Category: Politics

Romney and Those Darned Christians

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics3 Comments

On March 27th, 2012, gallup.com released the following lists of the 10 Most Religious and Least Religious states in America. Most Religious States, Based on % Very Religious, 2011 Least Religious States, Based on % Very Religious, 2011

As of the writing of this blog, Mitt Romney has come in First Place in the following states’ Republican Primaries: Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming.

The only state that Romney will possibly win among the Most Religious List is Utah.  Excuse me for being politically incorrect, but, the only reason he will carry that state, is the fact that he is a Mormon. (Yeah, I said it.)

The Pew Research Center released some interesting information last month.

A poll by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life has found that nearly 60% of Romney supporters believe that churches should step back from political and social issues, while 60% of Santorum supporters believe churches should play a more active role. These sentiments were echoed by another sharp divide found between the candidates’ supporters regarding their views on whether there’s too little expression of religious faith by political leaders. For Romney’s camp, there’s little concern, with 24% agreeing that there’s not enough religious discourse. But 55% of Santorum supporters see a deficit in religious speech by politicians. As for the nation on a whole, the poll unearthed another interesting trend. The largest number of Americans in the poll’s 10-year history believe there is too much expression of religious faith by politicians. In 2010, the last national election year, 37% said there was too little expression compared to 29% saying there was too much. Now, the numbers are nearly reversed, at 30% and 38% respectively. Democrats were found to be nearly twice as likely as Republicans to say there’s too much talk of religion by politicians, 46% to 24%. Among white evangelicals, Santorum’s most prominent base of supporters, only 14% thought politicians focused on religion too much. As such, it comes as no surprise that 54% see the Republican Party as being friendly toward religion, compared to 35% for Democrats. The largest divides in the poll were on President Obama’s perceived friendliness to religion. A majority of Republicans, 52%, categorize him as unfriendly, compared to 5% of Democrats, while 15% of Republicans see him as friendly, compared to 59% percent of Democrats. The poll was conducted between March 7-11 with 1,503 individual interviews and has a sampling error of 3 percentage points.

If I’m interpreting this poll correctly, both the majority of Romney supporters and the Majority of Democrats have an aversion to religious values playing a part in the governance of our country. With 78% of Americans, per Gallup, identifying themselves as Christians, this could be a problem for Romney, if he continues on to the nomination.

But, is it his Mormonism or his flip-flipping Political Ideology that has alienated the Conservative Base of the Republican Party?

TheBlaze.com reported the following on March21st:

Following a win in the Illinois GOP primary Tuesday and a key endorsement from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney’s top adviser Eric Fehrnstrom appeared on CNN where he answered questions concerning whether his candidate had gone “so far right” in the primary campaign.

“Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign,” Fehrnstrom said. “Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch a Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”

Fehrnstrom’s answer is likely to rehash concerns from many critics within the conservative base and general electorate who have long alleged that Romney is a “flip-flopper“ and has ”no core values.”

The campaign of Romney’s strongest rival Rick Santorum has immediately pounced on the gaffe.

“We all knew Mitt Romney didn’t have any core convictions, but we appreciate his staff going on national television to affirm that point for anyone who had any doubts,” Santorum’s National Communications Director Hogan Gidley said in a statement.

“With the two year anniversary of the signing of ObamaCare upon us, can voters really believe that the man who urged the President to use his healthcare plan in Massachusetts as a model would really repealObamaCare? Or is that promise just something they would ‘shake up and restart’ with when Romney hits the general election.”

If you have spent any time at all on Conservative Blogs during the Republican Nomination Process, you have seen Mitt Supporters label Christians, especially Evangelicals, as narrow-minded bigots, if they express any concern of the political ideology of Mitt Romney.  These “fans” stand at the ready to identify genuine concerns as anti-Mormon bigotry, where there is none.

The simple fact of the matter is, as Rush Limbaugh himself stated on February 2nd:

There is a Republican primary going on right now, and who votes in a Republican primary?  Starts with a C.  Conservatives.  There are elements of conservatism that are fundamental.  And we conservatives, we have radar.  We know when somebody isn’t.

Additionally, if the Romney supporters knew their Christianity, they would be familiar with the gift of discernment.

What is a Christian American Conservative?

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics20 Comments

I have been asked to define what it means to be a Christian American Conservative.  After all, that’s how I identify myself and that is what it says on the top of this blog, since I began this exercise in ranting and raving in April of 2010.

Let’s perform a dissection, shall we?

First word:  Christian – A follower of Jesus Christ.

I was raised as a Christian by my parents and accepted Christ as my personal Savior many years ago.

Here are some interesting things about Christianity to consider, written by Dr. Ray Pritchard and posted on christianity.com:

1) The name “Christian” was not invented by early Christians. It was a name given to them by others.
2) Christians called themselves by different names—disciples, believers, brethren, saints, the elect, etc.
3) The term apparently had a negative meaning in the beginning: “those belonging to the Christ party.”
4) It was a term of contempt or derision.
5) We can get a flavor for it if we take the word “Christ” and keep that pronunciation. You “Christ-ians.”
6) It literally means “Christ-followers.”
7) Over time a derogatory term became a positive designation.
8) Occasionally you will hear someone spit the term out in the same way it was used in the beginning. “You Christians think you’re the only ones going to heaven.”
9) There was a sense of suffering and reproach attached to the word in the New Testament.

In working my way toward an answer to “What is a Christian?” I decided to check out the dictionary. I found these two definitions:

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.”

That’s actually quite helpful because it gives some content to the word. To be a Christian means that you . . .

Believe Something
Follow Something
Live Something
A Fully Devoted Follower To borrow a contemporary phrase, we could simply say that a Christian is a “fully devoted follower of Jesus.” As I think about that, two insights come to mind.

1) It doesn’t happen by accident. You are not “born” a Christian nor are you a Christian because of your family heritage. Being a Christian is not like being Irish. You aren’t a Christian simply because you were born into a Christian family.
2) It requires conversion of the heart. By using the term “conversion,” I simply mean what Jesus meant when he said that to be his disciple meant to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow him (Luke 9:23). The heart itself must be changed so that you become a follower of the Lord.

Second word: American – A citizen of the United States of America.

Stephen M. Warchawsky, wrote the following in an article for americanthinker.org:

So what, then, does it mean to be an American? I suspect that most of us believe, like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in describing pornography, that we “know it when we see it.” For example, John Wayne, Amelia Earhart, and Bill Cosby definitely are Americans. The day laborers standing on the street corner probably are not. But how do we put this inner understanding into words? It’s not easy. Unlike most other nations on Earth, the American nation is not strictly defined in terms of race or ethnicity or ancestry or religion. George Washington may be the Father of Our Country (in my opinion, the greatest American who ever lived), but there have been in the past, and are today, many millions of patriotic, hardworking, upstanding Americans who are not Caucasian, or Christian, or of Western European ancestry. Yet they are undeniably as American as you or I (by the way, I am Jewish of predominantly Eastern European ancestry). Any definition of “American” that excludes such folks — let alone one that excludes me! — cannot be right.

Consequently, it is just not good enough to say, as some immigration restrictionists do, that this is a “white-majority, Western country.” Yes, it is. But so are, for example, Ireland and Sweden and Portugal. Clearly, this level of abstraction does not take us very far towards understanding what it means to be “an American.” Nor is it all that helpful to say that this is an English-speaking, predominately Christian country. While I think these features get us closer to the answer, there are millions of English-speaking (and non-English-speaking) Christians in the world who are not Americans, and millions of non-Christians who are. Certainly, these fundamental historical characteristics are important elements in determining who we are as a nation. Like other restrictionists, I am opposed to public policies that seek, by design or by default, to significantly alter the nation’s “demographic profile.” Still, it must be recognized that demography alone does not, and cannot, explain what it means to be an American.

So where does that leave us? I think the answer to our question, ultimately, must be found in the realms of ideology and culture. What distinguishes the United States from other nations, and what unites the disparate peoples who make up our country, are our unique political, economic, and social values, beliefs, and institutions. Not race, or religion, or ancestry.

Third word: Conservative -A person who holds to traditional values and attitudes.

J. Matt Barber wrote in the Washington Times that

Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds true conservatism. The legs are represented by a strong defense, strong free-market economic policies and strong social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.

A Republican, for instance, who is conservative on social and national defense issues but liberal on fiscal issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative socialist.

A Republican who is conservative on fiscal and social issues but liberal on national defense issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative dove.

By the same token, a Republican who is conservative on fiscal and national defense issues but liberal on social issues – such as abortion, so-called gay rights or the Second Amendment – is not a Reagan conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.

Put another way: A Republican who is one part William F. Buckley Jr., one part Oliver North and one part Rachel Maddow is no true conservative. He is – well, I’m not exactly sure what he is, but it ain’t pretty.

Even the Brits understand what American Conservatism is.

Per blogs.telegraph.co.uk:

Conservatism is thriving in America today because liberty, freedom and individual responsibility are at the heart of its ideology, one that rejects the foolish notion that government knows best. And its strength owes a great debt to the conviction and ideals of Ronald Reagan, who always believed that America’s best days are ahead of her, and for whom the notion of decline was unacceptable. As the Gipper famously put it, in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in 1988:

Those who underestimate the conservative movement are the same people who always underestimate the American people.

In conclusion, I, a Christian American Conservative, am a follower of Jesus Christ and a citizen of the United States of America (by the Grace of God), who holds to traditional values and attitudes.

I pray that you, the reader, are able to glean that from my blogs.  Because, as Matthew 6:21 tells us:

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

May God bless you and yours,

KJ

Reverend Al Sharpton: Doing for Trayvon What He Did for Tawana?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

MSNBC Host Al Sharpton has made a living for years out of race-baiting.

Remember Tawana Brawley?

Museumofhoaxes.com tells the story:

On November 28, 1987, a 15-year-old black girl named Tawana Brawley was found lying inside a trash bag outside an apartment building located in Wappingers Falls, New York. She was covered in feces and racial insults had been scrawled on her body. When questioned by police she claimed that a group of white men, including police officers, had raped and beaten her. The black community rallied around her, and a prominent black leader, the Reverend Al Sharpton, appointed himself her spokesman. Support for Brawley reached its peak on June 15, 1988 when her advisers held a meeting at the Bethany Baptist Church in Brooklyn that was broadcast to an audience of ten million viewers.

However, the material evidence did not back up Brawley’s claims. Her body displayed no signs of rape or assault. She was not frostbitten, even though she had supposedly been kept naked in the freezing woods for days. The feces on her body turned out to be from a neighbor’s dog, and even more damningly, a local resident of the apartment community where she was found claimed to have seen her climb into the trashbag alone and lie down of her own accord.

In October 1988 a grand jury issued a report following a seven-month investigation. It concluded that Brawley’s claims were a hoax. Many speculated that Brawley had made up a wild story in order to avoid punishment at the hand of her stepfather for having run away from home for three days. But Brawley herself insisted that she was telling the truth, a stance which she has maintained to this day. More than anything else, the episode and its bitter aftermath displayed the deep racial divisions that still haunted American society.

Now, in 2012, the Reverend Al Sharpton, MSNBC Host, is race-baiting once again.

The Orlando Sentinel reports that

If George Zimmerman is not arrested in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin soon, theRev. Al Sharpton will call for an escalation in peaceful civil disobedience and economic sanctions.

Sharpton would not say the efforts would be taken against the city of Sanford specifically, but he has been critical of the police department’s handling of the case.

The NAACP, who is sponsoring a march in Trayvon’s hometown of Sandford, Florida today, immediately tried to distance itself from Sharpton’s threat. Read this and decide for yourself if this was a “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” moment:

Turner Clayton, the Seminole County chapter president of the NAACP, reacted immediately to Sharpton’s warning, saying, “We hope that the citizens of Sanford will govern themselves accordingly. We are not calling for any sanctions, against any business or anyone else. And, of course, what Rev. Sharpton does, that’s strictly the [National] Action Network. We can’t condone that part of the conversation, if that’s what he said.”

“I don’t think they can confuse that,” Clayton said. “It’s just that they will have to make a judgment as to whether they want to follow the mission of the NAACP or follow what the Rev. Sharpton said.”

Clayton said that the rallies are going to show support from the community and show the special prosecutor that “we are interested in what happened, and we’re not going to stand by and let them do something that the people of Sanford will not accept.”

Saturday’s rally will begin with a march from the Crooms Academy to the Sanford Police Department on 13th Street. The march begins at 11 a.m. and is hosted by the NAACP.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson is expected to attend, along with Sharpton, who is expected to deliver specifics on his warning.

Sanford city workers spent the day discussing security and preparing for the rally, including setting up barricades, signs, cones and a stage.

Zimmerman, a 28-year-old neighborhood watch leader, shot and killed Martin, 17, last month, in a gated community in Sanford. Zimmerman claims the shooting was in self-defense.

Is it a “conflict of interest” for the Reverend Al to be a wild-eyed, race-baiting, camera-hogging activist and a cable news program host for MSNBC?

Evidently not, per comments his boss, Phil Griffin,  made to The Christian Science Monitor (I’m shocked):

Sharpton’s dual role would have been unthinkable on television 20 years ago and still wouldn’t be allowed at many news organizations. While opinionated cable news hosts have become commonplace over the past decade, Sharpton goes beyond talking.

“It certainly represents a change in our traditional view of the boundaries between journalism and activism,” said Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank. “Al Sharpton is clearly an activist.”

Sharpton, a Baptist minister, runs the Harlem-based National Action Network, a civil rights organization. He’s been a frequent presence as an advocate in racially-charged cases dating back to Tawana Brawley‘s accusations of an assault that turned out to be a hoax in the late 1980s.

He joined MSNBC’s roster of hosts last summer after extensive discussions about how his activist role would continue while on the air.

MSNBC chief executive Phil Griffin said his chief requirement was that Sharpton discuss his activism with network bosses so they could decide, on a case-by-case basis, how it would affect “Politics Daily,” which begins at 6 p.m. ET.

“We didn’t hire Al to become a neutered kind of news presenter,” Griffin said. “That’s not what we do.”

Griffin, talking before Monday’s show, said he hadn’t seen any conflict with Sharpton’s role on and off the air in the Martin case. He said Sharpton had fulfilled his requirement to honest and upfront about his activities, and credited “Politics Daily” with helping to make it a national story.

And somewhere, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. is sadly shaking his head.

Trayvon: Is the Righteous Indignation Fading?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics8 Comments

Alright. Who left the irony on?

Realclearpolitics.com presented this quote yesterday:

“His Republican opponents have jumped all over him because they do want to play politics with this issue. The President spoke from his heart on this, it was trying to emphasize with some parents who had just lost a child. By any measure, this was a tragedy and we need to let the investigation take its course,” Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager, said on MSNBC today.

“People have to stop politicizing it,” she added. “It’s no surprise that some of our Republican opponents are trying to make an issue with this. But the President spoke from the heart and we need to let the investigation take its course.”

Uh huh.

Meanwhile, in my hometown of Memphis, Tenessee:

A march from the National Civil Rights Museum to City Hall in Memphis this morning in support of justice for Trayvon Martin turned into a shouting match as different agendas clashed.

Most were there as a show of support for the Florida teen who was killed by a neighborhood watch captain. But Kennith Van Buren, who had a bull horn, attempted to talk about property taxes and racism associated with the Memphis and Shelby County schools merger and how the suburbs want to break away.

Van Buren, surrounded by four supporters, was shouted down by others.

Today’s rally was the third held in Memphis for Martin. While other crowds have been much larger, only about 15 to 20 supporters either marched or arrived at City Hall around noon.

There was confusion for those who arrived later. “Are we here for prayer or what?” one woman asked before finally leaving.

“We came down not to fight City Hall. We came down here to talk to City Hall. We came down here for our children,” said Wanda Mosby, 61, of Memphis. No elected officials appeared at the rally.

“It’s about right and wrong,” said Constance Houston, 56, of Memphis. “And they were wrong.”

A number of the women wore hoodies as a symbol of what Martin was wearing when he was killed. Others had t-shirts with the words, “I am Trayvon Martin.” Underneath that was a quote from Martin Luther King Jr.: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Beverly Brown said the Women of Faith Helping Hands Ministries organized the rally.

Regarding Van Buren and others, Brown said, “They came for their own agenda. What he was talking about had nothing to do with Trayvon.”

The situation is pretty confusing.  Like what former Black Panther and current United States Congressman (And the Dems say that America is not the Land of Opportunity) Bobby Rush did on the House Floor yesterday.

Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., lost his right to speak on the House floor after he violated rules by putting on a hoodie and sunglasses in honor of Trayvon Martin, the Florida teen shot last month.

“May God bless Trayvon Martin’s soul, his family and — [inaudible]” Rush said as he was removed from the House floor this morning for wearing a hoodie.

Rush was wearing a grey hoodie under his suit jacket. He took off his jacket, pulled the hood over his head and put on sunglasses while saying “racial profiling has to stop, Mr. Speaker. Just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum,” he said.

“The member will suspend,” said a visibly frustrated Rep. Gregg Harper, R-Miss., the speaker pro tempore presiding over the morning session. “The member is no longer recognized.”

Rush shouted Bible passages over the sound of the gavel as the speaker interrupted him, but he was eventually pulled from the House floor. “The chair will ask the sergeant-at-arms to enforce the rules on decorum,” Harper said.

Rush’s “donning of the hood” violated clause five of House Rule 17 against wearing hats on the House floor.

I thought elderly men wore sweaters, not hoodies.

Bobby Rush is not the only one who has gotten carried away.  Black Movie Producer and Air Jordan Pitchman Spike Lee has gotten in trouble for tweeting before thinking.

This just in… 

An elderly couple has gotten a lawyer and moved out of their home because of the Trayvon Martin case. And Wednesday they got an apology from a high-profile celebrity.

Matt Morgan of Morgan & Morgan announced on Twitter Wednesday that Elaine McClain and David McClain had retained the firm. The McClain’s have been harassed ever since someone posted their address on Twitter, believing it to be the home of George Zimmerman, the shooter in the case. The address was apparently retweeted by Spike Lee, acclaimed director.

Morgan stated on Twitter:

“For the record, #GeorgeZimmerman does not live at the address retweeted by @spikelee. Please respect the privacy of the McClain’s.”

Spike Lee tweeted this out Wednesday to his more than 250,000 followers:

I Deeply Apologize To The McClain Family For Retweeting Their Address. It Was A Mistake .Please Leave The McClain’s In Peace. Justice In Court

In published reports, family members said the couple has a son named William George Zimmerman, but it’s not the same man involved in the case. The tweets were reportedly traced back to a man in California.

Classy, huh?  Please note that the cretin did not apologize until the elderly couple got a lawyer.

It has been a month since Trayvon’s death.  Why has all of this “righteous indignation” just now sprung to fruition?

Another thing…is it just me…or does all this “indignation” seemed awfully forced?  It’s almost like it was planned for a month and held until just the right time.  Like it was supposed to be a distraction from the Obamacare Supreme Court Hearings…or something.

It is tragic that Trayvon’s  young life ended…but, why did the Democrats and the “outraged”  wait a month to protest it?

 


SCOTUS Dissects the Individual Mandate. Wishbone, Anybody?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

Conservative Judges on the Supreme Court performed an oral dissection on the Individual Mandate found in Obamacare, yesterday.

Reuters.com has the story:

The Obama administration faced skeptical questioning from a U.S. Supreme Court dominated by conservatives on Tuesday during a tense two-hour showdown over a sweeping healthcare law that has divided Americans.

A ruling on the law’s key requirement that most people obtain health insurance or face a penalty appeared likely to come down to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, two conservatives who pummeled the administration’s lawyer with questions.

But Roberts and Kennedy also scrutinized the two attorneys arguing against the 2010 law, which is considered President Barack Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement.

The two pivotal justices on the nine-member court asked highly nuanced questions on Tuesday, the second of three straight days of oral arguments. They seemed torn on whether it would be more of a break from past cases to strike down the so-called individual mandate to obtain insurance or to uphold it.

Aggressive in their questioning of both sides, the justices fired off hard-hitting queries about the limits of the federal government’s power and whether it could even extend to requiring eating broccoli and buying gym memberships or cars.

While conservative justices took aim at the insurance mandate, liberal justices supported it.

The administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, told the justices that Congress, in passing the law, was trying to address the troubling problem of shifting costs from people who are uninsured to those who purchase coverage, arguing “the system does not work” and lawmakers were addressing “a grave problem.”

At stake is the power of Congress to intervene in one of U.S. society’s most difficult problems – soaring healthcare costs and access to medical care. Annual U.S. healthcare spending totals $2.6 trillion, about 18 percent of the annual gross domestic product, or $8,402 per person.

So, what happens to the American Taxpayer if the Supreme Court rules that the Individual Mandate is Constitutional and it goes into effect in 2014?

Per heritage.org:

In essence, the mandates on individuals to purchase health insurance will raise taxes on families. When fully implemented in 2016, the individual penalty for not complying will reach up to $695 per person (for up to three people or $2,085 per household) or 2.5 percent of taxable income.[5] Many healthy but uninsured individuals will now be forced to buy insurance plans under the PPACA. This added cost–whether as new premiums or as a penalty for not purchasing insurance–is a de facto tax increase for these individuals.

Employers also have a new mandate to provide health insurance for their employees. Employers with more than 50 employees that do not offer coverage and have at least one full-time employee who receives a premium tax credit will pay a fine of $2,000 per employee (excluding the first 30) or $3,000 per employee receiving the premium tax subsidy.

As with the individual mandate, families will feel the bite of these tax increases in two ways:

If an employer begins to offer insurance, the wages of those employees to be covered will drop by the amount that the newly provided health insurance plan costs the employer.

If the employer fails to offer coverage, it will pay the tax, and the employee’s compensation will fall by that amount.

Either way, workers’ total compensation does not change; only its composition changes. But because workers will be forced to take more of their compensation in the form of health insurance, their cash wages will fall, and they will have less flexibility to use their earnings as they wish. Even though their total compensation will not change, lower cash income will negatively affect middle- and low-income families.

Heckuva job there, Barry.

This important moment in our country’s history continues tomorrow.  Here’s the schedule:

Wednesday, March 28, 10:00 a.m. (90 mins. of argument)

The Issue: If the mandate must go, can the rest of the law survive?

The challengers maintain that, if the Court strikes down the mandate, it should invalidate the rest of the law as well. The administration will argue that a few related provisions would have to go if the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, but the rest of the law should remain in force. The Court appointed an amicus counsel, H. Bartow Farr, III, to stake out a third position: that the mandate is completely severable, so nothing else in Obamacare needs to change even if the Court gives the mandate the heave-ho. Clement will speak for the challengers and Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler will represent the administration.

Wednesday, March 28, 1:00 p.m. – (one hr. of argument)

The Issue: Does Obamacare’s huge expansion of Medicaid and the conditions for any federal funding of it violate basic principles of federalism?

Clement will argue that the law effectively coerces states to participate in a radically more expansive Medicaid program than what they have worked under for decades. In the early years of the expansion, slated to begin in 2014, the feds will supposedly pick up all the new costs. But the states argue the expansion will impose massive new costs almost immediately, which will only increase in future years when the federal government decreases its payments. Verrilli will argue that the federal government can alter the terms of the federal-state program any time it wants to and, if the states don’t care for the changes, they can just opt out of Medicaid.

The Supreme Court does not allow oral arguments to be broadcast live, either on TV or radio. For this case, it will release an audio tape of the arguments a few hours after they conclude. For more timely reports on the arguments, check the Foundry [at heritage.org], where reports and pod casts will be posted soon after the sessions’ closings.

SCOTUS will not hand down their ruling on Obamacare until June.  Until then, all Americans can do is watch, wait…and pray.

The Tragedy of Trayvon: The Race-Baiting Vultures of Avarice

On By kingsjesterIn Politics13 Comments

The controversy around the death of Trayvon Martin continues.

The Daily Caller has the story:

Former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant is accusing Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton of “exploiting” the Trayvon Martin tragedy to “racially divide this country.”

“His family should be outraged at the fact that they’re using this child as the bait to inflame racial passions,” Rev. C.L. Bryant said in a Monday interview with The Daily Caller.

The conservative black pastor who was once the chapter president of the Garland, Texas NAACP called Jackson and Sharpton “race hustlers” and said they are “acting as though they are buzzards circling the carcass of this young boy.”

You’re exactly right, Pastor.  His family should be outraged.  Unfortunately, though, they appear to be trying to get in on the action, per thesmokinggun.com:

The mother of Trayvon Martin has filed two applications to secure trademarks containing her late son’s name, records show.

Sybrina Fulton is seeking marks for the phrases “I Am Trayvon” and “Justice for Trayvon,” according to filings made last week with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In both instances, Fulton, 46, is seeking the trademarks for use on “Digital materials, namely, CDs and DVDs featuring Trayvon Martin,” and other products.

The March 21 USPTO applications, each of which cost $325, were filed by an Orlando, Florida law firm representing Fulton, whose first name is spelled “Sabrina” in the trademark records.

Some “pundits” have postulated that perhaps Mudear is just trying to protect her son’s memory from unscrupulous buzzards.  We’ll see.  In the meantime, more information has come out about Trayvon, which may be found at miamiherald.com:

In October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area “hiding and being suspicious.” Then he said he saw Trayvon mark up a door with “W.T.F” — an acronym for “what the f—.” The officer said he found Trayvon the next day and went through his book bag in search of the graffiti marker.

Instead the officer reported he found women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that he described as a “burglary tool,” according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald. Word of the incident came as the family’s lawyer acknowledged that the boy was suspended in February for getting caught with an empty bag with traces of marijuana, which he called “irrelevant” and an attempt to demonize a victim.

Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds.

Trayvon was asked if the jewelry belonged to his family or a girlfriend.

“Martin replied it’s not mine. A friend gave it to me,” he responded, according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend.

Trayvon was not disciplined because of the discovery, but was instead suspended for graffiti, according to the report. School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation.

A lawyer for the dead teen’s family acknowledged Trayvon had been suspended for graffiti, but said the family knew nothing about the jewelry and the screwdriver.

“It’s completely irrelevant to what happened Feb. 26,” said attorney Benjamin Crump. “They never heard this, and don’t believe it’s true. If it were true, why wouldn’t they call the parents? Why wasn’t he arrested?”

Trayvon, who was a junior at Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School, had never been arrested, police and the family have said.

“We think everybody is trying to demonize him,” Crump said.

No evidence ever surfaced that the jewelry was stolen.

“Martin was suspended, warned and dismissed for the graffiti,” according to the report prepared by schools police.

That suspension was followed four months later by another one in February, in which Trayvon was caught with an empty plastic bag with traces of marijuana in it. A schools police report obtained by The Miami Herald specifies two items: a bag with marijuana residue and a “marijuana pipe.”

The punishment was the third for the teen. On Monday, the family also said Trayvon had earlier been suspended for tardiness and truancy.

What about the horrible incident that took the 17 year old’s life?  What actually happened that fateful night?  Orlandosentinel.com reports

With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.

Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened Feb. 26. But that night, and in later meetings, he described and re-enacted for police what he says took place.

In his version of events, Zimmerman had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.Zimmerman told police he shot the teenager in self-defense.

…Zimmerman’s account

This is what the Sentinel has learned about Zimmerman’s account to investigators:

He said he was on his way to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon walking through his gated community.

Trayvon was visiting his father’s fiancée, who lived there. He had been suspended from school in Miami after being found with an empty marijuana baggie. Miami schools have a zero-tolerance policy for drug possession.

Police have been reluctant to provide details about their evidence.

But after the Sentinel story appeared online Monday morning, City Manager Norton Bonaparte Jr. issued a news release, saying there would be an internal-affairs investigation into the source of the leak and, if identified, the person or people involved would be disciplined.

He did not challenge the accuracy of the information.

…Zimmerman has gone into hiding. A fringe group, the New Black Panther Party, has offered a $10,000 reward for his “capture.”

One-minute gap

On Feb. 26, when Zimmerman first spotted Trayvon, he called police and reported a suspicious person, describing Trayvon as black, acting strangely and perhaps on drugs.

Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.

There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they’re not sure what happened.

Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.

Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, “Well, you do now” or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police.

Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police.

Zimmerman began yelling for help.

Several witnesses heard those cries, and there has been a dispute about whether they came from Zimmerman or Trayvon.

Lawyers for Trayvon’s family say it was Trayvon, but police say their evidence indicates it was Zimmerman.

One witness, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him — and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.

Zimmerman then shot Trayvon once in the chest at very close range, according to authorities.

When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody lacerations to the back of his head.

Paramedics gave him first aid but he said he did not need to go to the hospital. He got medical care the next day.

The Daily Caller got access to the “Tweets”  of Trayvon.  They reveal a young man who was playing “Gangsta”, spewing vulgarities and talking tough.  No one knows what happened that night, except Zimmerman and the witnesses.  Trayvon is not here to tell his side of the story.

Even though all the evidence seems to reveal that the young man was not as pure as the driven snow, it is still unfortunate that his young life has ended.

And, it’s also unfortunate that certain race-baiting vultures have descended to take advantage of this tragedy.

As I’ve written previously:

Somewhere, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is sadly shaking his head.

The Supreme Court Tackles Obamacare: Buyer, Beware

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

The United States Supreme Court begins hearings this week on Obamacare, Obama’s National Healthcare Monster that was shoved down Americans’ collective throat by the Obama Administration and their lackeys in the then-Democratic-controlled Congress.

I have an inkling that the Administration is a wee bit concerned as to how SCOTUS is going to rule.

Yahoo.com reports that

Neal Katyal, who as acting US Solicitor General defended the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s flagship health reform in lower courts, has warned in an interview with AFP of “grave” and “profound” consequences if the Supreme Court accepts a challenge to the law.

Q:) Experts say that this Supreme Court challenge is historic. Why so?

A:) The case that’s coming before the Supreme Court which challenges Congress’s Affordable Care Act is undoubtedly a significant case. It’s rare for a president’s signature initiative to come before the Supreme Court and be challenged as unconstitutional.

Q:) The requirement for each individual to have health insurance coverage is central to the president’s reform. Can the law survive without that measure?

A:) It’s a hard thing to imagine that the law, that all of the rest of the law would survive if the individual mandate is struck down, because Congress when they passed the Affordable Care Act, said: ‘We want to get rid of discrimination against those who have pre-existing conditions to make sure that insurers are going to insure everyone at a fair cost’. And if you get rid of the provision that says everyone has to carry insurance, then you’re really effectively undoing the logic of the ban on discrimination of those with pre-existing conditions.

Q:) In what way could the individual mandate by judged “unconstitutional”?

A:) The challengers to the reform say that never before has the government forced people to buy a product. We’re not forcing you to buy a product. Health care is something all Americans consume, and you don’t know when you’re going to consume it. You could get struck by a bus, you could have a heart attack and the like. And if you don’t have health insurance, then you show up at the emergency room. The doctors are under orders to treat you — as any Western, any civilized society would do. And who pays for that? Well, ordinary Americans pay for that. They’re the ones who have to pick up the tab for those who don’t have insurance. We are not regulating what people buy, we’re regulating how people finance it.

Excuse me, when something is mandated, doesn’t that mean you HAVE TO do it?

Todd Gaziano details SCOTUS’ schedule at heritage.org:

Six hours of oral argument will be conducted in four sessions, spread over three days. That’s what the Supreme Court has allocated for the cases challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).

The arguments begin Monday, as attorneys representing 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), and a few of its individual members square off against U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verilli, Jr. and one of his deputies. Other attorneys appointed by the Supreme Court will join the fray on two issues. Here’s the schedule and the line-up for the arguments.

Monday, March 26, 10:00 a.m. (90 mins. of argument).

The Issue: Is the challenge to the Obamacare mandate ripe for a court challenge?

The 145-year-old Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) provides that courts may not hear most cases to block tax collections until the challengers first pay the tax and seek a refund. The individual mandate in Obamacare doesn’t kick in until 2014, and one court ruled that no one may challenge it until they pay the penalty for not buying insurance in 2015. The United States no longer takes that position; it thinks the AIA doesn’t apply to the mandate penalty because it is not a tax. The challengers argue there are four other reasons why the AIA doesn’t apply.

Since the administration agrees with the challengers on the AIA, the Court appointed a private attorney—Robert A. Long, Jr.—to argue the other side. Long will present the first 40 minutes of argument. He’ll be followed by Verrilli, who has 30 minutes allotted. Gregory G. Katsas, representing NFIB and the states, will have the final 20 minutes to argue that the AIA creates no obstacle to challenging the mandate.

Tuesday, March 27, 10:00 a.m. (two hrs. of argument)

The Issue: Does the Constitution give Congress the power to compel individuals to purchase particular financial instruments?

While Monday’s session will be largely technical, Tuesday’s session is the main event. Verrilli will argue that the Constitution’s Commerce and the Necessary and Proper Clauses give Congress all the authority it needs. Verilli will also argue that the mandate penalty is a “tax” for constitutional purposes. The challengers are represented by former Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing on behalf of the 26 states, and Michael Carvin, speaking on behalf of NFIB, who will each have 30 minutes before the justices. Clement and Carvin will contend that, in imposing the mandate, Congress exceeded its authority, and that the penalty is not a constitutional tax. In addition, they will argue that if the mandate is allowed to stand, Congress would have virtually unlimited power to require citizens to buy anything or do anything.

Wednesday, March 28, 10:00 a.m. (90 mins. of argument)

The Issue: If the mandate must go, can the rest of the law survive?

The challengers maintain that, if the Court strikes down the mandate, it should invalidate the rest of the law as well. The administration will argue that a few related provisions would have to go if the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, but the rest of the law should remain in force. The Court appointed an amicus counsel, H. Bartow Farr, III, to stake out a third position: that the mandate is completely severable, so nothing else in Obamacare needs to change even if the Court gives the mandate the heave-ho. Clement will speak for the challengers and Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler will represent the administration.

Wednesday, March 28, 1:00 p.m. – (one hr. of argument)

The Issue: Does Obamacare’s huge expansion of Medicaid and the conditions for any federal funding of it violate basic principles of federalism?

Clement will argue that the law effectively coerces states to participate in a radically more expansive Medicaid program than what they have worked under for decades. In the early years of the expansion, slated to begin in 2014, the feds will supposedly pick up all the new costs. But the states argue the expansion will impose massive new costs almost immediately, which will only increase in future years when the federal government decreases its payments. Verrilli will argue that the federal government can alter the terms of the federal-state program any time it wants to and, if the states don’t care for the changes, they can just opt out of Medicaid.

The Supreme Court does not allow oral arguments to be broadcast live, either on TV or radio. For this case, it will release an audio tape of the arguments a few hours after they conclude. For more timely reports on the arguments, check the Foundry, where reports and pod casts will be posted soon after the sessions’ closings.

By the way, since its passage, Obamacare has turned out to be a heck of an investment for the Obama Administration.  That is to say, it’s worth has more than doubled since its “birth”:

President Obama’s national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO’s standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama’s pledge that the legislation would cost “around $900 billion over 10 years.” When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

Have you ever bought a used car whose repair bill turned out to be more than its net worth?  Well, that’s what Obama and the Democrats gave us with their passage of Obamacare.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will  take this lemon off of our hands.

From Star Wars to The Hunger Games

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Entertainment, Politics2 Comments

The biggest box office hit in America right now is The Hunger Games.  In fact, it is setting records.

Deadline.com has the story:

Lionsgate’s record-shattering The Hunger Games opened with $68.25M grosses for Friday’s North American box office, including $19.75M in record-setting midnights. That should make for a first weekend of $140M with upside from 4,137 locations, with a screen count just under 10,000 prints. About 75% of those prints are in digital theaters, including 268 IMAX theaters across North America. Hunger Games records include: the highest non-sequel opening weekend ever, and the highest debut single day for a non-sequel ever, and the highest March opening ever, and the 5th highest opening day ever. Why is it doing so well? Because this brutal actioner about love and courage was based on Suzanne Collins’ best-selling trilogy of post-apocalyptic young adult novels and made better than it had to be given all the omnipresent marketing and media hype.

Imdb.com summarizes the plot for us:

In a not-too-distant future, North America has collapsed, weakened by drought, fire, famine, and war to be replaced by Panem, a country divided into the Capitol and 12 districts. Each year two young representatives from each district are selected by lottery to participate in The Hunger Games. Part entertainment, part brutal intimidation of the subjugated districts, the televised games are broadcast throughout Panem. The 24 participants are forced to eliminate their competitors, literally, with all citizens required to watch. When 16-year-old Katniss’ young sister, Prim, is selected as the mining district’s female representative, Katniss volunteers to take her place. She and her male counterpart Peeta, will be pitted against bigger, stronger representatives who have trained for this their whole lives.

But, is this movie appropriate for children?

Commonsensemedia.org cautions parents:

Parents need to know that although the bestselling Hunger Games books are enormously popular with tweens, there’s a clear distinction between reading about violence and seeing it portrayed on screen. Developmentally, the 10- to 12-year-olds who’ve read the book may find the movie’s visceral, sometimes bloody teen-on-teen violence upsetting — especially the brutal scene that opens the Games, in which several teens are slaughtered by their fellow contestants. Even young teens need to be mature enough to deal with the 20+ deaths in The Hunger Games; characters are viciously dispatched with various weapons — including spears, arrows, and swords — as well as by having their necks broken, their skulls cracked, and their bodies ravaged by carnivorous and poisonous creatures. Despite the violence (which is, overall, less graphic than the novel’s descriptions but is still very intense), the movie explores thought-provoking themes about reality television, totalitarian government, and screen violence as entertainment. And Katniss, the main character, is a strong heroine who’s resourceful, selfless, and a true survivor. Her mentor, Haymitch, is initially depicted as a cynical drunk, but he ultimately proves to be a valuable ally.

So, the top box office hit in America features children killing other children?  

How callous have we become?  Okay.  Now, I’m depressed.

Back in my day (Here’s where I sound like my Daddy), we had great movies.  In 1975, we had Airplane!, one of the funniest movies of all time (Excuse me, Stewardess.  I speak Jive.) and Jaws (This was no boating accident!)

And in 1977, I attended the following premiere in the now-long-gone Paramount Theater in Eastgate Shopping Center in Memphis , Tennessee:

Part IV in George Lucas’ epic, Star Wars: A New Hope opens with a Rebel ship being boarded by the tyrannical Darth Vader. The plot then follows the life of a simple farm boy, Luke Skywalker, as he and his newly met allies (Han Solo, Chewbacca, Obi-Wan Kenobi, C-3PO, R2-D2) attempt to rescue a Rebel leader, Princess Leia, from the clutches of the Empire. The conclusion is culminated as the Rebels, including Skywalker and flying ace Wedge Antilles make an attack on the Empire’s most powerful and ominous weapon, the Death Star.

It was a throwback to the old movie serials I used to watch on my parent’s blonde wood, black and white television set when I was a child.  It was an intergalatic cowboy movie, featuring heroes you cheered for, villains you booed, and good triumphing over evil.

The original Star Wars was an allegory, illuminating the hero in all of us.  Luke Skywalker was an average guy: a dreamer, longing for adventure, not wanting to settle for complacency, who received the opportunity for the adventure of a lifetime, and seized the moment, becoming a hero.

Sure, there was violence, but it was Saturday morning cartoon-style violence, featuring fight scenes such as American boys had already imagined while fighting invisible aliens in their bedrooms.

Nowadays, compared to The Hunger Games, it almost seems naive in its optimistic good spirits.

How did we get this coarse and brutal?  

Hold on.  Before you call me an old wuss, realize that I grew up watching Memphis ‘Rasslin’ on Saturday Mornings with my Daddy.  Heck, my Daddy and my Uncle “R” even took me to the Mid-South Coliseum, where I watched Jerry “The King” Lawler and Bill “Superstar” Dundee win the AWA World Tag Team Titles from Doug Summers and some huge “Russian”.

Plus, I lived in a neighborhood during my middle school years that was so rough, I had to carry a lead-filled bat around with me, because I was a little feller (and there was no government-mandated anti-bullying drive in the schools back then).

Anyway, I guess I’m just concerned that popular culture is forcing children to grow up too fast.  Middle school kids (‘tweens) are way beyond where we were, in terms of their social development.

And now, Hollyweird has them fighting to the death on a tarnished Silver screen.

And, they call this progress?

Flashpoint: Sanford, Florida (March, 1968, Again?)

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

Racial division has once again reared its ugly head in America.  And this time, the President of the United States has used a horrible situation as an opportunity to shamefully pander to potential voters.

Reuters.com has the story:

President Barack Obama weighed into the controversial killing of a black teenager in Florida in very personal terms on Friday, comparing the boy to a son he doesn’t have and calling for American “soul searching” over how the incident occurred.

Seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin, dressed in a “hoodie” sweatshirt, was shot dead a month ago in Sanford, Florida by a 28-year-old white Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer who said he was acting in self-defense.

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said in his first comments about the shooting, acknowledging the racial element in the case.

“Obviously, this is a tragedy,” Obama told reporters. “I can only imagine what these parents are going through. And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.”

The case has rippled across the nation and prompted rallies protesting the failure of the police to arrest the shooter, George Zimmerman, and, more broadly, a pattern of racial discrimination black leaders cite in Sanford and elsewhere in the country.

Obama, the first black U.S. president, made his remarks at a White House event to announce his pick to lead the World Bank, waiting briefly after the announcement to take a reporter’s question about the incident.

Martin’s parents thanked the president for his words.

“The president’s personal comments touched us deeply and made us wonder: If his son looked like Trayvon and wore a hoodie, would he be suspicious too?,” they said in a statement.

Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law allows people to use deadly force in self-defense.

Similar laws are in effect in at least 24 states including Florida, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Calls are mounting to repeal them. Earlier this week, a Florida state senator said he was drafting new legislation to drastically change the law in Florida.

A South Carolina state representative said on Friday he had introduced a bill to repeal his state’s law. Bakari Sellers, a black Democrat and gun owner, said he wanted to prevent an incident like the Trayvon Martin shooting happening in his state.

“I’m six-five and a black guy,” he said. “I just know that it could have been me.”

Obama said the “Stand Your Ground” laws should be studied.

“I think all of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means that examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident,” he said.

“Every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.”

And, of course, what would a national racial crisis be without the Rev-rhuuuund Jack-soooon hogging the nearest camera?

LATimes.com obliged him:

Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson said Friday that he’s grateful the rest of the country has sat up and taken notice of the tragic slaying of Trayvon Martin. But he can’t help but wonder: Why has it taken so long for everyone else to recognize the chronic injustices that African Americans face?

“We’re surprised that everyone else is surprised,” Jackson told the Los Angeles Times. African Americans have tried for decades to get the rest of America to understand their plight, he said, particularly their beliefs that justice is still elusive in many parts of America, especially the Deep South.

Then along comes the Trayvon Martin case, and facts that are not in contention: Volunteer neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman pursued and then gunned down the unarmed 17-year-old last month, and never faced arrest because police said there was no evidence to contradict his claim that he fired in self-defense.

“I hope that this will be a transformative moment,” Jackson said.

Jackson was speaking Friday morning from the Chicago offices of his Rainbow PUSH Coalition. He had just returned from duties in Belgium and Switzerland. He was in Geneva on Wednesday as part of a delegation of religious leaders trying to find a way to end the violence in Syria. Jackson was preparing to get back on a plane for a flight south so he can add his voice to the growing protests in and around Sanford, Fla., where Martin’s shooting took place.

Jackson said the Martin case is getting plenty of media attention overseas, attention that is both embarrassing to white America and humiliating to black America.

Moreover, he said, the failure to make an arrest in the case takes away the nation’s “moral authority” to address injustices in other countries when it fails to do the same within its own borders.

Jackson predicted that the protests will continue to multiply in number and that the ranks of protestors will swell until Zimmerman is arrested.

“As long as he is outside of the court system, the protests will intensify and spill over into other dimensions,” Jackson said. “His lack of appearance in the court system is a source of embarrassment and humiliation. He needs to face the court.”

So, here we are.  It’s March, 1968 again, all of the sudden…except its different this time.

Embarrassingly different.  There was an Al Sharpton-led rally in Sanford, Florida, last Thursday evening.  Enterprising entrepreneurs were in attendance.

Nation of Islam representatives were on scene in Sanford, too, peddling merchandise and trying to enlist new recruits. James Muhammad, the assistant regional minister of the Nation of Islam’s seventh region, told TheDC that he and others from his organization were on scene because of “injustice.”

“The reason is our love for our people and our intolerance for having our children shot down outside of the law of justice,” Muhammad said.

Those with Muhammad at the event were selling copies of the Nation of Islam’s official publication — The Final Call — which Louis Farrakhan publishes. Farrakhan, a radical and divisive figure, has predicted “retaliation” will be coming “soon and very soon.”

For a buck, rally-goers could purchase copies of the paper from Muhammad’s associates — with the headline “JUSTICE FOR TRAYVON! Demands for arrest, criticism of police grows in case of Florida teen killed by White community patrol captain.” That statement is incorrect, however, as Zimmerman is not White. He is Hispanic, and according to a statement his father gave the Orlando Sentinel, he has a racially mixed family and black relatives.

Muhammad said there’s an underlying hatred of black people in this country. “It’s deeper than the chief of police, it’s deeper than the mayor,” Muhammad said. “It’s deeper than the government. It’s deeper than the president. The reality of it is there is an underlying atmosphere of racism in this country, where the administration of justice is inconsistent and the enforcement of law is inconsistent based on your ethnicity, based on your race.”

Others sold t-shirts emblazoned with puns about how Martin was not armed when he was shot. When Zimmerman shot him, Martin was only carrying a bottle of ice tea and a pack of Skittles, so slogans on the shirts joked about how dangerous someone armed with candy could be.

Rally-goers could buy Trayvon buttons and pins, too, while other attendees passed out signs to the crowd.

A lot of people were self-righteously proud back in 2008, when they assisted in electing a black man as President of these United States.  However, they failed to pay attention to another black man, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, who proclaimed on August 23, 1963:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I am privileged to be a Facebook friend of Dr. King’s niece, Alveda King, a great Christian lady and Pro-life Activist.  She was on the Glenn Beck Fox News Television Program one evening, sitting with “Uncle” Ted Nugent.  It was great.  The Nuge and Alveda were wonderful together.  He told her he loved her.

Her uncle would have been proud of her that day.

What do you think he would say about the race-baiting prologue pitifully overshadowing the tragic death of a young man?

I believe that somewhere, he’s sadly shaking his head.

Sheriff Joe Vs. Obama: Tons More Information to Come

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio has never been known to shy away from a good fight…and he certainly cannot be accused of being mealy-mouthed.

Catholic.org has the story:

America’s sheriff is hot on the case of Obama’s possibly forged credentials. On a March 16 radio show hosted by Roger Hedgecock, Maricopa County, Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio discussed his recent investigation into Obama’s documents and the possibility they could be forged.

LOS ANGELES, CA – Sheriff Joe told Hedgecock there is “tons” more information on Obama than what is currently known and that he feels this is “probably the biggest censorship blackout in the history of the United States.”

On March 1, WND reported that Sheriff Joe and his Cold Case Posse was announcing probable cause that President Obama’s documents which made him eligible to run in 2008 could be forged. At the crux of the investigation are Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration card.

Sheriff Joe said, “I’m not going after the president to keep him off a ballot or anything else, but that could happen. I’m going at it strictly as a law-enforcement guy investigating a possible forgery and fraud. I’m sticking with that, but I’ll tell you one thing. We got tons of other information that could be very shocking, too, but I’m sticking now with just the investigation and possible criminal violations.”

Sheriff Joe was asked if he would try to make an arrest, but he cautioned against that conclusion. “We’re trying to identify any alleged forger. We haven’t done that yet. . I’m not blaming the president, but if they’re forged, someone has to be responsible for doing that.”

Despite the results of his investigation, Sheriff Joe believes that media coverage of Obama’s forgeries is being suppressed. He told Hedgecock, “My problem is, there’s a lot of conflicts out here to get somebody to look into this. .This is probably the biggest censorship blackout in the history of the United States. When I go to the toilet, I make it in national news. .I just can’t believe the media, including the cable media blocking this thing out.”

Currently, Sheriff Joe is focusing attention on Obama’s Selective Service registration card, which contains a bizarre mistake. The date stamp, which should read “1980” only reads, “08.” This is inconsistent with every other stamp the office investigated.

Sheriff Joe has asked for the original document and is still waiting for a response from the Selective Service. Unfortunately, the Selective Service is ultimately under the control of the President, so the Sheriff does not expect cooperation.

There are other items in the media that apparently remain unreported. According to WND, a retired US postal worker has signed a sworn affidavit saying that Obama was a foreign-born student who was given financial assistance from the parents of Bill Ayers. Ayers is infamous for founding the domestic terror group, Weather Underground. Obama has previously been connected to Bill Ayers.

Despite this, the media is not reporting the story, lending credibility to Sheriff Joe’s claim that a full-scale media blackout is occurring.

It was 11 months ago, April 27, 2011, that Obama thought he was putting all of the questions about him behind him as he issued a long form of , what he claimed, was his birth certificate.

WJBC.com reported at the time:

 “We do not have time for this silliness,” President Obama said in a statement to the media this morning about his birth certificate. The White House is releasing his full birth certificate, showing a live birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4th, 1961. In a statement, Obama called himself amused and puzzled about questions that have been raised about his birth. Since 2008, some conspiracy theorists have repeatedly raised questions about whether Obama was actually born in the USA. In recent weeks, real estate mogul Donald Trump has fanned the flames of doubt about the President’s birthplace. Trump is flirting with a presidential run as a Republican.

A statement from White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer says the President viewed the issue as a distraction that was not good for the country. Pfeiffer said, “It may have been good politics and good TV, but it was bad for the American people and distracting from the many challenges we face as a country.”

That did not stop the speculation concerning the president’s birth.  The Birth Certificate he presented appeared as if it had been cut and pasted together.  It fired “birthers” up, instead of shutting them up.

Evidently, Obama still thinks about the subject, as well.

Sauce for the goose (or, should I say “Lame Duck”)

Fox News’ Ed Henry reported on Twitter that after speaking at an event in Cushing, Oklahoma, President Obama jokingly asked a woman where her birth certificate was after she revealed to have been born at the same hospital he was born at in Hawaii.

@edhenryTV: In OK, Woman heard telling Prez she was born at same hospital in Hawaii. He quipped: “Do you have YOUR birth certificate?”

I have mine, Mr. President.  It states that I was born in St. Joseph Hospital, in Memphis, Tennessee, on December 3rd, 1958.

It appears that there are still some lingering doubts (perhaps, even in your own mind) concerning yours.