. The American electorate provided adult supervision, in the form of the Republican Party, to balance Clinton’s budgets, and produce surpluses “as far as the eye could see”.

During that long DNC speech, Clinton neglected to mention that, along with budget surpluses, he also left a recession. Clinton’s GOP successor handled that, and the economic turmoil caused by the September 11, 2001, terror attacks…by cutting taxes. Barack Obama mocked the GOP’s use of tax cuts to combat economic ills:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S60pGZzB7A4[/youtube]

Yet George W. Bush did take two tax cuts (2001, 2003). When morning arrived, income tax revenues increased; by 2005, Bush’s lower rates generated more annual revenue than the best years of Clinton’s higher rates:

US Income taxes 1997 - 2008

Additionally, employment increased; note job growth from 2004 through 2007:

US Employment 2000 - 2008

Democrats say tax cuts do not work and no president could have handled the 2007 – 2009 recession in one term. But one president, plus 2 tax cuts, IN ONE TERM, overcame a recession and the worst terrorist attacks on record to grow federal revenues and national employment. No economic “stimulus” or “jobs” bill, just the same old “aspirin” Obama wants to avoid. Had the subprime mortgage bubble, which would have destroyed ANY economy, not burst, the US economy might still be humming.

And Bush was not alone. The Kennedy Administration responded to the 1960 – 61 recession by cutting taxes:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU[/youtube]

JFK, a Democrat, expected lower taxes to spur growth in his decade as the Bush cuts did last decade. The 1960’s saw the nation flush with enough cash to send a man to the moon, start the Great Society anti-poverty programs, and increase its war effort in South Viet Nam. One president, one tax cut, ONE TERM – a decade of federal largesse.

Ronald Regan took two tax cuts (1981, 1986), responding to the Carter “malaise” and the recessions of 1980 and 1981 – 82. The US economy began the longest post-World War II expansion up to that time, and Reagan presided over reversals of double-digit inflation, unemployment and federal interest rates in ONE TERM.

It is difficult to fathom President Clinton’s argument that no one president could have turned around the bad economy in a single term when at least three presidents did just that. One of them was a Democrat. The Republicans faced circumstances more challenging than Obama: high interest rates and high inflation complicated matters for Reagan; the loss of New York’s World Trade Center not only exacerbated the recession Bush inherited, but dampened the national mood. Still, all three presidents, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush 43, successfully addressed recessions in ONE TERM…and used income tax cuts to do so.

Bill Clinton, who raised taxes in 1993, may not grasp that concept. Obama has threatened “targeted” tax hikes since before his election, so he may not “get it’, either.

Perhaps what Clinton should have said is, “No one president, who ascribes to the same ideology that I and President Obama share, could have fixed this economy in one term.”

But here’s a question: How can a president, whose ideology blinds him to sound economic policy, fix in a second term what isn’t corrected in the first, given that his ideology remains the same?

An Impassioned Plea…Or a Misleading Performance?

Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: September 6, 2012

Michelle Obama addresses the DNC

Michelle Obama gave a powerful speech at the Democrat National Convention on Tuesday, making her case to delegates and the nation for her husband to get a second presidential term. She was emotional, enthusiastic, fully engaged. It moved many to tears, not just in the auditorium in Charlotte, NC, but in living rooms across the country. It will be one of the most memorable speeches given by any candidate’s wife at any nominating convention. However, now that the cheering has stopped, there is a chance to look more closely at Mrs. Obama words and be less moved by her impressive delivery.

To begin, the speech’s tone was that of one begging a parole board for their loved one’s release. Mrs. Obama did her best to convince those who do not know her man to see the good in him, to understand the man she knows, and to let her vision sway their decision. The trouble is, while an actual parole board may know little of those whose fate they decide, the American electorate is hardly ignorant of Barack Obama.

After four years, most voters know what they think of the president, and whether they support him. Further, the undecided are not likely to make up their minds based on his wife’s appeal. With $16 Trillion of national debt (more than a third of it added since Obama’s inauguration), 23 – 25 million Americans un- or under-employed, uncertainty regarding tax rates, and unhappiness with the president’s signature legislation, there are simply weightier issues for the electorate than whether Michelle Obama supports her husband’s re-election.

Moreover, what president remains a mystery four years in? After all the speeches, interviews, press conferences, and, of course, legislative and political battles since January 2009, what insight can the First Lady provide that can outweigh the impact, good and bad, of the president’s policies in the minds of voters?

Consequently, Michelle Obama’s Tuesday magnificence was, quoting Shakespeare’s Macbeth:

[A] poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more…full of sound and fury –
Signifying nothing.

However, that is not the real issue. Mrs. Obama painted a picture of the “struggling” Obamas. According to her speech, the president drove her around car with rust holes that allowed her to see the pavement, his best pair of shoes were a half size too small, and his proudest possession was a coffee table rescued from a dumpster. That is an interesting account.

The Obamas met in 1989, at the prestigious Sidley & Austine law firm in Chicago. He was a summer intern, following his first year at Harvard Law School; she was one of the firm’s associate attorneys and his mentor at the firm. By the time they met, Barack Obama had graduated from Columbia University, worked for a year each at the Business International Corporation and the New York Public Interest Research Group in New York City, worked 3 years as director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago, worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, traveled to Europe for 3 weeks, and to Kenya for another 5 weeks.

That does not sound like someone whose finances dictated trash bin furniture shopping.

Mrs. Obama also made the point that neither she nor her husband came from families that had much in the way of money or possessions. However, Mrs. Obama’s humble beginnings story was blown up by the British press during the last campaign. The report indicates the president’s father-in-law earned nearly $43,000/year, before overtime, as an engineer at Chicago’s water plant. Forty-three thousand dollars in 1975 equals about $186,000 today.

Michelle Obama’s characterization of her upbringing being modest financially seems a bit of a stretch.

So, why would Michelle Obama misrepresent her background to give herself a poorer childhood? Perhaps it relates to concerns about the president’s “blackness”, raised in the last election cycle and again in this one. Obama already has a family background and experience to which most blacks do not relate. Giving him less money as a child is a way to get more votes by making him appear more in touch.

The next obvious question is, if she’s dishonest about this, did she say anything else about the president that requires a fact-check? How about his compassion? Some may recall Rep. Maxine Waters’ (D-CA) open questioning of Obama’s concern for unemployed blacks during the president’s summer jobs tour last year:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOMYEttH5fM[/youtube]

Michelle Obama is an intelligent woman. Too intelligent not to know someone would poke holes in her speech, especially since her “humble beginnings” assertions had already been exposed. Yet she wove those debunked claims into a masterful speech, delivered with emotional power and seeming sincerity. One can only wonder why.

Perhaps she’s right about her background and all the investigative reporters are wrong. Unfortunately, that is unlikely. Perhaps she so loves her husband that, in her mind, she should be allowed a recycled falsehood or two in supporting him. That is possible. Or, perhaps she wants to guard against what Rep. Waters indicated could occur: black political leaders hearing that they can start holding the president accountable on issues that concern them. That seems more plausible.

Michelle Obama is a smart woman who knows that if black elected officials abandon her husband, then he is done. Therefore, Michelle Obama is ready to keep her husband in the Oval Office…by any means necessary. Enter Tuesday’s masterful presentation at the Democrat National Convention.

After all, there are more vegetables to grow, more dresses to wear, and more vacations to take. And Air Force Two is only hers as long as her husband remains president of the United States.

So, was it an impassioned plea, or a misleading performance? Perhaps a bit of both, but I very much dislike being misled, especially by someone who looks me in the eye to do so.

Get Government Out Of Marriage Before Politics Takes Over…Again.

Politicians and advocates, on both sides, have all had their about same-sex marriage in this election cycle. Now, they have moved on to the coming November referendum on the current administration. That battle is more economic; social issues, apart from Sandra Fluke‘s free birth control, have lost their moment in the campaign spotlight.

In the wake of the latest “debate”, there is a tattered and confused narrative regarding the bedrock institution of any society: marriage. Depending on whom you heed, either the nation is moving inexorably toward “legalizing” homosexual marriage, or 31 US states banning homosexual marriage, either by popular vote or by their legislatures (including California twice and, most recently North Carolina), tell a different story. Adding to the disparate narrative is the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, whereby Congress relieved each state from having to recognize marriages performed outside its borders.

There is adequate information, whether electoral, or legislative, even a presidential weigh-in, for anyone to adopt any position they wish on homosexual marriage and find assurance that their view is…reasonable.

So, while the political class hyperventilates over the coming election, now is an opportunity to make a clear statement about marriage in the US…before there is another Chick-fil-A moment. In the interest of full disclosure, my view of homosexual behavior does not deviate from what appears in the Holy Bible. However, my view on marriage will surprise many, even those who know me well. Here goes….

It should not concern the government, particularly the federal government, who marries whom. Further, and taking a libertarian stance, states should exit the business of licensing, and legislating either for or against marriage. In other words, marriage is God’s institution; it can, and should, rise or fall on its own merit.

Some will argue that government should promote marriage; plentiful and strong marriages benefit society. I agree that marriage benefits society, which helps governments. However, given the US divorce rate, while marriage benefits government, government support is not helping marriage. Indeed, it is hard to imagine why an institution that gave rise to the principles of government, and which existed when there was no formal government, should now need government to thrive, or even to continue. And it certainly does not need government to define it.

So what should government do about the state and nature of marriage? I recall Frederick Douglass’ response to what America should do with the Negro:

“I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!”

Government involvement has indeed already played mischief with marriage. It created a preferred tax position – but why should one’s marital status impact the amount of taxes they pay? Do the unmarried work less hard for, or have less need of, their earnings?

Government has determined that a married person whose spouse dies should receive more in government payments, but couples in financial distress could only receive more government money if the man physically separates from his family and children. Giving a widowed person more government money for their loss, but withholding government help from married couples unless they live apart plays mischief with marriage.

That last one has done particular harm to the black community, pushing marriage rates lower and illegitimacy rates higher in the last half-century.

Now, government would seek to define marriage, to say what it is, whose union qualifies for governmental sanction, to say what schools teach about marriage? An effective government emulates both the structure and function of marriage and the family. How is it that government should presume to define, or re-define, what gave rise to it?

How much more mischief can government play with marriage?

America should remove government from marriage, letting it be an article of faith for those who choose to live that united life:

    • Stop taxing people differently because of their marital status,
    • Stop dictating who can enter a hospital room on that basis, and
    • Abandon the divorce and family laws that give governments, via the courts, control over the assets and children of married couples. Make those who form relationships as an article of faith, keep that faith with regard to offspring and property, whether or not they choose to stay together.

Finally, regarding homosexual marriage, I neither sanction nor support it. Nevertheless, I do not oppose two people uniting their lives, and they can call that union whatever they like. Everyone knows what marriage is; taking the government out of the equation makes the issue a matter of conscience rather than one of politics, which is clearly what marriage has become.

Before the politicians get revved up again, perhaps we take this matter off the table. Eliminating government preferences mutes political arguments. Ending government endorsement heads off discussions of unfairness. Killing government efforts to define marriage puts everyone on notice that the issue is between them and the Almighty, as it should be.

He will have His way with all who seek to use, or misuse, His institution when all is said and done. Government should leave marriage alone.

Copyright 2012. blackmanthinkin.com

«page 5 of 7»

The World of Black Man Thinkin’
ARTICLE ARCHIVES
WDFP Radio Show Archives

Welcome , today is Sunday, December 22, 2024