The Founding Fathers believed that political representation should not be the domain of wealth or legacy. Having come from a country where you had to vote for the landlord’s son or the factory owner’s son if you wanted to keep your home or job, those patriots wrote tirelessly about the evils and dangers of electing the child of privilege who had no real life experience or goals outside of a career at the Capital. Similarly, they decried electing generation after generation of politicians who seemed to be only “of the people” when it came time to give a speech, pass the collection hat, or beg for a vote.

It’s not the Founding Fathers were against wealth. In fact, many of them were wealthy men. But after witnessing first hand the treacheries of politics in England, dominated by empty suits with deep pockets and well spoken dandies without life experience outside of court, the Founding Fathers wanted the fledgling United States to be operated by successful members of the general public, who would temporarily lend their skills and experiences to the governance of the country and then return to their careers after a few years.

The nature of success wasn’t so important, the original signers included tradesmen, farmers, doctors, lawyers, and merchants. It was that they had created something tangible, had vested interest in seeing their community and state prosper, and were passionately involved in their community. There was a real sense that if the representative didn’t adhere to the wishes of his constituents while at the Capital, he would have to live with the repercussions for his entire life. Whether it was out of honor or fear of shame, this kept politicians tied to voters in a real and immediate way.

Of course we are all aware that many local, state, and national GOP organizations long ago strayed from the Founding Father’s original intent of actual citizen representation and have instead promoted nepotism, cronyism, and decade after decade of entertainers who see career politics and their new stage and purse.

We had high hopes that with the Tea Party, the GOP would stop funding the “good ol boy system,” the RINOs, and the DeeDee Scozzafavs and Alan Spectors and start listening to the will of the people. But they haven’t. Across the country, we have the same ol’ candidates, the same ol’ smiling masks whose only experience is in delivering clever, speeches, and hosting high dollar fund raising dinners.

Thanks to my radio show, books, and columns, I am included in the email mailings of nearly a hundred local and state GOP groups as well as the national party. It has been, disheartening. Time and time again, the emails suggest “we can’t support any candidate officially, be we are saving our group money for candidate A” or “well we have to give candidate B and C something, but we are giving the majority of the money to candidate A.” And whom you may ask is candidate A? Time and time again it is the son or daughter of a politician. Time and Time again it is the son or daughter of the local elite. Time and Time again it is an empty suit with no actually experience aside from giving speeches and grabbing donations for wealthy friends, bolstered by political favors, a wink and a nudge.

America is facing the most difficult challenge perhaps since the civil war. The GOP should be rallying soldiers, people with real experience in getting things done, actual trench workers who understand balancing a budget, inspiring workers, facing payroll and regulations and getting their hands dirty in their own communities. Instead, the GOP keeps promoting the flag wavers and bugle players.

There has been a great deal of comparison between modern America and the fall of Rome. Social issues, immigration problems, and a top heavy welfare state crushed the country. They say that Nero played fiddle while Rome burned. I guess in hundreds of years, when people look back on the fall of this country, they can say the GOP played piano and sang.

Let me get this little disclaimer out of the way first,

• – I am a fiscal conservative.
• – I have never had an abortion.
• – I have never been in a situation that would lead me to consider having an abortion.

BUT abortion is currently legal & perhaps most importantly, statistics show that the vast majority of women who consider abortion as an option do so because they do not believe that they can financially care for a child on their own.

The far right narrative of “recreational birth control,” where women run around getting pregnant and then popping down to the local clinic for an abortion and a manicure is a vile, misogynistic, fantasy that portrays women as both immoral and self absorbed.

It is also a plays right into the hand of the liberals who drag this issue out during every tough election.

Here is how the scenario works:

• - Worried about jobs, gas, and finances, moderate democrats and independent voting women lean towards the economy as their main election issue and consider Republican candidates as viable options.
• - Fearful of losing their female voters, the left drags out the ‘partial term” abortion acts, birth control subsidies, and gay marriage issues to get the religious right to publically react.
• - The religious right politicians do react, often with completely condescending, chauvinistic, misogynistic, Victorian ideology, which subjugates women.
• - The result….same result every time…..moderate democrats, moderate republicans, libertarian, and independent voting women freak out and vote the “devil they know” incumbent or don’t vote at all, rather then face the possibility that they will be forced to get permission from a man to make personal, grown up decisions.

And where, you may ask, do women get the idea that under a Republican run government, their rights may be reduced to that of a primary school child? From the mouths of the politicians themselves.

Alan Dick, Republican from Alaska would have “a little more peace” about a woman having an abortion if she got….seriously….a permission slip from her impregnator. In fact, he advocates criminalizing women who, without the signature of the impregnator, has an abortion.

Like some Lifetime TV movie, Rep Dick’s fantasy is that of wonderful husband and all around man of the year, desperately yearning for a family. He is then betrayed by the evil, immoral, scheming woman who runs off, unbeknownst to him and aborts their child. A permission slip, in Dick’s mind, would prevent the plethora of lying, scheming, and women out there from robbing good men of their unborn children.

Of course life isn’t a Lifetime TV movie. The fact is, 1 in 5 women in America will be raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetime. 1 in 4 women are raped and abused by their spouse while in a marriage (though some still believe that raping your wife is spousal privilege). So, under Dick’s plan, a rape victim will face criminalization unless she either carries her rapist’s child or finds him and gets his signature. Since only 50% of rapes are investigated by the police and less than 20% are ever convicted, a rape victim would have to be a veritable Ms Marple or Jessica Fletcher, better at catching the rapist, than the police with all of their resources. How practical.

Of course Dick’s plan also opens the door to all sorts of pregnancy terrorism. Many states will not allow a pregnant woman to divorce or even separate from her husband. So when Earl says “you will never leave me,” to the wife he has been beating on, if he can just manage to knock her up, he has to force of the courts on his side. Gee! That almost sounds like a Sharia Law concept…why? Because it is.

Idaho Republican Senator Chuck Winder stated as closing arguments for a bill that would require women to see an ultrasound scan prior to an abortion, “I would hope that when a woman goes into a physician, with a rape issue, that that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage, or was it truly caused by a rape.”

Where to even begin? Winder says “when a woman goes into a physician with a rape issue” with the same flippancy as if she was headed down to the salon on a bad hair day. “Rape issue?” Is that really a phrase? How about “when a woman is the victim of the horrendous, felonious, crime of rape?” Then there is “truly caused by rape” in other words….”were you really raped? Really?? Really Really???” Ok girls line up; on one side the girls who lie about being raped so that they can add humiliation to what is already a painful decision and on the other side, girls too stupid to know the difference between rape and “normal relations.” That’s your choice ladies, you are liars or idiots.

Of course, the whole idea that women should be forced to watch either an abortion, as Arizona Republican Teri Proud suggests or an ultrasound or heartbeat from their own body as the new law in Texas requires, plainly shows that law makers feel women are too rash, emotional, and intellectually challenged to make decisions about their medical care without it all being spelled out, in big letters, and graphic detail.

Where are the corresponding responsibilities for men? Are men forced to watch computerized projections of what their future children may look like if only they would “just say no” to a vasectomy? They can’t get permission slips from future partners who may want children, so who signs for them? Their mothers? Or maybe all men who have a vasectomy should be forced to freeze their sperm in case some woman decides in the future that she may want children with the fellow.

Birth control, pregnancy, birth, and child rearing all continue to fall on the shoulders of women, even in this “enlightened” society. And while the stigma of single mother may have lessened, the financial realities have changed little from Victorian times. The US Census states that only 46% of single parent households receive child support. Of the remaining 54 % nearly 25% refuse to pay because they simply don’t want to be a parent or they deny paternity.

While there are deadbeat Moms, the vast majority of single parent homes are headed by mothers who teeter on the brink of poverty because the absent father either can’t or won’t financially care for his children. The homeless shelters are full of single parent families. When a woman, especially a young or poor woman is faced with a greater than 50% shot of having to raise children on her own, with over 80% of those single parent homes falling below the poverty line, it certainly bears out results of study after study concluding that lack of financial ability to care for a child on her own, is the single largest factor in the decision to have a pregnancy terminated.

But of course, the pregnancy is all her fault. Right? Presidential contender Rick Santorum announced at a town hall event, “We are seeing the fabric of this country fall apart, and it’s falling apart because of single moms.”

Really Rick? A woman is called a “single” mom when one half of the paternal equation is gone. Rick and his ilk gloss over the fact that while it takes two to tango, in our society, so often only one pays the band. So a woman who becomes pregnant can’t get an abortion because it’s morally wrong, but she shouldn’t have the baby either because she will land on welfare and that’s morally wrong too? I guess in Rick’s World, it sucks to be a woman

As conservatives we talk a lot about smaller government, personal responsibility, and less intrusion by the government into our personal lives. We talk about equal chance to succeed and achieve the American Dream. Yet, every aspect of the abortion debate flies in the very face of conservative, Constitutional values.

Creating an entire layer of government to monitor, indoctrinate, and shame women for a situation for which they (in the cases of rape, pedophilia, and incest) are completely blameless or in consensual, adult sex, at best share equal responsibility, is completely counter to conservative political values.  Didn’t we rally against “death panels” and the government intrusion into the private, personal, medical decisions of seniors? Didn’t we demand that seniors and their families be allowed to make decisions about their own lives, doctors, and treatments without having government mandated hoops through which to jump and impersonal boards sitting in judgment?

All you need to do is swap the focus of all of the abortion hate from one side to the other and it’s easy to see how ridiculous it is for politicians to involve themselves.

What politician would sponsor a bill requiring all men’s public toilets or even pharmacies to play abortion footage on continual loop with a friendly reminder to pick up condoms?

What politician would sponsor a bill requiring men to have a signed permission slip before masturbating because that might be robbing the wife of a chance to become pregnant?

Perhaps politicians could sponsor a bill requiring counseling for infertile couples, questioning whether the man “truly” ejaculated or was he just lying in order to have non-procreation sex.

Ridiculous? Yeah, well the “female as bad guy” version of each of those bills is currently being debated….or has already passed.

Now you may believe that abortion is wrong. You may even believe that even in the instance of pedophilia, incest, or rape, abortion is wrong. You may even go so far as to believe that even if pregnancy will likely kill the mother, abortion is wrong. But the fact, the incontrovertible fact is that right now, today, abortion is legal. That means that it is a right. If you want to change that right, you lobby to have the issue voted upon by the citizens of your state.

Politicians who sponsor these back door bills and then pat themselves on the back for infantilizing women think that they are playing to the conservative vote. But in recent surveys of Republican voters, 70% said that while they wouldn’t consider having an abortion personally, they wouldn’t restrict the rights of others to do so.

Instead of playing to the conservative base, politicians who make abortion a main focus of their campaign play right into the hands of liberals who have now changed the entire campaign focus from the economy and gas and jobs to the far right’s attack on women.

And guess what…it’s working.

In fact, unless you lived in the proverbial “one horse town,” your neighbors probably wouldn’t have any idea what church you attended.

A man’s vote or support for a candidate was a private matter and people who wore support pins did so only at political rallies.

That old saying, “No one knows what goes on behind closed doors,” was both a warning to mind your own business about my private life and a pledge that I won’t get involved in your private life.

Your salary, how much money you had in the bank (or under your mattress), and how much you spent or saved was simply private and personal information and most people had no idea how a person lived their financial life until the reading of the will.

Today, Republicans claim to adhere to the values that made America great. Yet, second only to blaming liberals and Obama for the destruction of America, conservatives do their darnedest to play the self defeating game of exclusionist politics all based on rejecting those basic rules of polite society. From national figures on major media outlets to your “friends” on social media, the message is loud and clear, if you aren’t “my” kind of conservative (unless you agree with me on religion, sexual or reproductive issues, my political candidate, and how people should spend their money), you aren’t a “real” conservative.

Meanwhile, Democrats have played a long game of inclusion. That is, as long as you vote with us, we don’t care what you believe in your private life, we accept you. This practice of inclusion has resulted in groups of people, who otherwise have nothing in common, voting in mass for the same candidate. Just think about this for a moment, the Democrats can count blacks, Jews, socialists, skin-heads, welfare recipients, dockworkers, and homosexuals as their support base. Clearly it isn’t because these groups all believe in the same things. Nazi skin-heads, blacks and Jews, certainly don’t all agree on world views.

In vox pols in 2008, people were asked three questions,

1.         Do you consider yourself a Republican, Independent or Democrat?

2.         With which party do you intend on voting.

3.         Why?

More than half of those who responded considered themselves Independent and of those voters over 80% said that they would vote for the Democrat candidate. Despite the fact that most of the responders said that they agreed with the concept of smaller government, less regulation, and less intrusion into the personal lives of citizens, when asked why they wouldn’t vote for the Republican candidate, the overwhelming response was essentially some version of “I’m not rich, white, or evangelical, so that candidate wouldn’t support me.”

Just last week, the leader of a local Republican group announced that “we should all support X candidate because he is a good, God-fearing Christian family man, who pays his bills on time.” I wish that I had been shocked. Conservatives for more than a decade have moved farther and farther into “none of your business territory” to the detriment of this country and the Republican Party. We can all blame the liberals for driving us in the wrong direction, but with Republicans fighting in the backseat over who is the “real” conservative, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

So, let’s get this straight. There is a difference between a political conservative and a religious conservative. A political conservative is someone who believes in a small, constitutionally mandated government, limited intrusion into the private lives of citizens, and limited regulation as to the business of citizens. Religion is NOT an element of a conservative political position. Some people who are conservative politically are also religious conservatives, but they are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, you can be a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, or Atheist political conservative.

You can be a pro-choice or a pro-life political conservative.

You can be a homosexual or heterosexual political conservative.

You can be a wealthy political conservative or a dirt poor political conservative.

No matter what your religion, which candidate you support, what you believe about sex or reproduction, or how you spend your money, if you believe in a constitutionally based, small government, limited intrusion into the public lives of citizens, and limited business regulation, you ARE a political conservative.

Candidates and their supporters are so vehemently going after other conservatives who don’t share their religious beliefs, financial realities, sexual and reproductive beliefs, or chosen candidate that it will be impossible to forget the hateful and hurtful personal attacks and join behind one candidate come election time. Every day I hear, “oh we will all support anybody but Obama come election time,” but statistics show that that simply isn’t true. The disenfranchised conservative may not vote for Obama, but they will simply stay home and not vote at all.

It’s ironic that limited intrusion into the lives of citizens is a corner stone of the conservative belief, yet day in, day out people who claim to be conservative’s demand that we agree with their position on social issues. I say it’s high time that political conservatives adopt the real, traditional, American values of minding our own business when it comes to the religion, sex, financial realities, and the preferred candidate of fellow political conservatives.

Can we survive four more years under Obama? Unless we focus on small government, less intrusion into the lives of citizens, and limited business regulation and become open to ANYONE who agrees with the political conservative stance and mind our own business about the rest, we are guaranteeing another term and the destruction of this country. Wake up fellow conservatives, exclusion is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

So when a few fellow conservatives criticize plans to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank on grounds that it is just another costly government corporate welfare program, why do I strongly disagree? The answer is simple – the Ex-Im Bank is none of the things some of my fellow conservatives claim.

The Ex-Im Bank assists U.S. manufacturers – small and large – to export their goods to foreign buyers. Typically it facilitates loan guarantees for foreign buyers who want to buy U.S. goods. Whether it is big names like General Electric, Caterpillar and Boeing, or small companies (which comprise 87% of the bank’s transactions), the Ex-Im Bank helps their foreign buyers obtain financing so that American goods are sold and shipped abroad. This means more American employment and more exports.

The Ex-Im Bank does not compete with private financial institutions, but rather fills-in banking gaps so that U.S. goods can be exported to nations where commercial financing is insufficient. The Ex-Im Bank doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime. Rather, it makes money from the fees it charges foreign buyers which is pumped back into the U.S. Treasury and helps reduce the deficit.

The Ex-Im Bank has a 75 year track-record and the Congressional Budget Office projects in the coming years, the Ex-Im Bank will pump $900 million into the U.S. Treasury – not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. made goods that will be exported and the hundreds of thousands of American jobs that will be supported. In 2011 alone, the bank facilitated sales abroad that supported 290,000 American jobs.

Some conservatives incorrectly argue that the Ex-Im Bank is similar to the Solyndra scandal where government bureaucrats gave about $500 million to a business headed by Obama fundraisers. To make matters worse, Solyndra’s own business plan showed that it could not turn a profit. Solyndra represents what is deeply wrong with government attempts to manipulate the marketplace. But the Ex-Im Bank and Solyndra have nothing in common. Solyndra involved government awarding taxpayer funded cash grants to failing businesses owned by political allies. The money was completely wasted, the business failed, and no jobs were created.

The Ex-Im Bank is entirely different. It doesn’t hand out cash grants. It facilitates financing for foreign buyers who want to purchase American manufactured goods. The foreign buyer must qualify for the loans. Since its inception, less than 2% of the Bank’s loans have ever defaulted. Even then, the manufactured goods are part of the collateral for the loan. This is one of the reasons why the Ex-Im Bank returns money to the U.S. Treasury, rather than takes money from the taxpayer.

Some conservatives oppose reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank because they see it as an interference with the free market. On a purely theoretical level, I can see their point. But the problem with this analysis is that the international marketplace isn’t a free market. Virtually every other nation offers export loan assistance. In fact, China and many other nations actually offer aggressive, below market loans to induce foreign buyers to purchase their goods. When the U.S. competes on quality and price, it wins the competition. That is precisely why nations like China intervene and offer cut rate financing with very generous terms so that they can undercut U.S. firms. Europe does this as well.

As a conservative, I would like to see free markets expanded. We should enter into more free market reform agreements with our trading partners. We should reform our tax code and our regulatory regime to ensure we are competitive. But nixing the Ex-Im Bank now without international financing reform agreements does nothing to promote free markets. It merely undermines U.S. manufacturing, kills high-paying American jobs, and erodes our ability to compete in a worldwide marketplace. Until we can expand our trade agreements to include more free market principles, refusing to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank is essentially unilateral disarmament. That is fool hearty.

Instead of writing about the Pledge, I recently came across this article by iconic entertainer, Red Skelton, which sums it up so nicely.

Commentary on the Pledge of Allegiance

by Red Skelton

As a schoolboy, one of Red Skelton’s teachers explained the words and meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance to his class. Skelton later wrote down, and eventually recorded, his recollection of this lecture. It is followed by an observation of his own.

I - – Me; an individual; a committee of one.

Pledge - – Dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity.

Allegiance - – My love and my devotion.

To the Flag - – Our standard; Old Glory ; a symbol of Freedom; wherever she waves there is respect, because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts, Freedom is everybody’s job.

United - – That means that we have all come together.

States - – Individual communities that have united into forty-eight great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose. All divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that is love for country.

And to the Republic - – Republic–a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people; and it’s from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.

For which it stands

One Nation - – One Nation–meaning, so blessed by God.

Indivisible - – Incapable of being divided.

With Liberty - – Which is Freedom; the right of power to live one’s own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.

And Justice - – The principle, or qualities, of dealing fairly with others.

For All - – For All–which means, boys and girls, it’s as much your country as it is mine.

And now, boys and girls, let me hear you recite the Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: Under God. Wouldn’t it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools, too?

Red Skelton

I like Newt Gingrich’s proposal for Lincoln-Douglas style debates, but we also need a candidate assessment tool with a strong relationship to job performance. For America’s most important job, we need America’s “ultimate job interview.” We need “Presidential Apprentice.”

On the campaign trail, candidates are afforded many opportunities to reveal their communication skills, intelligence and temperament. While these attributes are useful in running a community organization, they may not be enough to lead our great country.

Consider that Carter, a trained Nuclear Physicist, was intelligent but succumbed to “analysis paralysis.” Clinton was smart and slick but his presidency was problematic. Obama is an intelligent communicator with a cool temperament; however, he often shirks from crucial decisions in favor of political expediency. For example, development of our energy sector would create jobs and spur our economy; yet, caught between two of his competing constituencies – labor and environmentalists – he delayed decision on the Keystone oil pipeline.

The rigors of the campaign trail favor smart candidates who give pretty speeches and are prolific fundraisers, astute panderers and quick-witted in debates. Intelligence is a starting point, but we need a campaign test that reveals other traits required to be an effective president such as leadership, judgment, honesty and problem solving prowess.

Research shows that work sample tests have the highest validity in predicting job performance. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, for example, lists work sample tests as having the highest validity (degree to which assessment scores are related to future job performance) out of 15 different assessment tools.

Work sample tests focus on the actual tasks performed on the job; they’re based on the premise that the best predictor of future behavior is behavior observed under similar situations.

This is how NBC describes Celebrity Apprentice: “Just as in the regular ‘Apprentice,’ the celebrities will be subjected to long hours, grueling mental challenges, personality clashes, and intense scrutiny – all without the help of their regular support system of agents, managers, and personal assistants.” With a little tinkering, that sounds like a useful way to help an often bewildered public choose our next president.

In addition to debates, presidential candidates could be invited to participate in Presidential Apprentice. They’d be given real-world scenarios, and the candidate, as project manager, could select his or her team. A potential task could be: “Develop a plan to stimulate private sector job growth without increasing the federal deficit.” The plan would not be just a list of steps, but include a method to usher it through Congress, and to implement it with the fewest regulations possible.

We could give them one week, maybe two if we sacrifice a debate for this more predictive assessment tool. TV cameras will be privy to their internal machinations, including assembling the team, establishing report structures, milestones, planning, leadership, execution and monitoring.

During this brief “Presidential Apprentice” curriculum we might sneak a peak into how our leaders marshal resources under deadline pressure, not just how well they read from a teleprompter to cherry-picked audience members.

Perhaps in a televised town hall format, the project groups will assemble to deliver their executive report. Video clips of their group interactions can be followed by audience questions. Voting or dramatic boardroom showdowns, as in the progenitor series, aren’t necessary; the public can draw their own conclusions.

This brief “Presidential Apprentice” program will unveil our candidates’ skills in solving real-world problems unprotected from the shield of spin-merchants and coddling advisers who could coach a neophyte to avoid direct answers.

Another compelling benefit is that the show would educate voters who might not otherwise be engaged. Polls show that many Americans can’t name all the branches of government, or they believe that Karl Marx helped write our constitution. Surveys by Pew Research indicate that politicians get elected by people who don’t know their platforms. No wonder some voters are duped by catchy slogans like “Change we can believe in.”

The “Presidential Apprentice” would help rectify this: lured by the high entertainment of watching highfalutin politicians stumble through project milestones, viewers mightn’t even realize they’re being educated at the same time.

Resumes can be tweaked by clever politicians, but an apprenticeship will not lie. Let’s inject this entertaining yet reliable measurement device into laborious presidential campaigns. The voting public should know whether our next leader can run something other than his glib mouth. By Noel S. Williams.

The most disgusting example of the media lynching was the interview by MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell. O’Donnell’s questions were predictably misleading. That’s to be expected because they cater their content to a small (and I mean small) leftist fringe. He relentlessly attempted to cast Herman Cain as a race traitor through innuendo like accusing him of not participating in civil rights demonstrations, insulting his father, and misrepresenting passages from his book. I concluded than this Ivy League elitist has ordained himself with the authority to declare who is black. Although Herman Cain gave a spirited interview, he showed the obvious restraint of a presidential candidate leaving the host visibly frustrated by his defiance. I guarantee that if this was 1840, O’Donnell would have filled Cain’s back with welts like the Democrats used to do to noncompliant blacks back then. Nonetheless, since I am not a presidential candidate, and have no restraint and can directly address his racist assumptions.

I challenge Mr. O’Donnell’s and his newfound authority to a “black contest.” As a conservative black American, your racial integrity is challenged regularly. While I believe that there is no standard “black experience,” there are experiences, conditions and traditions that tie the millions of African-Americans together that are distinctly different from other groups of Americans. Unfortunately, racist liberals like O’Donnell and self-proclaimed “black leaders” like Cornell West have given themselves the authority to decide who can call themselves black.

For years conservative African-Americans have tried to convince brethren that despite political differences, they are no different. Too often these pleas fall on deaf ears as their “black cards” are revoked for simply exercising constitutional rights. At the same time, people like Obama, whose descendents were not forced into slavery, and Bill Clinton who continues to be touted as the first “black” president.

Now’s the time for liberals to stop all of the innuendo and baseless accusations. Since they are quick to insult the racial integrity of conservative blacks, here is their chance to prove it. Mr. O’Donnell, let’s mutually agree on a measurable standard based on the experiences of descendants of enslaved Africans in America, pitting myself against President Obama. If I lose, I am willing to profess that my conservative beliefs make me a sellout to my community. If you lose, you must profess to your audience that you are indeed the biggest racist in America.

I realize the that idea of a “black contest” may be considered immature. So is having to rebut being called an Uncle Tom during an otherwise intelligent debate on policy. I am addressing absurdity in-kind. I fully expect O’Donnell to cower inside of his ivory tower at MSNBC by ignoring me. That’s why I need you help to me challenge the racists at MSNBC. Copy and paste this editorial with “Don’t Be A Coward O’Donnell, Accept The Challenge” in the title. E-mail it directly to Lawrence O’Donnell at thelastword@msnbc.com. Get all of your friends to do the same. O’Donnell acts like a tough guy when standing on the bully pulpit, time to find out if that MSNBC mascot is really a peacock or chicken.

Andre Harper is the founder and president of The Knowledge Movement, LLC and author of The Citizens Guide To Defeating the Mainstream Media. He can be reached at www.AndreHarper.com.

These self-described anarchists have provided us with a clear contrast of our opposing political philosophies. These protesters range from spoiled trust fund baby to vagrants fueled by greed and a desire to use the heavy-hand of government, sustained civil disobedience and intimidation to steal from those who have earned.
These revolutionaries are the base of the Democratic Party. Water-boarding would be the only way to persuade these people to vote Republican. They are the street soldiers Democrats rely on every election. They are liberalism. Lets contrast the two philosophies:

Protest behavior- While the media continues to anticipate the eventual violent eruption at a Tea Party rally, there have been no arrests in two years and with virtually a non-existent police presence. Hundreds of conservatives frequently assemble with no incident. On the other hand, municipalities have to exhaust increased tax-payer resources in preparation of any leftist gatherings. In only two weeks on Wall Street, there have been over 700 arrests.
Jobs- The liberal protesters have demanded “full employment.” This is accomplished in one of two ways. 1) Central planning where bureaucrats decide citizen roles and wages based needs of “the greater good” of society or 2) a fully functioning private sector with little government intervention allowing businesses to thrive and individuals to choose careers based on personal interests and needs of the marketplace. Conservatives acknowledge that some careers are more lucrative than others but there is always honor in a days work.
Income- The liberal protesters have demanded “Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment” which is code for communism. Wages are based on several factors including education, experience, working conditions, location, etc. Conservatives understand that minimum wage is not a “living wage.” Minimum wage is not designed to be a career destination. It’s serves as the entry into the workforce best utilized by teenagers, transient workers and those getting back on their feet.

Conservatives should use these protests as an opportunity to negate all false accusations perpetrated by the mainstream media and the Democratic Party. Liberals, through their actions and words, are proving that they are real enemies of America. We should appreciate them giving us a glimpse of the certain violence, intolerance and scarcity to expect if they take control of the country. On the other hand, our message has been consistent. We cannot guarantee outcomes but we can protect opportunity.

In 2008, Obama campaigned on fundamental change and finally we have an accurate illustration of what he meant. I guarantee you, this is not what independent voters want for their children’s future. Conservatives will waste a golden opportunity if we don’t use this protest to show what America’s future will be if we don’t stop the cancer of liberalism from spreading. Americans need to understand that liberalism is designed for a few smart people to achieve power by manipulating many dumb people while everyone else suffers. So while, the useful idiots are having fun dressing up like zombies and getting arrested on the streets of New York, the likes of George Soros, Van Jones, Frances Fox Piven, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have already begun to harness this energy for their own personal gain.

Andre Harper is the founder and president of The Knowledge Movement, LLC and author of The Citizens Guide To Defeating the Mainstream Media. He can be reached at www.AndreHarper.com.

President Obama is ignoring the first rule of holes — when you’re in one, stop digging.

But no, after putting forth a $447 billion so-called jobs plan (which was really just a jobs plan for public employees and construction workers), he has now doubled down on tax hikes as his way of not only paying for that plan, but tackling the deficit it would increase.

So yesterday he unveiled a $1.5 trillion tax hike as the way of tackling $3 trillion of the deficit over the next 10 years. It came with the usual Obama it’s-my-way-or-the-highway threats.

“We just can’t cut our way out of this hole,” he insisted.

“Either we gut education and medical research, or we’ve got to reform the tax code so that the most profitable corporations have to give up tax loopholes that other companies don’t get,” he added. “We can’t afford to do both. This is not class warfare. It’s math.”

Well, he at least anticipated arguments on the other side — and they are many.

Any responsible plan to cut “loopholes” in the corporate tax code has always been coupled with a reduction in the rate that would make it something less than among the highest in the world — thus sending so many U.S. companies offshore the minute they start to grow.

And all those loopholes Obama wants to close — deductions for mortgages and charitable contributions for high earners — well, responsible plans to do that (such as that of his own blue ribbon deficit reduction commission) have also coupled that with a lower rate.

This plan does nothing to address the lingering problems with Social Security. It makes by Obama’s own admission only “modest” adjustments to Medicare and Medicaid. And even those Obama threatens to veto if they are not coupled with his precious taxes on the “rich.”

The only good news yesterday was that at least he didn’t ask for another joint session of Congress to advance this utterly lackluster plan.

USCCB – The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of …minors by Catholic priests in the US, is the study released by  by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. This recent report (2011) reiterates Phillip Jenkins/Penn State/”Pedophiles and Priests’”, reported 9 years ago.

What the media reported was vastly different. Corrections are as follows:

1) “Catholic priests were almost always the sexual deviant” was incorrect. Clergy, in general, are no more likely to be involved with sexual misconduct than any other citizen.  Because of accurate records kept by the Catholic Church, few have any idea if a Catholic cleric has a higher or lower rate for teachers/abusers, residential counselors, social workers, or scout masters. From Jenkins we hear: “Literally every denomination and faith tradition has its share of abuse cases, and some of the worst involve non-Catholics”. Every mainline Protestant denomination has had scandals aplenty, as had Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, Buddhists, HareKrishnah’s—and the list goes on.”       

2) “Being celibate leads more to sexual indiscretions” is commonly quoted, and quite incorrect. Catholic priests have no monopoly on sexual misconduct with minors. Even though news media typically see sexual abuse as crises of celibacy, priests actually have a lower rate of offense that their non-celibate counterparts. As stated in Our Sunday Visitor (2/25/96) “…the problem is bigger among Protestant clergy.” In other words, clerical sexual misconduct is by no means just a Catholic problem. [Catholic Matters: PEDOPHILE PRIESTS ?]

3)  The “AP” reported on 8/09 that sex abuse claims by Protestant clergy reported by Church Mutual, GuideOne, and Brotherhood Mutual amounted to almost 260 reports each year. The annual average of complaints by Catholic clergy revealed an average of 228 “credible accusations”. Bottom line, there’s no denominational boundaries with sexual abuse. As Jenkins writes, “The story of clerical abuse is bad enough without turning it into an unjustifiable of religious bigotry against the Catholic Church.”

4) A “pedophilia” crisis (sexual attraction of adult towards those below puberty) was incorrect. The correct terminology was “ephebophilia” (homosexual attracted to very young men). Homosexuality has always been the actual problem. About 40 priests, or about 1.8% of the whole, were likely guilty of some misconduct with minors.  Any offending perpetrators were simply members of the Catholic Church—not representative of the Faith.

In Priests, Abuse, and the Meltdown of a Culture – George Weigel …comments on the John Jay report mentioned above. This College reveals most sexual abuse takes place within families. They conclude the sexual abuse of the young is a widespread and horrific societal problem, not principally a Catholic priest problem.

Between 1950 and 2002, the John Jay study revealed about five young people in 100,000 may have been abused by a priest, but the average in the US  general population was 134 per 100,000. A sexual problem exists alright, but it’s not at its worst with any church.

In the John Jay study, the Catholic bishops (and society as a whole) had no idea the magnitude of the abuse problem. Bishops thought these perpetrators could be cured and returned to active ministry. But with stringent checks routinely done by the Catholic Church (background checks, specific numbers of chaperones/students, windows in all doors, etc…), it’s said to be the safest environment for young people today.

It seems the Catholic Church is much safer than public schools, and especially the family in general. Will the mainstream media change their tune about who the major perpetrator of child sexual abuse is? Not likely. The Catholic Church is a favorite target.

No doubt the heinous nature of some Catholic priests has been totally unacceptable. But even more sexual abuse from other religions, the public school system, and familial abuses is rarely discussed. But the Catholic Church still gets pelted from “rock-throwers”. The Church also knows worse atrocities have always been accused.

The problem is not one of corrupt doctrine, but of abusers not being true to their duty, promises, or faith. It sounds as if the mainstream media is doing the same thing.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.