Archive for the ‘Politcal economics’ Category


January 17, 2010 Leave a comment

On Wednesday conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham interviewed  Hillary Sheldon of the NAACP about their mild reaction to Reid’s comments about Obama.  Ingraham, maybe the best one on one debaters in talk radio,  challenged Sheldon on a number of issues on the controversy.  Ingraham showed that the real story was not what Reid had said, but that  the “civil rights” community is defending him.  And the manner in which she probed Sheldon’s rationalizations offers insight into the unholy alliance between the Democratic leadership and their race mercenaries.

Ingraham took a different angle than most on this debate.  Instead of the usual “Trent Lott” comparison, she asked the NAACP spokesman about how the organization would react if Republicans such as John Coryn or Jim Dement.  Sheldon’s responded by saying that Reid’s comments were upsetting, but that “was not the Harry Reid I knew”.  He suggested that Reid’s backing of Obama’s decision to run for president was the real indication of  the senate leaders standing with the black community.  Sheldon stated that Reid told Obama “If you run, you have my support.”

So here he is exonerating  Reid because the senator favored  one exceptional, well-educated black person.  Remember this.

When Laura asked if he would have been so understanding with Dement or John Boener, Sheldon added that Reid had advocated a candidate that the NAACP supported.  When she identified this as political opportunism, he clumsily revised “if they(Republicans) had called me then it would have been OK”.

This is a clear manifestation of Statism’s appeal to the race merchants.  Progressive authoritarians want the private sector to be subordinated  to the public sector, and the race mongers want private political discussion to be subordinated to their approval.  And these race hustlers make a lot of money off of this arrangement. 

The first person Reid called was Al Sharpton, a man whose standing among black Democrats actually is not very high at all.  But the symbolism of this gesture is still appealing to many who don’t respect Sharpton himself.    Sharpton gave the “I judge him by his deeds, not by his words” excuse similar to Sheldon’s response.  The fix is in.

And as far as deeds, they obviously haven’t spoken with the inner city blacks who report to us how hard it is to find an affordable used car, and how that is making it very difficult for them to find work.  The urban impact of Cash for Clunkers.  (Is urban code language?).

Hey Harry, if you call us, The Greyfalcon will talk to them for you!

This is why the town hall and Tea Party movement is so important.  Unlike mainstream politicians from both parties, these people are not intimidated by this race baiting nonsense.  They already know who they are, and between them and God they already know they are not racists.  They can’t be pushed into working things out with these so-called spokesmen.


The NAACP leader said that they gave high marks to Congressmen for advocating spending for projects that his organization support because he believes that “cultural differences are the cause of the problems we have.”  He is referring to the cultural differences between black and white people, as if they have different cultures because of the color of their skin, not because of the choices they make.

This is a bunch of  garbage.

Ingraham brought to light the real importance of this issue  with her next question.  She asked  Sheldon “why are you not standing  with Washington kids to go to the same schools that  Congressmen send their children?”   He responded with “Well, the vouchers are only for $6000, and most fancy smancy schools private schools cost $22,000.”  He insisted that the amount provided by the vouchers was not enough to help poor black students.

Ingraham retorted “Catholic schools average $8-10 thousand.  And they do a great job in educating.  I didn’t go to a fancy pants school, my mother was a waitress.” 

Off course, the anti-Christian factions of the Democratic Party don’t like hearing that.  This partly explains the awkward collaboration between atheistic Marxists and black religious leaders like Jessie Jackson and  Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  

Ingraham then zeroed in on the ideological fissure in the fragile Statist coalition.  Ingraham pointed out that Michael Eric Dyson, black author, speaker, and ordained Baptist minister actually agreed that if a Republican had said this than the reaction would have been far more severe.  Dyson, one of the left’s best speakers, was “being short-sided” according to Sheldon.  Ingraham lauded Dyson as a “liberal with a capital L” for standing for his principles.

Ingraham and Dyson would probably disagree on most issues, but  they agree on the hypocrisy of the Democratic leadership’s position on racial politics. And her forcing Sheldon to deprecate Dyson will help discredit future attempts to stigmatize our disagreement with Obama as being racially motivated.

Sheldon continues, “Vouchers take money out of public schools for the benefit of a select few. 90% of African-Americans go to public schools.”  He also gave the Washington public school system a C+.  “You grade on a curve!” Replied Ingraham. 

Sheldon answered “Well, you have Key School and those on the upper Northwest side”, using these examples to bring up the score.  “Ingraham countered  “Those are mostly white schools!” Sheldon conceded “You’re right.”

Sheldon’s position on “helping a select few” reveals much about the union between mainstream black politics, the socialists, and the Statists.  The educated wealthy black leaders such as the leaders of the  NAACP are against anything that helps the best black students go beyond “the rest of the race”.  These rich black political leaders regard themselves the special protectors of the disenfranchised, even if the disenfranchised are personally responsible for their own failings.  If a few blacks leave the community, go to a Catholic school, then succeed academically, then it might convince Democratic voters that the problem is individual and community based.   Then they would not feel compelled to vote for people like Reid,  Nancy Pelosi, or Dick Durbin.

They have even tagged references to personal responsibility as “code language” directed against black people. 

This is a threat to the Marxist wing of the liberal movement, who hold that capitalism and economic disparity is the source of the world’s problems.  The black leader’s conspiracy against the best black students accommodates the socialist’s wish to keep everyone at the same level, even if that level is a lower one. 

And they both need the Statist to make it happen.

Ingraham blew up Sheldon’s case with “It just takes one Obama to become a leader. One of those 1300 voucher students,  not an insignificant number, could be president”.  Sheldon agreed.

Earlier in the interview, Sheldon defended Reid on the basis that he helped Barack Obama, one exceptional black person.  However, Reid’s reference to “a Negro dialect” was insulting to people like many of the students Sheldon claim are being excluded by the voucher program.   And Reid’s endorsement of Obama leaves excludes at lot more black people than the voucher program does.

Guess it is only convenient to look for a racist under every rock when it’s not a rock that one of your buddies just climbed out of.

Ingraham’s toughness and uncompromising conservative candor makes her the best in the business when it comes to confronting those who are used to intimidating their opponents. Ingraham’s focus on Sheldon’s  “ulterior motives” for protecting Reid shows why this issue should not be ignored by the American Awakening.



January 16, 2010 Leave a comment

For the last two or three months, Obama supporters are saying that if the economy improves next year, then his approval rating will improve as well.  They often speak of him “pivoting” to jobs and the economy.  Conservative commentators have tended to the approach of pointing out that the economy is continuing to struggle even after the stimulus, and that his jobs created or saved figure is untenable.  This has been highly effective in exposing Obama.  However, without a more comprehensive explanation on the subject, it runs the risk of seeming like the conservatives are rooting for  the economy to get worse, or that we are glad things are not going well now.

It is imperative that if the unemployment rate does drop rapidly, or if there is a true increase in relevant GDP, that we be able to show that it is the people, not Obama, that is responsible. 

First, we must address the A B fallacy that the Statists are using to advocate his policy.  Thomas Sewell refers to this as “confusing causation with correlation”.  Proponents of Obamanomics insist that if we go down to, for example,  7.8% unemployment, a first quarter GDP of +5.5%, and a stock market at 12,500,  that it is definitely because of the TARP, Stimulus, and tax increases on the rich. 

But conservatives must be prepared to debunk this logical absurdity.  Unless they can show the specific impact these measures as producing the growth, then this claim cannot be proven.   As of last month, $593 billion of the stimulus had not been spent yet, and most of the money given to the banks was issued under the Bush Administration TARP plan. 

Also, their attempt to attribute 1.6 million jobs “created or saved” has already been refuted.  Joe Biden finally admitted that they “miscalculated” on the employment figure.  But the administration and it’s adherents still hold that Obama saved the nation from financial collapse.

Based on what projections?  So far this crowd has been wrong on:

Projected unemployment

The projected 10 year deficit

The number of jobs created, and even creating non-existent the districts that the money went to

The cost of the health care reform

The promise that taxes will not increase on anyone making less than $250,000 a year (smoking tax, tanning tax, taxes on those who don’t buy insurance, small business tax increase, taxes on medical equipment)

So their credibility is already shot.  They must be forced to prove that those firms hiring are directly being helped  to do so by the Obama spending.  Then, that spending must be determined to be the necessary ingredient for the firms capacity to hire.  Based on Barbra Boxers unsuccessful and embarrassing attempt to coerce the chairman of the Black Chamber of Commerce, we must also know that the administration and the Democratic leadership is not intimidating them into agreeing. 

The next step would be to weigh those benefits with the negative impact of those policies.  These include the crowding out of private sector lending, higher fuel prices due to weakening dollar,  and reduced investment due to anticipated tax increases.  The uncertainty caused by Obama has been the most harmful result.  Employers of all types have stated that they are unwilling to hire more employees because of their concerns over the impact of health care reform, higher taxes, and the general hostile nature that this cabal has toward business.

Michelle Moore, host of “Moore from the Right”, sums it up with “It’s the uncertainty, stupid!”  Moore, a business owner herself, doesn’t see how the economy can thrive with everything this government is doing to get in the way.  And her fifteen years in the technology field gives her more business experience than most of Obama’s cabinet and czar gang combined.

During the Republican primaries, the candidates overstated their admiration for Reagan. (We love him too, but come on fellas, that was excessive). Now, it is Obama’s political partners that are overdoing the  comparisons.  On The O’Reilly Factor, a professor from Occidental College remarked “there is someone else who had low polls numbers at this time as well, Ronald Reagan.  But he was able to turn things around.  If the economy improves, Obama’s poll numbers will improve as well.”‘

Now the university community is saying good things about the Gipper!


There are several problems with this.  Many conservative pundits say that Ronald Reagan created 21 million jobs, but he would be the first to tell you that was not the case.  What created those jobs were changes in business practices and quality assessment, as well as a renewed emphasis on innovation.  Much of boom we saw in the early to mid eighties came from investment, research and development that occurred in the previous decade.  IBM accounted for nearly ten percent of private sector research spending leading up to this phenomenon. 

Reagan did not create these jobs, the American people did.

What Reagan did was get the government out of the way.  He signed the Kemp-Roth tax cut (previously defeated during the Carter Administration), which reduced the marginal tax rate from 70 to 50%.  He also insisted the tax code protect the taxpayers from bracket creep, where inflation pushes them into a higher tax bracket.    Also, Reagan ended the price controls on oil, which actually contributed in decreasing it’s price world wide.  That greatly aided the American economic recovery.

Those who were creating wealth through their improved production methods certainly knew they would be able  to keep more of their money, allowing them to hire more  talented people.  Our economy went into 1985 with a 25.8% increase in private investment.

If this were football, the private sector would have been the offensive unit, and Reagan would have been the defense, keeping the government off the field, and giving the ball back to the American people.

And it looks like Team Obama’s defense is going to be on the field for a long, long time.


January 15, 2010 Leave a comment

Jamie Allman, host of 97.1 talk radio show Allman in the Morning, always tells it like it is.  He doesn’t have the contrived media style that is so prevalent in the television pundit universe.  The secret to Jamie’s success is that agree or disagree with him, you can count on the fact that he believes what he is saying, and that he has the facts to back it up.  He doesn’t posture or preach.  He basically just talks to his listeners as a friend, and we can trust him.  This makes him the “original cafine”.

In 2003 Jamie became St. Louis’s first regular conservative talk show host.  What makes his six-year run so important to the local conservative movement is that he has often questioned the Republican establishment and the Bush Administration.  Detractors of the Tea Party movement and the conservative revival claim  that we didn’t object to the expansion of government under George Bush, and Jamie has the credentials to debunk this spurious claim.  Allman has been consistent in his committment to conservative principles or party politics throughout his tenure at 97.1. 

His record of calling out Republicans for abonding conservative values is a vital element of the St. Louis movement, because when the typical “you didn’t say anything about this when Bush did it” charge is exposed to be false, the pro-Obama liberals tend to move into racial issues.  This doesn’t work on Allman, as he is simply too tough to be bullied. 

 When race mongers demanded that Rush Limbaugh be removed from an investment team to buy the St. Louis Rams, they claimed he said that “slavery had its merits”.  Allman was at the forefront in exposing the false accusation, referring to his background as a reporter.  “If you make a charge like that you had better be able to back it up”.  He then explained in detail the standards that good journalists adhere in terms of using sources and quote verification. 

Off course, CNN commentators were forced to admit that they could not verify that Limbaugh had made that statement.


January 12, 2010 1 comment

Oliver Stone will release a movie that is going to portray the human side of Hitler.  Stone stated that he is going to depict the murderous dictators not as evil, but “as products of historical reality” as he puts it. Though there is some academic value in this approach, Stone’s then goes on to say that Hitler was a “scapegoat”.  Why would Stone, a conspiracy theory advocate and buddy to Hugo Chavez choose to do this?  The answer is the same as why so many on the left are defending Harry Reid. 

Stone’s attempt to mollify the evil of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler actually plays into the progressive authoritarian world view.  Stone says that we must get out of “seeing people as good or evil”.  His intension is to show that their actions were the product of social and historical forces.  As historians, we actually have to at times engage in a somewhat dispassionate frame to when examine this monsters.  We have to consider their abilities and even some of their virtues to fully understand the conditions that they operated under. 

However, when Stone discusses Hitler as a “scapegoat” a reveals an essential difference between us and them.  We can discuss Hitler’s tremendous political instinct and his brilliant speaking ability, but we still see him, the man, as an evil monstrous person.  We still believe that regardless of the situation, the person still has the responsibility to choose between right and wrong.  Stone adheres, to the notion that right and wrong are more social constructs.  This is the appeal that atheists and anti-Christians have with his perspective.  There is no higher power, then there is no ultimate truth beyond man and biology.

St. Louis Radio host Dana Loesch addressed this at the November 28 Tea Party, when she asserted that “our rights are not granted to us by man, they are granted to us by God”.  Were many anti-Christians see religion as a control mechanism, here Dana shows the power of Christianity to liberate people from the grips of man made government.  And that is actually the history of the Church’s movement, to liberate the spirits of people from the grips of the pagan and Roman rule.

We however, believe that history, science, and spiritually are compatible. In fact we believe science only makes sense with the understanding that there must be something beyond us.  This actually liberates us, making us and our actions more  than just the impetus from some explosion that happened at the beginning of time. (By the way where did the stuff that exploded come from, and what made it explode).

Why is this relevant?  Oliver Stone’s wish to “put murderous dictators in context” is appealing to groups like the Nation of Islam, the American Socialist Party, and countless other anti-American groups.  The USA defeated the Nazis in WWII, and defeated the USSR in the Cold War.  This is a source of national pride for us conservatives, as well as many Americans of all political positions.  Except for the Statists.  That’s because it is indisputable that our victories over these regimes was due to the character of our nation, as well as to our free market economic system. 

These are things that both the anti-American radical groups and the authoritarians in the Democratic leadership want to do away with.  The academic radical community try to show that the world’s problems are America’s fault.  They insist that Al Qaeda, Iran, and the despotic African warlords are products of American coöperate greed.  The Latin American socialist  dictators blamed European colonialism for their nation’s poverty, giving them cover while they exploited their people. 

Progressive authoritarians are different from principled liberals in that the latter emphasizing the less fortunate while the  former uses that ruse to punish and control those who oppose them.  How many more times have we heard Obama deprecate the “wealthy” than we have heard him discuss how is going to help the poor.  That’s because as a Statists, he Reid and Pelosi are more concerned with punitive measures than with helpful ones. 

And that is why it is so important for the Black Caucus and Al Sharpton to defend Reid.  Their respective interests depend on Reid and the other hard left Democrats to maintain their standing as the defenders of the lees fortunate.  This cabal suggests that crime and terrorism is caused by economic inequality.  They use “social justice” to justify taking from the people who disagree with them and giving it to people who don’t deserve it but will do their bidding.

For example, during Hitler’s rise to power he was helped by an organization called the SA. Better known as the Brownshirts, these were 3  million Nazis lead by a  military man named Ernst Rohm. They called for a  moratorium on farm debts, nationalization of business, inclusion into the regular army, and government jobs for all of them.  They beat up political opponents in the street and intimidated shop owners.  One of their favorite tactics was to go into a company’s board meeting and take it over, appointing Nazi’s labor group leaders in the firm.

Hey wait a minute, isn’t there a group who does stuff like that now? 

ACORN.  They have called for the end to foreclosures and government jobs for all of them as well.  They and SEIU have beaten people up on the street, and they have broken into homes that were claimed by the bank, declaring that they now own them.  And they have walked into bank board meetings to intimidate company officers into giving in to them.

But if their is no good and evil, then what ACORN is doing isn’t so bad, if it is going to help the poor (who do want they want them do to).

So that’s why modern-day socialists defend Mao who killed over 77 million people. and Stalin who killed 62 million people, and Hitler who tried to exterminate all of the Jews.  It suggests that if the ends are justified, then means are justified, even if it brings misery and horror to the people.   Then you can just blame that horror on “historical forces” and “social injustice”.  You can say the world made them that way, and that any of you would have done the same thing if the conditions were such.

And of course, all of those deaths were the results of poverty, which is the result of the capitalist system.  No more capitalism, no more Hitlers, no more Bashirs. Right? 

And now it is up to them to control everything so that those  conditions don’t arise. 

Defending Hitler is an important step in defending their right to take away your rights. And your property, And your source of information. And your right to good health care.  And your right to oppose the light skinned black president with no Negro accent.

Defend Hitler all you want.  Defend Harry Reid all you want. 



January 12, 2010 Leave a comment

Conservatives have pounded Harry Reid for his 2008 comments about Barack Obama being a “light-skinned” candidate with no Negro dialect.  There have been a number of takes on it.  Some consider it an example of Democratic racism, while others are even calling for his resignation.  The conservative fellowship is brewing over this issue, and we have used it as an opportunity to engage the culture dimension of the citizenship movement.  Race, along with issues of faith, life, and traditional marriage are all relevant to our cause.  Yet there are many who say that we should ignore these concerns, so that we don’t get “caught up”  in the conflict.  But that would be a mistake, as we do not have the luxury do avoid the conflict.

We saw them denigrate Sarah Palin, specifically mentioning her gender as part the basis for their attack.  We saw them call Clarence Thomas a sell-out.  We saw them castigate Condoleezza Rice as being a traitor to her people for supporting George Bush.   Rosanne Barr said that Sarah Palin “shows that the only way for a woman to succeed in the conservative movement is for them to be against women.”   They have postured themselves as the arbiters of racial justice.

Today I have heard many Republicans say that we shouldn’t “worry about this”,  and that we are wining on health care and cap-and-trade.  But many of the Republicans who have said this are also the ones who want you stop talking about our Christian faith, stopping opposing Roe vs. Wade, and to never mention crime because it is a racial buzz word.  And many of these are Republican women who said the Sarah Palin was a drag on the McCain ticket, and that she is getting them in trouble with the media establishment.

Obama and others called for Don Imus to be fired when he made his stupid remarks, and they forced Trent Lott to resign for his.  Sheldon Whitehouse called us “Aryans” because we are opposing “this young president”.  Several black callers on Sean Hannity said that he and others who oppose Obama have “ulterior motives”. 

And almost every negative piece about the Tea Party Movement includes something to the effect of “those white people can’t deal with this smart black president”.  And the Statist have consistently declared that our opposition to the health care bill is an affront to the well-being off black people.

Yet when it comes time to be held to account for their own bigotry, they are short on guts.


January 10, 2010 2 comments

On Saturday Harry Reid apologized for private remarks he made during the 2008 presidential election that Barack Obama could win because he was light-skinned and that he “did not have a Negro-dialect, unless he wanted one.”  Obama promptly accepted the apology, giving Reid credit on his work for “social justice”.   So it seems that everything is well in Statistville.

Then, on cue, Al Sharpton took it upon himself to accept Reid’s apology too.  Sharpton was in St. Louis for a speaking engagement (people still pay to hear this guy!), and during an interview he said “we will judge him more for his deeds than his words”.


If  high-profile members of the Republican Party had said this, Sharpton would have called for one of his stupid rallies.  Late last year Reid compared himself to the law makers that ended slavery.  Now he is using the term “Negro” to refer to the people he claims to understand so well.

Honestly, we don’t care that much what Dirty Harry calls us, but the term Negro hasn’t been in vogue since the late 1950’s early 1960’s. 

Didn’t he get the memo.  The university academic community has decreed that we be called African-American. 

We didn’t get the memo either, so we still call ourselves black.  And we urge conservatives to drop the politically correct term “African-American”, because it is a means for ethnocentric malcontents to try to separate black people from te American identity.

Ethnocentric malcontents like those who accuse the Tea Party movement of being racial motivated for opposing Obama’s disastrous agenda.  St. Louis conservative Kirby Kral’s slogan that “the problem with the Hope and Change is the Scope and Range” reflects the people’s true concerns.  It’s not just the nature of these terrible policies, but the sheer volume of waste and punishment that was the source of our anger.

But the Democratic leadership and the media insisted on protecting Obama by accusing us of being racists.  They had no evidence other than a few signs that they claimed implied racism.  And at McCaskill’s town hall meeting last summer a black woman who supported the president claimed she saw a sign that racially denigrated Obama, but she was proved to be a liar.

And Sharpton says that he will “judge Reid by his deeds”.  Did he judge Don Imus by the millions he donated to charity. No. And he didn’t really accept his apology either. Instead, he brought in his  daughter and asked Imus if she “looked like a nappy headed ho.” 

The Greyfalcon question’s the character of Sharpton for using his daughter to attack Imus, and question’s his daughter’s judgement in allowing herself to be used as a prop, as she looked old enough to make her own decisions.

And didn’t Jessie Jackson use the N word and threaten to castrate Obama for supporting faith-based initiatives.  I think that would make you, Mr. Jackson a big fake opportunist. 

Sharpton and his race monger buddy Ballentine are a couple of cowards for blowing off Reid’s comments while vigorously objecting to Rush Limbaugh’s participation in the ownership of the St. Louis Rams.  Their “exhibit A” for this was a statement the Limbaugh did not even make, and one that nobody was able to specifically verify.

But Sharpton has a vested interest in excusing Reid.  Many years ago he announced a Democrat convention that blacks were going to “ride this Donkey for all it’s worth”. 

It is Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and Ballentine who are the sell-outs, not black conservatives.

These fake civil rights activists have made millions of dollars for their efforts to keep the black vote firmly in the Democratic bucket.  A caller on 97.1 talk show Allman in the Morning accused black conservative Kevin Jackson of “saying what the conservatives want to hear”.

It appears that it is the black anti-conservatives who are appeasing their white Democratic leaders.  And appeasing them for money to boot! 

Looks they have betrayed “their people” for fame and fortune.  THAT SUCKS!


January 9, 2010 Leave a comment

Barack Obama’s presidency is obviously not going according to Axelrod’s design, and the American people are losing confidence in him by the day.  One of the most common reasons given for electing him is that his being president will lift the spirits and confidence of black people.  However, we do not believe that he is setting a good example in that regard.

First Obama has blamed every problem he has had on either the Bush Administration or the wealthy.  When confronted on why the unemployment rate was so high he says “I inherited this recession from The Previous Administration”.  [We capitalize this phrase now because he uses it so much it should be  considered in the proper].

Every president inherits problems from the previous administration.  This kind of excuse making reflects the mentality that leads many blacks to believe that it is not worth it to try to transcend their immediate situation.  “Look what they did to us” is an attitude that is often associated with rationalizations for black pathologies and low academic achievement. 

Also, all presidents get protested and ridiculed.  But Obama, instead of addressing the concerns of his critics, many of whom had just voted for him, he began to attack those who dissented from him.  He told those who objected to the spending to “get a mop” and to “not do a lot of talking” as if he was hanging out with his Chicago buddies on 95  and State. 

 That crap might fly with Wright and Ayers, But it doesn’t fly with us BRA!

He also denigrated the Tea Party protesters by saying “you have these people  waving tea bags around”,  and tried to get Fox moved of the White House information stream.  Him mentioned his dislike for talk show hosts Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh at least a dozen times.

He played the victim, and hoped the media and the entertainment industry would protect him. They cannot.

Sarah Palin, paid her way through school, and overcame gender prejudice in politics to become mayor of Wassilla.  And when she was viciously attacked by the  media she responded by reestablishing herself with renewed vigor.  She has dominated the debate between her and Obama on health care and national defense using her Facebook page.

When they said she was stupid, she did not hide behind the news establishment, and  she couldn’t have anyway because they were against her.  Instead, she used the technology and innovation that allows people to circumvent these idiots. 

And if young black people in crime ridden neighborhoods can somehow phase out race monger indoctrination, they may be able to draw inspiration from the player in this game who has triumphed in spite of the cards being stacked against them.

That person is not Barrack Obama.

Sarah Palin is the person who better reflects the kind of character that is necessary to transcend bad situations.


January 9, 2010 5 comments

On Thursday, January 7, Kevin Jackson was the guest on Allmon in the morning on 97.1 St. Louis Talk Radio.  Jamie Allmon and Jackson discussed his blog,  Kevin, a black conservative, offers an innovative and enlightening resource with his site.  In his book “The Big Black Lie” he addresses the Democratic Party’s reliance on the black vote, and how they do not deserve that support.

Jackson uses humor to amplify is message, as demonstrated by his comedy piece “The White Guilt Power Plant”.   Here he lampoons liberals tendency to support bad policy and bad politicians just because they want to prove they are not racist.

However, some people don’t think it  is so funny.

During the show, a black, anti-conservative caller accused Kevin of  trying to appease white conservatives.  Kevin responded by giving a detailed history of how the Republican Party has a better historical track record with blacks than the Democrats do.  He made the case using fact after fact, while the caller had none to counter.  Instead he chided Jackson with “Come on man”. 

Jackson answered with “Come on what?”

Kevin rebuked the callers juvenile attempt to intimate that black conservatives are sell-outs.

“COME ON WHAT? ” may be the battle cry to liberate the mind and political conscience of a generation.

Kevin Jackson is truly one of the best in the business.


January 7, 2010 Leave a comment

The American Awakening is punishing the Obama Administration and the Statist authoritarian Congressional leadership.  His approval rating is at an all time low for first term presidents. Even the Democrats are predicting that they will lose seats in 2010.  And the Ny-23 race proved that we have the capacity to eliminate establishment Republicans who do not represent their constituents.

However, there are some high-profile “conservative” commentators who think that this is more about them than the people.  First David Brooks a “New York Times” conservative tried to reconcile our movements success with his pseudo-intellectual peers.  He suggested we are against everything that the intellectuals are against, but we himself demonstrated to inability to understand what is really driving the discord.  He made it about himself, and he showed that what he thought was true about us was really true about him. 

Sarah Palin recently refuted Barrack Obama on his response to the Detroit Bomber, further proving that she is a better leader than he is.  Her 2008 campaign played a role in starting this Citizenship Revival, as the attacks against her reflected their true intentions for us.  And instead of getting down, she actually lifted the people’s moral my keeping a smile a driving forward on the issues.

Scott Brown is following up on the Sarah Palin/Tea Party revolution, as he is making a great run at beating Coakly in Massachusetts.  Senator Chris Dodd has announced he will not seek relection.  And the Tea Party has forced both political parties to deal with it as a voice of the grass-roots conservative voter.  This is all because of the people.

However, there is someone who is telling people who this doesn’t mean that much.  As far as he is concerned, there is no difference between any of the people running for office.  He says that he “doesn’t see any difference between them”.  He seems to suggest that nothing has been accomplished, because he has it all figured out.

This commentator also told you not to do the Tea Parties, and to wait for his little project in September. Wow that’s convenient.  Good thing you were smarter than he was.

And this host also calls anyone he does not like a progressive.  He recently used the  word progressive about ten times in a two-minute segment.  Everyone you do not like is not a progressive.  In fact most liberals are not progressives, they are simply left on the political spectrum.   That destroys the power of the term.  Linsey Graham may have not been on point with us 100% of the time, but he is not a Marxist and he is not a progressive. 

Linsey Graham is not going to vote yes on faux care, so unless you have a great alternative, we are not going to vote for someone who is going to send us into a USSR economy just to help him sell a book. 

As St. Louis radio talk show host Dana Loesch points out “No candidate is perfect.”  And she is among the conservative sphere’s most accomplished “Rhino hunters”.  Maybe Mr. Moral Killer should pay attention to Dana and some of the local hosts around the country. 

The fact is that throughout history the American people have voted for people that were not their ideal person for the job.  Many people who voted for Ronald Reagan said that they would have perfered Barry Goldwater.  But we have to look at the impact of the election.  Dede was rejected because the voters new she would support the Obama Administration agenda. 

With our outrage at both parties being felt, through unpaid citizen participation, we have the right to send a senator or representative to vote against faux care and card check, then go back to our  lives and fix the economy with our hard work.  So we are not going to keep these clowns in office to pad some hosts bank account.

 Yeah that’s right, we  think what you are saying about McCain and Graham is more true about you DUDE!  If they mess up we will handle it, but so far they are not voting for this garbage! And we don’t need someone who the people made successful deciding he is going to figure it out us.

Isn’t that what we are rejecting them for?

We have work to do.  We have to stop this Statist agenda in 2010.  Today it was announced that government jobs have surpassed many of the wealth producing private sector jobs.  We don’t have time to help network ideologues make philosophical statements.

And we all know that John McCain is not a principled conservative, and he sponsored a lot of stuff that we don’t like.  But he is not a progressive!  In fact, most liberals are not progressives, they are just left of the political spectrum.  And distorting McCain’s record is not cool.  He did not call for universal health care during the election, yet this guy has several times said that he did.  He even accused McCain of being in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, when is fact he always opposed it.

And Duncan Hunter was the most complete conservative in the 2008 field, but this host implied that he didn’t have enough of something to be competitve. [Not  exactly sure what that something was, his producer kept interupting him].  He didn’t advocate any candidate for professional reasons.  That’s fine, but he sure did attack Obama and McCain with a great deal of vigor.  And now he says that “you may not save my life, but you may be able to save the Republc”.

If it is that serious, maybe he should have forgone is professional correctness and taken a stand for Duncan Hunter during the primary.  And apparently their was a difference between having McCain and Obama as president. McCain would not be worse for the country. 

But maybe he would be worse for this hosts career.

He says that he doesn’t see anything different on the other side.  So what about Jeff Sessions, Martha Blackburn, Steve King, Michelle Bachman, Mike Prince, Todd Akin, and candidates Allan West, Carly Fiorina, and Scott Brown.  I think Allan West is more of what being a conservative is about than this self-absorbed nay-saying “conservative” commentator.   And as a Democrat Peter Griffin voted solidly against the health care bill, cap and trade, and the stimulous.  So his switch to the Republican Party is in line with his performance.   

We appreciate the great work this host has during the past few years, but he is not keeping up with what is going on now. 

Mark Levin captured it best when he said of his listeners “You are winning, you are driving Dodd and these jerks out of office.  It’s not because of me, it’s because of you!”

Mark Levin gets it,  Mr. Your All Progressive Moral Killer doesn’t.

 Mr. Progressive Moral Killer thinks it’s about him and his chalkboard, Levin knows it’s about you.


January 5, 2010 Leave a comment

“Israel doesn’t let itself get punked by political correctness” asserts Dana Loesch during her daily radio show on 97.1 St. Louis Talk Radio.  Following the Christmas Day attempt by a Nigerian terrorist to explode an Detroit bound airliner, American passengers have been subjected to intensive screening and new conduct laws on the airplanes.  Loesch objects to this, insisting that the priority should be on stopping the people who best fit the profile of the enemy. “There is a difference between profiling and stereotyping!” she adds. 

The Obama adminstration has demonstrated a consistent reluctance to identify Islamic fascism as the source threats to this nation’s security.  In his recent address on the subject he mentioned Yemen’s “crippling poverty”. 

Well, Haiti has crippling poverty, but we don’t have a big problem with Al Qaeda there.  Nice try Barry.

But this poverty reference is important in understanding the unity of his policies.  Progressive authoritarians justify extensive controls on our economic and social freedom by declaring them as necessary to correct inequality.  Obama subscribes to an ideology that holds crime is caused by poverty and racial injustice.  Before his election he even cited world poverty as a major reason why the terrorists are attacking America.

So the inconveniences being forced upon the passengers is a means of forcing the “privileged” citizens to accept some of the burden for international economic disparity.  In effect, Obama is redistributing citizenship and comfort.  None of the terrorists have been 83-year-old white women, yet the new procedures require her to be screened the same as Detroit bomber.

Also, note that this older woman is also in the demographic that overwhelming opposes his health care reform.  Hm …. funny how that works out. 

We are not talking about racial or national profiling, we are talking about those people in the data base being denied plane access when their father tells authorities that he is a terrorist. 

After 9/11, Hillary Clinton accused the Bush Administration of having “a lack of imagination”, for not doing more to stop the attack.  The Bush Administration responded with stronger, effective methods, and now Holder and Obama want to prosecute the people who implemented these methods. 

It is now Obama who is demonstrating the lack of imagination.