 |
|
 
|
  Results 1 - 20 of 386 Articles in all categories.
Date Added: Tuesday, April 15th, 2008 Contributed by: Nina May I can still hear the James Carvell orchestrated mantra of the Clinton campaign in 1992, drilling it into all our thick heads that the economy was the only issue that mattered that year. In his own, inimitable way, he summarized the three points of that campaign as being, “change vs. more of the same,” “The economy, stupid” and “Don't forget health care.” It is refreshing to know that with all the hyperbole about change, that some things actually never do change . . . like Democrats and elections. It is easy to understand why Hillary would rely on those three successful points to hang her campaign on since they were prominently posted at the Clinton headquarters in 1992 as a constant reminder to employ the KISS method of political strategy . . . Keep It Simple Stupid. But, that doesn’t explain why Obama has adopted exactly the same three points, not straying off subject to even feign originality. There are a few very interesting points about the two democratic contenders, who are using pages from the old Clinton playbook as though nothing has changed in 16 years. One is that in 1992, Clinton won with less than 43% of the vote and did just four points better in 1996, never, ever getting a full majority, or “mandate for leadership,” as they like to say. When Clinton benefited from the dot com boom, inspite of having raised taxes, the assumption was that he was doing something to stimulate the economy. That’s like taking credit for the rain just because you got wet. And when Bush came to office, not only did he inherit a recession, but less than nine months later he presided over one of the most horrific attacks on US soil in our history. He still refused to raise taxes as a result of it, and saw eight years of stable and consistent economic growth, a robust stockmarket, and a real estate bubble that was bound to burst as things always readjust to natural levels. If you dust off the old script that was disseminated to the mainstream media in 1992, it is almost a verbatim argument for voting for the Democrats today and throwing the Republicans out. Even though, at the end of Clinton’s 8 years, with a recession, they weren’t clamoring to throw out the Democrats and elect the Republicans, so it can’t really be the “economy stupid.” And even up until election day of 1992, the talking heads were shaking theirs, so concerned that if the Democrats did not regain control of the White House, it would be certain economic disaster for the country. Sound familiar? The only problem is . . . if you go back and check the newspaper headlines the days leading up to the election, you will find the term “faltering economy” over and over. But if you look up the headlines just a few days after the election, there is not a mention of the economy. It is as though it miraculously healed itself overnight. And oddly, it did, because it was only bent, not broken, and the constant drum beat of impending economic doom was silenced because the political battle had been won. It is called a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you are told over and over, and believe that you are going to fail, or you will get sick, or something horrible will happen to you, that idea begins to control your actions until you define yourself by that statement. If people hear over and over that the economy is bad, a recession is coming, housing prices are falling, even it is to adjust for an outrageous spike in prices, then they will be on edge about the calamity hitting them. That is not to say there aren’t people who are hurting financially. I know people who have been hurting financially through 6 presidents from both parties. But statistics show that more people today are earning more, owning homes, starting small businesses, investing in the stock market and using their tax cuts to stimulate the economy by purchasing goods and services. The reality of a discussion about an economic slowdown is that first of all . . . there are no experts on the subject. It is all total speculation based on several moving parts that rely mostly on human behavior. And if that behavior is driven by fear and apprehension, then not only are you able to recognize it, you can actually manipulate it. And that is what we are seeing in the 2008 elections. But the big difference is that liberals who deny that the economy really was totally broken under Carter, refuse to acknowledge normal adjustments and fluctuations that occur when several factors are in play . . . the least of which is not telling people daily, that the economic world as we know it, is coming to a screeching halt. Will someone please get a memo to Starbucks . . . . encourage your customers to save that $5 they are splurging on a latte, to put one more gallon of gas in their car. For most people, according to polls, if you ask them if they are doing OK, they will answer in the affirmative and then tell you how they are concerned about those less fortunate. But those less fortunate are always with us, even when the economy is booming, the stock market is soaring, housing is skyrocketing and things look rosy for everyone, except those few who are forgotten in the years between elections. It is interesting to note though, that as the Democrats insist the economy is tanking. . . they have magically been able to come up with millions and millions and millions of dollars to see either Hillary or Barack win the election. And if you look at the leaders of the Democrats, especially, Bill and Hillary Clinton, you will discover that they have made over $100 million dollars in the eight years since Bush has been in office. Wow, that’s pretty cool. Even Bush and Cheney didn’t come close to making the same amount while the Clintons were in office. It is still a little confusing as to how with just one salary of about $200,000 while he was President, that they were able to buy the multi-million dollar house in New York without ever even owning a home before. I wonder if it was one of those risky sub-prime loans. And going from being a Whitehousewife for 8 years, to being a US Senator, now worth millions and millions of dollars, it is no surprise that Hillary wants to parlay those earnings into greater earnings by being president . . . again. So, Bill and Hillary, Obama, John Edwards, Al Gore and all the other wealthy Democrats have gotten very rich under Republicans, yet they want change. That doesn’t make sense. They should want to keep Republicans in office, keep taxes down, keep the Capital Gains Tax capped . . . or even eliminate it, and consider a flat tax. That way, they can continue to get wealthy, fly around in private jets, ride in limos, buy their huge mansions that the rest of the country only dreams of, and try and convince all Americans that they are not better off than they were 8 years ago. That dog just won’t hunt any more, and the tune is getting old. The reason people are at the malls on Monday and the gym on Tuesday and continuing to cause long lines at most restaurants, sold out screenings of movies and packed stadiums is because they wink and nod at the economic figures knowing it is that season again. It’s that time every four years when they are supposed to appear concerned, but really they just want to get their vente caramel machiata, jump in their SUV and head off to play racket ball. It’s not really the economy stupid . . . it’s the stupid economy that takes on a life of its own every four years, only to readjust naturally, the day after everyone stops telling them . . . “It’s the economy stupid.” Nina May is the producer/director of the award-winning documentary, Emancipation Revelation Revolution (www.ERRVideo.com).
Date Added: Thursday, April 3rd, 2008 Contributed by: Felicia Benamon
On the 40th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's death, it's important to stop and realize what must be done to make our country more and more what Dr. King would approve of. Better yet, we should realize what Jesus Christ, Dr. King's Lord and Savior, would approve of. Are we the nation that has come together and completely healed? Not altogether. America has definitely improved, and we continue to stride for a better society; we continue to strive against the odds.
At this time, America and the world pauses to honor a man who fought and died for many of the freedoms America enjoys today. Yes it is good that persons of color are now able to run for the office of the president. We've come far. But there are problems the US has to address. Not as a certain group of people, but together, as one...a family. There are educational problems to address, problems with drug use, sexual promiscuity, the breakdown of the family, etc. All of those factors certainly play a strong role in how healthy a nation becomes in the future. We have to stop and ask ourselves, "Is this what Dr. King envisioned for us?" This week, here in Memphis, the local news media is interviewing several influential people in the black community and those who knew Martin Luther King Jr. personally. One close friend of Dr. King, Dr. Benjamin Hooks, stood out to me as he said something profound. As Dr. Hooks reflected on the kind of man Dr. King was, he gave a tearful plea: "If MLK opened a library, use it. If the NAACP gave you a book, read it. If the Urban League opened a door for a job, take it. Get up. Get your body straight. Get off drugs and alcohol and dope. Get up in the morning and go to work, take care of your body. Take care of your wife. Love and respect your children. Respect your womanhood. Respect America for what it has done, but more than that, for what it can do."--Dr. Benjamin Hooks, 04/01/08 Read more of Dr. Hooks' thought provoking interview here: ( http://www.wreg.com/Global/story.asp?S=8098658 ) Dr. Hooks' message rings similar to other wise and influential leaders like Dr. Bill Cosby. Dr. Cosby has addressed black audiences in his effort to bring to light many problems the black community faces. In the book, "Come on People: On the Path from Victims to Victors," (written by Dr. Alvin Poussaint and Dr. Bill Cosby) Cosby makes a rallying cry for blacks in America to get it together. He addresses major concerns that are causing the downfall in the black community and then, gives encouragement, urging the reader to rise beyond the circumstances...to make the move "from victims to victors." Although Cosby is speaking to the black community, his words are beneficial to America as a whole. Messages of hope that emanate from leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Dr. Bill Cosby, Dr. Alvin Poussaint, and Dr. Benjamin Hooks should sink into the hearts of the American public. These men are but a small group of many honorable, strong black men who work to educate the public to reach for and work for a better day. They are the leaders who continue to carry on the torch of freedom and model of morality (respect for your fellow man, etc.), personal responsibility, justice, and equality as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did. Americans of all backgrounds should follow the example of these black leaders. Use your freedoms wisely. Don't think your freedoms were gained by folk who sat back and watched the world go by. No, those who have come before us paid many a price for us to be where we are today. But there is still much to accomplish. So let us pull ourselves up, and get to work. That is how we honor those who've gone before us. America, come together as a family. That's the way Dr. King would have wanted it. Related Reading: Tavis Smiley Show in Memphis http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/ Martin Luther King Jr.: Honoring the Dream http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/content/mlk/default.aspx National Civil Rights Museum-Events http://www.civilrightsmuseum.org/newsevents/events.asp Come on People!: On the Path from Victims to Victors by Dr. Bill Cosby and Dr. Alvin Poussaint http://www.amazon.com/Come-People-Path-Victims-Victors/dp/1595550925
Date Added: Monday, March 31st, 2008 Contributed by: Nina May If Barack Obama Really Understood Black History, He would not be a Democrat There was a big problem with Barack’s mea culpa speech in Philadelphia, defending his racist pastor, Jeremiah White. He failed to mention that over 300,000 white Americans gave their lives to end slavery. He didn’t mention that in 1854, abolitionists left the Democratic Party and founded the Republican Party specifically for the purpose of ending slavery and giving equal rights to all those who had been in bondage. And when he does mention the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution, he totally got it wrong, the way most Americans do. News flash . . . it was the abolitionists who insisted on it so that the slave holding states could not have their slaves counting as constituents so they could get more pro-slavery representation in congress. This is one of the most powerful battles fought by whites, to end slavery, that has been mischaracterized as being racist. He needs to read the history of this battle for equality and realize that the party he embraces today was the party that voted against the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, while the Republicans supported them unanimously. He needs to acknowledge that the two dozen civil rights bills that were passed by the Republicans were overturned by the Democrats when they regained control of the House, Senate and White House at the end of the 19th Century. It was at this time that the Democratic Party instituted Jim Crow laws. It was not whites that did this against blacks, it was bigoted, racist Democrats who would choose to divide a nation rather than give freedom to those they considered inferior. Had blacks been voting equally in both political parties, there never would have been literacy tests, poll taxes or other restrictions to voting. But because all blacks at this time identified with the party of Lincoln and were actually the ones starting Republican parties in southern states, and running and getting elected as Republicans, the Democrats knew that to kill a black was killing a Republican. If he watched the award-winning documentary, Emancipation Revelation Revolution (ERRVideo.com), he would learn that the first black Democrat, Barbara Jordan, was elected in the south in 1972, 100 years after black Republicans had been running and winning for years. And it took a federal law to force redistricting in Texas to get her elected. He would be reminded that almost all the southern governors fighting integration, standing in school house doors, firing water canons at innocent people were all Democrats. And if his parents really were a part of the civil rights movement, he would realize that without whites fighting side by side to overturn laws that had been put in place by his very own party, it may have been another generation before the civil rights movement could happen. It was not white versus black, it was racists, bigoted Democrats against blacks and whites who disagreed with them. If he saw our movie he would be reminded of three young white men who worked with CORE who were murdered, just for doing the right thing. He would see the incredible sacrifices that white men, such as Senator Charles Sumner endured for the cause of liberty for oppressed slaves. He was attacked on the Senate floor by pro-slavery Democratic congressman, Preston Brooks, who stormed the Senate side of the Capitol and tried to beat Sumner to death with his cane because he dared to introduce yet another piece of anti-slavery legislation. Brooks received hundreds of canes from adoring fans, while Senator Sumner struggled for three years to survive. When he did, the first thing he did when he returned to the Senate was to re-introduce a bill that would abolish slavery. This man was a white Republican. Preston Brooks was a white Democrat. Race had nothing to do with their individual passion to destroy or preserve slavery. It was a passion born of moral values and an understanding of good and evil. That is the discussion today that pastors are supposed to be having and preaching and encouraging their flock to understand. Rev. Wright did not get the memo and gets an “F” in black history. For Obama and his pastor to preach the “audacity of despair and racism” is an affront to all the people who have given their lives through the years to see racism destroyed. But that death blow has always been deflected by the Democratic party that has had a vested interest in class and race warfare to keep their power base motivated and returning to the polls. Barack says, “I have asserted a firm conviction that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds,” yet he sits week after week listening to sermons that say just the opposite. But those days are gone as we rip off the tacky, thin verneer of elitism and bigotry that has propelled them to power. It is ironic that in his speech he challenges the listener by saying, “We can’t accept politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism,” when he belongs to the very party that has always done that, to the point where the new liberal plantation has erected philosophical barriers around all blacks, condemning those who dare to challenge the liberal status quo and escape this manipulation and intimidation. They are called Aunt Jamima, like Condi Rice, or house negroes like Colin Powell, or forced to endure high tech lynchings like Clarence Thomas. They have Oreo Cookies thrown at them like Michael Steele and are accused of acting white if they identify themselves as Republicans or conservatives. That is “the racist spectacle we are not allowed to talk about.” When blacks have to whisper at polling booths that they are Republican, for fear of reprisal from their liberal neighbors, then Barack really doesn’t get the real conflict that is alive and well in this country, and why should he? He belongs to the party of the overseer of the philosophical plantation that intimidates and marginalizes blacks that dare support conservative values or Republican ideas. So, if Barack was honest about his desire to “heal the nation,” he needs to learn American black history, and take his pastor aside and tell him about it and challenge him to be more Christ-like when he preaches. If he knew real American black history, he would not belong to the party of segregationists and bigots and would not have allowed himself to be sucked into that dark undertow of racial politics that has already robbed our nation of too many amazing blessings. Nina May is the producer/director of the award-winning documentary, Emancipation Revelation Revolution, which tells the history of the civil rights movement in America, the role that both parties played in it, and what happens to blacks who leave that liberal plantation and embrace conservative values. To learn more about the movie go to www.ERRVideo.com
Date Added: Thursday, March 20th, 2008 Contributed by: Karin Agness
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KarinAgness/2008/03/19/gloria,_geraldine_and_now_do_not_speak_for_me -- Gloria, Geraldine and NOW Do Not Speak for Me
By Karin Agness Feminists have been on the prowl this month, making lots of noise. Gloria Steinem bashed John McCain during a campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Austin, Texas, saying, “I am so grateful that she [Clinton] hasn’t been trained to kill anybody. And she probably didn’t even play war games as a kid. It’s a great relief from Bush in his jump suit and from Kerry saluting.” Steinem continued, distinguishing race and sex in America, “a majority of Americans want redemption for racism, for our terrible destructive racist past and so see a vote for Obama as redemptive...I don’t think as many want redemption for the gynocide (killing of women).” Geraldine Ferraro had to resign from her position on Clinton’s campaign after her controversial comments on race and sex, “I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign — to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against. For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her.” Finally, Marj Signer, President of the Virginia Chapter of the National Organization for Women, said at an Ohio rally, “Hillary Clinton's taken every bullet they can fire at her. They try to bury her, to vaporize her. They make her out to be a bimbo. I guess the message is that women are still fair game. It's an atmosphere where this is still okay.” Based on these comments, it sounds like sexism runs rampant in America today and women are just helpless victims. These loud feminists grab headlines, as if they are in the mainstream, speaking for all women. But they do not speak for us. Just as it is necessary for leaders of organizations to confront members who make ridiculous comments, rational women must distance ourselves from our feminist sisters and their comments. It is especially timely for women to take a stand this month as we celebrate Women’s History Month and reflect on the victories women have won and battles that lay before us. As women, if we want to be treated equally in the political realm or any other realm, we must be serious players. In pursuant of this goal of standing up to the radical feminists and in celebration of Women’s History Month, women must challenge the weaknesses in feminist thought today, especially the victim mentality and the nasty rhetoric. As American women, we are in a better position today than we have ever been in. Life is good. We have many options ahead of us, both in terms of careers and motherhood. One way to specifically measure this is by examining the educational achievements of women as compared to men. According to the Census Bureau, since 1979, women have represented the majority of college students. For the 2007-08 school year, women are projected to earn 59% of bachelors degrees, 61% of masters degrees and 52% of first professional degrees, such as law and medical. The number of women in institutions of higher education does not just equal that of men, it surpasses men and the dominance of women continues to increase. Yet on college campuses and in the larger society, feminists continue to adopt a victim mentality, as if there is a good ol’ boys club ready to knock women down as soon as we reach too high. Although women dominate college campuses, there is still an unbelievable amount of institutional resources spent on women, including Women’s Studies departments and Women’s Centers. These were started when women were in the minority. Since men are in the minority now, by the same logic, we should be closing down the Women’s Studies departments and creating Men’s Studies departments. Think the feminists will ever let this happen? Unfortunately, this adoption of the victim mentality is a widespread cultural phenomenon beyond college campuses. It is so widespread that after a poor debate performance at Drexel University this election season, Hillary Clinton’s campaign claimed she was being picked on by the men. Who will accept a woman as a serious competitor if she is going to claim the game is unfair when she loses? This victim mentality hurts women overall by making us seem weak and desperate. Besides rejecting the victim mentality, feminists should drop the nasty rhetoric. During a 1970s debate over the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), Betty Friedan, a feminist pro-ERA leader, said of Phyllis Schlafly, the STOP ERA leader, “I'd like to burn you at the stake. I consider you a traitor to your sex. I consider you an Aunt Tom.” Unfortunately, as shown above, the rhetoric has not become much better in the last 30 years. As women, we challenge each other, which can be very constructive. But screaming shrilly that every debate and challenge to a woman candidate is just sexism is not constructive. Statements like these only relegate women to the periphery of debates. To be truly equal, female candidates must accept criticism and defend their policies, just like the men and not cry foul and bias anytime they are criticized. Gloria Steinem, Geraldine Ferraro and NOW proudly claim to represent women and are widely celebrated during Women’s History Month. It is up to all women, but especially the young women who will soon be the next leaders in this great nation, to challenge feminism and let it be known that these women do not speak for us.
Date Added: Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 Contributed by: Nina May Conservatives have this uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and overplay every hand dealt them. They squandered the Reagan Revolution by parsing and dicing an agenda of positions unobtainable from even the most charismatic, or messianic of candidates. The color required to attain “conservative” credentials on the litmus test appears in no color wheel known to man. The acceptable candidates in this category are whittled to a pencil point that can only scribe the name of Ronald Reagan. In the hopes that more people would have adopted his manner of principled politics, abandoning the mud fight that is covering the nation in sludge, conservatives have searched diligently for an heir apparent while consistently aborting their own. No one is pure enough, conservative enough, and principled enough to wear that mantel, yet they still hold every elected official to that standard. And, ironically, the country holds the entire Republican Party to that same standard while acknowledging that the Democrats and their party are incapable of feigning an attempt at such lofty heights. Barney Frank is seen as the voice of all that is virtuous in sexual preference while Mark Foley is run out of town on a rail for his dalliances in alternative lifestyles. Senator Larry Craig is tarred and feathered by the giddy left while claiming the right is homophobic. Tom Delay is driven out of office by an over zealous partisan prosecutor while Congressman William Jefferson commandeers government sources to salvage his personal items, including the $90,000 in his freezer. George Allen can utter a made up word that morphs into a racial slur while the Democrat who filibustered the Civil Rights Bill gets a pass, once again. I’m not really sure what happened to Newt Gingrich, but I am sure he didn’t lie under oath or seduce an intern like Bill Clinton did. Bill has had so many sexual improprieties it would require a certified public accountant to keep track of them and somehow he is the victim and the women are the vile creatures seduced by that siren of the right wing conspiracy. His wife gets the mea culpa senate seat in a state she has never lived in, and a multi-million dollar house she didn’t spend a dime on . . . and she is the victim, not the women her husband abused. We have watched Clarence Thomas endure a “high tech lynching,” seen Condoleezza Rice reduced to caricatures of Aunt Jamima and seen Michael Steele have Oreo cookies thrown at him for daring to leave the liberal plantation and express their own political views based on principal. Alan Keyes was all but ignored in his bid for president even though his resume, his intellect, his articulate ability and passion for a country he has always loved, shine like the sun compared to the flickering candle of the finalist in American Idol President, Barak Obama. Why have all these people been held to an impossible standard by both the left and the right? Different reasons. The left has identified all things Republican as akin to the anti-Christ . . . not that they acknowledge there is a Christ, but it is an apt analogy. And the “right”, once again, can’t seem to get its judgmental act together to recognize good people and get behind them when they are willing to put their lives on the line for the country. So what we are seeing on the horizon is a perfect storm for a group bound by common philosophy that is at odds with all the participants in the 2008 presidential elections. If conservatives would take a moment from eating their young, look up from the bloodied carcass of fallen comrades they have abandoned in the hunt for perfection, they would see a perfect storm on the horizon. John McCain has somehow, managed to edge out other candidates who were rejected by conservatives because they were not perfect enough . . . or they were too perfect. I can’t seem to get my arms around the fact that Mitt Romney looked too perfect, had great credentials, good administration skills but just wasn’t good enough. Giuliani was America’s Mayor, and granted, Mayor is not a resume topper, but neither is being the housewife of a man who cheats on you and finagles a senate seat in lieu of candies and flowers. Only Duncan Hunter had a perfect conservative score, yet the conservative elite sat around, wringing their hands searching for a candidate with a perfect conservative score. And even Mike Huckabee is far more conservative than John McCain, yet, he and others were rejected in favor of Hillary and Obama. It has been twenty years since Reagan left office and the only ones who have accomplished anything have been summarily reprimanded and reproached for doing too much, not doing enough, not doing it the right way . . . whatever . . . they have passed and the movement is a dying ember fanning itself in the hopes of igniting a flame of revolution. This is the perfect storm for such a revolution, if that once powerful group of leaders would give one final gasp of passion and unify their collective efforts to throw down a gauntlet of compromise and ultimate victory. That gauntlet, to the heir apparent in the Republican Party, John McCain, is very simple and has only two parts. The vice presidential running mate should be vetted by the conservative wing of the party as acceptable, and he will magnanimously acknowledge and agree that if he is elected, he will serve only one term. If conservatives can coalesce behind those terms, which would be a miracle, then there could possibly be hope for the future. If not, Hillary or Obama will win . . . depending on who gets the Democratic nomination. And if McCain does not agree, those who feel they are once again being railroaded and forced to accept an unacceptable candidate, should not sit this election out, but vote their voice and select a write-in candidate who should have been chosen as a running mate. One very positive by-product of losing the general election is that the leadership of the Republican party convenes to elect a new leader as opposed to having one selected by the sitting president. This is the silver lining of a perfect storm. If Hillary is the nominee, she will be a one-termer with a hostile senate and congress because it will be a known fact that Barak was cheated out of the race. She will be a pariah in the media, in the Democratic Party, and in the nation’s eye. She will retaliate with draconian measures to bring her “subjects” in line and a revolt will occur. If Barak wins, the populace will be crying “uncle” in two years as they struggle to regroup from oppressive taxes, regulations, restrictions and government’s tightening stronghold of unrestrained power. And that huge money-making machine known as “baby boomers,” will begin to slowly grind to a screeching halt as young retirees realize they would much rather spend the rest of their lives doing what they want, not what the government dictates. That young, impressionable group of new voters will be expected to pick up that slack, receiving paychecks that barely cover expenses and their altruistic nature will turn ugly with greed as they realize they have nothing to show for giving the government 50% of their hard earned money. They will expect their young president to have the answer and his response will be to tax and spend more and more. And dismiss the idea that the Clintons will recede quietly into the shadow of the party’s new “it” guy. There will be a division in the Democratic party that will make partisan politics seem like a warm memory of the good old days and it will perfectly position Republicans to win in two years, if they can figure out what they stand for. If either Hillary or Barak wins it will be because McCain would not negotiate with his base and humbly understand that winning the election is impossible without them. If McCain agrees to the conditions, reneges on the agreement to not run a second term he will become Bush 41, surrounded by moderates who actually thought he could win without the base, which ironically was the same reason Dole lost. So McCain can do what is best for the country or he will either Bush himself or Dole himself. And it is between him and the conservatives in the party if they have the courage to press the issue. If they don’t, then they should not complain if they are forced to give allegiance to Hillary or Barak under penalty of whatever. And if they don’t, they forever . . . forever . . . lose a position as a serious political voice in the destiny of the country. The perfect storm is brewing and it is up to the conservative base to recognize it and do something about it. (Nina May is the producer/director of the award-winning documentary, Emancipation Revelation Revolution, and is on sale at www.ERRVideo.com.)
Date Added: Friday, February 22nd, 2008 Contributed by: Felicia Benamon
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/benamon/080222 --
It used to be that the average American voter had a pretty good head on their shoulders. Not so much anymore. Too many Americans are allowing the likes of Barack Obama to sway them into thinking that they will be rescued from their current situation should he win the presidency. They cannot see through the hype. Has anyone bothered to take a look at what Obama stands for? What are his real views and plans for America? It has been disclosed that Barack Obama is sponsoring a bill in the Senate called the Global Poverty Act, (S. 2433) that would cost the US billions. Think more and more taxes, courtesy of the US taxpayers to help the world! The UN would have a say in how US tax dollars are spent. Cliff Kincaid of AIM.org writes: "The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends." The US has been and is involved with helping nations around the world. We give the most aid and manpower (troops and civilian aid) to causes than any other country in the world. I've said it before; anything with the word "global" attached to it, beware! This bill will overextend the US and the UN will have greater control over what the US does. Sickening thought! The US is sovereign! There are people RIGHT HERE in our own nation who are struggling in the downturn of the economy and people have lost jobs. Mr. Obama, why don't you try telling taxpayers that you plan on using their money to care for the rest of the world when the taxpayers are struggling themselves?! I have to question where Obama is really willing to take the US. Does he realize we must start RIGHT HERE in America to fix the many problems on our table? America should not strain and stretch itself to make sure the world has what it needs. With the value of the dollar below the Euro, and even Canada's Dollar, the US is in need of a strong leader who will place the US first and foremost above all other worldly concerns. The welfare of other nations comes last at this point and time. Where is Barack Obama's loyalty to this country, a wonderful American nation? Is his loyalty more towards Africa? That seems to be the case as the church Obama attends claims loyalty to the "mother continent," Africa. The congregation of Trinity United Church of Christ claims to be "an African people" who are "true to their native land." At the church, heavy emphasis is placed on African studies. More on Trinity United Church of Christ: http://www.tucc.org/about.htm Will Africa take precedence over America should Barack Obama become president? Barack Obama has been shown standing with his hands resting in front of him instead of over his heart as the National Anthem played. Now surfaces the questionable statement by his wife stating how proud she is of this nation for the first time: “For the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but I think people are hungry for change.” —Michelle Obama Michelle Obama's attitude of being proud of America in terms of her husband having "done well" and that folks want "change" is disturbing. She didn't mention the greatness of America in the context of all the US has done for the world and for mankind. To me, it was a selfish remark. Barack and Michelle Obama do NOT represent me, nor any other American who wants to make sure that his/her country, stays intact. Perhaps Barack and Michelle Obama would like to indulge a bit more in American studies...to really get a sense of how great this nation has become despite our current challenges. The two of them want change alright, but change not necessarily for the better. Yet still, crowds fall apart, people reduced to tears at Obama's rallies. No doubt there are some who profess to be Christians who are part of those crowds. They are getting sucked into Obama's talk of "hope". No politician can heal your wounds; no politician can offer you "hope." WAKE UP!! Only Jesus Christ can offer hope in this dismal world! How has this nation gotten so far off the beaten path? We used to employ common sense and good sound judgment. Now we are running headstrong over someone who is full of fancy talk, but offers nothing containing substance. And yes, scrutinizing politicians and combing over their record is something a voter should consider doing. The candidates running for president are within a hair of leading this nation, and as one can see from Barack Obama's stealth plans for another tax on Americans, we'd BETTER make sure that we send the right people to do the job. Related Reading Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.02433: Obama's Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote by: Cliff Kincaid http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/ Obama's Church: More about Africa than God? http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59600
Date Added: Wednesday, February 20th, 2008 Contributed by: Nina May Hillary Clinton claims she learned how to deal with men in an all-girls school. What, did they have cut outs of male images around the campus and they all had labels on them like … belligerent, mean, rude, nasty, etc. and the girls were taught to go up and whine in front of them? Now, if Hillary had gone to the same school that Anne Coulter had, she would have learned how to deftly dodge a cream pie aimed at her while giving a speech. Oh, did I mention the thrower was a man? Yes, on her campus, half filled with these pesky little beasts, she was forced to actually dialogue with them, present her point in a cogent way, standing toe to toe facing their gnarly arrogance. She came out unscathed from her college experience, ready to face the world of pie hurling idiot men who intersperse the F bomb between tosses. Now, that’s an education. And Condoleezza Rice had to endure an education where nationally syndicated columnists regularly depict her as an Aunt Jimima and poor little black girl stuck on a white plantation. Oh, did I mention these are white men who are the cartoonists dr awing these very degrading and racist depictions? Quiet . . . shhhhhhh . . . .what do you hear? You hear the sound of a very successful, brilliant, confident woman squishing these insignificant bugs under the shear power of her presence. What you don’t hear is her whining about it and calling racism or sexism or meanism or belligerentism. I am still trying to get my arms around the concept that Tim Russert could be called belligerent . . . by either side. And if you think he is belligerent, and are afraid of him, don’t subject yourself to his line of questioning. Oh, wait, that must be why every single Democrat candidate for president refused to debate on a FOX News debate because, oh, boo hoo, they are going to ask weally weally tuff questions and it’s going to hurt my itty bitty feelings. But Hillary, running in the shadow of a belligerent husband ready to rap any nave that challenges her, wants us to believe, that beyond that, she is tough enough to stare down even the cruelest dictator, as long as he doesn’t ask her direct questions, want a direct answer, expect anything substantive to occur and they all leave as really good friends. What does Hillary think she is running for, head cheerleader? Oh those mean football players are always treating us like girls. Yeah duh, because you are one. But heh, you brought it up. You retreat to the feminine camp when things get tough and your little insecure minions circle the wagons and live vicariously through your abuse. Yep, just the kind of person we want leading the free world. News flash Hillary . . . women today are smart enough to know a weak woman when they see one. Because they have all known weak, whiney, complaining, women in their lives who made their lives and everyone’s around them miserable. They thought they were the star, they subjugated everyone to their demands and blamed others for their own shortcomings. The problem with most of these irritating women is that they weren’t in a co-dependent relationship with someone who has the same exact character traits. Hillary’s addiction to power is no different than Bill’s addiction to sex, which in a way translates to power over women. He knows he can’t ever tame the beast he has created so he vicariously demeans women imagining he has the courage to stand up to Hillary. And because Bill is the perfect representation of one of those Wellesley cutouts of the male chauvinist pig, she projects on all men the same despicable characteristics her husband displays, while continuing to enable him to display them. Isn’t America sick of this pitiful drama that is being played out before us? With almost 150 million women in the country to choose from, are we really reduced to one who represents the absolute worst traits in either man or woman? She is so blinded by lust for power and hate for opposition to her getting that power, that she really can’t see her flaws. She really believes that everyone around her has a problem . . . she doesn’t. She blames her staff for trashing Obama with racial slurs that rolled out over her own tongue. This a woman who would be very dangerous in a position of real power and all the anger and hatred she has for more than half the country would come spilling out should she get the reigns of power. And, no, the half she is angry at is not necessarily men . . . it is anyone who disagrees with her or embraces values she finds personally offensive. Yeah, that’s inclusive. She hates all things and people who could possibly be associated with the vast right wing conspiracy, which pretty much includes all conservatives, most Republicans, most Christians, and anyone who watches Fox News.So, when you peal it back, it looks like she pretty much hates about 85% of the country, yet thinks she is equipped both emotionally and intellectually to be our leader. I don’t think so.
Date Added: Thursday, February 14th, 2008 Contributed by: Felicia Benamon America was once prosperous in every conceivable way. Now, not only are we on the fast track to a serious financial downfall, but our morals have slid as well. Arrogance has tarnished a once great country. Complacency has dulled us into thinking that we will continue to be a dominant force in the world. Morals are quickly disintegrating. The horrible spirit of pride has taken root. There is an attitude in our country that "It's all about me, and what's in it for me?" And, "how can I amass more and more money, no matter how I get it?" We worship money instead of the Creator who enables us through our talents to acquire money. We do not think about what we are doing, if it is wrong or right. We claim to be a Christian nation, but we sure don't act like it. We aren't following Jesus' example of humility. The reason that evil flourishes in today's society is because the Christian church is not in touch with the Lord as we should, allowing God to work through us. There is a hurting world out there, what are you doing to bless others? Are you acting selfishly instead? Stepping on someone else to exalt yourself is NOT the way of a Christian (or any other humble human being). Are you lusting for fame? Are you lusting to get ahead at the expense of others? The focus in everything that we do should be on Jesus and not ourselves. We are only the vessels the Lord Jesus uses to accomplish His work here on earth. When we humble ourselves in every facet of our lives, God will exalt us. Humble. That is the way I once remembered the US to be, and we prospered. But currently, I believe we are flirting with danger when we think we have achieved #1 status in the world by ourselves and we continue to be influenced by secular and dark forces. In the world of politics, it is imperative that we as American citizens elect someone who will remember the traditions our Forefathers shed their blood over, and not allow secular forces to inch their way (ever so slick) into every facet of our lives to change it. We will be held accountable and will reap a whirlwind when we don't elect honest and reputable politicians to represent us. The people we put in office are a reflection of us. When we allow slick, corrupt politicians and brash leaders to amass power and remain in office to wreak havoc, what does that say about ourselves? Christians are falling for suave, smooth rhetoric that politicians are throwing out because they are not letting the Lord Jesus guide them. Their eyes are not opened. Appearances are not what they seem. A politician can be as slick as a serpent and sound very convincing. But if a Christian has a solid relationship with the Lord Jesus, he/she can see through the ruse. I often hear the term "enlightened" thrown around...that our society is more enlightened than ever before. Are we enlightened, really?! Because we do not seem to be aware of the danger as we slide away from the Christian faith and walk. Being a Christian is MORE than saying you are and believing in Jesus Christ. It is a CONTINUAL, PERSONAL walk with the Lord Jesus. A positive change has to occur within the individual. This nation is at a serious crossroads. And it will be a sad day when the citizens of the US wake up and realize that it may just be too late to recover. The only way I see a recovery for the US is for Jesus Christ Himself to intervene. The United States needs the Lord Jesus. Will we be humble enough to reach out to Him? In order to regain our greatness, we must humble ourselves before God Almighty.
Date Added: Thursday, February 14th, 2008 Contributed by: Karin Agness
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KarinAgness/2008/02/14/hillary_clinton_an_unlikely_uniter -- Hillary Clinton: An Unlikely Uniter
By Karin Agness Thursday, February 14, 2008 We disagree on almost all the issues—healthcare, Title IX, abortion, women in the military. We argue about the role of women in society. We debate how much nature influences us. But there is one issue that has united conservative and liberal women in the past—pornography. So we know it can be done. This rare and uneasy alliance is slowing forming once again, but this time to take on a much tougher opponent—Hillary Clinton. The “women’s vote” matters. Women made up a majority of voters in 2004. According to the Census Bureau, women currently comprise 52% of the electorate and women are known to be more likely to show up on Election Day. Conservative and liberal women should make their voices heard by recognizing the threat Clinton poses to what each group stands for and uniting against her presidential ambitions. And we are starting to do just that. While conservative women have generally been at least weary of Clinton from the beginning, liberal women are starting to recognize Clinton’s shortcomings. Last week, Kate Michelman, the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, endorsed Barack Obama. Tuesday, Obama won the support of women by double digits in Maryland and Virginia. For liberal women, uniting against Clinton at first appears to be a tough decision. On one level, Hillary Clinton is the ultimate feminist —she is, after all, the first woman to have a real shot at winning the presidency. But on a deeper level, Clinton’s campaign is full of anti-feminist tactics that challenge feminism as a way of life. Women on the left emphasize that they want to be treated as independent individuals, many preferring not to marry or to keep their maiden last name, and be judged solely on their intellect. They claim they can do everything men can do and do it better. They tend to fight to be treated like men, rejecting or belittling sex differences. Yet, Clinton effortlessly has fallen into the role of a damsel in distress, waiting for Bill Clinton to come rescue her campaign throughout the primary season. For example, after a particularly weak presidential debate appearance at Drexel University by Hillary last fall, Bill, not Hillary, led the attack, criticizing the debate moderators and other candidates for picking on poor little Hillary and claiming that “those boys have been getting tough on her lately.” Clinton is mercilessly employing a new campaign tactic, which exaggerates rather than belittles sex differences—tears. Clinton is making an effort to attract women through an emotional appeal which worked in New Hampshire, instead of through an appeal to women’s intellect. Is this how early feminists thought the first women president would have to act to be elected? Early feminists were burning bras and writing intellectual defenses of female liberation, not crying for sympathy. The decision to vote against Clinton is much easier for conservative women. She sees bigger, more expensive government, not strong families, as the solution to all of our problems. Think universal healthcare. She rejects traditional values, celebrating the hippie generation by even trying to get a $1 million earmark for a New York Woodstock Museum in an appropriations bill. Worse, Clinton mocks women who take their responsibilities as a mother and wife seriously, responding to an interview comment about her outspoken role in the campaign by saying, “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.” Furthermore, Clinton’s campaign continues to claim that Republican women are going to vote for Clinton just because she is a woman. Last fall, Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn predicted that as many as one fourth of Republican women would support Clinton in a general election because she is a woman. Are Republican women not smart enough to choose a candidate based on their policies? This seems to be the implication and one that should further motivate conservative women to campaign against Clinton. Yes, Clinton has occasionally attempted to soften some of her policies in the past to broader her overall support, as all candidates do in elections. But any observant American knows that the only thing conservative about Clinton is her newfound love for pearls. In the 1970s and 1980s, conservative and liberal women united to fight pornography, albeit for different reasons. Many religious conservatives argued against pornography because they thought it was sinful and increased sexual immoral behavior, while many noted feminists such as Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon and Robin Morgan argued that pornography was degrading to women and facilitated violence against women. Women of all political stripes spoke out, raising much awareness to the issue. It is time for a new generation of women on the right and the left to speak out on an important issue. Like their alliance to fight pornography, conservative and liberal women should unite, rejecting Clinton’s attempts to woo our votes based on our shared gender, instead voting for the candidate who shares our policies and respects our intellect. Clinton may not be able to unite the country for her, but she has the power to unite women against her.
Date Added: Thursday, February 7th, 2008 Contributed by: Felicia Benamon
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/benamon/080207 -- Don't hold your nose! Go away from the polling booth with a clear conscience as to whom you stand for!
Since Mitt Romney decided to drop out of the presidential race, conservatives have expressed to me that they feel John McCain is the only current choice to vote for, and that they will hold their nose when they do so. Well, if John McCain is the only one who supposedly is running on the Republican ticket, there really isn't a race during the primaries, is there? Believe it or not, there are 2 other Republican candidates (other than Mike Huckabee and John McCain) who are still in the race for president. They are Ron Paul and Alan Keyes. Both are constitutionalists who are against more government control in the lives of Americans. My belief is that Alan Keyes is the more vocal in standing for our nation's Godly principles and heritage. I threw my support behind Alan Keyes and voted for him in the Tennessee primaries, even though he wasn't on the ballot. What a slap in the face! Keyes has declared his candidacy since Sept '07, that's plenty of time to have his name on the ballot in every state. That should be an indication that there is some manipulation going on. If all of the presidential candidates are not well touted by either party, then what's the use of having a presidential race? It is more like a show of favorite elite and media picks. And you, the voter, must choose from among the candidates they have put before you. Aren't you upset about that?! The presidency is a HUGE responsibility and the top tier candidates who've run on the Republican ticket were not acting responsible. They entered and exited the race on a whim. As I look back on Romney's move to drop out of the race, I am thinking, "How can one fathom what will turnout at the end of the primaries?" There could be an upset, McCain could lose. I really feel, as I've seen one Republican candidate after another (and some on the Democrat side) drop their presidential goals, that some backroom deals have been made. But at this point, it's speculation. Even Mitt Romney's supporters were surprised he dropped out. It isn't a coincidence so many Republicans have abandoned the race before the primaries were up. And I believe Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Guiliani's choice to drop out of the presidential race so abruptly has hurt their supporters. These candidates had strong backing. I believe Thompson could have at least sewn up a win in Tennessee, but he dropped out before Tennessee voters went to the polls. It's very telling that John McCain was recently struggling for funds to continue his run for the presidency...and it was said that he may drop out. But McCain quickly rebounded and has taken the top position to seize the Republican nomination. What has helped the front candidates in both the Republican and Democrat party is plainly hype. The media has hyped up their favorite candidates (on both sides) because they know many Americans will fall for the hype and will vote from among the pool of anointed candidates the media and elite favor. But gaining popularity in the media will not an ethical president make. Popularity is not the sign of greatness. Remember, John McCain has a pretty good relationship with the media. And, he has sided many a time with Democrats in the Senate on issues conservatives were against. To me, that is unfair representation. John McCain cannot sit back and wonder why he has so many Republicans are against him representing the party as the nominee. His record says it all. As for the media, they have even tried to get Mike Huckabee (also a liberal) to consider a Vice President nomination on John McCain's ticket. All of this is occurring as Huckabee is still in the race and the primaries are ongoing. Until the final results are in and a winner is declared (the one who holds the most delegate count) from both the Democrat and Republican parties, a candidate need not drop out of the primaries or declare himself (or herself) prematurely the winner. There should be no talk of a current presidential candidate accepting a bid to be Vice President. This cheapens the whole process and shortchanges voters. It's pure manipulation. You the voter should be outraged! So what can conservatives do? No, you don't have to hold your nose from all of the political stench. Why not give Alan Keyes another look? Conservative voters, take back your party. Don't let it become hijacked by a bunch of wannabe Republicans. Look at the background of each candidate. Familiarize yourself with ALL of the candidates running. But I ask this one thing of you... Let the fresh air abound, consider your vote for a tried and true conservative...Alan Keyes. Find more information on Alan Keyes at: www.AlanKeyes.com and www.RenewAmerica.us Alan Keyes on the issues: http://ontheissues.org/Alan_Keyes.htm
Date Added: Tuesday, February 5th, 2008 Contributed by: Felicia Benamon
Many of our current politicians in office are focused on dismantling the United States. One by one, they whittle away bits of our strong nation until we are left to wonder what happened.Think this will not happen? Well, keep reading... In 2000, President Bush campaigned on the promise to rebuild the military (after President Clinton decimated it). But as I look at the current situation now, how can one promise to rebuild the military and then send the military to fight a war in Iraq without the necessary means to defeat the enemy?We didn't have all of the resources available to fight and counter a determined enemy when the war began. The number of troops on the ground should have been more. And now, we are trying to make up for mistakes that occurred in the beginning stages of the war in Iraq.The United States is dealing with a war that seems to carry on indefinitely (with no plan of withdrawal), the Federal government has ballooned out of control (the growth of government and government spending has skyrocketed, lobbyists court politicians, etc.), and our economy is in dire straits.I never imagined the Bush presidency would bring about President Bush's insatiable drive to solve and fight the world's ills on a scale that the United States can clearly not handle.This was never more apparent to me than when I viewed President Bush's State of the Union address on Monday, January 28th. As I watched the president give his final State of the Union address, I became livid enough to scream at my television during certain talking points the president made. This is a first as in the past, I've listened intently to the president with reverence.On that Monday, I became more irritated at the president's plans for America's future and ranted, "What are you DOING?! No, we can't DO that!"What was I angry over? Below I highlight certain keywords and phrases the president threw out from time to time which caused me to raise an eyebrow:"Today, our economic growth increasingly depends on our ability to sell American goods and crops and services all over the world. So we're working to break down barriers to trade and investment wherever we can. We're working for a successful Doha Round of trade talks, and we must complete a good agreement this year. At the same time, we're pursuing opportunities to open up new markets by passing free trade agreements."..."I thank the Congress for approving a good agreement with Peru. And now I ask you to approve agreements with Colombia and Panama and South Korea. ...Many products from these nations now enter America duty-free, yet many of our products face steep tariffs in their markets. These agreements will level the playing field. They will give us better access to nearly 100 million customers. They will support good jobs for the finest workers in the world: those whose products say "Made in the USA."..."These agreements also promote America's strategic interests. The first agreement that will come before you is with Colombia, a friend of America that is confronting violence and terror, and fighting drug traffickers. If we fail to pass this agreement, we will embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere. So we must come together, pass this agreement, and show our neighbors in the region that democracy leads to a better life. ..."Trade brings better jobs and better choices and better prices. Yet for some Americans, trade can mean losing a job, and the federal government has a responsibility to help. ...I ask Congress to reauthorize and reform trade adjustment assistance, so we can help these displaced workers learn new skills and find new jobs."***Mr. President, we already have to deal with NAFTA and CAFTA which has caused major outsourcing of American jobs. The way to strengthen America and keep her at the status of a major superpower is to keep essential jobs HERE, not outsource them to other nations. What pride will this country have left if we outsource all of our jobs? We were doing FINE without all of these trade agreements.Another talking point of the president that I caught...the involvement of the Federal government in the lives of the American citizen (remember President Bush also campaigned in 2000 on the issue of smaller government). Truthfully the Federal Government is ALREADY too involved in the lives of ordinary Americans. We don't need the government to help us to "learn new skills" and "find new jobs" as the president put it.I also fumed at President Bush's talk of "our hemisphere" and that America as a nation needs to show our neighbors what democracy is all about. The word "hemisphere" made me immediately think of a One World Government divided into hemispheres.Americans are not to think of our country as partners in some hemispheric experiment to invest in the wealth and well being of all nations. Each country has its own responsibilities to stabilize its economy and provide hope for its citizens. What President Bush should be concerned with is OUR COUNTRY. America isn't the catalyst to move other countries to act the way we think they should! Also, we need not impose our values on other countries, but work with them. Yes, each country is sovereign (including America). It's not our right to go in and impose democracy on other countries. As long as these countries are not a direct threat to us or our allies, we need not interfere. Another phrase that the president uttered caught my attention..."Tonight the armies of compassion continue the march to a new day in the Gulf Coast. America honors the strength and resilience of the people of this region. We reaffirm our pledge to help them build stronger and better than before. And tonight I'm pleased to announce that in April we will host this year's North American Summit of Canada, Mexico, and the United States in the great city of New Orleans." ***If anyone had any doubt before this of a plan to integrate Canada, the United States, and Mexico into one border-less country, now the proof comes to the surface. Why a North American summit? Can anyone tell me why this is necessary?!Also, on the subject of illegal immigration, President Bush said..."We're increasing worksite enforcement, deploying fences and advanced technologies to stop illegal crossings. We've effectively ended the policy of "catch and release" at the border, and by the end of this year, we will have doubled the number of border patrol agents. Yet we also need to acknowledge that we will never fully secure our border until we create a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy....This will take pressure off the border and allow law enforcement to concentrate on those who mean us harm. We must also find a sensible and humane way to deal with people here illegally. Illegal immigration is complicated, but it can be resolved. And it must be resolved in a way that upholds both our laws and our highest ideals."***Double the amount of Border Patrol Agents? What about releasing the two Border Patrol Agents that were imprisoned for trying to apprehend a Mexican drug smuggler from escaping across the Mexican border? Remember Ramos and Compean? They were imprisoned for trying to do their jobs!!! And they STILL languish in prison!The president mentions that we should "create a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy." Well we already have those measures in place. Foreigners who wish to come to the US have incentives to come here on Visas. Or if they wish to become American citizens, they can enter the US the legal way, and not hop fences and borders to do so!It's all common sense. Enforce our laws already on the books, nothing more!Folks, everything that the US has stood for is being compromised at this point. Americans have to use common sense to see through the hype and corruption that dominates Washington, or we will stand to lose our nation. Yes, it's that serious.Those leaders in Washington, who we thought had the best interest of Americans at heart, are only in it for themselves. They are trying to sell us a bill of goods in the name of globalism that will only eventually lead to the downfall of the US. Sneaky politicians will talk a good game, but in the end, it's all about protecting themselves. As we surge headlong into the next presidential election, Americans must remember...we have our own nation to uphold, we are not responsible for other nations. Our citizenry are required to cut through the crap before casting their ballots at the polls. US citizens need to become emboldened...this is YOUR country, NOT the country of politicians who dictate what we must do to benefit other countries. We are ONE SOVEREIGN NATION UNDER GOD! NOT under man!Stand and be counted America! THOROUGHLY research the presidential candidates and their stand on globalism before you vote.The chance of many Americans to cast their ballots at the polls draws nigh...please choose wisely who our next leader will be. The fate of this nation's future is in your hands. Related Reading *Read more of President Bush's final State of the Union addresshttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080128-13.htmlHouse narrowly approves CAFTA- Jul 28, 2005 (Note: CAFTA is a bad idea)http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/28/house.cafta/index.htmlNAFTAhttp://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/CAFTAhttp://www.citizen.org/trade/cafta/
Date Added: Friday, February 1st, 2008 Contributed by: Felicia Benamon
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/benamon/080128 -- How many people can honestly say they think for themselves? When viewing the various areas of the lives of many Americans, it would seem to indicate that many people do not.There exists a segment of Americans who raptly listen to crooked politicians who clearly do not have their best interests at heart. These Americans sadly lack the ability to stand firm in their thinking and discern who would be the best person to fill leadership positions. When it's time to vote, many voters let others make the decision for them.When it comes to the 2008 presidential election season, many Americans allow celebrities to tell them who they should support. Oprah Winfrey touts Barak Obama for president before adoring fans who, like lemmings, shout Obama's name and follow up with a vote for him at the polls. Chuck Norris has endorsed Mike Huckabee for president, but will I rush to fall in line behind him and vote Huckabee? No thank you, I have a mind of my own.Conservative Republicans were livid a few years back when John McCain caved and compromised with Democrats, allowing only a few of Bush's judicial nominees (instead of allowing a full vote on all of them) a vote after what seemed like an endless filibuster mounted by Democrats. And let's not forget, McCain supported President Bush's weak "amnesty" immigration bill. Remember, conservatives and concerned Americans against illegal immigration, shut down Congress switchboards in protest of the "amnesty" bill. John McCain took his place as one of the more notable RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) in the Senate who conservatives were railing against, but now it seems that he's in clear position to possibly take the lead for the Republican nomination. Very surprising indeed.In the black community, politicians are free to play the race issue. The Clinton/Obama tug of war has caused the most talk about race during a campaign season that I've ever seen. Former President Bill Clinton seems to think that race and gender will play a key role in what candidate a voter supports.He believes it "is understandable" if someone would vote based on gender and race "because people are proud when someone who they identify with emerges for the first time."Read more: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080124/D8UC7BEO1.htmlAs we come fresh off the Martin Luther King holiday, how can we support the type of viewpoint Bill Clinton holds in regards to race and gender when Dr. King talked of judging a person by his/her character and not his/her skin color (or gender)? Why do blacks (I'm not African-American. I was born in America, I'm solidly American) and women continue to let politicians exploit them in their search for power? Can we not use our own heads and shun such divisiveness? For anyone to suggest that blacks will automatically vote along the lines of color or that females will automatically vote for the female candidate in a presidential race is absurd.What happens when people vote simply because of a person's skin color or gender and dismiss character altogether? They risk not recognizing the underlying flaws that may otherwise prevent a candidate from progressing in a presidential race. As a result, the same contentious and perverse people running for office end up getting further and possibly winning the race, and nothing ever changes.Let me be clear, as a black woman, I will identify with a candidate regardless of race who will stand up for conservative values that are important to me. I will back a candidate who honors our nation's Christian heritage and who will not work to unravel those honored Christian traditions that are rooted in this nation.Also, I will not vote for top-tier candidates because they are touted most by the media, have the most money, or have earned celebrity endorsements. We cannot be that shallow when it comes to picking our next president. Another popular and annoying tactic I've seen mostly of Democrats running for office: seeking out votes in the churches (mainly black churches). The media is proud to flaunt Democrat candidates who seek votes from the pulpit before black congregations on Sunday. Sundays are strictly for the Lord Jesus Christ. The focus should be on Him. It's HIS day. It's NOT a day for a candidate to rally votes from the pulpit!At times, candidates run after a certain segment of the population because they think they will secure awesome numbers at the polls from that certain group of people. They tailor their speech to reflect who they are speaking to. Enticing rhetoric is thrown out to get the crowd revved up. That is another slap in the face. And the rhetoric is completely hollow, folks. It means nothing.Voting requires that we as a nation, act responsibly. We must cut through the slick talk from politicians and allow our vote to represent who we believe is the candidate closest to our moral standards and our stand on other important issues. Therefore, a thorough review of all of the candidates' background is in order. The American voter should not let presidential candidates with high status and charm influence how they view the world and vote. We forget we are individuals with a mind of our own who are capable of making important and rational decisions. Presidential candidates need to remember...the office of the presidency should not be sought as a quest for power or an opportunity for a certain party to take back the White House. It isn't a chance for an individual to "make history." It is a position of service to the people of this great nation. America will be on the way to healing when those citizens who have been swayed by slick politicians and political "talking heads" learn to think for themselves. Vote wisely America. Take time to review a candidate's past and decide whether they deserve to hold the most important office in the nation.When voters start thinking and acting this way, we will then see a more positive result of the awesome power the American people have at the polls.
Date Added: Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008 Contributed by: Renaissance Men January 22, 2008 The democratic primary debate held in South Carolina on January 21, 2008 was as entertaining as it was illuminating. It was illuminating in that it confirmed a hitherto suspected level of competitiveness and in fact, animosity that exists between the two Democratic frontrunners, Senators Clinton and Obama. It was illuminating in that it clearly showed from their rhetoric, that the three democratic candidates seem to have settled on the Senator from Arizona as the presumptive republican nominee. It was illuminating in that the three candidates understand that one of the strongest selling points they can make to the primary audience is that each of them is the best positioned candidate to beat the Senator from Arizona in a general election. It was entertaining, in that the candidates perhaps for the first time shed the gloss and etiquette of political discourse to completely indulge their visceral responses to each other, in the process disclosing their inherent political ! strategies. Strategically, Senator Obama wishes to stay above the fray, project a presidential and honorable figure who unites all Americans by appealing to the optimistic elements in all people. He wants people to focus on the commonalities that all Americans share, and not the divisions that separate them, and in doing so, trust in him as the one candidate who will uplift and take the country forward, nationally and internationally. Only through this method will people overlook some of his weaknesses such as inexperience and substance on certain policy issues. This will also help him keep people from getting into the pernicious issue of race, for too much focus on this potentially divisive issue will be to his detriment. Senator Obama from the beginning has tried hard to be an American candidate and not an African American candidate. Hillary Clinton on the other hand, due to her political background and general personality cannot match the rarified Obama parlance, and doe! s not wish to keep the conversation on the abstractly, optimistic leve l. On the contrary, Hillary Clinton like her husband is a policy aficionado, and wants to focus on facts, figures, and harsh reality, as opposed to the gloss of general optimism. That is why she consistently sought to bring Obama down from his optimistic pedestal and question him on the hard facts, such as missed votes, inconsistent policy positions, bad policy positions. Her substance as well as her tone was strident and targeted enough to occasionally throw Obama off track, rattle him, bring into the fray, where she believes that the facts will play to her advantage. The question is whether she has succeeded. The polled democratic viewers appeared not to have responded well to the squabbles between these two candidates, but the reality is that the more Hillary is able to bring Obama down from his eloquent optimism, and into the fray of realism, the more of a chance she has of appealing to the red meat democrats who want someone who will fight for them, and not fight to inc! lude the republicans in the big national tent, which Obama seems to have in mind. This whole national tent issue leads to an interesting issue that at first sight might appear incongruous to a democratic debate, but turned out to be somewhat significant: The issue of former president Ronald Reagan. Barak Obama was taken to task by Hillary Clinton for allegedly praising the late President Reagan as a great leader, and although Obama denied this, and sought to clarify his words in a somewhat pedantic manner, there was an element of truth to Hillary Clinton’s words. This truth is one that underlies the fundamental difference between these two candidates. Hillary Clinton is a candidate whose appeal and campaign is based on the principle of fighting for the democrats against the evil republicans. She consistently made reference to having fought the republicans for 16 years, and survived to date. She also raised a general theme of her and her husband fighting the republicans, and a need to fight the republicans, a theme of ‘us against them’. She appea! ls to the anti-republican core base of democrats in the party. Obama on the other hand consistently made a reference to inclusion of independents and republicans in order to succeed politically, and in fact stated that to be his parallel method of adopting President Reagan’s political strategy, while deploring his political agenda. Obama in his rallies and commercials consistently makes reference us of the phrase: “we are one people”. He seems more geared towards a national election and reaching out to non-democrats, while Hillary’s style is the ‘hunker down’, ‘us against them’ style. The question is whose style will be more convincing, and more successful, electorally. Some voters may have said they thought Senator John Edwards had come out on top, after the debate, by staying above the slugfest of Senators Obama and Clinton, but the reality is that Senator Edwards has remained behind both candidates in the polls, both before and after the debate. So in rea! lity, the voters probably consider the ‘slugfest’ a necessary part of primary campaigning. The polls and conventional political wisdom indicate that Obama will probably win South Carolina, but that does not mean that Hillary was a loser in the larger, national debate. It would appear that Hillary has already internally conceded South Carolina to Obama, based on a number of demographic realities, but she has certainly not conceded the larger democratic populace of the country, who she was mostly auditioning for. She was showing democrats outside South Carolina her fighting spirit, and her willingness to go relentlessly against the republican boogey man. Those are the type of words that primary voters appreciate, as opposed to Obama’s ‘one people’ message, which would be more apposite in a general election where the voters are not so politically defensive or dogmatic. Ultimately this writer believes that the more defensive, visceral nature of the primary voter will triumph, and Hillary will be elected as the candidate. The question as to whether she will b! e able to change her tune and appeal to general voters, once she is elected as the democratic candidate is a much different one, considering that the democratic debate in South Carolina was viewed by the largest political debate audience in cable history. That large audience will augur well for Hillary in the primaries, but the independents and republicans who have heard the same fighting words, will remember them, come the general elections. There is also a danger that the black voters will remember the rather ruthless, dirty tactics used by Senator Clinton’s campaign against perhaps the most attractive, feasible black candidate to run for the democratic banner for President, ever. There has been a subtle wave of arrogance emanating from the Clintons, seemingly at the notion that Barak Obama would have the temerity to challenge Hillary Clinton for a nomination she had doubtless grown to believe she was entitled to. Initially, former President Clinton was condescending and disrespectful in his varied comments about Senator Obama, and then the Clinton Campaign grew subtly ruthless and scurrilous in the spreading of nasty, untrue rumors about Senator Obama’s faith, political sympathies and even his allegiance to his country. Aside from the fact that there is something troubling and indecorous about a former President and leader of the party and free world engaging in petty politics on his wife’s behalf ag! ainst an up and coming star of the same party, there is an air of undefined rankness about the substance of the ‘discourse’, that would have a large number of currently silent parties coming out in serious protest, if either of the Clintons happened to be a republican. All in all, if the blacks, the independents and the centrist republicans remember the tenor and content of this discourse in the general elections, then the Senator from New York, in the process of getting elected as the democratic candidate would have ensured that she will never be elected President of the greatest nation on earth. D.Ola
Date Added: Saturday, January 19th, 2008 Contributed by: Frances Rice
www.NBRA.info/ -- Democrats have a 150-year history of using race as a political weapon to keep blacks in virtual slavery and Republicans out of power. The recent firestorm ignited by Senator Hillary Clinton’s racially-tinged attempt to derail Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign shows the perils of Democrats using their race-based weapon against a black Democrat. In the black community, people are outraged about how Democrat demagogues, including Billionaire Bob Johnson of BET, are treating Obama as an “uppity Negro” who dares to defy their white Democratic Party masters. Prior to the Clinton-Obama hullabaloo over Senator Clinton’s disparaging remark about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Clinton campaign was being given a pass for using racial slurs against Senator Obama. When Democrats called Senator Obama a “Magic Negro,” there was hardly a ripple of protest. Just as little concern is expressed when Democrats slander black Republicans, such as former Lt. Governor Michael Steele who Democrats depicted as a “Simple Sambo” and Dr. Condoleezza Rice who was portrayed as an ignorant “Mammy”, reminiscent of the racial stereotypes used by Democrats during the days of “Jim Crow.” Any Republican using such slanderous tactics against blacks would be castigated as a racist and destroyed politically. If the controversy generated by Senator Clinton’s remark that diminished the civil rights role of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. signals the beginning of an end to the type of racial divisiveness inflicted on our nation for over a century and a half by Democrats, then the angst created by Senator Clinton will be well worth it. To fully appreciate the significance of this possible historical turning point, we must pause to examine briefly the Democratic Party’s sordid racist history. The History of Civil Rights As author Michael Scheurer so succinctly stated, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism. Because the Republican Party was started in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, and Republicans fought for freedom and equality for blacks, the early civil rights leaders, including Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth, were Republicans. The civil rights era of the 1960’s was necessary because, after the Civil War, the Democrats thwarted the efforts of Republicans to grant blacks civil rights and launched a reign of terror against Republicans, black and White— using the Ku Klux Klan, the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party—to deny blacks their civil rights and stop blacks from voting for Republicans. Democrats used the Ku Klux Klan and other White supremacist groups to target Republicans because it was Republicans who amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans also passed the civil rights laws of the 1860's, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Shamefully, Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws, and when the Democrats regained control of Congress in 1892, they passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans. Republicans started the NAACP to counter the racist practices of the Democrats, and it took Republicans five decades to finally enact civil rights laws in the 1950’s and 1960’s over the objection of Democrats. The Modern Civil Rights EraDuring the civil rights era of the1960's, it was the Democrats who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the protestors were fighting. Democrat Public Safety Commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor in Birmingham let loose vicious dogs and turned skin-burning fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators. Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963 and thundered, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." In 1954, Democrat Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of a Little Rock public school. Contrary to common belief, it was Republicans, not Democrats, who were pushing to pass the civil rights laws. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who established the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, enforced the desegregation of the military, sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate the schools, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Eisenhower also supported the civil rights laws of 1957 and 1960. President John F. Kennedy was not a Civil Rights Advocate Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a civil rights advocate. In reality, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. After he became president, John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King. In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968. Senator Everett Dirksen – The Forgotten Civil Rights HeroUnknown by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s. In fact, Dirksen was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. Because of his long record of championing civil rights legislation, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen for his “able and courageous leadership.” The “Chicago Defender," the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction,” Today little is known about the struggle to pass the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. The law guaranteed equal access to public facilities and banned racial discrimination by any entity receiving federal government financing. The law was an update of Republican Charles Sumner's 1875 Civil Rights Act which had been stuck down by the Democrat-controlled US Supreme Court in 1883.The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, filibustered against the bill for 14 straight hours before the final vote. Former presidential candidate Richard Nixon lobbied hard for the passage of the bill. When the bill finally came up for a vote, the House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 124. Of Republicans in the House of Representatives 80% voted yes, and only 63% of Democrats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats in the Senate voting no, and only 6 Republicans voting no. Equally important was the 1965 Voting Rights Act that authorized the federal government to abolish literacy tests and other means used to prevent blacks from exercising their constitutional right to vote that was granted by the 15th Amendment to the Constitution. With images of violence against civil rights protestors led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shaping the national debate, Democrats in Congress decided not to filibuster the Voting Rights Act of 1965. When the bill finally came up for a vote, both houses of Congress passed the bill. In the House of Representatives, 85% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats voted for the bill. In the Senate, 17 Democrats voted no, and only one Republican voted no. Notably, in his 4,500-word State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, Johnson mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Information about Johnson’s anemic civil rights policy positions can be found in the “Public Papers of the President, Lyndon B. Johnson,” 1965, vol. 1, p.1-9.The statement by President Johnson about losing the South after passage of the 1964 civil rights law was not made out of a concern that racist Democrats would suddenly join the Republican Party that was fighting for the civil rights of blacks. Instead, it was an expression of fear that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States Rights Democratic Party. In fact, Alabama’s Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Atlanta Mayor (later Governor of Georgia) Lester Maddox. Goldwater was a Libertarian, not a Racist A review of Senator Barry Goldwater’s record shows that he was a Libertarian, not a racist. Goldwater was a member of the Arizona NAACP and was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard. He supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax. His opposition to the more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on his libertarian views about government. Goldwater believed that the 1964 Act, as written, unconstitutionally extended the federal government's commerce power to private citizens, furthering the government’s efforts to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers. It is instructive to read the entire text of Goldwater’s 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president that is available from the Arizona Historical Foundation. By the end of his career, Goldwater was one of the most respected members of either party and was considered a stabilizing influence in the Senate. Senator Goldwater’s speech may be found also on the Internet at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm The Racists Democrats did not all Join the Republican Party Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats today, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. With the party slogan: "Segregation Forever!," the Dixiecrats, who were Democrats, (a) formed the States' Rights Democratic Party for the presidential election of 1948, (b) remained Democrats for all local elections and all subsequent national elections, and (c) declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including former Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings who put up the Confederate flag over the state capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. Another former "Dixiecrat" is Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan. There was no public outcry when Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd praised Senator Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Democrats denounced Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond. However, Senator Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and, after he became a Republican, defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched. Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” was not a Racist Appeal Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats; yet unfairly deride Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party that began in the 1970's with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy.” Nixon’s strategy was an effort on the part of Nixon to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks. Georgia did not switch until 2004, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, was still controlled by Democrats until the election of Republican Bobby Jindal in 2007. Frances Rice is a lawyer, retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She may be contacted at: www.NBRA.info
Date Added: Friday, January 18th, 2008 Contributed by: Karin Agness
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KarinAgness/2008/01/18/gop_candidates_should_court_young_voters -- GOP Candidates Should Court Young Voters
By Karin Agness Friday, January 18, 2008 While political analysts too often divide the electorate into tiny monolithic voting blocks for nothing more than the ease of discussion, the Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan primaries reveal that the “youth vote” really does matter. Americans age 18 to 29 have represented a significant percentage of all caucus voters in the primaries thus far, 18% in Iowa, 16% in New Hampshire and 15% in Michigan, according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE).Barack Obama has overwhelmingly won the Democratic youth vote in Iowa and New Hampshire (and arguably in Michigan too, as more young people voted for “uncommitted” than Hillary Clinton). Young Republican citizens voted for Mike Huckabee in Iowa, John McCain in New Hampshire and Mitt Romney (although by a small margin) in Michigan. The Republican youth vote is up for grabs—and grabbing it is exactly what the GOP candidates should try to do in the upcoming primaries.GOP candidates should follow the lead of the Democratic candidates by paying more attention to young voters—not only because they have already made a difference in the primaries, but also because their recent increases in election day voting turnout suggests they will play an even bigger role in the 2008 election. The national youth voter turnout rate was 49% in 2004, jumping 9% between the 2000 to the 2004 presidential elections, and representing the highest youth voter participation in over a decade, according to CIRCLE. This was the greatest increase among any age group between 2000 and 2004. In 2004, young voters age 18 to 29 were registered to vote at the highest rate in 30 years and actually cast 16% of the votes.This increase in voting by young people is not limited to presidential races. In the 2006 congressional elections, the voter turnout rate among 18 to 29 year-olds increased by three percentage points from the 2002 congressional elections, representing 11.2% of all votes, according to CIRCLE. Recent elections show a trend of young people becoming more and more likely to vote, and the GOP candidates should encourage, embrace and harness this civic-mindedness.Republican candidates should also reach-out to young voters because they are a potentially huge untapped voting block. As compared to about a 70% turnout rate for other age groups in 2004, the 49% voting turnout among youth leaves the candidates much room for growth. With the ease of voting, there is no compelling reason why young people should not be voting at the same rates as the rest of the population. The GOP candidates should look beyond persuading habitual voters and try to capture those who do not normally vote. And the youth vote provides a promising place to do so.Furthermore, this strategy is nothing new—from the start of the race, the candidates have been campaigning to win the votes of specific minority segments of the population. The candidates should look at the numbers and commit more time and effort to appealing to young voters. It only makes sense—take the Saturday primary in Nevada for example. In Nevada, young people age 18 to 29 represent 22% of the voting age population, while Hispanics (the largest minority group in Nevada) represent only 18% of the voting age population, according to CIRCLE. A candidate could be pushed over the edge to victory as easily by the youth vote as the Hispanic vote. The number of potential votes speaks for itself.But it is not just about votes. Who created Facebook, the latest tool being used in the presidential campaigns? A 19-year-old named Mark Zuckerberg. Young people are creating new and better ways to connect to each other. With the latest technological knowledge and some free time, a college student could easily come up with the next big political advertisement in a matter of hours. And young people, especially college students, often have more free time than any other segment of the population to volunteer for campaigns doing anything, from making phone-calls, to holding signs at rallies or passing out campaign paraphernalia. Beyond the votes themselves, young people are a valuable source of creativity.But as a young voter myself, let me make myself clear. We do not want presidential pandering. We want a real leader. We want a visionary. We want a candidate who is not just against everything, but actually stands for something. We want to be inspired. Obama has filled this role for young Democratic voters and it has worked miraculously. But young Republican voters want more. We want a candidate who actually walks the walk. We want a candidate who takes responsibility for his actions and limits the responsibility of government. We want a candidate full of substance, not just rhetoric. If a candidate can give us this, we will give him the nomination.
Date Added: Thursday, January 17th, 2008 Contributed by: Nina May
Hillary Clinton claims she learned how to deal with men in an all-girls school. What, did they have cut outs of male images around the campus and they all had labels on them like … belligerent, mean, rude, nasty, etc. and the girls were taught to go up and whine in front of them? Now, if Hillary had gone to the same school that Anne Coulter had, she would have learned how to deftly dodge a cream pie aimed at her while giving a speech. Oh, |
