About Me

Name: flagwaver
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

A Few Quick Thoughts

Do any of you watch "Morning Joe" on MSNBC? I usually don't but I switched over this morning from "Fox & Friends" (who wants to watch another story about that danged dog protecting its mother anyway?), and I saw Bob Shrum on there swearing that Nancy Pelosi had been consistent in her statements about the CIA lying to her and Congress. Is it just me, or is the Democratic Party filled with professional liars, who think we are too stupid to know when we're being lied to?
 
Since Obama finally gave his much discussed commencement address at Notre Dame, I am going to put my two cents into the discussion. The media has done its level best to turn this into a situation where those protesting Obama's speech are trying to shut him up, when that is not the case at all. This is all about ND ignoring the edicts of the Church and honoring a man with degree who stands diametrically opposed to the Church's position on abortion. The President, as well as any other speaker chosen by the university has every right to speak, and no one was objecting to that. The objection was to the university putting the wishes of the administration for a speech by the Pope of Hope over the words of the actual Pope of Rome, who is supposedly in charge of the Church.
 
Can someone give me a quick synopsis of what 'cap-and-trade' is? I hear about it, and I think I have something of a handle on it but can someone give me a layman's version if it? I am having a terrible time wrapping my head around it all, so anything that helos me clear it up will be greatly appreciated.
 
Finally, I know that this may be pretty unpopular, but does the $20 million bail amaount for accused murderer Drew Peterson bother anyone but me? Our Constitution says, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed...", yet the court in Peterson's case found a $20 million bail to be reasonable. Now, I understand that bail should be imposed, but $20 million for a guy who has never had that type of income? And it seems to me that he isn't being held for the single crime that he has been charged with, but for every other crime he is alleged to have committed. And if our system is based on a presumption of innocence, where the state is tasked with proving guilt, then does not the imposition of such a huge bail amount not send a clear signal to the community and prospective jurors that Peterson is dangerous and is to be judged guilty of some crime? I'm sorry, but no matter what the public mood is, no one should be held out as guilty before trial and astronomically high bail amounts do just that!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (21) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Unionized States of America

Once upon a time labor unions were all about protecting the interests of their dues paying members; making sure that they had safe working condidtions, fair wages, good benefits, and solid pension plans. They were not overtly political, in that their politics were all about getting what they could from management and to their members. They didn't care what political party you were from as a candidate, so long as you were on their side they were on yours.
 
Times have definitely changed, as the union bosses have morphed their unions from their original purposes of looking out for workers to being politcal heavyweights and king-makers. And the only kings they seek to make are members of a Party that is represented by a donkey...any others need not apply. The vast majority of unions, at least their leadership, are not really independent entities but fundraising arms of the Democratic Party, that demand politcal favors in return for their cash contributions.
 
Now with Barack Obama safely ensconced in the Oval Office, the unions are in a more powerful position than they have ever been before. There have been numerous pro-union presidents who have served, but none so willing to turn power over to the unions as Mr. Obama. There are two very high profile cases that illustrate that the unions have become less king-makers in this administration and have taken on the role of a quasi-king: the cases of the SEIU and the UAW.
 
By now everyone knows how the UAW has benefitted from their close alliance with the Obama administration. For a mere $4.9 million the UAW has basically been rewarded with ownership stakes in both Chrysler and General Motors (or what's left of them); a 40% stake in GM and about 55% of Chrysler. But worse than that, the adminstration willing abrogated existing bankruptcy laws by attempting to strong arm Chrysler's secured creditors to take 33 cents/dollar on their debt, while guaranteeing the UAW 50 cents/dollar; and in the case of GM the secured creditors were only given a 10% stake in the company, while the UAW got the aforementioned 40%.  Now the stock and stake in the company may not be worth very much right now, but if the companies manage to rebound under government supervision, however unlikely, it still is amazing that for a mere $4.9 million the UAW has been given control of two of the Big Three carmakers...after their unreasonable demands and unsustainable retirement benefits helped drive the companies over the cliff. That is serious ROI, my friends.
 
The curious case of the SEIU is more of the same, but on a grander scale. In an administration that made much noise about keeping lobbyists out of the loop, it is a sight to see a union actually shaping White House policy. The state of California passed a measure recently that would have cut wages for home healthcare workers in the state, in a bid to create some budget relief for a state that is looking at a $20-plus billion deficit in the coming fiscal year...even with the savings created by this measure. According to a story in the Los Angeles Times, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reported that the Obama administration threatened to pull $6.8 billion in stimulus funds alloctaed for the state because the decision to cut the wages of the home healthcare workers allegedly violates the stimulus law. The governor also stated that the adminstration sent a letter on April 30 affirming that the plan to cut the aforementioned wages violated the law, and later the administration set up a teleconference to discuss the situation. And guess who else was invited to be on the conference...that's right, the SEIU!
 
That apparently is what $33 million in campaign contributions buy you these days...total access to the White House decision making apparatus. The very group that represents the healthcare workers in California was invited to be a part of the talks between the US government and the California state government on whether or not federal monies would be withheld from the state! All because the SEIU handed over a large chunk of change to get Obama into office, they now get to help decide the fate of the state of California vis-a-vis the stimulus funds, and may help sink the state further in debt to satisfy their own short term interests.
 
From card check, to the UAW, to the SEIU strongarm job on the Governator, the Obama adminstration has shown exactly where its priorities and allegiances lie. They have not done a thing to really safeguard the jobs of the autoworkers; witness the talk of a revamped GM having to outsource the building of certain cars to Mexico to become profitable again. But they have paid off the people at the upper echelons of union management with their awarding the unions majority stakes in two of the formerly Big Three, and they are paying off the SEIU by undermining a bipartisan effort in Lefti...I mean CALIfornia to find a way out of their budget deficit by standing not with the state, but with the union. The destruction of the concept of federalism in this case notwithstanding, it is a truly scary sight to see a federal administration using its powers of persuasion and force against a state that is simply attempting to handle state business...all to benefit a powerful union contributor.
 
The way things are going, we are soon going to be forced to change our name from the United States of America to the Unionized States of America! And for some strange reason, I don't think this was what Lincoln, whom Obama claims so much to admire, meant when he said his first priority was to preserve the Union!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

See, What Had Happened Was...

Watching Nancy Pelosi squirm on the dais at her press conference yesterday was absolutely priceless! She stumbled, she stuttered, she rambled, she sounded like a person going through the early onset of dementia, and she proved herself to be a total and complete liar. I mean, she was working on what...her fifth version of this story? First she wasn't briefed, then she was but couldn't so anything about, then she just heard about the briefing, then she recieved a second hand account of the briefing, and now she claims that she could not do anything about any harsh interrogation techniques short of electing Obama. That, my friends, is Democratic leadership at it's very best!!!
 
But what is even richer than watching Pelosi stumble around trying to find the place in her statement that spells out what she heard about waterboarding, was listening to Democrat apologists trying to blame this on everyone but Madame Pelosi. The Pelosi camp is putting out statements from other Democrats that claim the CIA misled them in the past to burnish her claims of the CIA having lied to her (at one of those briefings she didn't attend, I suppose) and then the apologists have gone to their ace-in-the-hole argument...the Republicans set her up!
 
Now this is the same GOP that couldn't get Colin Powell to endorse or vote for his wet dream GOP candidate in 2008, that has lost more races than Kyle Petty, and that was just declared DOA in every mainstream media outlet for the last two months or so...right? This is the same GOP that endorses Charlie "Lil' Specter" Crist in the Florida senatorial race, thinks that John McCain is a statesman, and that is working overtime to take the Dems advice to move left on order to survive. And this group of nincompoops is alleged to have dreamed up a scheme to entrap Nancy Pelosi...in her own words, no less...to turn the heat away from themselves? Are we really supposed to believe that the GOP leadership is that smart or effective? I think not!
 
The problem that Madame Speaker is having is that she has been caught in her own net and her own web of lies and misstatements. And she has accused the CIA of being a criminal organization that has broken the law by lying to Congress, even though not even other Democrats are backing up her claim. The GOP has been handed, gift wrapped with a bow, a way to beat the living hell out of the Democrats and Madame Speaker on the issue of national security and they seem inclined to do it, for a change. Kit Bond has been all over the place, as well as Pete Hoekstra endorsing the idea of some type of hearing or truth commission that would have members of Congress being called as witnessess as to what the CIA had to say about waterboarding in those briefings...and Madame Speaker would be a star witness in the proceedings. And wouldn't that be delicious...watching Madame Speaker have to take an oath and tell the real truth about what she knew and when she knew it!
 
And it was fun to see the media on the attack against a Democrat for a change, I must admit. It was obvious that Madame Speaker was not getting any breaks from the assembled press and she literally fled the scene when the questioning got tough! Suddenly the media remembered what it is there for; to hold the politically powerful accountable for their words and deeds. And their questions of Madame Pelosi were well thought out and were backed up with great follow up questions...which is why Madame Speaker felt the need to get the hell outta Dodge!
 
Madame Speaker has just found out what it's like to be caught up in your own lies, and it's not fun at all. If she would have just been honest...or kept her mouth shut...she would have been just fine. But you can bet your bottom dollar that the CIA is not going to be accused of lying to Congress and not respond, and when they start to fire back the heat is going to ratchet up even higher on Madame Speaker. And it is going to be a sight to see Madame Speaker trying to refute the black and white evidence of her knowledge of the interrogation techniques that find their way into the press, especially if that performance yesterday was how she handles pressure!
 
The people of California must be so proud...NOT!!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (15) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Words of the Leader

Everyone and their mother these days has an opinion of what the GOP needs to do to survive and thrive going forward. Most of the people weighing in have the opinion that after losing successive elections the GOP basically needs to move even further left to chase the 'moderate' voters out there. "Expand the base" they say, or "Become a big-tent" they say...as if the doors to the GOP have ever been closed to anyone. Some even say that we must abandon the image and ideals embodies by Ronald Reagan, the last truly conservative president this Party has been able to muster; they claim that his vision does not resonate with the people, that he is no longer relevant. But I say that he is even more relevant than ever, and that his ideals of conservatism are exactly what the GOP needs at this moment, maybe more than ever before. But don't take my word for it, take his. What follows are exerpts of Ronald Reagan's speech at the 1975 CPAC convention:
 
Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached "the gospel," in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.

Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own...Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed.
 

But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.

The "Young Turks" had campaigned against "evil politicians." They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority. And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals -- and pursue them they will.

 
Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked...
 

This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. John Kenneth Galbraith, who, in my opinion, is living proof that economics is an inexact science, has written a new book. It is called "Economics and the Public Purpose." In it, he asserts that market arrangements in our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care and a host of other miseries. And then, for the first time to my knowledge, he advances socialism as the answer to our problems.

Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap?

Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge. Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition.

We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!

Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos.

We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. And we are conscious that in Moscow the crash build-up of arms continues. The SALT II agreement in Vladivostok, if not re-negotiated, guarantees the Soviets a clear missile superiority sufficient to make a "first strike" possible, with little fear of reprisal. Yet, too many congressmen demand further cuts in our own defenses, including delay if not cancellation of the B-1 bomber...
 

Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.

We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, "Deal falsely with our God," we shall be made "a story and byword throughout the world."

I don 't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party" -- when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people's earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people. Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of "peace at any price."

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

---Ronald W. Reagan, March 1, 1975;
 2nd Annual CPAC Convention.
 
In the words of Stan Lee, 'Nuff said!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Time Is Now

By this point everyone and his brother is talking about the Specter switch and what it means to the GOP and the future of the Party. The media has gone to the usual suspects, Snowe, Collins, and Graham to tell them what they want to hear about the demise of the GOP. They are saying that the GOP is not 'big-tent' enough; that it is being dominated by conservatives; that 'moderates' are being forced out, and that ideological purity is a hinderance to electoral success.
 
But a couple of things strike me when listenening to the whiners out there braying about the direction of the GOP, and giving their prescriptions on how to change the Party going forward. First, what GOP have they been a member of since 1989? When Ronlad Reagan left office, the 'moderates' in the Party officially took control of the apparatus again, and have held power ever since! Look at the people who have served as President or had the GOP nomination since Reagan left the scene: George H.W. Bush, Robert Dole, George W. Bush, and John McCain. Not a conservative among them, including the alleged 'compassionate conservative' himself, G.W. Bush. So where is this group of conservative bully-boys the 'moderates' are so afraid of? Look at the leaders we have had to deal with in the Congress, and point out the conservative to me....I'll wait, and if you can find me one strong conservative voice that the GOP congressional power brokers didn't try to silence, please add the name in the comments section.
 
Second, why is striving for a consistent ideology such a bad thing? To be totally honest, I respect the Democrats at this point a whole hell of a lot more than I do the GOP because if there is one thing the Democrats do well it is enforce the Party ideology among its members. Very rarely are you going to see a prominent Democrat doing the types of things that John McCain spent 8 years doing to his Party and his president and not pay a serious price for it. Joe Lieberman, Independent from Connecticut is exhibit one on this issue; when Lieberman decided that he was going to buck the Party and side with President Bush on the Iraq War, the Democrats summarily drummed his butt right out of the Party, and were threatening to strip him of his place on the committees he served on. Now I am not saying that such draconian practices are the way to go, but at least the Democrats let it be known that there are times when Party unity is a must, and if you break that unity you will be dealt with. The GOP NEVER does things like that, which is why McCain can go all 'maverick' because he got his tender feelings hurt in 2000, Graham can be McCain's loyal lapdog, and Snow/Collins can basically caucus with the Democrats on every issue...and never hear a discouraging word about it!
 
In all honesty, the Specter defection now gives the GOP the chance to redefine the Party and its goals, and to marginalize the members who spend all their time voting as Democrats and running as Republicans. If that means that Snowe and Collins feel the need to switch parties, then fine...I'll even fly to DC to hold the door open as they leave, if they want me to. But this should be the time for us to actually move the Party back to the right and fulfill the talk of a right-wing takeover of the Party. And now is a time for conservative Party leadership to emerge and let it be known that disloyalty and disunity are no longer going to be accepted practices within the GOP; either stand together or stand alone. Finally, it is time for conservative voters to let their representatives know that we the people are no longer willing to tolerate the usual practice of rewarding the people who turn their backs on us after garnering our votes by returning them to office.
 
And one last thing: I know that many have been uninspired by Michael Steele, but I personally loved his response to the news that Specter had officially changed parties. He immediately called it for what it was, simple personal political preservation and dispelled the notion that Specter was trying to create of it being some noble decision, driven by personal conviction. Specter showed himself for what he truly was yetserday, and Harry Reid revealed what a turncoat he has been for the last three years, and Mr. Steele called him on it publicly. For that he gets a big HURRAH!!! from me! 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (26) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Subordinate President

In American politics, the President is supposed to be the MAN! The person holding that office has defeated challengers within his Party for the nomination and has beaten someone head-to-head in a national election for the job. And I was expecting the current POTUS to be the same way, since he is always invoking "I Won!" as his answer to every challenge. But he sure fooled the heck outta me!
 
There was a time when if the POTUS spoke on a matter, that matter was closed within that administration. If the POTUS said members of previous administration were off limits to investigators, they were off limits; if the POTUS gave a directive it was followed. You could grumble if you wanted, but you didn't buck the POTUS in public and you did what he said...whether you liked it or not. But with Mr. "I Won" in charge, that has changed in a big way.
 
When the POTUS, the Chief of Staff, and the Press Secretary all go out in public and say that members of the Bush administration are not going to be prosecuted for approving and using 'harsh interrogation techniques', you would think that would be the end of it. But apparently the AG is stronger then the POTUS, because he ordered the POTUS to stand down...and he did! Eric Holder let it be known that he, and he alone, would decide if there would be any investigation or prosecution of the Bush administration and Obama backed down with amazing quickness. He was in public the very next day(!!!!) falling all over himself to bring his statements in line with the wishes of the AG. Amazing!! And here I was thinking that Obama won the election, and that Eric Holder worked for him! But I guess that I was wrong about that one.
 
Maybe one day soon, President Obama will grow a set and assert himself. Maybe he will act like the President, instead of a like a whipped puppy, who jumps at the sound of the the AG's voice. Maybe one day Mr. "I Won" will become the MAN, and remember that HE won, and not the people who work for him!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (35) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Vision Inversion

The other day I was watching the news and started to get frustrated while watching some of what one of our THers has dubbed "Congresscritters" droning on and on about something or other. Heck, I can't even remember what they were talking about, since they spend so much time talking and so little time doing!
 
But what struck me was how ubiquitous these people are; no matter where you turn you cannot escape them. And what struck me even more was the fact that here at home, we rarely see our state representatives on televison mouthing off all the time. Now, we know they work and pass laws, and we know there are certain power brokers in state politics, like Mark Basnight and Hue Holliman here in North Carolina. But in our great state the politicians actually have real jobs, real families, and real world responsibilites to attend to. And I was just wishing that one day our national representatives could return to the founding vision of our government: the citizen legislator.
 
But the odds are that what works for us here in North Carolina will NEVER, EVER happen at the national level. For one thing, the pay at the national level is just too good to let go of; a US senator makes $169,000; Party leaders make $183,000, and in 2006 the average pension for one of these folks is $60,972 per year! Hell, you can live good as a senator, and it ain't bad being a representative either! The members of the House have the same average pay as the Senate, with the Speaker of the House (Red-Nanny P-Lousy to some of you) takes home a cool $212,000 per year...and that does not include their automatic COLA, military flights, top notch health care plans, and full vestment in the system after just  5 years of service.
 
Contrast those numbers with what a North Carolina state senator makes in a year, and it is no contest. Here in our great state, our state sentaors make $44,000 per year which includes a $104 per diem (when in session), a $559 montly expense allowance, and various perks given in lieu of cash like tickets to football and/or basketball games at UNC, Duke, NCSU, or Wake Forest. No one is in danger of getting rich working at the state level, especially since the General Assembly only meets for 6 months at a time in odd numbered years, and 6 weeks in even numbered years.
 
And that is why we have better government at the state level, except maybe Cali (okay Brian?); no one is getting into this and making it their sole profession, and they are actually in the capital (Raleigh for me) for a limited amount of time. Occassionally the governor will call for a special session, if there is something that has to absolutely be handled and dealt with, but for the most part our legislators spend the bulk of their time at home, making a living...not living off of us.
 
We at the state level have adhered to the real vision of the Founders, while the national politicians have inverted that vision for their own benefit. They have become a professional political class, seeking wealth, power, and influence and this nation is the poorer for it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (22) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Punter in Chief

History will decide where George W. Bush is ranked among the men who have served this wonderful state as President, and despite contary attempts it is much too early to make that decision. Passions on both sides are much too hot to get a true reading on what Bush did that worked or didn't work, and can't be looked at rationally; the Bush-bashers still claim he was Hitler and caused everything from rainy days and Mondays to the pimple on their foreheads. I would counter with something from fanatical Bush supporters, but in all honesty I haven't been able to find any. Most people who supported Bush still managed to have deep disagreements with him on many major issues, so their support is always tempered by opposition.
 
What I will do is call things like I see them, and as much as I liked Bush most of the time, his claim of being "the decider" was mostly a crock. Yes, he made the decisions on where to send troops and tried to set the agenda for fighting the wars we find ourselves in, but in too many areas Bush did not make tough decisions...he punted.
 
Take the situation with McCain-Feingold for example. This bill was unconstitutional on its face and everyone, including President Bush knew it. The idea that there should be limits on advertising and speach in favor of, or against a political candidate at any time in an election cycle was in stark contradiction to the First Amendment; Congress was doing just what the Constitution prohibited it from doing by passing a law that abridged the freedom of speech. The bill gets to Bush's desk...and he punts to the SCOTUS. Somehow he thought that the SCOTUS would get the bill before them and make the right decision, even though the Court was tilting left at the time. He had the veto pen in hand, yet used it to sign an unconstitutional piece of legislation in hopes of the SCOTUS making the decision that was rightfully his to make.
 
Look at the massive spending increases that came about in his tenure as President. While the American people could understand raises in the area of defense and homeland security in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, they were not prepared to see nondiscretionary spending balloon the way it did on the GOP's watch. The GOP had billed itself as a Party of lower taxes and fiscal restraint, yet they sent bloated budgets to the President nearly every year he was in office...and he punted. Instead of vetoing the bills and sendng them back to the Congress to be reworked, Bush signed everything that came across his desk and allowed the Congress to take the blame for the spending increases, in spite of the fact that he was in a position to rein that spending in with a stroke of his pen. But for usually political reasons, he allowed the spending to increase and managed to run up a huge deficit that was promptly hung around the necks of the GOP like the Ancient Mariner's albatross.
 
Finally, take a look at the current mess that we have economically. Bush and his administration set the ball rolling with the TARP plan to bail out struggling financial institutions, but failed to take the time to set up a system to properly track the money. But what was even worse than that, Bush punted on making any decisions on how the money he appropriated would be spent. He spent about half of the $700 billion in TARP funds and punted the decision on how to spend the rest to whatever administration followed his. And what have we gotten for it? Billions of dollars down various rat holes and an administration that uses the TARP funds as their entree to controlling the financial sector in the US economy, that's what!
 
George Bush may have been a lot of things, but a decider he was not. He was just like Ray Guy of the old Oakland Raiders; the greatest punter in the history of his profession.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (34) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Pot, Meet Kettle!"

In a pure moment of the pot calling the kettle black, the administration has decided that they actually know best how to run automakers! With the "suggestion" that the CEO of GM step aside so they could appoint someone better suited for the job, the Obama administration has shown us just how ridiculous they are, and how stupid the idea that the government is capable of running a for profit business really is.
 
Now Rick Waggoner may have deserved to lose his job at GM, because it has not been the greatest executive tenure in the history of corporate America, but the idea that Barack Obama shuld be telling him how to run anything is laughable. This is a President who cannot staff the Treasury Department, outside of a tax cheat as Secretary, while at the same time seeking unprecedented powers for the Department! This is an administration that has a Homeland Security Secretary whose home state became a leading center for Mexican drug cartels to kidnap people for ransom on her watch as governor; yet she now expects us to believe that her top priority is helping the Mexicans combat the drug cartels...at the expense of internal immigration enforcement. And this is an administration that cannot even run a monopoly in the form of the US Postal Service and make money at it. In case you haven't heard, the Postal Service is running at a huge loss, is laying off workers, slashing their operating hours, and is talking about cancelling Saturday deliveries in order to save money...but the government that has run a MONOPOLY into the ground feels free to lecture GM about not giving them a detailed plan for the future of the company, and is about to undermine a deal between Chrysler and Fiat by mandating a 30 day deadline on their business negotiations! This is un-freaking-believable!!!!
 
A government that can only run a military well (and would love to shaft the troops wounded in combat buy forcing them to pay for their own medical care, all to save a few buck so they can waste on on some pork barrel project) is now in the business of telling companies that actually have to deal with market forces how to operate...even though they (the G) can't seem to get all of its key positions staffed. I have seen some things in my day, but this damned near beats them all!
 
"Pot, meet kettle!"
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (17) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Where Am I?

There are days when I have no idea what is happening to the place I call home, and that is scary. Not to make light of a serious illness, but this must be a small measure of what it feels like to have dementia; I am able to recall things that happened in the past and enjoy them immensely, but if I look around right now I have no idea where I am or what's going on.
 
I remember a time when poorly run businesses were allowed to simply fail, to file for bankruptcy protection, and to either start anew or close the doors. No industry or individual business was deemed "too big to fail"; if you failed, you failed. The government was not stepping into the fray to rescue you. Ask all of the airlines that had to go through either Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 bankruptcies, or ask the people at Chrysler who once stared bankruptcy in the face and came away reborn. Then we had people like Ronald Reagan in politics and entreprenuers like Lee Iacocca in the business world to make it all work. Now we have Barack Obama and Tim Giethner whose every waking moment seems to be spent planning a deeper government involvement in the private sector economy. And in case you missed the memo, that's not a good thing.
 
I remember a time when criminals got their just desserts, but the public focused their ire on real criminals...not law abiding citizens who accepted their agreed upon pay. We used to have politicians who at least paid lip service to the law and pretended to allow the Constitution to guide their legislative acts; even if they did something that was unconstitutional, they at least had the decency to try to hide it. Now we have senators announcing their intention to willfully subvert the Constitution in front of television cameras, and a legislative body that actually did subvert the Constitution in the light of day...and none of them thought twice about it. And sadly, too many of us ignored the sheer lawlessness of their action and focused instead on the amount of money they were seeking to recover. We are more worried about quantifying how much money was to be illegally seized from law abiding citizens than the fact that money was going to be illegally seized in the first place.
 
I remember a time when the will of the people mattered in politics. A person holding elective office was allowed to do the job they were elected for, and no one tried to appoint someone to the take their responsibilities. But here in the Great State of North Carolina, our new Democratic governor, Beverely Perdue is doing just that. She and a band of her political cronies have decided that the governor should appoint a CEO of the board of public instruction and empower that person to basically run the state school system. The only problem with that is that we elect the person that does that job and never has that been challenged. But like so many of her Democratic counterparts Bev Perdue has decided that whatever puts more power into her hands is right and anything standing in her way is wrong. Hopefully the court case brought by the officially elected supervisor of our public instruction board is successful in thwarting this usurpation of constitutional authority by Governor Perdue.
 
And I remember when laws that were passed usually had some logic to them, especially when they were in related fields. For example, you would rarely see laws that governed the availability of say, alcohol that were contradictory. You would not see a law that prohibited the sale of alcohol to minors on the books, while another that allowed the sale of beer to minors existed at the same time. But that has changed in this country, and it has changed big time! I heard on the local NPR station today about a case where the FDA was being ordered to allow the over-the-counter sale of a particular "morning after contraceptive" to 17 year old minors, with a suggestion that all age restrictions be removed. Nevermind the blatant hypocrisy of the judge lamenting the politicization of the FDA in this particular policy while he legislates his particular political outcome from the bench; this about how utterly incongruous this law is when you look at other laws restricting the sale of certain drugs over-the-counter. For example, while the judge is ordering that the "morning after contraceptive" be sold to any seventeen year old who asks for it (and any other age if he has his way), I have to provide my driver license information, home phone number, and email address to the local pharmacy just to buy allergy medicine that has pseudoephedrine in it! But it is okay to sell minors, who legally cannot even consent to sexual activity by the way, a freaking contraceptive... while I have to jump though hoops to get some Sudafed!
 
It is amazing how topsy turvy this state has gone (state in the internation relations sense), and many days I wake up wondering where in the blue hell I am. Did I go through the looking glass, over the rainbow, or through the wardrobe? Or did I just wake up in an America that is being turned into Europe, even as Europe is in its death throes? Where am I and how can I get home?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (20) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Real Outrage of AIG

Everyone seems to be burning with outrage over the bonuses paid to the AIG employees, per their signed contracts with the company. The White House has feigned outrage over the situation, the President is pulling a Sgt. Schultz, "I saw nothink!", and Sen. Charles Grassley is running around telling people who got bonuses to kill themselves. Republicans and Democrats alike are trying to ride the populist wave of anger at the payment of these bonuses to score political points against their opponents, and all are taking part in what Michelle Malkin so expertly described as the "kabuki theatre" of outrage.
 
But what has me outraged is not the bonuses, because I cannot care less how much these people make; what bothers me is the rhetoric emanating from the halls of Congress. We have Sen. Chuck Schumer telling us that he wants to tax the bonuses up to 100%, a group of Congress members threatening to pass legislation to allow it, and one idiot on the Greta Van Susteren show saying that she thinks the Congress can legally hold the AIG employees to a retroactive law.
 
Article One, Section Nine, Clause Three says: No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. Article One, Section Nine, Clause Four states: No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. In other words, the Congress cannot pass laws that single out individuals or groups and cannot order taxes to be levied against individuals. These "guardians of the realm" are trying to do something that is obviously illegal and unconstitutional, and too few people are even batting an eye over it. Everyone is so busy reveling in their righteous anger at the "greedy" executives that they are ignoring a serious threat to their freedoms.
 
If the government can, in broad daylight no less, threaten to abrogate the Constitution in this manner, and if they can attempt to effectively blackmail the CEO of AIG to turn over the names of the recipients to Barney Frank, what does that bode for the rest of us? What will they do when no one is watching, if they will try this in front of the cameras? This behavior is the real outrage of the AIG scandal, and it should scare you to death.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (21) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Sky's the Limit

A couple of years ago after a loss in which his Arizona Cardinals allowed a Chicago Bears team up off the canvas and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, former coach Dennis Green gave us a line that became an instant classic, "We are who we thought they were!" That exclaimation was true for that game and it is even more appropriate for the novice we have in the White House.
 
During the campaign conservatives were bellowing from the rooftops that Obama had no experience and that he would be in over his head if elected President. But his followers countered with a claim that his experience as a community organizer was more important than any real executive experience, and the candidate himself claimed that the experience of running a campaign was invaluable and should basically count toward any experience deficit that he had. Some people bought it hook, line, and sinker because they had effectively suspended any logical examination of the man in favor of a purely emotional outlook on his candidacy. But the people looking at it from a non-emotional standpoint could see that trouble was brewing if we elected this man to run the country,
 
But in all honesty, it seems that Obama is even worse than we thought he would be. This man is so far in over his head that it is literally scary. And for the first time in my life I have started to succumb to a bit of fear as I watch Obama driving us towards the cliff, and worry that no one is going to be able to stop the bus. Just look at what 50 days of the Obama era have given us:
  •  As the stock market tanked, the President informed us that he didn't worry mcuh about the "daily gyrations" of the market because it is nothing more than the equivalent of a daily tracking poll.
  • Again, as the market was dropping like a hot rock, President Obama went out and encouraged people to buy stock!
  • We have a Treasury Secretary who cannot fogure out how to use Turbo-Tax and cheated the government out of taxes he obviously owed, who defrauded his employer of the stipend they gave him to pay the taxes, and whose "plan" to stabilize the banking sector had the markets running for the hills.
  • We have a Secretary of State who is giving out stupid gifts to the Russians, even as they continue to try to remake the old Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. She also declined to even mention the human rights abuse that are rampant in China and has signalled her willingness to engage in "diplomacy" with the terrorist sponsoring state of Syria.
  • We have a Homeland Security Secretary who has an open borders attitude and allowed the city of Phoenix to become one of the kidnapping capitals of the Americas. Yet the drug fueled violence on the borders that have spilled over into our nation are only seen as "concerns" for us to be aware of.
  • In the space of 50 short days, we have seen an orgy of spending that makes the Republican Congress of the Bush years look like Scrooge McDuck hoarding money. In the space of 50 days a deficit of $500 billion (pre-TARP) has had well over $1 trillion added to it...with more to come.
And worst of all, when anyone challenges the Novice-in-Chief on anything, he has tended to resort to the elementary school-level yelling of "I won!", as if that settles all disputes. But even that would not seem so bad if there were even a simple feeling that the man knew what the hell he was doing. However, as you watch his performance in the face of the challanges that face this nation, it is hard to shake the feeling that he is winging it; that he doesn't have a plan and is making it up as he goes along.
Which makes another famous sports quote appropro as the ending lines of this little missive. During the 1980s the New York Knicks had a supremely talented, yet extremely troubled young point guard on the team by the name of Micheal Ray Richardson. As the team was heading down the pathway towards a dismal season a reporter asked Richardson what the state of the team was, to which Richardson replied, "The ship be sinking." Asked a follow-up question on how bad the season could become, Richardson famously replied, "The sky's the limit."
 
And under Obama's watch, the sky is indeed the limit.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (15) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Standing Alone In Academia

 

As I have made my trek through the system of higher education, I have known that mine was going to be a lonely existence on the college campus. It was going to be lonely because in the sea of liberal thought and ideology that permeates the universities in our nation, I self identify as a conservative. And it was going to be doubly so because I am a black conservative at an HBCU.

I started out at a community college and I had some experiences with liberals there. I had a history teacher whom I still much admire who believed that socialism could be workable…if just the right people were to try it. But she never tried to push her liberalism into the classroom, unless she was asked what her personal views on a subject or issue were; at that point she was allowed to answer freely because she never pretended to be the academic when asked those questions. She made sure that she always stressed the fact the personal views she shared with us were just that; her personal views, and not those of the college. That was honorable.

I had another professor there who was a professor of political science, a practicing lawyer, and an active Democratic politician in the community. He also never allowed his personal feelings to seep into this lectures about the American system, and he managed to never let slip one insult towards George W. Bush in any lecture. In fact, he admonished several students who did so by reminding them that no matter their feelings, Mr. Bush was the President of the United States and in his classroom that position would be treated with respect. He was honorable as well.

Here at WSSU, in this semester particularly, things have been far different than what I experienced at RCC. I have one professor who, not knowing that I was a Republican stood in front of the class and announced that Michael Steele was simply a token and that most black Republicans were ashamed of it. I sat there stunned and amazed at how brazen that was, and how uninformed. But in the spirit of being a student respecting the position of the professor, I said nothing. A couple of weeks later during a class discussion, one of my classmates who knew I was a conservative Republican from a discussion in another of our classes asked me to give the Republican view of the “stimulus” bill. You could have heard a rat peeing on cotton; it grew so quiet in the classroom. And it was even quieter when I finished explaining that the “stimulus” was actually very light on anything that would immediately help the economy and was simply a liberal “holiday tree”. Since that point the blatant Republican bashing in class has stopped, although my new class nickname has become “Republican”. But I can deal with that.

In another of my classes I was asked whom I voted for in the election after I said that the “stimulus” bill did a lot of creating jobs for government workers and making work for everyone else, but that it would not in the end pull us out of the tailspin we are currently in. After being asked why I voted for McCain, and if I was “For all the stuff McCain was for”, I answered that in a situation where I had to choose between someone I could never agree with and someone I could occasionally agree with, I chose the latter. I was then asked by my professor why I would vote for a Republican, and my succinct answer was “Because I am a history major.” When pressed on it, I laid out the sordid details of the Democrats racially divisive history from the days of Thomas Jefferson to the presidential election of 2008. When I was finished, my professor then asked me this, “But don’t you think people can change? Don’t you think the Democratic Party has changed since then?” And I pointed out that while I believed people can change, I see no real evidence that the Democrats have changed when a former Klansman still sits in the Senate, and both the current Sec.State and VeeP have been caught making jokes about Indians and 7-11 and service stations. And from that point on my professor and classmates have shown a new respect for conservative ideas when they are presented. That was my teachable moment, and I took advantage.

But more recently, in fact just yesterday I was denounced in class as attacking someone as if I were Fox News and of smearing someone with unsubstantiated charges. I would have been angry, but it was all too funny to me because I saw it coming. My class was assigned a book by John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man to read as part of an international relations class. I was suspect of the book to begin with because this class has been less about international relations than about the evils of American foreign policy, as seen through several different IR theories. So, I read the book (which I do not recommend, by the way) and in my review I ripped it apart. It lacked any specifics on how all the developing world was being ripped off by the bad old Americans; it read more like a bad John LeCarre novel than an honest memoir, with it’s talk of CIA assassins killing everyone who opposed US foreign policy; and the rehashing of the Halliburton, Carlyle Group, Bush-Saudi, and Iraq saving Venezuela from being invaded conspiracy theories. As I wrote it, I knew that no A was forthcoming, unless I joined the mush heads in class who loved it so much, mainly because all they know about IR they have learned in class. So I got my B and my anonymous denunciation and took it in stride, because I knew it was coming…but that’s okay. I can handle it and I could never trash my country just to get a good grade from a professor who came here from Africa to enjoy the fruits of freedom, yet spends an inordinate amount of time savaging the freest country on earth. What sort of idiot would I be to sell out to go along with that?

But as I go on through the trials of being a lone conservative voice in the liberal wilderness of the college campus, I want you guys to keep me in your thoughts and prayers. I am getting close to the finish line and I will not let the liberals deter me now!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (29) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Turn Out the Lights

Back when Monday Night Football was new "Dandy" Don Meredith, one of the three man crew along with Frank Gifford and Howard Cosell, would often start to sing "Turn out the lights, the party's over" when the game was pretty much in hand and one team was about to earn a victory. Well, when I began to look at what our government is doing with the "stimulus" legislation, I realized that the song needed to be dusted off to say goodbye to the quaint notion of federalism.
 
I am sure that most of you know exactly what federalism is, but for the unitiated here's a quick thumbnail explanation: federalism is the constitutional concept of the Founders of this Republic of ours that separated the powers of the federal and state governments. In short, there were supposed to be areas where the states reigned supreme, areas that were the province of the national government alone, and ultimately the federal government was to have as little interaction with the various state governments as possible. That's it: simple and brilliant.
 
But this recent "stimulus" legislation has totally blown that concept to shreds, putting the notion of federalism out of its misery. To be sure, the idea of federalism has been steadily weakened in this nation, with the federal government continually creeping into the picture and sticking its dirty fingers into the pies of the states. The federal government has stuck its nose into so many different state matters, from education to road maintainence, that most people figured the concept was already dead. But the fact is, even with the increase of federal creep into the private affairs of the states the concept was at least paid lip service by our elected leaders. But no more! The "stimulus" bill has finally disabused us of the notion that the states are willing or able to make it on their own without federal intervention.
 
This abomination of a bill has the effect, outside of being the jumping off point for the open practice of creating a socialistic economy, of making the various states simply clients of the government in Washington. Far too many of the states have taken budget surpluses and turned them into deficits because of poor fiscal management and profligate spending. I mean really, how else does a state manage to run up a 40 plus BILLION dollar deficit? As they so succintly stated on an episode of The Simpson's "tax and spend, tax and spend!" Now the bill for all of the spending has come due, the federal government has offered them a Faustian bargain, and the states are tripping over each other to get a spot at the trough. Hell, my esteemed governor Beverly Perdue was just saying that she would drive a truck to South Carolina to collect any money that their governor, Mark Sanford did not want! Yes, I know it was a "joke"...but that is not the kind of "joke" a sitting governor should be making. And the sad part is that the governors, the state legislators, and the national representatives for the various states, especially the Democrats, seem to be more than willing to give away state autonomy for a few billion dollars to bail them out of their self made messes. Futher, the few governors out there that would rather not become simple sattelites for the DC government are being attacked and derided for not lining up with the rest of the beggars to get their share of the governmental alms!
 
And that is why we can say R-I-P to our notion of federalism. We have changed from a nation that looked at government as a helper of LAST resort to a nation that demands that government fix our personal problems for us. We have become a nation that thinks the President can, or should care to, get us a better job than we have at McDonald's, or that he can provide us with a home when we can't afford one. And our states have become the latest victims of the welfare mentality that has broken so many homes in this country; they have decided that they won't do the work to provide for themselves because Big Daddy Government is there to fix all that ails us. So I just have one thing to say to the concept of federalism....
 
Turn out the lights, the party's over!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Black History Month Matters

 

Every February we celebrate Black History Month here in the United States, and every February like clock work we hear people attacking the very idea of Black History Month, which often morphs into complaints about HBCU's, BET, and any other organization or celebration that focuses on Blacks as a group. And sadly for me some of the loudest complaints come from my conservative brethren. So today, I am going to explain to you why Black History Month still matters, and why it is so important to all of us...and especially Blacks.

When Carter G. Woodson founded Negro History Week, America was deep in the throes of Jim Crow segregation. Blacks were never taught that they had any history besides one of alleged barbarity in Africa and deprivation as slaves and share croppers in America. The Harvard educated Woodson knew better, not because he had been taught about it at Harvard, but because he had done his own research and found out that Blacks had much more to look back on than slavery. There were great kingdoms in Mali and Ghana, great university cities like Jenne and Timbuktu, glorious rulers like Mansa Musa and Menes, great cities like Menefer and Kilwa that no school was teaching to its Black students. So Mr. Woodson, seeing this appalling lack of knowledge of the history of Blacks in society, took it upon himself to set aside one week every February to teach that history to anyone who wanted to learn it and to make sure those Blacks understood that there was glory in their history and not just misery.

And the same lack of knowledge that so appalled and inspired Carter G. Woodson exist to this day, in spite of the morphing of Negro History Week into Black History Month. Sure, all throughout February there are school lessons about Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King, and now I am sure that Barack Obama will be included in the pantheon of heroes as well. And there is talk of Jesse Owens, Muhammad Ali, Jackie Robinson, Michael Jordan, and Tiger Woods as well and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem lies in the fact that even now Black history is either largely ignored, or is taught in the same tired timeline...slavery to Jim Crow to the Civil Rights movement to the election of Obama. Period. But that is not all that we are.

I have found that the people who regularly frequent this space are some of the more intelligent people out there, so I want to ask you a few Black history questions in an attempt to make my point...feel free to use a reply post to answer the following questions:

  1. What is the significance of the year 1482 in Black history?
  2. What is the significance of the year 1619?
  3. Who was Mansa Musa, and what was his importance?
  4. Who was Menes and what was his importance?
  5. What is the significance of the years 1803-04 in Black history?
  6. Who were the Moors, and what is their significance?
  7. Identify Benjamin Banneker and list one notable accomplishment.
  8. Who was Jean-Baptiste DuSable?
  9. How many Africans fought in the Revolutionary War, combined?
  10. What did the Constitution of the United States say about the slave trade?

That's ten simple questions, and I would wager right now that the majority of the people who respond to this little quiz, without the aid of the internet, would likely fail. And not just White folks, but Black folks as well. And the reason is that we are not being taught! It is not some covert conspiracy to shut Black history out of history curricula, it is simply that the same incomplete history is taught from generation to generation and becomes the accepted history. And it happens at all educational levels and at all types of schools. I am a history major at an HBCU, have taken all of the prescribed African American history courses, have gotten A's in all of them, and in only one have we looked at the history of Blacks extending from Africa to the present. The rest followed the same time line that I laid out earlier, with a few extra details added in for flavor.

But it is during Black History Month that we get the opportunity to have a broader horizon of Black history opened up to us, when we really take the time and have an opportunity to get deeper than just a surface view of the subject. And until the accepted history of Blacks in America can be revamped, and curricula are changed to offer a more holistic view of Black history then Black History Month will continue to be needed. You see, Black History Month isn't just for Blacks. It is for all of us to be able to take a closer look at history and to see where Blacks come from, to expand our horizons and knowledge base, and to gain an appreciation that Blacks have a history beyond slavery and Jim Crow. It allows us to appreciate the history of the Moors, of Askia Muhammad, and Richard Allen and to share that history with the entire American society. It allows us to all come to the realization that Blacks have just as rich a historical heritage as the Italians, Greeks, or English and that history is just as wonderful. It allows us to get a sense of where Blacks come from, where we are, and how we got here. It is not to shut out anyone, but is an invitation for you to join in our celebration of our unique history.

Black History Month remains important because it is not just for us Blacks, but is an opportunity for all of us to learn, grow, and appreciate one another. And that is why we should all happily celebrate Black History Month.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (40) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive