Ted Cruz -Dangerous

Sen. Ted Cruz made an utterly remarkable statement Wednesday that clearly aligned him with the ideology of a racist of the past. Cruz said that the country would be better off if the Senate was full of people like Jesse Helms, the late senator who was ardently opposed to all kinds of civil rights measures and even tried to block the Senate from approving a federal holiday in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Cruz made the remarks at a Heritage Foundation event dubbed the "Jesse Helms Lecture Series,"  where Cruz told a story of Helms receiving a $5,000 political donation from actor John Wayne, who apparently later told Helms he liked him because "you're that guy saying all those crazy things" and that there needed to be 100 more of him. Adding, "It's every bit as true now as it was then," Cruz said. "We need 100 more like Jesse Helms in the U.S. Senate."

Helms, the conservative North Carolina Republican who served in the Senate for 30 years, was known for his efforts to stop progressive polices relating to gay rights, abortion and race. He voted against the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which he referred to as "the single most dangerous piece of legislation ever introduced in the Congress." When the Senate acted in 1983 to create a federal holiday honoring King, Helms staged a 16-day filibuster to try to block it. He ultimately caved in exchange for action on a tobacco bill.

From public statements Cruz’s ideology is derived from what sounds like his mentor or idol. He went on to say that the first political donation he ever made was to Helms -- $10 -- and praised the late senator for his outspokenness. And he wants to be president?

I am old enough to remember the racial bigotry of Helms and those like him; such as George Wallace and Strom Thurman to which I see nothing to be proud of by anyone with their views. With Cruz’s McCarthy like tactics and statements such as this remind us of a shameful time not so long ago where America should never want to return.

Moreover, because of the many who support and follow the likes of him, we should be afraid – very afraid! And that’s my thought provoking perspective…

The Gathering

Did you get your invitation from James Crow Esq. to attend the 21^st Century Citizens Counsel gathering they call CPAC? No, I did not get one either but I heard all about it. I will be upfront and say that I have called the Good Ol Boys (GOP), like most, many things and coming from a time where I have seen this movie before; I think my assertion is fair. I will try to capture the essence of what the rightwing nuts and failed Republican candidates represented as they continued clinging to a version of reality unique to a world alien to sane people.

Last weekend the conservatives paraded their best spokespeople to advance their cause, and if they were trying to make a good impression on each other and observant voters, they failed miserably because it was nothing but the same. No actually it was worst. I saw racism and bigotry that went back to the days of the Civil War.

The show or disgrace hosted the usual daily recapitulation of crazy to comprehend the conservative conclave’s purpose was to put on a torrid display of groundless anti-Obama rhetoric based on the roster of speakers. One by one, their best and brightest fired up the crowds preaching that America’s salvation is steeped in religion, austerity, guns, and voiding the federal government, and the speakers each reiterated that Republicans lost the November election because the GOP failed to articulate conservative’s values and not that voters rejected conservative extremism.

Marco Rubio said, “We don’t need new ideas. The idea is called America, and it still works” and it revealed that to Republicans, extremism defines America, and voters are out of touch with America. The list of characters represented fanaticism at its finest with Donald Trump, Rand Paul, Sara Palin, Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan rambling on about America’s demise stemming from voter’s rejecting conservative ideas. Many of the gang, marquee spokespersons, came out of retirement to lay the nation’s woes at the feet of President Obama.

They had the nerve to host a panel on “Trumping the Race” card, which appeared to be the highlight of the day. A man from North Carolina complained that embracing diversity in the party by reaching out to black conservatives was “at the expense of young, white, Southern males like myself, my demographic is being systematically disenfranchised.”

When the discussion leader from the Frederick Douglass Republicans shared a story about abolitionist Frederick Douglass’s letter to his former slave-owner forgiving him for holding him in servitude, the racist said, “For giving him shelter and food?” The racist’s remark evoked cheers and applause from the crowd.

After the brief exchange, the racist muttered “why can’t we just have segregation?” When the racist was asked if he supported an America where African Americans were subservient to whites, he said “I’d be fine with that,” and continued that African Americans “should be allowed to vote in Africa,” and that “all the Tea Parties” were concerned with the same racial problems that he was. When a woman confronted the man on the GOP’s racist roots, he said “I didn’t know the legacy of the Republican Party included women correcting men in public.”

The interchange, although not part of the scheduled program, highlighted Republicans’ racism that the election of an African American as President has brought to the voters’ attention and alienated minorities in November’s election. To reinforce the point, Tea Party Patriots blamed the racist’s remarks on an African American woman reporter for asking a question they said was “disruptive and coercive;” she asked, “How many Black women were there?”

The Black reporter also took exception to the contention that Democrats are to blame for the existence of the Ku Klux Klan, that enraged the crowd who shouted the woman down with cries of “We don’t want your question,” and “we don’t want to hear it.” One teabagger regaled in tri-corner hat, waistcoat and breeches typical of a Revolutionary War soldier shouted incessantly at the Black reporter and finally stormed out of the room.

CPAC was an extremists’ dream, and they brought out the cream of the conservative crop to parrot extremist rhetoric. The was a time in recent memory where we saw the extreme lynch, murder though the use of terror, African Americans could not drink from the same water fountain, trampled and beaten by people of this ilk. In fact, Rand Paul is on record say if he were a Senator he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act.

If I could make a comparison to this gathering it was more like a Star Wars bar scene gone wrong. People 2014 is not far away. I counted five black people and one Latino - Be afraid, Be very afraid! And that’s my Thought Provoking Perspective…

What if the Tea Party was Black?

We have witnessed during the November election the repudiation of the Republican ideas, who I often refer to as the 21^st century Citizens Counsel or maybe more appropriate James E. Crow, Esq. lest not forget that there remains a vigilant fringe out there like the Klan that may go away for a while but always resurface. It’s the "Tea Party"!

The "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea in 1773 and demonstrated by dumping British tea taken from docked ships into the harbor. Some commentators have referred to the Tea in "Tea Party" as the backronym “Taxed Enough Already”.

The Tea Party movement is composed of a loose affiliation of national and local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas without central leadership. The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been described as an example of astro-turfing. The Tea Party movement is not a national political party; polls show that most Tea Partiers consider themselves to be Republicansand the movement's supporters have tended to endorse Republican candidates. Ergo, Klan like in nature!

The purpose of this post is not to educate or empower you on their platform or extreme right-wing agenda. Rather to ask a poignant question. What if the Tea Party was an organization or a group formed by Black people? Or Latino; Or any ethnic group other than those we see participating? I lived though the 60’s and saw groups protesting for basic human rights destroyed and the leaders killed.

When they say, they want to take back their country – most of us can hear what they are not saying. And that’s my Thought Provoking Perspective…

Watch the video and you will get the point.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wie79pgiEMY]

Oh Clearance!

During that God awful period of American history, which has been sanitized from the mind of today, when slavery was the law of the land there was an arrangement where African Americans were divided in two groups: – “House-Negros (I never use the N-Word but you get the point) and Field-Negros”. That same can be said of some in our community today!

For these who might not understand, let me explain:

“The house Negro, they lived in the house, with master. They dressed pretty good. They ate good, cause they ate his food, what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near their master, and they loved their master, more than their master loved himself. They would give their life to save their masters house quicker than their master would. The house Negro, if the master said "we got a good house here" the house Negro say "yeah, we got a good house here". Whenever the master would said, we, he'd say we. That's how you can tell a house Negro.

If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master, more than the master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said "Let's run away, Let's escape, Let's separate" the house Negro would look at you and say "Man, you crazy.

What you mean separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?" There was that house Negro. In those days, he was called a house nigger. And that's what we call him today, because we still got some house niggers runnin around here. This modern house Negro loves his master. He wants to live near him. He'll pay three times as much as the house is worth just to live near his master, and then brag about I'm the only negro out here.”

There are many who fall into this category but I am saddened by one in particular. I said sadden but not surprised by the actions of Clearance Thomas as he voted once again against the interest of African Americans. He is widely regarded as the most conservative member of a conservative dominated Supreme Court and far more conservative than Hugo Black, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan who served on the court from 1937-1971.

Black, a former U.S. Senator from Alabama once filibustered an anti-lynching bill and joined the KKK in the early 1920s. In fact, during the 1926 election, he gave speeches at KKK meetings throughout the state. But Black later redeemed himself by acknowledging that joining the Klan was a mistake and became one of the most liberal members of the Supreme Court, strongly backing the principle of "one man, one vote" and using the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to forbid racial discrimination.

“The field Negro, those were the masses. There was always more Negros in the field as there were Negros in the house. There Negro in the field caught hell. He ate leftovers. In the house, they ate high up on the hog. The Negro in the field didn't get nothing but what was left in the insides of the hog. They call them chit'lins nowadays. In those days, they called them what they were, guts! That's what you were a gut-eater. And some of you are still gut-eaters.

The field Negro was beaten, from morning til night. He lived in a shack, in a hut. He wore cast-off clothes. He hated his master. I say, he hated his master. He was intelligent. That house Negro loved his master. But that field Negro, remember, they were in the majority, and they hated their master. When the house caught on fire, he didn't try to put it out, that field Negro prayed for a wind. For a breeze.

When the master got sick, the field Negro prayed that he died. If someone come to the field Negro and said lets separate, let's run. He didn't say Where we going? He said any place is better than here". We got field Negros in America today. I'm a field Negro. The masses are the field Negros. When they see this man’s house on fire, we don't hear these little Negros talkin bout "Our Government is in trouble. They say thee Government is in trouble. Imagine a Negro, "Our Government".

The same ol slave master today has Negros who are nothing but modern Uncle Toms - 20th century Uncle Toms to keep you and me in check. Keep us under control. Keep us passive and peaceful… That's Tom making you nonviolent. It's like when you go to the dentist and the man is going to take your tooth. You're going to fight him when he starts pulling. So they squirt some stuff in your jaw called Novocain, to make you think they’re not doing anything to you. So you sit there and because you got all that Novocain in your jaw, you suffer peacefully. ahahaha.”

Some of us understand that we are that which is referred to as the “permanent underclass”. But when you can effect change and chose not to - it is simply a disgrace. In every major case that could represent justice for the least of thee - this guy voted against those interests. What makes that so strange is that Thomas, who reminds me of my uncle whose name is Tom, has benefited from affirmative action throughout his adult life. To characterize Thomas' behavior as resentment is an understatement.

Let me quote the late U.S. Appeals Court Judge Leon Higginbotham who said of Thomas, "I have often pondered how is it that Justice Thomas, an African-American, could be so insensitive to the plight of the powerless. Why is he no different, or probably worse, than many of the most conservative Supreme Court justices of the century? I can only think of one Supreme Court justice during the century who was worse than Justice Clarence Thomas: James McReynolds, a white supremacist who referred to blacks as 'niggers.'" This is a sad commentary!

I only talked about one such house-negro but there are more, and you know who they are! And that’s my Thought Provoking Perspective…

http://johntwills.com

Legacy – A New Season the sequel is now available on Kindle with the hard copy released July 20th.http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008HJRPE0

Where Do They Come From

I never use the “N-word”. You know that word that has been reduced to a letter but sometimes it is necessary to make a point. Every so often, they find some Negro who has gone beyond anything rational when it comes to the African American Diaspora. Their latest wing-nut is none other than Congressman Allen West a black Republican and one from Florida - that should say it all - but I digress. Maybe the more appropriate question should be “what is going on down in Florida?”

One of the big-time Republican donors said that President Obama was “the most dangerous man in America.” I beg to differ. I think, from my perspective, that designation is directed toward the wrong person and from my vantage point it should be the Florida Congressman - who I hope will have a short lived political career. He is the person Dr. Carter G. Woodson wrote about in the “Mis-Education of the Negro” where he so eloquently said, “If there is “no back door,” he will make one”.

Can I say West is ignorant of history (I will) because “those who forget the past are bound to repeat its mistakes”. I will remind Mr. West, and I use that loosely, of the fate of a few Republicans that came before him like the ghosts of Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele or J.C. Watts who were dismissed when they were no longer useful.

These Negro’s and I meant to use that term, who chooses to place great emphasis on being a “conservative.” Must remember that there were and are very influential members of the Ku Klux Klan, and other terror groups like the Red Shirts, Knights of the White Camelia and White Citizens Council, many of which wore white sheets and did dreadful things to our people.

Let’s take Cain for example. One of Cain’s shortcomings was that he came on the scene swinging with statement like Blacks who voted Democratic were “brainwashed” and that thirty-five percent of Blacks were ready to vote for him. Then he boldly proclaimed the Koch brothers were his “brothers by another mother.” How did that workout for him. He now resides in the forgotten piles of useless Black Republicans.

Let’s look at another example, Michael Steele former Chairman of the Republican National Committee. When the Republican Party could not settle on a leader after several rounds of voting the GOP tried the Ol’ Willie Lynch strategy that was to pit him against President Obama. What better way to bring down the Black man from the lofty position of leadership than to sic another Black man against him.
Again, this Negro came out swing; “I will engage the Black Community”. The shame in this is; when some of the most vile criticisms and racist characterizations were leveled against President Obama, Steele did not have the guts to say, “Wait a minute this is out of bounds!” See where his treason got him.

Then there is Ol Uncle Thomas who was nominated to the Supreme Court replacing the only Black man to sit on the Court. As a Republican, many people believed Thomas was not really a replacement of the Liberal Thurgood Marshall, who was instrumental in the historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case in which the Supreme Court ruled segregation was illegal and unconstitutional. Let me remind you this is the guy who appears to be sleeping on the bench and said during his confirmation hearing it was a “high tech lynching.” He went to work; siding with some of the most Conservative rulings imaginable.

How about J.C. Watts who, and I will only admit this once, I liked. He was young, articulate and good looking; presumably with a great future in the Republican Party. Didn’t seem to work out or let me just say he was soon “retired” and only trucked out now and then to make a comment about some on an insignificant issue? Do these guys sound like Allen Keys, Ward Connelly, or any number of others used by the GOP? Ray Charles who was blind and dead can see this. Maybe thirty pieces of silver is worth more to them than it is to me.

This brings me back to West who came to town to fight Republican battles with the same “Gung Ho” spirit as presumably he did when he was in Afghanistan. The only problem is he wants to fight anyone who is not Republican or more specifically Democrats whose ranks comprise Blacks, Whites, Latinos, Asians, Handicapped, women and especially immigrants.

The darling of the Tea Party Movement born in the cauldron spewing racial venom toward Obama, needed to attract Black members. They needed a sort of Spook who sat by the Door. Well, they got one because West spoke their language and they bankrolled his candidacy.

West seems to view himself as some kind of supreme patriot! With that said, let me end with this pitiful act. He sent an e-mail message to Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, calling her “vile, unprofessional, and despicable,” “a coward,” “characterless,” and “not a Lady,” and demanded that she “shut the heck up.” Let me suggest that he read it to himself and take his own advice.

And that is my Thought Provoking Perspective…

http:johntwills.com

Introducing Jackie (Morganfield) Lambert

I would like to introduce my many avid readers to my friend the incomparable Jackie (Morganfield) Lambert who happens to be the great niece of the legendary blues man Muddy Waters. Jackie, as I call her, offers a powerful commentary each week on "LET'S TALK ABOUT IT" every Tuesday night at 9:00 PM (est) on Spreaker.com with me and the Wild and Wonderful Brenda White. You must join us for the fastest growing political talk show on the air.

SPREAKER.COM

Taking our country back?

As this political season makes its inexorable march to the 2012 elections, I’ve noticed a common theme among the republican candidates – “take our country back”. I’m sure that many of you have asked yourselves the same question that I have, take our country back from whom?

Upon further reflection, I’ve determined that it is not that the republicans want to take our country back from someone in particular. It’s more a matter of taking our country back in time.

If you can bear to listen to the rhetorical thunder coming from republican presidential candidates you will notice a common thread. They all rumble that abortion must be illegal. And, in some places, they are working very hard to criminalize most forms of birth control to boot.

Government should not regulate anything. Wall Street Robber Barons should be free to extort profits in anyway they choose. In pursuit of greater profits, manufacturers should be free to pollute our environment as much as they like.

Government should not care about or, have any involvement in the general welfare of its citizens. Medicare, social security, food stamps, health care for poor children, early childhood education, public education and any other program designed to give citizens a modicum of security or a chance at upward mobility should be abolished.

And, my personal favorite, wealthy citizens should not be asked to contribute a little more in taxes. Actually, the very rich should be exempt from taxes entirely because they’re just superior to the rest of us. Who knows, they may take some of their massive wealth and create a minimum wage job or two.

So, you see it is not so much that the republicans want to the country away from some one - they just want take us back to say 1920. What a novel idea - time travel through legislation! Let’s talk about that.

The Politics of Fear

While using the emotion of fear to sway the electorate is nothing new, it does seem to have reached a fever pitch over the past several years. The rise of the so-called “Tea Party” is the most prominent example of the emotion of fear driving a portion of the electorate.

Instead of using the current economic down-turn as a spring-board to bring out the best in us; the republican tea partiers are using it to appeal to the lowest common denominator in our society. In their America, each group of citizens is required to retreat into a small tribe, tribes defined by race, tribes defined by religion, tribes defined by sexual orientation, and on, and on and on. In their America, there is no such thing as the common good. In their America, citizens must view one another with fear and suspicion. This is the only way they believe they can stay in power.

This tribal attitude is not merely a symptom of the thinking of small minds; it serves to starve the spirit of a great nation. It is imperative that no matter what’s going on in our lives, we do not succumb to the politics of fear. The emotion of fear in the political process serves only to divide us and prevent us from realizing our true greatness as a nation.

You can catch "LET'S TALK ABOUT IT" every Tuesday on SPRAKER.COM

Now that is a THOUGHT PROVOKING PERSPECTIVE!

A War of Their Own

IT HAS COME TO THIS!!! With what most reasonable people perceive as financial Armageddon upon us. The Grand Ol’ Party is really showing the world who the “Real Americans” are and it looks bad. Yesterday, Mr. McCain, the would have been president, called out his conservatives party on their approach to dealing with the great debt ceiling debate. He called their argument “foolish” and “bizarro,” adding that to portray the balanced-budget amendment as a possibility amounts to “deceiving many of our constituents.” He quoted extensively from a Wall Street Journal op-ed that compared tea partyers to “hobbits.”

As children do, the tea party members responded in kind. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) deadpanned that he would “rather be a hobbit than a troll,” while 2010 Senate candidate Sharron Angle of Nevada said “it is the hobbits who are the heroes and save the land.” Ok, I’m laughing as I wonder if these folks truly understand that this situation is neither a joke nor a Hollywood screenplay. Do they have a clue? Regardless, not only are they mean-spirited – they are childish and immature.

Then there are the pundits who are supposed to have a clue, referred to as the smartest and most astute, are saying that we’re in an epic struggle for the soul of the nation. Charles Krauthammer, for example, argues today that the debt-ceiling debate is but part of a protracted death-match between irreconcilable visions of American political life. He writes:

“We’re in the midst of a great four-year national debate on the size and reach of government, the future of the welfare state, indeed, the nature of the social contract between citizen and state. The distinctive visions of the two parties — social-democratic vs. limited-government — have underlain every debate on every issue since Barack Obama’s inauguration: the stimulus, the auto bailouts, health-care reform, financial regulation, deficit spending. Everything. The debt ceiling is but the latest focus of this fundamental divide.”

Their leader, the Tan Man, complained that Obama moved the goal posts in his negotiations on the debt, but it is the Republicans who are marching these days with goal posts in hand. They want to shrink the size of government dramatically and give the rich more or at least not take anything from them. Then there’s Grover Norquist who has said he would like to see federal spending cut in half to just 10 percent of GDP, and then cut in half again. This is the America they want to see while the meek, poor, and elderly suffer in the name of the Constitution.

Let’s be real, this argument is really about entitlement spending and specifically about how to treat the elderly. That’s where the growth in spending is. “Government” as traditionally construed is something more than a Treasury check going to a retiree. Discretionary spending hasn’t been growing in recent decades. I would bet that, as a percentage of GDP, non-military discretionary spending has been going down in recent decades. This is the war the conservatives already won, circa 1980.

In a recent column, George Will wrote:

“Beneath the tattered, fading banner of reactionary liberalism, Obama struggles to sustain a doomed system. Democrats’ dependency agenda — swelling the ranks of government employees, multiplying government-subsidized industries, enveloping ever-more individuals in the entitlement culture — is buckling under an intractable contradiction: It is incompatible with economic growth sufficient to create enough wealth to feed the multiplying tax eaters.”

Before I continue, lest not forget that God himself told the Tea Party Republicans to lead the country straight into hell. The picture does not get any clearer than that. The influence by their love for the slave owning founding fathers and religion as their Party platform is so very bizarre. With these people every issue be it gun control, abortion, economics or the right to live, their response is the same. "God gives me my rights, and I'm only accountable to Him." Their twisted quasi-religious adherence to a belief that government is bad and all decisions flow from that unalterable belief is a concept that should scare us all.

Then when you factor in the Bachmann’s, DeMint, Palin, Cantor, and the rest of the wing nuts, who all believe the Tea Party has the only thought in this debate that is ruining the country and our democracy. Maybe their leader was right to say to them "Gets your asses in line" but for the reasons of sanity not his wacked out plan. Frankly, this circus atmosphere on display is being viewed by the entire world and is in fact shameful but let’s be very clear as to why this is happening. There are about 30 of these guys and gals in this bucket of crazies out of 433 in the House. The truth is, in this environment, you only need a thimbleful of crazy’s to wreck the whole thing.

Even if the GOP gets their act together and works out a debt ceiling compromise with the president and catastrophe is averted, the world has seen the cracks in America's social fabric and things won't be the same. To be honest, you know you're in trouble when McCain is the voice of sanity. God Bless America.

And that’s my THOUGHT PROVOKING PERSPECTIVE!!!

This is a powerful Video – what do you think?

A War For Your Soul-regular version from Erisai Films on Vimeo.

The Godfather Has Lost His Way

Some subjects produce raw emotions be it pro or con and I this post may well be received by some as negative. Nonetheless, I felt the need to say something. I was listening to an old speech of Brotha Malcolm the other day. It was called “Friends and Enemies”.

Later that evening, while watching the evening news they showed a clip of the GOP’s New Negro and straight talking contender for president. He proudly said, "If you see 100 out of 1000 black faces in the audience, that's par for the course… What lowers that is economics." Most of his comments that I have heard are as bad as the rest of the Klan - Obama this, Obama that – well you know how it goes.

The Godfather was asked about his position as the most prominent African American in the Republican Party these days; he said, he refuses to "stay on the Democratic plantation like he's supposed to" and he refuses to drink the liberal Kool-Aid. When asked why more African Americans haven't joined him at tea party rallies and conservative conventions, the millionaire ex-CEO has a shocking explanation; “African Americans are too poor to tea party.”

Population demographics was another answer he gave and what he called Democratic "demagoguing" of the Republican Party and conservatism. "If you look at the typical income of a black family of four it's going to be lower than a non-black or white family of four," he explained. "Generally speaking on average, white families are much more economically prosperous than black families." No kidding!

First, if I had the chance, I would ask if the Godfather if he could remember how big a fool they made of “Our man Steel” the so-called and one-time face of GOP. As Malcolm said in his speech, “They will find a Negro to do their bidding”. We’ve seen the likes of Steel, West, Connolly, Thomas, and Keys come out of the woodwork waving the Constitution singing God Bless America. The thousands of our ancestors who toiled in the fields as slaves would refer to people of this mindset as “House Negro’s”. I’d like to suggest, we be much harsher – in my view. I guess it just tells us that democracy isn’t pretty. Ok, I digress!

LAW AND ORDER THEME!!!

Back to the Godfather, he said, that he doesn’t appreciate the idea of being labeled an “African American.” During an interview with Bloomberg, he added that he prefers to be called an “American,” stating that the word “African” on the front of his racial identity limits him and inaccurately describes who he is. He went on to say, “I don’t like people trying to label me. African-American is socially acceptable for some people, but I am not some people.”

Sure there are those who agree with him, as there is little reason for most black people to feel any connection to the continent of Africa. Gerren Gaynor, a writer for NewsOne.com, wrote “African-Americans/Blacks/Negroes have no true sense of identity. If you’re African-American, you’re more than likely far removed from the African continent and culture… there’s absolutely nothing wrong with omitting “African” from our nationality”. Hmmm!

However, that is not the same as forgetting that you are what you see when you look in the mirror. More importantly, what they see. So for me I take issue with the Godfather’s remarks. I will go further and just call it what it is “Ridiculous”. Believing that it is somehow inaccurate or unpatriotic for a person to call himself an ‘African-American’ rather than just an ‘American’ is absurd, and frankly how dare he fix his mouth to say such a thing.

“Cain’s remarks about the pitfalls of being called an “African American” remind us of the kind of assimilation expected by those who somehow feel that blackness is a liability. The truth is that our dark skin is reflective of our African roots, and not knowing anything about Africa is no excuse to deny ourselves access to thousands of years of storied and valuable culture. White Supremacy 101 tells us that we can be successful in spite of being black, rather than finding success because we are black.”

For some reason, this guy seems to think by connecting himself with those who enslaved his forefathers; he is somehow attached to the heritage of his blue eyed brothers and sisters. But the reality is that when he denies his genealogical roots, he is disrespecting those who carried the blood that runs through his veins. Personally, I’d be ashamed to have a great grandchild who decided to negate my connection to him simply because he knows nothing about our struggle.

At a time when we have the first black president, Godfather your position should be one of unity not descent. Frankly, I think he would dangerous for America as president and certainly dangerous for us. Godfather there is nothing wrong with appeasing your Tea Party Klan, if that is your wish. However, I hope you realize that in the eyes of many who look like you; you are being reduced to a political cartoon character. Finally, the commentary you direct at our president does not demonstrate much dignity nor pride in who you are.
I want to close, for the first time, with a pray; God in your name condemn the resurrection of these dormant seeds that harm our lives casting descent in the world you created in Jesus name. Amen!

Mr. Cain you are no Barack Obama!
And that’s my Thought Provoking Perspective.

Tales from the Decider - Pt 2

This story just gets better and better with every detail that emerges. I am talking about the fallacies of “Decision Points”. As I learn more, and read newspaper chippings, about this book which will rank among the greatest stories ever told; I can’t help but wonder if this veiled attempt to soften the affect his reign and its devastations will have on future thinking or at $35 dollars, just a way to get a little pocket change.

America was built on a strong economy that has made the United States the world's leading power going back to its beginning. This is like one of the founding principles of what the founding father had in mind when they took it and formed, what some call, the Hypocrisy of Democracy. The Decider, in the book, appears not to realize that he was responsible for the Federal debt that will soar in the coming years endangering the country’s prosperity and leadership.

The national debt will overtake the economy itself, increasing our dependence on China and other foreign lenders, draining our resources and reducing the living standards more than we see today. These risks are the result of the last eight years that threaten to turn America into not only a second rate power, but possibly a third world nation. African Americans have understood this as a result of being a nation of people living within a nation searching for a nationality. In short, “second class citizens”. What the Decider did was to impose this dubious distinction upon all Americans, but the rich.

Ok, I will digress.

I read an article today by Ruth Marcus called “Bush’s deficit spinning” in the Washington Post. I was so impressed with it that I want to share pieces of it in this “Thought Provoking Perspective”.

She starts with:

The imaginary but completely delusional: My inner Bush would not regret pushing for the tax cuts. But he would acknowledge - how hard could this be? … Alan Greenspan was right when he suggested a trigger mechanism to cancel the cuts if the promised surplus failed to materialize. If only . . . Like the surplus, my quasi-apologetic chapter evaporated in the face of reality. I read "Decision Points," and it turns out that Bush is the Edith Piaf of fiscal policy: He regrets nothing.” But he writes, "I took my responsibility to be a good fiscal steward seriously."

How's that? Bush chose to go to war, but, unlike any other wartime president, opted to pay the cost entirely with borrowed funds while pressing for additional tax cuts. He laments that he left behind "a serious long-term fiscal problem" of runaway entitlement spending but blames resistance from both parties in Congress - without acknowledging that he added an expensive and unpaid-for new entitlement, the Medicare prescription drug plan.

And those tax cuts. "It was true that tax cuts increase the deficit in the short term," Bush acknowledges. "But I believed the tax cuts, especially those on capital gains and dividends would stimulate economic growth. The tax revenues from that growth, combined with spending restraint, would help lower the deficit."

This is cleverer than the usual supply-side formulation but still suffers from the tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves fallacy. Bush's own chief economic adviser, Gregory Mankiw, has estimated that over the long run, cuts on investment taxes generate enough economic growth to make up only half of lost revenue.

Except Bush's averages are misleading. For one thing, he cherry-picks his fiscal years. He gives himself credit for the 2001 surplus, 1.3 percent of gross domestic product, even though that course was largely set when he took office. At the other end, Bush takes no responsibility for his piece of the ghastly 2009 deficit, 9.9 percent. Subtracting bailouts and stimulus spending, on the theory that much of the former will be repaid and the latter happened on President Obama's watch, the 2009 deficit would have totaled 6.8 percent of GDP, the largest since World War II.

More important, the trajectory tells a story that is less kind to Bush. He took office after three years in which Clinton had overseen surpluses. After 2001, Bush presided over seven straight years of deficits.

In short, Bush inherited a budget in healthy shape. He left it in tatters. The faltering economy played a supporting role, but the chief factors were of Bush's making: his tax cuts, his wars, and his prescription drug bill. Without these, the country would have been running surpluses during his tenure.

I found this article to be filled with reality, thank you Ruth Marcus; I wanted to share this assessment of a reality that I know and understand to be true. This commentary is certainly worthy of my “Thought Provoking Perspective” and how refreshing to know that someone else share my views.

God Bless America…

Tales from the Decider

Sometimes as sure as things change, ironically, most often they remain the same. Let me explain, history is hardly ever written the way it actually occurred. Therefore, if that which I have witnessed and know to be true can be altered, no changed, how can I believe any recorded history. In fact, it is more like His-Story.

Case in point, this week our most recent President re-emerged into the public’s view with the launch a new book “Decision Points”. The B&N overview of the book bills it as “a groundbreaking new brand of presidential memoir, Decision Points will captivate supporters, surprise critics, and change perspectives on eight remarkable years in American history and on the man at the center of events.”

I am not sure exactly where it will be placed in your local book store; meaning will it be stocked under true crimes or fiction. Nonetheless, I am old enough and have lived long enough to have seen history made, told, rewritten, and changed to create a narrative that, frankly, fits the agenda. The agenda in this case is supposed to make us forget what we witnessed and know to be true concerning the last eight years in a way to be viewed as compassionate.

It’s understandable, especially as bad as the last eight years were that someone would want to attempt to rewrite this acrimonious history. Honestly, it was about as horrifying and deceitful as one can possibly imagine and yet no one complained as it occurred. At any rate the self proclaimed “Decider” has decided to justify why he was responsible, or not, for the worst period of life that I can remember.

To be fair, I have not read the book and doubt that I will, because I am not too big on fiction. However, I did see some of the interviews promoting the book, and read about it in the newspapers, and I think the interviews were good enough to be Oscar worthy.

While I watched the performance via the interview my thoughts were; would he admit that the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed him President? Would he explain how he allowed Energy company officials to dictate Energy policy to push us to illegally invade a country that posed no threat to us costing over 800 billion and counting? Might the book contain an apology for the enormous cost in lives lost and permanent injuries not to mention the horrible conditions they returned to face at Walter Reed Army Hospital?

Oh, by the way, where’s Bin Laden?

To W’s credit, he does take responsibility for TARP and other Bailouts, which most accuse President Obama for initiating. This was a good thing particularly when a Pew Research Center poll found that nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent knew it originated under Bush. To that the former president said, "Fifty percent of the people were wrong."

He would go on to defended his rationale for supporting TARP: "Do you adhere to your philosophy and say, let them all fail? . . . Or do you take taxpayers' money and inject it into the system in hopes that you prevent a depression? And I chose the latter."

Bush acknowledges that he undertook "the most drastic intervention in the free market since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt… helped spare the American people from an economic disaster of historic proportions." He defends the "automakers' rescue" with federal loans and those given to AIG as "basically a nationalization of America's largest insurance company." By Tea Party’s doctrine, that's heresy. But Bush, in "Decision Points," doesn't back off at all from his defense of the auto industry rescue and the federal ownership of financial companies - even though those positions today would make him a pariah in his own party.

He could have use the over 10 billion dollars in cash that just disappeared in Iraq to do some of this financing to pay the fat cats who played roulette on the global casino. Maybe he shares in the book why he gave people who had more money than they could spend, the filthy rich, over a trillion dollars in tax breaks. Nor have I heard how sorry he is for the worst 8 years of job creations in several decades as he embraced devastating trade and outsourcing policies that shipped 6 million American jobs out of the country.

I was also wondering if he explained in this historical remake; how one can have a huge surplus when you took office, blow it, and leave office with the country trillion’s in debt. Was this what they mean by impact default? Did he mention the 10 trillion dollars in combined budget and account deficits as he borrowed more money from foreign sources than all the previous 42 Presidents combined? Maybe he was focused on the over 200,000 American Citizens who lost their lives because they had no health insurance on his watch.

This is the only president in recent memory that refused to attend or be a guest at any of the annual NAACP Conventions, or frankly do much of anything for the African American community. Except maybe having a few Negroes sprinkled throughout his administration, which was more like eye candy than substance – in my opinion.

What troubled me most was his admission that of all the bad things, horrors of his rule. The worst for him was a comment made by a rapper who said, “George Bush doesn’t like black people”. A comment made as a result of his response, or lack thereof, when he let a major US city, New Orleans, drown while patting his buddy Brownie on the back praising him for doing a “heck of a job”.

Of all the things – this is what he thought was the worst – not the hundreds of thousands died, injured, or wounded and their families suffering as a result of the two wars he started. THIS!!!

After that comment, I am not even going to touch on the outing of a covert CIA operative, the Patriot Act, illegally wiretaps, or torturing people. Oh, he didn’t catch Bin Laden did he?

The most telling statement from what I have gleaned was "I felt like the captain of a sinking ship" he writes in the memoir, adding: "This was one ugly way to end a presidency." So I guess we can say “Mission Accomplished”.

I searched the online book stores for its customer rating: 3 Stars

Listen to internet radio with John T Willschronicles on Blog Talk Radio

When is the Right Wrong?

When I was growing up I was taught that there is such a thing as right and there such a thing as wrong, in spite of the wretched horrors of a system known as segregation that was the law of the land. As I grew older, I learned that it depends upon your perspective or agenda as to what was right, wrong, or moral. My minister would say when you pray and if you think your prayer was answered; no is also an answer. However, relating that to today’s conservative perspective, NO is not the only answer.

This would also apply to some of the language used by those on the right who want us to believe it’s true because they say it is. For example, Evangelical Christian minister Tim LaHaye said on Mike Huckabee's Fox News show “the policy initiatives put forth by the Obama administration are bringing the country closer to the apocalypse". The minister was asked to further his assertion by the former Arkansas Governor, and possible 2012 White House contender, asking him "Are we now living in the end times, from your perspective?" LaHaye's response: "Very definitely, governor."

Was this view coming from a religious perspective or just used as a fear tactic which has been effective the past decade, and longer, to seduce the faithful? Another conservative politician made this statement to which I presume was designed to produce the same reaction. “For the first time in American history, we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. That’s why I say the greatest threat to our Constitution, our safety and our liberties, is internal. Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms.

Such is the level to which conservatism has sunk in some quarters.

“Law and Order” music plays…

History reposts that people with extreme thinking have caused havoc upon the lives of people and in some cases nearly destroyed the world in support of a particular point of view. I need only ask you to remember Germany during the mid 1930s and World War II or the precursor to what we now see that was then called the Citizens Councils that represented such ideals, as the Clan’s political arm.

These folks, the faithful if you will, preach a strict belief in the constitution, yet they want to change it to suit their agenda. For example, they want to change the 14th Amendment that makes a baby born in American an automatic citizen, which is directed toward a single ethnic group. The Tea Party supports a candidate for Senate who thinks the passage of the Civil Rights Act was a mistake while saying a business should have the right to deny service to anyone based on their ethnicity. They talk about separation from the government, which means succession, with talk about “Taking back our country”.

They say these efforts are for the rights real Americans. I wonder if this means going back to a time when, for example, people of African descent were 3/5 a man and women had no rights at all according to the original constitution.

One of the most vocal proponents of this concept is reflected in a recent poll concluding that she is the leading candidate for president in 2012 and the woman who writes notes on her hand for correctness, which were not correct. This is just a Though Provoking Perspective that I hope might cause you to ask When is the Right is Wrong.

This agenda should make a rational person very concerned. If not, consider these two scary words - President Palin.

The John T. Wills Chronicles
Just a Season

RACISM: Perception or Reality

Have you asked yourself “What is Racism?” Webster says it is a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities, and racial differences that produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. This does not adequately explain or represent the reality of what we’re witnessing in today’s political and social environments. I believe racism is a misunderstood psychology and yes there is a psychology to racism, which is where the confusion exists. Therefore, it appears that racial prejudice or discrimination, which is a prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment is somehow believed to be directed toward the people of the dominate race. To which they claim or they’re calling it reverse discrimination.

The legacy of dependency, apathy, and entrenchment of the American social order from the beginning provides clear evidence of its diabolical intent to bankrupt the souls of African Americans based on an ideology of supremacy. We are the descendents of the stolen souls who bear the burden of a system that perpetrated, in the name of God, the greatest crime known to man. Hence, from the beginning, people of African descent were intended to be a nation of people living within a nation without a nationality.

~ “Law and Order” music plays ~

I read an article, When Racists Speak Their Unspoken Truths by Anthony Asadullah Samad, Ph.D., who made a statement that speaks loudly to this issue. “It’s what racists claimed for 235 years, that American society is about rights (mainly theirs, everybody else’s can be stepped on) and not about race. It’s why racists wore hoods and sheets in public, and why their powerful societies that controlled political and economic affairs were always secret. The less you know about what they think, the less you can respond to how they think, even though the social, political and economic outcomes will tell you what they think.” It seems that those who claim racism are active participants in the continuance of this ideology and (in their minds) think they are now subjected to it.

I think we should understand the sub-text of what we are seeing today, at least from a power and political perspective. It is a strategic effort to contain and marginalize a black President, which is consistent with the Republican Party’s objective of marginalizing the Democratic Party because of its large minority support. Now just like back in the days of segregation, its staunchest supporters were Southerners, Mid-Westerners and poor whites, and people now of that mindset didn’t vote for President Obama anyway. They are probably in a state of shock because much of the country overcame their racial insensibilities to elect a black President. So when we see the Sherrod or Acorn cases, which the same guy was behind. We see how far and deep racism is within certain elements of society that we must recognize.

I have added a feature on the new home of “Thought Provoking Perspectives”, The John T. Wills Chronicles, called “The Unspoken Truth. This is a knowledge-based examinations of the African American Diaspora intended to empower by educating people concerning a history that many blacks continue to face today from the untreated wounds of America’s forefathers. As you travel with me though the Chronicles, my purpose is to simply offer explanations causing people to look at and understand the root cause of the asymptomatic behaviors, and that this is the result of conditioning in “certain” communities.

This intolerance or behavior was never unlearned and have been passed down from generation to generation. Over my relatively short lifetime, I have been referred to as Colored, Negro, Afro-American, Black, African American, and worst. All were polite terms assigned to make known that people who of color were not American citizens. Remember the statement in the country’s blueprint that says clearly “3/5 a man” and did not mention women at all.

The concept of African Americans being slaves, physically or mentally, is as old as the nation itself, designed to deprive a people of its culture and knowledge through sustained policies of control. To include the age old practice, that has been very effective, “divide and conquer” because this form of thinking has one purpose; the system is designed to protect the system. Therefore, when you look at the facts of what we have experienced and what they imply relating to this new phenomenon is as far apart as the vastness of the universe.

As tenacious beings, we must understand that there is no such thing as an inferior mind unless you listen to the untruth. To overcome these indignities we must realize that education is the single most important ingredient necessary to neutralize the forces that breed poverty and despair. So I say it’s time for an awakening, if for no other reason than to honor those who sacrificed so much in order that we could live life in abundance.

VISIT:
THE JOHN T. WILLS CHRONICLES
JUST A SEASON

Tea Anyone?

I might as well comment on a topic that has for the past week created a huge controversy, much conversation, and a lot of “BS” concerning what most would believe is freedom of speech involving the NAACP’s resolution presented at their National Convention, which I think was an honest conversation about the role of race and racism in the Tea Party. Good for the NAACP.

The push back from the Tea Party, its members, and all five black members made it seem as if we cannot believe our lying eyes to which they say they’re motivated primarily by a right-wing ideology, not by racism. So my question is what does the right-wing ideology, and remarks like “take back our country” mean?

Those of you who read my blog “Thought Provoking Perspectives” know that I speak from what I have seen and know to be true. For example, you have heard the phase “a wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing”. The pushback from the Tea baggers was as if they were insulted by the idea of a fair assessment of their behavior since the group was formed. Over the last year or so, we have heard members call the President the biggest threat to America, call him Hitler, argue that the Civil Rights Act should not have been passed, and suggested having literacy tests, while supporting a man who thinks businesses should have the right to deny patrons because of their race. Dare I remind you of the leader who wrote a letter to a dead president saying “We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing.”

Let face it, any suggestion that we need "literacy tests" that were once used to keep African Americans from voting. Or that we should return to a time of “receiving service through the back door” would suggest bigotry. Guess what, if it looks like a duck – it’s a duck.

This guise is as old as America, only this is the remolded version of what was once the Citizen Councils, John Burch Society, or even the Klan. I am old enough to remember segregation and therefore I know what that duck looks like. Let me remind you that a group like this with American Values back in 1896 was behind the Plessey Supreme Court decision that ushered in “Separate but Equal” that lasted a half a century and beyond.

Frankly, all Mr. Jealous was saying, “We've seen the signs, we've heard the slurs, and all we're asking is for you to act responsibly and say there's no space for bigots in the Tea Party." But the pushback continued with the most visible supporter saying "Having been on the receiving end of a similar spurious charge of racism… I know how Tea Party Americans feel to be falsely accused." She went on to refer to "America's past racism," and identified herself with Ronald Reagan, who said it was "a legacy of evil." Yet, the former governor did not denounce them plainly or unequivocally.

“Guilt by association is wrong, but it's legitimate to insist that those who believe in democracy and freedom take forceful steps to disassociate themselves from people in their movement who peddle racism, intolerance and fear. That's what the NAACP is asking” said EJ Dionne Jr.

And I agree!

Back to the Future

The insight of history is a powerful thing and I have lived long enough to have had the opportunity to witness many things. I can remember watching the KKK marching through the rural area where I lived as a small boy carrying crosses. I have also seen those strains of thinking espoused by the John Birch Society, the religious right, compassionate conservatives, and other right-wing groups during the segregated days of 1950s and 60s. Today there is a new repackaged conservatism that is a diverse movement with many philosophical threads and tensions who call themselves the Tea Party.

In my view, the rise of the Tea Party movement is nothing more than a throwback to an old form of libertarianism that sees most of the domestic policies that government has undertaken since Roosevelt as unconstitutional, to include many civil rights initiatives. The reason, I believe is because from that point in our country’s history the government became socially conscience and began to address the needs of the elderly, the poor, and the least of thee. This element of society typically perceives these issues as dangerous threats to freedom and to the well-educated elitists that support "American values" or as they say the “Real Americans”.

Let me be a critic for a moment. These compassionate folks tend to show their compassion, often times, in support of big-business with their public rhetoric intended for their own self-serving agendas. For example, last week Rep. Joe Barton apologized to BP as if they were the victims of what is happening in the gulf. While basically calling the President a thug with the "shakedown" comment of the company for $20 billion on behalf of those hurt by the gulf oil spill. This is embarrassing precisely because it underscored how far this element is to the extreme as it relates to mainstream America. When faced with a choice between supporting a large British corporation or a federal government battling for compensation of the disaster's victims, Barton sided with Big Oil as did many of his conservative counterparts.

Now, the guy did or was forced to apologize because of pressure from other Republican leaders, but many in the party and on the right continue to echo his views. Like the Republican Study Committee made up of more than 115 House conservatives called the escrow fund a “Chicago-style shakedown” while leaders of certain factions of the Tea Party called it “extortion”. Could it be that the stock they may have in such companies really be the reason for their greater concern.

A group called Tea Party Patriots that describes itself as "a community committed to standing together, shoulder to shoulder, to protect our country and the Constitution upon which we were founded!" Tea Party Nation says it is "a user-driven group of like-minded people who desire our God given Individual Freedoms which were written out by the Founding Fathers." My question is to them; have they read the original Constitution? These Founding Fathers were really terrorists and the same men who owned slaves, wrote in it that Negroes were 3/5th a man, and denied women all rights. Is this what they want to go back too?

What's remarkable is the extent to which the movement has displaced the religious right as the dominant voice of conservative militancy. The religious conservatives have not disappeared, and Palin, a Tea Party hero, does share their views on abortion and gay marriage. But these issues have been overshadowed by the broader anti-government themes pushed by the New Old Right, and the "compassionate conservatism" that inspires parts of the Christian political movement has no place in the right's current order of battle. This seems un-American to me, dangerous, and frankly resurrecting an American that even they want to forget.

Please visit: http://johntwillschronicles.com

HOW DOES CARABOU BARBIE SLEEP?

Since this woman was plucked from obscurity to be John McCain’s Republican vice presidential running mate she has complained about the "lamestream media" relentlessly. I wonder if it has dawned on her that she might be lame. I suppose it is not her fault that she was woefully unprepared to be McCain’s nominee or knows much about any of the complex issues facing the rest of us who live in the real world.

However, it is her unwillingness to state the facts correctly, then or now, that astounds me. Her self-appointed grandiose as the darling of the “Tea Baggers” movement, and dare I say, an ideology that is just a step away from the Klan, that shocks me and her vision of reality is dangerous not to mention antiquated. The days of “Whites Only” signs may be alluring to some, but I have seen them and trust me there is nothing appealing about that sort of intimidation.

There use to be a worst than Jerry Springer Show on television many years ago hosted by this guy Morton Downey Jr. who use to call this kind of nonsense “PABLUM PUKE”. I’ll simply call it speaking with fork tongue. The reason that I am rendering this commentary is because of Barbie’s recent Palinesque backward thinking comments concerning follow Tea Bagger and Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul. She was asked this straightforward question put to her during a Fox interview that troubles me: Was Paul right or wrong in his view that the 1964 Civil Rights Act went too far in banning discrimination in private establishments?

She responded this way:"I think there is certainly a double standard at play here. When Rand Paul had anticipated that he'd be able to engage in a discussion, he being a libertarian-leaning constitutional conservative, being able to engage in a discussion with a TV character, a media personality, who perhaps had an agenda in asking the question and then interpreting his answer the way that she did, he wanted to talk about, evidently, some hypotheticals as it applies to impacts on the Civil Rights Act, as it impacts our Constitution. So he was given the opportunity finally to clarify, and unequivocally he has stated that he supports the Civil Rights Act."

I saw the chilling interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and other interviewers, and they did not ask Paul about "hypotheticals." They asked whether he supported prohibiting private business owners from keeping blacks off their premises. Paul said he "would have tried to modify" the public accommodations part of the law and that “when you blur the distinction between public and private ownership, there really is a problem.” Paul had every chance to clarify in real time and he didn't. Let me add, when any sane person living in this century questions the Civil Rights Act or suggest a return to “Jim Crow” - we should question their motives. By the way, if you did not know, the Klan was formed in Kentucky after the Civil War to retain that slavery like ideal, which might have something to do with it.

Then there was CARABOU BARBIE’s best defense concerning what I think is an untrue-offense response to questions about the oil spill in the Gulf to which the "drill, baby, drill" cheerleader suggests that the president is on the take from Big Oil:

"The oil companies who have so supported President Obama in his campaign and are supportive of him now -- I don't know why the question isn't asked by the mainstream media and by others if there's any connection with the contributions made to President Obama and his administration and the support by the oil companies to the administration. If there's any connection there to President Obama taking so doggone long to get in there, to dive in there, and grasp the complexity and the potential tragedy that we are seeing here in the Gulf of Mexico."

Did she say “complexity”? The complex part - “complexity” - is that she actually had the nerve to say something like that considering her sorted history. The Obama remark is just one instances where she has said things that were untrue, not accurate, fictitious, or just plain lies. At least according to public campaign finance records that says; it was her camp who took more money from Big Oil. With respect to her response to Paul’s comment, when someone suggests returning to the days of “Bull Connor, Birmingham, or Selma – I just have to ask “how do they sleep at night”. Frankly, it sounds bigoted and racist to me.
===============================================

“The John T. Wills Chronicles” designed to be a potent source of empowering knowledge for the enhancement of community and to PROMOTE LITERACY. I will be using this online information source as the new home for my blog “Thought Provoking Perspectives”. http://johntwillschronicles.com

Prelude to November – Perception is Reality

This is my political recap of the elections held Tuesday. With respect to the outcomes, the Democrats had every reason to smile and maybe, just maybe, the Republicans had every reason to shudder while the rest of us had cause for much concern. I am sure you’ve heard, and seen reports, from the Tea Baggers who stridently shouted “it’s time to take our country back”. In fact, this is what Rand Paul said at his victory party, "I have a message, a message from the Tea Party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words. We've come to take our government back." Whenever I hear that “Rebel Yell” I have to wonder; what are they talking about but I digress, and will get back to him later.

Let me talk about some of the other races that meant something. Starting in western Pennsylvania in a district once represented by the late Jack Murtha a pro-gun, anti-abortion Democrat. Republican strategists used this district as a campaign laboratory, of sorts, to test the themes and techniques that could use in the fall to nationalize the elections. You know the themes socialism, healthcare reform, invoking the names Obama and Pelosi to terrify voters. It did not work. Democrat Mark Critz won handily over Republican Tim Burns in a district that voted for John McCain in 2008.

Also in Pennsylvania Representative Joe Sestak easily defeated Democrat and onetime Republican Arlen Specter in the state’s Democratic Senate primary. This was the marquee event in terms of media coverage because Specter was a familiar and prominent presence in Washington having occupied his Senate seat for 30 long years. There was just one problem: For all but one of those years, he was a Republican and voters did not buy the idea that seemed more like a calculation in principle to save his job choosing instead to vote for a real card-carrying Democrat.

In Arkansas, Sen. Blanche Lincoln's fate was only slightly more telling as she failed to win a majority of voters in the Democratic primary for a runoff against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. Halter’s strategy was to attack her from the left while the voters may have wanted to punish her for the way she stalled and equivocated on healthcare reform. But the final verdict on Lincoln won't be in for several weeks, which most pundits predict a losing effort.

Now, let me get back to the far more interesting victory or maybe ominous. There was a candidate, Rand Paul, who became a cult figure among libertarians and Tea Party activists, not unlike his father Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex) who are both known to march to a different beat. Rand is a Republican with little regard for the GOP party line and believes in a philosophy that might best be described as radical individual freedom and privatizing as many functions as possible to reduce government to its barest bones. If Paul wins the general election, he would probably vote sometimes as a Republicans, maybe few times as a Democrat but more than likely he will vote with the Whigs.

In an interview the day after his primary victory, Paul could not bring himself to endorse the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. "I think there's a lot to be desired in the Civil Rights Act... I haven't read all through it, because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue on the campaign whether I'm going to vote for the Civil Rights Act" suggesting that he might not have voted for it if he was around. In addition, he continued with his view that businesses should not be forced by government to adopt anti-discrimination rules. He had to be dragged into recognizing some of the largest moral achievements of recent American history, while still suggesting that the country should go back to the days of old.

It's simply astonishing in this day and age that a major party nominee for the U.S. Senate would try to breathe life into the long discredited notion that the Constitution might protect an individual business owner's 'right' to exclude customers on the basis of race. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was asked his thoughts about Paul's problems with the Civil Rights Act and its application to private businesses, to which he said, "Not being familiar with the context of his response or his questions I really can't opine as to his position."

Sometimes saying nothing is worst that saying what you really mean but I can hear what Cantor wasn’t saying. Whether he heard Paul's remarks in context or not, I think he could have expressed a firm commitment to the Civil Rights Act and the American ideals it upholds is perhaps more troubling than Paul's musings. This philosophy has the virtue of being easily explainable and the drawback of being impossible. Separate but equal is the remedy for what was not accomplished during the last eight years, I suppose is the message.

The current federal role did not grow primarily because of the statist ambitions of liberals; it grew in response to democratic choices and global challenges. Federal power advanced to rescue the elderly from penury, to enforce civil rights laws, to establish a stable regulatory framework for a modern economy, and to force by law a wicked system that was designed to suppress the helpless. I might add that these are the same people who benefit from these same government handouts.

Their commitment to individual freedom defined as the absence of external constraint is nearly absolute. Taxation for the purpose of redistribution is theft. The national security state does not defend liberty; it threatens it. American global commitments are just another form of big government. Paul, Tea Baggers, and other libertarians are not merely advocates of limited government; they are anti-government. Their objective is not the correction of error but the cultivation of contempt for government itself. There is a reason why movements such as this has never been, and probably will never be, a national political force: because too many would find its utopia a nightmare.

==================================================================================

I have launched an information portal “The John T. Wills Chronicles” that will be the new home of "Thought Provoking Perspectives". The sole purpose of the “The John T. Wills Chronicles” is to be a source of empowering knowledge for the enhancement of community and the minds of mankind. I am extending an offer to all authors, writers, poets, and progressive thinkers to become a contributor as a way to promoter yourself, your skills, your work, and to benefit others with your stories.

http://johntwillsChronicles.com

READING – WRITING - EXCITING

“The John T. Wills Chronicles” will also present an exciting new Blogtalkradio Show called “The Book Tree” hosted by the amazingly talented SILVER RAE FOX to further this effort. SILVER will be the Literary Ambassador during on-air conversations with authors, poets, and literary minds every Wednesday starting June 2, 2010 at 7:30 - 8:00 PM (est). Silver Rae Fox will be the main voice for the “The Book Tree Radio Show” and one of the main voices for The Book Tree Literacy Project designed to promote literacy.