Tuesday, June 30, 2009


Inside Politics Daily: The GOP's Minority Outreach?

I posted a comment in response to the article listed above.
I signed up for an account to have my words posted.
I received the confirmation e-mail.
My words were up on the message thread for a hot minute.

What happened?

What happened was - I EDITED THE SCRIPT.

You see - yet another "Democrat Who Is Black" wrote a story seeking to make Black political loyalties a function of RACIST WHITE REPUBLICANS and their ignorant actions. I wrote a reply asking these same "Democrats Who Are Black" if they are more offended by the two recent ignorant Republicans making racially tinged jokes about the Obamas OR IF THE SAME LEVEL OF OFFENSE REGISTERED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT DEMOCRATS CONTROL EVERY SINGLE LOCAL INSTITUTION WHERE BLACK PEOPLE LIVE IN OUR HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS.

This must have been considered "Hate Speech" and thus I was deleted.

I have had my words recently deleted from an NPR blog and a contributor to "Tech Nation" - when I dare ask questions of the author.

Do you all ever wonder about the words that YOU NEVER GET TO SEE on the Progressive news sources that you flock to? With the discretion of the editor - they are never allowed to appear for you to see.

I originally started this specific blog as a means of posting my own words as a shadow copy of that which was likely going to be deleted.


Ms. Curtis:

Why do you base your notion of "minority outreach" on the "offensive
words" said by a few Republicans while ignoring the present facts in
Black America? Today every single majority Black voting district has
its institutions controlled by the a member of the Democratic Party.
Despite all of the grievances that I hear about our people's present
circumstances I am more inclined to hear more repudiation of the
Republican party over words that some previously unknown member has
said that was offensive than I ever hear our community show more
outrage over the machine that is shorting us on the promises that
they have made in order to obtain our votes.

Just imagine if the historical great, Fannie Lou Hamer was so
sensitive as you purport to be? She drove all the way from
Mississippi to Atlantic City NJ to demand a seat at the Democratic
National Convention in 1964. Beyond one individual saying something
offensive to her - the entire Democratic Party apparatus stood
against her. It was a good thing that she "keep her eyes on the
prize" as she noted that her goal was to gain POLITICAL
REPRESENTATION for her people on her way to achieving her "permanent
interests". She did not allow personal insults, even in this broad
scale to deter her.

It is my view that our community today is suffering from a force far
more threatening than the "Southern Strategy". Whereas this strategy
focused on scapegoating Blacks to obtain Black votes.....whatever the
Democratic Party machine is using they are getting the Black
community to look past the shortfalls in what was promised to us and
"keep trying harder" so that one day it will come.

If you could detail specifically how the "Southern Strategy" is
impacting our communities today I'd love to hear it.


Monday, June 29, 2009

BET Michael Jackson Tribute Critics - Why Do You Hate Black People?

Michael Langston Moore - Dear BET: The Michael Jackson Tribute (and Awards Show) Was an Embarrassment

I have not yet watched the BET Awards show that was broadcast last night. It resides on my Tivo. I will watch it some time this week.

For now I am listening to the "real Black people" who have seen the show and obtain their views. Thus far I have seen critical comments regarding the unprofessionalism and baffoonery that has taken place.


Black people have finally achieved what we as a community has long strived for: Having WHITE FOLKS come into our forum and WATCH US perform in relation to our de facto standard - all without their influence otherwise.

This was "Black America" on stage last night. All within its 'untethered' glory.

Did they make you proud?

What are you going to do to hone the rough edges?

Did they live up to YOUR standards?

Would you be comfortable in letting YOUR YOUNG KIDS watch the show to see an artist that YOU idolozed when you were their age?

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Jada Pinkett Smith In "HawthoRNe" - Another Activist Drama

Keep in mind that the Jada P-S character is a "head nurse" not a doctor.

In the video above she is seen overriding the 2 doctors in the room in order to save the life of the character played by Malcolm Jamal Warner. Though the patient has expired per the procedures ordered by the doctor - the lead character of the show who is a NURSE stepped in front of the physicians and kept trying. Since this is Hollywood - the patient wakes back up, showing up the doctors.

I actually like the medical drama that Vivica Fox played in better ("City of Angles"?). While it also had the same sort of medical advocacy at least it was a bit more realistic.

In HawthoRNe - they should have just made Jada a doctor. I am always going to be bothered by the rank thing. Hospitals have all sorts of liability issues that would prevent a nurse to do the things that the Jada character is doing.

She even comes out to talk to the wife of the Malcolm J-W character. Again, something a doctor is expected to do.

Then she has this radical activist daughter who chained herself to the vending machines in her high school as she protested the food and beverage choices.

The show needs a bit of some fine tuning.

Hide the agenda a bit better. "Lincoln Heights" has the same problem of deliberacy.

Monday, June 22, 2009

I Wish That Cynthia Tucker Was Concerned About "Following The Money" In The Health Care Debate

(note - this is a partial post. I will edit it in full later)

First we have the AJC's Cynthia Tucker - my favorite little "muckraker" suggesting that we "follow the money" in the health care debate.

Follow the money in Rx debate

No. No. No. Not the $1,600 billion that they claim at this point it will cost over 10 years. This would not be Cynthia Tucker if she suggested that we focus on this.

Ms Tucker asks that we focus on the LEGISLATORS and their VESTED PERSONAL INTERESTS in various health care concerns. You see as a "hypocrite chaser" this is about what she is reduced into considering. If she can shame the opponents of health care reform then, in her mind, she has actually JUSTIFIED the cause to move forward with this plan.

Next we have Ms Tucker's story in which she says that we can no longer afford the "hands off" approach that we have been used to. We need government intervention.

Market won’t fix Rx care

Once again her role is not to sell us on that big 1,600 trillion price tag over 10 years. I would be remiss if I did not remind Ms Tucker of her opposition to Bush's 10 year $768 billion Medicare Part D bill for seniors. I still struggle to understand how the drug program which had a doughnut hole and thus didn't cover all seniors was "only" $768 billion YET a massive health care reform that purports to cover the drugs and medical procedures for at least 47 million people without health care is "only" going to cost twice as much as Medicare Part D? Something does not sound right on this one.

I will keep watching out for the article in which Ms Tucker attacks President Obama for spending too much money on a health care program - just as she did with Bush.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Making Note Of The Media Coverage About Monica Conyers - John Conyers' Wife

City councilwoman says advice of her congressman husband is to 'be quiet and shut up'

Again - First dispensing of my bias - I am no fan of this "power couple". Mrs. Conyers showed herself last year with her battle with the Council President and then with the dust up with the little school girl that came to visit her and asked her the wrong question.

John Conyers has an unrepairable track record with me. He is long past his functionality and credibility with me.

With the news that Monica Conyers is under federal investigation for bribery in "vote buying" - lets see how the "Black Media" covers this one.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Obama's Abortion Views Are Not His Most Reprehensible Views Toward Blacks - Ms Barber

Ms Barber:

I am more "offended" by the words below of "candidate Obama" than I am about his willingness to allow a woman to terminate the life of the being in her womb:

[quote] And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.[/quote]

In this example Obama speaks of the SERVICES needed for "the Blacks" but seemingly has no clue that, BY DEFINITION, these CITIES were incorporated because the people WITHIN believed that they could develop a better life if the state allowed them to collect their own taxes and run their own affairs.

Obama and other progressives see "being all alone" in some perverted sense of abandonment.

HIS POLITICAL MACHINE worked for the past 4 decades to TAKE POLITICAL CONTROL of these domains, adding to their POWER. Instead of forging a stronger community now that they have dispensed of their adversary ideology....they seek to use these bases for taxation and redistribution at the next higher rung (the county, the state, the federal government [and one day - the world])

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.[/quote]

Let us dissect this rant.

1) Disparities IN THE African-American Community? If taken literally he is saying that while BT lives in the luxury of McLean VA while his brothers live in Trinidad, Washington DC the INTRA-RACIAL disparities are due to SLAVERY AND JIM CROW???????

How is this so Mr Obama? If BOTH of their families were "descendants from slaves" WHAT about the solidly middle class Black family allowed them to escape the clutches of "slavery and Jim Crow" that ensnared the "poor Black"? What of the POOR WHITE?

Mr Obama - I suspect that the 6 year old little boy that will start the first grade in the fall has more of his academic preparation derived from what his parent(s) and community DID or DID NOT DO to a greater extent than ANYTHING that can be attributed to "slavery and Jim Crow". The fact that no one else called him out on this is telling.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.[/quote]

THIS, BY FAR is the most IGNORANT and "RACIAL INFERIORIST" thing I have EVER heard from Barack Obama.

WHAT about today's schools have not been FIXED from 1956?

For several decades Black people have had solid representation on the school board administration and in some schools "We run things now" - as one Clayton County GA campaign poster said.

That "all Black high school" in the Black section of town? It has "a favorable administration" defining the SCHOOL CULTURE. I saw this with my own eyes.

WHAT about these schools "have yet to be FIXED, Mr Obama?

This is pure empty rhetoric that stokes the Black "racism chasers" and appeals to the sentiments of the guilt filled "White liberal".

THE MACHINE that Barack Obama leads NOW RUNS every single majority Black school in America!!!!!

It is now time to rollout a better MANAGEMENT PLAN to hold these agents that RUN OUR INSTITUTIONS ACCOUNTABLE!!!!!

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Hufftingon Post - Refers To Usher's WIFE As "The Mother Of His Children"

What About Our Daughters Blog

Huffington Post to Black Women: Y’all are all BABY MAMAS to Us!

As I’ve previously stated, I’m not a marriage supremacist. However, I do make a distinction between WIFE and “Baby Mama.” So does the Huffington Post, aka Hipster Racist Headquarters. You see, when you are Angelina Jolie, you’re Brad Pitt’s “Partner.” When you’re married to Mel Gibson and he decides to throw you over for a younger woman, you’re a “wife”. But if you happen to be a BLACK woman who is married, then you are a “Baby Mama” or “Mother of his Babies.” Exhibit A, this headline regarding the impending divorce of Usher Raymond, IV from Tameka Foster Raymond:

My comments:

[quote]I think liberal sites like the Huff post are often no more progressive than much of the main stream news and they perpetuate racist and sexist stereotypes with the best of them. They often subscribe to the “All the blacks are men and all the women are white mentality” so this doesn’t surprise me at all.[/quote]

So are you saying that PROGRESSIVES are free from the same tendency to “inferiorize” Black people? I don’t think so.

So many Black people easily accept the notions of ‘conservative racism’ and by dropping the name “Fox News” is enough to get folks riled up to take the bait.

As we look at the various POLICIES that are labeled as “Progressive” - so many of them require Black people to “assume the position”, hunching our backs for the sake of receiving some temporary benefit.


Certainly not for our “Racial Consciousness”.

If the PROGRESSIVE was as his name indicates he would see that EQUALITY IS A TWO WAY STREET. Just as we as Blacks ask that SOCIETY show us that we are EQUALS via how they treat us……there is a complimentary need for us to acts as EQUALS. This means that we grow to the point where we REFUSE TO BEND OUR BACKS when some “racial inferiorist” operating under the banner of progressivism asks us to put on a neck brace for him so we can receive a damage award.

At some point we must say “No thank you. My dignity is worth more than the entitlement that you seek on my behalf.”

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Cynthia Tucker - I Owe You An Apology - You Didn't Print The Type Of Obama Press Release That I Though You Would

AJC's Cynthia Tucker: GOP blew up budget themselves

Ms Tucker - please allow me this opportunity to apologize to you - at least temporarily.
I went on the record in predicting that you would release an article this week defending Barack Obama's Health Care Initiative that he was marketing this week.


You in fact did not talk about Barack Obama's Health Care Plan. Instead you found a different angle to attack the Republican Party and thus defend Barack Obama's spending. You fooled me this week.

I take it that you will do the health care article next week IF Obama and the Federal Democrats make it their priority next week.

It would be easier to take Republicans seriously on government spending now if they’d ever complained about spending during the tenure of President George W. Bush — especially during the six years when they controlled government and could have cut spending dramatically. They could have fought the Pentagon on expensive and unnecessary weapons, eliminated farm subsidies to wealthy growers and pared back Medicare.

Instead, they did just the opposite. They slashed taxes and substantially increased government spending, burning through the estimated $800 billion annual surplus the federal government had accumulated under Bill Clinton. The Republican-dominated Congress even passed a huge entitlement, the fiscally foolish prescription drug plan for the elderly.

Now, though, with Democrats in control, Republicans are fiscal conservatives again — or so they say. All the fuss about mounting deficits prompted President Barack Obama to tell Congress last week that he’d reintroduce the “pay as you go’” law, which expired in 2002. It would require new spending programs be paid for with budget cuts or revenue increases. And it’s not a bad idea.

But, believe it or not, Obama’s recent spending has contributed only a couple of shovels-full toward digging this deep fiscal hole. The recession, which slashed tax receipts, did much more. And policies implemented by the previous administration were like a giant backhoe from the movie “Transformers” — digging, digging, digging.

President Bush chose to overthrow Saddam Hussein and hide the costs off-budget, becoming the first president to go to war without a tax increase to pay for it. By the time all U.S. troops have left Iraq, that war is likely to have cost two trillion dollars. And Bush’s tax cuts would have left us in a fiscal slough even without the recession. With an aging population and more spending on entitlements, there’s a growing gap between revenue coming in and revenue going out.

For all the Republicans’ criticism of the stimulus package, Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress were right to pour money into the fight against the Great Recession. Most economists agree that the federal government shouldn’t worry about deficits when the economy is edging toward the apocalypse. The $787 billion stimulus package is a key reason Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke now sees “green shoots” suggesting an economic upswing by next year.

Obama isn’t off the hook, of course. If he runs for re-election in 2012 and the country is still swimming in red ink, he’ll have a huge problem. So there’s every political reason to believe he’ll have come up with a plan to reduce deficits before then.

But with Republicans trying to reclaim the mantle of fiscal conservatism, they ought to have something important to contribute to the debate. They don’t. The plan introduced by House Republicans, which they claim would save $75 billion a year, has specific spending cuts amounting to only about $5 billion. During the March budget debate, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) slammed “earmarks,” but Republicans grabbed a substantial portion of them for their districts.

They spent no time fighting against huge money-wasters such as agricultural subsidies. Instead, Republicans such as Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss helped protect subsidies for agribusinesses. Worse, the GOP’s signature economic prescription is cutting taxes. That’s voodoo economics, just as it was when George H.W. Bush said so in 1980.

If that’s the best the GOP can do on fiscal conservatism, they won’t regain credibility any time soon.

You know Ms Tucker - I see this type of debating style used frequently and I work to shoot it down as being fraudulent whenever I get the opportunity to do so.

You see Ms Tucker - just as I have previously exposed the local Black talkshow host who called all critics of Obama's stance on abortion "hypocrites" BECAUSE they say nothing about the life taken during the Death Penalty - this sort of argument fails to address the people who ARE against both abortion and the death penalty. Thus it shows that the talkshow host is not interesed in promoting "consistency" she was only interested in exposing hypocrisy.

YOUR argument follows this model just the same. You believe that you have achieved adequate defense for Obama's spending (your real goal) by pointing to the silent Republicans as George Bush was in office.

Ms Tucker - what of the Republicans who WERE outraged over the spending back then and now? I point to radio talkshow host and fellow columnist Larry Elder as one of these people who steadily attacked Bush over spending. Not that you have any inclination to promote the consistency of Mr Elder since you disagree with him on so many other issues.

Let me take the high road, Ms. Tucker and set some parameters.

First we have to agree that THERE IS A GRAVE PROBLEM WITH FEDERAL DEBT AND FUTURE INSOLVENCY OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE. Every Democrat and Republican is on the same ship that is sinking. Even if you "win" at painting Republicans as hypocrites you STILL LOSE if you fail to call out wreckless debt spending by the Democrats that currently control the federal government with two strong majorities in the legislatures.

I am curious to see when you do write your health care article in support of Obama's plans. This plan will be pegged at $2 trillion over 10 years. We all know the real deal of lowballed federal spending estimates on health care. Since you attacked Medicare Part D which was about $750 billion over 10 years due to its expense I am sure that you will have a problem with $2, 000 billion, right?

Friday, June 12, 2009

AJC's Cythia Tucker - I Will Bet Anyone About Her Sunday Column - Selling Obamacare

Cynthia Tucker - Obama's Sales Girl

Ok - today is Friday. Cynthia Tucker posts her column that runs in the Sunday paper on the Saturday AJC web site.

I will bet ANYONE who is willing to go in with me that the subject of her column on Sunday will be a sales job IN SUPPORT OF Obama's Health Care Proposal. She is going to speak in glowing terms about the program and wage an attack on the critics.

We must put her present views into context. About 6 years ago when evil George W Bush pushed for Medicare Part D she bashed Bush over the head. The program was sold as a $500 billion bill over 10 years and then it jumped to $750 billion. She said that this was unaffordable and that the elderly didn't really need this spending anyway.

Barack Obama is saying that his bill will cost $1,000 billion over this same 10 year period but others are putting it at $2,000 billion. I ASSURE YOU THAT CYNTHIA TUCKER WILL NOT BE MENTIONING ANYTHING ABOUT COST PROHIBITIONS in her column.

You see - this type of debt is "good debt" in her view.

I am convinced that it will take a California style financial meltdown for the United States to reset the views of Ms Tucker and other liberal AND to stop the roll of Barack Obama.

Too many people believe that the "legislative victory" is the KEY VICTORY. They are wrong. The real victory is in putting forth ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AND SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS that can endure the financial challenges of this nation.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009


I actually give credit to this specific MSNBC host. She worked to refract the guy's critique on her employer and sought to keep him in the box.

She and everyone else knows the deal about MSNBC though.

Chris Mathews Asks About The Patriotism Of The Conservative Boycott of General Motors

I got a chance to watch the debate on "Hardball" regarding the "unpatriotic" boycott of General Motors that is being talked up by some Conservatives. I laughed at the attempt by known Democratic operative Chris Mathews to craft a controversy.

If Mr Mathews were serious he would compare the potential damage of evil conservatives purchasing Ford instead of GM with the more clearly observable preference for foreign cars by young, single women. Without even doing a formal study it is clear to me that more young single women purchase foreign brand cars than they do American brands.

The next Democratic rally that Mr. Mathews hosts - he should go out to the parking lot and see for himself. In fact I bet that the MSNBC parking lot has more foreign cars than American cars.

Saturday, June 6, 2009

MSNBC Host Looks Good But Is Clueless On The Issues Facing This Nation Beyond Rush Limbaugh

Magic Negro Watch:

I am not sure who that fine chocolate sister is on MSNBC but she is clearly in on the game despite her positioning.

The GOP guy botched his response to her.

HE SHOULD HAVE ASKED HER if SHE THOUGHT that the Obama $1,800 billion federal deficit and the one next year that is expected to be $1,600 billion WAS SUSTAINABLE.

In effect the antics of Bill Press and MSNBC was on display instead of doing scrutiny and critical analysis of the NATIONAL issue at hand they indeed want to make this about Rush Limbaugh.

California of today is the United States of tomorrow in regards to financial insolvency and the need to make radical cuts to stay afloat.

Friday, June 5, 2009

Rush Limbaugh Wuz Right About The Media As The Democrats Take Control Of The Entire Government

I know that as a Black man I am expected to hate Rush Limbaugh and actively repudiate his message....lest I be a "sellout".

I believe that the man is insightful in his analysis of Obama and the American press.

Limbaugh was spot on when he was asked if the left wing media would scrutinize Obama and the Federal Democrats just as they scrutinized and attacked evil Bush. Back in December 2008 Limbaugh stated that this press is going to shift from their attacks upon the President over to attacking the Republicans that are out of power and the Conservative media.

Thus - here is lefty Mike Luckovich

Instead of him doing direct analysis of Obama's speech - he focuses on the views of the critics

Thursday, June 4, 2009

A Message For Aaron - The More Reasonable One

Aaron - Why is it that on the one hand references to "Welfare" are always defended by the factoid that "there are more Whites on Welfare than Blacks" yet inevitably when you read between the line it is BLACK PEOPLE who prove via their defensiveness with regard to Welfare.

Are you saying that there is NO thought by various Progressives to tie a shift in the distribution of America's wealth through entitlement reform? Where as the label "Reparations" are associated with the African-American struggle for "Slavery Reparations", limiting the word to this point misses what is really happening.

I attended a community forum sponsored by a local independent radio station to voice their support for "Multiple Taxpayer Paid Health Care". They called it "Single Payer Health Care".

Beyond Reparations for Slavery THEY saw "Multiple Taxpayer Paid Health Care" as an attempt to reconstruct this notion against the molestation that the capitalists and industrialists in their opposition to worker's rights and compensation. They are not just encapsulating "aggrieved Blacks" but are seeking to unify ALL aggrieved people in this nation.

To limit Rush Limbaugh's comments TO Black people who are in a quest for "Slavery Reparations" while IGNORING the FACTUAL PRESENCE of a amalgamated movement that has the safe effective drive is a bit intellectually dishonest of you.

[quote]On some days, it is hard to find counter arguments to the idea that the GOP is destined to become a regional party largely the province of a core of white conservatives espousing a far right ideology. I've often made the point that the GOP's lousy relationship with blacks is due to the fact that the party has not made a decision that blacks are a political constituency necessary or essential to the GOP's aspirations for governance.[/quote]

Let's analyze this one Aaron.

As long as YOU place it upon the GOP to become "attractive to Black people" and thus obtain Black Republicans your statement above stands.

HOWEVER, I flip it around.
My argument is that the BLACK COMMUNITY, making use of its POLITICAL ACTIVISM, should be pressing for SOLUTION OF PROBLEMS within THE BLACK COMMUNITY and for advancement in key areas.

Thus Aaron X - my list of "Permanent Interests" is:

* Safe Communities
* Quality Education
* Thriving Local Economies
* Healthy Lifestyles

Thus, Aaron, instead of Black people being concerned about what the GOP is "marketing to us" as CONSUMERS.......we need to be focused upon WHERE WE STAND IN OUR COMMUNITIES with regard to these key points.

As it stands today Aaron - EVERY SINGLE BLACK MAJORITY DISTRICT IS ALREADY DOMINATED BY THE DEMOCRATS. From a political stand point the Democratic party has been successful at getting Black votes. From the view point of Black "Permanent Interests" BLACK PEOPLE have been failed in the measure of actually OBTAINING our "Permanent Interests".

Some who are smitten with the CONSUMER spirit will then ask: "Hey Republicans - if 'You want some of this....YOU ALL are going to have to CHANGE YOUR WAYS'. Unfortunately Aaron - the present state of too many of our communities show that it is the BLACK COMMUNITY that needs to CHANGE......its ASSUMPTIONS of what is actually in our best interests.

I argue that what is POPULARLY ASSUMED TO BE in our interests is not what is EFFECTIVELY so. Some evaluate their present beliefs during their time of grievance and vote for people who are in ALIGNMENT where they presently stand. They are loathed to evaluate if what THEY BELIEVE is in need of change.

What of the GOP dominated areas? All too frequently the proverbial "White suburb" is the standard reference for Black activism regarding school quality and public safety. These places are often GOVERNED in a manner that is loathed by the Black Progressive BUT they covet the OUTCOMES. In the "conservative, Republican dominated" county that I live in - there is a steady stream of "Black Flight Progressives" who have departed the Democratic stronghold counties to the north metro and have decided to be CONSUMERS, living next door to their IDEOLOGICAL ENEMIES.

Aaron - though they live in a Republican county - they STILL VOTE FOR THE PROGRESSIVES that motivated them to move away from the area that they had dominated.

These are the Black folks who are most misaligned. They are able to CONSUME the proceeds of a political arrangement that they like the outcome for but HATE the ideology that created it.

I struggle to understand why certain Black folks articulate Rush Limbaugh as their reason to repudiate the GOP but say nothing about how far worse backlash was not enough to keep the great Fannie Lou Hamer out of the Democratic Party back in 1964?

From my perspective the CURRENT political order WITHIN THE BLACK COMMUNITY provides more of an ASSAULT ON BLACK BEST INTERESTS than anything that you can claim that Rush Limbaugh has done to Black people.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Jay Bookman Defends Obama Against "Tiller Charges", Bashes Him And Other Right Wing Hosts

I figure that it might be better for the various Right wing media hosts to tell AJC's Jay Bookman - "Thanks for your offer of defense against the left wing attack machine but, 'No thank you', for your protection". It seems that as Mr Bookman has cocked his bat back to defend off attackers - he has knocked O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Savage and others on the head.

Notice that he doesn't call the Left Wing Attack Machine seeking to blame O'Reilly for the actions of this other man - "frauds".

Don’t smear O’Reilly with Tiller assassination

5:38 pm June 1, 2009, by Jay

I see where some folks are trying to nail Bill O’Reilly for somehow inciting the assassination of Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas abortion provider, as Tiller was handing out programs at his church Sunday. See here, here and here.

I think O’Reilly is a pompous jerk, and the evidence demonstrates that he clearly went well overboard in his condemnation and demonization of Tiller.

But let’s be serious here. It’s irresponsible to link O’Reilly in any way to the crime in question. Even if you had evidence that the suspected killer was an O’Reilly devotee — and I have seen nothing to that effect — you would need a much stronger showing of cause and effect to justify such a serious accusation.

After all, Tiller was a controversial figure in his own right, the focus of protests and physical attacks and political grandstanding at the state and national level. This tragedy could have and probably would have happened even if O’Reilly had never mentioned Tiller’s name on the air.

O’Reilly, Limbaugh and others are symptoms of a problem, but for the most part they are not causes of the problem. If they did not exist, someone else would be sitting there doing what they do, because they are meeting a market demand. Look at Lou Dobbs and the schtick that resurrected his career; look at Michael Weiner, who laughably rebranded himself Michael Savage. They’re all playing roles for a profit, feeding off the paranoia and resentment of a certain type of American. (Although over time, they do seem to become the role they play.)

So yes, O’Reilly and the rest have a lot to answer for, and I wouldn’t want their jobs for a million dollars a week. I’d be dead of shame for doing what they do. But it’s too easy and simple to put the blame on their doorsteps — in fact, it smacks of the same demonization that they themselves indulge in so freely.

Monday, June 1, 2009

Banned By KCNulan

[quote]Then you don't need to waste anybody else's time hereabouts and will of course not mind if I ban your fayetteville IP address?[/quote]

Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added

Mr Nulan:

Is it that easy?

As I think about it - I have at least 3 fixed line IP addresses that I can make use of from my home Several celluar wireless IP addresses that are dynamic.

And, oh yeah - I can shell into several other addresses of my clients and post via remote control.

I won't even mention http://g.ho.st


What Would Rikyrah (Let) Obama Do?

There is this blogger/blog mistress named Rikyrah. Though our ideologies and our agenda are vastly different I detect a very concerned and passionate person behind the guise that she puts forth on the Web. I would even go on to say that our end game is the same - "A stronger Black community". I just can't sit idly by as I see a set of METHODOLOGIES that are so flawed.

While I give my friend Rikyrah credit for coming into the lions den and posting along with the evil Black Conservatives, something her other blog mistress buddy & character assassin, "Christian Progressive-Fundamentalist" would never do, I also see what my friend Rikyrah says in the other forums that she posts upon when she is among like minded friends. Thus my concern about her, her methodology and her ultimate agenda.

My friend Rikyrah posted the following comments on the "Booker Rising" blog in response to some of the evil Conservative criticism of President and Mrs Obama flying up to New York for a date:


But, if this is the best that they can do, then the Dems are in very good shape.

We keep the President happy, then he can be focused on the country.

Win..win...for everyone.


Now I deduce that since she is loathed to say "President Obama" when she was faced with having to criticize him over the refusal to release "Detainee Abuse" photos. She called him "The President" instead. So according to the [strike]Rosetta[/strike] Rikyrah Stone - "The President" = "President Obama - Agent of Hope"

Now CLEARLY when she said "The President" she was NOT talking about "President Bush". She and other AfroSpear sites lived to make "The President Unhappy". In fact I am surprised that they did not use the symbol of a PRETZEL for their logo.