Like President George W. Bush before him, Obama is doing his best to provide amnesty for illegal aliens; all of whom are criminals by virtue of violating our sovereign borders to arrive here. But unlike President George W. Bush, who the NAACP and most leftists (including Obama) repeatedly assured us did not care about blacks, and under whom these same immiseration-mongers claimed the suffering of blacks was without parallel — with Obama this is true. It’s just that in the case of Obama the color of his skin shields him from factual criticism by blacks. But I’m getting a bit ahead of myself.

Obama and all of those who extol the virtue of giving amnesty to illegal aliens as an act of humanity approaching in equality to an angelic act of such heavenly import that some swear that just below the din of noise, they hear cherubs singing.

In reality, that cherub choir they are brainwashed into believing they hear, is akin to a siren’s song with death and destruction as the inevitable conclusion.

I spent Father’s Day afternoon talking to Mr. Jamiel Shaw. And perhaps if Obama and his Negro lapdogs would take time to do the same they could not escape the fact that — as Mr. Shaw and his family know all to well — illegal aliens overrunning our country is not a victimless crime.

Mr. Shaw’s 17 year-old son, Jamiel Shaw, Jr., was targeted specifically because he was black. He was gunned down in cold blood just outside the door of his own house as he was returning home from school. But it doesn’t stop there. Mr. Shaw informed me that in Los Angeles, which thanks to those Californians who hold their brains in position by flexing their sphincter muscle, 1,700 blacks have been murdered by Mexican gang members.

Mexican illegal aliens are earning their “bones,” so to speak, by cold-bloodedly walking up to blacks and killing them. No longer are drive-by shootings acceptable. The way it works today is a Mexican who wants to become part of the Mexican gangland culture must be accompanied by a person driving a vehicle and another gang-member officer in the back seat. The illegal gang-banger wannabe selects his target, and must exit the vehicle, walk up to the black person he has picked out, and literally blow their brains out. It is no more complicated than that.

As I wrote yesterday, the shooting of an “on his way to a life in the criminal justice system” like Trayvon Martin, upset Obama to the point that he equated Martin to a son he never had. (And if Obama did have a son, I’m guessing the son wouldn’t be like Martin; he’d be just like his sissified father who throws a baseball like a three-year old girl in a body cast). Martin was a bonafide street-thug. But I digress.

Specific to my point is that Obama didn’t lift one finger to offer comfort to Mr. Shaw and his family. He treated them just as he treated the families of Ambassador Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, and Glen Doherty. And the parallels do not stop there because Mr. Shaw’s wife is in the U.S. Army preparing even now to be redeployed to Afghanistan.

But there is a love affair with illegal aliens, especially those who are Mexican, that defies logic. And it is a love affair that crosses all Party lines. But, if we are to believe that blacks were displaced by President Bush and today evil white conservatives aided by sell-out, Uncle Toms are creating an environment that is hostile to blacks — how do they explain Obama’s support for the two groups that present the most deadly threats to blacks, i.e., Planned Parenthood and Mexican illegal aliens?

Forget about the 1,700 blacks murdered by Mexican gang members in Los Angeles (most likely the majority of whom are illegal aliens). What would happen if white police officers were involved with injuring 170 blacks who were known gang members and violent drug dealers? What would happen if seven blacks in the course of one year were murdered by whites in “pick-your-town”?

Specific to those points, George Zimmerman is half Peruvian, which, let’s say, makes him .5 white. Look at the hell that erupted when, as many of us believe, he shot Martin in self-defense. But these same drama-blacks are willing to sit silent as illegal aliens, most of whom are Mexican, are able to enjoy the very things that the NAACP et al. claim blacks are being denied — with a real African American (as in half-a-Kenyan) doing all he can to force special dispensations and rewards for these illegals.

Why aren’t the NAACP, and the other alphabet black groups, marching and protesting Obama’s effort to reward illegal aliens who can be said to be stealing jobs from blacks and carrying out gang-related initiations that require them to murder blacks? Why aren’t the New Black Panther Party and Al Sharpton hitting the bricks in Los Angeles marching and protesting? It’s a sure bet they would be there if Daryl Gates were still LA Sheriff and was taking violent black drug dealers off the streets.

Mr. Shaw told me during our long talk on Father’s Day that there are blacks who are calling him names and who, like Hank Johnson, the Democrat sock-puppet from Georgia, are saying Mr. Shaw only opposes amnesty for illegal aliens because he is being used by conservatives. Mr. Shaw told me that black and white alike have tried to silence him. He said they do not want him to speak out because they have no defense for the truth of what illegal alien Mexicans did to his son and are doing in his city.

One more thing about my talk with Mr. Shaw. We were talking on Father’s Day as Mr. Shaw was making his way to the hospital to visit the two young people who had been friends of his son, Jamiel, Jr. The one friend, a young man, had been shot twice in the face, and his girlfriend in the car with him had been shot in the chest. Both are in critical condition. Both of them were good children not involved in drugs or gangs. Both of them were shot by a wannabe gang member. Neither of them has been contacted by Obama.

By now most are aware that Obama without invitation injected himself into the Trayvon Martin shooting saying that if he had a son he would look like Martin. But there was another shooting that took place on March 2, 2008, regarding which not only did Obama not call the family, he did not give the matter the slightest regard.

It’s telling that Obama would compare the male progeny he never had to a drug-using street thug gangsta’ wannabe like Martin, and completely ignore the brutal, cold-blooded murder of a young man who didn’t use drugs, wasn’t involved in gangs, carried a Spider-Man backpack, and was eyeing scholarships to Rutgers and Stanford.

There’s something else that should make Americans of color sit up and question the actions of Obama, which is that he’s more pro-abortion than Planned Parenthood.

Since the Supreme Court legalized the murder of unborn children vis-à-vis abortion (1973-present), nearly 19 million unborn black children have been murdered. Obama not only supports this mass murder of the unborn, but he has said that Planned Parenthood “does good work,” and in a recent speech asked God to bless Planned Parenthood. Depending on which numbers you ascribe to (the CDC set the number at 43.9 million in 2011), the total number of black Americans is 40-44 million. Put differently, Obama publicly champions the murdering of approximately 2.3 unborn black children for every one black child born.

And that is the just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Obama and blacks. Specific to that point, let’s go back to my opening paragraph. As I indicated, Obama personally interjected himself into what many, myself included, believe was a clear case of self-defense when George Zimmerman shot and killed Martin as Martin was reportedly slamming Zimmerman’s head into the ground.

But in the case of Jamiel Shaw, Jr.( see http://www.isupportjamielslaw.com/ ), his only offense was being born black in that an illegal alien Mexican shot him to death because of the color of young Mr. Shaw’s skin. Not only has Obama ignored the murder of Jamiel Shaw, Jr., but he has taken it upon himself to grant amnesty to the well over 30 million illegal alien criminals in the country.

It is well known by law enforcement agencies nationwide that the Mexican mafia and Mexican gangs are committed to ridding blacks from the areas they have usurped after making their illegal entry into America. And Obama seeks to reward these illegals with amnesty.

Jamiel Shaw, Jr. was minding his own business, walking from school to his home. He was only three blocks away when he telephoned his father to say, “Be right home dad, I’m right around the corner.”

Tragically, the fact is that Jamiel Shaw, Jr. did not make it home. The fact is that the next time his father saw him, he was lying face down in a pool of his own blood just outside his home. The fact is that Pedro Espinoza, an illegal alien Mexican career-criminal, gunned down Jamiel Shaw, Jr. strictly because he was black. The facts are that Jamiel Shaw, Jr.’s mother, a U.S. Army soldier deployed in Iraq at the time, had to fly back alone on a flight that must have seemed like an eternity. She had survived combat in foreign land, but her child was unable to survive the murderous rampage of illegal alien savages in the town she and her family called home. And, Obama wants to reward these illegal aliens with amnesty.

Compounding the grief of losing their son, Mr. and Mrs. Shaw are made to suffer more injury because Los Angeles is a “sanctuary city.” Simply put, such “sanctuary cities” are safe havens for illegal aliens in which they can commit heinous crimes and if they are arrested not be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation. And, Obama fully supports abrogation of justice.

Jamiel Shaw, Jr. is an innocent victim of yet another government-sponsored and government-approved machination for the extermination of blacks. And just as with Planned Parenthood, Obama’s actions unambiguously prove he endorses same.

Obama is willing to use a situation like that of Martin’s death as a means to foment racial antipathy toward whites. But there are no Al Sharptons, no Jesse Jacksons, no New Black Panther Party protests, no national press coverage, and NO OBAMA comments in the murder of Jamiel Shaw, Jr.

The grotesque elephant in the middle of the room that goes practically unaddressed — that unlike the fallacious allegations that George Zimmerman shot Martin because he black – in the case of Jamiel Shaw, Jr. he was murdered by a Mexican illegal alien specifically because he was black. And, Obama is silent.

See http://www.isupportjamielslaw.com/

Political correctness has made cowards out of heretofore reasonable minds, and it has encouraged people to lie rather than risk being called a racist, a sexist, or a xenophobe. But, even more repulsive than those characteristics (or lack thereof) is that political correctness has reduced the minds of many to the level of “when you cannot get a person to agree with you, try to get them to agree on a lesser part of the fallacious assertion.”

Monday I encountered a situation that had aspects of all of the above. I settled into a chair at an outdoor cafe yesterday afternoon. Seated at the table next to me were a husband and wife, and a co-worker of the woman. At the other table next to me was a woman with her small grandson.

The conversation of the three people went from talking about their co-workers to what measures could be taken to reduce product waste. Then it happened. Their conversation went from co-workers and product waste to the George Zimmerman trial. I wasn’t quite sure at that point if they were speaking for my benefit, you know, letting me know that they were down with the struggle, or if they actually believed what they were saying.

They were disgusted that there was a request to delay the trial because of information that had just come to light. They felt enough time had passed, and the inference was that it was time to start the trial and get on with the act of hanging Zimmerman. They then sucked their teeth and shook their collective heads when the co-worker of the one woman said that she had read the Ku Klux Klan was going to rally in Sanford. They found that particularly offensive.

I decided I was not going to let their political correctness go unchallenged; I excused myself for intruding upon their conversation. They welcomed my intrusion with smiles and open arms until about five seconds after I started to speak. In staccato fashion, I quickly explained the dynamics of the case and pointed out that none other than Alan Dershowitz agreed with legal experts who had said this case did not warrant a trial, and it certainly did not warrant the second-degree murder charges Mr. Zimmerman was facing. At this point, the woman sitting with her grandson focused on our conversation.

The people responded several times to the facts that I was sharing with incredulous “I didn’t know that.” I told them about NBC being forced to admit they purposefully edited the tape of Mr. Zimmerman’s 911 call to make it appear that his actions were racially motivated. They admitted they hadn’t read that.

Using Mark Ivancic, the managing editor for The Bradford Era newspaper, as the classic example of how the media falsifies the truth, I shared with them how Ivancic had been caught red-handed changing copyrighted, syndicated material to say what the writers had not intended it to say. I shared how John Satterwhite, the publisher of the same paper, endorsed his actions by ignoring requests for redress because he thought Ivancic’s actions would be ignored by most of the readers. I explained that Ivancic, Satterwhite, and those like them are the reason that the only truly believable thing in media is the final score to a sporting event.

I made the point that blacks were upset about Martin being shot but they showed no such outrage over the level of black-on-black crime nor the brutal murders of foreign tourists by a black thug. Having suffered the ignominy of their arguments being refuted, the husband lamented the presence of assault rifles and the shooting in Santa Monica.

Here again, I refused to cede ground. I explained that assault rifles were not available, with very rare exception, to the general public. I further explained that it wasn’t an assault rifle that was used in the Santa Monica shootings. He tried to protest but was forced to admit that assault rifles were fully automatic, and the AR-15 does not meet that criteria. With nothing left, he opined that people could make them fully automatic. I wasn’t conceding that point either.

The interesting thing is that the woman with her grandson was not only nodding her head in agreement with me, but also she was Hispanic, and she had told me earlier that she was unemployed and desperately looking for work.

It is interesting that the woman who readily agreed with me was Hispanic, and the people from the other table were giving their best impressions of politically correct red-necks. They could not have been prepared to have two people they expected to agree with their politically correct stupidity openly reject their comments.

I shared this encounter as another example of why we must not cower in the presence of those espousing the bigotry of politically correctness.

There is vulgar, there is dishonest, and then there is Obama. There is contemptible, there is empyema, and then there is Obama. Obama is the transmogrification of diseased exuviae into a bi-ped.

I do not apologize for my harsh critique of him. It needs to be said and I’m willing to say it. I do not do nice-nice with an abomination set on solidifying his legacy to the Neo-Leninists who follow him by instituting as many Marxist policies that strip of us of our Constitutional rights as possible.

Obama had the unmitigated audacity to, with a straight face, tell people in California that increased security is well worth the loss of some of our Constitutional privacy rights.

He also said, “And if people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress and don’t trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law then we’re going to have some problems here.”

The word I would employ here defines a child born out of wedlock. That word is exactly what Obama is. He made that statement with a straight face while in California promoting his takeover of the healthcare system.

Are we stupid or are we just supposed to forget about the lies that “out-of-wedlock” liar has uttered? Think about the lies he personally told the American people when he was trying to push Obamacare through. When we said there would be death panels he called us liars. He unleashed government agencies on companies that questioned the validity of his comments such as our healthcare rates won’t increase. He held press events and told We the People that we would be able to keep our personal doctors under Obamacare. Those things were blatant, premeditated lies from the lips of a premeditated liar.

He has the nerve to tell us if we do not trust the executive branch (i.e., the White House that has spent the past four-plus years circumventing the Constitution and depriving us of our rights) that we are going to have trouble. He wants us to trust a feckless Congress that has proven itself to be only slightly more trustworthy than he and his wife. And then he referenced the federal courts that routinely rule against the will of the people.

I take the words of this cancerous macula on the fabric of our nation to be a veiled threat. Obama is a narcissistic sociopath. He doesn’t say something like that for the sake of saying it. The question is how much of that threat was intended for Congress, and how much was intended for those of us who are the leaders of grass roots movements?

The only consistent thing about Obama since he took over has been his lies. He said, “So I want to be very clear. Some of the hype that we’ve been hearing over the last day or so [I want you to know] – nobody’s listening to the content of people’s phone calls.” That is an outright lie from an outright liar. Of course they’re listening, and Obama attempts more guile than the serpent that fooled Eve if he expects us to believe differently.

Think for a moment. This is a man who was only able to get elected to the Senate because he and his campaign illegally obtained Republican Jack Ryan’s sealed divorce documents, which referenced embarrassing information that Obama used to force Ryan out of the race.

Some of us know for a fact that Obama has personally tried to intimidate public figures by sending mail to their personal residences that referenced their wife and children. If he is willing to stoop low enough (not that it’s a far reach) to do those things, think what he will do, if he hasn’t already, with access to our emails and free access to listen in on our phone calls and spy on our text messages?

Obama is the man who sent Susan Rice before the cameras to knowingly lie about the events that precipitated the murders of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods in Benghazi. Obama is the man, who after lying about the aforementioned, lied about lying. And now he wants us to believe him about spying on us? He wants us to believe it’s for our own good even as he uses veiled threats while trying to convince us?

I am convinced that Obama is doing his level best to implement government corruption through the edict of his office to leave a parting gift for Hillary or whoever the Communist/Socialist Party are able to fool enough people to support in 2016.

It will allow the favored left-wing radical to run as a moderate without having the weight of the abrogation of good government hanging over their head. And, if they are elected they will simply enforce what he has already set in place. We cannot allow this to happen.

The Daily Rant would like to forward you a copy of Booker T. Washington’s epic book with the forward written by me, as our way of saying thank you for your donation of $25.00 or more.

I will personally sign your copy and include a brief inscription made out specifically to each donor.

If you would like to give the book as a gift, please include the name as you would like it inscribed.

If you would like the book mailed directly to the person please include their full name and address and if you want a note included that the gift is from you.

I am confident that it will speak to your heart as it has mine. Click here to begin

As inconceivable as it may seem, there are today great numbers of Americans who have never heard of the American Cemetery at Colleville-sur-Mer. They are ignorant of its historical connection to the events that took place there in the early morning hours of June 6, 1944. Are Americans unaware that there are 9,386 graves in the American Cemetery at Colleville-sur-Mer? Are they unaware that each of those graves faces west, looking across the ocean toward the country those men and women loved, served and died for?

Today, D-Day and the solemn resting place of those who sacrificed their all on the beach that day, is marked with indifference by far too many Americans. It is a disgrace that there are American children who have no idea who Dwight D. Eisenhower was – even though they can recite the lyrics of trash music perfectly.

Even more disgraceful are the parents that celebrate the ignorance of said children – choosing instead to validate their offspring’s ignorance by neither setting nor insisting upon academic standards. When I was in school we learned of the generals and the battles surrounding this decisive and momentous day. Our communities celebrated the day; our families discussed it. It was an inherent part of our citizenship, and we were encouraged to be proud.

Speaking anthropomorphically, those buried at Colleville-sur-Mer must weep, as they look westward toward what was once a different America.

Show your support for the United States military with one or more of these service flags

Today, we have a family in the White House that views this day as one for obligatory acknowledgement and a photo-op. But I digress.

One of the most deeply moving experiences of my life was the privilege I had a few years ago to attend a special dinner recognizing the remaining living veterans from that day. The dinner consisted of beef stew, cornbread, canned peaches and coffee – the same meal served the night before the invasion. At the conclusion of the evening, the main speaker and I hugged and shared tears. While he has since passed on – the memory of his sacrifice will be with me forever.

But today the systemic ignorance and misrepresentation of our true history has contributed to an ever-growing and acceptable lack of historical citizenship. It is appalling that the greatest of generations is passing from this life into the oblivion of our historical memory.

In 1969, Gen. Eisenhower, then the former President Eisenhower – made his first and only return to Colleville-sur-Mer after the war. In a voice thick with emotion he said: “…these men came here – British and our allies, and Americans – to storm these beaches for one purpose only, not to gain anything for ourselves, not to fulfill any ambitions that America had for conquest, but just to preserve freedom. … Many thousands of men have died for such ideals as these … but these young boys … were cut off in their prime. … I devoutly hope we will never again have to see such scenes as these. I think and hope, and pray, that humanity will have learned. … We must find some way … to gain an eternal peace for this world.” (“Eisenhower: A Soldier’s Life”; Carlo D’Este, p. 705)

Little could he have known that a day would come when the person who now occupies the “office” he once held, would malign our allies, genuflect to potentates, applaud those who curse his predecessors and refuse to call our enemies what they are out of fear of offending them.

Little could he have foreseen the day when schools would recast our historic events and parents would not only support their children’s lack of citizenship, but would defiantly treat same as if it were something to be proud of.

We who remember and honor the sacrifice of those who are first amongst the unselfish acknowledge that the world owes them a debt of gratitude that can never adequately be repaid – even though their sacrifices were not for personal gain.

What we can do is promise to never forget, nor fail to put others in remembrance of, their great sacrifice. We can pledge an unwavering commitment to keep the worship of the true God of heaven – who accompanied them into battle that morning and who stood waiting to welcome the many home to be with Him that day – and the freedom for which they fought – the central values of our nation.

We can pledge to fight ignorance, those who dishonor our God and country and usurpers who would make the freedom for which these men and women sacrificed that morning, 66 years ago, of no effect.

I once said of Maureen Dowd, “Flatulence generally refers to gases generated in the intestines or stomach and expulsed through that end of the posterior that graces a saddle. Unless you are Maureen Dowd … then said gases are expulsed through the pen (or mouth – you choose) and are no less a poisonous, asphyxiating irritant to the atmosphere.” I said it because of the crude remarks she made in reference to Justice Clarence Thomas.

I find now that this observation is also applicable to another liberal, lunatic, hate-monger — State Senator Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans). Additionally, in the case of this woman I might suggest the name of a good proctologist to assist her with her lordotic posture. Because her head being buried where it is, must be the reason she walks hunched over. It’s either that or she is bent over under the weight of the contempt she has for whites.

Just when I thought that Frau Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and Nancy Pelosi were as contemptible as it got for liberal Democrat women, Peterson slithers out of the Democrat swamp.

Jeff Crouere writing for the BayouBuzz.com said: “Last Tuesday, State Senator Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans) hurled a verbal stink bomb at her Senate colleagues. On the State Senate floor, she made the reckless claim that several of her Senate colleagues were voting against the expansion of Medicaid in Louisiana because of ‘the race of this African American president.’”

Specifically she said: “It isn’t about the administration, and it should not be about the administration of the state nor federal level when it comes to Obamacare. But in fact it is. And why is that? I have talked to so many members in the House and Senate and you know what it comes down to? Are you ready for this? It is not about how many federal dollars we can receive. You ready? You want to know what it’s about? It’s about race. Now nobody wants to talk about that. It’s about the race of this African-American president. … It comes down to the race of the president of the U.S. which causes people to disconnect and step away from the substance of the bill.”

But there is a bright side to her attempt to use race to bully her colleagues into supporting Obamacare. Crouere further reported, “After Peterson’s incendiary remarks, a prominent Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory switched his party affiliation to the GOP. Guillory becomes the first African American Republican State Senator in Louisiana since Reconstruction. Guillory called Louisiana Democrats the ‘party of disappointment.’ According to Guillory, Carter Peterson’s comments ‘certainly helped push me over the edge….it just showed me just how far out of tune I was, I am, with the Democrat Party.’”

Guillory may become just another Republican In Name Only (RINO), but at least he had the decency and willingness to express his consternation with more than silence and/or support for Peterson’s hateful screed.

Regardless at this point of what his voting record becomes, I tip my hat for his doing the right thing. I have repeatedly said we must be willing to do the right thing regardless of the names we are called. Peterson is a cancer on the fabric of civility, and it is time that the adults in the room start to act like responsible adults.

It is one thing to disagree with a person’s viewpoint, but it is beyond contempt to voice it by using racial demagoguery as a bludgeon. Guillory sends a message to black children who are tempted to buckle under the weight of peer pressure to use racial epithets.

I do not believe Guillory is the only black political figure who feels as he does. But he is one of a very small handful to take the steps he did in expressing it.

One final thought. Those inclined to support and/or agree with Peterson might ask themselves what it was when we defeated Hillary’s healthcare proposal. Was that racism? Then again, to Peterson it probably was. In the twisted world of her mind, she would probably agree that it was racist white people who caused Hillarycare to fail in order to prevent blacks from getting healthcare.

It’s disgusting but true — in the absence of any ability to engage in reasonable debate people like Peterson use race as a fall-back argument. Even more egregious is that I doubt Peterson feels any shame for her hateful and punitive screed, and once the fingers of other liberal Democrats dry from checking which way the political wind is blowing they will join her in denouncing Guillory as a sellout and Uncle Tom.

Homosexuals try to pawn their perceived struggle for complete and total acceptance of their chosen lifestyle as being synonymous with what blacks went through to achieve civil rights. But their attempts to equate their radical agenda with discrimination as defined in The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is blatantly false and without merit.

Blacks were prevented based on the color of their skin alone in many domiciles because of prejudice and by codification of segregation, to vote, to purchase property where they chose, eat wherever they desired, attend events, ad nauseum.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically defines the act as same. It reads:
“An Act: To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.”

The Act was intended to put “teeth,” if you will, into the 14th Amendment.

Homosexual activists are dishonest when they attempt to convince the public that rejection of homosexual marriage is tantamount to the culture of apartheid that opposed interracial dating and marriage. It is not.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was intended to end, prevent, and address discrimination – discrimination against men and women regardless of their race and/or color.

While discrimination based on sexual preference is not specifically mentioned, I believe it is logically included in the Act. A woman cannot be discriminated against because she has a dating preference for gargantuanly obese men. A person cannot be discriminated against because they have an attraction to short people. A person’s choice of sexual interest as long as it is legal is protected, and it should be.

But I believe and argue that the Act is an appliance that guards against discrimination, its not to be used as cover for a malicious agenda that prescribes the redefining of our social construct. Christian organizations must hire homosexuals and I find that fair (after all what better place for those in need of Christ). But being employed by a Christian organization doesn’t give the employee the constitutional right to change the policies and dogma of said employer. The employee had a choice to seek employment elsewhere.

There are logical exceptions. A morbidly obese person cannot favorably present the image of certain companies, but a person’s color does not affect same (allowing the employer isn’t the Ku Klux Klan). A church has the right to have strict, inflexible standards for ordination and for licensing of their clergy.

Homosexuals argue they are denied certain other entitlements that everyone else enjoys, and they cite the inability to make life and death decisions for those they co-habit with, etc. This too is a specious and fallacious argument. Heterosexuals co-habiting outside the bonds of marriage do not have the right to make such decisions either.

That is why responsible people living outside the bonds of marriage make living wills. They take responsible measures to ensure their wishes are carried out and to allow for the person of their choice to make decisions for them in the event of one or the other becoming unable to make the decision for themselves.

Two men can purchase a property together; they can get health insurance and life insurance policies naming one another as beneficiaries, and so on. Their sexual preference doesn’t matter. Their ability to repay a mortgage, etc., isn’t affected by their sexual preference any more than that of heterosexuals.

I could go on, but suffice it to say the homosexual agenda isn’t about civil rights; it is about their desire to change the social construct by redefining marriage and family.

Legislating an employment and social environment that codifies the ability of an employee to present themselves in ways that are detrimental to the welfare and health of the company is ludicrous. I speak specifically of cross-dressing and exhibiting inappropriate behavior.

According to the Centers for Disease Control report on HIV incidence, men who have sex with men accounted for 63 percent of the estimated new HIV infections in 2010. That rate means that as 1-4 percent total of the population they’re as much as 86 times more likely to be diagnosed with HIV. Women with a history of sex with women may be a marker for increased risk of adverse sexual, reproductive, and general health outcomes compared with women who reported sex exclusively with men. (American Journal of Public Health; ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/6/1126)

I would submit it makes more sense for homosexual activists to tell people to flea the practice than it does to claim they are being denied civil rights.

THE FOLLOWING IS FROM A READER IN THE MILITARY. YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE PERSON’S COMMENT CONTRADICTS WHAT OBAMA, ET AL. WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE. THIS IS BUT ONE OF THE MANY LETTERS I RECEIVE FROM MILITARY MEMBERS EVERY WEEK. EACH OF THEM PRESENTS A SIMILAR DARKNESS TAKING HOLD OF OUR MILITARY SINCE OPEN HOMOSEXUALITY WAS EMBRACED BY OBAMA AND BILL CLINTON BEFORE HIM.
*****************************
Sirs/Ma’am,
Just read your article entitled “Deceitful Response To Military Injustice” and thought I’d let you know what pressures we have on us due to this change of policy. Since the change, we’ve tried to get the local homosexual bath houses on the Military’s Off Limits listing, unfortunately it’s not going to happen. The fear factor on anything “gay” is so high that nothing can be pushed thru; not thru medical channels, not thru Armed Forces Disciplinary Control Board, not even thru chaplain channels. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago I overheard our Chaplain and Mental Health personnel were discussing PTSD and the training we in Military Medicine give on this subject and how we can help the soldier and present it in a way to avoid conflict with the current political correctness cloud that currently controls the military. This is what’s happening in our military today. Very sad times.

I’ve ignited a firestorm of fully anticipated and predictably expected name-calling and hissy-fits from homosexuals, et al. and those who believe I should abandon my theological personal beliefs to accommodate debauchery.

Which brings me to a question that those who are upset by my adherence to my core values will never themselves answer. Why am I expected to exchange what I am convinced without a hesitation of doubt is right in order to accommodate that which I unequivocally know is wrong? Here’s another question. Homosexuals want me to change my opinion to accept their chosen lifestyle — how about they change their opinion, and say, they are wrong and that sex is between a man and woman, and marriage is between a man and a woman? Why am I and those who believe as I do the only ones of whom change of mind is mandated?

I choose to believe according to the tenets of my system of beliefs and core values. Why should society that has believed in heterosexuality since the creation of life now be forced to accept mandated addendums to same?

I find it interesting that it is habitually the Christian and/or conservative who is expected to change. Why are we the ones who are expected to capitulate?

America has had the good sense and decency to change that which needed to be changed, e.g., slavery, women’s suffrage, and Jim Crow. Fighting to legislate acceptance of men having sex with men, women having sex with women, men and little boys having sex (i.e., the North American Man Boy Love Association), and to have the definition of marriage and family changed to accommodate that which has ultimately always resulted in the decline of society is asinine and self-destructive.

It should here be noted that it is not just the moral destruction of society, but the destruction of society as a whole. It is one of the worst decisions (read: judgments) a people can make. It was the ancient Chinese general, Sun Tzu who said, “There are some roads not to follow; some troops not to strike; some cities not to assault; and some ground which should not be contested.”

There is a reason the scriptures I believe in say “the wages of sin are death.” Put another way, following that road leads to death as in eternal damnation after the physical death. I’m not saying homosexuals have to believe that or agree with it. I am saying that I choose to both believe and agree with it, and accordingly there is no flexibility in my posture which unlike some is not lordotic from shouldering the weight of capitulation.

Abortion is a choice and sodomy under the guise of affection is a choice. But it seems that to be faithful to one’s theological tenets and core values is somehow unworthy of choice.

Those given over to said aberrant behavioral practices are quick to attempt to obfuscate the condemnation of the act of homosexuality as attacking the person. I state here for the record that I separate the person from their act, which is one reason you will never hear me using pejorative names and/or engaging in ad hominem personal attacks (such as they engage in). Specific to that point, homosexuals and their sympathizers are quick to attack any condemnation of their perverse lifestyle as being judgmental of them. It is an argument they use to deflect attention away from the act of a man having sex with another man, etc.

If homosexuality and perversions were socially acceptable and proper then history would reflect same, the anecdotal occurrences of same notwithstanding.

There are those of us who refuse to buckle under the pressure to change to fit some perverse, so-called norm perceived to be sophisticated opinion. As a friend said to me: “Right and wrong are not debatable. The truth is not found by taking a poll. Mark Twain talks of a man who shouted down a lynch mob and made it go home. Twain asked, ‘Where is the moral man today?’ Indeed, where is he?”

Homosexuals can change the meaning of scripture in an attempt to have their lifestyle accepted, and they can use the courts and legislation to mandate acceptance. But in the final analysis they cannot force us to abide their chosen lifestyle.

No one, and certainly not me, is calling for them to be beaten, killed, publicly humiliated (apart from Muslims at any rate), or any such thing. I/we are saying that we have a code of values that we are not going to violate to accommodate perhaps one percent of society (the inflated numbers of two-four percent notwithstanding).

They can choose to be treated civilly like everyone else, or they can choose to attempt to redefine that which has always been. It’s another choice they will have to make. I and countless others have made our choice, and we choose not to accept aberrant behavior as normal.

Some may feel it’s been a good year for homosexuals, lesbians, transgenders, and whatever other forms of the sexually depraved come lumped under the aforementioned. After all, they’re now openly active in the military; courts with homosexual judges have overturned legally instituted referendums banning same-sex marriage; an untalented basketball player has proclaimed his homosexuality, and now factions within the Boy Scouts have been successful in allowing openly homosexual boys into the Boy Scouts.

But I see it differently. I think the subversion of institutions, including churches, by those hell-bent on turning America into the land of Sodom can be and should be used as a cause celebre for those who oppose the redefining of family and marriage to withdraw and form their own organizations.

Obviously we cannot form another military, but we don’t have to volunteer nor do we have to re-up when our tours of service are over. I believe the military would get the message very quickly that our Armed Forces are not intended to become a homosexual Club Med if they were to find that enlistment and reenlistment numbers were sharply declining in protest of allowing and encouraging openly perverse behavior.

I receive many dozens of letters and comments from people daily telling me how much they admire my courage and bravery in speaking out about the issues I do. Without exception, I respond the same to everyone who writes that to me – I say that I’m neither courageous nor brave – “I’m willing.”

When the Philadelphia Phillies baseball team began having special nights glorifying homosexuality, my son and I stopped going. To be fair, we weren’t Phillies fans, we like baseball and frequently attended their games for that reason. But there was no way under the sun that I was going to spend my money in support of a team that openly supported that which I opposed based on my theological and personal values.

I’m a die-hard New York Yankees fan but my support of them would end in a heartbeat if they openly sponsored that which I am opposed to and offended by. Specific to same, I’m not saying homosexuals should be discouraged from attending sporting events, but I am saying there shouldn’t be fan nights that celebrate debauchery.

Homosexual activists are proclaiming the Boy Scouts craven capitulation to allow openly homosexual boys to become Scouts as the last step in their ultimate goal, of all restrictions banning any type of sexual perversion be removed.

I feel the same way about homosexuals crowing that they are one step closer to achieving their ultimate goal with the Boy Scouts as I do about children being oriented into homosexuality under the guise of homosexual sensitivity in public schools. I refused to send our child to public schools. He was educated in private Christian schools. He not only received a better education but his teachers reinforced the values we taught at home.

The same thing applies to the Boy Scouts. Let the homosexuals have the Boy Scouts. Parents who want a Boy Scouts type organization should be willing to start their own non-profit, private organizations to guide boys. They should set strict rules of what is acceptable.

By starting a new private organization, they can end the lawsuits and pestilence-type annoyance by homosexual activists. They want the Boy Scouts? Let them have one another – we don’t have to play.

Why should we be spending money fighting lawsuits and/or endangering our children by knowingly giving predators and the deluded, access to our boys? Sensitivity is about not picking on someone who is different. Sensitivity is not synonymous with having our children brainwashed into accepting that which is aberrant as normal.

The Boy Scouts have struck a deal with the devil, and I hope they brought a long spoon as they dine with him. The scriptures say, “Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, sayeth the Lord.” (2 Corinthians 6:17) I believe we should follow God’s words not the corrupt dictates of the perverse. Why should I/we be expected to disobey our God to accommodate that which He condemns?

Let me also point out there is a reason boys and girls are separated in organizations such as this. Amongst other reasons, it has to do with hormones. Are we now supposed to believe that some of our boys will not be coerced into homosexual behavior?

It’s not personal – it’s a choice, and I choose not to participate in and/or support the activities of the perverse. It doesn’t matter who disagrees.

Saturday afternoon a colleague sent me the following: “Dem strategist [Jehmu] Greene on Fox excusing Obama by saying the AP could have been hiding a terror attack. Then she went on to blame Bush for Valerie Plame. The outing of whom had nothing to do with Bush or Cheney and yet, five years later, she repeats the lie.” As a matter of full transparency, the note did refer to Greene as “Jamu” not Jehmu.

Since she is unrepentant about calling Tucker Carlson a racial pejorative on the air she shouldn’t mind (sauce for the goose and that sort of thing).

Which brings me to my point. Why does Fox still give her status as an expert? She’s not a strategist. Unless by strategist they mean loathsome and mendacious, racist, race-monger whose only objective is to shield Obama from being exposed as a fraud and a threat to our nation and our allies.

Fair and balanced is not having a race-monger, who like Obama is capable of exuviating (or at very least securely hiding) the vestiges that reveal her to be the Neo-Leninist and hater that she is.

Why does Fox not only keep her around but protect her and shield her from criticism while allowing her a free pass for her blatant, racist name-calling on the air? What credibility can she possibly bring to Fox? She doesn’t even bring truth. Because of me and others, that portion of the public that reasons things thoughtfully and not reflexively do not believe a word she says. Her raw contempt for white Americans and all things not black has been exposed — so why does Fox want the likes of her representing their brand?

Fair and Balanced means you hear both sides of reasoned and cogent debate. Greene exemplifies neither of those characteristics. Greene’s job is to act as a minister of agitprop for the corrupt narcissist occupying the White House.

So again, I ask why Fox knowingly continues to showcase someone who is wholly given over to lies, racial antipathy toward whites, and does all in her ability to prop up the worst president in American history Her actions are hellish and seldom witnessed except by those committed to an intellectual pogrom. One can only deduce that Fox is deliberately sanctioning the misleading of low-information viewers.

The depths of her intellectual dishonesty are clear every time she does her best to deflect the truth about Obama. Hitler and Lenin would have been proud to have one like her serving in their regimes. But this isn’t Nazi Germany or Communist Russia. It’s the United States of America. And while politicians lying and sycophantic minions falling on swords for them is not unheard of, those supporting Clinton and Obama have given it new meaning.

We know there are ideologues in the media who are willing to go to great lengths to protect presidential regimes. But not in the face of the murder of Americans. Americans were murdered because of Fast and Furious; Americans were murdered in Benghazi. Have people like Greene no concern for the lives of Americans? And the fact that she apparently does not, severely calls into question any semblance of legitimacy pursuant to her concern about the people of America. Her concern is to help enrich and promote Marxist fronts such as ACORN and this administration.

Greene is fully cognizant of the fact that what she was attempting to spin was dishonest at best and at worst an outright fabrication of lies and deceit. Is Obama so desperate that his administration will have Greene knowingly and willingly extend the most grievous lies and distortions? Is this what his politics have come down to? How can either Obama or Greene feign concern for their so-called “African-American” brothers and sisters while knowingly misleading them? That is as much of a conundrum as their support of Planned Parenthood.

Which raises another question: just who are Obama and Greene out to help? Clearly, Jesse Jackson is out for himself and his family. Al Sharpton is out for all he can get for himself and a spot in the limelight. So who are Obama and Greene out for? They are unquestionably taking advantage of and using those they claim concern about. But to what end?

Obama claimed when he took office that he would represent The United States of America, not a black or white America. But since taking office he has fomented black antipathy toward whites in dramatic ways. Greene by her words and actions reserves her deepest resentment and contempt for all things white. And yet how specifically does she help the people she claims whites are mistreating, holding back, and depriving of an equal chance.

Obama refuses to financially help his brother, aunt, and other family members, and Greene intentionally misleads and misinforms the people she is supposed to care about. But they claim to care about their own kind. So the question remains, “just who are their people?”

I’m always reminded that the Apostle Paul’s admonition to Timothy to “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, with all long-suffering and doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:2; KJV) is not instructive for preaching only. It is one of the single most important and powerful things we can do to reach people with the truth.

Saturday afternoon, in the process of expressing my complaint pursuant to my being inconvenienced due to the poor service of others, the woman who had placed herself in my cross-hairs by attempting to reason with me over what I saw (and I argue rightly so) as indifference, incompetence, and personal inconvenience, inexplicably opened the door for me to explain why Obama is bad for America.

I immediately moved our conversation from why I was dissatisfied with her company to why Obama was bad for America. My response to her analogy was that in “my opinion (shared by untold others) Obama was the worst thing for America.” I had a very good idea where her treatise for him would start, so rather than wait I turned the conversation there. I referenced his over-the-top and reckless spending.

As I expected, she blamed Bush and gave the inculcated, reflexive response that Obama had told us it would be necessary for him to increase spending because of the debt Bush had piled up. I explained that was a fallacious story intended to justify his spending; I said he was practicing Keynesian economics, and I explained why Keynesian economics doesn’t work.

Anticipating her responses, I took her to issues that she, if honest, would be forced to agree with me on or remain silent which would still give us ground for reasoned debate which is always preferable to the alternative approach (albeit I’m comfortable with either).

I told her that he had invoked God’s blessings on Planned Parenthood and that he had praised Planned Parenthood for the good work that they do. All she could say was “Whaaatttt?” I followed that up by explaining who Margaret Sanger was and her role as a eugenicist.

As I detailed Obama’s stand on abortion, she was aghast. I said the media celebrates the wrong type women as being strong and successful. I said strong, successful women are those who choose not to let men take advantage of them and end up pregnant and at abortion clinics.

I told her she wasn’t aware of what I was sharing because she listens to media that does not want the public to know the truth. I supported my assertion with the lies Eason Jordan told pursuant to Iraq when he was Iraqi bureau chief for CNN. I also told her about Mark Ivancic the bigoted liar whom I caught red-handed changing my copyrighted, syndicated work to read as something I did not intend.

I told her that was why she couldn’t trust the sources she was reading in her local papers. I explained that the readers of the Bradford Era newspaper which employs Ivancic had no idea they were reading as factual that which he had doctored. I shared that Ivancic was allegedly observed changing copyrighted work from liberal syndicated essayists that did not follow his liberal bias. She was astonished that people the public trusted to provide the truth were so defiantly dishonest. I told her that the urban talk radio stations she listened to had the worst charlatans as program hosts. She asked where I got my news and opinions from and I told her.

I told her about the Obama woman saying she was only proud of America after her husband was elected. I told her about the Obama woman wallowing around and humping on the floor supposedly doing pushups on the set of lesbian Ellen Degeneres’ show. I asked her what other woman in Obama’s position had she seen behave like that. She answered truthfully saying “none.”

I said that, as First Lady, she should be advocating and bringing attention to the human trafficking of women and children being forced to be sexual slaves. Again she agreed with me.

I shared my philosophy on being an American juxtaposed to a color. She responded that what I was saying made sense.

She spoke about herself and how she poised herself for success. Based on what she shared about her views on making something of herself, I gambled that I knew the answer to my next question before I asked it. I asked her matter of factly how many abortions she had before she was out of school en route to the career she now has. She answered as I anticipated saying “None. Not me.” I followed up with “Why not?” She answered, “Because my mamma didn’t play that.” She was not prepared for what I shared next.

I told her that in 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was signed, 87 percent of blacks lived in married two-parent homes and that 40 percent of blacks were business owners. I then asked her “now you tell me what has happened?”

We left the conversation there. She indicated that she wanted to talk again, but even if that we don’t, I’ve planted the seeds of awakening that I’m confident will cause her to question what she hears and inspire in her a restlessness for truth.

We spend too much time worrying about whom we can get to speak for us and ignore the most effective means of reaching the lost and indoctrinated — and that is looking for every opportunity to share not just our faith but why our ideology is best for America. I didn’t argue liberal or conservative as such, albeit, I could have. I shared information with her that made her think and question what she heard and read.

In the late 1980s, it was called “Wilding” and the actors were called “Wolf-packs.” Today they are called “Flash-Mobs,” but the actors and their intentions are the same.

Marauding gangs of blacks are terrorizing cities across the country randomly attacking whites and destroying private property. As journalist, Colin Flaherty wrote: “Welcome to the new normal: Large-scale black mob violence is busting out in Philadelphia, Chicago, Utica, Jacksonville, St. Louis, Wilmington (Delaware), Greenville (South Carolina), Grand Rapids, Peoria, Springfield (Ohio), Newark, Boston and Brooklyn.” (Busting Out All Over: Black Mob Violence; WND.com; 4/11/13)

During the “Wilding” days, a group of black youths would randomly target a white person and punch them in the face, often taking time to admire their evil work. There was celebratory recognition for the one who delivered the most devastating assault. Today, 50-100 or more blacks go on wild rampages of unprovoked violence and the media is mute about it.

There is an understanding in the media that to report on such behavior would be viewed as racist. As my late grandmother was wont to say, “What on earth is this world coming to?” What indeed?

What motivates a people to act out such animalistic displays of Erebusic behavior?

One obvious answer is that there is no limit to the depths those who do not know the Lord will sink to in their depravity. But the other is raw, unbridled antipathy for whites.

This hatred is fueled by the continued inculcation that white people are not only taking advantage of blacks but that the problems in predominantly black domiciles are inherently attributable to white people in the zeitgeist of today. Whites are viewed as synonymous with all that is unjust and as being unfairly advantaged.

Blacks are constantly reminded — and thus encouraged to be resentful because of past grievances that most today never experienced. Specifically not those involved in flash-mobs.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are easy targets when it comes to pointing out those who foment racial discord and justifiably so. But what about the message sent by the highest law enforcement officer in the country, Attorney General Eric Holder, who refused my official petition and the petitions of others calling for the New Black Panther Party to be prosecuted for voter intimidation? Does not that send a clear and unambiguous message that if you’re black and terrorize white people there is no penalty? What about the transpicuous message of racial demagoguery by Obama when he claimed if he had a son he would look like Trayvon Martin? What about the message sent by the Obama woman when she stated in effect that she was only proud being in America because her husband was elected president?

Combining messages like those with the inculcation of “if you’re black you’re not equal” fertilizes the seeds of resentment and anger. Mixing that alchemy with the mantra that blacks are poorer and more disadvantaged than whites because the government doesn’t help them enough, adds accelerant to the flames under the caldron of combustible contempt.

Thus, it becomes understandable why those involved in these violent outbursts are given over to same. It is their intention to hurt the people viewed as responsible for their fathers being in jail, their mothers having to work two jobs, their horrid home lives, their brothers and sisters being killed in gang violence, ad nauseum.

They are taught in the classrooms that white privilege is to blame. The government is perceived as a monolith to white imperialism.

The message that is most needed, and that would have the greatest positive impact, is the one that isn’t given nearly enough.

Send the message that getting a good education is paramount, and that doesn’t necessarily imply the need for college — learn a skill or trade? Teach that marketable social skills, marketable linguistic skills, marketable employment skills, and proper dress are more important than the number of women males can sleep with? Instead of celebrating the working single mother as worthy of emulation, why not celebrate the woman who respects herself and who abstains from having children (sans abortion) until she is married?

Teach that while America is the greatest country in the world — the reality of life is that it sometimes seems unfair. But that isn’t because a white person is hiding just out of sight making a black man’s life miserable (Democrat race-mongers notwithstanding).

I in no way support the animalistic behavior of flash-mobs, but, specific to that point, it must be said that when the message being received on a sensory level every day of their lives is one of “white man is to blame” what else can we expect?

No single word and/or theory is more important in the vernacular of today’s higher education than “diversity.” In the Spring Edition of City Journal, Heather MacDonald writes a revealing (if you’re a liberal or if you’ve been living on another planet) article pursuant to the millions the budget-strapped University of California squanders “on mindless diversity programs.”

I recommend your reading Heather’s excellent work. That said, I’m sure as friends of many years, she won’t mind my using her essay as a spring board to reinforce a position I’ve argued since 1972. Heather wrote:
“It’s impossible to overstate the extent to which the diversity ideology has encroached upon UC’s collective psyche and mission. No administrator, no regent, no academic dean or chair can open his mouth for long without professing fealty to diversity. It is the one constant in every university endeavor; it impinges on hiring, distorts the curriculum, and sucks up vast amounts of faculty time and taxpayer resources. The university’s budget problems have not touched it. In September 2012, for instance, as the university system faced the threat of another $250 million in state funding cuts on top of the $1 billion lost since 2007, UC San Diego hired its first vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion. This new diversocrat would pull in a starting salary of $250,000, plus a relocation allowance of $60,000, a temporary housing allowance of $13,500, and the reimbursement of all moving expenses. (A pricey but appropriately “diverse” female-owned executive search firm had found this latest diversity accretion.) In May 2011, UCLA named a professional bureaucrat with a master’s degree in student-affairs administration as its first assistant dean for “campus climate,” tasked with “maintaining the campus as a safe, welcoming, respectful place,” in the words of UCLA’s assistant vice chancellor and dean of students. In December 2010, UC San Francisco appointed its first vice chancellor of diversity and outreach—with a starting salary of $270,000—to create a “diverse and inclusive environment,” announced UC San Francisco chancellor Susan Desmond-Hellmann. Each of these new posts is wildly redundant with the armies of diversity functionaries already larding UC’s bloated bureaucracy.”

Heather goes on to dot each “i” and cross every “t” in meticulous detail. But my consternation (Read contempt) for the idea of forced diversity goes beyond just what it costs us as taxpayers. I’m concerned with what it does to the psyche of those assignated as needful of being singled out as different. In my opinion, what it costs the individual pursuant to meritocracy and self-worth is far more devastating than the cost burden to taxpayers.

I argue that manipulated diversity has done nothing to improve the landscape of America’s institutions of higher learning. Unless having few more colors than a rival institutions is point worthy.

Diversity is code for multi-colored, but despite the intentions and/or what we they want us to believe diversity doesn’t mean inclusion or assimilation when it comes to black students. Black students still self-segregate in dining areas, and they still immediately form or join the black student union, or whatever other black-only groups there are on campus. Thus, instead of true assimilation, blacks treat themselves as color-coded islands unto themselves. Inclusion as such is only accomplished when the black student joins another black group. And of course there is the obligatory complaint that the faculty isn’t black enough, etc., blah, blah.

Diversity, as we are supposed to believe, doesn’t bridge our differences — it further exacerbates them. I argue without apology that it is not our differences we should be celebrating — it is those things that we share in common that draw us together as a nation.

I argue that the campus diversity craze does harm to the psyche of the so-called minority, i.e., black students, in ways unimagined and unaddressed. Diversity sends a clear and transpicuous message that demonstrates the individual is different based on skin color. It says they are inferior, unable to excel at anything that does not require run, punt, pass, kick, and/or shoot.

Diversity infuses into the mind of the so-called minority that they should be rewarded based on the color of their skin, not the value of their work. And not that only, but diversity also devalues the incentive to master said academics or skill requisite to compete on a level playing field. After all, why should a person work as hard if they know they are walking through the door with an edge based on color of skin?

Diversity undermines the confidence of a so-called minority because the color of their skin is always paramount in their minds. This contributes massively, and not coincidentally, to the level of disparity that exists in the country, and that is used (I say intentionally) to divide.

Meritocracy not only forces one to push themselves to excel, but it also engenders a community of accomplishment based on skill and performance, juxtaposed to breeding color-coded districts filled with resentment and antipathy because of the inculcated perception that one’s color is holding them back.

I’m not convinced the idea of diversity as defined can ever be made to work as intended in the absence of meritocracy. Because in the absence of meritocracy, the idea that you aren’t good enough without someone else’s (Read white liberal) help is the transcendent message.

I would argue that which I have articulated above is why we have witnessed the behaviors, dress, and gangster rap reach the extremes so prevalent in color-coded communities. They are cries for attention that point to an ability to do something definable as successful without the help of those who preach that success is not possible without them and their skewed theorizations of inclusiveness and community.

Here’s a question for you. What do the Obamas have in common with the boot-strappin’ Appalachians and the bearded hillbilly “Backyard Oilmen” of the Discovery Channel reality series set in south central Kentucky?

The answer is nothing. The Appalachian and hillbilly Backyard Oilmen worked to get where they are; they love America; they’re honest, God-fearing men, and they respect one another. None of those attributes describe the Obamas.

Here’s another question for you. Why are these same Appalachian and hillbilly oilmen savvier than the majority of voters? The reason? Because those Backyard Oilmen are savvy enough to know that if a hole comes up dry the first time you drill it – you don’t keep redrilling the same hole expecting to strike oil.

Which brings me to my point. I have been telling voters since 2002 that “the only things politicians want from us are our money and our votes. And the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats, unlike the Republican hierarchy, do not hide it.”

Last week my friend and I were talking about the Tea Party groups and why their brand had been compromised. Saturday afternoon as a guest on a talk show, I was asked the same question.

I explained to the program host as I had to my friend – the Tea Party brand was compromised because egocentric and nefarious individuals tried to transmogrify the tea parties from a movement of the people into a Party. Individuals driven by their thirst for recognition and misguided belief that a conference call from a politician made them insiders undermined one of the most successful movements of the people in decades.

The success of the tea parties in 2010 was that they belonged to the people. We the People didn’t listen to nor seek the approval of the Republican hierarchy. We didn’t ask for nor accept advice from Karl Rove, et al. Our determined individuality resulted in the most lopsided reclamation of Congress in 70 plus years.

But, it has become apparent, that which is led by one person more often than not falls prey to the ego of said individual. We the People must become resolute in our belief that the same mentality we applied to raise our families, purchase homes, send our children to college, make sound retirement plans, open and operate businesses, save and plan vacations, ad nauseum, will serve us well if we allow it when it comes to voting for the right candidates.

It is appalling to witness otherwise intelligent, self-reliant people, who are capable decision-makers abandon all semblance of common sense to blindly go along with whatever the political hierarchy claims is necessary. Democrats, regardless of their professed intentions, are anarchists at best and Neo-Leninists at worst who believe – contrary to the intent of our Founding Fathers – that government is the deity to whom we should turn for our daily bread. And today’s Republican establishment is no different.

The tea party was effective when it was a movement of the people, but the averous of certain men and the determination of the Republican hierarchy to deny us the right to choose the candidates of our choice quickly eroded the movement. We have witnessed Republican operatives (Read Karl Rove) sabotage candidates like Herman Cain. We have witnessed the so-called Republican leadership cast stinging aspersions against Sarah Palin and other candidates We the People supported. We multiple times daily hear so-called conservative pundits blather the hierarchy talking points pursuant to the tea party. These same pundits more often than not play a shell game of pretending to build up one candidate while waiting to tear them down in favor of the likes of McCain and/or Romney.

We the People must come to the realization that we are the power and our votes do count. We cannot continue to reward failed politicians with reelection after they blatantly and repeatedly betray our interests.

They are politicians, not rocket scientists. I know garage mechanics that have more common sense and a better grasp of what the nation needs than politicians. I know persons who own and operate lawn-care businesses who are financially more astute than politicians.

We the People must come to the realization that we are capable of thinking for ourselves. We must also come to the realization that campaigns and the establishment are paying image-makers enormous sums to create a candidate’s public persona. We must realize that little we see from the outside is real pursuant to those candidates whom party leadership tries to force upon us.

We need a movement of the people not a party. We must stop abdicating our common sense in favor of those whose only design is to have us do their bidding. Because as every “Backyard Oilman” knows you can’t get oil from a dry hole.