Crackin' My Own

From time to time, you will read my dis-satisfaction with the President. And, today is one of those days. Well not only today, but for the week now. Every since the report came out that this country is going to allow the sell of American Ports to the United Arab Emirates or UAE. Now don't get me wrong, you have heard me say, I believe in our capitalistic society, which means I support free trade. I don't have a problem with seeing Chinese goods or Japanese goods come into our country or vice versa. As of now, China is still sleeping and Japan, well, we punk'd them in the great war. But nevertheless, we have enjoyed the products we receive from those countries and others. Now having said that, I do have a problem with an Arab country that had or has ties to terrorists. I acknowledge that a couple of terrorists that attacked our beloved country was from the UAE. I get that and I understand the point some line following republicans are saying. I've heard them say, since we are basically still at a stand still with China in regard to Korean War and China has taken Russia's place as a legitimate super power threat. Why is it that we can do business with them and not the UAE. Or, we have White European countries owning or running a few of our ports and we had no problem with it. So, why in the name of fairness and justice or we having a hissy fit over this particular country. And the answer is easy...The country can be compromised and like Saudi Arabia, UAE has not recognized Israel as a country. Folks, by now you all should know Israel is a buddy, like Great Britain. We are going to support Israel period point blank. So with the notion that no Arab or Jew is ever going to get along and the fact that one time an Egyptian and a Jew tried to get along...the Egyption ended up dead. Obviously Sadat forgot to specifically ask for "popcorn" and not popping sounds, in which the projectiles aimed at him definitely filled him up.

As said before, I get the arguement of being fair and not being hypocrites. And I get the reasoning that if we deny this country ports, then why should we continue allowing other countries to operate ports. I agree. I don't like the fact that foreign countries are running our ports and I damn sure don't like the fact that an arab country wants to operate our ports. I'm sorry, but the MSM won't say it and the police are prohibited from practicing it. But I'm racial profiling and the last I checked, the people most likely to hijack a plane, carry bombs for suicide and flew two planes into the WTC on September 11. Were arabs.

This administration can't hammer to the nation that we are at war against terrorism, rally us to support its Patriot Act and remind us of 9/11, when its setting the table for terrorists to feast on our soil again with bad intentions. And the democrats...never mind.

South Dakota Pushes The Envelope

Today the State of South Dakota did what would be considered a nightmare in my blue state of California. They voted to prohibit abortions. Abortions in South Dakota have been banned, making it illegal for women to have abortions, with the exception if the pregnancy is life threatening. As a matter of fact in cases regarding rape and incest, victims are not eligible to get an abortion.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this case is skyrocketing right to the Supreme Court, where it looks like the issue of abortion is going to be whether a state can legally ban abortion in contrast to the ruling regarding Roe v. Wade. Where the issue is in regard to the right of privacy. Personally I think it would be overturned due to the fact that the people of South Dakota did not vote on this issue and the article attached did not mention any studies to support the state in its ban of abortions. Also, I think, if your going to allow abortions for women whose pregnancies are life threatening, the state should have allowed the other caveats to supporting such an ban and that is if the woman is raped or incest has occured.

South Dakota really pushed the envelope.

Sources:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11546410/?GT1=7756

Quote from JCP website

The following quote was found at www.josephcphillips.com

"When will we all learn, that as long as the Democrats are controlling the White House...everything in the world will be ALRIGHT?!?!? When we will learn that back when Kennedy, and Johnson, and Carter and Clinton were in the White House....everyone in New Orleans was living in mansions, driving Cadillacs, and had yachts parked at the Marina."

Brown on Black Crime?

If blacks didn't have it any worse. It now seems that our black criminals are in trouble of being victims after make their own victims. Rampant fighting among latinos and black is having a silent effect on our black misleaders. Gregory Kane points out that silence:

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/kane216

Republicans On The Record (Newsmax)

Republicans on the Record

What does the record say about Republicans and the battle for civil rights and specifically for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352)?
Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicans.
In fact, the civil rights movement was not about politics. Nor was it about which politicians did what and which political party should take the most credit. When it came to civil rights, America's politicians merely saw the handwriting on the wall and wrote the legislation to make into federal law the historical changes that had already taken place. There was nothing else they could do.
The movement of blacks to the North, as well as their contributions as fighting men in the world wars, plus the hard work of millions of blacks and their families and churches, along with the efforts of many private groups and individuals made the civil rights movement succeed.
Civil rights for blacks found its historical moment after 1945. Bills introduced in Congress regarding employment policy brought the issue of civil rights to the attention of representatives and senators.
In 1945, 1947 and 1949, the House of Representatives voted to abolish the poll tax restricting the right to vote. Although the Senate did not join in this effort, the bills signaled a growing interest in protecting civil rights through federal action.
The executive branch of government, by presidential order, likewise became active by ending discrimination in the nation's military forces and in federal employment and work done under government contract.
Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.
As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]
It was appalling the other day to watch former Democratic Senator Bob Kerry totally gloss over Republican efforts in the name of civil rights. He implied that Lott's foot-in-mouth statement was representative of Republican views about civil rights since forever.
Kerry knows better. Yet being a loyal and predictable Democrat, Kerry can create the big lie with the best of them. The media are so in sync with that effort that they don't challenge him.
Kerry also maintained that all the Dixiecrats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another big lie. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.
Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold. It was not till much later, with a new, younger breed of Southerner and the thousands of Northerners moving into the South, that Republicans began to make gains.
I know. I was there.
When I moved to Georgia in 1970, the Democratic Party had a total lock on Georgia. Newt Gingrich was one of the first "outsiders" to break that lock. He did so in a West Georgia area into which many Northerners were moving. He gained the support of rural West Georgians over issues that had absolutely nothing to do with race.
In fact, very few party switches came about right after the Civil Rights Act was passed. Some exceptions who did switch were Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.
Democrats like Bob Kerry will lie about Republicans but won't tell you some facts about the heroes and icons of their own party. One of their major icons was not always Sir Galahad jousting in the name of civil rights. His name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
JFK – The Reluctant Civil Rights President
JFK evolved into a true believer in the civil rights movement when it became such an overwhelming historical and moral imperative that he had no choice. As a matter of record, when Kennedy was a senator from Massachusetts, he had an opportunity to vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Instead, he voted to send it to the conservative Senate Judiciary Committee, where it would have been pigeonholed.
His lukewarm support for theAct included his vote to allow juries to hear contempt cases. Dixiecrats preferred the jury system to trials presided over and decided by judges because all-white juries rarely convicted white civil rights violators.
His record in the 1950s did not mark Kennedy as a civil rights activist. Yet the 1957Act to benefit African-Americans was passed with the help of Republicans. It was a watered- down version of the later 1964 bill, which Kennedy backed.
The record on JFK shows he was a man of his times and a true politician, more given to equivocation and pragmatism than to activism. Kennedy outlined civil rights legislation only after most of the country was behind it and ready for him to act.
For the most part, in the 1960 presidential campaign he avoided the civil rights issue altogether. He did endorse some kind of federal action, but he could not afford to antagonize Southern Democrats, whose support he desperately needed to defeat Richard Nixon. Basically, he could not jeopardize the political support of the Dixiecrats and many politicians in the rest of the country who were concerned about the radical change that was in the offing.
After he was elected president, Kennedy failed to suggest any new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962. That failure was for pragmatic political reasons and so that he could get the rest of his agenda passed.
Introducing specific civil rights legislation in the Senate would have meant a filibuster and the obstruction of other business he felt was just as crucial as civil rights legislation. A filibuster would have happened for sure and it would have taken 67 members to support cloture to end such a filibuster. Sixty-seven votes Kennedy believed he did not have.
As it was, Kennedy had other fish to fry, including the growing threat of Russian imperialism, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Bay of Pigs as Cuba went down the communist rat hole, his increase in the numbers of troops and advisers he was sending to Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In addition, the steel business was in crisis and he needed a major tax rate cut to stimulate a sluggish economy. Kennedy understood his options and he chose to be realistic.
When Kennedy did act in June 1963 to propose a civil rights bill, it was because the climate of opinion and the political situation forced him to act.
The climate of opinion had changed dramatically between World War II and 1964. Various efforts by groups of Protestant and Catholic clergy, along with the Urban League, NAACP, Congress of Racial Equality, black activists, individuals both white and black and, of course, Martin Luther King Jr., as well as other subsets of his movement, are what forced civil rights to be crafted into federal law.
The National Opinion Research Center discovered that by 1963 the number of Americans who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30 percent in 20 years, to 72 percent. Americans supporting school integration had risen even more impressively, to 75 percent.
The efforts of politicians were needed to write all the changes and efforts into law. Politicians did not lead charge on civil rights – again, they just took credit, especially the Democrats.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act
When all the historical forces had come together, Kennedy decided to act. John Kennedy began the process of gaining support for the legislation in a nationally televised address on June 11, 1963.
Gathering business and religious leaders and telling the more violent activists in the black leadership to tone down the confrontational aspects of the movement, Kennedy outlined the Civil Rights Act. In it, the Justice Department was given the responsibility of addressing the worst problems of racial discrimination.
Because of the problem with a possible Senate filibuster, which would be imposed by Southern Democrats, the diverse aspects of theAct were first dealt with in the House of Representatives. The roadblock would be that Southern senators chaired both the Judiciary and the Commerce committees.
Kennedy and LBJ understood that a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats was the key to the bill's final success.
Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.
Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Like White On Rice...

Have you ever heard that before? Man, he was guarding that guy like white on rice. Well how about this this, I wouldn't see that show, if I was the only black in a GOP convention. I mean both statement are meant to be funny and continue an urban rumor. The one about a black being near or in anything sponsored by the GOP is a Hillary Clinton, "You know what I mean" speeches. All black folk are supposed to get that the equation of Black + GOP/Republicans dont' add up, but Black + DNC/Democrats = 2. It's not "fuzzy math" but the real Al Gore equation of blacks knowing their place. And apparently we need to be reminded of our place at any given time. For instance, right before the Winter Olympics started, HBO's real sports host, Bryant Gumbel reminded us that blacks and the GOP don't go together, can't be together and apparently the message has been received by almost blacks, with exception of a few runaways who choose to, well, think for themselves. Gumbel implied that since the winter games are near, and that the athletes who trained hard to be in the Olympics aren't really athletes, shoot! Gumbel said that they aren't even the worlds greatest, that we should not be happy to watch and even support these individuals, because of the lack of blacks in the games, and oh yeah, to get the point across, he used a Black minus GOP analogy, which came out to be, in his opinion, zero.

So before I discuss Gumbel's statement, I will be fair and post the complete statement:

Bryant Gumbel on the Winter Olympics:

"Finally, tonight, the Winter Games. Count me among those who don’t like them and won’t watch them ... Because they’re so trying, maybe over the next three weeks we should all try too. Like, try not to be incredulous when someone attempts to link these games to those of the ancient Greeks who never heard of skating or skiing. So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world’s greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention. Try not to point out that something’s not really a sport if a pseudo-athlete waits in what’s called a kiss-and-cry area, while some panel of subjective judges decides who won ... So if only to hasten the arrival of the day they’re done, when we can move on to March Madness — for God’s sake, let the games begin."


There you have it. Makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention. Makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention..Bryant Gumbel said the above statement, Bryant "Freakin" Gumbel...The same Bryant Gumbel, whose household looks like a GOP convention. The same Bryant Gumbel who some blacks perceive as being a "house negro" himself. This is the same Gumbel, who on a HBO documentary said he cried when Ali lost to Frazier in the first fight. This man, along with others picked a black fighter, who insulted another black fighter by calling him a "Tom" and "Gorilla." And Gumble cried. And look at the end of the statement, when he mentions March Madness...I almost laughed when I saw that. Hell, despite my eagerness to watch the round robin games this coming March, I try not to laugh when I'm told that these are the best college basketball players, despite the paucity of white players, it makes the final four look like a NBA All Star Game or for that matter a whole NBA season.

Now I can get the supposed humor in the statement, I mean when you have only two percent of blacks, who approves of George W. Bush. What can you say, I mean, try not to laugh this summer when you hear that these olympic athletes are the best in the world, in the 100 m dash, despite the paucity of whites in that event, it makes the event look like the Nation of Islam. Theres no white folk in that group, well probably, the members would have to get a DNA test to trace their real racial make up. But I get the humor in it, I mean despite the paucity of whites in our prison system, it makes the correction centers look like slavery days. I can go and on with these analogies...Gumbel's remarks were irresponsible and unwarranted.

Meanwhile, while not watching the games, props to Shani Davis for winning a gold medal...Memo to Gumbel, Mr. Davis represents that small percentage of blacks in the GOP, who just continues to win.

My E-Mail To Larry Elder...and HE REPLIED!!!!

I don't care what anyone says, this is an autograph!!!

Hey Sage:

Like the show. Have been listening to you fully for two
years now. Sage, let me tell you that I started listening to you
because of that group, "beating drum" or "sounding drum" or whatever
they called themselves. I had to find out who they were talking about
and see for myself. At first, when I listened, I got it in bits.
There were things I said to myself, "Cmon! man, Is there anything you
can find positive about our people." But you kept nailing your points,
stuck to your position and you did not back down. Larry, I like to
think that I am not a victicrat. Mistakes, your doggone right I made
them. And I don't recall a white dude being the reason why I did or
did not do things. When I improved my situation in my career. It
paid off. I realize that the world is changing and becoming more
challenging. You have to continue to improve or be left behind. I
pound education to my children. I take away the boob tube and make
them read the newspapers on the internet. (L.A. Times with exception
of the sports page is banned). Anyway Sage, just wanted to drop a few
lines to say I appreciate you and your show. Keep your head up. And
by the way, I have been called an Uncle Tom and Sell Out for voting
for Dubya, not once, but twice! (Gore and Kerry just bored the hell
out of me). The first time I was called a "sell out" was three years
ago. Apparently, jealousy got the best of this probable minimum wage
worker, seeing a black man work in a Irvine law office, was more than
he can bear. He called me a sellout for being a paralegal and doing
the best I can for my family. Unfortunately, it was a bad day for
him..You see, you (sage) have to maintain some type of decorum and
take it. Me, on the other hand, if your black and you call me out of
my name..to steal a quote from Bernie Mac: "Oh Lord!"

I will do the same thing, said black person does when a white person
calls them out of their name by using the n-word. Yeah, I know its
wrong for me to hit back with words and not back down physically, but
I can't remember the name of the movie in which Denzel Washington and
Meg Ryan starred and one of the characters threatned him:

"Sargeant, I didn't know any better, I think you just threatned
me...Now don't be mistaken, by me being an officer, by right I have to
be a gentleman..but don't think I won't get knee deep in your ass"

Its only right..and it shows that I won't discriminate...anyway sage,
the initial purpose of the e-mail was to see if you had any
information to the net worth of our so called black leaders (elected
or self elected). I find it strange that these individuals are
hollerin' and screamin' about black poverty and tax cuts to the rich,
but yet some of them are enjoying those cuts.

Stay Strong and Continue Not Backing Down
JC Lewis, Jr, Tustin, CA
US Army Vet. (Desert Storm I Vet)

AND HE REPLIED!!!!

J.C.
Thank you so much for your letter and for your service to our country.
You give me hope and motivation when I learn that, maybe, just maybe my
show might make a bit of a difference.
God bless you,

Larry Elder: Showtime at Coretta Scott King's Funeral

Talkradio and syndicated columnist Larry Elder points out the riches of some civil rights leaders, when the civil righs leader still ask for handouts.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/larryelder/2006/02/16/186734.html

Gunsmoke at ABC

Business Investors editorial in regard to 12 hours of tapes of Saddam Hussein discussing WMD

"Gunsmoke on ABC," Investor's Business Daily, Issues & Insights, February 16, 2006Full Article

Quote of the day...

the thing that struck me, everything about the Olympics violates everything liberals stand for. For example, in the Olympics there are winners, which is fine, but that also means that there are losers. And of course losing destroys self-image, and winners are just lucky. So it's inherently unfair to have an Olympics where there are losers because you have to have winners at the same time. Furthermore, they keep score. Scores are kept, records are kept. Not only is it unliberal to have scores, but recording those scores for history stigmatizes people for life, because very few of them win, almost all of them lose, and they get stigmatized as losers, and it's documented forever. There's no affirmative action in the Olympics. Everybody starts on the same starting line. Nobody gets a head start at all. That cannot please liberals at all. There's no tax on the winners. Do you understand, the winners actually get prizes. How can you have winners who don't get taxed? - Rush Limbaugh

Lashawn Barber: Memo To White Conservatives

Ms. Barber points out that the jig is up for black conservatives......


Memorandum

TO: White Conservative Employers

FROM: Your Faithful (and Humble) Servant
RE: Exposure!———————————————————————

Friends, it looks like the jig is up. We’ve been caught!
My criticism of the black community has exposed me for the self-hater that I am. And you have been exposed as my employers, paying me all that big money to spout hatred for myself and the black community. Bad-mouthing fine leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton has cost me dearly.
And I think the post about Barack Obama being just another liberal may have crossed the line. Black people should not talk about other blacks that way, especially in front of whites.
Daring to even imply that blacks should stop complaining and accept the consequences of their own moral failings and improve their own lot is taboo, as someone who’s been black all her life should know. I tried to see the world from a different perspective and express a “diverse” opinion. What was I thinking? Woe is me…no…I…whatever!
The fact is I wasn’t thinking. I was blinded by all the green you guys have been bribing me with! Listen to what they’re saying about me. Here’s an excerpt of just one of many e-mails I get. This very perceptive man appears to be some sort of psychoanalyst. He diagnoses my condition too well:

You seem to go to any lengths to NOT address the racism that is practiced by whites. Do you not see it or do you choose not to see it? How is it that you cannot admit that the racism whites practice has damaged and continues to damage an entire group of people, in spite of some small gains that we’ve made? In your columns, why are you not critical of whites when they continue to discriminate in all facets of American life?
“Do you know the demographics of your readers? Are they mostly white, male, conservative? If this is the predominant make up of your readership, it tells me that they agree with you because your writings make them comfortable in practicing their racism.
I have concluded that you did not address the issues I raise because: 1 — you are being well paid by a group of white conservatives to write the things you do; 2 — you have a deep self hatred for yourself and for Black people; 3 — you are exhibiting a combination of these two.
I suspect that I will never know the real motives for the reasons why you write as you do. I can only refer you to two books that could possibly explain your condition—
“The American Directory of Certified Uncle Toms” and “Black Skin, White Masks” by Frantz Fanon.”

He’s got me pegged, don’t you see? How can I hide the truth? Black people are not responsible for killing each other. We are not responsible for the crime and degradation in some of our own neighborhoods. Our small gains pale in comparison to what we could’ve achieved if it weren’t for racism. Our own immorality and character flaws are not the issue.
It is you who is responsible. It is YOU, white conservative man, who has brought these ills upon us. And we’re still waiting for the 40 acres and a mule you promised us a looooooong time ago. Al Sharpton said so.
I’m tired of playing the lackey. I’m just a patsy! My intentions were honorable. They really were. Despite the money you’re paying to pull my puppet strings, all I ever wanted to do was instill some pride and dignity back into the heart of the community. I wanted people to know that yes, we have brains and can think for ourselves.
I didn’t want to focus on “white racism”: I wanted the world to see that we can be hard-working, creative, innovative, non-complaining lovers of liberty. When I pointed out the immorality of our own behavior and how we need to fix that first before we deal with “racism,” I thought I was doing a responsible thing.
To assert that blacks have more important things to do than blame “the white man” for everything was quite ambitious, I must say. But I’d rather tell the truth: it’s not our fault. We are and will remain the helpless descendants of slaves (many generations removed, of course, but why quibble?) incapable of exercising our God-given, free moral agency and “tolerance” toward members of our group who dare to hold different views. Shame on me for thinking otherwise. What a self-hater I am!
I quit! DNC, here I come. Congressional Black Caucus, make room for me. I’m coming home! Jesse, I’m sooooooorrrrrryyyyy!
P.S. Uh…if this month’s check is already in the mail, please disregard this memo.

Chump Change

You ever heard the saying, "You don't get something for nothing."? Well that saying is true. If you don't work, you don't get paid and your not able to provide for yourself or your family. Regardless of your background, we all have to work. We all like to see the rewards of hard work and the fruits of our labor. We all want to be "comfortable" in our old age. How do we do that? Some of us, save. Some of us, take risks with the stock market and some of us use mutual funds. Well not all of us, Its true, that some folk don't save or do not have adequate savings. Regardless of how old you get, you still have expenses. And some of us are depending on a system that needs to be changed. The system is Social Security. Social Security is supposed to be paid out for our aging citizens. Those who retire from 40 - 45 years of working, paying their dues, working for the man or being the man..Regardless according to FDR's New Deal, retiring citizens are eligible, entitled to some type of payment when they turn of eligible age. Back in those days, folks didn't trust banks, and who can blame them, Once the stock market crashed, the roaring twenties was quieted and the only thing heard was the wind blowing away top soil in what is now called the "Dust Bowl". But today, the problems of yesterday are not the problems of today. The system that was supposed to support our seniors is hurting and everyone wants to fix it, either by throwing more money at it or putting the burden on younger Americans. So far, the burden is on the younger Americans to flip the bill for our seniors. Another problem with the system is this: A Black man, works all his life, starting when he was drafted in WWII, comes home and works sometimes multiple jobs. He finally gets a job that he will stay until he reaches retirement age. He gets a modest pension along with a gold pen of appreciation. He expects to live the remaining years with his wife of over 40 years. They plan vacations, see the grand children to share their life stories, so it can be passed on to the next generation. He is 64 and turns 65 the next day and social security is supposed to kick in. The next day, he does not see, he dies. His wife receives the pension and a little social security check. A black man works all his life, providing for his family, missing birthdays, sacrificing to buy his children food and clothes. And the one time, he is expecting to rest and enjoy the dwindling years of his life..The system he's paid into, is not there and not adequate to support an elderly widow. How about the man, who lives past 65 and dies at 67 or 68? 40 to 45 years, paying into the system, and all they get from that system is 3 to 5 years? Where is the exhibit of all the hard work? It's in the governments hand, paying out to others. Let me put it this way, regardless of when an elderly person passes way, it could 80 -85 years of age, you don't get all you put into the system. And the system, I think was created for short term retirement..The goverment probably expected a person to die, 3 to 5 years later..But like time, everything changes..people are living longer than expected. Modern breakthroughs in medicine is a reason. The system is getting beat up. We need a change, we need to look at a bi-partisan, tri-partisan ideal of retirement accounts...A man or woman who works all their life, should have something to show..besides a gold pen and chump change from Uncle Sam.

The Week After

This past Sunday, attendance at church was up. The Sunday school rolls spiked up impressively. Why? No more football. Yeah, every football fan heathen returned to their usual pews and took in some solace that in few months, their mass absense will be noted again. This past Sunday, attendance was up at the eleven o'clock service, while it dropped to its usual low at the eight o'clock service. Why? because theres no need to get up early to catch the opening kickoffs in seven or eight football games across the country. Now the eleven o'clock service is filled with depressed football fans mixed in the "I shook my behind all night at the club" crowd and "After shaking my behind at the club - I knocked da boots" crowd. As usual no one is none happier to see a good attendance than the pastor. For 5 months, he has to deal with the really saved and sanctified folks. He can't give his fire and brimstone sermons to a bunch of folk who know they are going to heaven. Shoot, during those five months, the church celebrates, Pastor and First Lady Anniversaries, The church will visit other churches to combine their worshippers, The church will have a three o'clock and a seven o'clock service in hopes of gaining football fan back to the pews. Surely after eight hours of throwing down nachos, beer and ribs. Football fan might have two dollars to give. So after the day after, after all the celebratin' for fans whose team won the Super Bowl. The season is finally over, Its time to go back to the fields and labor in the house of the Lord. Its time to fellowship with those, who have missed your amens on cue, missed your interpretation of a track star jumping the pews in a 100 meter race. Its time to give the beer, nachos and BBQ Ribs and dogs money back to its rightful place, remember its a tenth. Because September is around the corner and up the street..A week after labor day, and how befitting a holiday, after laboring in the house of the Lord, it will be football season again. And football fans all over who've returned to the pews and the deacon's front row have been praying, fastin' and speakin' in tongues..... LAWD!!!! Let my team win the mother effin' Super Bowl!!!!

Does The Sacrifice Change..

With this being Black History Month and with the passings of Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King. I was just thinking about the man identified by all as the face of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King, Jr. Surely all school age children will receive the same lesson about a man who fought for civil rights of all black people. Of course, back then the movements was about injustice and the denial of basic civil rights in some states. Students will be told that back then, mean white people used to deny blacks a right to vote, lynch and burn black people for being black. Students will learn that those same evil white people used to make black people sit in the back of a bus, enter restaurants and other public places from separate doors and little black children had to go to different schools than white. Students will learn that all of this changed when Martin Luther King, Jr., came around because he fought to end such injustice and segregation. As a matter of fact, students will learn not only did Dr. King do all those things, but he was shot and killed for standing up to the wrongs of this country. Students won't hear of Medger Evers, who also was shot and killed for doing the same thing Dr. King did. Students will get half of the information on Malcom X, because still today, some folks see Brother Malcom as a rifle carrying, by any means necessary race mongerer. Nevermind the the transformation of Brother Malcom after he returned from Mecca. Nevermind the fact that he died for doing the right thing and improving the plight of Black America. The question I have to ask is, does the message change, when we find out our heroes had flaws and weren't perfect. Do you look at them differently, when you find out that a man, some say was a man of God back slid.

To be honest, I did. A man like Dr. King, who paid the ultimate price for me to vote freely every election. Paid the price for me to go to school with white kids and after recess, drank from the same water fountain. Paid the price for me to live among whites. King, along with others made it possible for other blacks who came after them to take advantage of all the opportunities, they were denied. But I had a problem, with the private life of these men. I had a problem with Jesse Jackson, when it was told that he had an affair with another woman and is the father of this woman's child. I have a problem, with a man, who goes around calling other black men sellouts and Toms, only to find out that the same man, is married to a white woman. I am a man with flaws, but I'm not a public figure. So does the sacrifice change? At the homegoing celebration of Mrs. King, we had to learn what made her strong, what made her to be the woman she was. Her life, was no different than any other single mother. It so happened, the man of her life, the father of her children and the martyr for all black folks, was Dr. King. And he was taken away through violent means. Its no secret that Dr. King, had extramarital affairs, as a matter of fact, everyone is waiting for a tell all from a woman, who spent more time with Dr. King than Coretta. Like Coretta, she got to know him intimately and was privvy to his dark secrets. Does the sacrifice change? It is said that if you are a christian, that you should be "Christ like"and "be not of this world," Its been said that Dr. King, smoked and dranked at times. Does the sacrifice change? Does it change because the man, identified as the most effective civil rights leader had flaws. I say no, because he did his duty for a people who needed an identity. No, because he paid the ultimate price for our freedoms. No, because when his people called his name for justice, he dropped his obligations as a husband and father to tend to the needs of a multitude. Does it excuse his flaws...In my opinion, I don't give a damn, what he did with his personal time and in his private life..He owes me no explanation, not unless each and every one of us, are willing to stand at the Lorraine Hotel balcony and be shot. Not unless each and every one of us are willing to stand at a crowded auditorium and be cut down by men who had the same skin complexion. Until then, respect the sacrifice and let the naysayers go to hell.

Dick Morris: A Bigger Blacker GOP

A Bigger, Blacker GOPBy Dick MorrisFrontPageMagazine.com
February 8, 2006

Far away from the speeches of Jesse Jackson, the demands of Al Sharpton and the ranting of Louis Farrakhan, a quiet revolution is taking place in the role African-Americans play in politics. In the very heartland of the nation — in Pennsylvania and Ohio — the Republican Party is getting set to nominate black candidates for governor in the coming elections. In a nation that has not a single African-American governor — not one — from either party, this is its own little revolution. These are not throwaway candidates in states where the GOP has no chance of victory. These are real candidates, chosen when there were plenty of white alternatives, that are en route to their party's nomination, with real chances to win. In Pennsylvania, former football great Lynn Swann stands poised to be designated as the Republican candidate at next week's State Convention. The former wide receiver for the Pittsburgh Steelers, now enshrined in the Hall of Fame, is seeking fame of another sort, trying to be the state's first black governor. In Ohio, a key swing state, Ken Blackwell, the Republican secretary of state, is running for the gubernatorial nomination in a state Republicans can win. In Maryland, Lieut. Gov. Michael Steele is seeking the open Senate seat. Add these men to the possibility that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice might heed Laura Bush's advice and run for president, and a revolution may be in the making. Salena Zito, a political columnist for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, notes that "to an extent, Democrats have been blindsided by this growth of black Republicans running for high-profile offices." The backdrop for this sea change is sketched out in a new book by an ex-Bush White House staffer, Ron Christie, Black in the White House: Life Inside George W. Bush's West Wing. He catalogues a range of policy initiatives which, particularly in education, have led to achievements that rival the best of the Clinton years. Partly as a result of President Bush's No Child Left Behind legislation, the achievement gap between white and black fourth-grade students in reading is at its lowest ever and the math gap is, too. (The eighth-grade tests also reflect a sharp narrowing of the gap.) And as former Rep. J.C. Watts of Oklahoma found out, African-Americans who reject the entitlement ethic and stand for self-reliance and individual upward mobility are very attractive to white voters. Asked to accept liberal ideology and big tax-and-spend programs as the price of supporting black candidates, many voters say no. But given a chance to find black candidates who share the electorate's vision, most white voters jump at the chance. Black candidates are highly threatening to white political leaders. Sources close to Rev. Al Sharpton, for example, attribute Hillary Clinton's comparison of the House of Representatives to a "plantation" to her fear of a Rice candidacy. "She boycotted the event for two years in a row and now, when Condi might run, she shows up and uses militant rhetoric," one of Sharpton's key people told me. "She needs to get Al to vouch for her in South Carolina if she goes up against Condi," he added. The Democratic Party has always treated the African-American vote like a golfer's handicap. A Democrat takes the black vote for granted and a Republican, until recently, takes its loss as a given. But the growth of black candidates among Republicans — a result of the declining power of racism in politics — may force both parties to change that calculation. If the black vote becomes "in play" as the Hispanic vote has, there will be a whole new politics in this country of ours.

If You Know Him...You Can Talk About Him

I caught some of Mrs. Coretta Scott King's funeral today. In short, Mrs. King is Black America's first lady...and Black America's only first lady. Sure, we have, you know what I'm not going to go there. Anyway as stated before I caught some of the Mrs. King's funeral and read some of the comments made about this extraordinary woman. Of course some of the statements, were for continued politics. It's amazing how some, still in this hour would continue to play politics with something that is bigger than them. I don't know about you all, but it seems like some politicians and self elected leaders never take the day off. In Jimmy Carter's case, someone needs to remind him that he was elected because of the downfall of Richard Nixon. Other than that, I wish he would continue to be the embarrassment he was and is to this country. But lo' and behold there was some preachin' going on inside the church. And if you know the Lord, you know that he was present in the church. All I can say is again, if you know him, you can talk about him...If you know he is the reason why you got up in the morning, If you know he is the reason of why the sun came up and you were able to walk around and see the beauty of his creation..If you know him you can say, good morning to him in a prayer and give him all the praises due him..If you know him, you can pray and preach his name in the presence of your enemies and turn the other cheek. Oh the Lord was in the house, because his name was called and he had to see the multitudes. Sure, Mrs. King wasn't there, because she was called home to finally be with her husband. If you know him, you can talk about him....

You know the one thing, that makes me quiver, shake and get teary eyed is seeing someone love the lord...You know the Lord plays an integral part of that person's life. Maybe its jealousy and envy on my part, but I'm unable to shout and jump like most folks...but I know the Lord...I know the Lord because of all I've been through..the road I traveled, the hurt I experienced..Sure everyone has troubles, but the Lord gave me strength to carry on. I know him..I know him.

Mrs. King received a good send off and homecoming...and in closing, the President showed he knows the Lord in his contribution to the service...realizing he was in the house of the Lord, President Bush continued what Bishop Eddie Long started...he preached.

President received Standing O: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060207.html

Take Away and Give Aways

After two days, I finally want to give my opinion on the Super Bowl. The reason for the two days, is to finally get it passed my mind that this game was the worse officiated game..worse officiated Super Bowl in my football watching and playing experience. Let me get this out the way, congratulation to the Steelers. They played the best football in seven games, I have ever seen. They went through three top ranked teams and beat the mess out of teams they were supposed to beat like the Germans going through France. Like the United States going through Saddam's republican guards. In short, they played great football for their fans and for those of us who enjoy watching a team, if not their own, play to win the the damn games. Also, I want to give props to the Seattle Seahawks. They played valiently and the effort was there for their fans and NFL fans to appreciate. So there you have it. Two teams that deserved their spotlight in the Super Bowl getting just that. Two teams that reached the highest pinnacle like teams before them. One, there for the first time. The other, there to join two storied teams in obtaining five rings. Two great coaches. One, there to prove he can win without a legend quarterback and the other, there to prove he can win the big one.

Did you notice anything about the guys in the striped uniforms? Guys and gals who wear striped uniforms with whistles should not be known. They can be heard, but only if they are enforcing a rule or penalty. Guys and gals who wear striped uniforms with said whistles are there to maintain order. Guys and gals who wear striped uniforms should not, in anyway, be a possible reason why one team may have lost. Especially in the freakin' Super Bowl. Game 7's of Major League Baseball and the NFL and most importantly the BCS Championship game. This game was mired in bad calls. You know I've seen pass interference calls on both sides of the ball. Hell, the league changed the rules because of Michael Irvin. Side note, this is a reason why Irvin's back side should be in the Hall of Fame. The league implemented rules because of Irvin. and he can't get in the Hall of Fame, but Aikman, who benefitted off of Irvins, ahem! technique did!. But as I digress, that was'nt offensive pass interference and neither was that offensive holding in the fourth quarter, nor did Hassleback illegal cut block a player. Those were three obvious calls the refs blew in the game. Now the big one, Rothlisberger did not score..THE BALL DID NOT CROSS THE GOAL LINE. Steeler fans obvious would take it, but they know he did not score.

You see folks, games are supposed to be remembered for the play of it athletes. Memories of those games, especially in the Super Bowl are supposed to be legendary.

Not repulsive.


Sideline Note: If you were one of the millions of people who participated in your office/work Super Bowl pool. And you picked 7-0, Seahawks in the first quarter. All I can say is dayum!!!! But you can't call the police to report a robbery.

Black on Black Crime?

One of the problems in the black community is black on black crime. Statistically the number of violent crimes of blacks are mostly done by blacks. For whatever reason, poverty and lack of education may be the cause. Black on black crimes, like for all other races can involve murder. Young men or women who join gangs are more likely to commit murder to finish their initiation to that gang. Nevertheless for whatever the reason, it happens and we all know what it means. It's a subject that is only spoken among conservative blacks to point out the problems of the black community. Its spoken quietly among liberal blacks to show their disappointment in what's happening in the black community. And we get that it needs to be stopped with more education and I hate to say it, more after school programs. But having said all that, never in my mind would I equate a star receiver throwing his quarterback under the bus, by words, as a black on black crime. Yet, if you listen to Donovan McNabb and his father, they believe such a heinous crime occured. McNabb is now responding and firing back at his critics. Well great. But it is too late. Where was this response before? Now don't get me wrong, I disagree with the criticisms lodged at McNabb, especially by a man, who is still sportin' Teddy Pendergrass' cowboy hat and claiming to be a protector of civil rights of people of color. The NAACP Philedelphia Chapter President, said that Donovan is basically selling out because he does not run the ball. Whoa! wait a minute, the last I checked McNabb is the quarterback, granted he is counted and considered a ball carrier, but the job of the quarterback is to run the offense. He is the offensive general that get his team up and down the field. Now, he can do this two ways, one, he can pass the ball to his designated receivers. Next, he can handoff the ball to either two designated runners, called running backs. And, if the coaches feel the need to move the quarterback, they can either have the quarterback roll to left or right, or do what we call a "quarterback sneak" up the middle behind his snapper aka center. Now, if the quarterback is passing the ball, he has to get rid of the ball in a certain amount of seconds. Why? because there are at least 7 guys aiming to send said quarterback to the hospital. Now if the quarterback's designated receivers are not "open" to receive a pass and those said 7 guys are bearing down on him. The quarterback has to run or do whats called a scramble. He can run around to find a open receiver, who probably by now is running to a designated hot spot on the field, or the quarterback simply becomes the running back, tucks the ball and runs...Sounds simple? not exactly..Remember those 7 players bearing down on the quarterback, now add 4 more...The quarterback now has 11 guys with blazing speed chasing him to either stop him for a loss of yardage, prevent a score or a first down. Now for as long as football has been played, quarterbacks have run with the ball. Fran Tarkenton comes to mind, Steve Young comes to mind...what do these men have in common? They are white. either was labeled a sell out for not staying in the pocket and just throwing the ball. Yet, McNabb, who can run is labeled a sell out...and the McNabb's consider that criticism, along with the words of Terrell Owens....

a black on black crime...

Puhleaze! Tell that to the parents of innocent children who were gunned down..Tell that to the wife and children of whose father was just coming home from work or hangin' out with the boys and gunned down because some knucklehead thinks he's a gang member.

That, along with others are black on black crimes.

By the People. For the People?

You know the one thing frustrating about politics and politicians is that in politics, the folks elected to represent the people, who was put in office by the people seem to forget that. I say that because of the President's Address to the Union last night. Personally, as a "decline to state" registered voter. I heard nothing that I did not hear before. As a matter of fact if you visit www.whitehouse.gov, most of the speech from last night can be found at all the appearances the President has made. Same statement about the War on Terrorism, good..he nailed the point again in regard to the guys left of Judge Alito. Plans in Iraq..good, nothing has changed in that..a nice little chastisement to the guys left of Judge Alito. But then the speech went south...literally...I'm talking south of the border, south. This president, democrats and republicans refuse to hear the cries of the people who elected them. On one hand they ask us to believe in the government and the next hand they slap us with okaying illegal immigration. They are sugar coating "amnesty" and they know it. What's wrong with doing for the people. I've heard all the arguements for and against illegal immigration..yeah, strangely they do the jobs no American will do...or if your Vicente Fox, no Black American will do. But in the past, those jobs were done by Americans with little or no jobs skills. When was the last time you went into a burger joint that when we were growing up, we flipped burgers and made fries and uttered, "Welcome to McDonalds, Can I Take Your Order Please." Those jobs were filled by 16-17 year old kids (with legal work permits). Not today, today you can expect to go into any burger joint (in California) and have to point to a number to order, why? most likely the individual taking your order can't understand you and you damn sure can't understand them. How many of you have gone to emergency rooms, to wait either all day or night to be seen..why? because illegals and some folks without health insurance are in there. Emergency rooms in most hospitals have thrown in the towel on that type of service. Does anyone remember the blue collar worker? The middle class? the jobs that paid nice wages with good health insurance. How about warehouses that used to employ the surrounding community? those jobs are gone due to the fact that employers have figured that they can pay someone less wages and no health insurance. In turn these people get the service from us, the tax payers. But do our politicians hear us...nope, quotes like the President's speech last night said that we must recognize that "Immigrants" pay into our tax system. So having said all that, the one candidate that runs for president, and uses Illegal Immigration as his platform, along with maintaining the "traditional family", reduction in social and corporate welfare and a solid domestic policy...is my candidate. As for the others, all incumbents will not get my vote from muncipal to state to federal. I plan to make a sound in the deep forest.

Democrats Misleading? Nah!!

True to form, the Democrats launched ads and responses to the President's State of the Union Speech last night. And as usual, instead of coming up with new ideals or pertinent issues. The democrats choose to stay the course of continued bashing of the President. Remember the battle cry of Ted "How Dry I Am" Kennedy: "Day after day, we were told lie after lie." and we're still talking about Kanye Left errr West's statement, "George Bush doesn't care about black people." Well like all other things in regard to the war in terror, Katrina, Iraq and this is leaving out illegal immigration. This administration is doing well, in spite of the bashing and America's pyscho mom on the loose. But hey you don't have to take my word, but according to www.factcheck.org . You shouldn't take the word of the democrats either. I mean day after day we were told lie after lie about assisting in crime, standing up for the little man (not midgets or dwarfs or whatever PC name) improving education, showing real support of our troops, wanting to stay the course and fight terrorism, no new taxes, no new spending and that Kennedy really had an alibi the night a young woman was found in the drink (oooo! low blow). Democrats Response to Address Misleading (Courtesy Factcheck.org)

http://www.factcheck.org/article373.html