July 30, 2010
Let’s just call Arizona “RAAAAACIST!”

Posted at 2:41 pm, in: Uncategorized

Monday, July 26, 2010

Well, it looks like I missed a week of blogging last week. Sorry! It was my birthday and, as per usual, I might have gotten a little crazy with numerous days of celebrating. Hey, at least I didn’t celebrate for three full weeks like I did last year!

I had a column published over the weekend. Be sure to check it out: Achieving the American Dream.

Barack Obama is schedule to go on The View, later this week. I guess it still hasn’t dawned on him that he’s the President of the United States, not some idiot celebrity. And, he lowers the office of the presidency, again. Shocked? Nope? Me neither.

Oh, and it looks like Obama wasn’t too shocked when the Lockerbie Bomber was released, last year, either. Even though, he expressed his shock and disappointment over the whole affair. Looks like by shocked he meant that his WH had secretly advocated for the release. Oh well! I’m sure Gibbs will tell us that doesn’t matter. It’s old news!

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey is lashing out at the stars of The Jersey Shore. He claims they are not representative of New Jersey; they’re all plants from New York. This is true, to some extent. The only problem is, The Jersey Shore isn’t the only popular New Jersey based show on television, right now, that shows some commonalities among all of the casts: orange/overly tanned skin, big hair, terrible accents, an “interesting” taste in clothing. I’m not saying that everyone from New Jersey is like this, but it’s clear that this isn’t just New Yorkers making New Jersey look bad, either. Jerseylicious is just the most recent show added to the list. But, can anyone say they couldn’t see the females (I use that term very loosely for the likes of Snooki and JWOWW) of today’s Jersey Shore being the females on a future Real Housewives of New Jersey?

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

It only took me five days to notice this, but James Webb (D-Virg.) had a great piece published in the WSJ called Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege. It’s a must-read. And, once again, reconfirms that Obama is not a post-racial president and that his election and inauguration have not catapulted us into a post-racial era in America. I may not be a big fan of Webb, but I agree with him on this one.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Breaking news over at CNN.com is that U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton has granted an injunction blocking parts of Arizona’s new illegal immigration law, SB1070. In her mind, she thinks the federal government will succeed in their challenge of the “most controversial provisions of the law.” What is so controversial about this law isn’t explained. What I find controversial is that a state law mirroring federal law is controversial at all. I read the ruling and suggest you do the same. To be clear, Arizona is not regulating immigration and, therefore, preempting federal immigration laws. They are just making the federal immigration laws enforceable on the state level. But, why let the truth get in the way? Let’s just call Arizona “RAAAAACIST!”

More liberals came out today, calling Obama “Our Divisve President.” I don’t agree with everything they wrote, but their overall message is right:

The president had a unique opportunity to focus on overarching issues of importance to whites and blacks. He has failed to address the critical challenges. He has not used his bully pulpit to emphasize the importance of racial unity and the common interest of poor whites and blacks who need training, job opportunities, and the possibility of realizing the American Dream. He hasn’t done enough to address youth unemployment—which in the white community is 23.2% and in the black community is 39.9%.

Mr. Obama has also cynically divided the country on class lines. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and corporations behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda.

Finally, President Obama also exacerbated partisan division, and he has made it clear that he intends to demonize the Republicans and former President George W. Bush in the fall campaign. In April, the Democratic National Committee released a video in which the president directly addressed his divide-and-conquer campaign strategy, with an appeal to: “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”

President Obama’s divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture. Meanwhile, the Republican leadership has failed to put forth an agenda that is more positive, unifying or inclusive. We are stronger when we debate issues and purpose, and we are all weaker when we divide by race and class. We will pay a price for this type of politics.

Maybe some on the left will see more clearly who they voted for if more people on the left speak truth to power. It’s kind of hard to write off the critics as just Republican hacks when they worked for Presidents Carter and Clinton. Then again, maybe the whispers of a Hillary Clinton primary challenge have more credibility than I had thought. I guess we’ll have to wait and see. I’ve always said that I preferred Hill to Barry.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

The blogoshpere is HOT with reactions to the Arizona illegal immigration ruling, yesterday. Out of what I have read so far, Legal Insurrection has the best break down, but Nice Deb pretty nicely sums up the biggest problem with this ruling:

The rule of law, put simply, is the idea that the law rules men, not other men. Because the law applies to everyone equally, everyone submits to its authority, with the belief that if it ever becomes necessary, aggrieved parties will have their day in court, and “self-help” remedies (like gunfights), which are destructive to social order, will not be necessary. By this admission in her ruling, Judge Susan Bolton fails to comprehend that the Federal Government’s desire (or lack thereof) to enforce certain laws is a factor in whether or not a state may adopt a law that is the mirror of the corresponding Federal law does irreparable violence to this notion, as well as the notion of Federalism itself. The states are supposed to be co-equal sovereigns with the Federal government, granting it authority to perform specifically enumerated tasks, the performance of which is necessary to the maintenance of a viable nation.

What happened today was that a state which is suffering from a co-equal sovereign’s utter failure to perform a task that was specifically assigned to it. That assignment was originally made because of the expectation that the Federal government would secure the nation’s borders and protect its citizens from many of the ills that an enormous influx of illegal aliens would bring. Arizona, and other border states have had an incredible burden placed on their resources as they have had to provide services for people who have no legal right to be here, and from the other associated effects such as wage depression, and the growing amount of narco-crime that has followed the influx of these criminals. [Yes, I used the word "criminals". In my Black's Law Dictionary, it still applies to people who break the law.]

If the Federal government can be so arbitrary and capricious with regard to enforcement of laws relating to a core duty it holds, then we all have reason to fear, because selective enforcement can be applied to any Federal law. If this cannot motivate the average citizen to bring real change to Federal government, then not only are we lost, but we deserve to be. If we accept lawlessness garbed in the authority and mantle of law, then we have surrendered any notion of being a free people.

Shirley Sherrod plans on suing Andrew Breitbart for posting clips of her speech with remarks taken out of context that portrayed her as racist. Does anyone believe that this woman isn’t racist? Seriously? Have you listened to all that she has said since the whole video out of context affair was first exposed?