These charges are very serious and very false.  Rather than try to address these CBC charges myself, I have decided to ask someone much more talented in the language arts to answer the Congressional Black Caucus.  I’ve channeled the Bard himself, William Shakespeare to answer the CBC’s  reprehensible, divisive rhetoric. This morning I went to a medium-rare and spoke to the spirit of the Bard of Avon, below is what he told me to write:

To call me names if it will feed nothing else,
it will feed my resolve. The CBC hath disgraced me, and
hindered me with their mistruths; laughed at my losses,
mocked at my policy, scorned my constitution, thwarted my
honest dialogue, cooled my supporters, heated mine
enemies; and what’s his reason? I am a tea party patriot.

Hath not a patriot eyes? hath not a patriot hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a CBC Democrat is?

If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
expose you for what you are? If we are like you in the rest,
we will resemble you in that.

If a tea party patriot wrong a Democrat,
what is his humility? Lies.
If a Democrat
wrong a tea party patriot,
what should his sufferance be by
the Democratic example?
Why, TRUTH. The villainy you teach us,
we will execute the opposite, and will expose you
for what you are,  frauds
who bully American voters like us lest we remind the public
you have no entitlement to your position
Nay we hold the power and you sit at our whim and will

Remember November, the Second of November remember:

(more…)

Remember the good old days of black rage, when it was common place to know better than to mess with the brothas? Many a white folk radiated a pheromone of fear around the melanistic men and women who could snap and issue a retroactive cathartic beat down at any moment if they thought whitey was trying to get mighty again.

It ain’t that way anymore…

Now white folks are afraid of how much black people are going to complain.

The NAACP has been the flagship of making the black community look like the biggest community of sissies in America, as they continually promote us as victims. For decades they’ve boo hoo’d about the white man, yet remain loyal to what has always been an oppressive party; the Democrat party.

I’ve explored the NAACP’S interactive timeline and legal milestones on their webpage, and they list the injustices of the Jim Crow laws, the bigotry of Woodrow Wilson, etc. They’re well aware of the evils perpetrated, but hesitate to call the evil doers by their name. They’re slow to acknowledge that these oppressive laws and legalities were imposed on the black community by the Democrat party.

If you dig deep into the bowels of their website there may be a reference or two about Democrat naughtiness that amounts to a lil’ pat on the boo-boo.

(more…)

A federal court of appeals overturned Clinton-appointee Judge Nina Gershon’s ruling that claimed the government had the right and responsibility to fund ACORN.

Thank God, in light of the latest antics from ACORN Chief Organizer Berth Lewis.  While applauding the Young Democratic Socialists, she said, “Any group that says, ‘I’m young, I’m Democratic, and I’m a socialist,’ is all right with me.”

I’m glad the real socialists, with the ear of our government, are finally standing up to be counted.

The Tea Parties, which Lewis called a “bowel movement,” are bringing America into a phase that will surpass Jim Crow, McCarthism and the Japanese internment camps of World War II.

This woman, who has overseen an organization and employees accused and/or convicted of voter registration fraud in well over a dozen states, has no shame.

Lewis’ actions, both past and present, show why her organization isn’t worthy of our hard-earned tax dollars.

(more…)

I thought that we had moved past the KKK era and left behind us a time in which it was acceptable to openly engage bigoted policies on the basis of race and religion. It seems that I was wrong.

Sen. James Blaine

Until just a few days ago, Oregon enforced a law that banned religious believers who are required by their beliefs to wear distinctive garb from teaching in the public schools exclusively on the basis of their dress. It did not matter that many of these people were likely fabulous teachers who desired only to teach children math, English, and music. The governor of Oregon saw the light and signed the repeal on April 1. But much work remains to be done. Today the state constitutions of nearly 40 states contain provisions known as Blaine Amendments that discriminate in precisely the same way:  They deny state funding to people who are religious on the basis of their religious identities rather than on the basis of their actions and words.

Next week the people of Florida will have the opportunity to be rid of this type of discrimination. Let me explain.

(more…)

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Court will decide whether the City of Chicago can disarm its citizens by forbidding them from owning handguns, or whether gun ownership is a “privilege” of citizenship protected by the U.S. Constitution.  In doing so, it will reconsider whether courts should play a more robust role in the protection of the basic liberties of the people.

Such a statement may seem counterintuitive.  Of course courts protect rights; it’s their job to interpret the Constitution to do just that.

But the practice of constitutional law has unfortunately long since been about more than the simple application of the plain text.  That’s because the Constitution—the point of which is to limit government power—is a rather inconvenient roadblock when government wants to do something without restraints.  Courts, in many cases, have abandoned their responsibility to apply the clear commands of the Constitution and have become extremely deferential to legislatures, especially with regard to progressive policy goals the judges themselves often share.  It seems crazy that we would let legislatures determine when laws they themselves create violate the Constitution.  But that is exactly what has happened.  We’ve let the fox guard the henhouse.

Some call this judicial “restraint,” but increasingly, a more accurate term would be judicial abdication.  And judicial abdication is every bit as dangerous as judicial activism, and arguably even more so because it allows politicians to disregard whatever constitutional limits they find inconvenient, which leads to unchecked expansion of government power.

(more…)