I think we have all become used to hearing Obama blaming Bush for all his economic problems. As we are coming to the end of the full first year of the Obama presidency, I think it's informative to look back at Bush's first year.
You might remember that Bush inherited a recession as well. You might have a hard time remembering it because Bush turned it around pretty quickly. What is so amazing about that is that he did it after we experienced the biggest attack in the history of our country AND the fact that hurricane Katrina packed an unusually big punch to the United States economy. So keep that in mind in the comparison.
In the last week of November 2001, the exact same period of time in Bush's presidency that is now in the Obama's presidency, "House Democratic leaders pronounced that the country was in the Bush recession. That brought howls from Republicans. After a11 they argued correctly this recession began when former President Clinton was in office."
Gee, that sounds kind of familiar. So, can we call this the "Obama recession" now? Following the lead of the Democrats, I think we should.
And beyond that, we need to look closely at what Bush did to pull us out of that recession and then look closely at what Obama has done to do the same.
This is practically a test case on what works. Clearly what Bush did worked (a $1.35-trillion tax cut). By July of 2005 the unemployment rate held steady at 5 percent. and The U.S. had generated about 200,000 new jobs a month in the last part of 2005. We shall see if what Obama is doing (which is the opposite of what Bush did) will work. So far we have a unbelievable 10.2 unemployment rate. At the end of Bush's first year in 2001, the national unemployment rate was 5.6 percent.
I'm not holding out much "hope." How about you? So far, it's clear the boondoogle of the stimulus ("American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009," what a joke) didn't work.
But it is amusing to go back and look at the news when Bush was running for re-election in 2004. The economy was in recovery, but the Democrats were moaning about the 2.3 million jobs lost under Bush in his first term, calling it the worst job creation record of any president since Herbert Hoover. 2.3 million is the number of jobs lost under Obama in his first year. I shudder to think of what the number will be when his term ends.
In December of 2004 the U.S. added 157,000 new jobs, which the Democrats lamented as an "underwhelming performance." Oh, what we wouldn't give for an underwhelming performance now.
Then there is the deficit. Oh, how we hated Bush's spending. But Obama has made Bush look like a Texas housewife in spending compared to Obama's Paris Hilton ways. The White House 2009 budget deficit projection is a staggering $1.8 trillion. For context, it took President Bush more than seven years to accumulate $1.8 trillion in debt.
For all the hate the left poured onto Bush, who knew we would miss him so soon?
Friday, November 20, 2009
I think we have all become used to hearing Obama blaming Bush for all his economic problems. As we are coming to the end of the full first year of the Obama presidency, I think it's informative to look back at Bush's first year.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 11:16 AM
Breitbart to Holder: Investigate ACORN or we’ll release more tapes before the election
Hannity: Are you saying, Andrew, that there are more tapes?
Breitbart: Oh my goodness there are! Not only are there more tapes, it’s not just ACORN. And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know that we have more tapes, it’s not just ACORN, and we’re going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have, we will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear that this is a dangerous organization. So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes; if you don’t give us the tapes, we will revisit these tapes come election time.
Hannity: This is a blockbuster, what you’re saying here. You guys have more tapes, you’ll release them before the election, that could have a big impact on the election, obviously…
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 8:22 AM
Thursday, November 19, 2009
As Noel Sheppard pointed out in an earlier post at Newsbusters, Chris Matthews once again accuses the Tea Party goers of being too white:
"This is a largely white -- almost no minorities in this crowd," reported MSNBC's O'Donnell live from the scene.
Matthews reiterated, "Well, they look like a white crowd to me," later claiming, "I think there is a tribal aspect to this thing, in other words, white vs. other people."
Here are pics from Code Pink's latest march on Washington D.C. I don't see ONE face of color. Go ahead and look through their photo stream back into the Bush years and the protests then. Still a sea of white faces. Here are a few pics from that time when I pointed this out back in April.
Let's compare. Here are anti-war protests (I warn you, they may be overtly white, but they are also overtly weird). Here are the Tea Party Protests.
I'm wondering if Chris Matthews or MSNBC ever commented on the "whiteness" of the left's anti-war protests?
I think you know the answer to that.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 4:10 PM
A recent discussion on the myths of conservatism got me to doing some research on conservatism. The answers I found didn't surprise me, but it might some liberals.
The Pew Research Center did several surveys to determine who was happy. Not surprisingly Republicans were happier than Democrats or Independents. 45% to 30% to 29%. In addition, Republicans have been happier every year since the General Social Survey began taking its measurements in 1972. Also, People who attend religious services weekly or more are happier as well.
Drawing on extensive attitude surveys, Schweizer’s “Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less . . . and Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals,” which comes out this week, says liberals are much more likely than conservatives to think about themselves first and are less willing to make sacrifices for others.
Some 71 percent of conservatives say they have an obligation to care for a seriously injured spouse or parent, compared with 46 percent for liberals. Asked if they would endure all things for the one they love, 55 percent of conservatives say yes, compared with 26 percent of liberals.
Equally revealing, liberals are far more likely to say they are depressed and to view the world bleakly. Schweizer attributes that to an attitude that they and those around them are victims and helpless unless the government intervenes.
Well, that explains a lot, doesnt' it?
Republicans have more children as well:
Of the ten states with the highest fertility in the U.S., eight of them voted for Bush in 2000. Of the bottom ten states in fertility, eight went for Gore. More importantly, of the states Bush won, his margin of victory was generally much higher in high-birth rate states than lower ones. As for Gore’s states — the lower the birth rates the higher the margin of victory.
A BYU study also shows that conservatives are more likely than liberals to read opposing points of view.
Conservatives also give much more to the poor and charity and donate more of their time than liberals. You can look at some specific well know politicians for examples here.
And last, but certainly not least, Republicans have a better sex life than Democrats.
So let's summarize. Republicans are happier, give more to the poor, have more children, and have a better sex life.
This explains a lot of the comments I have to delete. Unhappiness brings much bitterness.
I find it amazing that the picture of Republicans that Hollywood and the media try to portray is actually the opposite of reality.
I say to Democrats reading this, all is not lost. The wonderful thing about this country is that we are free to admit when we are wrong and turn things around. It can happen to you.
Come join the party. The HAPPY party....;-)
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 10:19 AM
I used to think Jon Stewart was funny. Sure he bashed Bush, but he at least gave the Democrats their due as well.
Now his jokes go in this order; Republicans, the media, and Joe Biden. Once in a blue moon he might take a light jab at Pres. Obama. Which is absurd considering the wealth of comedy to be had at President Obama's enormous ego, his addiction to his teleprompter, and his constant need to bow to other world leaders.
Sometimes you can tell when something really gets to Stewart. You can see he is clearly ticked. Ironically last night right after describing how the right loves Sarah Palin and the left cannot stand her, he goes into a diatribe about why he hates Sarah Palin.
Then he shows clips of conservatives on different news programs describing why liberals hate Palin. The last clip shows Bernie Goldberg saying that liberals hate Palin because "she has five children, liberals don't have a lot of children. She has a down syndrome child, liberals don't allow that in their lives."
Stewart then leans over to the picture of Goldberg and says "F*** you."
Then he looks into the camera and says "Democrats don't have a lot of kids?" And a picture of Eunice Kennedy Shriver pops up and he says "Eunice Kennedy had nine kids." Then a picture of the Special Olympics pops up and he says, "I guess she began Special Olympics to mock kids with Down Syndrome." It was one of those moments when he looked really ticked.
Does anyone else find it amusing that he had to pick a Democrat who was 88 yrs old (she died earlier this year, so he couldn't even find a live Democrat) who had a lot of kids? I guess he couldn't find a Democrat who had a Down Syndrome child at all, so he just used the example of her starting Special Olympics. But the irony there is that unlike almost all Democrats, Eunice Kennedy Shriver was pro-life....... just like Sarah Palin.
So Jon Stewart ended the segment with a joke he didn't intend to make. The joke (sad though it is) is that liberals can't even see the obvious in front of them. Bernie Goldberg was right.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:56 AM
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Pres. Obama could be the poster boy for what happens when others see you as weak. Obama imagined that bowing and scraping and using his pretty words would endear him to the world. He imagined he would show the international community how different he was from Bush with his "cowboy diplomacy." Well, one thing Bush was never accused of was being weak.
When our President looks weak, America looks weak. When Obama made his way to Europe to seek help in Afghanistan from NATO, he got nothing. Now he looks even weaker as he dithers on what he insisted was "the necessary war." He rejects his own General's recommendations and flies around the world accomplishing little, while our military's morale sinks and our boys are put in more danger.
I'm not sure how it could get worse. But Obama's trip to China proved it could get worse. Not only did it seem that he was gushing at them, but they refused even the smallest concession asked for. The Chinese did not let him meet with human rights advocates or Chinese journalists as requested. Obama met with only who the Chinese wanted him to meet with. The tougher sanctions on Iran, climate change discussions, and flexibility by Beijing on currency exchange rates that Obama sought were ignored.
Obama spoke to 500 students in Shanghai, but as the NYT reports, they were all members of the Communist Youth League. Chinese bloggers that the White House had tried to invite were barred from attending. The event was not broadcast live to a national audience or even mentioned on the evening newscast on state run tv. In other words, Pres. Obama's words were kept inside that auditorium to an audience that could not care less what he had to say. The wider audience in China, who longed to hear about freedom, never heard his words or a word about it.
The Chinese did not do this with Pres. Bill Clinton or Pres. George Bush. They were allowed to address the Chinese people and answer their questions in a live broadcast.
Obama imagines that he can somehow can gain trust. But first you must lead. First you must have respect.
It doesn't look to me there was any respect afforded Obama at all.
Where is the love that supposed to spew forth from the international community when Obama was elected? Recent polls show that the Middle East still distrust the U.S. as much as before. Does it really matter if European leaders "like" Obama on a personal level more than Bush, if that doesn't translate into respect and cooperation? No. It doesn't matter.
This is what happens when we look weak. But it's much worse than being "embarrassed" by Pres. Obama. Weakness in a President represents danger to the American people.
In his book "In The Words of Our Enemies" by Jed Babbin, he chronicles some of the interviews Osama bin Laden(and other radical leaders) gave to Arabic newspapers before 9-11. The main thing that struck me in this book is that our enemies thrive on our weaknesses. And they see that the fact that we value our own lives as weak.
In an interview published in a London newspaper five years before 9-11, Osama talked about how disgraceful Somalia was for us. He said we moved in tens of thousands of soldiers and then he said this:
"However when...(many) of your soldiers were killed in minor battles and one American pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadish, you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat, and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of you impotence and weaknessses became very clear"
It's clear that these madmen see our weakness as "Allah's will." It explains our weakness. But when we win, when we fight back, then that explanation evaporates.
That is why with Pres. Bush we were never considered a "paper tiger." Bush didn't "threaten and promise revenge" and then do nothing. We went to the Middle East and we killed those who attacked us. We were not "disgraced by Allah."
It is in strength we prevailed and were kept safe.
I don't feel so safe anymore.
Pres. Obama promises "consequences" to Iran if they don't comply on their nuclear program, but if there are never any real consequences, then "Allah" wins once more. Is there anyone reading this that expects there to be tough consequences to Iran? Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
The longer Pres. Obama waffles on Afghanistan and ignores Iran, the weaker we look. This is no time for that. More than anything else, Pres. Obama needs to show strength and resolve. I pray he has it in him to do so. If not, then we will be in danger once again.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 8:13 AM
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Obama's continued bowing may be embarassing, but it isn't important. This is important:
A powerful House Democrat used unusually harsh terms to blast the Obama administration's manipulation of stimulus data Monday night, and demanded an honest accounting of results from the $787 billion government program.
Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.), who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, took the administration to task for pervasive errors on the Web site designed to monitor disbursement of the stimulus funds. He called those errors "outrageous."
"Credibility counts in government and stupid mistakes like this undermine it. We've got too many serious problems in this country to let that happen," Obey said in a statement. "Whether the numbers are good news or bad news, I want the honest numbers and I want them now."
Obey demanded a commitment from the executive branch that they would "work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes." Congress and the public should be able to trust reports by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency (RAT) Board, he said.
The administration has already slashed 60,000 jobs from its estimates of how many jobs were created by the stimulus, after discovering "unrealistic data" submitted by stimulus recipients. In one extreme example, the stimulus Web site reported that 50 jobs were created or saved by an Arkansas cemetery's purchase of a lawnmower for roughly $1,000.
A new review found that the number of jobs created or saved by federal stimulus money as stated by this administration had been greatly exaggerated.
More on this debacle here.
The most common error appeared to be counting temporary or part-time work as a full-time job. Was this on purpose? Did they not think people would check on this?
I can't figure out the people who run this administration. Either they are cold stone liars who believe they will never get caught, or they are incompetent to the point of danger.
I'm think it's the latter, which is the most problematic.
This administration praises itself on transparency, but transparency doesn't mean much if you are putting out wrong information.
The bottom line is the administration can throw out the "created or saved" jobs number all day long, but the only jobs number that matters is the one that will finally say that unemployment is no longer in the double digits.
Don't expect that to happen any time soon.
Ironically it is the black community that has suffered the most under Obama's policy of focusing on other issues rather than jobs. Black unemployment has skyrocketed to 15.7 percent, from 8.9 percent when the recession started 23 months ago. The black unemployment rate has climbed above 20 percent in several states, reaching 23.9 percent in Michigan and 20.4 percent in South Carolina.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 9:57 AM
Monday, November 16, 2009
It's all about Palin this week, which couldn't make me happier. I think everyone knows how I feel about Sarah Palin, so I won't go on too much about what a wonderful role model I think she is, but I couldn't just ignore her this week either.
First let me say that I don't think she is going to run for President in 2012. I think she is going to do exactly what she said she would do when she resigned as Governor of Alaska. She is going to be a force to change this country back into the country we can recognize. One that respects the constitution and loves liberty. She promised that she would "work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and Life" regardless of party. And that is what she has done.
We aren't used to an honest politician that does exactly what they say they are going to do. We aren't used to a politician who faces challenges head on without spin. We aren't used to the strength shown by this woman in the face of so many lies and smears, not just by those that actively hate her, but by the mainstream media as well.
This passage in her book just endeared her to me:
Just before I left the hotel room to hit the convention stage, on the evening of September 3, I noticed that Trig needed changing. I also noticed that we had run out of diapers. After a frantic, hotel-wide search, someone found a stack, and the last thing I did before heading down to give the biggest speech of my life was to change the baby.
How many women out there can relate to that? Just about all of us. How many times have we had something that was very important to do, but first we had to take care of our children's needs in some way? We understand the messiness of life. We clean it up and we move forward. That's who we are.
I love her sense of humor. When false rumors swirled that her and Todd were getting a divorce she said:
Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd?
Many on the left give lots of excuses for hating her, but the truth they can't admit is that they hate her because of her conservative values that happen to be wrapped in a beautiful down to earth persona.
We have never seen anything like her.
I admire her for her strength, her values, her no nonsense practical way of looking at problems and issues, and I love that she took on the good ole boy network in Alaska and knocked them off their feet.
For more juicy tidbits from her book, go here.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 8:11 PM
You may have heard about the controversy in Washing D.C. where the Catholic Archdiocese announced that they will have to stop accepting city government money for social work programs rather than accept the ongoing effort to legalize gay marriage. This wildly upside down look at it by Petula Dvorak of the Washington Post really illustrates how the secular just don't get it. Here is the title of the article:
Catholic officials shouldn’t forsake D.C.’s poor in gay marriage fight
What it should say is that Government officials shouldn't force Catholic Churches and charities to go against their values, doctrines, and beliefs.
Let's start with the fundamentals here. The Catholic Church is not obligated in any way to help the poor except by it's own traditions and teachings. The reason the government gives Catholic Charities money is because the Church has always run programs well to benefit the poor and underprivileged. The faithful that work at these charities don't do it for the paycheck, they do it for Christ. The government knows that they will and have run the programs much better than the government itself can do, and that they actually make a difference in the lives of the poor.
The D.C. Council is preparing to pass a same sex provisions bill next month that will force Catholic Charities to extend employee benefits to same-sex "married" couples and allow gay couples to adopt with their adoption services.
The Church believes that same sex couples is wrong. It's that simple. If you disagree, then more power to you. You don't have to go to the Catholic Church. But to be clear, the Church teaches us to love all people, gay or straight, because we are all sinners. But loving someone doesn't mean that the Church forgets or overlooks what Christ taught us about marriage.
Dvorak says there are at least nine homeless shelters in D.C. that are run by Catholic Charities that use "at least some" city money. She imagines they will go away without the city's money. Well, guess what? Catholic Charities will continue to run those nine homeless shelters without the city money. The Catholic Church takes care of the poor all over the world, and it sure as HECK dooesn't need government money to do it. Governments have and will come and go, but the Church will remain.
Has this co-operation between government and Church been a win/win for both? Yes. The government has a reliable, well run, and trustworthy organization to use taxpayer money for the poor in a proper way. It is run by people who really care about the people they serve. The Church in turn, has more money to spend on the needy.
But the Church will never turn against it's teaching in order to receive government funds, nor should it be asked to.
Believe what you wish about gay marriage or same sex couples. But don't try to force your belief on the Church. It has a 2000 year tradition and it isn't going to change for some liberal D.C. council. We are free in this country to believe as we wish. When we have to come to a point where the government tries to force a faith to turn it's back on it's teachings, then we have entered very scary territory. Your belief may be next.
Dvorak also says that refusing to give in to the city goes against the mission of the Church. No. Going against the teachings of the Church would go against the mission of the Church.
The Church has every right to refuse what they consider an immoral mandate, and the city has every right to rescind the monies. If that is what needs to be done, then do it. There are plenty of other churches that would accept the city's mandates. The Episcopal Church and Unitarians come to mind. Let them accept the money and run the city's programs.
The Catholic Church is not, as many Democrats council members in D.C haves stated, writing or determining legislation. It is simply saying it cannot abide by mandates that go against the faith and Christ's teachings. It is the council that is forcing this issue, not the Church.
The Church would fight against being forced to condone ANY sin whether it be abortion, adultery, or euthanasia.
In my view, I would welcome a split. I have never been comfortable with the Church accepting government money. Until now, the government has been pretty good at letting the Church run it's many charities in the manner of it's faith without interference. But this was bound to happen. For those who don't like the mix of church and state for secular reasons, this should be good news for you as well.
If the government cannot find a way to run their programs and shelters for the poor as well as Catholic Charities has run them, then maybe it will think twice before passing mandates that force the Church to make that break.
*note: I feel I have to warn my liberal commenter's who always seem to take such delight, whenever the Catholic Church is mentioned, in smearing some 50,000 good and holy priests in this country by bringing up the comparatively few sick pervert priests that have disgraced themselves in the Catholic Church. Don't even try.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 6:42 PM
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Friday Glenn Beck had his show on black conservatives. He had about 60 there and from what I have heard it was quite raucous. Here are two takes from Booker Rising:
Adrienne Ross: "Sneak Peek: Taping Of The Glenn Beck Show"
The conservative blogger in New York said the experience wasn't what she expected it to be: "First, it was good to see Glenn Beck, but he is far from 100%. In fact, he did something he never does. He remained seated. He apologized ahead of time but said that he was too weak to do otherwise. Keep in mind he just returned from surgery. Suffice it to say I was glad to have the opportunity to be there, but it was far from what I expected. We were a rather raucous audience and Glenn reprimanded us nicely at one point. We were still yapping (arguing?) when we went to commercial, but that was the only time some were able to talk -- and even then it was nearly impossible."
She concurs with Maria, another blogger whom she met at the taping: "Hey, I tried to speak -- more than once, more than twice -- but it was impossible. So when you tune in [today], expect to see me in the audience, but don't expect to hear me speak, or Maria, or Clifton from Another Black Conservative. I could say more, but that's enough for now. I will speak my mind more after the show airs, and I don't think you'll want to miss my interpretation of how things went. And you certainly don't want to miss my defending Sarah Palin story. Yep, encountered some Palin-bashing -- and, if you know me, you know I addressed it! It'll be interesting to see how the show gets prettied up for airing. I will speak more of my mind soon. For now, I will close by saying it was not at all what I expected, and I was frustrated."
Clifton B.: "The Glenn Beck Show: An Evening With My Fellow Black Conservatives"
The conservative blogger in New Jersey writes: "First I met Adrienne Ross from Motivation: Truth blog. As I stated in an earlier post, Adrienne was on of the inspirational figures that inspired me to start Another Black Conservative. Adrienne is exactly what I imagined. She is outspoken and clearly has her beliefs on point. Adrienne and I clearly speak the same language, especially when it comes to Sarah Palin. Note to readers: Adrienne defends Sarah Palin anywhere and anytime, even on the very blue streets of New York City! Adrienne and I met early and traveled together to Fox News studios and there we met up with Maria from My Voice on the Wings of Change. Maria could easily be someone from my own immediate family. She even reminds me of my very own cousin Maria! Her Island background mirrors my very own background. Her life reads like of my own family. Robin from Conservative Black Woman surprised me the most. When you read Conservative Black Woman, her blog and point of view is very strong. Yet, Robin in real life is a petite and soft-spoken woman. Don’t let appearances fool you (you will see [this] evening) the woman knows how to get her point across! Others I got to meet briefly were the guys from Hip Hop Republican, Charles Payne from Fox Business News, several Fox News personalities, Kevin Jackson from the Black Sphere and a host of black conservatives from Facebook."
More commentary from Mr. B.: "What was Glenn Beck like? Just like you see on TV. He is a very much the everyday Joe you meet all across America. I could also tell he is still not 100% recovered from his operation. I could easily detect someone who is pushing himself to keep up with their everyday schedule who clearly did not want to."
I can see why it was so frustrating. Finally black conservatives are given a very big forum to express their views, and there are 60 voices trying to get their opinion in.
It just so happens that the Tea Party Express II tour just finished and there is a great read about here from Lloyd Marcus, a black conservative as well. You may have seen him on Fox News discussing the Tea Party Express. I really encourage you to read his overview of his experience to get a real sense of what the tea parties are all about (you might especially enjoy the Texas overview).
Lloyd had this to say about black conservatives:
Though some may think them as rare as Bigfoot sightings, black Conservatives do exist. I saw more of them on this second TPX II tour than I did on the first. Blacks in greater numbers are attending and participating in the tea party movement. In Texas, I met the conservative black woman named Mary Baker who founded 9-12moms.ning.com.
Black clergy are firing up the crowds, touting the virtues of God and country at tea parties. They worship Godly principles over skin color. I am still baffled as to how a Christian could reconcile voting for Obama based on his abortion policies alone.
I met several bright black youths who refreshingly were not taken in by Obama's rock star persona. One young black man who attended a tea party had just been released from prison nine days earlier. He admitted he made wrong choices and wanted to turn his life around. He was seeking truth. I gave him an autographed copy of my friend William Owens' book, Obama: Why Black America Should Have Doubts.
William and Selena Owens are wonderful black conservative authors who traveled with me on the Tea Party Express II tour. My first book, Confessions of a Black Conservative, will be released soon. Michelle Malkin wrote the forward.
Kenneth Gladney traveled with us on the Tea Party Express bus. Kenneth is a black entrepreneur who became famous after being beaten by SEIU thugs (Service Employee International Union) for selling "Don't Tread on Me" flags at a town hall meeting. The beating sent Kenneth to the emergency room. He was simply attempting to earn a living selling flags after being laid off. Liberals are quick to put independent blacks back in their place on the government dependency plantation.
On the tour, I also met young black conservatives running for political seats traditionally controlled by liberal Democrats. Yes, the times, they are a changin'. No longer are blacks sheepishly and mindlessly following the leading of so-called black leaders who thrive on convincing them they are victims.
Interestingly, most of the blacks I chatted with at the tea parties were current or ex-military. They have lived around the world, and they realize that America truly is "a shining city on a hill." Sorry, all you globalists, but America is peerless.
We blacks are blessed to live in the greatest land of opportunity on the planet. The day the majority of black Americans realize this truth is the day they can finally say, to quote MLK, "Free at last, thank God almighty, we're free at last!" Dr. King made that statement referring to the tyranny blacks suffered from white racism in America. He could never have imagined that blacks would someday need to be freed from the tyranny of traitorous blacks and liberal whites who wish to keep them on the government plantation.
My next door neighbor and good friend is a black pastor. He too was greatly bothered by members of his congregation, who he teaches to put Godly principles over skin color, voting for Obama. He tells me that many are now expressing to him their regret.
Although we have a long way to go with the black community in bringing them in large numbers into our fold, I am encouraged by all of the above. Brave black men and women going against conventional wisdom, and the first black President, to say that values matter more than skin color. One heart at a time. I'll take each one with gratitude.
I used to listen to white conservatives say, "Why put so much effort into bringing more blacks into our party when they are going to vote for Democrats no matter what?" This always made me angry. I would rant at whoever said it that it should be our mission to reach out to the black community and show we care, and show them how we represent their values much better then the Democrats. I would insist that as long as no one points out how the policies of Democrats have done nothing but hurt the black community and as long as it seems like we don't care about them, then of course they would keep voting Democrat.
I find it interesting and sort of ironic that it has taken having the first black President to awaken many white conservatives to the need of bringing the black community into our party. It has also taken Obama to put black conservatives front and center in our tea parties.
It's a start and I'm proud and happy to be a part of it.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:20 PM