Sissy Republicans Run for Cover over 'Barack the Magic Negro' Parody

The liberal are up to their usual kindergarten-level games.

It seems that last week a politically-correct scandal broke over Tennessee GOP leader and RNC chair candidate Chip Saltsman's distribution of a CD with a parody song.

The song, "Barack the Magic Negro," was created by Paul Shanklin and made famous on the Rush Limbaugh show in the past year.

But while liberals are predictably up-in-arms that any prominent conservative might further this hilarious song, the term "magic negro" in connection with Barack Obama was actually first used by liberal black columnist David Ehrenstein in his LA Times column March 19, 2007.

This is what Ehrenstein said about Barack the Magic Negro:

But it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the "Magic Negro."

The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. "He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist," reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro.

He's there to assuage white "guilt" (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.

Logically, if someone has a problem with the term "magic negro," that angst should be taken out on, right? But since when has the Left ever been encumbered by logic?

Here are the lyrics to "Barack the Magic Negro" and a video which features the song; note that the song parody's notorious race-bater Al Sharpton as the singer of the song:

Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.
The L.A. Times, they called him that
‘Cause he’s not authentic like me.
Yeah, the guy from the L.A. paper
Said he makes guilty whites feel good
They’ll vote for him, and not for me
‘Cause he’s not from the hood.

See, real black men, like Snoop Dog,
Or me, or Farrakhan
Have talked the talk, and walked the walk.
Not come in late and won!

Oh, Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C.
The L.A. Times, they called him that
‘Cause he’s black, but not authentically.
Oh, Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C.
The L.A. Times, they called him that
‘Cause he’s black, but not authentically.

Some say Barack’s “articulate”
And bright and new and “clean.”
The media sure loves this guy,
A white interloper’s dream!
But, when you vote for president,
Watch out, and don’t be fooled!
Don’t vote the Magic Negro in –
‘Cause —

’Cause I won’t have nothing after all these years of sacrifice
And I won’t get justice. This is about justice. This isn’t about me, it’s about justice.
It’s about buffet. I don’t have no buffet and there won’t be any church contributions,
And there’ll be no cash in the collection plate.
There ain’t gonna be no cash money, no walkin’ around money, no phoning money.
Now, Barack going to come in here and ........

If one was also interested in the truth of the background of this parody, one might recall that it was Vice-President-Elect Joe Biden who said of Obama that "You got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."

But it isn't just liberals in the Democrat Party who are having a cat over this parody. Liberals and other sissies in the Republican Party are also running for cover.

If the GOP is this sissified over political correctness, it doesn't bode well for the GOP in the next four years. Sorry, Republicans; in case you missed, the the conservative base of the GOP has low tolerance for PC sissies.

Negro is a perfectly legitimate word to describe people with dark skin and of African descent, unlike the "n word" used to slur people with dark skin.

Is the United Negro College Fund a racist organization? Is the National Council of Negro Women a racist organization? Is the Universal Negro Improvement Association a racist institution? Is the National Association of Negro Musicians?

Or are these organizations merely identifying an ethnic focus?

The author of the column, David Ehrenstein, is himself a liberal. He is also black. But of course who gets the heat for a term he used first? Conservatives, of course. Being liberal, black, and a defender of homosexuality, Ehrenstein is, of course, immune from criticism. Consistency is unknown on the Left; the means to an end supersedes all.

Of course, when black conservatives like Michael Steele or Ken Blackwell call this faux controversy what it is ("hypersensitivity") they are derided as ignorant and considered to certainly meet the definition of an "Uncle Tom" in the playbook of the Left. (Incidentally, I had the honor of having dinner with Ken Blackwell and some other people a few months ago in D.C., and found him to be engaging and witty--not at all the dullard liberals seem to think he is.)

In fact, I think the contrast between the responses of Steele and Blackwell, and the timid response of others in the Republican leadership, separates the men from the boys. I am all-the-more justified in having called for a complete change of leadership in the Republican Party, and for having supported Ken Blackwell for RNC Chairman.

As all-too-usual, Republican leadership is cowering in fear at the prospect of being called names by liberals. Didn't their mama's give them the "sticks and stones" speech when they were little? Weren't they given the "cowboy up" talk at some point?

As usual, ignorance and infantile comprehension reign on the Left. They know they can't best conservatives on the legitimacy and merit of their ideas, so they are left with silly snits like this.

The awkward co-dependence of blacks, liberal Democrats

BY STAR PARKER
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
COALITION ON URBAN RENEWAL & EDUCATION

What does Caroline Kennedy have in common with black America? If your answer is not much, I'd tend to agree with you.

When I think of Caroline, I think of Manhattan and Park Avenue, not the Bronx and Brooklyn. I think of Brentwood and Beverly Hills, not Watts and South Central Los Angeles.

But there is something that Caroline and black America do have in common: The Democratic Party.

Whether or not Kennedy succeeds to slide into Hillary Clinton's soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat will have little to do with her Democratic Party bona fides. Per her policy positions ticked off the other day, she is in perfect and predictable liberal alignment with party boilerplate. If she fails, it will be for reasons other than her views.

So what exactly is the common political ground that Kennedy blue bloods share with the 90 percent of America's blacks who vote for Democrats?

A careful look shows the deep internal contradictions of the Democratic Party and the complexity of the political psyche of black Americans.

Ironically, despite Democratic Party rhetoric about economic inequities and wealth and income gaps in America, those gaps are more pronounced inside the Democratic tent than in the Republican one.

According to exit polls from November's election, Barack Obama captured the vote of America's richest and America's poorest. Fifty-two percent of those with incomes over $200,000 voted for Sen. Obama, and more than 60 percent of those earning less than $30,000 did as well.

Our wealthiest senator, John Kerry, is a Democrat, as is our wealthiest House member, Jane Harman.

The nation's two wealthiest men, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are both, by all indication, Democrats.

What political aspirations can black Americans, whose median income lags the nation's, share with these multimillionaires and billionaires?

There is little common ground regarding values.

Church attendance correlates reliably over time with party affiliation, and this remained true in this last election. Those who attend church frequently vote Republican. Those who don't vote Democratic – except blacks.

Blacks, in fact, have the highest church attendance in the country. Seventy-six percent of black Democrats attend church at least monthly. Sixty-seven percent of Republicans do and 50 percent of white Democrats do.

A recent Gallup poll shows blacks more aligned with Republicans than Democrats on social issues – moral acceptability of homosexuality, abortion and sexual promiscuity.

On energy and environmental issues, blacks poll more closely with conservatives than with liberals. It's because these are pocketbook issues. Working blacks have little interest in paying the higher taxes and bearing the higher costs that will result from chasing global warming windmills and displacing cheap hydrocarbon energy with exotic government subsidized alternatives. Lower energy costs also put blacks on the side of offshore drilling for oil and gas.

How about education? Wealthy liberals, despite having their own kids in private schools, oppose school choice. When blacks are given the opportunity to pull their child out of a failing public school and send him or her to a church school or another alternative they are grateful.

So where's the common ground? Income redistribution. A recent Zogby poll shows 80 percent of Democrats, 90 percent of liberals, and 76 percent of blacks support taxing the wealthy to give money to low-income Americans.

Despite everything else, blacks vote to stay on the liberal plantation. Pop psychologists would call the relationship between wealthy liberals and blacks co-dependence.

Republicans are wrong if they think they'll win blacks on social issues alone. They need to help blacks understand that limited government provides the economic mobility and opportunity they need and that the welfare, redistribution state does the opposite. They must help blacks gain self-confidence so that they can enjoy the benefits that can only come from freedom.

So far Republicans have failed to do this – which is another reason why they now sit on the outside looking in.

Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.

Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine. The 1992 Los Angeles riots destroyed her business, yet served as a springboard for her focus on faith and market-based alternatives to empower the lives of the poor.

Limbaugh Skewers Turncoat Colin Powell

Rush Limbaugh points out what a joke-of-a-Republican Colin Powell has made himself.

"Let me get this straight. The guy who has supported the Republican candidate for president should be thrown out of the party. That would be me. But the guy who bolted and sabotaged the Republican nominee by endorsing the Democrat candidate should stay in and be part of the team that determines what the Republican Party is going to be. The turncoat, General Powell, is the one who the party is gonna listen to?"

Limbaugh is responding to Powell's praise of liberalism and criticism of Limbaugh during a recent interview with CNN's Fareed Zakharia.

Powell said, in part,

"Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh?" Powell asked. "Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?"

You mean our conservative instincts? You mean our instincts to stick with the plan of the Founders that made this country great? You mean our instincts to put freedom ahead of dependence? You mean our instincts to champion responsibility over license? You mean our instincts to protect the individual from government, not government from the individual? You mean our instincts to be consistent? You mean our instincts to win?

I thought so. At least Powell is now fully exposed for the RINO he is. A RINO in elephant's clothing that has been skinned can do far less damage than those who are still in costume...and Powell is no longer in costume.

President Bush and other "moderate" Republicans attempted to coddle and placate the only-vaguely conservative Powell...and look what it got them. It got them a rogue element in their own cabinet, and at election time, it got them a high-profile defection to the adversary.

This should be a lesson to conservative and conservative-leaning Republicans out there: do NOT compromise with liberal elements on the Right. You gain nothing and only put off the inevitable attempts to stab you in the back.

Republicans need to get back to business

BY STAR PARKER
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
COALITION ON URBAN RENEWAL & EDUCATION

There are now nine capable candidates vying for the chairman's job at the Republican National Committee. The day of reckoning will be Jan. 29, when 168 committee men and women from around the country will vote their preference.

The stakes are high this time around. It's different when you are looking for a caretaker – someone to keep a good thing going – as opposed to a turnaround specialist – someone to transform a loser into a winner.

Clearly, after two consecutive electoral shellackings, Democratic takeovers in both houses of Congress and the White House, and significant drop-off in the number of self-identified Republican voters nationwide, it is the latter type of executive that the RNC needs.

What kind of leadership talent should the RNC seek?

Republicans think of themselves as the party sympathetic to free enterprise. But the party has gotten off track, not applying sound business principles to its own operation.

The three most important management questions, according to famed management guru Peter Drucker, are: What is our business? Who is the customer? What does the customer consider value?

What is the business of the RNC? Some might say it is to get Republicans elected. I'd say that's inadequate. Clever marketing techniques can move product in the short run. But if customers are not happy, they don't come back.

If the party does not have a clear agenda, and is not making a positive sale based on that agenda, it's a sign of weakness. Republican national campaigns of recent years that have been defined by Willie Horton and Swift boats may have defeated the other side, but they brought candidates into office with no clear mandate and eroded party definition and discipline.

The RNC business model must be based on positive marketing of its platform of traditional values, limited government, free enterprise and strong national defense. Candidates must be groomed who genuinely believe that it's this agenda – all of it – that keeps out country great, and candidates who don't shouldn't be nominated.

Who is the customer? The RNC must genuinely view the full spectrum of the American electorate as its target market. What business can possibly grow by only focusing on customers who have already bought its product? Only going after low hanging fruit is not a business plan that any venture capitalist would finance.

Republicans must get their message to the many diverse communities that make up our great country that they have ignored. Yes, I am certainly talking about black and Latino communities.

Consider the remarkable election that just occurred in New Orleans, where a young Vietnamese American political novice, Anh Cao, unseated William Jefferson, a Democratic Congressional Black Caucus member for almost 20 years. The RNC showed little interest in a race that conventional wisdom suggested had little prospect for a Republican victory. Cao won a surprise victory on a shoestring budget.

I've seen similar opportunities in the last two years, where seats opened up in California and Ohio as result of deaths of two Black Caucus members. There were clear opportunities to run conservatives that the RNC ignored because of conventional thinking.

What does the customer consider value? Customers buy products they believe will make them better off. Although some voters are motivated by ideology, most are seeking a secure, comfortable and safe life.

Voters from every walk of American life must hear from Republicans, practically, how more freedom and less government will deliver better education, health care, jobs and security – and why the preservation of the integrity of traditional family life provides a critical foundation for our country.

Some suggest that reaching out to new communities means changing the party's agenda. What successful company builds market share by destroying its product? No, they maintain product integrity and use more aggressive and imaginative targeted marketing.

The Republican Party clearly needs change. The RNC needs a chairman that can lead it into a new era. Someone that understands that the new beginning must start with sound business principles.

Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.

Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine. The 1992 Los Angeles riots destroyed her business, yet served as a springboard for her focus on faith and market-based alternatives to empower the lives of the poor.

Senator Thune in Running for Republican Conference Vice Chair

KELO reports Senator John Thune is in the running for a top leadership post in the Senate Republican caucus.

The conference vice-chair is the number five spot in the Republican senate leadership ranking. Thune stands a very good chance of winning the post. So far, he's running unopposed. But while Thune doesn't want to take his prospects for granted, he's certain the job would be good for South Dakota.

Roll Call also reported on this last week.

Thune is currently serving as chief deputy whip.

He's not doing too bad for someone in their first senate term.

Dakota Voice wishes you Godspeed, Senator Thune! Hope you get the spot!

If Republicans Enjoy Minority, Keep the Current Congressional Leadership

As much as I hate to say it, Republicans deserved to remain in the minority in congress this year.

Now I've considered myself a Republican since before I could vote, so I'm not some some wild-eyed MoveOn.orger saying this.

Think about it: what did Republicans do to deserve leadership of congress? I'm not asking if Democrats deserve it; did Republicans do anything to merit being awarded leadership of congress?

Do you hear the crickets chirping? So do I.

Did they expect the voters to give it to them simply because they're not as bad as the Democrats? That might have cut the mustard in some bygone age, but in this age of cynicism and lack of ideological education on the part of the general public, that dog don't hunt.

Oh, there were some individual cases and races where the Republican candidate was clearly a better choice than the Democrat. Here in South Dakota, Joel Dykstra would have made a far better choice than incumbent Senator Tim Johnson both on the basis of ideology and capability. Chris Lien also showed the kind of proactive fact-finding, solution-oriented leadership that incumbent Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin has only dared dream of.

But in those marginal races where the question of a candidate's contribution to majority-party leadership could have tipped the balance, there was simply nothing there to make the scales fall on the other side...

READ MORE...

Palin in Her Home and on Ridiculous Rumors

More from Matt Lauer's interview with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

In this segment she talks about some of the most vicious and wild rumors which came out of the Left in an attempt to discredit her.

We also see Governor Palin in her home cooking a meal. Her husband Todd also talks about the juggling of schedules necessary to make their busy family life work.

Piper also pipes in on what it was like for a young person on the campaign trail.

Rep. Paul Ryan Calls for Fire Hose on Republican Party

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) in the Wall Street Journal today calls for a total shakeup of of the Republican Party.

He's right on, and the party should listen to him.

Ryan was considered for House Republican leadership, but declined due to the family considerations of his wife and three young children. As important as House leadership is, it's hard to fault Ryan for that dedication to his family; he has no more important job than his eternal investment in his children.

But congressional Republicans desperately need fresh leadership, a return to core principles and a clearly articulated vision for America.

The paragraph which best summarizes Ryan's advice is this:

We cannot simply put up roadblocks to the emboldened Democratic majority. We need to offer an alternative future. Absent reform, our federal government will double in size within a generation. We must change course from this path of stagnation, and we must have leaders willing to provide a path that keeps alive the American ideal and keeps our government limited.

As I pointed out at Red County today, Republicans squandered the historic opportunity given to them in the mid-1990s and have allowed themselves to become part of the problem.

While Democrat voters will not hold the Democrat Party accountable for being part of the problem (they still have blind faith the problem will somehow someday become "the salvation"), conservatives and most Republicans will not tolerate this betrayal of the party's core values.

Republican congressional leadership needs to wake up to this reality, take drastic action and get back to their roots.

Or they can sit back and get comfortable being in the minority for years to come...

Missouri: Where Stealing Babies Seems to be the Trend

by Carrie K. Hutchens

One would think that the Stocklaufer case would put the system on notice that people are actually taking note of what the Missouri courts and DFS (Division of Family Services) are doing with regard to the children of, and within, their state. Apparently not though! If there was ever a MEMO -- it must have gotten lost within the system. After all, it certainly didn't get to some case workers that went above and beyond wrong in the actions taken against still another Missouri family.

A foster child was involved in inappropriate behavior. The foster parent made notification to the proper authorities (as is the rule) only to then become the one blamed. Excuse me?

It didn't end there...

The DFS, didn't just take away the one child, they came into the home and took away other babies that were also supposed to be adopted by this family. Their excuse? That the family -- not they -- were neglectful. After all, the family should have somehow known the inappropriate incident was a possibility, and because they didn't (from lack of information provided by DFS) they were neglectful and therefore not worthy to foster or adopt the babies, right?

What is wrong with this picture? Too much, I would think!

The foster parent makes the call, yet is thereafter treated as though someone called in on them? Where is the ability to process logic? Isn't that a requirement with these state jobs, especially the ones involving the well-being of children? If not -- it should be!

Maybe Missouri needs to review it's social workers and it's rules, prior to wrongfully destroying families! Just a thought!

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.


Related article:

Missouri's "Too Fat to Adopt Man" Faces Losing More Than Weight

Cleaning Up the Liberal Lending Mess

GUEST COLUMN

BY ANTON KAISER

In the year 2000, during the Clinton administration, a report was prepared on the affects of subprime loans in Boston. Subsequently, similar reports were done for Atlanta and Chicago but they all said the same thing:

• “Loan originations by subprime lenders grew by 435 percent between 1994 and 1998, compared to the growth of all loan originations by 119 percent.”

• “The share of all originations accounted for by subprime lenders more than doubled between 1994 and 1998, starting at less than 2 percent and climbing to 4 percent.”

• “The growth in subprime lending was much more significant for properties in low-income and minority neighborhoods than for properties in other kinds of neighborhoods. Between 1994 and 1998, subprime lending grew by 1,075 percent in very low-income neighborhoods (where the median household income is less than 50 percent of the metro area median) and by 827 percent in low-income areas (where median income is between 50 percent and 80 percent of the metro area median). In neighborhoods where more than half the residents are minority group members, subprime lending increased by over 1,000 percent.”

• “The share of foreclosures by subprime lenders grew rapidly in Boston neighborhoods of all income levels and have come to account for between 10 and 12 percent of all foreclosures.”

• “Foreclosures by subprime lenders were also most common in majority minority neighborhoods. In 1999, the share of foreclosures in these areas attributable to subprime lenders was 14 percent, compared to about 10 percent in other areas.”

Remember, this report was in 2000. So early on we knew that subprime loans were a serious problem, but how did they happen?

First Johnson enacted the “Fair Housing Act of 1968” designed to combat racial discrimination. Fair enough. But second came Carter’s “The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977” giving “banking institutions a strong incentive to make loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers or areas.” And third came Carter’s “1980 Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act” which “eliminated all usury controls on first-lien mortgage rates, permitting lenders to charge higher rates of interest to borrowers who posed an elevated credit risk.” Nevertheless, these new financial tools remained dormant until 1994 (notice that all the data above begins in 1994, and for good reason).

These Carter tools - incentives and deregulation - were resurrected when the Democrats found themselves with a newly elected president in 1993. So, “After 12 years of inaction or worse under the Reagan and Bush administrations . . [the Democrats] sought to have HUD and federal agencies that regulate lenders take a more active and interventionist stance” concerning fair housing.

Thus, in 1994, Clinton established the President’s Fair Housing Council and by executive order directed “the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Attorney General and, where appropriate, the heads of the Federal banking agencies to exercise national leadership to end discrimination in mortgage lending, the secondary mortgage market, and property insurance practices.” And so emerged the preeminence of subprime loans, primarily to minorities.

The results between 1994 and 1999 from this new council can be seen in the 2000 report above, and this is the reason so many of the housing foreclosures began shortly after 1994 and continue to this day, sharply increasing after periods of low interest rates. In fact, low interest rates, seemingly a good deal, actually exacerbated the problem, expanding the available capital, increasing the number of subprime loans, inflating home prices, and winding the spring on this financial trap ever tighter. In 1997, Al Gore actually issued a press release bragging that “Between 1993 and 1996, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased over one million mortgages made to low- and moderate-income homebuyers.” And so it all began.

Thus, a well intentioned social program in 1968, slowly grew from its roots in the halcyon days of Johnson’s Great Society to wrap its socialist arms around Carter’s concerns for the poor and Clinton’s ideas of minority equality. Add creative financing and accounting and, despite federal oversight, by 2008 the system had mushroomed and was out of control, threatening the nation’s entire financial system.

There is no better example than the current housing crisis for limiting government social programs.

As with the increase in terrorism, the housing crisis grew out of the Clinton administration (and the data shows it), and now we have another liberal mess to clean up.

Anton Kaiser was born in Aberdeen, South Dakota, and retired in Rapid City after serving twenty-seven years as a U.S. Army infantry officer. He is a graduate of the United States Military Academy, West Point, and holds Masters Degrees in Business and in Public Administration from Webster College, St. Louis, MO. He is also a veteran of Vietnam, Berlin, Operation Just Cause (Panama) and an honor graduate of the Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

How Pathetic: Sarah Palin's Seventeen Year Old Daughter Pregnant

By Carrie K. Hutchens

Just when you think things can't get any worse or any lower, someone has to step up to the plate and prove it definitely can. We've just seen it again with the rumors apparently being spread that Bristol Palin was actually the mother of the baby born to her mother in April. She isn't, but what if she were? So what? What business would it be of the American people? None! What would it say about her mother's ability to be vice-president? Nothing! So what was the point?

With people rushing to spread false rumors, it was announced that Bristol is in fact pregnant and will be marrying the father of her child. Now that the news, which is actually nobody's business beyond the family, is out there -- it will hopefully put the brakes on the trashy gossip carriers' wrongful efforts to exploit a child. If not, perhaps those around them might point out that children should -- without question -- be off limits in campaigns and especially in attempted smear campaigns. And if they can't comprehend this little bit of ethics, perhaps someone should point out to them what their behavior says about them.

I find it absolutely pathetic that rumors were started about Bristol in the first place and even more pathetic that her pregnancy had to be announced to the world to prevent further lies being spread in regard to her. Needless to say, I find the people who brought a child into the campaign war and involved in spreading rumors about her to be about as pathetic as they come.

I also find it rather ironic, that while we have people preaching that choice is a right and everyone should be allowed to have sex with whomever, that anyone would have even thought it of interest to spread the rumor that Bristol was actually the mother of her brother. But then... there is little logic in many things many people do in this day and age.

The Palin family should not have had to share the news that Bristol is expecting. It has nothing to do with running the country or the ability to do so. However, it does show how low some in our country have sunken. Perhaps this is a wake-up call and proof we need to take a long, hard look at ourselves (our society) in the mirror to see what we have become and where we are headed before it is too late. After all, if we get where we are headed, we might not be able to ever get back, and I, for one, don't want to be there. I hope I'm not alone.


Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Denver Revisited

Sadly, the Democratic National Convention is nothing more than a misty memory; the old platitudes, promises and pablum carefully packed away to stock future Democrat speeches well into the foreseeable future. But we can relive the excitement over and over thanks to YouTube. No greater excitement can be found than among the zealous supporters that came out just for the occasion. Hot Air's Jason Mattera took the trouble to speak to a few and, unlike the speeches inside the convention, we actually learn something about who the Democrats are and what they stand for.







If Marguerite Ann Johnson (aka Maya Angelou) could be the poet laureate of the Clintons' Democrat Party, I suppose Richard has a shot at the honor with the Messiah-in-waiting. He did eventually get two words to rhyme.

New TV Ad to be Aired During DNC Convention by Florida Stealth 'Gay Rights' Group in Florida is Both Factually Wrong and Attempts to Deceive Democrat

ORLANDO, Aug. 25 /Christian Newswire/ -- Florida Red and Blue, a political committee and front group for a coalition of homosexual groups opposing Amendment 2, has released a TV ad which is both factually wrong and attempts to mislead and scare senior citizens. The ad will be aired on Florida stations during the Democrat National Convention through out this week.

The campaign commercial has a prominent theme which is repeated three times asserting that the marriage amendment is an attempt by the government to interfere "into our private lives". Other parts of the ad state that defeating Amendment 2 would "keep government out of our private lives" and that "personal marriage issues should be decided by you, your family and clergy, not by the government." *

"This ad is just factually wrong and Red and Blue needs to be held accountable for false and misleading advertisements" said John Stemberger, State Chairman of Yes2Marriage.org the official sponsor of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment. "To the contrary, the citizen initiated and citizen led Amendment 2 has nothing at all to do with government action. It has everything to do with citizen action stopping the government from redefining marriage against their will. Amendment 2 allows the people and not activist judges to decide how marriage will be defined in Florida. This is only the first of a series of ads in an avalanche of fraud and deception that is going to flood the airways in the October."

The campaign commercial also states* that "Democrats are United against Amendment 2 in Florida." This is not accurate or factually correct. Over three quarters of a million Florida voters signed a citizen's initiative petition to get the marriage amendment on the ballot. Well over 33% of those Floridians who signed the petition are registered Democrats. The recent June 3, 2008, Quinnipiac Florida poll demonstrates that a significant 45% of democratic voters in Florida support Amendment 2. Even Senator Barack Obama in the recent Saddleback forum with Rick Warren clearly stated, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman." "This hardly seems like unity among Democrats on the issue of the definition of marriage" said Eladio Armesto, the Chairman of the Florida Democratic League who is a major supporter of Amendment 2 in South Florida.

Stemberger said, "Marriage is not a democrat or a republican issue. It's not even a liberal - conservative issue. It is a human issue and a moral issue--and one which Floridians will vote "Yes" on in overwhelming numbers on November 4, 2008."

Finally, the unanimous Florida Supreme Court made up of democrat and republican appointees has ruled that Amendment 2 is about the "singular subject" of marriage and that the effect of the amendment does nothing new as it merely takes the existing law on marriage and places it into the state constitution as 27 other states have done. (1) "Telling senior citizens that they will lose social security and or domestic partner benefits by voting yes on 2 is outright fraud and preys upon Florida's most vulnerable and precious citizens" commented Stemberger.

For more information or further comment contact Yes2Marriage.org officials at Media@Yes2Marriage.org or call 407-251-1957

* The verbatim wording of the TV Ad states:
"Democrats are united against Amendment 2 in Florida. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Representatives Debbie Wasserman Shultz and Robert Wexler are all saying vote no on 2. Amendment 2 bans domestic partners, hurting many seniors and letting government into our personal lives. Alex Sink, Cathy Caster and Kendrick Meek oppose Amendment 2 because personal marriage issues should be decided by you, your family and clergy, not the government. Keep government out of our private lives. Vote No on 2."

(1) "... the amendment essentially tracks the language of the current statutory provision....The proposed amendment is essentially inserting this statutory scheme into the constitution with language substantially similar to the statutory provision itself." See Opinion to the Attorney General, 926 So.2d 1229 (2006).


Christian Newswire

Atheists Want to Share Their Faith at Interfaith Event

Atheists reject all religion and faith, right? Oh, so wrong.

I've long contended that atheism (and its cousin evolution) are a religion because of the amount of faith required to believe these things with no proof. Now there is an admission from the atheists.

According to The Gazette, atheist Democrats in the Secular Coalition Group are pushing to get an atheist speaker on the speaker list for an interfaith service on August 24 at the Democrat National Convention in Denver.

They claim it's about unity. But how can someone who doesn't believe in the existence of a divine being be unified in faith with someone who does believe in the existence of a divine being?

They can be "unified" at other parts of the DNC convention, but what kind of moron thinks there should be unity between someone who does believe in the existence of something, and someone who doesn't believe in the existence of something.

Is it just the ugly head of envy rearing itself again? Envy is what fuels and drives the Democrat Party, so it's entirely possible. Liberals envy someone who has more money, more education, a bigger house, a nicer car, prettier clothes, a better job, or pretty much anything you could conceive. If liberals see that anyone has something they don't, then that gets them thinking that it's unfair that they don't have that or get to go there or get to do that--in other words, they get eaten alive by the ole' envy bug. Merit never enters the picture; he has it, I should have it, too.

Now if they're admitting that it takes faith to look at the tremendously complex universe around us, acknowledge that it takes faith to get beyond the fact that there is no reasonable way that the universe could have even begun to look the way it currently does much less actually reach this high state of order and development, that it takes a lot of faith to accept that is ludicrous to believe the massive amounts of DNA information in organic systems practically scream "Creator!"...if they're admitting that it takes faith to believe what they believe, then maybe they have a case for being included in this interfaith event.

Think they'd use their faith as a basis for inclusion in this event? Don't hold your breath.

Which is Really the Party of the Rich?

GUEST COLUMN

BY ANTON KAISER

For some time now, Democrats have perpetuated the myth that Republicans are in the pockets of big business and therefore the party of the rich. It’s a great political tactic because, of course, we are all against the rich; that is, those who pay the majority of our taxes in this country. But what is the truth?

OpenSecrets.org is a bipartisan website specifically designed to track the varied sources of political money and where it goes. Among one of its many useful purposes, it lists the top one hundred individual and organizational donors to national politics. So where does all that political money come from and where does it go?

Not surprising, at least to me, is the fact that the number one political donor organization in America is the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, whose primary interest is to keep government jobs out of the private sector. In other words, these are the employees of big government who naturally want to keep their jobs in big government. Not only does this union (whose money comes from employee income derived from our taxes) donate the most political money in America, but it also gives 99% of its donations to the Democrat party. (Which makes me wonder how that influences their federal job performances during Republican administrations.)

By fact, five of the top ten organizational donors to politics in America are unions (their percent contributions to the Democrat party in 2008 are in parenthesis), including: the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (98%); the Laborers Union (92%); the Service Employees International Union (94%), and the Carpenters and Joiners Union (87%). The Teamsters Union ranks 11th (92%). (In fact, five of the second top ten organizational donors are also unions who give 92% to 99% of their donations to Democrats.)

Now consider if it is reasonable to believe that 90+% of union members are democrats.

Others in the top ten are the National Association of Realtors who donate 58% of their money to Democrats, the National Education Association who donate 85% to Democrats, and the American Association for Justice, whose idea of justice is to donate 96% of their money to Democrats.

Only two big businesses are represented in the top ten and they are AT&T and Goldman Sachs, an investment bank. Although AT&T donates 59% to Republicans, Goldman Sachs donates 73% of their money to Democrats.

In summary, the Democrat's allegation that Republicans are in the pockets of big business comes from a single thorn in their side, AT&T, which is the only organization in the top ten who gives more to Republicans than to Democrats and by a significantly smaller margin than the other nine top ten organizational donors who overwhelmingly support the Democrat party.

So who is really the party of the rich? And, if big money runs the country, who really has injected that money into American politics? Seems to me the Democrats are in the pockets of big unions who are clearly the rich in this country where it concerns political donations. Check it out.

Anton Kaiser was born in Aberdeen, South Dakota, and retired in Rapid City after serving twenty-seven years as a U.S. Army infantry officer. He is a graduate of the United States Military Academy, West Point, and holds Masters Degrees in Business and in Public Administration from Webster College, St. Louis, MO. He is also a veteran of Vietnam, Berlin, Operation Just Cause (Panama) and an honor graduate of the Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

Pelosi Oil Politics

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is playing planet crusader while allowing vulnerable Democrats (read: Democrats whose constitutents have had enough of $4.00 a gallon gas) to act like they support drilling for more oil.

I'm hearing that if Speaker Pelosi plays this game much longer, she may risk being overthrown as speaker by her own party.

House Republicans Grow a Part of the Anatomy

Now this is what we need to see more of from the national Republican Party!

WorldNetDaily reports U.S. House Republicans, frustrated at Speaker Nancy Pelosi's refusal to bring oil drilling legislation to a vote, are continuing to discuss congressional energy policy (or lack thereof) and are having some fun at it:

Pretending to be a Democrat, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., stood on the other side of the chamber and listed all of the Republican bills killed by Democrats, Politico reported.

"I am a Democrat and here is my energy plan," he said, holding up a picture of an old VW Bug with a sail attached to it.

Nunes paraded the picture around the House floor to the cheers of the gallery crowd.

No wonder House Republicans are upset; Democrats apparently don't care how much Americans have to pay for gas.

From Fox News:

"I just saw one of the Democrats interviewed on television. The question was, if oil was $10 a gallon and you knew exactly where to get it in Alaska or on the coast, would you drill there, and there was no answer," House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, of Missouri, said before a last-minute gathering before reporters late Friday.

In what might be a modern twist on Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake," Democrats seem to be saying, "Let them ride their bicycles."

Democrats are also doing their best to run off reporters and get Capitol Police to do their bidding, but word is still getting out.

But The Politico is still around taking note of what's going on:

Politico described the scene on the floor as "kind of crazy," noting members normally are not allowed to speak directly to the visitor gallery, and cheering from the gallery is not allowed.

But House members have been walking up and down the floor to loud cheers, including standing ovations.

Rep. Don Manzullo, R-Ill., brought the crowd to its feet with a rousing speech that accused Democrats of stifling dissent, referencing President John Quincy Adams, who returned as a House member after his term in the White House.

I love it!

They're fighting for good policy...and having a blast while doing it!

Could this be the start of something great? Congressional Republicans with guts and gusto?

Working Together Despite Differences

The issue of Republican values has been a recurring theme for several years now, not only on the national stage but here at home in South Dakota.

Of late, it has become an intense topic on the Right side of the South Dakota blogosphere, with several posts from Sibby Online, SD Wingnuts, some from the South Dakota War College, and the South Dakota GOP Republican Tide.

I think it's understandable for a political party to be a bit stand-offish or distance itself from members who represent more of the opposition's values than the values of their own party, or who work actively against members of their own party while going out of their way to help the opposing party.

Ironically, however, it seems that sometimes money can overcome even an obvious divergence of philosophy. This should not be.

It is equally disappointing when the party apparatus fails to support their own candidates who uphold party values, just because those candidates may not be as polished as they would like. If party operatives would prefer candidates with more polish and finesse, then they should be proactively working to groom such candidates; if they fail to do so, they should wholeheartedly support those candidate who are willing step up and uphold party values--even if that candidate wouldn't have been their first choice.

Thankfully it hasn't happened too often, but seeing how some Republican candidates have been treated in recent years has been disappointing and heartbreaking. The way the Party has treated them, you'd think they lacked adherence to Republican ideals, instead of just lacking fancy clothes and a glossy presentation.

Because philosophy is what really counts--or should really count.

We can work together to advance the Republican agenda, even if all of us aren't advancing all parts of it.

The "Big Tent" philosophy is not and never has been about assimilating all the values and agenda items of every person who joins the Republican Party. The Big Tent philosophy says people from all walks are welcome to come into the tent and work with us on the issues where they agree with us--but not come in and try to liberalize the party.

If a Big Tent attender who doesn't embrace the entire Republican agenda can't honor the fact that they're a guest in someone else's house, we need to point to the door and let them know it works both ways if they don't like our home. They're welcome to stay as long as they don't try to take over the place.

We don't need a purge, but we need to be clear on the party's foundation and it's intended destination. A cold shoulder to those who insist on a detour will usually work just as well as a boot in the hind parts.

If we're advancing a particular conservative value, I'll work with people of other Christian denominations, other religions, other political inclinations and even sexual proclivities. But I will not embrace their values that I don't agree with, especially those which are contrary to conservative ideals.

When I was in the military, I worked with people of different religions, ethnic backgrounds, political philosophies, education levels, and even nationalities. Our common goal was the defense of the United States and her allies.

I'll work with Democrats--and I do, on pro-life issues, because some Democrats, while embracing mostly liberal values, still recognize the value of human life.

But I won't stand idly by when someone whose values are more in line with the Democrat Party comes into the Republican Party and tries to make it Democrat-Lite.

If someone wants to advance liberal values, there's a place for that: the Democrat Party.

If someone wants to belong to a liberal party with liberal values, there's a place for that: the Democrat Party.

When people are given a choice of the genuine article or a cheap imitation, at the same price they'll take the genuine article every time. The Republican Party won't influence people and win elections by trying to imitate a liberal political party.

Look at the South Dakota Republican Party platform; you won't find a liberal agenda there.

Look at the South Dakota Republican Party resolutions for 2008; for the most part, you wont' find a liberal agenda there.

Look at the core values of the Republican Party, which concisely define what it means to be a conservative and a Republican (you won't find a liberal agenda there):

I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.

I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.

I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

I BELIEVE Americans retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.

I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.

Finally, I BELIEVE the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

Our South Dakota Republican Party is still a good, conservative political party, despite a few missteps and reprobates in our number.

Though some have tried, our state party has not become the inept, compromising, elitist group we see on the national front that is often working harder for the values of the other party than they are their own.

But it won't stay that way if we fail to remain vigilant. It won't remain strong if we compromise on our core values. It won't retain it's value if it doesn't remain a distinctive vehicle for conservative ideas.

Conservatives of all degrees, let's work together where our philosophy aligns with the Republican Party.

And where it doesn't...you're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to liberalize the Republican Party.

Now let's all pull together to send a couple of good conservatives (Chris Lien and Joel Dykstra) to Washington in November, and fill the halls and chambers of the capitol in Pierre with good candidates who uphold Republican values.

Tim Johnson Controversy Indicates Democrat Lack of Confidence

It's looking like Senator Tim Johnson's campaign and his liberal friends in the "mainstream" media are going to milk his illness for all it's worth.

David Kranz' latest hit piece on the Joel Dykstra campaign in the Argus Leader today takes aim at Dykstra's website for a statement it makes: "South Dakota's Voice for the U.S. Senate."

Democrats seem to be making the most of the fact that Johnson's speech has been hindered by his brain hemorrhage and it is difficult for him to speak--and are trying to portray anything said or done by Republicans as a slur against Johnson's impairment.

The Kranz hit piece does point out (16 paragraphs into the story) in a quote from Kathleen Hall Jamieson with the The Annenberg School for Communication that

"The word 'voice' is used a lot in politics, a very standard political statement"

Of course the Democrat Party mouthpiece for the South Dakota blogosphere, Badlands Blue, is quick to fan the flames Kranz started.

The terminology of "voices" and "speaking" for the people one represents in politics is hardly a new concept. It's actually a natural analogy, because elected representatives do speak for the citizens in the legislative body. An elected representative is the voice of the people who cannot be there to meet with the legislative body. But this terminology does seem to be a new prop for those who are concerned over Senator Johnson's election chances.

How long will it be (later today?) until Dakota Voice is castigated for taking advantage of poor Senator Johnson's illness by calling itself "Dakota VOICE?"

Pat Powers at the South Dakota War College also points out that a recent Johnson campaign video is being recognized by the Rapid City Journal as a preemptive strike against concerns over his speech and other issues related to his brain hemorrhage.

But if Johnson can't or won't engage Dykstra in a debate this political season, which is still up in the air right now, the video may do little to calm those concerns.

Senator Johnson's progress after the brain hemorrhage which cost him much of his speech and mobility--and could have cost him his life--is commendable. I think most South Dakotans, regardless of politics or party affiliation, have been praying for him and are cheering for his recovery. On a personal level, he's come a long way.

But is it enough to meet the rigorous demands of representing the people of South Dakota in the United States Senate? This isn't an easy job, even for someone in the best of health. Being able to speak on the Senate floor for or against legislation, to do committee work, and to slave away for long hours when the Senate is in session are part of the job description.

These are valid concerns which the voters of South Dakota can and should consider during this election. Maybe Johnson is up to the demanding work of a United States senator, but for the campaign and other Democrat voices to be so hyper-sensitive about the issue doesn't speak well of their confidence.

Democrats have been so hysterical over Johnson's condition that they went ballistic last year when National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Ensign announced Republicans weren't going to wait any longer to start the campaign for Johnson's seat. Definitely overkill on the part of Democrats.

I said it then and I'll say it again. South Dakotans have been patient, gracious and hopeful with Senator Johnson's illness. But if Democrats expect the people of South Dakota to have confidence that Johnson is up to the job, they can't keep hiding behind a sick man as their primary campaign defense.

Rick Warren Opposes Candidate Endorsements

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Michelle A. Vu
Christian Post Reporter
Tue, Jul. 29 2008 06:44 PM EDT

Popular megachurch pastor Rick Warren said he does not believe pastors should endorse political candidates in a recent interview held weeks ahead of his highly-anticipated leadership and compassion forum, which will feature presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama.

“I don’t think it’s right for pastors to endorse [a political candidate] in the first place,” Warren said on a recent CNN interview when asked if he thinks McCain was right to disavow controversial pastors John Hagee and Rod Parsley.

“I would never endorse a candidate. I would never campaign for a candidate,” he added.

“I think as a pastor my role is to pastor all the flock regardless of their political persuasion, so I wouldn’t have wanted endorsements anyways.”

Warren has, however, invited political candidates to speak at his church on the topic of HIV/AIDS. Past politicians that have spoken at Saddleback Church during its annual HIV/AIDS conference include Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Sam Brownback.

Next month, Obama and McCain will appear together for the first time during the ’08 presidential race to answer questions from Warren about faith and moral issues such as poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate change and human rights.

“I believe in the separation of church and state, but I do not believe in the separation of faith and politics,” Warren said, “because faith is simply a worldview and everybody’s got a worldview.”

A person who says he can separate his faith and worldview is either an “idiot” or “lying” because it’s impossible, the influential Christian leader contends.

“We make our decisions based on our values, based on our worldview so I think it’s entirely appropriate for America to say not only what is your faith – whether it is in Christ or someone else – but what is your worldview because that is going to influence how we live in the next four year,” he said

And in terms of how evangelicals will vote, Warren echoed what many other Christians have said this year – evangelicals are not monolithic and are open to both Republican and Democratic candidates.

“I do think that a lot of people, not just evangelicals, have reserved judgments,” the founding pastor of the 22,000-member Saddleback Church said. “I think a lot of America hasn’t made up its mind yet between these two candidates and I’m hoping that this forum will allow these two guys (McCain and Obama) to speak for themselves without an interpreter or any spin on it.”

McCain and Obama will each respond to Warren’s questions at the Saddleback Church forum on Aug. 16.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.