More Todd Stroger Shenanigans -- Wallace "Gator" Bradley, You're Not Helping!

Race and Chicago politics. Two great things that go great together, like oil and water, and fire and gasoline. It came up during the election and administration of Chicago's Mayor Harold Washington. It has always been a part of Chicago politics, and some of it was elevated to the national scale during the election of President Obama.

But this isn't about national politics. This is about down-home local politics, and people looking to fan the flames of racism for their preferred candidate.

Todd Stroger, the incumbent Cook County Board President, is up for re-election this year (side note: Early voting has begun... vote early, and vote often... it's the Chicago way!). Two of his primary candidates are Black. They are 4th Ward Alderman Toni Preckwinkle and Cook County's Clerk of the Circuit Court, Dorthy Brown. The other Democratic Party candidate is the President of the Chicago Water Reclamation District, Terrence O'Brien. He's the sole white guy in the Democratic Primary.

Now, why am I bringing up the fact that two of Todd's Stroger's opponents in the Democratic Party primary are Black? It's because shenanigans are afoot.

This Sun-Times article talked about an inflammatory poster that's making the rounds locally. The poster accuses Preckwinkle and Brown of being pawns in the election game. The creator of the poster, Wallace "Gator" Bradley (a former Gangster Disciple who fashions himself as an "urban translator", and once [ridiculously, I might add] went on some sort of mission to tell people that GD no longer stood for "Gangster Disciple", but for "Growth and Development), states that Preckwinkle and Brown are only in the race as pawns, to split the Black vote and usher in Terrence O'Brien, who himself is a pawn for powerful Illinois (and Chicago) Irish politicians. My words can't do the poster justice. View for yourself.



This poster (and the mindset behind it) would be hilarious if it weren't so tragically awful, ignorant, and narrow-minded. The inflammatory language of this poster does NOTHING to state why Stroger should be re-elected, it just states that we can't trust Stroger's opposition, because they're tools of Da Man.

Now, splitting the vote is a very real political strategy, but it doesn't apply here. Todd Stroger hasn't proven himself to be a candidate that's even WORTHY of trying to siphon off votes from him. He's not worth the effort to put up straw-man candidates for the sake of splitting the Black vote. He's such a weak candidate that if ONLY Black people could vote for Todd Stroger, he'd STILL LOSE. Stroger (aka The Toddler) is being propped up as some sort of "consensus" candidate. This gives the impression that as Black people, we all vote in a monolithic fashion, and we'll support ANY candidate, as long as he's Black. And it also assumes that we'll SUPPORT any Black person in a position of power, so long as he stays Black. God help us if we actually ask the person to be GOOD at the job we elected them for.

Ask Alan Keyes how the Black Monolith vote worked for him.

There is additional proof that these "Soldiers 4 Stroger" (as they call themselves) are looking to prop Stroger up as some sort of "consensus" candidate. Take a look at THIS poster:


At this point, allow me to quote Ed Lover and say "C'mon, Son!!!" Tying Martin Luther King's birthday to the support of a barely capable administrator? This is ridiculous, insulting, and extremely patronizing. It's attempting to pit Black voters against the "powerful Irish infrastructure", and it's attempting to make Stroger out to be some sort of hero because he handles as big a budget as the white guys. The sad thing is that I can't recall this sort of patronizing, cloying, manipulative stuff when John Stroger ran for the Board Presidency (maybe it did happen, but I didn't pay attention... heh...).

As a Black man, I can state with a little bit of confidence that the person that I give my vote to gets it because they EARNED it. Not because they were entitled to it by virtue of skin color or last name (isn't that right, Todd STROGER?). I'll be willing to bet a nickel that some of the same people behind this terrible strategy were looking the other way and whistling when Stroger's handlers orchestrated the Todd-For-John switcheroo.

In The Toddler's defense, though, he HAS stated that he has nothing to do with these posters or the "Soldiers 4 Stroger" group. But I don't think that this will help him much.

R. Kelly To Write Memoir - We Have Exclusive Excerpts!

R&B R. Kelly is preparing to enter into a media realm. As reported elsewhere, R. Kelly will be preparing to write his memoirs. In a blockbuster Chubby Afro/Shut'cher Gobbige Mowf EXCLUSIVE, we have acquired leaked first drafts of some of this explosive tome.

R. Kelly (born Robert Sylvester Kelly) begins by telling the world what drew him to the cut-throat, lucrative, and intense business of being an entertainer:

Kelz and his humble beginnings

Very telling. Very telling.

In this yet-untitled memoir, Kelly also explains the creative process behind his hit R&B opera, "Trapped In The Closet, Parts 1 through Infinity":

Kelly details the intense creative process behind "Trapped In The Closet"

The piece-de-resistance of the leaked excerpts is next. Finally free to speak his mind about the child pornography charges that have dogged him for years, Kelly uses his memoir to express exactly how that infamous night went down. Kelly breaking his silence on this issue is incredible. Simply incredible:

R. Kelly finally breaks his silence on the charges that he faced.

We expect that this memoir will set the literary world aflame.

Stay tuned, as we may have more exclusive excerpts in the near future.

Obama Administration Under Fire For Controversial Pardon

Washington, UPI -- Courage.

Courage is the name of the turkey that was pardoned by President Barack Obama on Wednesday, November 25. With a wave of his hand and the utterance of "I hereby pardon Courage so he can live out his days in peace and tranquility", the President spared the turkey from being part of the First Family's Thanksgiving meal, the first since Obama was elected President.

This gesture of mercy towards a creature bound for the dinner plate did not go unnoticed by Republicans and members of the Conservative media. They were quick to pounce on the President's decision to pardon Courage as an example of President Obama's foreign policy shortcomings.

"If he pardons this turkey, what's to stop him from pardoning (alleged 9/11 mastermind) Khalid Sheikh Mohammad?" asked radio commentator and Fox News host Sean Hannity. "This is just the kind of soft appeasement that we've come to expect from this administration. America, I hope you're watching!" Radio host Rush Limbaugh joined the fray by stating on his radio show that "this just goes to show you how soft this man-boy President is. (President) Obama had an animal that was convicted of deliciousness and he just set him free. Just set him FREE. Can you believe that, America? Why, I can see him now going over to Gitmo and granting pardons left and right, just as he did for Courage. Wake up, America! This is a dangerous precedent!"

Republican Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) lamented that "this sort of thing just doesn't happen in my America. I mean, who in their right minds lets a perfectly good turkey go be free, when it could be the centerpiece of a traditional American Thanksgiving dinner? I'll tell you who... someone who doesn't believe in Thanksgiving, or America, that's who!" Bachmann was joined by housewife Ellen Korman, who cried when she thought about the ramifications of the Presidential Pardon. "This is not the America I grew up in", sobbed Korman. "In my America, turkeys were for dinner, and not for pardoning and parading in Disneyland."

Glenn Beck analyzed the pardon on his own show. "You see, what Obama did was that he pardoned Courage. What this really means is that he is letting courage go free... the courage to criticize this administration, the courage to speak up against the socialist regime, the courage to be American and be proud. Obama has decided that the very ideals of courage, freedom and being an American should be relinquished to roam elsewhere."

Former CNN commentator Lou Dobbs stated in an interview with Fox and Friends that the pardon disturbs him. "Maybe it's some sort of Islamicistic tradition where they let turkeys go, or maybe it's something that he brought over from Kenya. I'm not saying that Obama IS a Kenyan Islamacistical traitor to the people of the United States, but if he pardons this turkey, then who's next?" Orly Taitz, lawyer and leader of the "birther" movement, filed a federal lawsuit to have the turkey captured and eaten, and she amended this lawsuit to question President Obama's legitimacy as the leader of the free world.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was unavailable for comment.

"This Is Not The America I Grew Up In!!!"

It's the next great Battle Cry of the Stupid Conservative.

Sean Hannity

Glenn Beck

Katy Abrams (circled)

What do all of these people have in common? They, and others like them, have been complaining as loudly as they can that because of Barack Obama's Presidency and his daring to reform health care, he is transforming America in ways that make them sick. They have all been grabbing open mikes and shrieking into them that "This is not the America I grew up in!" These folks have corrupted legitimate town-hall discussions that the Democratic Party members are trying to sponsor. The very idea of health care reform for people who can't afford health care is so ghastly, so unimaginable, so downright heinous that it's just... just... it's just unamerican, that's what it is. At least, that's what the people who utter these sentiments would have you believe.

This post isn't about the merits of health care, or the pluses and minuses of the Single Payer Option. This post is about hatred. Violent, intense hatred that is bubbling its way to the surface... hatred that is formed in a cauldron of ignorance, boiling into a witches' brew of potential violence and unrest, being stirred by witches straight out of Shakespearean lore. What is it that have their collective panties in a huge bunch? Is it health care? Is it war? Is it the economy? None of the above, my friends. The thing that has angered up the blood of these people... the thing that has some white people feeling like America is being snatched from them (the irony of them complaining about America being taken from them is so rich that it oughta be poured on pancakes and served with cheese eggs and sausage or bacon... now I'm all hungry... but I digress)... the common denominator that has all of these people showing up at health care rallies carrying GUNS...














...to these rallies... the common denominator is an African-American President of the United States.

These people want us to believe that they're being good, patriotic citizens who are exercising their rights to free speech. To them, I say "Shet'cher gobbige mowf!" The fact is that I don't care who you are, or where you're from, you bring a gun as a SHOW OF FORCE. You bring a gun if you feel SERIOUSLY THREATENED, and not just because a liberal President wants to make sure that an unemployed person won't go bankrupt because they have to go to the doctor. The person on the right was carrying a sign quoting Thomas Jefferson. The quote is pictured here:









Now, on the surface, a quote from Thomas Jefferson is downright patriotic. But the ominous undertone of this sign is getting everyone's attention. You see, this quote is very popular among the right-wing militias. It was also on a t-shirt worn by Timothy McVeigh. Some things may be coincidence. This, however, isn't one of them. A man coming to protest health care sponsored by the President by carrying a gun and a sign with a slogan favored by a domestic terrorist? Sheer coincidence? Right, and I have some oceanfront property in Chicago that I'm willing to unload, cheap.

Back to the original point here, these people are angry that a Black man has gotten way past uppity to the point where he is taking America away from them. These people lament about the America they grew up in... you mean the America with attack dogs and firehoses turned on Black people, Black churches bombed with horrifying regularity, lynchings being as commonplace as church meetings? You mean the America where women were seen at their best when they were barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen? The election of President Obama appears to be the crowning moment of privileged white people's tenuous grip on America. They want to go back to the days of "Pleasantville" and "Andy Griffith", and they want ALL of us to believe that America was better then.

Ask Emmit Till about that America. Ask Malcolm X. Ask Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. Ask the four little girls who were attending church in Alabama. Ask the thousands who became the "Strange Fruit" that Billie Holliday sang about.

What's that? You CAN'T? Gee, I wonder why. After all, they were just as much a part of "that America" as the images of "Happy Days" and drive-thru diners. The horrors of violence for the sake of keeping the status quo is just about as American as apple pie.

It seems that the election of President Obama has gotten these racists to be bolder about their racism. It began to rear its ugly head during the campaign (there are plenty of videos of Palin/McCain supporters spewing their ugliness in the form of "kill him" and "terrorist"). And as Obama continues to move forward in his Presidency, the cute little whispers by the neo-cons have become all-out rallying cries. They feel that the President isn't a U.S. citizen. They feel that he is secretly a Muslim... or a practitioner of Liberation Theology. "Their America" now has a Black man as a commander-in-chief, and they are scared. They are angry. And as these rallies (again, HEALTH CARE REFORM rallies) demonstrate just how mad they are. Mad enough to accuse the President of ushering in a terrible wave of socialism. Mad enough to say "Heil Hitler" to a Jewish man who was supporting Israel's nationalized health care. Mad enough to shout that their country is being taken away.

Mad enough to carry loaded weapons to a health care rally.

Now, when Bush was President, the Left gave him a lot of "Hitler" grief. But I think that the difference between the Left and the Right is that the Right has more elected officials and serious media sponsors to support, promote, and disseminate the dangerous propaganda that's polluting political discourse. When you have elected officials, people like Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity, and industry lobbyists all working together to undermine the efforts of the President and paint him as an enemy of the people or some sort of exotic foreign outsider causing trouble, things can only get worse. Very tragically worse.

Just think... with the last administration, people got arrested for wearing ANTI-BUSH T-SHIRTS. Now, you have protesters coming into the picture armed and ready for a fight... even if they have to be the ones that start it.

Mike Steele In The Hour Of Chaos, Part 3 -- I Meant To Do That!

"...thinking of a master plan/

it ain't nothin' but sweat inside my hand..."

-- The great Rakim, "Paid In Full"

Mikey, Mikey, Mikey. On the one hand, I want you to stop being such a disaster. But on the other hand, you stumbling over yourself gives me so much joy that the Surgeon General will deem your failures to be high in cholesterol. It's bad enough that your plan to "hip-hopify" the GOP continues to be the source of great comedic material. It's bad enough when a pin-striped hoodie-wearing Stephen Colbert schools you, as we can see here:



What makes your epic failure more and more enjoyable? Why, I'll let Steele's own words speak for him:

I'm very introspective about things. I'm a cause-and-effect kind of guy. So if I do something, there's a reason for it... It may look like a mistake, a gaffe. There is a rationale, there is a logic behind it... I want to see what the landscape looks like. I want to see who yells the loudest. I want to know who says they're with me but really isn't."

"It helps me understand my position on the chess board. It helps me understand, where, you know, the enemy camp is and where those who are inside the tent are ...It's all strategic."

Yes, dear readers... Steele said that his calling Rush Limbaugh "incendiary" and "ugly" were all part of a master plan. A master plan that included Steele trying to assert himself as the leader of his party, only to have the de facto leader remind him that he's a stooge that should be seen and not heard... Pee Wee Herman said it best when he said "I meant to do that!" The sad thing (and by sad, I mean "ridiculously hilarious") is that I think that Steele is SERIOUS. He did all of this to "test the waters" and to see who's with him and who isn't. Oh, one more thing. He talks about his position on the chess board and understanding where the enemy camp is. He hasn't even made it to the chess board. Or the checkerboard. At BEST, Steele is one of those little pellets that Pac Man Limbaugh (hey, I like that!) devours in his quest to become a real-life Jabba The Glut. Steele isn't even one of those power pellets that make the ghosts turn blue... he's just one thousands of snacks for the real power brokers in the Republican Party.

This is Steele's plan for a strategy... try to assert yourself as the leader of your party, because, you know, you were elected to do that. Call out the venomous hate-mongering bloviations of a hillbilly-heroin addicted waste of protoplasm. Listen to said protoplasm put you in your place and tell you to dance. You dance, and kick your heels up in ways that would make Shaolin monks and Rockettes green with envy. Then, announce that it was ALL PART OF YOUR MASTER PLAN. Great. It's a good thing that you're not the Commander-In-Chief. With this sort of strategy, you'd declare war on Iran by bombing Canada and then sending Green Berets and Navy Seals to Haiti... and then tell the dead Canadians and Haitians that it was all part of your master plan to weed out the real terrorists. It's a good thing that you'd never even CONSIDER running for President, because it would be a disasterbacle of biblical proportions. Why, it would be...

** whisper whisper **

Say what now?

** whisper whisper 2012 whisper **

Oh. He IS open to running for President, but "only if that is where God wants (him) to be at that time." Wonderful.

The only thing that a Steele run for the Presidency would do is that it would provide endless amounts of comedy. The primaries ALONE would be worth it, to watch the wolves tear each other apart (picture Piyush "Bobby Brady" Jindal v. Steele v. Palin in a Coultergeist/Limbaugh/Hannity-moderated debate, if you will...and if such a concentration of hatred doesn't try to rip your soul apart first).

So there we have it... the next time Steele seems to open feet and insert mouth, don't think of it as a gaffe or a screw-up. Think of it as a master stroke of genius, where Steele's idiotic comment of today becomes the brilliant strategy of tomorrow. He is planning to stumble, butt-over-teakettle, into the White House... and he'll do it Hip hop style, yo.

Rush Limbaugh's Pimp Hand vs. Michael "Not Made Of" Steele

Part 2 of an ongoing series, "Mike Steele In The Hour of Chaos"... heh...

Pardon me, but I'm having way too much fun enjoying the Republican Party's circular firing squad open fire on each other. In a brief moment of leadership, RNC Chairman tried to wander off the plantation and actually declare that he, not Rush Limbaugh, is the de facto leader of the Republican Party. In an interview with DL Hughley (on Hughley's CNN show - which has been bad, from little I've seen... but this particular episode featured Public Enemy's Chuck D), Steele seemed to have grown a pair when he said:

"I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party..."

He went on to say that Limbaugh's show is "incendiary" and "ugly", and that Rush was a mere entertainer.

Well, Rush didn't take it too well that one of his boys got downright uppity. Rush responded by saying this:

"So I am an entertainer and I have 20 million listeners because of my great song and dance routine... Michael Steele, you are head of the Republican National Committee. You are not head of the Republican party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the Republican National Committee...and when you call them asking for money, they hang up on you."

...my sentiments exactly...

Here is Steele's first chance to assert himself as the leader of the Republican Party, in name and in deed. Here is his chance to begin to reclaim the party, and rescue it from the neanderthals, the miscreants, the racists, and the troglodytes. Here is his chance to prove that the Republican Party is ready for a change, and ready to act in the best interests of the country, and not rely on petty partisan crapola. RNC Chairman Michael Steele, the floor is yours.

My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”

Oh Mikey... Epic Fail on your part... falling on your face like that...

Steele goes on to say:

“I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking... It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not."

“I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh ...No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything.”

“He brings a very important message to the American people to wake up and pay attention to what the administration is doing ...Number two, there are those out there who want to look at what he’s saying as incendiary and divisive and ugly. That’s what I was trying to say. It didn’t come out that way. … He does what he does best, which is provoke: He provokes thought, he provokes the left. And they’re clearly the ones who are most excited about him.”

Asked if he planned to apologize, Steele said: “I wasn’t trying to offend anybody. So, yeah, if he’s offended, I’d say: Look, I’m not in the business of hurting people’s feelings here. … My job is to try to bring us all together.”

And there it is. When Steele dares to wander too far from the plantation, we can count on Rush to execute his St. Ronald of Reagan Pimp Hand, to get Steele back into line. Make that money for Big Daddy Rush, Mikey... make that money. And don't let Rush catch you on some reckless eyeballin'... the GOPimp Hand will be back to remind you of your place.

Now... dance, boy.

Michael Steele, Setting Back Race Relations One Cliche At A Time

Meet Michael Steele.



He is the current Chairman of the National Republican Committee. He likes to believe that he was selected to lead the Republicans into the 20th century (you read that correctly) because of his popularity and his ability to reach out to all of the minorities that have been historically dissed underrepresented by the Republican Party. Now, if you know the GOP like I do, you know that this is a crock of hot gobbige. And Michael Steele is continuing in the grand old tradition of pandering to the lowest common denominator, and only getting to know your audience on as thin a surface as possible.

The Republicans were soundly defeated in their bid to continue their feifdom. John McCain and Sarah Palin ran a campaign that brought out the worst in the Republican Base (also known as "The Republican Base"), and thinly-veiled racism was kicked in the gut and bodyslammed onto the hard concrete (tm - Slick Rick) for full-fledged, Grand Dragon-style racism. Old white women were calling President Obama an Arab, young white people were calling him a terrorist and saying that he should be shot, Sarah Palin fanned the flames, and John McCain reconsidered, probably for the first time, the deal he worked out with Satan in exchange for a shot at the Presidency. But try as they might, they couldn't convince the general public that America needed 8 more years of the criminally negligent policies and arrogant attitudes that led us into the quagmire that we're in now.

Sent back to lick their wounds, the Republicans responded in the best way that they know how. They went to the Black Store and bought their own Articulate Black Man. This is the same can't-miss strategy that led to Alan Keyes running against then-Senator Obama for the U.S. Senate from Illinois. And we see how well that worked out. We all know how great the Republicans are in handling race relations. For example, Chip Saltsman, a candidate for the RNC, passed out a CD containing that unifying anthem, "Barack The Magical Negro." And it COULDN'T have been offensive, because Black neo-coon neo con Ken Blackwell said that those who were offended were just overly sensitive. So, armed with this strategy and perspective, how COULD the RNC lose?

Unfortunately, Chip didn't win. Michael Steele wound up becoming the head of the Republican Party, a move that really tickled the Republican Base. Really. You can tell that they are absolutely overjoyed at having a tool such as Steele lead them back into positions of power. Armed with this mandate from the base, Steele decides that the Republicans need to make some changes in order to not be rendered extinct by 2012 gain political momentum in the near future. And the Republicans plan on fixing themselves, and ultimately this country, by doing one of four things:

A) Evaluate the economic policies of the last 8 years, and see what worked, and discard policies that failed.

B) Discuss ways to repair the United States' image across the world, in regards to its treatment of prisoners.

C) Suggest that Bush, Cheney and Rove be brought up on war crimes for their heinous dismantling of civil liberties.

D) Look at all of the ways that Barack Obama ignited his base, from the primaries to the general election. Study these methods, and apply them to a Republican outreach program.

E) Get more conservative, and give the RNC a hip hop makeover.

For those of you who said "E", go to the head of the class and pick up your gold star.

That's right, boys and girls. The party that brought us Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber/War Correspondent/Future Candidate? and "Drill Baby Drill" feel that the best way to reach out to the youth is to give the Republican Party a hip hop makeover. Of course, a Republican version of a Hip Hop makeover is about as bad as a Very Special Episode of Family Matters.

Steele has already begun by interjecting already-played out slang into public discourse, by saying that the Stimulus Package written by the Democrats (and championed by President Obama) is nothing but "bling bling" for people who wished to get a piece of the pie. Not to be outdone, Michele "Let's Ask The Feds To Investigate The Democrats" Bachmann joined in the act. After Steele addressed a crowd with the closest that we'll ever get to a Republican mea culpa:

"We know the past, we know we did wrong. My bad. But we go forward in appreciation of the values that brought us to this point."

...Bachmann congratulated Steele on his leadership role in the worst hip hop way possible: "Michael Steele! You be da man! You be da man..." There are just so many things wrong with this, that it'll take 3,000 pages of blogs to sort it all out. But we can start with the clumsy attempt at slang, "you be da man." That couldn't sound more racist if it were uttered by Mantan and Sleep 'N' Eat. This is about as hip hop as Vanilla Ice's "Word to your mother."

The problem with Steele trying to infuse hip hop into the RNC is that while rappers were vocal in their support of Obama, he DID NOT RUN A HIP HOP CAMPAIGN. He did not campaign as DA HIP HOP PREZ-O-DINT, and he didn't offer to have Rev. Run give the invocation at the Inauguration. True, Obama did get that dirt off his shoulders during the primaries against Hillary Clinton, but that wasn't the cornerstone of Obama's campaign or Presidency. The fact that Steele thinks that injecting a few played out "hip hop" phrases into public discourse will win minorities over to the GOP is insulting to everyone that has an ounce of common sense. There's a word for what Steele is trying to do. It's called PANDERING. It's not substantive, it's not thought-out, and it's not intelligent. The good thing is that everyone outside of the GOP's circular firing squad sees this shallow attempt at pandering for the epic fail that it is, and no one's falling for the okee-doke.

If the Republicans keep up on this path, they will be rendered irrelevant in the years to come. The Republicans will be known as the party of knuckle-dragging, fundamentalist cave-dwellars, led by a puppet put in place to give the appearance of "diversity." If this keeps up, and if Steele continues to show slum love to Gov. Jindal of Louisiana, the Republican's use of hip hop to make over the RNC will be about as effective (and cliche'd) as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Shame On Bobby Rush, Shame On Roland Burris

My thoughts on Roland Burris accepting Rod Blagojevich's appointment to the U.S. Senate, to fill President-Elect Barack Obama's Senate seat...

Shame on Bobby Rush.

Shame on Bobby Rush for trying to inject race into this issue, by saying that a rejection of Burris is based on Burris' race. Shame on him for using loaded terms like "lynching" to describe the obvious obstacles that Burris is going to face in regards to getting seated as a Senator. Blago is as tainted as they come, and ANYONE who would've accepted Blago's offer at this point comes with Blago's stink all over them. Rush actually said:

"I would ask you the not hang or lynch the appointee as you castigate the appointer and separate the appointee from the appointer... Roland Burris is worthy and he is the only one who can stand in the gap during this time and gather the confidence, re-establishing confidence of the people of the state of Illinois."

"...not hang or lynch..."? This is a terrible (albeit deliberate) choice of words for Rush to use in support of Burris. Contrary to Rush's assertion, how can anyone separate the appointer from the appointee, in light of Blago's history of grandstanding, and especially in this bold-faced, "I DARE you to stop me" move? You can't. Would Rush be so quick to use racially-tinged language if Blago had appointed a white person? I doubt it. In fact, if Blago HAD appointed a white person to fill Obama's seat, Rush would be one of the first to *ahem* lynch Blago for such a selection. After all, Rush also said:

"There are no African-Americans in the Senate, and I don't think that anyone, any U.S. Senator who is sitting right now would want to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the U.S. Senate. I don't think they want to go on record doing that."

This is exactly what's wrong with Black politicians, and especially Black politicians within the Democratic Party. Are we supposed to accept that ANY Black person will fit the bill, so long as they're black? We didn't elect Obama (or Carol Moseley Braun [buyer's remorse kicking in... LOL...]) because they were Black. We elected them because we thought that they would best represent the state of Illinois in the United States Senate. Rush's sentiment plays exactly to the kind of pandering that Blago has done throughout his career, and it's exactly why Blago rolled the dice with Burris as his appointee. Blago wants the recognition of appointing another Black person to the Senate, and he wants us to believe that picking Burris has nothing to do with Blago himself. Bullshucks, I say.

Shame On Roland Burris.

Roland has gone down in history as the first Black person in Illinois elected to a statewide office (Illinois Comptroller). Although he couldn't win the gubernatorial primaries in Illinois, and although he was unsuccessful in his efforts to dethrone King Richard II, Burris has been a respectable politician. At BEST, you can argue about his outsized ego (naming his children Roland II and Rolanda, and him already having his masoleum ready - complete with a list of accomplishments), but there were no scandals or shenanigans connected to him. In another time, a Roland Burris appointment to the U.S. Senate would've been met with "yeah, I can see that" or "I don't have a problem with it." But in this case, I say 'shame on Roland Burris' for accepting the appointment in light of the current circumstances.

Burris wasn't on anyone's short-list to replace Obama, and suddenly, he's at the front of the line. Why? Because of a grandstanding egomaniacal governor who will dare you to do anything about his appointment. Blago appointing Burris has nothing to do with whether or not Burris is qualified for the seat. It's another effort on Blago's part to ingratiate himself to the Black community, but in the absolutely worst possible way imaginable. Blago's comments during the press conference ("Don't let allegations about me taint Burris" or words to that effect) prove that this IS about Blago, and has precious little to do with Burris and his qualifications. If Blago were impeached and Pat Quinn (current Lt. Governor) appointed Burris, I don't think anyone would've had a problem with it. But right now, it stinks, and now Burris has opened himself up to SERIOUS questions about his qualifications, and whether or not any underhanded connections exist between him and Blago.

What should Roland have done? In my opinion, in light of the current situation, Burris should've turned this appointment down. It's entirely too toxic a situation for any rational person to jump into. Just how bad is it? Rep. Danny Davis, who was actively campaigning for this seat, turned it down, because there was too much turmoil involved. Burris should be asking himself this: If Blago felt that Burris was such a stunning choice to fill Obama's seat, then why wasn't the seat offered to Burris in the first place... or at least why wasn't Burris among any of the names mentioned (prior to Blago's arrest) as potential candidates?

I'm Mad At What 9/11 Has Become...

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm mad at what this day has become, and how it's been exploited.

I'm mad that the Republicans have exploited this tragedy at every opportunity, and used it to perform an end-run around the Constitution and declare war on a nation that had nothing to do with these attacks.

I'm mad at that propaganda snuff film shown at the RNC. That so-called tribute was, and is, a disgraceful way to "honor" anything involving these attacks.

I'm mad that on the one hand, President Bush decided that Osama bin Laden wasn't important enough to focus his (and our military's) attention on, yet John McCain (through his own words and that snuff film) proclaim that he's the only one that can bring Osama to justice. Contrast this with the idiotic Bush press secretary saying that the U.S. doesn't have "super powers" needed to expedite Bin Laden's capture.

I'm mad that this administration chooses to "honor" its soldiers by sending them into conflicts that have nothing to do with this attack, and then subjecting them to the worst-possible care possible. Of all people, veterans of this war should NOT have any health-care woes, period. Veterans of this war should NOT have to deal with treasonously sluggish administrative hang-ups just to get the care they've earned and deserved. Veterans should not have a candidate like McCain claiming to be supportive of them when his criminally tragic voting record (ESPECIALLY considering that -- in case you didn't know -- he was a POW) says otherwise.

I'm mad that the American public fell for the okee-doke boogey man of gay marriage and allowed President Bush to get reelected, especially considering how he catastrophically botched all things post-9/11.

I'm mad that the talking head media nitwits and so-called journalists failed to do their job and allowed the Bush Administration to continue unchecked in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

I'm mad that the Democrats punked out when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, granting this administration carte blanche to continue its disastrous foreign policy, all under the guise of a 'war on terrorism.'

I'm mad that there is more conversations about lipstick, pigs, fish and pitbulls while this administration "celebrates" 9/11 as "Patriots Day."

The Rebirth Of A Nation -- The RNC Propaganda Piece Disguised As A Tribute Video

Propaganda. It's defined as "A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people." To add a little bit to the context of what I will discuss, I will take it one step further.

Hate Propaganda. It's defined as "...the systematic dissemination of doctrine, rumour or selected information to promote or injure a particular race, color, ethnicity, religion or national origin."

The Republican Party just finished their National Convention, in which John S. McCain and Sarah Palin were officially nominated as the Republican candidates for President and Vice President of the United States. Now, there is much to be said about McCain, Palin, how she was picked, whether or not McCain is ready, whether or not Palin is qualified, etc. ad nauseum. But this isn't about those two, specifically. This is about a piece of propaganda that aired during the Convention. The piece was propaganda on the same level as D.W. Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation." If you're not aware of the film, it was basically a recruitment film for the Ku Klux Klan. Don't believe me?
This is the poster.

So yes, "The Birth of a Nation" is not exactly progressive in it's approach to race relations. What does this film have to do with the Republican National Convention's "Tribute To 9/11 Video"? Absolutely everything. If you wish, you can click here to see it in its entirety. The link also has journalism's Prophet of Rage, Keith Olbermann apologizing on behalf of his network. Olbermann may have one of his patented Special Commentaries about this, but I decided that I couldn't wait for Olbermann to express what I was feeling. Let's begin.

The piece is supposed to be a "Tribute To 9/11."

See? It says it right there: "9/11 Video Tribute."

The house lights dim, and an ominous piano sets the stage for what we're about to see. So, how does this Tribute To 9/11 begin? Of course, it should begin with showing the courageous efforts of First Responders, the police, the military, and common everyday citizens showing remarkable courage in the face of an unforeseen catastrophe. That's what a tribute's supposed to be, right? Well, THIS piece of propaganda filth begins with...
A shot from the Iran Hostage Crisis. The ominous Narrator of Doom tells us "The first attack occurred in Iran... 444 days America held hostage."

Stop right there. My first reaction was that, as usual, the Republicans in this God-awful administration are tying together pieces that have nothing to do with each other. I first thought "What does the Iran Hostage Crisis have to do with 9/11?" If you said "nothing", then you get a silver star. However, if you dig a little deeper, you'll see that this video is designed to anger up the blood against Iran, who is on President Bush's "Axis of Evil." Pretty sneaky, sis. They are reminding us about how we were attacked by Al Qaeda by opening with images of Iranians holding Americans hostage. In other words, the Right is hammering the point home that Iranians are bad, too. The Republican Party sets the tone by tying an event from 1981 to the United States being attacked on 9/11. It's clever in its wickedness.

They move on from there to show all sorts of shots of terrorists rallying against the country, including this one:
...and the narrator reminds us that those big bad terrorists have been always pushing our buttons. The attack on the USS Cole is pictured, but the attack on U.S. troops in Beirut was oddly missing. My speculation is that since this attack happened under the watch of President and Patron Saint Ronald Reagan, it would undermine the current theme of this film. Even if it's not the case, it's strangely odd that an attack that killed 241 American servicemen was not featured as part of how "the terrorists" have been picking on poor ol' U.S.A. A shot of this terrorist is also featured in the video:
...you remember him, right? Osama bin Laden? The guy who actually ORCHESTRATED 9/11?!? The guy who is still making "Death To America" mixtapes in the caves of Afghanistan and/or Pakistan? Moving on...

Then, we get to the meat of this propaganda sammich.

Clips from the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are shown over... and over... and over again.
Is it really a tribute to show horrific catastrophes over and over again? That's not a tribute, to me. That's like showing a tribute to police officers by airing footage of them being killed in action, or showing a tribute to firemen by watching a burning structure collapse on them and entomb them. What's next? A tribute to Hiroshima by showing mushroom clouds and the entire region being vaporized? A tribute to JFK by showing the assassin's bullet ripping his skull open? The Ominous Narrator chimes in on the attacks, and accompanies the footage by saying "...and kill us, they did. This time, on American soil. The date was September 11. 9/11." To bring the point home, the Evil Narrator of Doom also reminds the good citizens of the Republican Party of some more points, that need to be analyzed and dissected before it's swallowed whole like the poison it is.

Quote: "This enemy sworn to our destruction has been at war with us for decades. This we now know."
Analysis: For one, "decades" is a bit of a stretch, especially in the context of this video. The video opens with the Iran Hostage Crisis, which is about as far from 9/11 on every aspect as President Bush is from competence as a President. Remember, Al Qaeda is NOT based in Iran, and there wasn't even such a thing AS Al-Qaeda when the U.S. hostages were taken. Furthermore, it should be noted that the U.S. hostages were freed in the absolutely scandalous Iran-Contra Affair, in which "members of the Executive Branch (of the United States Government) sold weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages." It's not only disingenuous to paint Obama's ideas as appeasement, but it's downright hypocritical, seeing as how the Republicans TRADED WEAPONS WITH OUR "ENEMY."

The "decades" line is also a lie because the first public reference to Al Qaeda occurred in 1998, under an Executive Order from Bill Clinton, two weeks after the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Furthermore, the first attack involving Osama bin Laden occurred around 1992, when bin Laden attacked a hotel.

This "decades" line is a propaganda piece because it lumps any Islamic faction that has anything to do with enmity of the U.S. into one lump of "Islamofascist terrorism." This video fans the flames of xenophobia wrapped in the comfortable blanket of Old Glory. It fails to underscore the differences between the Iranians that held the U.S. hostage, Al Qaeda, and Iraq. It also misleads the average person into ignoring how Americans' own actions precluded the Iranian Hostage Crisis and the attack on 9/11.

"We know this now" is another problematic phrase, because it misleads the average person into believing that we were blindsided and 'poor old Uncle Sam' was minding its own business when the bad guys attacked. But the Iranian Hostage Crisis...

...was seen by many as a blow against U.S. influence in Iran and its support of the recently fallen Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had been restored to power by a CIA-funded coup in 1953 and who had recently been allowed into the United States for cancer treatment.

Furthermore, a little research into Al Qaeda shows that its origin started as a result of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, that began in 1978. At the time, and leading into the 1980's, the Soviet Union was the big bully on the global block. And the U.S., wanting to stop the spread of Communism, did its part by funding the mujahedeen and the Taliban through Pakistan. So, once again, the U.S. sowed the seeds of terrorism by funding groups that would eventually turn on her. But the U.S. has yet to reap the whirlwind.

Trouble began to brew according to this account:

Following the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 had put the country of Saudi Arabia and its ruling House of Saud at risk as Saudi's most valuable oil fields (Hama) were within easy striking distance of Iraqi forces in Kuwait,^[60] and Saddam's call to pan-Arab/Islamism could potentially rally internal dissent. In the face of a seemingly massive Iraqi military presence, Saudi Arabia's own forces were well armed but far outnumbered. Bin Laden offered the services of his mujahedeen to King Fahd to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi army. The Saudi monarch refused bin Laden's offer, opting instead to allow U.S. and allied forces to deploy on Saudi territory.^[61]

The deployment angered Bin Laden, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops, he was quickly forced into exile to Sudan and on April 9, 1994 his Saudi citizenship was revoked.^[62] His family publicly disowned him. There is controversy over whether and to what extent he continued to garner support from members of his family and/or the Saudi government.^[63]

There's no need to get into further detail about the events that led to the attack on the World Trade Centers, but bear in mind something else: The Bush Administration had an explicit warning from the Clinton Administration about bin Laden's plans. The Bush Administration did nothing. Absolutely NOTHING. Research will also prove that the line from the film where the Evil Narrator says "It is a war we never chose to fight ...for too long, we looked the other way" is equally misleading. We only looked the other way after we interfered in matters that were none of our concern. We kicked the kerosene lamp onto a bundle of hay and we looked the other way when the structure burned to the ground. We lit the short fuse on a catastrophic bomb, and looked the other way when the bomb exploded. We looked the other way, like a bully would after wreaking havoc. We then feign surprise when the people we bully decide to fight back. "We never chose to fight"? Hardly. We chose to interfere. We chose to sow poisonous seeds, and we can't take it when we reap cataclysmic fruit.

And lest you forget just how low the Republicans will go in order to tug at the heartstrings of the simple minded, the film includes graphic photos like this:
What better way to show just how horrific the events of 9/11 were, than to show blood-stained signs where people were looking for loved ones or paying tribute? To say that this is in bad taste only marks the tip of the iceberg at my disgust for the Republicans. Again, would they show a tribute to a cop by showing a bullet-riddled uniform of a cop killed in a hail of gunfire? Of course not. But there is no problem with them including blood-stained images as a reminder of just how horrific and terrible the attacks were.

The video ends with this image:...and Darth Narrator saying "...the enemy is wrong. This is a war America will win. And we'll have a president that knows how. And... we will never let it happen... again."

Yes, to make sure that you're completely sold on the War on Terror, the propaganda spinmeisters end with footage of the World Trade Center, pre-9/11. And the Darth Narrator's screed underscores the necessity to understand the concept of cause and effect, actions and consequences. "We'll have a president that knows how"... the thinly-veiled implication is that Barack Obama's Presidency will give rise to more attacks on U.S. soil, and that the U.S. will surrender in the War on Terror. First of all, a war on a "belief" or "action" can't be won. You can have victory against Al Qaeda or any other group that's an enemy, but to win a war on "terror", you have to make sure that "terror" is destroyed across the globe. It is utterly impossible to do this, especially with this hamfisted approach to foreign policy.

For example, this criminally negligent administration decided to fight the war on terror (tm) by first circumventing the Constitution of the United States. The congressmen and Senators abdicated their ability to keep the President in check, by giving him the authority to invade Iraq. And as we all know, Iraq has been a complete disaster, even while Republicans crow about the success of "the surge." But what has toppling Saddam Hussein done, but create a power vacuum filled by Al Qaeda insurgents - who HAD NO PRESENCE IN IRAQ PRIOR TO THE U.S. INVASION - who then continued in their civil war. And while we were busy declaring "Mission Accomplished", the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (remember them?) has been not-so-quietly regaining strength.

"We'll have a president that know how"? Oh, you mean the same future President that declared the following:

How would American troops be greeted? "I believe...that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators." (March 20, 2003)

Did Saddam Hussein have a nuclear program that posed an imminent threat to the United States? "Saddam Hussein is on a crash course to construct a nuclear weapon." ( October 10, 2002)

Will a war with Iraq be long or short? "This conflict is... going to be relatively short." (March 23, 2003)

How is the war going? "I would argue that the next three to six months will be critical." (September 10, 2003)

How is it going (almost two months later, from the war's "greatest critic")? "I think the initial phases of [the war] were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise." (October 31, 2003)

Is this war really necessary? "Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war." (August 30, 2004)

How is it going? (Recurring question for the war's "greatest critic") "We will probably see significant progress in the next six months to a year." (December 4, 2005)

Will the President's "surge" of troops into Baghdad and surrounding areas that the senator had been calling for finally make the difference? "We can know fairly well [whether the surge is working] in a few months." (February 4, 2007)

The same future President that knows how to win a war will be the same future President that declared that Iraq was safe by walking the streets of Baghdad... without mentioning the soldiers, helicopters, and gunships that accompanied him on his leisurely stroll. THIS is the man that the Republicans say "knows how to win." And his second-in-command is a woman whose "foreign policy experience" includes living in Alaska, because it's so close to Russia.

This propaganda is "The Rebirth of a Nation", because it caters to the lowest common denominator of demonizing "radical Islam" by tying all Middle Eastern conflicts to the spectre of the Islamic boogeyman. Just as "The Birth of a Nation" demonstrated how the valiant knights in shining robes known as the Ku Klux Klan will save virtuous White women from the scourge of Black men, "The Rebirth of a Nation" will show how the valiant knights of the Conservative Republican Evangelical movement will save virtuous White Christian citizens from the scourge of Islam, and the scourge of a Black American man with a funny name running for President.

We know better, so we should do better. If we don't act to stop a Bush III Administration, we have to make sure that propaganda such as this is nipped in the bud. It's up to us to understand this video, as well as the election, for what it is... a chance to begin correcting the wrongs of this administration, and an opportunity to return us to credibility on the world stage. This is one Rebirth that we should not allow to happen.

A Faux News Exclusive... Sneak Preview

Good evening, Great Americans. I'm Bill O'Reilly, and today the O'Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes and John Gibson... who really doesn't have a job at Fox News... he just hangs around flinging slurs at homeless bums... have teamed up for this special roundtable discussion on Barack Hussein Obama and his hate-mongering speech at Trinity and...

...wait... he's not at Trinity anymore? @#$#@%@@!*!!! Why the f%#@! doesn't anyone tell me... you know what? Screw it... we'll do it live! Sean?



Thanks, Bill. You're a great American. As you know, I have been doing my best to expose Barack Hussein Obama as an unAmerican terrorist sympathizer who probably eats dog food under Louis Farrakhan's front porch. As much as I tried, I couldn't find anything except the Rev. Wright sermons that I proudly displayed, and to my own credit, I made a United States Marine look like a terrorist. But today, we are analyzing Obama's "Father's Day" speech at the Apostolic Church of God. Now, my minions couldn't find anything hateful about Bishop Arthur Brazier, but we won't give up.

We have two young men with us today, Jamal Pettigrew and Malik DeShae Brown, two urban youths and "baby daddies" who probably want their MF Iced Tea once they leave here. They are here to tell the world that they do not fall for the Obama hype, and that they don't drink the Obama Kool-Aid. Why, I haven't seen Negr- ...er, Black men this intelligent and independent since my good pal Jesse Lee Peterson. Mr. Pettigrew and Mr. Brown have a lot to say about Obama's inciteful comments on Father's Day. Joining us is John Gibson. John?



Thanks, Sean. You're a great American. A great White American. Now, Obama's not a terrorist as far as we know, but his words of "parental responsibility" and "family values" did not resonate with all colore-- errr... African American men. It's no secret that Blacks across the country are voting for Obama because he's one of them. He's a "bro." So, it's quite refreshing to see that jungle bun-- ummm... these Black guys aren't like the rest of the blacks.

(to see the rest of Part 1 of this interview, go here: A Faux News Exclusive! )

Hillary And The RFK Connection...

...a collaboration of thoughts I expressed elsewhere:

I'm not sure which is worse... invoking something as horrible as RFK's assassination (I didn't know that she had a pattern of mentioning this), or her "apology"... to the KENNEDYS... because she said that she had Ted Kennedy on her mind.

Let I get this straight.

She says that she is staying in the election because there is precedent for campaigns running until June. To prove her point (on several occasions), she not only invokes Robert Kennedy's campaign, but also emphasizes the fact that he was ASSASSINATED in June... she then says that she apologizes for this 'gaffe' because of how it offends the Kennedys, and that Ted Kennedy's brain cancer somehow tragically transmogrified in her mind into "hey, ANYTHING can happen in June, so why SHOULD I leave?" This is despite the fact that assassination (especially of progressive Black men who are breaking new ground) is all too real in this country - so much so that Obama has to have Secret Service protection.

Am I missing something?

This woman is campaigning for the Presidency of the United States, and her once-inspiring (to some) campaign has now denigrated into catering to the absolute worst attributes of human nature, and a series of lies -- not mis-speaks, flat out lies.

The woman who was accused of murder has embraced the endorsement of her accuser, the man who orchestrated the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy against her and her husband.

The woman whose husband's activities mobilized activist Democrats to create a website to convince the country to not wast resources on Bill's impeachment has now expressed utter disdain for such activism, because it doesn't suit her.

The woman who once spoke lovingly in a prominent Black church about the impact of the Civil Rights movement and didn't "feel no ways tah'rd" has gone on record minimizing the front-line soldiers of the Movement, and is now clinging (yes, I said clinging) to the ignorance, venom and hatred of racists as her last-ditch effort to clinch the Democratic Party nomination.

The woman who, with her husband, earned over $100 million since Bill left the Presidency has made a Black man who grew up in a single-parent home and had to depend on food stamps at one time an "elitist."

The woman who feels that "every vote should count" is relying on the "independent judgment" of the superdelegates to overturn that very same vote, look beyond the metrics that are used to select the party's candidate, and use a very elitist system to anoint her as Grand Ayatollah the Democratic Party nominee.

After all of this, the most tragic thing of all is that it's still OBAMA that has to somehow "PROVE" that he's qualified to be President.

=-=-=-=

(after seeing Terry McAuliffe on Fox News, blaming the Obama camp for the firestorm of Hillary's RFK comments)

The arrogance of the Clinton campaign is appalling. Terry McAuliffe is on Fox News Sunday, and he's co-signing Clinton's assertion that stripping Florida and Michigan is similar to slavery and Zimbabwe.

"This election they're having is not going to count for anything."
-- Hillary Clinton, after agreeing to the DNC rules about stripping Florida and Michigan of its delegates.

Chris Wallace (one of the few voices of reason on Fox News) was also taking McAuliffe to task on the "assassination" issue. McAuliffe's arrogance was especially repulsive, saying that "hey, Robert Kennedy Jr. wasn't offended, so why should anyone else?" McAuliffe kept saying that Hillary's comments were strictly regarding the timeline, and had nothing to do with Obama.

Really?

The only way that she can win is if something catastrophic happens to either Obama's campaign or Obama himself (personally, I think that Hillary and her camp are banking on the former). She mentions RFK, assassination, and June on multiple occasions and her camp is surprised that people are looking at her sideways? She's surprised that people other than RFK Jr. are offended? She kept talking about "...we remember what happened in 1968..."... does SHE not remember that King was assassinated in that same year? She must have, since she spent time at the Civil Rights Museum. Even Charlie Rangel, a Clinton supporter, said that her comments were unacceptable.

McAuliffe, in true Rovian form, said that the Obama camp was all over this. That would be true, if it weren't a bold-faced, outright lie. Obama himself said that the comments had no place in the campaign. David Axelrod gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt, saying that he didn't believe that Clinton was harboring any sort of death-wish fantasies regarding Obama.

This woman who claims to be "Ready On Day 1" does not have the common sense to not utter the word "assassination" while in the middle of a very heated and very close campaign expects to be the leader of the free world? If she can't recognize how her choice of words will sound to people who have lived through those horrific moments in history, how can she expect to be effective in a post-Bush administration?

And given her zeal in which she feasted on "bitter", "clinging to guns", Rev. Wright, Farrakhan, Rezko, and Ayers, can she really be surprised that people are looking at her mentioning the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy and saying "WTH did you just say?!?" McAuliffe expects everyone to "just get over" Clinton's comments regarding RFK, but it's a crying shame that when she had the opportunity to do so regarding Rev. Wright, she chose the opposite approach. As the Wright issue was dying down somewhat, and as she was being grilled about Bosnia, someone asked her about Obama and Wright. Rather than take the high road and talk about respecting someone's right to privacy regarding religion, she said that she "would've left that church."

Hillary's chickens... are coming home... to roost.

Why Do You Hate America? Part I

One of the topics that the presidential campaign brought up was people who hate America. That's who I want to talk about, people who REALLY hate America. The people that I'm about to introduce seem to have such a visceral hatred for this country and its citizens that they must want to see the country destroyed.

When I talk about people hating this country, I'm not talking about people like Jeremiah Wright or Michelle Obama. This country was founded on dissent from the voice of tyranny (hypocritically enough -- but that's not the point today). People like Barack Obama, who may or may not wear a flag pin, don't hate America. Rev. Jeremiah Wright doesn't hate America because he said 'God damn America.' He has said nothing different than what other (white) evangelicals said about the hypocrisy of America's foreign policy. Michelle Obama doesn't hate America because she "expressed pride for the first time in her adult life" due to the unity behind Barack. People speaking up about how this country failed them is true patriotism. "Loving America" has been reduced to jingoistic slogans, empty posturing, and issues surrounding costume jewelry on a man's suit. But before I get too deep into my rant, let's talk about people who REALLY hate America.

The Blue Dog Democrats
Who are these people? These conservative "Democrats" cling fast to conservative ideals, and are basically DINO's (Democrats In Name Only). But they don't hate America for being conservative Democrats. Click on the link, and you will see the story about how they are against the 21st Century G.I. Bill. Are they against it because it doesn't have Democratic support? That can't be it, seeing as how it has the support of both Obama and Clinton. Could it be because it's not "support the troops"-y enough for Republicans? That can't be it, because it has strong Republican support. But what about the troops themselves? They must be against it for some reason. But no, servicemen across all of the branches, and a variety of veterans groups support this bill. So, why did this esteemed group of conservative Democrats stall on something that is obviously so beneficial to the troops?

It's because they want to appear "fiscally responsible" and not support a bill that doesn't go through some "pay-as-you-go" system. By attaching the bill to some form of "emergency spending", the Blue Dogs reason that the 21st Century G.I. bill will "create some new entitlement program." Really, Blue Dogs? In a war that costs billions of dollars PER DAY, you want to show fiscal responsibility at the expense of the servicemen who are VOLUNTARILY making the ultimate sacrifice?

Blue Dogs, do you hate America so much that you would rather hold up a bill that obviously benefits and rewards the troops for their years of committment, than expedite this bill through so that it can get signed? Do you hate America so much that you would leave its men and women who are on the front lines stranded, because the bill runs the risk of becoming an "entitlement program"? Do you hate America that much, Blue Dogs?

John McCain
It may not be apparent that the presumptive Republican nominee for the Presidency of the United States hates America, but he does. Oh yes he does. Why? Because as the de-facto leader of the Republican Party, he is setting example for the Republicans, and the example that he sets is that he has not endorsed the aforementioned 21st Century G.I. Bill. Why would a veteran, a former prisoner of war, and a man that's part of a military legacy stall on this important piece of legislature? It's not for petty reasons such as "fiscal responsibility" that the Blue Dogs are harping on. No, McCain's goals are loftier. He is withholding his support on this bill because it doesn't address or do enough to promote re-enlistment. As a veteran, I can tell you that the Montgomery G.I. Bill that I got had nothing to do with retention. It was a "thank you for your service" for 2 years of my life. The G.I. Bill was never designed to address retention, so why should it change now? McCain, do you hate America so much that you are selling out your fellow veterans because legislation that is designed to update their reward doesn't address retention? Do you hate America so much that you can't even separate recruitment incentives with retention issues? You must hate America, because otherwise, you'd leave the retention issues up to the Department of Defense, and lead the charge in getting this piece of legislation ordered. But let me guess... you're too busy floating around your ridiculous notion of a gas tax holiday to be concerned with trite issues such as the welfare and treatment of veterans.

White Evangelicals, Your Silence Is Deafening.

Everything seems to be "coming out" about Barack Obama, the level that Fox News and conservatives are willing to reach is approaching levels that have Chinese acrobats gasping in awe. I saw a blog that featured my former pastor, Rev. James T. Meeks, in a sermon where he railed against "house niggers" who are towing the party line and not doing what they can in regards to the quality of education in Chicago. Rev. Meeks (who's also a state senator from Illinois) also compared the mayor to a slave-master. Now, Fox News and Sean (Goebbels) Hannity are using a sermon from Meeks as a way to "prove" that Obama has "racist" spiritual advisers.

Once again, I must also bring up the fact that McCain's spiritual advisers, and those who he actively sought endorsements for, have said far more dangerous things when they mix religion and politics. I won't even get into all of the things that Rev. Meeks and his church have done FOR the community (all of which goes against the stereotype that a mega-church insulates itself from the community that it serves -- Meeks' church gets out in the streets and do the work of God quite a few times).

Something else that just occurred to me: All of these White evangelicals talk about how the Body of Christ is under attack from the enemy. Yet, they are silent when BLACK members of the Body of Christ are being scrutinized like this, while they get to enjoy their luxurious position of being able to say that God has ordained this unholy war that has now started it's 6TH YEAR with over 4,000 men and women killed. They are silent when Wright, Meeks, and God knows who else are being scrutinized, but if someone called them out, they'd be calling for their supporters to pray that "the librul media" gets cancer and dies or something ridiculous like that.

The Conservative Right Evangelical Movement, the Religious Right, the Moral Majority, Christian men who speak the word of God are being attacked, and you are silently letting them fend for themselves. You may not agree with Wright's belief that the war isn't just, and you may not agree with Meeks in regards to education, but the one thing that you are supposed to be in unity about is the Word of God. Your silence while men of God are being persecuted is very telling. But you keep on doing what you're doing. You keep on endorsing a politician who is testing the waters for an invasion of Iran because of an imaginary Al-Qaeda presence. You keep on endorsing a politician who expresses his love for his country by promising to send more and more men and women into a Middle-Eastern cataclysm that you created. You keep on telling people that this is a God-ordained function to "rid the world" of an "undesirable" faith. You keep on blurring the lines between Church and State, while standing silent when your opponent's CHRISTIAN spiritual adviser faces these accusations alone. No, really. Go right ahead and be silent while churches like Rev. Wright's continue to advocate the power of self-reliance and faith in God, and not in government, which you claim to corner the market on. As a Black Christian man, I don't need for your hypocritical Sadducee/Pharisee ilk to stand up when the Body of Christ is being attacked. We're in spiritual warfare, and you are sitting on the sidelines.

We, the men and women of God... we got this. Y'all just keep the bench warm and the Gatorade ready.

If Blagojevich Gets Re-elected, I'd Eat A Doughnut.

Last Sunday, Gov. Rod Blagojevich was a special guest at Salem's "House of Hope." Now, the line between church and politics has always been blurred, with the church being ground zero for social revolution. Also, the last Presidential election was definitely an exercise in faith-based politics. The Evangelical right-wing Christian movement did an effective job of making gay marriage a bigger issue than the economy and the war in Iraq. Now, I'm a Christian, and I am not a fan of gay marriage. But at the same time, if I'm electing a leader of the free world, I want to see what he's going to do to end this war and stabilize the economy. But I said all of this to say that at times, I can understand when politicians come into the church house.

This time, though, it was nothing but pure grandstanding. Gov. Blago used his time on Salem's pulpit and TV to announce his grand plan to save the CTA: Give free rides to the elderly! And in his most disingenuous moment ever, he asked questions like "Who wants to see their grandma get a free ride on a bus?" DUH! In a huge church like that, what... was someone going to say "Let them old folks ride for free!" But in an amazing twist, that's EXACTLY what happened. He presented his plan to a group of senior citizens, and they proceeded to verbally thrash him for his obvious pandering. One senior citizen said "Why shouldn't we have to pay?" Gov. Blago responded with this coalition-building statement: "Hold your nose and ride for free."

The most galling part of all of this was that the plan that the governor threatened to veto with his "Free Rides To The Elderly" plan was in front of him at least 9 months ago. So, instead of getting the deal done, or negotiating in good faith with the Illinois congressmen to get a budget passed, Gov. Blagojevich makes an end-run around the Illinois legislative branch, and tries to present his idea to a seemingly sympathetic public. To say it backfired would be an understatement. On the one hand, the deal was done, and another doomsday has been averted. On the other hand, Governor Blago's actions were so reprehensible to his fellow Democrats that they are going to create an Illinois Constitutional amendment to strip the Governor of these kinds of veto powers. Think about that for a second. You are so universally reviled by your party that not only are they not bonding with you, but they are going to add an amendment to the CONSTITUTION to take your toys away.

On the national scene, Billionaire Bob Johnson was forced to apologize for trying (yet again) to raise the spectre of Obama's drug use. The Clinton camp caught hell in a handbasket for trying to be slick with racial politics, and Bob's comments were nothing but political quid pro quo. After all, Bill Clinton put in a good word to NBA Commissioner David Stern to help Bob Johnson acquire an NBA franchise. Bob (and his ilk) was acting as a good soldier, mouthpiece, and front man would... throwing out comments, statements and jokes that would absolutely crucify Hillary Clinton if she or Bill made them directly. The supporters get to float the negative campaign ideas, and if it bombs, Hillary can threaten to distance herself from them unless they apologized... and if the public begins to embrace the idea, then Clinton can make it an official part of the campaign. The problem with that is that (at least I hope) the general populace is too sophisticated to fall for this okee-doke. I know that in listening to Roland S. Martin's show, callers were HEATED. Some Black women who supported Hillary were so disgusted with what has taken place that they pledged their support to Obama. Hillary needs to watch her step before any "Bill Clinton goodwill" has completely eroded to the level of hate reserved for Hannity and Limbaugh.

Obama Vs. Clinton -- This Time, It's Personal

The presidential race is starting to heat up, especially in the Democratic Primary. First of all, I wasn't surprised that Obama took Iowa. I was more surprised that Hillary Clinton finished third behind Obama and John Edwards.

Then, before the New Hampshire primary, Hillary Clinton "broke down" and almost cried when talking about the rigors of the campaign. Now, let me get this straight. You are the wife of a two-term President... a President who actually was IMPEACHED. Not to mention that the last part of your husband's second term was spent fending off Republican 'moralist' douchebags left and right. You yourself are a two-term UNITED STATES SENATOR. And prior to New Hampshire, you're JUST FINDING OUT that 'OMG ONOEZ POLITIXX IS TEH HARDIST'? This is why it's hard to take Clinton's tears as anything more than a disingenuous political strategy to counter charges that she is "too aggressive." But wait, it gets worse.

Then came this:

In the interview with Fox News last week, Clinton said, "Dr. [Martin Luther] King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done." She has argued repeatedly that her experience shows she can get more done as president than Obama.

What she did in this fell swoop was (1) diminish the actual work of front-line soldiers like Dr. King to that of "Dreamers" who were basically big on rhetoric and little on action, and (2) attempt to diminish Obama as a speechifying orator and not as a candidate for President of the United States. I've said elsewhere that her remarks make it seem like Obama is running for the President of the New Millennium Civil Rights Movement, as opposed to running for President.

The fallout from this comment was pretty huge. But it wouldn't be politics if it wasn't interesting. Clinton naturally blamed Obama for taking her words out of context. This isn't going to help Clinton one bit.

Get this: Former head of BET (and a man probably single-handedly responsible for setting the Black Power movement back 50 years) sided with Hillary Clinton and endorsed her. Yep... the man that brought "Blackberry Inn" to the American TV landscape, and the man that has no problem catering to the lowest common denominator and stereotype when it comes to the portrayal of Black people, has sided against Obama. Now, I'm not saying that because Obama's Black, that Black leaders should automatically side with him over Hillary. What I *AM* saying is that if you are going to side with Hillary, you should do so without sounding like a moron, a Klan-plant (thanks, Chris) or a puppet whose strings are being pulled by the Clinton machine.

Billionaire Bob then expressed this sentiment:

...“And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood –­ and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book –­ when they have been involved.”

Moments later, he added: “That kind of campaign behavior does not resonate with me, for a guy who says, ‘I want to be a reasonable, likable, Sidney Poitier ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.’ And I’m thinking, I’m thinking to myself, this ain’t a movie, Sidney. This is real life.”

Take a look at the bolded comment, if you will. I'm under the impression that the Clinton Crew has been trying to float the "Obama Is A Drug User" balloon for the longest time. There's just one problem with it. It was revealed in OBAMA'S BOOK. *HE* came clean in his book about his drug use. A Clinton aide/worker was fired from the crew for making these remarks (methinks he fell on his sword to keep Hillary from looking like she was desperate). Now, Billionaire Bob sounds like he's on the payroll, trying to float the same balloon. And Bob Johnson is one of the LAST people to talk about the "real life" portrayal of a Black person.

Just how ridiculous it's getting? Before the primaries began, Andrew Young (a stalwart of the Old Guard Civil Rights Movement) said in a (half-)joking manner that Bill Clinton was "more black" than Obama because Clinton dated more Black women than Obama. Of course, this is a throwback to that hot wet sack of gobbige that Bill Clinton was "the first Black President" because he slept around with a buncha chicks and played the sax. Andrew Young and everyone else that invoked that crappy sentiment oughta be smacked. Young also said that Obama was "too young" to be President... but ignoring the fact that Clinton was younger than Obama when he (Clinton) ran. Young's claim that Obama needs a "network" to "protect" him sounds like Young (and other jerks) are worried that they are going to get frozen out should Obama get elected... while an active role in the Clinton campaign may be rewarded handsomely. This, in essence, is exactly what's wrong with the Old Guard. The formerly young guns and radical revolutionaries are so ensconced in their cushy lifestyles, that they don't want to make room for the next generation of leadership and spokesmen. And by sticking with the traditional Democratic base, these old warhorses are trying to make sure that they are remembered.

It's going to be really interesting how all of this pans out, especially after Super Tuesday.

I don't have time now, but next time, I am going to rant about Gov. Rod Blagojevich appearing at my old church gloating about his plan to give senior citizens free rides on the CTA, in hopes of staving off another CTA Doomsday scenario. It's not the free rides that I have a problem with, it's the blatant grandstanding and the continuing blurring of lines between church and state. And best believe that if a Republican politician was in a white Mega-Church like the Crystal Cathedral, bragging about some legislature that he wanted to pass, the liberal pundits would have a field day.