11/8 News

U.S. 2010 Elections: Democratic Fears, Republican Hopes

It was just three years ago that the GOP lost the House and Senate as well as governors' races in a cross-country Democratic wave. Now, with most states under their control and comfortable majorities in Congress, Democrats must protect far more seats than Republicans: 19 governors' mansions, 17 Senate seats and as many as 60 House districts in moderate-to-conservative regions and swing-voting areas (hat tip: Black & Right). At this point, Democrats must do it in a more difficult political environment than in 2006 and 2008.

Fear about the economy and anger at incumbents are coursing through the country, while independents wary of government expansion and federal spending under the president that they helped elect are shifting toward Republicans. Democrats will be forced to explain votes and positions on the expensive economic stimulus plan, climate change legislation and the health care overhaul. Although Democrats have a personally popular president on their side, there are limits to President Obama's clout; Democratic gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey and Virginia lost last week even though he campaigned for them. Republicans hope to pick up seats by harnessing the sour public mood and voter wariness over the president's policies.

Eastern Europe: Communist Consumer Goods Make Comeback

Once the butt of jokes the world over, communist-era East European goods from sweets, to rustic washing machines and clunky cars are all the rage again. As the world prepares to mark the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, souvenirs such as portraits of Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu are now avidly sought at markets. In Belgrade, cafes are named after Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito or even the Soviet KGB secret police. Two decades on, many who then welcomed change now want to turn the clock back by eating Szerencsi chocolate, driving Trabant two-stroke cars or using Frania washing machines to wash carrots.

For older people there is the nostalgia of the bad old days. Among younger people there is a curiosity to find out how their parents lived. Many food brands have made a comeback on supermarket shelves using the same packaging that made them look so old fashioned and unwanted between 1945 and 1990. Soviet bloc machinery had a reputation worse than the food, but it is also kept alive by die-hard fans, even making a profit in some cases. The old joke ran that the best way to increase the value of a Skoda, made in the old Czechoslovakia, was to fill up the petrol tank. Now it is thriving as part of the Volkswagen empire.

Colonial Williamsburg Brings Realities Of Slavery To Life

As Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia reaches out to families with a growing array of interactive programming throughout the year, there are many more opportunities for visitors to learn and experience African-American history. You might run into an “enslaved person” on the street running errands and hear him explain why he doesn’t understand how slaveowners could be so passionate about freedom from England but not about freedom for blacks. African-American interpreters explain “in their own words” what life was like here for their families three centuries ago. There are also evening programs that include stories and music passed down through the generations. There is even a program that explores the challenges of slave marriages. What if you or your spouse were sold separately?

A short walk from urban Williamsburg, there’s Great Hopes Plantation, which families the opportunity to explore what life was like for families living as most Virginians did – on farms. Here kids can “try on” life as an enslaved child or a farm child, weeding the garden, carting water, dipping candles or stirring a pot in the kitchen. Recently, 7,000 homeschoolers joined such activities during a special two-week program.

Government-Run Health Care Reform: Bookerista Views

The U.S. House of Representatives last night narrowly passed the health care bill by a vote of 220-215. It's unclear when the U.S. Senate will vote on a health care bill. If the Senate passes its bill, the House and Senate bills would have to be reconciled into one document and voted on again before President Barack Obama could sign it into law. Bookeristas weigh in on the bill's passage in the U.S. House of Representatives:

Michael Steele: "Pelosi Health Care Bill Passage"

The moderate-conservative chairman of the Republican National Committee, in a statement emailed to Booker Rising: "[Last night] with help from their liberal House allies, President Obama and [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi finally got what they have been creating behind closed doors these past months – a government-run health care experiment that will increase families’ health care costs, increase the deficit, increase taxes on small businesses and the middle class, and cut Medicare. As the elections in Virginia and New Jersey clearly showed, the American people oppose bigger government, more federal spending, and higher taxes. Broad, bipartisan opposition to this bill was on full display [yesterday] evening, and the Democrats who ultimately voted for Nancy Pelosi’s liberal health care plan will have to answer to their constituents."

He continues his commentary: “Nancy Pelosi and her liberal lieutenants made a lot of promises [last night] to get the votes they desperately needed. Make no mistake – the Democrat leadership’s assurances were based on political expediency, not principle. Anyone receiving a promise from Pelosi is guaranteed to be disappointed in the end when their votes are no longer needed. Americans want a common-sense bipartisan approach to health care reform, not President Obama’s and Nancy Pelosi’s costly, 1,990-page government-run experiment on our nation’s health care system. The House Republican solution to health care reform is the right direction for America, but Nancy Pelosi had no interest in bipartisanship, choosing instead to force her costly government-run experiment on the American people.”

Mr. Grey Ghost: "House Of Representatives Approves Health Care Reform Measure"

The conservative Democratic blogger in New York: "Sometimes I wonder if all this hoopla over healthcare reform is about benefiting Americans or just stamping Obama's legacy. From what I've read many of Barry supporters on the Left have no clue what's in either the House or Senate version of the bill (here's a good start for those not in the know), which further makes one wonder just how much of an 'urgent' need healthcare reform is in this day and age. And while I'm glad conservative Democrats argued for and got an anti-abortion amendment added to the House bill, frankly, I still don't see the urgency here. Regardless, no way Harry Reid has enough votes in the Senate to get this 'reform' on Barry's desk to sign anytime soon anyway."

Michelle D. Bernard: "Women Deserve Better Than U.S.-Run Health Care"

Asserts the conservative head of the Independent Women's Forum: "Democrats want to nationalize America’s health care system. The chief victims of such a policy would be women. Women, who make most health care decisions for their families, have the most at stake in preserving high-quality medical treatment centered on patient choice. U.S. health care is expensive and not everyone has health insurance. But America provides the best medical treatment in the world, offers patients the most options and generates the most advanced pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and health care treatments. Preserving these strengths is particularly important for women, who account for two-thirds of the dollars spent on health care and take more prescription drugs than men. The Democratic Congress would have us believe that a government takeover would improve the lot of women. Yet government-run health care routinely degrades quality and limits choice."

More: "Thus, government should reduce artificial roadblocks to a more competitive and efficient private health care system. Members of Congress who want to keep their jobs after next year’s midterm elections should take note: Market-based reforms — not big government — would yield both better medical care and more votes from women in the next election."

Tyrone: "Pelosi's Socialist Health Care Bill Passed The House"

The conservative Republican blogger in Maryland writes: "Nancy Pelosi 'likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later'. Here's a funny fact about the liberals' most celebrated and worshiped social dependency programs. Those programs are all BROKE and have yet to work! Their programs are adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt and hurting America, yet these mental clowns actually believe that these programs are 'good for America'. I truly despise Nancy Pelosi. If the 48% of Americans that didn't vote for Obama wouldn't have to suffer the consequences of this terrible bill, I would say let the 52% suffer from their own ignorance."

He continues his commentary: "Unfortunately, that isn't going to be the case. If this bill isn't stopped in the Senate, people who exercise common sense are going to have to suffer right along side the clueless slap happy liberal drones. Anybody with a brain knows that the public option is nothing more then a poison pill to kill off private insurers thus leaving the government as the sole provider once the dust settles. In the House bill that nobody read 'it would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it'. In other words, the government will take away a person's freedom of choice and demand they obey what they say or else. Here's another scary provision of the bill the nobody read before it was voted on, 'Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government's mandates'. This is how the government is going to snuff out private insurers and become the only game in town."

Bob Parks: "The 'Or Else...' Party"

The conservative Republican blogger in Virginia writes: "It was almost comical, watching the Democrats argue against the Stupak Amendment, blasting the notion that women would lose their right to choose if taxpayers didn’t pick up the tab on abortions. For decades, the Democrats tried to come off as the party of 'choice', but that was all dashed to pieces with the Saturday night House passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962). I say 'dashed to pieces' because there is very little in the whole concept of government-run anything that involves choice. This is a bill that we will be forced to pay for now and won’t kick in until 2013, the year after the Obama Administration is reelected so the president won’t have to explain its shortcomings."

He continues his commentary: "This is a bill that will only be successful if it has no private sector competition, so it has mechanisms in place to squash competition to the point where people will have to get on the 'public option'. This is a bill that punishes citizens who choose not to enroll on the government plan, yet buys the votes of the youth who’ll get the privilege of living off their parents’ plan until their 27th birthday. While the Republicans were prodded into coming up with a ramped-down version of universal health care, yet were still called 'The Party of No', this is a bill that forces people to be insured (eventually by the government) and failure to do so can result in fines and/or imprisonment. In other words, we know better so do as we say 'or else'."

Torrey Spears: "Theatre Of The Absurd"

The conservative Republican blogger in Florida opines: "Of course, this Congress and this President know nothing about fiscal responsibility, and are perpetrating the most aggressive power grab possibly in the history of American politics, and so while it's disappointing this bill passed the House, it's not a surprise. Still, House Minority leader John Boehner is of the opinion that the abortion amendment that was so vital to getting the Blue Dogs on board will probably be nixed in the final bill that makes it to the President's desk, which I tend to agree with him seeing is [sic] that Pelosi and the far left are slaves to their ideology and their far left contingency [sic]...but the question now arrives - will the President, who in his 'major speech on healthcare' earlier this year, vowed to the American people that his healthcare reform bill would *NOT* provide funding for abortions, sign this bill into law if it indeed provides federal funding for abortions?"

He continues: "Now the focus switches to the Senate, where Harry Reid (who according to the latest poll in Nevada - a broken bottle is polling better than the Senator) will have a much more difficult time getting ReidCare through the Senate. America - you still have a chance to save this nation from what would amount to the largest tax increase in the history of the nation - one that will undoubtedly destroy our economy, will ruin the greatest quality of health care in the country, and allow the Federal Goverment an unprecedented intrusion into the personal lives of every American. Healthcare reform is essential... but not like this. Not like this."

Franklin Cudjoe: "The Significance Of The Berlin Wall's Fall To Africa's Future"

The libertarian head of IMANI: Center for Policy and Education (Ghana) discusses how Africans can draw inspiration from the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall's fall in fighting political tyranny and lack of economic freedom:

Torrey Spears: "Theatre Of The Absurd"

The conservative Republican blogger in Florida writes about the recent jihad rampage at Fort Hood army base in central Texas, which killed 13 people and wounded 30 people: "But I want to speak to what's missing in this national discussion. When Timothy McVeigh perpetrated the cowardly act of destruction in Oklahoma City some decade ago, we were not afraid to call it what it was - a case of domestic terrorism. Now, in 2009, because the perp's name is Nidal Hassan, the Leftstream have been hesitant to call this a domestic act of terrorism. Why? Is it because the Obama Homeland Security has stricken the word terrorist from our lexicon? Is it because right now there are tens of thousands of our nation's finest in Afghanistan sitting in limbo waiting for our Commander in Chief to be the Commander in Chief? Is it because Nidal Hassan's apparently radical Islamic ideology reminds Americans of the worldwide threat we're facing?"

He continues his commentary: "Indeed, I believe the media would like nothing more than to hope that you forget that terrorism exists in this world, both abroad and domestic, and Hassan's heinous act could strengthen our resolve to eradicate this evil that exists. They've painted Hassan as a war distressed military man who just snapped. The papers and magazines want to suggest this is just another case of war-fatigue and overburdened soldiers. Yet the narrative that's being painted about Hassan was that he was an angry vitriolic Muslim who believed what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is a war against Islam (which it is not), and that his statement against that war would be to deliberately take innocent life while exclaiming 'God is Great!' in Arabic."

More commentary from Mr. Spears: "This is the sick, demented, fanaticism we are dealing with on a global scale, and all the more reason the President needs to do the right thing by the peace loving citizens of the world and act on the War in Afghanistan, and stop all this politically correct foolishness and face this threat head on. You can explain away the motivation, reason, method all you want- but this is a domestic act of terrorism, no doubt about it, and this isn't a war the American people are prepared to lose."

Clarence Page: "Dems Find Hope Amid GOP Chaos"

The moderate-liberal columnist writes about Democratic reaction to the results of last week's special elections: "Democrats took it on the chin in this year's off-off-year gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey. Since those are two states that President Barack Obama won last year, vulnerable Democratic lawmakers in next year's elections are feeling as nervous as Glenn Beck at an ACORN convention. But the Dems can find a silver lining in the high-profile Democratic victory in a traditionally Republican upstate New York district. The lesson in that contest: National Republican leaders are taking the title for infighting away from the traditionally fractious national Democrats."

Mr. Page continues his commentary: "The possibility that the 2009 contests are a preview of bigger Democratic losses in next year's midterm elections puts a chill up the spines of vulnerable Democrats at a bad time. Party leaders need all the spine they can muster to pass a strong health care overhaul bill this year. With Deeds' demise in mind, Democrats would do well to remember what the late Texas-based columnist Molly Ivins used to say: 'Dance with the one that brung you.' The Democratic base expects to see a meaningful health care overhaul, and they'll be even more turned off next year if they don't get it. With that in mind, Democrats can find some hope in Republican disarray, as evidenced by Democrat Bill Owens' victory in New York's 23rd Congressional District. Party leaders anointed State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava to fill Rep. John McHugh's seat after he was appointed secretary of the Army. But she wasn't conservative enough for purists like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity and the Club for Growth. They backed Doug Hoffman, a self-described fan of anti-tax tea party protests and Fox News' excitable Beck."

More: "When Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a 2012 GOP presidential hopeful, endorsed Hoffman, the race became a test of clout for the talk-show-driven, populist-conservative movement born out of this year's anti-tax, anti-Obama 'Tea Party' movement and town hall protests. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich warned against dividing the party and handing Speaker Nancy Pelosi another Democratic vote in the House. He was jeered by the Palin populists for that, but Newt turned out to be right. I don't know if Obama had such a fight in mind when he appointed McHugh, but if I were him I would claim I did. Thanks to the tea party populists, the move bore more sweet fruit than anything Democrats had any right to expect."

Politik Ditto: "Black Liberals Finally Waking Up To Obama's White, Liberal Agenda"

The conservative Democratic blog in New York responds to yesterday's protests by hundreds of black leftists in front of the White House to protest President Obama's policies. The protesters argued that the president is "white power in blackface", said he was turning a cold shoulder to the plight of blacks, and demanded that the U.S. change policy in various countries: "Wow! Who knew? Black lefties finally waking up to the fact that Barack Obama isn't as 'Black' or concerned about Black people as they liked to think. They should've added hasn't addressed Black-on-Black crime, white gays exploiting the civil rights movement, Black joblessness (which has increased more than the national average since Barry took office), poverty, teenage pregnancy, drugs & crime in the Black community to the list. Either way took 'em long enough to wake up to what us Black conservatives have known all along."

Government-Run Health Care Reform: Democratic Pro & Con

Kristen Day: "Pro-Life Democrats Praise House For Passage Of Health Care Reform"

The head of Democrats for Life of America, in a statement emailed to Booker Rising: "The House of Representatives answered the call of history [last night] when they passed health care reform. While it would be tempting to call this a Democratic win, the truth is the American people are the winners of this hard fought victory. That's why Democrats For Life of America applauds Speaker Nancy Pelosi for agreeing to clear the way for the passage of this historic legislation. But we would be remiss if we didn't thank Congressmen Bart Stupak, Brad Ellsworth and other Members for their heroic efforts to fight for the amendment that removed taxpayer-funded abortions from the final bill. Democrats proved [last night] that we are a big tent party that can put our differences aside to help the American people. Republicans can't make that claim. That's why we stand ready to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our Democratic majority to expand the big tent so that we can fulfill President Obama's challenge to make America a place where anything is possible. Moving forward, we encourage the Senate to see how quickly they can pass their version of the Public Option when we put health care reform before ideological fights like abortion. We stand willing to work side-by-side with the Senate leadership to craft and promote the bill if taxpayer-funded abortions is removed from their bill."

Kaligula: "House Passes Health Care Bill"

The libertarian Democratic blogger opines: "Near the stroke of midnight on a Saturday night, the house passed H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act by a final tally of 220 to 215. The Stupak Amendment, which would prohibit the use of any federal funding of abortion under the 'public option' and subsidies to purchase a health insurance policy that covers abortion, also passed. Too bad no one was awake to experience this 'great moment in history.' Of course, from my perspective, I only reminded of Anthony De Jasay's Against Politics."

More: "While the US health care system is fundamentally flawed, it is precisely flawed because there is such a thing a 'US health Care system' to begin with. Implementing central planning boards, mandates, and public insurance as a "solution" to the current government-sponsored/enforced system isn't going to address the real issue, which is 'affordability of health insurance or health care.' The real title of this health Care bill should have been, 'Statistically Increasing the Universality of Health Insurance Coverage at the Expense of Increasing Prices for Everyone.' This was the exact outcome of MittCare, and will be the exact same outcome of this bill, which is largely just MittCare redux. The idea that Nancy Pelosi's political interest group wheeling and dealing to forge a 2000 page central planning/public choice masterpiece is going to overcome bedrock libertarian principles such as the 'Knowledge Problem' is an obscene joke. Frankly, watching progressives 'cave in' on the Stupak Amendment [preventing taxpayer-funded abortions] only portends what is to come if this thing actually becomes law and passes a challenge to the Supreme court. Washington isn't Boston. Be careful what you wish for..."

Job Creation: Kia Motors In Georgia Vs. The Government

Constructive Feedback discusses a new South Korean automobile plant that is opening up in majority-black West Point, Ga. The conservative blogger in Atlanta metro, Ga. writes: "AJC: Kia plan revitalizes town - Photos This month the new Kia Motors plant opens in West Point, Georgia. At a time when Greater Detroit and Ohio sees their auto manufacturing capacity in the toilet - the 'South is rising again!!'. This Kia plant is added to the Hyund[ai] plant, the Boeing plant and the Volkswagen plant that have been recently been announced or built in the Southeast. With all of the rhetorical bigotry against the South, the truth is that this region of the nation is a favorable region economically for African-Americans who are prepared to take advantage of the opportunities that are being developed and/or to create opportunity via the abundant raw materials that are present. AJC: Alabama credits 3,600 jobs to Kia's Geor[g]ia plant"


The water tower near the sprawling Kia plant in West Point.


A sign in front of a West Point home expresses gratitude for the Kia plant coming to town.


Part of the sprawling Kia plant in West Point. The South Korean car maker has an investment of $1 billion in its new venture, while the state and local entities have invested some $400 million.


April Ross hopes to open Pearl's Coffee Shop in downtown West Point by the end of December. She's shown here in the space, which is in the final stages of construction. She's happy about the opportunity that Kia is bringing West Point.

Bookeristas In The News

France: Rama Yade Supported By More Than 2/3 Of Public

More than 2/3 of French don't want Rama Yade, the outspoken Secretary of State for Sports and moderate-conservative, to be forced to resign even though some of her positions are at odds with the ruling center-right government (article in French). The national poll showed Ms. Yade as the only minister to receive more than 50% approval. The poll shows that 67% want the former human rights minister to stay right where she is, 22% want her to resign, and 11% were undecided.

Ms. Yade's support goes across the ideological spectrum, with 61% of self-identified center-rightists not wanting her to leave government (29% support her resignation). Meanwhile, 73% of self-identified center-leftists oppose her leaving government (20% support her resignation). "Rama Yade creates a rare unanimous vote, whatever the category of people", said BVA, who conducted the poll for Canal+ television.

Since becoming a minister in 2007, Ms. Yade has generated controversy for speaking out against France's embrace of African dictators, refusing to head the center-right UMP's list for the European Parliament last year (which many French politicos consider political Siberia), a recent nepotism scandal involving President Sarkozy's son, and recently dissenting from her party on the Parliament floor in opposing overturning tax cuts for French athletes. One UMP minister told her to "shut her mouth or quit", and Prime Minister Fallon recently said her days were numbered. Meanwhile, President Sarkozy is punishing her outspokenness for the nepotism scandal by demanding that she run for office in Val d'Oise (a poor, immigrant area where she has no ties) in March 2010 regional elections instead of in Hauts-de-Seine (her affluent home district where she grew up, where she is already an elected official and wishes to use the regional elections as a springboard to Parliament; this district is where many French politicians - including President Sarkozy - rise in French politics and where he wants his son to rise). Ms. Yade has adamantly objected to the Val-d'Oise placement, calling it "ethnic parachuting".

Ghana: Danquah Institute Objects To Impersonation

Danquah Institute has condemned what it calls misguided political lies by some individuals intended to dent the image of the institute. The Accra-based think tank said in a statement: “Information reaching our office suggests that some [New Patriotic Party] delegates and executives involved in the ongoing internal party constituency elections in the western region and elsewhere have been receiving calls and messages from unknown persons with hidden or private phone numbers claiming to be calling from the Danquah Institute. The messages of these unknown callers suggest that the institute views the current party executives as responsible for the party’s failure to retain power in the 2008 elections [where the NPP lost by less than 1% of the vote to the center-left National Democratic Congress] and hence is calling on delegates to ensure that all such current executives of the party should be voted out.”

Nana Attobrah Quaicoe, the head of research at the Danquah Institute, states that "while the institute as a liberal conservative think tank shares common philosophies and ideologies with the NPP, it is certainly not an organ, arm, department or wing of the NPP or any party, neither is it involved in the day to day running of the party’s activities including the ongoing elections. It is therefore preposterous and diabolical for any group or person to want to bring the institute into disrepute with such reckless suggestions. As our philosophy, the institute believes in the freedom of choice, association and the expression of such views including a free and fair casting of ballots. We therefore dissociate ourselves from such messages and phone calls.”

Nyamko Sabuni: A Top Swedish Power Broker

Fokus magazine (Sweden) has for the third consecutive year ranked Sweden's 100 most powerful people. There are 72 men and only 28 women on the list, to be compared with ten female ministers in a cabinet of 22, or the 47% female representation in the Swedish parliament. Nyamko Sabuni, the Minister for Integration and Gender Equality and member of the center-right Liberal Peoples Party (think classically liberal; not how Americans define liberalism) ranks #13 on the list. Born in Burundi, Minister Sabuni oversees consumer affairs, democracy issues, gender equality, human rights, integration issues regarding immigrants, metropolitan affairs, minority issues, non-profits and youth policy.

Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, who leads the center-right Moderate Party and who has distant African-American ancestry, tops the power list.

11/7 News

Box Office: “Precious” Soars On Opening Night; Averages $32K



Anyone skeptical of the box office power of Lee Daniels’ “Precious: Based on the novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” should brace themselves. Last night, on 18 theaters in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Atlanta, the film took in $585,000, finding a first day average of $32,500. The film sold out most of its shows. Even if there is a massive drop off on Saturday, “Precious” is en route to grossing at least $1 million in its first weekend out, and could see itself averaging anywhere from $65,000 to $85,000. For a film on 18 screens, that would be a truly stunning number, placing it within the top 25 per-theater-averages of all time.

Do You Know A Female College Student Anywhere In The World Who Could Use $5,000?

The Independent Women's Forum's R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies announces its fifth annual college essay contest. Women currently enrolled in any four-year college or university worldwide can enter this competition. Deadline is December 1, 2009. This year, students are asked to answer this question in 750 words or less: Many campus coffee shops boast that they "proudly serve fair trade coffee," but does the fair trade movement actually make a difference in the lives of the poor and disadvantaged? Is free trade also fair trade?

IWF, which is a conservative group, is giving out 13 cash prizes, with the first-place winner getting $5,000. For the 2009-2010 application visit the IWF's website. For more information or questions about this contest email essaycontest@iwf.org.

Gay-Marriage Fight Heads To New Jersey

The battle over gay rights will move to New Jersey, after Tuesday's rejection of gay marriage by Maine voters. The Democrat-controlled legislature in New Jersey, which recognizes same-sex couples in civil unions, is under pressure to pass a bill authorizing gay marriage before Gov. Jon Corzine ends his term in mid-January. Mr. Corzine, a Democrat unseated in Tuesday's election, said he would sign such a bill. His successor, Republican Chris Christie, opposes same-sex marriages. "New Jersey is at the very top of our list, and it's going to happen in the next few weeks if it happens at all," said Maggie Gallagher, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriages. "They're doing it in a lame duck, because it's as far away from an election as possible." Gay-marriage advocates have resisted "civil union" licenses, saying the separate term is demeaning and the status isn't honored by many employers.

Black Leftist Protesters: "Obama Is White Power In Blackface"

Decrying U.S. President Barack Obama as "white power in blackface," hundreds of leftist African-Americans marched on the White House today to protest policies of America's first black president, and demand that he bring U.S. troops home (hat tip: Robert Oliver). More than 200 people gathered for the first public demonstration by African Americans against the Obama administration since his historic inauguration in January, and slammed the president for continuing what they described as Washington, D.C's "imperialist" agenda around the world.

"We recognize that Barack Hussein Obama is white power in blackface," civil rights activist Omali Yeshitela, chairman of the Black is Back coalition which arranged the protest, called into a megaphone as the group marched outside the mansion's gates. "He is a tool of our imperialist enemies and we demand our freedom. And we demand that Obama withdraw all the troops from Afghanistan right now." Protesters also called for President Obama to order troops out of Iraq and to scrap Africom, the controversial year-old United States Africa Command, and demanded "hands off" Venezuela and ends to the Cuba embargo and the Zimbabwe blockade.

Charles Baron, a New York city councilman and former member of the Black Panthers, attacked the president for turning a cold shoulder to the plight of African-Americans. "We're not satisfied with him, and...this hope and change rap has not been a reality for black people," Mr. Baron said. "We are glad that Barack Obama broke up the white male monopoly on the White House, but we were not looking for a change in the occupant of the White House from white to black, we were looking for change in foreign policies and domestic policies," he added. "To have a black person exploiting me just like a white person, that's no easier pain."

The group also was calling for the release of former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted in 1982 of killing a white police officer and sentenced to death. The US Supreme Court upheld Abu-Jamal's conviction in April and rejected his bid for a new trial.

DENNIS SANDERS COMMENTARY: What Does The Lord Require Of Republicans?

Asks the moderate Republican blogger in Minnesota: "For some of you who don’t know it, I am an ordained minister, and I am the Associate Pastor of a congregation in Minneapolis focusing on mission and outreach. That’s a churchy way of saying I am focused on getting the church involved in projects that help those in need. Helping those in need has been a part of life since I was young. It stems from my Christian faith which I learned calls on us to help those in need. Somewhere along the way, I also became interested in conservatism and the GOP. Now on the surface, many wonder how I can be both a Republican and someone who is interested in social justice. But I don’t think that these two values have to be opposed to each other. It was Thomas Dewey who believed in a government that helped the less fortunate and is also efficient...These days, there is a lot of religiosity that comes from Republicans, but when it comes to caring for our fellow sisters and brothers there is very little. E.D. Kain makes the case that many in the base of the GOP are not acting that 'Christian':

Mr. Sanders continues his commentary about religion and the GOP: "Anyone who doesn’t know about ED Kain, should know that he tends to lean center-right. He is not some starry-eyed liberal, but is concerned about how we treat those who are less well off. That has also been my concern as well. But when it comes to the GOP and religion, there seems to be an emphasis only on saving fetuses and preventing gay people from marrying. But Christian faith talks a lot about caring for our neighbor. That doesn’t mean that God endorses large government programs like single payer health care, but I also don’t think God is asking us to ignore those who have not health care, or live in substandard housing or go to horrible schools. Of course, there have been people within the GOP who have cared about the poor and have sought to use conservative ideas to achieve liberal ends. The late Jack Kemp was a tireless promoter for helping poor blacks in the inner city make it out of poverty by using free market principles. When George Bush campaigned for President in 2000, he supported the idea of 'compassionate conservatism', and spoke of finding ways for government to work to achieve social justice. Writing for the new conservative jou[rn]al National Affairs, Steven Teles writes about the concept of compassionate conservativism and why it has not been embraced by the GOP...."

More: "I do think there is hope for the GOP to really take compassionate conservatism on in the same way that the Conservatives in the UK have. But I also think it is an uphill climb. The party is captured by the Teabaggers and the Religious [R]ight which as Teles notes sees compassion as a private virture and not a political philosphy. I also think it will have to take a movement of Republicans, from black pastors to white policy wonks to young evangelicals to come together as a coalition to frame a new GOP that can fashion something like the Shoestring Manifesto that has come to fore in the United Kingdom among Conservatives or Christian Democracy, which is found in Germany, the Nordic Countries and Latin America. What does the Lord require of Republicans? We know the answer: but we Republicans just have to give a damn."

ELLIS WASHINGTON COMMENTARY: Why Obama Can't Go To Berlin

The political science professor and conservative Republican opines about why U.S. President Barack Obama turned down German Chancellor Angela Merkel's personal invitation to attend the 20th anniversary celebration of the Berlin Wall's fall: "Three American statesmen made trips to deliver historical speeches in Berlin: 1) JFK's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' [I am a Berliner] speech in 1963, 2) Ronald Reagan's 'Tear down this wall!' speech in 1987, and 3) Barack Obama's 2009 non-speech speech which in a revelatory article by National Review's Rich Lowry could be titled, 'Ich bin beschäftigt' – i.e., I'm busy. Although Barack Obama, after only one year in office, has visited more countries than any other U.S. president in history, he does not have time to accept German Chancellor Angela Merkel's invitation to speak in Berlin next week in commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which Nikita Khrushchev built in 1961 to keep East German citizens separate from the West and mired in the hopeless abyss of communism."

He continues his commentary: "Why can't Obama go to Berlin? President Obama is Machiavellian to the core, and like Machiavelli, who said in his infamous book 'The Prince' (1513) the end justifies the means, likewise Obama will do nothing that won't further his political agenda to 'remake America' in his own Marxist image. Going to Berlin won't deify Obama, it will reveal him. Furthermore, he knows that whatever words he would say in Berlin would pale in comparison to the words JFK said in Berlin in June 1963 and especially Ronald Reagan's prophetic rhetoric uttered before the Brandenburg Gate on June 12, 1987 – 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!' – just two years before the fall of the evil Soviet Empire. Moreover, the dirty little secret about the Democratic Party, Barack Obama and his fascist minions in the White House is that they were on the wrong side of history. Liberals did not cheer when the Berlin Wall fell. Obama and his socialist colleagues in the academy, in the media, in Hollywood did not have a party of jubilee as the people did in East Berlin, in Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Lithuania, Georgia, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia and in numerous other former Soviet-bloc countries. Reagan's words, 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!' literally freed hundreds of millions of people from the bondage of communist dictatorships all over the world."

More: "On Nov. 9, 1989, the torch of liberty was lit for more than a billion people (one-third of the world's population) when they started their path toward freedom with the fall of the Berlin Wall; a seemingly impregnable symbol of imprisonment that Khrushchev erected in 1961 to stop the exodus of East German citizens fleeing the slavery of communism for the freedom and liberty of democracy in West Germany. Twenty years later, President Obama, as the anti-Reagan, is trying to rebuild the Berlin Wall brick by brick with fascist policies designed to undermine freedom of all Americas and the liberties of those people around the world yearning for a republic founded on the rule of law. Obama wants to place those same shackles Stalin put on the Soviet-bloc countries on America with his socialist health-care bill, which, if passed, would place government in our lives from cradle to grave. Furthermore, if Obama signs the upcoming Copenhagen climate-change treaty at the United Nations conference Dec. 7-18, he will, with the stroke of a pen, concurrently destroy America's Constitution and make the U.S. a servile client state of the United Nations into perpetuity. May God forbid."

Ft. Hood Shooting: Bookerista Perspectives

Namaste: "Massacre At Fort Hood"

The conservative blogger opines: "Once again a terrorist has attacked us on our very own soil. Malik Nadal Hasan posed for years as a Major in the United States Army serving as a psychiatrist. That's right. That's my version of these events. Hasan opened fire, murdering 13 American citizens at Fort Hood Army post in Texas on Thursday. Hasan was not suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as the MSM Obamanut minions would have you believe. Hasan is a murderer who reportedly screamed, 'Allahu Akbar!' as he shot and killed our military men and women. And then, as if this tragedy weren't enough President Barack Hussein Obama gave his cold, stupid, insensitive remarks. My prayers are with the victims, their families, friends and colleagues. May God bless and guide you through this your time of grief. Thank you victims, for your service to our country."

DarkStar: "P.C., Part 2"

The moderate Republican blogger in Maryland opines: "A man in the military says he is opposed to a certain military action and it is known to his upper command. What upper command would send the man to serve duty in the action to which he is opposed? That is the situation with the Ft. Hood terrorist. How does sending a man to duty in an area to which he is opposed, a 'P.C.' action? Some media have been doing stories of the military sending people back into service although the people claim or have documented they are suffering from PTSD. If that history with the military didn't exist, I would more strongly consider the 'P.C.' angle of this, but since the military has been sending people off to fight who should not fight, the 'P.C.' angle is discounted, to me. YMMV. Please pray for the families of the victims of terrorism."

Alan Keyes: "Why Obama's Ft. Hood Reaction Seems So Strange"

The conservative activist and America's Independent Party member opines: "There are times when even Obama's critics seem to have difficulty putting into words their reaction to his strange behavior. I think that's because they refuse to consider the simple premise that makes sense of it all: He feels no love for the USA. He seems in fact to feel himself to be no part of this country. The occupant of the office he lays claim to is supposed to represent the body politic. People expect that his reactions will reflect its joys and pains i.e., the joys and pains of the American people as a whole. They expected him to react to the shocking events at Ft. Hood the way a person reacts to a grievous and unexpected wound to his body. Even a minor blow (like stubbing his toe) gets a pained reaction from the whole body. But the Ft. Hood attack is like a razor sharp knife that slips from its proper use to cut off a finger. It can only seem like a minor wound to someone whose gut isn't writhing with pain."

He continues his commentary: "It was obvious to all that Obama's gut wasn't writhing. He spoke like a spectator taking notice of a scuffle on the sidelines. 'We shouldn't react until we know all the facts,' he says, as if the gut waits for a doctor's report rather than twisting with pain as a part of the body falls away. With due regard to Bill Clinton, the simple fact is this. Obama doesn't feel our pain. To be sure, once it becomes clear that appearing to do so will serve his agenda of power, he will study the part and summon the right appearance when the script calls for it. But only fools will forget that this aspect of the role doesn't come naturally for him. His instinct isn't to feel for the country. It is to protect our assailants from any overreaction by Americans. He apparently assumes that we are prone to spiteful nastiness. Nothing about this nation's reaction after the gut wrenching events of 9-11 justifies his fearful and insulting instincts. In many other countries (including the Islamic nations whose praises he sings so readily) there would have been violent street riots that claimed the lives of scores of innocent people, victimized because they professed the same religion as the terrorist assailants. In America we cried out in grief and anger, but we acted out first of all by falling to our knees in prayer to Almighty God. We rose again to seek justice, but even then we didn't lash out in prejudiced anger. We aimed our first blows at the beast that struck us, not even at others who, like some of the Palestinians, danced in their streets for joy as we mourned our dead."

Duane Brayboy: "Apologists And Loons"

The conservative blogger in Atlanta metro, Ga., opines: "I knew it would not take long for folks to rush to the role of school marm and tell fellow Americans to “shush” any and all criticism about Muslims for the terrible shooting that took place at Ft. Hood. That alone is sickening to me. The AP [Associated Press] beats the drum....Is a practicing Muslim…check! Did not like the fact that he would be going to war against Muslims…check! The base General said that he shouted 'Allahu Akbar!' before shooting…check! But forget all of that. Let’s not rush to any conclusions. Capeesh! Secondly, you notice how the fear of a backlash is always floated out there, but nothing ever happens?"

Ripclawe: "Media Spinning Nidal Malik Hasan As PTSD Is Shameful"

Asserts the GOP conservative in Florida: "Newsweek and Time Magazine is leading the charge to let Hasan off the hook expanding the definition of post traumatic stress disorder beyond its breaking point. It is insulting to veterans coming back from the war who do suffer from it....The media is burying itself trying not to talk about radical [I]slamists and all this other talk to shy away from it is gatekeeper journalism because they think they would inflame the 'uneducated masses.' The other angle that is legit is why did the [m]ilitary keep this guy and promote him thru the ranks when it was obvious some major red flags kept popping up?"

He continues his commentary, zeroing in on a New York Times story: "The next angles to this terrorist act is Hasan was a victim and America needs to look at its wars more closely. This would be the same sort of angle pushed a couple of years back by various Muslim groups in the UK after 7/7 that implied if foreign affairs weren't changed to their liking more Muslims would become radicalized."

Laurencia DuSantos: "Obama Is MIA"

The conservative comments on former President George W. Bush's quiet visit to Fort Hood on Facebook: "Bush 43 and his wife Laura visit Ft. Hood after the shootings. Our president is MIA... No wait, he's busy pushing the Democrats' government-run healthcare plan on the Hill. Hmmm....I really was hesitant to say this but truly, he's shown absolutely NO leadership with respect to the military. None!"

2012 Presidential Election: Bookerista Perspectives

Personally, I disagree with both of these op-eds. I would not vote for Mr. Huckabee for president because he is much too fiscally liberal and too socially conservative for my taste. While I agree with Ms. Palin on fiscal issues, she is too socially conservative for my taste. I also don't think she's ready to occupy the White House any time soon. Assuming President Obama is the Democratic nominee in 2012, in 2012 I'd probably consider all of these candidates as bad options. I'd probably go Libertarian Party, go for an independent candidate, or leave the presidential slot blank and vote down ticket (as I did in 2008). I doubt that I'm the only libertarianesque voter who feels this way. Anyway, here goes...

Mr. Grey Ghost: Mike Huckabee Offers Winning Strategy For GOP

Claims the conservative Democratic blogger in New York, about the big-government, populist conservative Republican and former Arkansas Governor: "I'll keep saying it until I'm blue in the face: Mike Huckabee is the man that can unite the GOP. If the blockheads on the far-Right can just shut up and listen to the man, they'll see that what he offers for Americans are solutions, not just partisan rhetoric in the sole interest of opposing the Left. And that's what most Americans want right now: jobs, less taxes, a better economy for themselves and their kids, etc. They're tired of the petty Right vs. Left bickering."

Devone Tucker: "I Can See Victory From My House"

The conservative Republican blogger in Massachusetts argues that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is the GOP's best bet in the 2012 presidential election: "Sometimes you have to strike while the iron is hot. Barack Obama understood this. After he captured the imagination of progressives with his dynamic 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention, he realized that the momentum he had generated would only last for a short period of time. He capitalized on that momentum well in advance of its cutoff date, releasing a bestselling book, The Audacity of Hope, in the fall of 2006 and launching his Presidential bid shortly thereafter. Fortune favors the bold, and fortune certainly blessed Obama’s boldness a year ago this week. Now, Sarah Palin has to follow that path. She must take advantage of this unique moment. After her tour to promote Going Rogue: An American Life concludes, and after she does her part to help conservative Republicans secure House and Senate victories in the 2010 midterms, she must commit to a 2012 Presidential run."

Mr. Tucker continues his commentary about Ms. Palin: "Palin will shatter the hearts of her supporters if she declares, a la Colin Powell, that a bid for the White House is a calling she does not yet hear. Millions of Americans now see her as the only person that can turn around the turmoil, the only political figure who can bring limited-government conservatism back to its rightful place in the US. To pass up this opportunity with so much momentum behind her is to act stupidly. Palin will never have another real chance to run if she forfeits a 2012 bid. Pro-Palin sentiment is intense on the American right, but it cannot, and will not, last forever. If she fails to seize this moment, she will drive her devotees into doubt. Yes, her admirers can look past her July 2009 decision to resign as governor of Alaska, but if she says no to a 2012 bid, her supporters will naturally start to wonder if she’s all hype with no hope."

More: "Can Palin actually defeat President Obama? In the eyes of her strongest supporters, she has to. If Palin runs, she will have scores of volunteers who will go without sleep or comfort to ensure that she becomes the 45th President. To many conservatives, libertarians and independents, Palin is the literal embodiment of truth, justice and the American way — and they will do whatever it takes to support their superhero. Palin cannot disappoint these people. She must know that they view her as the epitome of what makes America great — and, more importantly, as the ultimate repudiation of American liberalism. In Palin, they see a woman who rejects in toto progressive elitism and secular humanism. The more the left looks down upon her, the more these supporters will lift her up. In Palin, they see hope — hope that Washington’s mistakes will finally be corrected, hope that the American progressive establishment will finally get its comeuppance, hope that the average man and woman will finally have someone in power who will represent their interests and concerns. In their eyes, Palin is the ultimate patriot — the symbol of something better, something greater, something purer."

White House To Dem Strategists: “Stay Off Fox”

Clifton B., a conservative blogger in New Jersey, writes: "It appears that the White House is the land of hard headed people. They are continuing their losing battle with Fox News. Check out this from The Swamp:

At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration.

Political consultants are a staple of cable television talk shows, analyzing current events based on their own experiences working on campaigns or in government.

One Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again. The call had an intimidating tone, he said.

The message was, "We better not see you on again,'' said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue.'' MORE

Is this stupid or what? Is it not enough that the White House’s little war with Fox caused Fox’s ratings to rise. Is it not enough that this administration has a huge problem with rising unemployment? Is it not enough that this administration might be looking at a terrorist attack on its largest military base? Nope, they need to focus their energies on a losing war with Fox News."

He continues his commentary: "Did any of the bright lights in the administration stop to think that if there are no liberal voices on Fox, that Fox will only have more conservative voices to criticize this administration? It would seem quite obvious that as Fox’s audience increases, that it would be in the administration’s best interest to have MORE pro Obama voices on rather than less. Shepard Smith can do only so much for this administration. Memo to the Obama administration: STOP DITHERING AND GET TO THE PEOPLE’S WORK!"

11/6 News: America

Unemployment Rate Jumps To 26-Year High

The unemployment rate in the U.S. jumped to 10.2 percent in October, the highest level since 1983 (hat tip: BlackElectorate.com). Payrolls fell by 190,000 last month, more than forecast by economists. The jobless rate rose from 9.8 percent in September. Factory payrolls dropped by the most in four months, and the average workweek held at a record low. Obama signed into law a measure extending a tax credit of up to $8,000 for homebuyers and benefits for unemployed workers, and he promised to pursue further measures to create jobs. President Obama today signed a measure to add up to 20 additional weeks of unemployment insurance.

Since President Obama took office in January, the economy has lost 3.49 million jobs. The U.S. economy has lost 7.3 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007, when the unemployment rate stood at 4.9 percent. The so-called underemployment rate -- which includes part-time workers who’d prefer a full-time position and people who want work but have given up looking -- reached a record 17.5 percent from 17 percent in September, today’s report showed.

The black unemployment rate is 15.7 percent, up from 15.4%.

Report: 237 Millionaires In Congress

The Center for Responsive Politics is out with a new report describing the wealth of members of Congress. Among the highlights: Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall. CRP says Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is the richest lawmaker on Capitol Hill, with a net worth estimated at about $251 million. Next in line: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), worth about $244.7 million; Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), worth about $214.5 million; Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), worth about $209.7 million; and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), worth about $208.8 million. All told, at least seven lawmakers have net worths greater than $100 million. Senators’ estimated median reportable worth sunk to about $1.79 million, from $2.27 million in 2007. The House’s median income was significantly lower and also sank, bottoming out at $622,254 from $724,258 in 2007.

China Brands U.S. 'Protectionist'

China on Friday accused the U.S. of protectionist and biased trade policies less than a week before President Obama’s first visit to Beijing. In a stinging rebuke, China’s commerce ministry promised to take measures to protect its domestic industry after the U.S. slapped anti-dumping duties on $2.6 billion of Chinese steel pipe imports (hat tip: Drudge Report). The decision by the Commerce Department, which imposed tariffs of up to 99 per cent on some Chinese steel pipes, follows a move earlier in the week by the U.S., European Union and Mexico to file a formal complaint at the World Trade Organization against China’s restrictions on exports of specialized raw materials. Last month the Obama administration levied 35 per cent tariffs on Chinese tires. In response, the Chinese have opened probes into U.S. exports of poultry on safety grounds of and into cars and car parts because of state aid those industries have received.

GOP Mulls Stripping Dede Of Top Post

Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee who issued an election eve endorsement of Democrat Bill Owens in the November 3 special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District, will meet with Assembly Minority Leader Brian Kolb on Monday to discuss whether she will be stripped of her Assembly leadership position. Mr. Kolb will announce after the face-to-face meeting whether Ms. Scozzafava, the Minority Leader Pro Tempore, will remain as the GOP floor leader. “Fundamentally my members are very disappointed with her endorsement of Bill Owens and aiding him in helping achieve the Nancy Pelosi health care plan in Washington,” Mr. Kolb said. Ms. Scozzafava’s last-minute endorsement, issued one day after she dropped out of the race, gave Mr. Owens a key boost in the close race and helped deliver a congressional seat held by the GOP for more than a century to the Democratic Party. Mr. Owens defeated Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman 49 percent to 46 percent, with Ms. Scozzafava, whose name remained on the ballot, pulling in 5 percent. Mr. Kolb noted that Scozzafava is not in danger of being kicked out of the GOP conference. But New York Republican officials are still seething over what they say is a betrayal by the assemblywoman.

Deroy Murdock: "Two More Reasons To Oppose Pelosicare"

The libertarian Republican commentator argues that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s health bill demands food labels and small-business taxeswrites: "H.R. 3692, the monstrous health-care-reform bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) unleashed on October 30, comprises 1,990 pages of dense, nearly impenetrable prose. This legislation is precisely ten sheets shy of four reams of paper. Just ten pages after completing its third full ream, this bill reveals on page 1,510 yet another reason to reject Obamacare: an unfunded federal mandate for nutrition labeling at chain restaurants and even on vending machines....To great fanfare last year, Michael Bloomberg — New York City’s just-reelected mayor — inflicted similar food labels on local restaurant chains. So far, Bloomberg’s initiative quietly has backfired. Writing in October 6’s Health Affairs, New York University and Yale researchers describe their interviews with patrons at Burger King, KFC, McDonald’s, and Wendy’s locations in Gotham — both before and after Bloomberg’s labeling law, and in Newark, N.J., which lacks such strictures. Only 27.7 percent of New Yorkers who saw nutrition information said it affected their eating decisions. Average New York patrons ingested 825 calories per meal before the law and 846 afterward. Newark’s typical consumption rose from 823 to 826 calories."

He continues his commentary: "Alas, these proposed regulations are not this bill’s ugliest feature. Compared to its other failures, fretting about food labels is like complaining that the shrimp forks should have been sharper on the Titanic. More like an iceberg is H.R. 3692’s brand-new, 5.4 percent surcharge on those with Adjusted Gross Incomes above $1 million. Americans for Tax Reform notes that this population includes some 626,000 small-to-medium-sized employers who would face $130 billion in new taxes over the next ten years. Absent $13 billion vacuumed from their pockets annually, these productive citizens nonetheless are expected to create or save jobs. So it goes in the fantasy world that is the Democrat party. These proposed food notices, this new small-employer tax, and H.R. 3692’s other statist ingredients demonstrate that Obamacare in general and this bill in particular are virtual Thanksgiving feasts for liberal big-government activists. This measure overflows with fresh regulations; 111 brand-new boards, agencies, and programs; and $572 billion in new taxes to finance all of the above. And more. Nancy Pelosi’s contribution to Obamacare is an all-you-can-eat banquet for federal busybodies."

Fort Hood Shooting: Bookerista Perspectives

If there was any doubt that religiosity played a role in yesterday's tragedy, reports state that Major Nidal Malik Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar!" — "God is great!" in Arabic — before opening fire. The rampage unfolded at a center where 300 unarmed soldiers were lined up for vaccines and eye tests. My opinion: Of course, it would be an Arab Muslim who does the worst violence on a military base in U.S. history. Reports claim that he was teased about being a Muslim. Whiny whine whine. Wasn't he a professional head doctor? Did he file complaints about the alleged harassment? However, black folks have been through far more in American history and even now, yet we ain't shooting up military bases. I've got living relatives who were in racially segregated units and who helped desegregate military units - they all caught real hell - yet no rampages. I've got relatives where folks rode them for being female; no rampage. Anyway, black moderates and conservatives discuss the issue:

Clifton B.: "Major Nidal Malik Hasan: More Questions Than Answers"

The conservative blogger in New Jersey writes: "They claim that Nidal was subjected to taunts because of his Muslim faith and that he was extremely fearful of being deployed to Iraq this month. However, since Nidal was a psychiatrist none of this adds up. As a psychiatrist shouldn’t Nidal have had the tools to deal with taunts? Furthermore as a psychiatrist, why was he so fearful of deployment? It wasn’t like he would have been in actual combat. Plus I am having a hard time believing that someone who was a afraid to deploy would all of a sudden summon up enough guts to gun down so many fellow soldiers. Such an act would mean almost certain death for the shooter. It is also said by Hasan’s fellow soldiers that Hasan seemed to have great sympathies for the extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we take Hasan’s family at their word that he was a proud and loyal American, then where did his views come from. Was he somehow exposed to radical Islamic ideologies? If so from where, how? Is it possible our soldiers are bringing these ideologies back from war or are such ideologies being imported to our military bases? Are we screening for such activities?"

Juliette Ochieng: "Backstabber"

Asserts the conservative Republican and military veteran in California remembers another Hasan who acted against the U.S. military: "It’s difficult to fight the impulse to hatred and vengeance for this one. More than that, this incident takes us back to when another Muslim called Hasan turned on his fellow soldiers. Recalling that, I began to wonder how often U.S. military have turned their weapons on those who trusted them most. I can’t recall any others but these two incidents but I would appreciate it if someone would point them out. In the meantime, I hope that this particular Hasan lives to face those whom he has betrayed -- those who survived, that is."

Sophia Nelson: "The Plot Thickens"

The moderate pundit in Virginia opines on her Facebook page: "The plot thickens -- Major Hasan handed out Korans before he went on his shooting spree, then as he was shooting victims -- fellow soldiers -- he yelled out arabic sayings -- this is being reported by the news media all over from 1st hand witnesses. Some of you went off on me yesterday for racial profiling and as the facts come out I was right and you were wrong. Trust me, I wish I had been wrong this makes me sad, very."

She continues her commentary: "Question of the day: Do you think that America has become so 'PC' that we are infringing upon our values and founding principles: Freedom of the Press, Free Speech, the Right to Bear Arms, etc. More directly do you think that the US Military hid Major Hasan's obvious issues because they feared the backlash for profiling someone of a different religion and ethnicity???"

DarkStar: "P.C."

The moderate Republican blogger in Maryland writes: "I need to know how the Fort Hood terrorist assassin was only able to do it because of political correctness. That's what I keep hearing but I don't understand how that is the case. If the media is to be believed, the terrorist assassin had conflicts with other military people concerning his terrorist beliefs. But, so far, it appears those people didn't report his views. If the media is to be believed, the terrorist assassin told the army that he wanted to get out and didn't believe in the war. But, it appears his attempts to exit the army were turned down. If the media is to be believed, he posted terrorist assassin beliefs on a board under his own name. W[h]ere is p.c. is this?"

Afrocity: "Country First, Not Political Correctness"

The moderate-conservative Republican blogger in Chicago, whose brother was stationed at Fort Hood for six years and she lived in the surrounding community, writes: "This is why I find it difficult to understand the actions of Major Hasan. The mainstream media spin is now attributing his behavior to his fear of deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan. My liberal anti-war friends are blaming the incident on Bush and the consequences of America’s sins in Iraq. For most if not all of us, expressing sympathy for the victims should come naturally. NOT THE SHOOTER. Remember who the victims are. Innocent people. Nidal Hasan is a coward. Before Thursday’s shooting, Hasan reportedly gave away all of his furniture along with copies of the Koran to neighbors, KXXV-TV reported. Sounds to me as if he knew he would not be coming home…Much like a suicide planning. He could have went AWOL and spared the lives of others. While it is difficult to assess Hasan’s true motives, make no mistake that this man is NOT A GOOD AMERICAN contrary to what his cousin said on Fox News last night."

She continues her commentary: "Nidal’s cousin offers the excuse that he was harassed by his Army colleagues due to his Middle Eastern ethnicity: 'He was dealing with some harassment from his military colleagues.' This is no excuse. As a psychiatrist in the Army, Hasan was well aware of the proper military channels for dealing with harassment and stress. He was a coward. Country before political correctness. Hasan is a coward and traitor to our country."

Carol M. Swain: "The Fallout"

The law and political science professor at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee and moderate-conservative writes on Twitter: "Watching the media change subject from Muslim's shooter's hatred of Americans/foreign policy 2 discussion of the shooter's status as victim." She adds: "No amount of taunting justifies the violence of yesterday's rampage or the military's tolerance of statements attributed to the shooter."

More: "I'm waiting & watching 2 see how my friends @ the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies the Ft. Hood shooting. Is it a hate crime?"

THOMAS SOWELL COMMENTARY: The "Costs" Of Medical Care: Part IV

The conservative economist opines: "Among the things that people complain about under the present medical care system are the costs, insurance company bureaucrats' denials of reimbursements for some treatments and the free loaders at hospital emergency rooms whose costs have to be paid by others. Will a government-run medical system make these things better or worse? This very basic question seldom seems to get asked, much less answered. If the government has some magic way of reducing costs -- rather than shifting them around, including shifting them to the next generation -- they have certainly not revealed that secret. The actual track record of government when it comes to costs -- of anything -- is more alarming than reassuring. What about insurance companies denying reimbursements for treatments? Does anyone imagine that a government bureaucracy will not do that?"

He continues his commentary: "Moreover, the worst that an insurance company can do is refuse to pay for medication or treatment. In some countries with government-run medical systems, the government can prevent you from spending your own money to get the medication or treatment that their bureaucracy has denied you. Your choice is to leave the country or smuggle in what you need. However appalling such a situation may be, it is perfectly consistent with elites wanting to control your life. As far as those elites are concerned, it would not be 'social justice' to allow some people to get medical care that others are denied, just because some people 'happen to have money.' But very few people just 'happen to have money.' Most people have earned money by producing something that other people wanted. But getting what you want by what you have earned, rather than by what elites will deign to allow you to have, is completely incompatible with the vision of an elite-controlled world, which they call 'social justice' or other politically attractive phrases. The 'uninsured' are another big talking point for government medical insurance. But the incomes of many of the uninsured indicate that many -- if not most -- of them choose to be uninsured. Poor people can get insurance through Medicaid. Free loading at emergency rooms -- mandated by government -- makes being uninsured a viable option."

More: "Within living memory, most Americans had no medical insurance. Even large medical bills were paid off over a period of months or years, just as we buy big-ticket items like cars or houses. This is not ideal for everybody or every situation. But if we are ready to rush headlong into government control of our lives every time something is not ideal, then we are not going to remain a free people very long. Ironically, it is politicians who have already made medical insurance so expensive that many people refuse to buy it. Insurance is designed to cover risk. But politicians have mandated that insurance cover things that are not risks and that neither the buyers nor the sellers of insurance want covered. In various states, medical insurance must cover the costs of fertility treatments, annual checkups and other things that have nothing to do with risks. What many people most want is to be insured against the risk of having their life's savings wiped out by a catastrophic illness. But you cannot get insurance just for catastrophic illnesses when politicians keep piling on mandates that drive up the cost of the insurance. These are usually state mandates but the federal government is already promising more mandates on insurance companies -- which means still higher costs and higher premiums."

Final thoughts: "All this makes a farce of the notion of a 'public option' that will simply provide competition to keep private insurance companies honest. What politicians can and will do is continue to drive up the cost of private insurance until it is no longer viable. A 'public option' is simply a path toward a 'single payer' system, a euphemism for a government monopoly."

President Obama's Reaction To The Fort Hood Shooting: Bookerista Perspectives

Robert A. George: "Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting"

The moderate-conservative Republican journalist in New York opines that it was an awful moment for the U.S. president: "President Obama didn't wait long after Tuesday's devastating elections to give critics another reason to question his leadership, but this time the subject matter was more grim than a pair of governorships. After news broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas, the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed. The White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president. The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace and perspective. But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a 'shout-out' to 'Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner.' Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?"

He continues his commentary: "Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That's the least that should occur. Indeed, an argument could be made that Obama should have canceled the Indian event, out of respect for people having been murdered at an Army post a few hours before. That would have prevented any sort of jarring emotional switch at the event. Did the president's team not realize what sort of image they were presenting to the country at this moment? The disconnect between what Americans at home knew had been going on -- and the initial words coming out of their president's mouth was jolting, if not disturbing."

More: "If the president's communications apparatus can't inform -- and protect -- their boss during tense moments when the country needs to see a focused commander-in-chief and a compassionate head of state, it has disastrous consequences for that president's party and supporters. All the president's men (and women) fell down on the job Thursday. And Democrats across the country have real reason to panic."

Clifton B.: "Shout-Outs And Tragedies Don't Mix"

The conservative blogger in New Jersey opines: "This is rather unbelievable. Did the brother never watch any of his predecessors make these kinds of statements. Given the mismatch between the two events, didn’t anyone think that Obama should have made two separate statements so as not to mix the moods? For all the talk about how bright Obama is and how bright his staff is, these people continually make one dumb mistake after another. Geez, how hard is it to figure out that tragedies and shout out don’t mix!"

He continues his commentary: "Who is advising him? Try this line 'birds of the same feather flock together'! Obama and his advisors are not the most Pro-American people in the nation, as such you will continue to get incidents like this."

Mr. Grey Ghost: "Barack Obama Gives A 'Shout Out' Before Addressing Fort Hood Massacre"

The conservative Democratic blogger in New York writes: "This is embarrassing. You telling me that Barry couldn't save his 'shout out' for when he was done talking about the shooting? That's what a true leader would do out of respect alone. He just comes off as completely unaffected here. Mind you, these were 12 of our troops who were murdered by one of their own here, on their own soil and our 'President' treats it like it's just another speech on his agenda. How does this look to a family or friend of one of the murdered soldiers, much less any soldier? Much less any American? Once again Barack Obama disgraces the office he holds."

Justice Malala on Government Spending In South Africa

The South African center-right journalist opines that African National Congress leaders will ignore the finance minister's plan to restrain the country's out-of-control government spending: "I know FM [Financial Mail] readers are pleased with finance minister Pravin Gordhan's budget policy framework [to reduce government spending and bring the budget deficit - which is 7.6% of GDP - under control so South Africa retains its credit rating]. Heck, now you can invest R500m [US$66 million] overseas, so what's the beef? Anyway, you wouldn't want to invest that kind of moolah anywhere else in the world so the man has got you sussed, no? But I'm not sure I am that pleased. Look, if you had closed your ears, you would have picked up that the man actually made a lot of Trevor Manuel-sounding noises. Is this what Polokwane was all about - to have a budget that essentially caters for people like me while the masses continue to be poor? It just goes to show that all those people who said the Zuma administration was the antithesis of the Mbeki administration were wrong. It puts all hacks like me - who banged on about the Left and the Right of the ANC - in a bit of a pickle because these guys are pretty much the same, except that in the case of the Zuma administration, clearly no-one is going to listen to Gordhan."

Mr. Malala continues his commentary: "The finance minister clearly pointed out that government would eliminate the rather large budget deficit over the next three years through growth and prudent spending. He said there would be no new taxes unless the growth did not come through. But before you could say 'prudence' there was communications minister Siphiwe Nyanda rushing off to announce to all and sundry that an extra 1% tax was looming - to pay for the excellent services of the SA Broadcasting Corp. I will now give you a chance to pick yourself up off the floor before I go on. Nyanda is the same minister who was the first to rush to the trough and kit himself out with two very large cars. He then defended the expenditure by saying they were the tools of his trade. Yeah, right, including the expensive television set he fitted in one of them. Prudent government spending, indeed. So no change there then. Poor Pravin. I have to say I feel sorry for the guy. How is he supposed to make these guys toe the line while they still think government is an opportunity to get rich?"

More: "Even President Jacob Zuma is not paying any mind to Pravin's budget. He said the day after the budget that HIV/Aids was an emergency with no money allocated to it. So very soon he will be telling Gordhan to ignore the budget and give him the funds. And we haven't even mentioned the R100bn [US$13.3 billion] for the National Health Insurance scheme."

SHAMARA RILEY COMMENTARY: Government Doesn't Have Our Back On Unemployment

I've got a piece up over at theGrio.com, the MSNBC-affiliated website. I argue that in order to combat rising unemployment, Black America needs to turn from government help - a la hopes around the economic stimulus package - to small business creation: "What black America must focus more on is not a government-driven economic initiative, but the productive engine that drives much of America's economy and provides jobs: small businesses. About 13 percent of all Americans work for the federal, state, or local government. Of the vast majority who are not public employees, small businesses employ just over half of all private sector employees. Small businesses have also created 64 percent of new net jobs in the past 15 years in America."

I continue my commentary: "Those among us who support the government-driven initiative over small businesses to combat black unemployment and close the racial gap in employment will continue to be disappointed. A key reason why black unemployment rate is always higher than the national average is that 21 percent of blacks work for the government at the federal, state, or local level - more than other racial groups - while only 5.2 percent of blacks are business owners (one third to half the rate of other racial groups). When you add the percentage of blacks on social welfare, Social Security, and other programs, we've got a sizable minority of black America missing in action in the arena where wealth and jobs are created."

More: "Black-owned businesses are more likely to hire black workers, yet we have such a significant percentage of blacks not in the sector where wealth and jobs are created. Without an increased emphasis on capitalism instead of growing government, we will continue to feel higher-than-the-national-average unemployment pain. No government package will address this issue better than black America. If we deploy our combined GDP of close to $1 trillion to organically build up more businesses and have dollars within our communities turning over less than once before exiting elsewhere, but five times or more, we will be in a much better place."

Party Politics: Conservative Vs. Moderate Perspectives

Alan Keyes: "How GOP Party Bosses Betray Grassroots"

The conservative activist and America's Independent Party member opines: "GOP leaders like to pretend they handpick left-leaning nominees for office out of some kind of political necessity. Anyone tempted to believe them should ponder the bizarre mess they created in the special election just held in New York's 23rd Congressional District. A seat that should have been a safe bet for the GOP is to be occupied by a Democrat instead, simply because the Steele/Boehner Republican bosses put up a candidate whose positions on the issues of Republican principle waved a contemptuous red flag in the face of the conservative moral constituency that is, in electoral terms, the bull elephant of the Republican herd. It was a choice so stupid that it awakened in me vigilant instincts from my days as a high-level Reagan appointee in the U.S. State Department, serving in the trenches of bureaucratic warfare."

Mr. Keyes continues his commentary about the GOP and movement conservatives: "For all their talk of opposition to the Democrat left, the core, defining commitment of these Republican Party bosses may well be their tacit opposition to the moral convictions of the conservative grass roots. This supposition makes sense of their determined efforts to belittle and silence the voices that most sincerely and coherently articulate views consistent with the moral inclinations and common sense of conservative voters. It makes sense of their otherwise irrational preference for promoting left-leaning 'pro-choice moderates' (like Arnold Schwarzenegger or that deceptively incongruous Obama supporter, Colin Powell) into the public eye. It makes sense of their otherwise unaccountable unwillingness to draw out and rely on the electoral majority (evident once again this week in the vote to overturn the homosexual marriage law enacted by the Maine Legislature, under the influence of the state's vanguard cultural elitists) that obviously exists based on the common grassroots moral conviction against the move to discard the God-ordained natural family. The referendums on such issues generally produce conservative outcomes. So, if every political contest were turned into a referendum on such issues..."

Raynard Jackson: "Going To A Party"

The moderate political analyst emailed this op-ed to Booker Rising: "Remember the days when your friends would call you and say, 'let’s go to a party.' The first thing one would say is, 'what type of music are you in a mood for?' R&B, Rock, Jazz, etc.? So it is with politics. When one is contemplating joining a political party, most people ponder on what type they are in the mood for (i.e., what are their values and belief systems). If you believe in a more expansive role for the government, more regulations for corporations, and higher taxes for the wealthy, you tend to associate with the Democratic Party. If you believe in smaller government, less government intervention in the private sector, and lower taxes, you tend to associate with the Republican Party."

He continues his commentary: "But, the problem with both of these arguments is that both are based on a 20th century, static model of politics. This view is why the TV networks and newspapers are in trouble. This view is one that dictates to its audience — TV show X comes on at 8 p.m., so you either watch it then or you miss the show. Then came the VCR, where people said I will record the show and watch it when it is convenient for me. This ultimately led to on demand viewing where the audience said, you make the content and I will decide if and when I want to watch it. Because the media failed to respond to the people’s demand for more control, they are now knocking on death’s door. Political parties now face the same fate. They, by their very existence, tend to be static and bureaucratic. If you believe like I believe, then you can join my party. But, what these parties are missing is the fact that people now want choices and these choices are constantly changing. The two major parties are ill equipped to deal with this evolutionary change in the electorate. Both parties may have a solid base of about 20%. This people are going to vote the party no matter what. But, the vast majority of the country now says, I am Republican, but on these two issues, I agree with the Democrats. So, in the 21st century, party choices are no longer simply Black or white, Democrat or Republican. People no longer fit neatly into pre-defined boxes. Like the media, the parties have not responded to the demands of the electorate. That is why you see a noticeable decline in party identification and a huge surge in people calling themselves Independent."

More from Mr. Jackson: "Tuesday’s elections results prove this point. The Republican candidates won the governorships of both NJ and VA because they carried the Independent voters in both states. The election was not about ideology, but about pragmatism. That is the lesson to be learned from the results. The organizations that will be successful in the 21st century are those that respond to the demands of the people; not those who try to dictate to the people. Examples of the former are the IT companies (Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc.). Examples of the latter are the auto industry, government agencies, and political parties. The Democratic Party is a true party of coalitions (Blacks, Jews, liberals, women, gays, etc.). Part of President Obama’s problem is his unwillingness to knock heads to bring about consensus and party unity around his agenda. It’s just not in his personality. This will prove to be his Achilles heel if he doesn’t change his approach to governing within his own party."

Final thoughts: "Republicans have just the opposite problem. They tend to be a party of homogeneity, thus their Achilles heel is one that is resistant to change. Their core base is steadily shrinking, but they are 'true believers.' Even if they get 100% of their base to turn out for an election, it is not enough to win. They must be willing to move to the political center to broaden its appeal beyond the base. New York 23 is the result they can expect every time they refuse to do this. Each party has its core of 'true believers,' but victory will be determined by which party is more effective in giving people substantive choices and solutions to the problems this country is facing. So, the next time someone says they are looking for a 'party,' it would be wise to know what type of music they are in the mood for!"

Dennis Sanders: "Why Gay Marriage IS A Big Deal"

The moderate, gay Republican blogger in Minnesota opines about Maine voters overturning gay marriages and Washington state's approval of a referendum that allows domestic partnerships: "I think that one way we can advance the cause of gay marriage is by doing a few things: first, redefining what victory means; second, listening to our opponents, and three divorcing gay marriage from the civil rights movement. First off is redefining victory. What this really boils down to is lowered expectations. It means pushing for marriage rights without using the word marriage. I know that many will say that not pushing for full marriage equality is rendering gay people to second class citizens and I would agree. But I would respond by showing those losses again. Thirty-one losses. Do we want half-a-loaf or none? The thing is, most European countries went through a period of calling same sex marriage for gays something else before marriage was made legal. The UK currently has marriage rights, but they don't call it a marriage at this point. Like Europe, I think most Americans are willing to give gay couples some marriage rights but at this point can't rationally wrap their minds around concepts like same sex marriage. I'm not saying that we should never call gay marriage a marriage or stop pushing for full marriage rights. But sometimes we have to find ways to make change happen incrementally, rather than betting the farm and losing it in the process. My own suggestion is that states like Maine and California should be pushing for civil unions and domestic partnerships first, and then move towards full marriage rights later down the road. Push for something that is marriage, but just don't call it marriage. It's just too emotionally charged."

He argues that gay activists need to listen more to people's reservations: "Second, we need to listen to those that voted against same sex marriage. Instead of automatically branding these people as bigots, we need to understand why they voted against these measures. I really doubt that the good people are of Maine are all homophobes. But there has to be a reason they voted no. And let's stop whining about the Catholic Church or the Mormons or the Masons, or what-have-you. We need to find out what is keeping them from supporting same sex marriage rights and then tailor future campaigns in light of what these people say."

Mr. Sanders continues his commentary: "Finally, gay people need to stop linking their movement with the civil rights movement. I'm sorry, but one size of oppression doesn't fit all. I used to think that these two movements were alike, but while their are some similarities, there are also a ton of differences. As someone who is both African American and gay, I can say there are big differences. Let's start with marriage. Yes, many states in the South prohibited interracial marriage until the Supreme Court struck it down in 1967. Gay rights supporters have tried to link interracial marriage to same sex marriage, but the similarities are, pardon the pun, skin deep. An interracial couple that wanted to get married in say 1959 had no option to get married. At all. Also, you have to add the whole stigma of the races mixing, especially when it was a black man with a white woman. If the two were seen together in an intimate setting, then you could be sure the black man might end up in a noose a few hours later. If two gay people are denied marriage, we have options. They aren't perfect or desired, but they are options. Also, there is less stigma attached to same-sex relationships as there are to interracial ones circa 1959. It's not great for gay couples, but it's not as dangerous either."

More: "Do I want to see gay marriage become a reality? Yes. But I'm learning that we need to learn to pick our battles and settle for partial victories on the way to ending the war. I'm also learning that not everyone who is queasy about gay marriage is a bigot ready to bash me. I'm learning that if we want to get to a point where same sex couples can have equal marriage rights, we are going to have to think and strategize and find the best steps to get to that point even if it means gradual change. Marriage is a worthy goal. Let's think about how best to get there."

"You Shoot Like A Girl...."

And it was Sgt. Kimberly Munley (pictured far left, with country music star Dierks Bentley), a 34-year-old civilian police officer, who took down after Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's murder spree at Ft. Hood that killed 13 people and wounded 30, driven by his Muslim beliefs.

The best man for the job here was a woman. Sgt. Munley - who is 5'4" and 120 pounds and has been a cop for at least five years - and her partner responded within three minutes of reports of gunfire. Sgt. Munley, who had been trained in active-response tactics, rushed into the building and confronted Hasan as he was turning a corner. They exchanged fire. Sgt. Manley shot him four times, despite being shot herself (three times in the hand and the leg; one of the bullets pierced an artery and thus she's undergoing surgery today). Hasan is comatose in a Texas hospital. Our heroine is in stable condition.

On her Twitter page, Sgt. Munley writes in her bio: "I live a good life....a hard one, but I go to sleep peacefully @ night knowing that I may have made a difference in someone's life". Yes, you did, Sgt. Munley, because additional lives could've been lost without your actions.

Baldilocks, a black conservative Republican female and military veteran, writes: "Someone at Ace's mentioned that it's a bit of poetic justice that this particular Islamist (yes) was taken down by a woman. I concur."

I agree with Gawker that this is another argument in favor of women in combat, if they meet the same qualifications as their male peers...

Constructive Feedback: "Stop 'Racially Profiling Me' As You Assume That I Am A Democrat"

The conservative blogger in Atlanta metro, Ga., recalls a conversation at a family funeral after Tuesday's elections: "After the funeral and the burial we all drove back over to the church to have a family dinner. Most people were huddled inside. One group of men talked outside of the congregation hall. Another group of men walked down the rural Southern road and back to the house to crack open some beers and talk about the subjects they like to talk about. First up was an older second cousin who is retired. We talked about how he moved from New York to South Carolina after retiring and never looked back. 'How many people do you know who retired in the South and then moved to the North?' he asked. After a few more minutes of small talk he stated: 'WE lost a few seats last night.' 'WE?' I asked myself. 'We who?'. What Black people lost last night? Then he specifically mentioned the races in Virginia and New Jersey and how the Republicans are trying to leverage their antics seen during the summer at the town hall meetings to take seats back."

He continues his commentary: " RULE #1: Please, please, please STOP making the assumption that I am rooting for the Democrats when you see me - a Black man. I am not. I am ONLY attempting to hold the force that has dominate power over our communities accountable. Not attempting to give this machine more power. RULE #2: Please stop fusing the concept of 'Blackness' with that of the 'Democratic Party'. Please choose your pronouns better. Instead of saying 'We' and thus leave the listener to figure out which 'We' you are speaking of say 'We Democrats......lost last night'. Then I would not have any problem with anything that you say afterward. Just make sure that you don't include 'ME' in that 'WE'."

More commentary from Constructive Feedback: "Second up was a cousin from Charlotte. She was happy that Anthony Fox had won the mayor's race in Charlotte after 14 years of rule by a Republican mayor. She mentioned how inspiration Fox is - rather 'Obama-like'. She made note of the crime among the young people and felt that Fox would direct more resources to address this situation of hopelessness that causes these crimes. RULE #3: Please stop using the 'subtractive approach' about your ideological adversaries and the 'additive hope approach' with your allies. You end up becoming cheerleaders for political purposes only - having disconnected your core permanent interests from your political actions. Most certainly the Street Pirates that you speak of are raised in a Democratic-leaning household. Their city council rep, state house rep, state senator and US house rep are already Democrats. This has not help them go on the straight and narrow. Is it possible that there are some other forces that are operating upon them that are outside of the 'American Political Domain' that you seem to operate within?"

Constructive Feedback continues his commentary: "Last was an older cousin (seriously folks - I have no idea about how some of these people are connected with me in the family tree). He was from the Baltimore Maryland area. I told him that I was from Atlanta. The first thing he brought up was the Atlanta mayor's race. The threat that a White woman might become the next mayor of Atlanta, breaking the streak of 5 Black mayors (I counted Maynard twice since he came back for a second act after being term limited out of power). His conversation focused exclusively upon the need to 'retain Black political power'. I hinted that the city of Atlanta has massive problems - particular crime and finances. The reason why the door is opened for change is because of the condition that the present machine has left the city in. RULE #4: 'Black Progress' is not proven by the number of portraits of Black elected officials that are seen hanging on the wall. Instead we need to go into the communities where Black people actually live in order to substantiate these claims of progress."

More: "RULE #5: Stop allowing Democratic Operatives who ALREADY have control of your community to make use of your present grievances to cajole you into supporting them so that they can work to fix what they failed to fix because 'the clock ran out' and then need more time. The more you agree to provide support the lower the level of immediacy will be felt with them."

Open Thread Friday

Safi, kiraia, lakini vinginevyo kujadili nini unataka. That's Swahili for "keep it clean, keep it civil, but otherwise discuss what you'd like."