As you know, during the first 100 days of his administration, Obama gave several white corporations hundreds of billion dollars to bail them out, but he has yet to provide one dime to bail out struggling black businesses in the inner-city. In fact, Obama hardly ever mentions the inner-city or African Americans in his speeches. It appears that after electing our first black president - all of the problems that once plagued African Americans and the black community for years have suddenly disappeared.
Under previous white administrations, African Americans constantly bombarded these administrations with questions regarding what they were going to do for black folks. But this is not happening with the Obama administration even though blacks lead all others groups in unemployment, home foreclosure, and other economic related problems. Not only are blacks not getting one dime of their own tax dollars to save the struggling businesses in the inner-city, their children 20 years and younger will be required to pay $114,000 each just to pay the interest on the $10 trillion dollar debt that they will inherit from our first black president’s administration. The question that no one is asking is: how will blacks benefit from that $10 trillion dollars?
For years, blacks have accused the Republican Party of being the party of big business, and the first thing we see after getting a black Democratic president, is that his priority was to save20big banks and big businesses. Banks that had a history of denying business loans to blacks and businesses that had a history of refusing to hire blacks (some are doing better today than they have in the past). Now if we called black Republicans “Uncle Toms and sell outs” for supporting a party that they claimed catered to big businesses, what do we call blacks who support the Democratic Party for doing the same?
We all know that George Bush also ran up the debt on us, but at least blacks had something to show for it. Under his administration he budgeted more entitlement money for the poor than any other president in U.S. history; he gave more money to historical black colleges than any other President in U.S. History; he re-opened and got a conviction in the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing after 40 years, he approved the funding for the African American Museum that will be the size of two football fields (near the other historical landmarks in D.C.) and he approved the Rosa Park Memorial. So blacks go t something from his big spending. It is also important to note, that at one point during his administration black unemployment reached an all-time low.
Even though Obama may not give us much, we can be assured that he will see to it that we will never run out of abortion funds to kill our babies. But before we boast about that, we must remember that the Ku Klux Klan (which was an auxiliary of the Democratic Party) killed us for nothing.
By Armstrong Williams
President Obama was elected with a multitude of beliefs ranging from health care and climate control to Guantanamo Bay detainees and the war in Iraq. But he entered the White House with two radical convictions which guide his beliefs and for which he would subordinate political maneuvering or optics.
His first conviction is that politicians and bureaucrats can run the economy and redistribute income better than the invisible hand of the American laissez-faire capitalist system. His second conviction is that America’s foreign policy should be determined by an international leftist academic and media elite and not by the interests of the American people.
Beliefs have short shelf lives. Convictions are forever and justify risking political defeat in defense of principles that live for the ages.
Mr. Obama is no Rosa Parks willing to challenge the existing power structure. He is awed by the national security establishment that insists on permanent war on a battlefield that spans the globe. He is equally enamored of the big spending dogmas and Big Brother meddling in private economic matters of the left. Thus, a fat-larded $3.5 trillion budget and trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.
Mr. Obama is no Martin Luther King Jr., who did not flinch from political conflict when high principles were at stake. Remember Selma, Birmingham and Memphis. He has flinched on gun control. He has flinched on government transparency and torture. He has flinched on earmarks. He has flinched on Iraq. To Mr. Obama, everything is subservient to filling the corridors of power with soothing symphonies rather than jarring fugues.
Mr. Obama is no Sir Thomas More, who accepted martyrdom by refusing to subordinate the law to political convenience. His shifting views on a faithful execution of the laws on war, torture, illegal surveillance and transparency are driven by political calculations, not an unflagging devotion to the rule of law. He appointed Eric Holder as Attorney General, who had the temerity to rebuke the American people as “cowards” in discussing the race issue, although the appointment discredited Mr. Holder s calumny.
Further, neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Holder have themselves done anything courageous since assuming their respective offices. Mr. Holder has shouted that water boarding is torture, but balked at persons implicated in water boarding.
Mr. Obama is no leader of any sort. He is an echo chamber of uninformed or misinformed voters or special interests of the Democratic Party. He is an emperor with no clothes, which his fawning admirers refuse to see.
Political honesty is the coin of a healthy democratic realm. An investor needs truthful corporate balance sheets not to feel cheated. A voter needs truthfulness in presidential candidates not to feel deceived and cheated of government by the consent of the governed. Mr. Obama has proven a political variation of Bernard Madoff.
He was for public financing of his general presidential campaign, until he was against it when he realized he had discovered a fund-raising juggernaut. He was against an individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, until he was for it to expand his political base and to throw his arms around a decision of the United States Supreme Court. He was an opponent of the death penalty for child rapists, until he was for it to appeal to social conservatives.
He was against the state secrets doctrine to block litigation alleging government complicity in torture, illegal surveillance or arbitrary y detentions, until he was for expanding the doctrine beyond the dimensions of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. He was against spying on Americans without individualized warrants to gather foreign intelligence, until he was in favor of group warrants and retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies implicated in criminal and civil violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
He was against presidential power to detain citizens or residents indefinitely without accusation or trial in the war on international terrorism, until he was for it after entering the White House. He was against detentions of “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay for nebulous associations with al Qaeda, until he was for it as long as the pejorative label was dropped.
He was against maintaining U.S. troops in Iraq after 2011, until he was for 50,000 (a greater number than are stationed in Japan or South20Korea) if they could euphemistically be described as “non-combatant combatants.” He was against unchecked presidential power, until he was in favor of acting as the nation’s economic czar empowered to pick and choose winners and losers by decree.
He was against lobbyists serving in his Cabinet, until he was for it by granting a waiver for his Deputy Secretary of Defense. He was in favor of Tom Daschle’s nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services despite glaring income tax dereliction, until he was against it when the nomination fell into disfavor. He was in favor of whistleblower protection for intelligence agency employees, until he was against it.
He was against a president’s failure to fulfill his duty to faithfully execute, not circumvent the laws, until he was in favor of it after he occupied the White House and confronted evidence of torture authorized or practiced by Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, their subordinates and lawyers in the Department of Justice.
In sum, Mr. Obama is a serial prevaricator. In his mind, truth and candor are synonyms for political convenience and ambition.
Mr. Obama’s scorn for convictions that rise above politics also finds expression in other ways. A nation lives by symbols. Mr. Obama’s undignified deferential posturing before a Saudi Arabian official symbolized irresolution over whether the theocracy and religious intolerance that infuses Islam is inferior to the free exercise of religion celebrated in the American system.
Cordiality and civility can be displayed toward heads of state without behavior, which communicates submission or approval of ideas, or actions that contradict American values or practices. Mr. Obama’s eager and highly publicized handshakes with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez were wrong. They were done with the appearance of acknowledging that the tyrannical, pro-Iranian and Russian, and anti-Semitic head of state represented an equally honorable and praiseworthy approach to governing.
Mr. Obama should have displayed a civil aloofness towards Mr. Chavez or discovered a face-saving excuse for an inability to exchange greetings. And what is to be made of Mr. Obama’s presentation at Georgetown University in which he insisted on covering up symbols of Christianity, like a reverse Counterreformation. Will he next remove “In God We Trust” from the currency or “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance and refuse to invoke the Deity on Thanksgiving? Is he bent on appeasing Islamic radicalism?
By attempting to be all things to all people, Mr. Obama will end by being nothing for everyone. Alternatively, he will destroy America, as we know it, turning it into a welfare state, or even worse, socialist economy with an emasculated foreign policy.
www.armstrongwilliams.com
“The Armstrong Williams Show” is broadcast weeknights on XM Satellite Power 169 from 9 to 10 p.m.
By Mychal Massie
On April 3, three Pittsburgh cops were brutally murdered in the line of duty.
Eric Kelly, Stephen Mayhle and Paul Sciullo II were senselessly murdered while responding to a domestic violence call. Two weeks earlier, four police officers were similarly murdered in Oakland.
It’s no surprise that, in the aftermath of such brutality, politicians seized upon these horrific acts of the criminally deranged to create more restrictions on gun ownership. Some anti-gun groups even want an end to private gun ownership altogether.
Increasing restrictions on or removing firearms from responsible gun owners will not necessarily promote safety. It sure as heck won’t stop violent gun crimes.
At what point, if ever, will anti-gun zealots and the “throw the baby out with the bath water” politicians realize this? It depends whether they’re actually sincere.
Responsible gun owners aren’t committing gun crimes. An AK-47, bazooka or a dozen .357 magnums are no more dangerous in the hands of responsible gun owners than a Rottweiler or pit bull with a loving and responsible pet owners.
There is no greater truism than, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” I know dozens of men and women who own and legally carry firearms. They do not need more restrictions. They are not the ones committing crimes. And they are also among the most responsible people I know.
Some are collectors, some are sporting enthusiasts and others own and carry firearms for their personal protection. Why should they suffer under restrictive bans designed to curb crimes they already abhor?
The corner grocer, bank tellers and law enforcement officers do not fear legitimate, responsible gun owners - they fear criminals with guns. Legislatures can pass all the anti-gun legislation they want, but criminals will unfortunately still get guns and will still use them.
That’s the point. Lawmakers, urged on by the malevolent cacophony of anti-gun ownership groups, have it backwards. America doesn’t need to further oppress the innocent - they need to direct their energies at getting criminals off the streets. They need to deglamorize the criminal use of firearms.
Yet critics try to vilify gun owners like others vilify smokers. This won’t end gun crimes. It certainly won’t end the brutal murder of law-enforcement officers who are the line of defense between criminals and the rest of society.
It’s also easy for the anti-gun groups to blame conservative commentators for being responsible for gun violence based on their support of the Second Amendment. This, however, is a crude banausic idiocy based on agenda-driven contempt for any and all who disagree with them.
To that point, how many anti-firearm groups contribute to charities that help the families of slain officers? How many funerals of the same slain officers have Susan Sarandon, Rosie O’Donnell, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton attended?
Mumia Abdul-Jamal is given hero status for supposedly being politically prosecuted for his cold-blooded murder by gun of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. New York undercover officers James Nemorin and Rodney Andrews were murdered execution-style as they tried to rid New York City streets of machine guns and the gang-bangers who possess them. It’s not clear how passing more restrictive laws or taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens would have prevented the murders of these officers.
If legislators and anti-gun groups were serious about reducing - and possibly even ending - gun crimes, they would turn their scorn toward the criminals instead of finding criminality in legal gun ownership. They would direct their attention toward constructive ways to take guns out of the hands of thugs, gangs and abusive spouses that protects the innocent.
As it is, their efforts are not the solution to gun crimes - they are part of the problem.
# # #
Mychal Massie is the chairman of the black leadership network Project 21. Comments may be sent to Project21@nationalcenter.org.
Is Sen. Specter a man of principle or just another opportunist?
For Release: April 29, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or e-mail dalmasi@nationalcenter.org
Washington DC - As the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments today in the voting rights case Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, the Project 21 black leadership network is joining with other organizations to ask that this outdated portion of the Voting Rights Act be found unconstitutional.
“The racist boogeyman of the past is just that — a thing of the past,” said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. “I think most people realize this, but the civil rights special interest lobby has been strong enough to keep this boogeyman alive to the legal detriment of our post-racial society. As we try to move forward, our children will continue to bear the burden of long-rectified mistakes.”
At issue in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder is whether the federal government still has a compelling reason to oversee and approve election practices in certain areas. When the Voting Right Act was renewed in 2006, Congress did not amend Section 5 of the Act — which mandates this “preclearance” standard — despite the concerns of voting rights scholars. The local Texas voting district officials challenging the Act say the standard exceeds Congressional authority under the Reconstruction-era 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Project 21 has joined a amici curiae (”friend of the Court”) brief on the case with the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Center for Equal Opportunity.
In the brief, it is argued:
Changes in the social and political landscape cast doubt on, not only Section 5’s relevance, but its constitutionality. These changes show that the justification for Section 5’s remedial measures no longer exist. For instance, when the [Voting Rights] Act was enacted in 1965 there were few, if any, black elected officials in the South. But now black elected politicians make up an appreciable percentage of many state governments of the Deep South. Forty years ago the drafters of the Act understood that widespread and persistent intentional discrimination in voting occurred predominantly in the jurisdictions targeted, and typically entailed the willful misuse of tests and devices which Section 5 was specifically designed to remedy. But modern allegations of discrimination in voting may arise equally in both covered and noncovered jurisdictions, and involve a completely different array of problems which Section 5 is ill-suited to resolve.
For instance, the brief points out:
Today, the greatest majority of cases brought under the Act involve vote dilution claims which are not concentrated in any one part of the country and are addressed through Section 2 of the Act nationwide. Since 1990, the same number of Section 2 violations have occurred in Pennsylvania (a noncovered jurisdiction) as in South Carolina (a covered jurisdiction). Even more Section 2 violations occurred in New York…. The old style and systemic, race-based discrimination that made the Act necessary in 1965 exists only sporadically, if at all, while new allegations of minority voting problems stem from issues motivated by partisan politics rather than racial prejudice [such as long lines and ballot design].
A decision by the justices in the case of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder is expected by the end of June. A copy of the brief Project 21 has joined can be obtained at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-322_AppellantAmCuPLFCEOandProject21.pdf.
Project 21’s Massie added: “The Voting Rights Act was first enacted during a time when skin color was considered enough to disqualify a man from full participation. Today, that same Act would bar people from full participation due to where they live — regardless of their race. Where’s the fairness in that?”
Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21’s website at www.project21.org/P21Index.html.
Here is an article from TownHall.com that deserves our attention.
By Walter E. Williams
A civilized society’s first line of defense is not the law, police and courts but customs, traditions and moral values. Behavioral norms, mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings, represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience and trial and error. They include important thou-shalt-nots such as shalt not murder, shalt not steal, shalt not lie and cheat, but they also include all those courtesies one might call ladylike and gentlemanly conduct. The failure to fully transmit values and traditions to subsequent generations represents one of the failings of the so-called greatest generation.
Behavior accepted as the norm today would have been seen as despicable yesteryear. There are television debt relief advertisements that promise to help debtors to pay back only half of what they owe. Foul language is spoken by children in front of and sometimes to teachers and other adults. When I was a youngster, it was unthinkable to use foul language to an adult; it would have meant a smack across the face. Back then, parents and teachers didn’t have child-raising “experts” to tell them that “time out” is a means of discipline. Baby showers are held for unwed mothers. Yesteryear, such an acceptance of illegitimacy would have been unthinkable.
To see men sitting whilst a woman or elderly person was standing on a crowded bus or trolley car used to be unthinkable. It was common decency for a man to give up his seat. Today, in some cities there are ordinances requiring public conveyances to set aside seats posted “Senior Citizen Seating.” Laws have replaced common decency. Years ago, a young lady who allowed a guy to have his hand in her rear pocket as they strolled down the street would have been seen as a slut. Children addressing adults by first names was unacceptable.
(Read more click here)
By Ak’bar Shabazz
Imagine if, when local governments meet to create a budget for their police departments, they entertain requests from criminals against buying bulletproof vests and other protective gear.
After all, allowing the police to armor-up puts criminals at a disadvantage. How can crooks succeed if cops can block their bullets?
Worse still, imagine the government agreed. While some lawmakers might commend themselves for saving money or “leveling the playing field,” police officers would be left crossing their fingers and hoping they never find themselves outgunned.
This obviously doesn’t happen - or does it?
It’s not an issue of just protecting cops from getting capped. It’s protecting everyone from getting nuked!
Even though North Korea - a rogue nuclear power - recently tested a missile that can hit Hawaii and Alaska, President Obama wants to reduce spending on our missile defense program by 15 percent. Although Iran is gearing up to be a nuclear power, we are cutting key programs giving us with a key strategic military advantage.
The Russians and Chinese have long been displeased with our missile defense program. Although both are nuclear powers, they lack the missile defense technology we have that could render their weapons ineffective.
Anti-missile efforts, begun under President Reagan, are a factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now, placement of our missile defense technology in Eastern Europe reduces Russian influence.
American anti-war activists, curiously, have also been against missile defense - which ended the Cold War - since its inception. They don’t seem to like our nation’s position as the dominant world power, and it appears they would like to see our military and its influence reduced to be on par with the rest of the world.
Missile defense, however, has a proven record of success and a world-changing impact without even being fully deployed. Why is it being thrown away at a time when it may be needed now more than ever?
Laser-guided weapons to shoot down multiple missiles at a time may now be headed to the scrap heap. Additional interceptor missiles will likely never be deployed to Alaska, leaving us exposed to rogue missiles when we have the technology to protect against them. At the recent G20 summit, Obama even suggested eventually dismantling our nation’s nuclear arsenal.
To mend fences with foreign governments, the Obama Administration has sought to “reset” its diplomacy. This should not come at the expense of national security. It’s preferable to be the dominant world power that other countries may hate, envy and imitate than being a well-liked country unable to defend itself or its interests.
North Korea is not the only country with dicey relations with the U.S. seeking to be a serious player on the nuclear stage. Syria, which has acquired nuclear materials, is getting help from Iran and Venezuela to build up its missile program. Iran is unrepentant in its desire to become a nuclear power, and recently claimed to have over 7,000 centrifuges to produce enriched uranium. Although Iran says their nuclear technology will be used strictly for civilian purposes, it’s not difficult to convert that technology to military form for use on a warhead - and it’s not difficult to see them doing exactly that.
It’s nice to have international friends. It’s nice to get together with governments we are at odds with to find common ground. It’s nice to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony. But it’s also nice to know the United States can do so from a position of strength.
It’s not in our best interest to destroy our nation’s strategic advantage for the same reason we cannot give criminals a ballistic advantage over the police.
# # #
Ak’Bar A. Shabazz is a member of the national advisory council for the Project 21 black leadership network and president of Shabazz Enterprises. Comments may be sent to akbar@akbarshabazz.com.
By Herman Cain
It did not take 100 days for some of us to recognize that President Obama is not in control of the legislative agenda. Nor did it take 100 days to see that he is being advised to micro-manage the biggest nation on the planet, the United States of America.
First, presidential candidate Obama promised to allow five days of public comment before signing bills into law. He signed his first bill extending the statute of limitations for salary discrimination lawsuits in less than five days, and he signed the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) within three days of being sworn in as president.
Next, presidential candidate Obama promised “no earmarks” in spending legislation. The Democrat-controlled Congress proceeded to pass the $787 billion economic “stimulus” bill in less than 24 hours with earmarks hard wired into the bill. The Congress also sent the president the fiscal year 2009 budget appropriations bill, which contained over 8,600 earmarks. He signed both bills without a five-day waiting period for public comment.
Presidential candidate Obama repeatedly pledged bi-partisanship and openness to ideas from both sides of the political divide. When asked by a Republican congressman why no Republican ideas were considered in the “stimulus” bill, President Obama replied, “I won”.
The Democrats in Congress have just revealed that the much touted “95 percent tax cut for all Americans” will probably expire at the end of 2010 along with all the other Bush tax cuts. Although the $13 per week for the average working couple is insignificantly small to begin with, President Obama will probably do nothing to stop an increase in taxes for all of us.
When I became president of one of the smallest pizza chains in the country (725 units) in 1986, I learned after 100 days that the company was headed for bankruptcy because it was trying to do too much, too fast, with too few resources. I also knew from the start that I could not make every pizza in every restaurant every day. It’s called micro-micro-management, a certified recipe for failure.
President Obama’s first 100 days have been filled with carefully staged press conferences, slap-down sessions with bank CEOs, automobile company CEOs and credit card company CEOs – plus an around-the-world apology tour.
He has just recently held his first meeting with his cabinet, where the big story in USA Today was the seating arrangement of the cabinet members.
The United States of America is the largest economy in the world by a factor of three compared with the next largest economy (Japan). And as goes the U.S. economy, so go the economies of the rest of the civilized world. We have the most powerful and capable military in the world, we are at war, and North Korea and Iran are headed by nut job dictators who are trying to acquire nuclear weapons.
We have the highest standard of living in the world, which is coveted by the rest of the world, even though we are in an economic recession.
President Obama’s rhetoric does not match what’s happening in Congress, and his apparent management style is that of a micro-manager.
Maybe it is because he has never run a small or large business entity before he became president. Maybe it is because he lacks the business instincts of a great leader. Even worse, maybe he lacks the instincts of just a good leader.
If most humans cannot micro-manage a small business and succeed, it’s not likely that it will work for the biggest job in the world.
We have learned a lot in the first 100 days. We only have 1,360 more days to make a change.
© 2009 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
