Between you and Michael Kline

The following dialogue was observed on the night of September 15th via Facebook:

Michael Kline September 15 at 6:20pm Report
A black republican? Do your siblings even talk to you? Your spouse?

Simone Cherie Perry September 15 at 7:04pm
Wow, its that exact racism that drove me away from liberalism in the first place. Don't worry about who speaks to me, my family and fiancé are far more open minded than any democrat you've met or claim to be.

Michael Kline September 15 at 7:38pm Report
Racism? There would be no civil rights movement if it wasn't for me..... Er....Uh....sure....yep....republicans are open minded. Are you part of the republican party which wishes to over turn the civil rights act, voting rights act, 14th Amendment, Medicare, Social Security...throw out public education? I'm sure your family is proud of you. (pssssss...don't tell anyone...we're really not republicans...but there ain't no black folks over here so we have a better chance of gettin' ahead...keep this to yourself)....don't worry...your secret is safe with me. I've been to Georgia....they still make all the blacks wait until every single white person is seated before letting a single black person be seated at a restaurant...JUST HAD THAT EXPERIENCE IN SAVANNAH last winter. You are laughable.

Simone Cherie Perry September 15 at 7:46pm
That was 1 experience, and I've never had such an experience. Political philosophies are nothing but ideas, the way people behave in public is an entirely different story. This is the same argument republicans insulate about Islam and the anti-American violent attitudes (a correlation which liberals deny.)

I call you a racist because if you were truly curious and NON-judgmental, you would ask why I was a republican, and not tell me that it is impossible or ridiculous for me to vote this way. So you really expect 40 million individuals to all believe and vote the same way? Ya, real open minded... Why is it only Whites can disagree with one another???

There would be no civil rights movement without you? Who the hell are you again? No one but Martin Luther King and the Panthers are responsible for that movement. How dare you take credit from something so important, that had nothing to do with you.

If you must know there was a Party of Lincoln, more in line with God, classical liberalism, Jacksonian democracy, and moral absolution than the piss poor years in which Nixon flipped Southern Strategy on our country. That is the party I associate with, in the hopes that racist democrats and southern imbeciles will go back to voting left as they always did.

Simone Cherie Perry September 15 at 8:13pm
Sir....






The antecedent dialogue is the epitome of conversations that lead a black American to wonder. Am I really accepted by this party?
The Ignorant User was blocked. It becomes very clear that such people have no respect for the integrity and character of Black Americans. Never mind how educated, talented, charitable we are, or how much potential we contain, the very FACT that we vote republican is…’laughable?’ Interesting.

Yeah, Count Him Out

With the wind seemingly at our back, it’s still hard sometimes to be a persistent critic of Barack Obama. Vindication often comes at a terrible price and the solace of being proven right is nothing compared to the anguish we feel for the American nation that is suffering and in decline. And it’s more than a little gut-wrenching to see so many otherwise intelligent people unable to break with the mythology of Obama.

Andrew Rawnsley, writer the British newspaper The Observer, is an apt example of an otherwise capable thinker captured by the delusion of Obama.

They won't give him a break – literally so. Barack Obama has reached that point of his presidency when he can't even join his fellow citizens in the all-American tradition of the August vacation without taking a hit. One group of critics attacks his choice of destination: Martha's Vineyard on Cape Cod is too swanky for them. Another band of hecklers says he shouldn't be on holiday at all. Chat-show host David Letterman wisecracked: "He'll have plenty of time for vacations when his one term is up."

This sounds ominous. Obama is becoming so unpopular that the kings of network light entertainment can suggest he will be a one-termer. Some of the panjandrums of punditry say the idea is no joke. In the midterm elections in November, the polls are currently predicting big gains for the Republicans who combine being furious and fired up with being hypocritical and nihilistic. The Republicans seem to have a very good chance of taking control of the House of Representatives and the possibility of seizing the Senate too. If the Democrats go down in big numbers, it will be seen as a referendum on the man in the White House.

How did this happen? Obama has many more positive entries in the ledger than negatives after 18 months in the Oval Office. He has delivered landmark change to healthcare. The reform may not be perfect, and it may not yet be very popular, but that is a big legislative legacy all by itself. Healthcare reform utterly defeated Bill Clinton in his first term. Other modern presidents didn't even try to address one of America's most intractable problems. In the face of ugly and unyielding opposition, Obama brought it home.

I sometimes want to cut the president some slack on what seems like a trivial issue of the first family’s vacation habits but I’m also sympathetic to the passionate criticisms of the president and first lady. Unemployment is unacceptably high—and will possibly remain so for a decade—and the housing crisis continues unabated. Americans are suffering and while the job of the president is exceedingly difficult, I can understand how some marvel at President Obama’s frequent vacations in the midst of such economic hardship. (There’s also the hypocrisy of liberal critics of George W. Bush who maligned the 43rd president for his frequent downtime. We can’t ever forget this.)

Mr. Rawnsley also parrots a point that is rapidly gaining currency among the president’s defenders in the press: The passage of ObamaCare was historic—whether the American public is wise enough to realize it or not. First off the rush to bestow fulsome praise on the president for signing health insurance “reform” is as laughable as it is tin-eared. Up until Sen. Scott Brown’s shock triumph in the race to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat, the Democrats enjoyed a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a pretty sizable one in the House of Representatives as well. And yet the Democrats barely got the job done. And since when is it laudable for a recalcitrant president and thuggish congressional leaders to shove a monster entitlement program down the throats of the citizenry despite massive resistance? Is this the new standard or will it be abrogated once a Republican president takes the oath of office?

Flawless, he isn't. But all in all, Obama has largely turned out to be what he promised to be: a creative, pragmatic reformer.

Abroad, he has also scored some successes. He has reset America's relationship with Russia, partly in the hope of tightening the pressure on Iran. He will welcome the Palestinian premier and his Israeli counterpart to the White House on Tuesday to kick off the first face-to-face talks in 20 months. He has repaired America's reputation and relationships with Europe. He has reached out to the Muslim world, sought to strengthen alliances in Asia and striven to work with, rather than against, other countries and international institutions. The world no longer lives on edge for fear that a crazy idea might pop into the head of the White House, a welcome change from the Bush years.

The Obama administration: “creative, pragmatic reformists.” I suppose that’s one way to describe them but it certainly isn’t the most common description. “Pragmatism” can mean all sorts of things so I won’t quibble with Mr. Rawnsley on that score. But creative? An administration whose modus operandi has been to abdicate the crafting of massive legislation to wild-eyed congressional committee chairmen? Some of us would call that lazy, not creative.

And while President Obama’s radiant personality has its theoretical advantages, it hasn’t produced much in the way of diplomatic progress and success on the world stage. Iraq: While the president has insisted he’s made good on a marquee campaign promise, many of his comrades on the left assert otherwise; Iran: Despite the conciliatory tone the president struck in his Inaugural Address and his administration’s numerous attempts at outreach, Iran treks along unmolested towards its putative goal of nuclear weapons; Afghanistan: The war is going badly, and the president appears to be an on a collision course with his second hand-picked commander Gen. David Petraeus; the list goes on and on.

There’s a lot more in Mr. Rawnsley’s piece and I would recommend readers look at it in its entirety. It’s an interesting exercise that demonstrates how out-of-touch a certain class of the president’s defenders is. The same folk who assured us Republican candidates wouldn’t prevail in New Jersey last year and in Massachusetts this year have been reduced to the pathetic admittance of the “possibility” that Democrats will lose Congress.

Let me be clear: Republicans will capture both houses of Congress. The presidency itself may go the way of the GOP soon thereafter. Despite what defenders like Mr. Rawnsley believe, it’s not because the American people are unable to appreciate the brilliance of Barack Obama. We understand our president perfectly well—all too well if anything.  

Importance of the Family Structure and Gender Roles

Importance of the Family Structure and Gender Roles is the second installment of the What Would Jesus Do series in YBC’s attempt to explore truths about the Republican Party platform and their biblical relevance to disprove “Christian liberalism” as morally sound. Of course, this series is of best use to “Christian liberals and not opponents of theism or Christianity altogether. That argument will have to wait for another blog. The series does not attempt to prove that all conservatives and republicans adhere to these principles, it merely suggests that THEY SHOULD. So, in the wake of new-wave feminism as a complete 180 degree turn form the movement’s original suffragette motives, I thought I’d discuss the importance of the Family Structure and Gender Roles. Family values are political and social beliefs that hold the nuclear family to be the essential ethical and moral unit of society.

Familialism (though not directly a Republican concept) is the ideology that promotes the family and its values as an institution. The phrase has different meanings in different cultures. In the late 20th and early 21st Centuries, the term has been frequently used in political debate, especially by social and religious conservatives, who believe that the world has seen a decline in family values since the end of the Second World War. But the term is vague, and means different things to different people.

For decades now, the Republican Party has used the issue of family values to attract socially conservative voters. While family values remains a rather vague concept, social conservatives usually understand the term to include some combination of the following principles (referenced in the 2004 Republican Party platform):

• Promotion of "traditional marriage" and opposition to adultery
• Support for a roll back of aspects of Feminism and support for a traditional role for women in the family.
• Opposition to same-sex marriage
• Support for policies that encourage "adoption over abortion

Promotion of "traditional marriage" and opposition to adultery. Traditional marriage I must point out, did not become referred to as “traditional” until untraditional marriage became popular less than 10 years ago. Homosexual, “Open” and Polygamous marriages would fall into this untraditional category. In the religious and political sense, it is defined as a legal marriage between one man and one woman, in no deviation from this strict standard. And although contradicted by the pro-sex feminism, which seeks to empower women through sex by reducing double standards associated with female promiscuity, the bible promotes monogamy, virginity and physical purity in the following verses:

“Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders” (1 Corinthians 6:9)

“It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her when she is put away commits adultery.”(Matthew 5:31-32)

“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled: but God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers.” (Hebrews 13:4)

“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”(Genesis 2:24)

Support for a roll back of aspects of Feminism and support for a traditional role for women in the family. Modern liberal feminists are at odds with biblical depictions of women. They often feel ‘minimized, discounted and oppressed’ by God’s intentions of their creation.
Then the man said: “This is at last bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh. This one will be called Woman, Because from man this one was taken.

But what, I ask is minimizing about this? :

“The Wife of Noble Character…
She is worth far more than rubies…
She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar…
She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks…
She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.
She is clothed with strength and dignity…
She speaks with wisdom
and faithful instruction is on her tongue…
She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness…
Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.”(Proverbs 31:9-31)

The arrogance involved in assuming that women are more important than, or should be perfectly equal to men, is undeniable. Women are special in God’s eyes, as is explained here:

For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man..... In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. (1 Corinthians 11:8-9,11-12)

Women who read these passages should not feel threatened, but proud. Women are bearers of great responsibility, whether or not it is identical to a man’s responsibility is irrelevant. Further, God has high standards and expectations for women:

“I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with … gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.”(1 Timothy 2:9-10)

“And, In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.” (1 Timothy 3:11)

Similarly, men have standards they must uphold:

“Now the overseer must be the husband, of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church? “(1 Timothy 3:2-12)

If God had little concern for women as his creations, he would not bother to address us with a moral code, a code that will allow us entrance into everlasting life.

Opposition to same-sex marriage. In the previous entry several passages about marriages were discussed, but also important are God’s opinions on relationships and sexual identity. These feelings influence the biblical perspective of marriage and family. One man and one woman create a nurturing atmosphere for child bearing, the negative influence homosexuality can have on raising children inspires the following verses, and is ere-go reason for this message in the Republican Party platform:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.(Leviticus 20:13)

“…He walked in all the way of Asa… doing right in the sight of the LORD.The re’mnant of the sodomites who remained in the days of his father Asa, he expelled from the land. (1 Kings 43-36)

Now that the gnarly specifics are out of the way, gender identity and transgender ideas are addressed here:
“The woman shall not wear that which pertianeth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”(Deuteronomy 22:5)

Support for policies that encourage "adoption over abortion”. It is common knowledge that abortion is acceptable in the liberal media and referred to as a woman’s choice, and further, a woman’s right and equal rights policy. But the flaw I find in this argument is that if all this was true, there would be no need to suggest that this choice is not murder. It is perfectly acceptable in a secular world to say: I want an abortion, if this is murder, so be it. But pro-choicers at large do not have the gall and honesty to view themselves as perpetrators of violence, so they look to scientific experts to ease their own guilt by convincing themselves that they have not murdered a child, but rather pressed the delete button on their keyboard. Christian liberal however, have no excuse in this matter. As they often take a “live and let live” approach to the issue, they should keep in mind that God holds an entirely different perspective:

And if men…strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage… then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." (Exodus 21:22-23)

This verse is very powerful, because it not only condemns wrongdoing, but suggests that others have a moral obligation to do so also. It is then against bible philosophy to turn a blind eye to wrongdoing. Liberals too often confuse judgment with false judgment, Christians should adhere to:

Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” (John 7:24).

This means God does want us to use our ability to reason, so long as we are not shallow in our opinions and judgments of others.

Surely we can rationally agree that taking life, life that you did not create, but merely bear, of an innocent weak vessel which cannot fend for itself, is of far greater importance than say, judging someone based on their wardrobe; and for that matter, we reserve the right to speak out against wrongdoing. Life, in the bible, is the most precious gift and is spoke on often:

For Thou (God) didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made…And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee…Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. (Psalm 139:13-16)

’The book’ referred to here, in which there are records of all life is known as simply “the book of life,” it is mentioned again in Revelation, the final book of the bible. The verse beautifully and plainly states that God knew all humans before even our parents knew they were to conceive us. The verse exemplifies not only God’s love of life, but the active role he plays in our creation prior to even our birth from the womb. Our souls and bodies belong to God; so our mother, although our earthly parent does NOT have the ultimate authority over our lives, and has the responsibility to let us enjoy the gift Jesus suffered so greatly to ensure for us.

Now that we’ve explored some biblical and conservative definitions of the family, we should compare how the left has recently described such values in their own way. For example, in his acceptance speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, John Kerry said "it is time for those who talk about family values to start valuing families." As outlined in the Democratic Party platform, liberals and Christian liberals alike outline acceptance as the essence of family values:

• Acceptance that men and women are the same
• Acceptance of same-sex adoption
• Acceptance of the non-traditional family (single parent households, same-sex marriages)

Groups such as People For the American Way, Planned Parenthood, and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays have attempted to define the concept in a way that promotes the acceptance of single-parent families and same-sex monogamous relationships.(Small divergence: the practice of monogamy has been absolutely ravaged by modern society in no greater numbers than by homosexuals, who by and large have 200X more sexual partners than heterosexuals, approximately 500 or more partners by age 60, according to Bell and Weinberg.) The following secular arguments debate the aforementioned ideas:

Acceptance that men and women are the same. While anatomically men and women are obviously different, the psychological differences between man and women are less obvious and not 100% conclusive. They can be difficult to describe, yet these differences can profoundly influence how we form and maintain relationships that can range from work and friendships to marriage and parenting.

At the heart of sensitivity is our capacity to form, appreciate and maintain relationships that are rewarding. For men, what demonstrates a solid relationship is quite different from that of most women. Men feel closer and validated through shared activities. Such activities include sports, competition, outdoor activities or sexual activities that are decidedly active and physical. While both men and women can appreciate and engage in these activities they often have preferential differences. Women, on the other hand, feel closer and validated through communication, dialogue and intimate sharing of experience, emotional content and personal perspectives. Many men tend to find such sharing and involvement uncomfortable, if not, overwhelming.

Rationally, you MUST accept, expect and respect these differences.

The Acceptance of same-sex adoption and acceptance of the non-traditional family (single parent households, same-sex marriages) are here grouped in this final pose because they have equally destructive potential.

The single parenting principle often begins with single parent homes and ends with child-headed households. Including short-and long-term economic and psychological disadvantages; higher absentee rates at school, lower levels of education, and higher dropout rates (with boys more negatively affected than girls); and more delinquent activity, including alcohol, drug addiction and criminal behavior.

Same Sex marriages although recent in study are not much more productive. They are significantly less stable and shorter on average compared with marriages between a man and woman. Consequently, homes with a homosexual adult inevitably contribute to substantially higher rate of changes in adoptive homes. This has nothing to do with our society: A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.

“Due to the high incidence of psychological disorders among children who enter the adoptive care system,” those “living with a practicing homosexual in the adoptive home,” are especially “ vulnerable to psychological damage and an increasing inability to adapt,” Rekers' study said. The study by Professor George A. Rekers was the basis for rulings in the state of Florida prohibiting the adoption of minors by same-sex couples.

While LGBT Parenting groups claim economic factors and societal pressure are the sole causes for these differences they escape the admittance of fact: Children raised outside of a nuclear family structure are pre-disposed to certain psychological, educational and emotional deficiencies at far greater numbers than children raised in this structure.

What could exhibit more ‘family planning’ than a marriage with a responsible, financially and mentally stable man and woman? A man and woman informed that there are attributes both sexes possess that are necessary to instill values and health in a child. Children, naïve and inexperienced by definition of being, are already susceptible to sickness, irresponsibility and reckless or deviant behavior, let alone when one of the fundamental concepts upheld by the Republican Party platform, (and more importantly supported by the bible) are missing or left to chance.

Individual Responsibility and Work Ethic

It is clear that those involved in politics (the right included, guilty as charged) often get carried away in associating the God, the bible and morality in general with every republican issue that springs to the board. To set the record straight, let’s take the time to examine exactly what the bible does say about current events in today’s headlines so that we can find appropriate means to respond to them, for not all republicans are Christians and not all Democrats are sadists. If we are to be sincere moral beings we must issue-by-issue determine for ourselves how God would respond. In other words: “What would Jesus do?” A quote that could easily title this post in relating RIGHT ideas to bible concepts-for-dummies!

The main concept being, Individual Responsibility and Work Ethic.

Personally, I have undying faith in the spirit of the individual. I think the strongest machines in creation are self-will, determination and passion and that these free gifts were those given by our creator. This belief is the foundation for most Republicans in forming opinions on: the safety net, taxes, regulation and welfare. Government involvement in the aforementioned is often viewed as a way to hinder the individual’s chances in reaching their full potential and further, making people fall victim to the short comings of others.

Oddly enough, I found several verses in the good book supporting what is likely God’s own opinion of individual responsibility:

First, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.” Deuteronomy 24:16

Second, “The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.”- Ezekiel 18:20
Hopefully these verses eliminate any idea you may have had about God being a collectivist.

“God will reward each according to his works." Romans 2:6, this signature staple is also a capitalist moniker.

“Whoever is slack in his work is a brother to him who destroys. “- Proverbs 18:9
“The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, while the soul of the diligent is richly supplied.”- Proverbs 13:4

“A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich.” – Proverbs 10:4

“And we can reasonable infer that God would likely support charity, not taxes in this verse: But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.-“1 Timothy 5:8. This verse establishes close-to-home giving, to family and loved ones, this is not conducive to national welfare.

Not each according to their needs, and certainly not according to their wants. Merit is required to receive God’s blessings, as he is an impartial God and does not believe in “entitlement”; similarly merit is the foundation of the capitalist system, as opposed to birth rights, mob rule and authoritarianism rampant in other nations throughout the world.

The New BPP Disgrace the Name

The bipartisan panel investigating allegations that the Justice Department wrongly abandoned a case against the New Black Panther Party plans to issue a new round of subpoenas and call for a separate federal probe following explosive testimony from an ex-Justice official, a commissioner said.

As the case heats up, members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights may even travel to SouthCarolina to track down one witness.

On July 11th 2010, President of the group, Malik Zulu Shabazz (real name unknown) appeared asa guest on Geraldo Rivera and turned a philosophical debate into a war on whites seeking reparation for any and everything done to ancestors he doesn’t even recall the names of; praising all that is black and condemning all that is white. Even going so far as to reluctantly recall his applauding Osama Bin Laden!

So, why all the fuss? Because while all that jazz is somewhat fascinating, I can’t help but to ask:
Who the hell are these clowns?

As most Black Americans, I have some knowledge of the original Black Panther Party for Self- Defense, most prominent from roughly 1965-1971. Furthermore Anti-Semitic, Anti-American and Anti-Republican, were not amongst the descriptive monikers of the BPP founders just forty some-odd years ago.

The New BPP recently the headlines with their outlandish remarks and rebel-rousing violent rhetoric when Shabazz gave an interview with Tommy Christopher this July on www.mediaite.com. The conversation went a little as follows:

Tommy Christopher: What do you think about the rally that Glenn Beck plans to have on August 28,the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream speech,” at the Lincoln Memorial?”

Malik Zulu Shabazz: I am aware of it, and that Glenn Beck should not be allowed to have this rally. Glenn Beck is a sneaky little devil, and he does sneaky things, and tries to portray that he’s really not the neo-racist that he really is. And for him to go and to secure the Lincoln Memorial on Dr. King’s birthday will meet not only opposition from civil rights leaders, but it’s going to meet direct opposition from the New Black Panther Party. . . Since he wants to go on Fox News, but he doesn’t want to invite us on Fox News..”

Tommy Christopher: “Beck had you on before, but not anymore?”

Malik Zulu Shabazz: “It’s some kind of conspiracy going on, to keep the truth out, and to keep us off the airwaves, to keep talking about us, but not talk to us. So we’ll see Glenn Beck live in person. I don’t think his rally should be allowed to happen.”

Tommy Christopher: “Once again, any members that show up, you would advise them to act within the law…”

Malik Zulu Shabazz: “I’m going to be there. I want to see him myself. Sneaky little devil.”

It should be noted that New BPP members have referred to "bloodsucking Jews", and Khalid Abdul Muhammad has blamed slavery and even the Holocaust on the "hooked-nose, bageleating,lox-eating, perpetrating-a-fraud, so-called Jew".

Among all of the chaos, the remaining members of the Original Black Panther Party have not been silent. In a recent statement released by Bobby Seale, co-founder alongside the deceased Huey P. Newton, he made clear his position on the radical organization.

“ Just to hate another person because [of] the color of their skin or their ethnicity - we don't do that. That's not what the goal objective is. The goal objective is human liberation. The goal objective is the greater community cooperation and humanism. The goal objective is to get rid of institutionalized racism [...] ”
Robert George "Bobby" Seale, July 8, 2010

As a proud Black woman, I worry that as some of our people look for pay-back for our history as servants, we will destroy are chances of eliminating the connotation of servitude within our race. I worry that we will destroy our own freedoms by our actions, without any help from outside racists or political powers.

This is nothing like the original Black Panthers, who were Black Americans, and never once used the word African because it is retroactive and anti-revolutionary. And even worse, their anti-republican sentiments contradict the principles of the founders of the Black Panthers who refused to identify with any ideology in the two- party system.

What jokes, I am sorely disappointed.

http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/07/12/live-on-fox-geraldo-rivera-takes-apart-malik-zulushabazz/

The afore-posted link is the interview which led my blood to boil just hot enough to write on this “man.” Geraldo Rivera is an American attorney, journalist, writer and host on Fox News. He was born in Brooklyn, New York and is half-Puerto-Rican as well as a common sense Conservative. Last night at 10 pm ET, seemingly hours of dialogue were exchanged between himself and the just-plain-wrong Shabazz who referred to Rivera as a “sellout” because he “does not support reparations.”

Long story short, I encourage all concerned, independent and conservative black Americans to research and form an educated opinion on the New BPP sine the US Department of Justice is slowly mimicking their principles. The decision not to move forward on a case in which New BPP members were outside of a polling booth screaming “You want freedom, Kill white babies!” and “Hey, you black man, let go of that white woman’s arm!” (Which was shouted at an interracial couple) is racist, cowardly and unconstitutional. For the Assistant Attorney General
Thomas Perez’s to state the Black Panther case “was not supported by the facts,” when there is avideo tape to prove the allegations, is deplorable.

Had the colors been switched, we would have a much different media and public reaction to this crime. Where’s Al Sharpton now?

Bye Bye Byrdie!

As the longest serving US Senator passes away, media outlets nationwide compile 92 years of data, interviews and personal relatives to find something sincere to say about him. The Huffington Post lovingly recalls him as the “Lifelong Leader for Animals” and Politico.com, a fairly reasonable publication adds: “The Senate has lost one of its legends”, even Mr. Obama himself regrettably tells: “America has lost a voice of principle and reason.” Sweet Songs to describe who is inarguably the most notorious flip-flop and racist of the past three generations.

So it is my sincerest regret (not really) to make this piece my shortest and sourest blog to date! As I remind the aforementioned persons and publications that THEY’VE LOST THEIR FRIGGIN MINDS! Byrd, if you can call him a man was the most spineless individuals in modern American politics, and it flours me that so many have long forgotten the pain and suffering his birth alone has brought upon America, its free people, and therefore the constitution.

Sure it is no surprise to me that Democrats will permit racism within their own ranks, but can they not at least stop to wonder why no Republican congressman were former Klansmen? It would not be tolerated, to say the least. So, in honor (and disgust) of this prejudice politician, let’s take a trip back in time.

First, a short sentiment from the man himself. The following letter was written of love and affection was written decades ago to his dear friend, Theodore Bilbo a Mississippi Senator. The time period was the early 1940’s, during WW2, a time in which Americas troops were tested unlike we’d ever been before.

“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

Disregard the racism if you will, after all, leftists will attest: “It was the ‘40’s, come on, he apologized and he denounced them!” And certainly Byrd did apologize, but denounced? Not so much… as a flip-flop he maintained to play both sides of the political and moral aisles. Two years after he “quit paying dues and left the organization,” he wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard. Here is a quote from the goodbye letter:

"The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth
here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."

If this was not solidification of Byrd’s true colors, it should have come in 1957 when the first civil rights act since Reconstruction was proposed by then president Eisenhower and other republicans. Byrd and other democrats were opposed to black rights permitted with the legislation and urged Johnson to “Kill the Bill.” Even when his own part presented the 1964 CR act, Byrd would not divert from his madness. Byrd joined with other Southern and border state Democrats to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964, personally filibustering the bill for 14 hours.
But alas, I digress; let’s focus on the new millennium, a time in which Byrd was supposedly a new man. A great example came in Spring of 2001. In an interview with journalist and tv host Tony Snow Byrd shared about race relations:

“... I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us. There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time, if you want to use that word.”

I find it remarkable how quickly that chicken finally came home to roost! Oddly enough, Byrd is as loved by democraps now as he ever was! In 2003, the infamous National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Byrd received an approval rating of 100%. Never mind Byrd was the only senator to have voted against the nominations of both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court, the only two African-Americans to have been nominated to the court. All of this racism, only to receive a 67 percent approval rating from the American Civil Liberties Union just four years ago.
In conclusion, let’s remain conservative enough to not mix sentiment or sympathy with stupidity. The Ku Klux Klan in the few years Byrd was a card-carrying leader killed an estimated 2 thousand people. All colors of men, women and children for being black, looking black, or refusing to hate that which was black. Race was a big deal to Byrd? That’s funny, because the difference between lack of melanin in whites and excess melanin in black skin is just one letter out of 3.1 billion letters of human dna.

Free Ronald McDonald!

In most recent obsessive-anti-accountability leftist news, the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington D.C. has served a notice of their intent to sue Ronald McDonald. The Golden Arches are currently being hunted by the CSPI Nutrition police to remove toys from their children’s meals. Stephen Gardner, a litigation director for the joke of an organization said “McDonald's use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children's developmental immaturity.” This is just months after Santa Clara County, California banned toy promotions in fast food meals in several parts of the county. (By the way, my sincerest sympathies go out to the rational citizens of Santa Clara County, for it must be difficult to raise your children with any sense of propriety, responsibility and self-confidence in a county whose message is that even what is put into their mouths is out of their control.)

Another statement issued from the CSPI, read that the plastic promotions “lure children into McDonald's restaurants where they are then likely to order food that is too high in calories, fat and salt, and that parents are not being responsible for what their kids order.” Odd, I was not aware children had the income required to order, well, ANYTHING. I mean, how many pre-teens and adolescents have disposable income? So, either, there is a black market for fast food (likely prominent in public schools) or Stephen Gardner and the rest of the Center for Science gang, have completely lost it.

To delve in a bit deeper, I’ve taken the liberty of examining the press release posted by the Center on June 22nd, and try to pinpoint some misleading, negligent, and just plain pathetic points to make their motivations, and the consequences easier to identify for the rational eye. Below are parts of the release, written by Executive Director Michael Jacobson, and ad-libbed in bold, by yours truly! following each paragraph:

ARTICLE:
‘Dangle a toy in front of a child's eyes, and you can bet the child will do just about anything to get it. And that's exactly what McDonald's (and other restaurants) do, using everything from TV commercials to signs in windows to the Internet in order to get kids to pester their parents to take them to the restaurant. It used to be that parents warned kids to run away from strangers offering candy, but companies have made an end run by laundering their perfidy through electronic media.’
“Pester” would be the key word in this introductory poo-a-graph! Notice the Encarta definition: annoy, harass, beg; this would be because a child, a dependent vessel of the aforementioned parent, has no authority over decision making. Also, notice television, signs and internet are perfectly legal and well-known forms of advertisement of any service. Other leftist services, such as abortion are also advertised in this way, especially on popular networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace, although they not so honest as to use images to allow people to better understand their business.

‘Now kids absorb countless commercials touting premiums based on their favorite characters -- Shrek, Batman, Barbie, Beanie Babies, etc. -- and, surprise, surprise, ask their parents to take them to McDonald's. Consumer-marketing guru Adam Hanft said, "Happy Meals proved that you could actually 'brand' a meal and make children harass their parents for it.’
Contrary to the belief of Mr. Hanft, children are impulsive and lovers of immediate gratification, they would harass their parents for yarn if it were the most popular toy! This is not the effect of any fast food restaurant it is merely human nature at work. The only disturbing thing here is that parents feel so little concern for the health of their children that they are willing to sacrifice their well being by accommodating their incessant needs.

‘In 1978 America was at the brink of the obesity epidemic that has seen rates of overweight and obesity in children triple. Factors ranging from video games to less PE in schools contributed to the epidemic, but one indisputable, major factor is the increased ubiquity of inexpensive, high-calorie foods. This has only worsened over time.’
Carter may have had other priorities in 1978, but since 1990 when George Bush enacted the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act into federal law, people now have the access to the nutrition information of high calorie foods and decide for themselves.

‘Restaurant meals that include toys are coming under increasing attack. In March 2008 Consumers International and the International Obesity Task Force called for bans on the "inclusion of free gifts, toys or collectible items, which appeal to children to promote unhealthy foods." Months later, the city council of Liverpool, England, considered such a ban. And recently, Santa Clara County, California became the first jurisdiction to ban the inclusion of toys in unhealthy restaurant meals.’
The point that restaurants are coming under attack says nothing in means of validation of this lackluster, anti-business and anti-entrepreneurial argument; it only goes to show how stupid American have become, California and England at the top of this sad list.

‘This week, CSPI has upped the ante by threatening to sue McDonald's unless the company agrees to stop using toys to beguile young children. CSPI contends that tempting-kids-with-toys is unfair and deceptive--both to kids who don't understand the concept of marketing and to parents who have to put up with their pestering offspring.’
If parents cannot handle their children and their demands as young ones, God forbid the obese little tikes become teenagers anyway, as they’ll likely have so much say over their own households that own devices that 18 will be an unreachable age.

‘Furthermore, in a survey of 44 McDonald's outlets around the country, we found that the default side item in Happy Meals was usually French fries, not the healthier Apple Dippers. That is, in response to a customer's request for a hamburger Happy Meal, over 90 percent of the clerks did not ask which side dish the customer wanted, but automatically provided fries.’
Nothing can be done about the lack of popularity of healthy food. McDonald’s (in my humble opinion) has been more than accommodating to the lack of restraint of the negligent American parent. Super-sizing has been eliminated, which likely created incredible losses for the Arches, also healthier foods have been added to give customers choices, against the intentional design of the company which was to be “A BURGER JOINT” not grocery store! McDonald’s understands choices, now the American public need to do the same. McDonald’s is NOT YOUR ONLY OPTION, take advantage of other establishments.
……
The pining issue here is that most literate (and even several illiterate persons) are aware that happy meals are not healthy for anyone; and that 485ish calories, high fat and sugar content are the core of such happy meals, and they therefore should not be eaten in excess as most fast food should not. That leaves just two question in my mind: Why can’t Food-Nazi groups like the CSPI put the fact together that children are the consumers and NOT THE CUSTOMERS? And lastly, who gave kids the ultimate say-so to replace discipline with weakness?