"Were he alive today, Malcolm X would have no truck with slave-trading and Black-hating Arab terrorists like Zawahiri or his camera-shy consort, Osama bin Laden. Wielding his legendary intellect like a sabre, Malcolm would have brought its pitiless logic to bear in the methodical dismemberment of Zawahiri’s spurious attempts to conceal his own deep-seated anti-Black animus behind a Kafkaesque façade of 'Islamic solidarity' with the plight of America’s 'field Negroes'. (For lest the good 'Dr Zawahiri' forget, not a soul on Earth rivalled Malcolm in his ability to burrow into the impenetrable depths of the historical record in order to unearth and expose the full scope and extent of the Arab/Muslim world’s own complicity in the genocidal trade in African slaves and then deliver the incriminating evidence in blistering sermons before the Harlem throngs.) And as the descendants of that long and distinguished line of village-raiding and sword-flailing Janjaweed-style Arab marauders who not only dominated the aforementioned trade but continued that illicit traffic long after the 'white world' had apprehended the error of its own ways and withdrawn from that evil commerce, Zawahiri must be chewing on a khat leaf the size of London’s Eye if he imagines himself capable of lulling any Black person into the delusion that the same Malcolm X who called for maximum physical retaliation against the KKK cowards responsible for butchering four innocent Black adolescents in the Birmingham Church Bombings of 1963 would have responded any less wrathfully to the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of Black Africans by the same 'Dr Zawahiri' and his cohorts when simultaneous AQ explosions devastated the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in the summer of 1998." — Xyborg, British black liberal blogger, on Ayman al-Zawahiri's slur calling President-Elect Barack Obama a "house Negro" and trying to use Malcolm X to buttress his slur
Booker Rising on Obama's Cabinet Picks
While President-Elect Barack Obama's picks are virtually all solidly liberal - I strongly disagree with others who claim that he has selected a centrist administration - but they are decent picks. If leftists are up in arms over the picks, they probably aren't too bad.
First, let's give credit where credit is due: President-Elect Obama has beat President George W. Bush in assembling the most (at least racially & gender) diverse Cabinet in U.S. history: three women and two blacks, so far. And not in the marginal, usual Cabinet positions like Health or HUD either, but in inner Cabinet positions dealing with foreign policy and law. Coloreds are continuing to rise, I tell you.
Eric Holder (pictured upper left) as the first black Attorney General makes sense to me. No other Democratic candidate is as qualified as he is to head up Justice. Mr. Holder is a former deputy Attorney General, and was even acting AG for a few weeks between the Clinton-Bush II transition. His background includes being a federal prosecutor, judge, and lawyer.
Sen. Hillary Clinton as Secretary Of State, OK. However, I'd have preferred Bill Richardson in that role. I wonder if it's wise for President-Elect Obama to put a rival who wants to be president in such a high-profile role. However, the appointment also keeps her busy abroad....and thus possibly makes it harder to undermine him. Obama best to keep tabs on ol' girl. The Republican National Committee is having a field day about Obama's and Clinton's foreign policy differences, per this briefing that my RNC contact yesterday emailed to me. There is also a question about whether or not Sen. Clinton can constitutionally serve as Secretary Of State because of a specific clause.
Susan Rice (pictured lower right), who is up for U.N. ambassador, has an impressive resume: Rhodes Scholar, former member of the National Security Council, etc. My one issue with her as the nominee is that she was the the assistant secretary of state when the Rwanda genocide jumped off. How can Ms. Rice seriously criticize the Bush administration's response to Darfur - and I agree that criticism is warranted - when she did nothing on the Rwanda issue?
However, the only pick of President-Elect Obama's so far where I respond "hell, no" is Janet Napolitano (pictured lower left) to head Homeland Security. She didn't even competently secure the borders against illegal immigration in her own state as Arizona's governor. How is she qualified to head up this department?
Leftists and a few conservatives do make one valid point regarding President-Elect Obama's picks: where's the "change"? Clinton staffers already make up 2/3 of President-Elect Obama's transition team. I'm wow having déjà vu with all of these Clintonistas getting in the Cabinet mix. And where's the bipartisan Cabinet that was promised by President-Elect Obama? He hasn't gone beyond the usual token pick of past presidents.
Blacks Break Through In Computer Science
Courtesy of the National Society of Black Engineers, who emailed these stats to Booker Rising: After years of being labeled an "underrepresented minority" in computer science, blacks in the U.S. are on the brink of leaving that category, with bachelor's degrees in hand. According to the federal government's National Center for Education Statistics, black students received 12.4% of the baccalaureates in computer and information sciences awarded by U.S. colleges and universities in 2005-06. That's nearly equal to the percentage of blacks in the U.S. population (12.8%).
Thomas Sowell on Freedom And The Left
The conservative commentator opines: "One of the most innocent-sounding examples of the left's many impositions of its vision on others is the widespread requirement by schools and by college admissions committees that students do 'community service.' There are high schools across the country from which you cannot graduate, and colleges where your application for admission will not be accepted, unless you have engaged in activities arbitrarily defined as 'community service.' The arrogance of commandeering young people's time, instead of leaving them and their parents free to decide for themselves how to use that time, is exceeded only by the arrogance of imposing your own notions as to what is or is not a service to the community. Working in a homeless shelter is widely regarded as 'community service' -- as if aiding and abetting vagrancy is necessarily a service, rather than a disservice, to the community. Is a community better off with more people not working, hanging out on the streets, aggressively panhandling people on the sidewalks, urinating in the street, leaving narcotics needles in the parks where children play? This is just one of the ways in which handing out various kinds of benefits to people who have not worked for them breaks the connection between productivity and reward, as far as they are concerned."
He continues his commentary: "Supposedly students are to get a sense of compassion or noblesse oblige from serving others. But this all depends on who defines compassion. In practice, it means forcing students to undergo a propaganda experience to make them receptive to the left's vision of the world. I am sure those who favor 'community service' requirements would understand the principle behind the objections to this if high school military exercises were required. Indeed, many of those who promote compulsory 'community service' activities are bitterly opposed to even voluntary military training in high schools or colleges, though many other people regard military training as more of a contribution to society than feeding people who refuse to work. In other words, people on the left want the right to impose their idea of what is good for society on others -- a right that they vehemently deny to those whose idea of what is good for society differs from their own."
My response: I've already made my position quite clear that "public service" / "national service" is an arbitrary farce and linked to the socialist notion of "the public interest".
EMAIL: How?
The following email is in response to Walter E. Williams' op-ed last week, titled "Trade Versus Protectionism":
How do I rebut the Walter E. Williams article? Here is a sample:
The moral question that Williams does not have the fortitude to ask is this:
IS IT MORAL TO SEEK OUT THE LEAST FIT, LEAST PROTECTED, LEAST EDUCATED, WITHIN THE MOST POLITICALLY CORRUPT COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD TO WHIP-SAW AMERICAN WORKERS INTO ACCEPTING WAGES AND STANDARDS WHICH WILL DEGRADE THEM TO THIRD WORLD CONDITIONS
"Rifle Jack"
USA
MYCHAL MASSIE COMMENTARY: Blacks' Toxic Victimhood
The conservative Republican commentator wallops liberals who claim that an Obama win means more racial injustice: "Five days after Barack Obama strolled comfortably to victory with a six-point margin in his pocket, Louis Farrakhan declared that the victory would only stir up deep-seated racial animosity. He told a congregation that the country remained 'divided and polarized.' He said that the majority of John McCain supporters were 'older Americans ... [residing] below the Mason-Dixon line where racial attitudes and traditions die hard.' Continuing, he told the throng, 'We can change laws, but it's difficult to change attitudes.' Truer words have seldom been spoken, even if from the lips a 'minister' who can hardly be called 'Mathias,' i.e., a 'gift from God.' Even though the actual reason sales of firearms soared in advance of Obama's election was the realistic fear that he would urge onerous restrictions on the purchase of same, Farrakhan seemed to be insinuating that the reasons were racially motivated. As proof, he stated that he 'was sure that many of our [black] people have unfortunately lost their lives because of the absolute hatred that is manifested now that one of our own has risen to such a high office.' Just who are these 'many blacks' killed because Obama was elected? To what greater depths can he possibly sink to further the continuation of a cultural divide? Or perhaps he was alluding to the hundreds of thousands of black unborn children that Obama supports murdering."
He continues his commentary: "While whites voted for Obama for a plethora of reasons (none of which I agree with), blacks in large measure voted for him because of his color. Jesse Jackson told blacks he was concerned that President Bush would, in effect, sabotage Obama during his last days in office vis-à-vis economic policies. I would argue that President Bush and Congress are sabotaging all Americans precisely because of their economic policy, and that Obama will simply continue to the nth degree. The division and depth of resentment that victim-minded blacks harbor toward blacks who do not wallow in their despair, anger and malaise cannot be overstated. I was recently informed that quotes I made in a press release issued by the National Center of Public Policy Research ('Al-Qaida Leader's Anti-Obama Racial Slur Denounced by Black Conservatives'; Nov. 20, 2008) were ridiculed on a blog hosted by a black female intended for black moderates. I had said that I found the racist diatribe of terrorist Ayman al-Zawahiri 'highly offensive,' but because I view America through a different prism, I was maligned as one unworthy of taking exception to his comments. A black media outlet posited that Obama's victory would result in a more hostile employment and cultural climate for blacks, the reason being whites would be able to openly practice exclusion because Obama's victory allowed for the façade of there being no more racism. The same media outlet attacked me for 'willingly perpetrating the American establishment's flawed premise [of] insisting that the gap in wealth, income, health care and education is due to an inherent culture of victimization,' and my belief that hard work and preparedness are what it takes to be successful."
My response: Booker Rising must be the "blog hosted by a black female intended for black moderates" that Mr. Massie takes issue with for its readers' criticism of him. There are only three black, female, and moderate bloggers who I know of (Angie Winters, my fellow Illini; Sophia Nelson; and Lady Rayne). None of them put up that news release, but I did. Mr. Massie implies that I ridiculed his comments, when I defended ol' boy. However, some readers disagreed with Mr. Massie's motives, but that's their opinion. If you don't like criticism, then why pump out commentary? Geez, talk about victimology. Good that you're reading my blog though.
PHOTO OF THE DAY: Isaiah Washington
Isaiah Washington IV was born in Houston, and is a film and television actor. Everyone remembers the 43-year-old actor for allegedly grabbing actor Patrick Dempsey by the throat and the "f___t" faux pas toward gay actor T.R. Knight, which led to his exit last year from "Grey's Anatomy". I first remember Mr. Washington in "Get On The Bus" (1996), where he ironically played a gay man, and his stint on television show "Living Single". He also caught my eye in "Love Jones" (1997). People named Mr. Washington - who stands at 6'1" - as one of its "50 Beautiful People" in 2006.
Some tidbits about Mr. Washington: His nicknames are Ike or Mickey. Mr. Washington served in the Air Force. He attended (but did not graduate from) Howard University. His father was murdered when he was 13. A DNA test done on PBS's "African American Lives" showed that his matrilineal ancestry links to the Mende Temne tribe of Sierra Leone and his patrilineal ancestry goes back to the Angola's Mbundu tribe. For my readers who prefer things to stay strictly political: he donated money to Barack Obama's presidential campaign and then-Sen. Obama had to return $50 to Mr. Washington because he exceeded contribution limits.
Mr. Washington does a fair amount of charitable work, particularly in Africa. Last year, he started the Gondobay Manga Foundation to improve life in Sierra Leone, including opening an elementary school in the village of Njala Kendema.
He has seemingly been laying low, as his career definitely took a hit after the F-word comment. His character was killed off on "Bionic Woman", and the TV show later got canceled. He has barely worked this year. However, Mr. Washington has two movies in the pipeline so his career is starting to pick up again.
On being fired from "Grey's Anatomy", Mr. Washington said: "I apologized and showed my remorse for what I said and for the pain I caused anyone. If a black man can't get forgiveness in this country, when so many other people like Robert Downey, Jr. and the governor of California get second and third chances...I think that says a lot about race and this country where we stand."
He has been married to his wife Jenisa since 1999. They have three children.
U.S. Economy Officially In A Recession
The task of officially declaring the onset of a recession, as well as marking the end point, falls not to government officials but to an outside organization of professional economists called the National Bureau of Economic Research. The NBER announced today that the current downturn met its criteria for a widespread and "significant" decline in economic activity beginning December 2007.
The group did not say how long the recession might last, but the stock market reflected the widespread pessimism. The Dow dropped 680 points for the day, a decline of over 7%. Until Monday, the market had been on an upswing.
In describing a recession, many people use a simple definition of two consecutive quarters of a decline in GDP, and the current downturn doesn't meet that yardstick. GDP in the third quarter was -0.5%, but was in positive territory the previous two quarters: 2.8% in the second quarter and 0.9% in the first. The NBER, however, uses a larger variety of indicators, including measures of employment, industrial production and personal income. Economists say that's because looking at GDP alone can mask some of the economy's woes.
Job losses appeared to weigh most heavily in the National Bureau of Economic Research's decision. Although the economy must normally create about 100,000 jobs a month to keep pace with population growth, it has steadily lost jobs since last December. The unemployment rate stood at 6.5% in November, and many economists expect it to climb above 8% sometime next year.
Bob Parks: "F__s Will Never Be N___s"
The conservative Republican takes issue with white gay activists who claim that gay is the new black, as a recent cover of white gay magazine The Advocate claims: "For years, I've written about liberal fringe groups that seek legitimacy by equating their issues to the black civil rights struggle. What I find interesting with the whole Proposition 8-gay marriage clash is that the very gays who want to be like blacks, now find themselves at odds with a black population that not only is insulted by the comparison, but voted overwhelmingly against the marriage initiative."
Mr. Parks continues his commentary about gay piggybacking of black history: "Here's yet another unfortunate result of the Democrat Party's ongoing whitewash of history, both politically and academically. Some gay people are totally clueless, thus foolish in making the comparison between the American black versus gay experience. Gays were not legally enslaved for centuries. Gays were never segregated in education, in the military, or socially overall up until the last 50 years. Again, the comparison is ludicrous. I would never want gay people to have to walk in my shoes, but until they have, they have no right to demand a share of our legacy. It demeans the legitimate black struggle, and now that some feel empowered to say 'Goes to show that Negroes truly are the most underdeveloped race when 70% are homophobic. Kind of funny because that's also their IQ', it shows some were never our friends and don't deserve whatever support they had."
He argues that gay activists lack the chutzpah that civil rights activists had: "Scapegoating blacks for the passage of Proposition 8 may be convenient, but is fact-challenged. While blacks make up only around 10% of California's population and the 2008 turnout high, not all turned out. The 70% that voted against gay marriage can't be singled out with any sense of fairness, and slurring all black people is the very thing gays complain is done to them. Other demographics voted against the proposition, so they are all homophobic haters (which is what the activists would prefer to believe). But to use racial epithets against one isn't exactly the tactic we've all been instructed by the left to tolerate. And using the safety of Internet forums to declare that hate is cowardice at the very least. Staging huge protests in front of the Church of Latter Day Saints is safe. Taking those protests to The Hood and using racial epithets there would take courage. Unlike the civil rights protests where people risked, in some cases, life and limb to participate, gays are not putting all on the line with theirs. The tactics used thus far shows just how courageous these pro-gay marriage activists have chosen to be and who the real haters are."
My response: I support gay marriage, but even I strongly disagree that gayness is on par with blackness. That is straight up hijacking of black American history and struggle by white gay activists - because it is basically only white gays pulling this mess - and most black folks won't stand for such nonsense. Such comparisons alienate quite a few black people who may otherwise be persuadable re: gay rights. Nor do these white gay activists have anywhere near the credibility to make such an argument like, say, the late Bayard Rustin. Gay activists can and should argue issues on their own merits, and quit leeching off black history. It's quite disrespectful.
: "For The Future Of Hip Hop, All That Glitters Is Not Gold Teeth"
The moderate-conservative columnist writes: "It continues to appear that the cool and highly intelligent Barack Obama is going to have a powerful impact on debilitating black popular culture, particularly hip hop. The signs are everywhere. In the wake of Byron Hurt's searing documentary 'Hip Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes,' hip-hop fans have questioned the retarding effect that hip hop has had on young black men through encouraging thuggish violence, misogyny, clownish behavior and crude materialism. Hurt's documentary is most powerful because the filmmaker himself is a fan of the idiom but, as a grown and responsible man, he felt it was necessary to call out hip hop's many shortcomings because the idiom had moved from clever rhymes and dance beats to advocating personal, social and criminal corruption. Those who pretend that they do not know what Hurt is investigating because 'that is not ALL of hip hop' need to take note of the fact that Russell Simmons, the godfather of hip hop, recently blamed the deep vulgarization of the genre on producers who would do anything for a buck."
Mr. Crouch continues his commentary: "I believe our next President will elevate many things in our country, top to bottom. On the pop cultural end, Barack and Michelle Obama's worldliness and common sense will greatly diminish the national appetite for and the defense of those who proudly commit intellectual suicide by submitting to anti-intellectual stances and the surface styles that repel across all ethnic lines. We are on the way out of the muck. Ask Russell Simmons. Good hustlers always know when the game is changing."
Obama Announces Clinton, Gates For Cabinet
President-Elect Barack Obama today picked a national security team headed by former campaign rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Bush administration holdover Robert Gates, and said he wants to consult with military commanders before settling on a firm timetable to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq. The liberal Democrat named Sen. Clinton, a liberal New York Democrat, as Secretary of State. He said Mr. Gates, a moderate Republican, would remain as Defense Secretary, a post he has held for the past two years.
At a news conference, the president-elect also introduced retired Marine Gen. James Jones as National Security Adviser, former Justice Department official Eric Holder as Attorney General, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security and Susan Rice as Ambassador to the United Nations.
"I assembled this team because I am a strong believer in strong personalities and strong opinions," said the president-elect. "I think that's how the best decisions are made. One of the dangers in a White House, based on my reading of history, is that you get wrapped up in group-think and everybody agrees with everything and there's no discussion and there are no dissenting views. So I am going to be welcoming a vigorous debate inside the White House." He added, "But understand, I will be setting policy as president. I will be responsible for the vision that this team carries out, and I will expect them to implement that vision once decisions are made."
My response: I just have to note that another black Ms. Rice with foreign policy experience and ties to Stanford University will be a key American face to the world. No relation to Condoleezza Rice though. As the above article notes, Susan Rice will be Ambassador to the U.N. Since she was a key adviser during the presidential campaign, I was wondering where Barack Obama was gonna appoint her.
SEN. DONALD OLIVER COMMENTARY: What Obama's Victory Means To Black Canadians
I'm not a subscriber to The Hill Times (Canada), so I can't access the full piece. Perhaps one of my readers subscribes. Here's a snippet from the Canadian moderate-conservative politician, whose ancestors were former U.S. slaves who emigrated to Canada during the War of 1812. Sen. Oliver argues that change is coming — and not just in USA: "Like countless other blacks across the U.S., Canada and indeed around the world, my eyes welled up with tears of jubilation in the late hours of Nov. 4 when Barack Obama was declared the 44th President of the United States. Against all the odds in a long and contentious struggle, he had broken through the great divide with dignity, intelligence and determination."
JOSEPH C. PHILLIPS OP-ED: The Fix Is In
The conservative Republican actor writes about the industry bailouts: "In 1850, the French writer Frederick Bastiat observed, 'The law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in.' Bastiat's observation is particularly prescient today as industries from far and wide are lined up at Washington's door with their hands out. Not one dime of the alms sought by an ever expanding pool of supplicants comes from government. Every penny comes from the wallets of the American taxpayer. The economic 'fix' we are engaged in is in fact a huge transfer of wealth from John Q Public to those with political connections. And as Bastiat further observed, when the law acts to give to one man at the expense of another it is not a source of justice, but a source of legal plunder. While the issue of plunder is clear in this instance, the issue of legality remains something of a question. For the life of me, I can't put my finger on the language in the constitution that allows Congress to take money from taxpayers in order to take ownership positions in private corporations. Nor can I pin point the section authorizing Congress to transfer its legislative power to the treasury secretary -- an unelected official of the executive branch. Oddly enough, I can pinpoint the exact section that says it is illegal: Article 1, section 1."
He continues his commentary: "The people have lobbyists as well. They are called congressmen! It is a testament to the low opinion we have of our representatives that this nugget received very little attention. Alas, it seems that lying and cheating with other people's money is both bi-partisan and par for the course. We blinked and a huge chunk of our wealth, to say nothing of our individual sovereignty, was snatched up. We will never get it back. The numbers and parameters of this 'fix' continue to grow as do the number of players."
TONY CAMPBELL COMMENTARY: Obama, Clinton And Machiavelli
Drawing from political theory, the moderate Republican commentator opines about why President-Elect Barack Obama would appoint former rival Sen. Hillary Clinton to a Cabinet position: "We have known for weeks that President-elect Obama was going to offer the Secretary of State position to Senator Hillary Clinton. In the official announcement today, Obama has laid those rumors to rest, but has intensified another round of questioning; why would Obama offer this prime post to his formal rival? As I pondered this question, my thoughts became centered on 'The Prince' by Niccolo Machiavelli, not on the overused phraseology of 'the end justifies the means' but on a little known excerpt I have typed below: 'I will merely say that these men who at the beginning of a new government were enemies, if they are of a kind to need support to maintain their position, can be very easily gained by the prince, and they are the more compelled to serve him faithfully as they know they must by their deeds cancel the bad opinion previously held of them, and thus the prince will always derive greater help from them than from those who, serving him with greater security, neglect his interests.'"
Mr. Campbell adds: "In layman’s terms, Machiavelli is saying that Obama will be served faithfully by Hillary Clinton because she has her reputation to mend. It is a win-win; Obama gets a faithful Secretary of State while Hillary recovers any lost ground in public perception because of the long and sometimes primary battle between the two former opponents."
Today Is 20th Anniversary Of World AIDS Day
Worlds AIDS Day is being commemorated globally today with HIV/AIDS testing initiatives, awareness drives, and fundraising efforts. Since its discovery in the early 1980s, AIDS has killed over 25 million people and today 3.3 million are living with HIV worldwide. A United Nations report (see PDF) released earlier this year indicated that the percentage of AIDS deaths worldwide has decreased 10% though the prevalence of new infections is steady at 2.7 million per year."
My response: As I've said for about 15 years now - even when I was a liberal - HIV/AIDS is primarily (although not exclusively) a moral issue. As long as folks continue to be promiscuous and abuse drugs, HIV/AIDS will continue to take a toll. Government cannot legislate morality, which is why the prevalence of new infections remains steady despite various government initiatives worldwide.
Armstrong Williams: "Will Obama Repeat FDR's Mistakes?"
The conservative Republican commentator argues that the Big Government approach is the wrong way to go: "Roosevelt, like Mr. Obama, was facing devastating economic conditions propagated by greed-fueled economic irrational exuberance, which some consider to be inherent in a capitalist society. Marx believed the socialist ideology was an evolution from capitalism: The greed of capitalism needed to be played out before the people would see that socialism was the better practice. This is the scenario that Roosevelt faced and the scenario Mr. Obama now faces. Some New Deal programs, along with Mr. Obama's economic vision, oppose fundamental economic principles, principles that have proven to be accurate time and time again. The promises of Mr. Obama's economic vision are similar to some New Deal programs that prolonged the Great Depression by seven years, as UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian have calculated. The lesson to be learned from the New Deal is that if American businesses are used as a scapegoat - instead of a solution - to America's economic woes, America runs the risk of magnifying an already bad situation."
Mr. Williams continues his commentary: "Mr. Obama is going to make businesses, along with the wealthy, carry the social burden left by the economic crisis. Businesses will be plagued with higher costs from increased payroll and corporate taxes, and with carrying the health-care burden, to name a few. The wealthy will face increases in capital-gains taxes and income taxes. The very people who create opportunity in the marketplace are being forced to carry America. Then there is the threat of unions. Mr. Obama wants to make it easier for unions to organize. Big Labor will undoubtedly increase wages across the board for those industries that are able to organize, resulting in further business expense increases. As we have learned from the automobile industry, when unions overreach in this global economy, business suffers and employees lose jobs. However, Mr. Obama has a solution for this. His solution is trade protectionism. American businesses will no longer have to fear overseas competitors that run the risks of driving them out of business. Unfortunately, protectionism will result in a much smaller economic pie for Mr. Obama to cut up and distribute to his favored constituents."
More commentary from Mr. Williams: "When costs rise for businesses, those costs are then passed onto the consumer. Although those who benefit from union organizing will see higher wages, those same 'beneficiaries' will see that their purchasing power, as well as that of nonunion consumers, will be diminshed because of higher-priced consumer products and services. As the failed policies of socialist economies of the 20th century have shown, policies which increase the size of the pie will generally create more prosperity for all than policies which merely redistribute pieces of a smaller pie."
Senate Dems Look To GOP Moderates For Help
U.S. Senate Democrats say they likely will have a working filibuster-proof majority on key issues that could give early wins for President-Elect Obama. Although the number of Democrats remains unknown -- two Senate races remain undecided -- vote-counters indicate support from Republican moderates will free up bills such as healthcare or immigration halted by the current Congress by GOP maneuvering.
Democrats picked up seven Republican seats in last month's election to add to their majority when the next Congress convenes in January. In the current Congress, Democrats rely on two independents to reach a 51-vote majority. "The truth is...we will be fine on most major issues. We will almost always have some moderate Republican support," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).
Democrats are relying on moderate Republicans such as Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, who are left of center on issues such as Medicare spending and the Iraq war. Other possible swing votes are Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), whose socially liberal views make him a prospective Democratic recruit on spending matters and President-Elect Obama's judicial nominations, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has supported some Democratic initiatives, such as embryonic stem cell research funding, that likely will get an early airing during the next session.
STAR PARKER COMMENTARY: Formula For GOP Recovery: Traditional Values PLUS Limited Government
The conservative Republican commentator opines: "Now that Democrats have won the White House and have widened their margin of control in Congress, does this signify that American voters have moved to the left? Many Republicans question this claim. And a new report from the Pew Research Center seems to verify that America is still a right of center as a country. But the picture gets murky when you look at the details. And this murkiness presents a considerable challenge for Republicans who are trying to figure out where to steer their party. According to the just published report, more Americans today call themselves conservative than liberal, and the relative percentages in each category has hardly changed since George W. Bush was elected to his first term in 2000. Thirty eight percent of Americans self-identify as conservative, 21 percent as liberal, and 36 percent as moderate. This compares to 36 percent, 18 percent and 38 percent, respectively, in 2000. But taking a closer look at what this means leaves you scratching your head. You have to wonder what it means today to think of yourself as conservative. When asked if the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent, only 38 percent of those who said they are 'conservative' said yes. And 50 percent of 'conservatives' said they favor government guaranteeing health care 'even if it means raising taxes.' Although 71 percent of 'conservatives' said they oppose gay marriage, only slightly more than half, 52 percent, said that abortion should be illegal. Many Republicans point to the fact that traditional marriage initiatives won in all three states where they were on the ballot -- California, Florida, and Arizona -- as evidence for the conservatism of the country. But pro-life initiatives lost in all three states where they were on ballots -- California, South Dakota, and Colorado."
She continues her commentary: "What can be the message here for those vying for leadership of the Republican Party? Some argue that the party should lighten up on the social agenda. The party is all white, they say, and there is no future without Latinos and blacks. But consider the obvious. First, conservatives define the Republican Party. According to this study, 68 percent of Republicans call themselves conservative. Second, it should be obvious from the above, that if conservatives are rooted anywhere, it's more in the social agenda than in the fiscal and limited government agenda. Where in the world would the party be if the leadership tried to uproot from social conservatism? Third, consider what is going on with blacks and Latinos. In this same Pew survey, 25 percent of all Democrats called themselves conservatives. But among these same Democrats, 35 percent of blacks call themselves conservative compared to 21 percent of whites. Why? Blacks are social conservatives. Blacks understand the havoc that moral relativism has caused in their communities. And, this is also the case with Latinos. As was widely reported, blacks and Latinos voted for Proposition 8 in California, supporting traditional marriage, despite the majority of them also voting for President-elect Barack Obama. So where is the logic in Republicans abandoning social conservatism in order to reach blacks and Latinos?"
And more: "It appears that the message getting lost is the importance of limited government and fiscal conservatism. Health care is almost 20 percent of our national economy. Too many are not getting what it will mean when bureaucrats will define what health care is and when the IRS comes knocking to check on the policy you bought. Too many seem to have forgotten that prosperity is created by individual freedom and creativity and not government programs."
Quote Of The Day
"While the nation is still on the subject of socialism, we ought to talk about public schooling. With the possible exception of the military, it's the best example of a socialist institution one could ever find. Like the military, government schooling operates in a top-down, command-and-control manner - a perfect model of socialistic central planning. Whether the control comes from the state or local government, through a department of education or a school board, the principle is the same: A group of appointed or elected government officials decides what is to be taught to students. In socialist countries like Cuba, we call that process indoctrination. Public schools are financed through coercion and get their customers through compulsory attendance laws. Even people who do not have children are taxed to subsidize this government enterprise. The alternative is not charter schools, a voucher system, or even a system of government-licensed private schools or government-supervised homeschooling that still leaves government in charge of education. The genuine alternative is an educational system that is entirely free of governmental involvement - a total separation of school and state." — Jacob Hornberger, libertarian president of the The Future Of Freedom Foundation, on the United States of America's educational system
CYNTHIA TUCKER COMMENTARY: In Powell And Rice, Bush Broke Important Ground
The liberal editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution gives credit to Dubya for helping to pave the way for President-Elect Obama: "The president-elect’s popularity stands in stark contrast to that of the man he is replacing. President Bush’s approval rating is stalled in the low 20s — and deservedly so. But Bush did at least one thing right in an eight-year tenure characterized by incompetence and hyper-partisanship: He appointed black Americans to the post of secretary of state, the highest position of authority blacks had held before Obama’s election. Many pundits have already noted that Bush’s failures helped to create a climate in which Obama could win. So did Bush’s singular achievement — the elevation of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. It ought to be noted that it was a Republican, not a Democrat, who broke the barrier that had limited black appointees to the usual Cabinet positions dealing with housing and health."
She continues her commentary about President George W. Bush's appointments: "Whatever their political failures, Powell and Rice are both bright, hardworking and honorable individuals. Their presence on the national stage, in positions that had nothing to do with affirmative action or 'urban affairs,' helped white Americans get used to seeing black Americans in positions of great prestige. A cottage industry is already budding of journalists, historians and social scientists attempting to explain the remarkable cultural changes that allowed election of the first black president a mere 44 years after passage of the Voting Rights Act. Books will be written, seminars held and tenure granted around that one subject. Social scientists would no doubt point to popular culture as one catalyst for this amazing transformation. Hollywood is a social arbiter, influencing cultural standards as it chooses characters for movies and TV shows. Bill Cosby and 'The Cosby Show' gave white America an image of a high-achieving upper-middle-class family. Morgan Freeman played an American president when the world nearly ended in 'Deep Impact,' released in 1998; Dennis Haysbert, another black actor, was president when '24' launched in 2001. Meanwhile, America’s young adults have grown up in a world of diversity, where 'Big Brother' has an integrated cast and hip-hop is as popular with white kids as with black ones. Because of what they’ve seen growing up, younger Americans are less likely to be bound by rigid racial traditions. For older Americans, however, Powell and Rice were pivotal. Because he had more credibility than anyone else in the Bush administration, it was Powell who was chosen to help lead the nation to war by delivering an unfortunate speech at the United Nations in 2003. Rice broke ground as well as Bush’s national security adviser in his first term."
And more: "Racism is still not dead, nor is the nation colorblind, but a black person has been elected president. And Bush’s promotion of Rice and Powell helped pave the way and should be acknowledged."
My response: Ms. Rice wasn't the first black person to serve as national security adviser, so she broke no racial ground (however, Ms. Rice was the first female to hold the position). Mr. Powell served as national security adviser during the second term of President Ronald Reagan, who was another Republican to appoint a black person to an out-of-the-box position.
