What people don’t realize is unless you have as much money as Michael Bloomberg or The Backstreet Boys, a candidate will have to fundraise millions and millions of dollars to be a true competitor in any race for most levels of government.  The point I am trying to make is that WITHOUT THE BACKING OF THE DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN PARTY, a candidate does not have a shot.  The ability of the two major parties to fundraise is unrivaled by any institution anywhere in the United States.  Therefore, candidates and elected officials are beholdent to the needs and desires of “The Party”.  In order to gain this backing, you need to work your way up and prove yourself (mayor, committee member, councilman. etc).  If “The Party” does not have confidence in you, they will not give you money and you will not win.  Wright’s comments are correct because “The Party” ”Selects” who they want to fundraise for.  Get it?

Booker’s youtube video(http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=GsdD3AvSgVQ&NR=1 )explaining his “Meet the Press” comments is a perfect example of my point above.  After disagreeing with Obama’s campaign strategy regarding Mitt Romney. it is obvious that Corey’s cell phone was inundated with phone calls from the DNC seconds after the completion of the program.  Congressman Allen West said on “The Sean Hannity Show” today that “he folded like Gumby.”  Yes, Colonel West is correct.  He did but he had no choice but to do so if he wanted to have any type of future in the Democratic Party. (CONTINUED BELOW VIDEO)

.

My guess is that he got a call from a prominent Democrat that went a little like this, “Corey, this is_____.  If you don’t retract those statements, we won’t back(fundraise) your next election or any election that you ever want to participate in.  Have a nice day.”

And this is why good people don’t hold office….because they are too honest to get selected…cough…elected.

His new-found support comes at an opportune time: after North Carolina voters shook the nation with a referendum on same-sex marriage and in the home-stretch of campaign season. But what does it really mean and what power does his endorsement have? While President Obama still polls unfavorably in the economic standpoint of potential voters, it is obvious that he has sought a new approach to reaching out to constituents. American Values President Gary Bauer spoke on CNN’s “State of the Union” and stated that Obama has now taken six or seven states he carried in 2008 and put them into play with his endorsement of same-sex marriage.  On another note, Senator John Thune, R- S.D., who is considered to be a contender as a Romney running mate, told Fox News Sunday, “I think the view that Governor Romney holds on traditional marriage is the view that’s held by a lot of people across this country.” Senator Thune added, “there are more than 30 states who either by statute or constitutional amendment have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.”

The majority of states listed in Diagram 1 have upheld amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman:

Diagram 1: NCLS.org

North Carolina recently voted 61 percent in favor of an amendment strictly defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This makes North Carolina the thirtieth state to ban same sex marriage. While laws may be reversible, it is nearly impossible to reverse a constitutional amendment. In New Jersey, Governor Christie –R, requested a referendum, similar to North Carolina, to allow the People to determine what is best for the state.  The state Assembly passed the Marriage Equality and Religious Exemption Act, without public opinion, and within no time the state Senate had passed it as well. As promised, the Governor swiftly vetoed the bill and made a recommendation to the assembly and senate:

“I continue to encourage the Legislature to trust the people of New Jersey and seek their input by allowing our citizens to vote on a question that represents a profoundly significant societal change. This is the only path to amend our State Constitution and the best way to resolve the issue of same-sex marriage in our state.”

Governor Rick Perry, Texas –R, has said in the past, “Our friends in New York passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me,” He then added, “That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”

President Obama’s endorsement alone will have very little effect on his ratings and re-election. A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted May 10 showed that while a majority of Americans back Obama’s endorsement, 60 percent of those polled said the decision would make no difference in their vote. Intriguingly, 26 percent were less likely to vote for Obama because of it and just 13 percent were more likely to back Obama based on the endorsement. Openly-Gay member of Congress, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said “I literally don’t think anybody’s vote was changed by this one way or the other.”

Even the President must know from teaching Constitutional-Law that his endorsement and his supporters may be solid as a rock but the Constitution, our nation’s most valuable document, is the winner in this game of rock-paper-scissor politics. Paper covers rock, always.

Not all of the facts are in on the case and we already have the New Black Panther Party placing a bounty on George Zimmerman’s head. Think about that for a second. We have a group of citizens that believes in vigilantly “Street” justice having more power than the police department. Where is the President’s administration to stop it? When a Conservative radio host steps out of line and calls a female a “slut”, that warrants a personal phone call from the President BUT when individuals place a bounty on a citizen’s head and arrest, where is he to be found?

Before pictures were released, it is pretty obvious that this reached a high in calling for it to be labeled a racist crime based on the shooter’s last name, Zimmerman. Leave it to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to rush to the scene to cause an uproar and feed on racial tension to further their agenda as soon as the media latched on to the story. Then…alas the shooter is hispanic! Well that doesn’t fit the narrative for the racist rhetoric storm that Jackson, Sharpton, the New Black Panthers and the media have been projecting! So a new term is invented for the occasion…a “White Hispanic“, a term that seems to have appeared out of thin air post-Trayvon/Zimmerman case, since Zimmerman’s mother is hispanic and his father is white. In all honesty though, Zimmerman is no more white than President Obama himself, having a white mother.

Congressmen can’t miss the opportunity to make fools of themselves either, dressing in hoodies to symbolize unity with Trayvon. Here is one of my personal favorites though:

But why leave it to the usual suspects when others are also guilty of playing into the racial tension and making matters worse? Why can’t celebrities get involved too?

Spike Lee tweeted the INCORRECT address of George Zimmerman:

“@SpikeLee EVERYBODY REPOST THIS George W. Zimmerman 159 Edgewater Circle Sanford, Florida 32773″

This lead to the resident’s couple that actually lived there having to move out and settling on an undisclosed amount from Spike Lee. Forget that, why would you give in? Take him for a ride and get as much from him as possible!

Of course Lee apologized and all was forgiven, compare that with Limbaugh’s apology to Fluke, which wasn’t forgiven by anyone…vigilantly justice vs. a demeaning label….hard to determine which holds more weight for a forgiven apology!

Then you have Roseann Barr’s tweeting the ACTUAL address of George Zimmerman’s parents’ address and saying “If Zimmerman isn’t arrested I’ll rt his address again. maybe go 2 his house myself”

First the New Black Panthers, then Spike Lee and finally Roseann Barr, what do these all have in common? Vigilantly justice with no one from the government speaking up and stopping them. Why is that?

We know just as much about Zimmerman’s racist hate as we do about Trayvon Martin’s innocent lifestyle, which is to say we know NOTHING of the two individuals and their personalities and lifestyles.

In the past couple weeks you may also be aware of something else making the rounds, especially on facebook. A racist bumper sticker that is anti-Obama plastered across the rear of a car.

If you have seen this on your friends’ walls, what are they usually accompanied with?

Here is a quote from one of my friends “THIS IS HORRID. Get it together, do your research, and VOTE in 2012, folks.”

So the message from this picture is that you should vote for Obama, if for nothing else, because there are racist idiots out there who voice stupid opinions?

Something seems very wrong about this sticker anyway. Who is to say that this is a redneck racist republican and not a fabrication of someone on the left the stir up voters to vote for Obama? Even more of a pressing question, who in their right mind would put this on their car? Think about it, who would really risk their own safety and car’s condition to get across such a stupid message? Does that make any sense once you logically think about it?

I don’t know about you but the clues of recent events are all coming together for me, the 2012 Obama race is going to be playing the “race card” once again. Why wouldn’t they? Obama has nothing to show for his Presidency within the last 3 years despite a liberally controlled White House and Congress for part of his term. All one simply has to ask is is racism, unemployment, the economy, the war or anything else better than it was 4 years ago? Or do recent cases pit races against each other, are we pitting the “Haves” against the “Have-Nots” (Occupy Wallstreet), have we spent TRILLIONS with no results on unemployment or the economy, have we passed a healthcare law despite it not being read and containing an Unconstitutional mandate, have we doubled down on our war efforts while hollowing out our military, has he kept to his promise of closing Gitmo, are our relationships with our ally countries better or worse, have we poured millions upon millions of dollars in subsidies into alternative fuels despite them not being completely efficient while also placing debilitating regulations on fossil fuels here in America?

The reason the President hasn’t put water on the fire down in Florida is because he wants the racial flames to burn out of control so that his election can ride the wave of racist sediment back into a second term.

The real question lies in the title of this post, what was the purpose of the Civil Rights movement? Equality, that was fought for, is something that is woven throughout policies and behaviours here in America. One of those equalities, and I would argue a pretty large one, lies with the equal treatment of EVERYONE in the justice system. If this was an issue that was fought for, that minorities spilled blood for, why are they now being hypocrites and calling for their own “brand” of justice on Zimmerman before all the facts are in and before the investigation and subsequent trial are even through?

What the heck is going on in this country?

As have all of you, I’ve always heard people say, “I don’t care what people think of me”.  At first, that sounds about right.  Live your own life, do you.  As I learn more about the lessons of life and the way to succeed, this is the wrong way to think. Follow my logic.

My logic begins with something I learned a long time ago as a kid playing baseball.  I learned that emulating the best will make me better.  With a slight tweak of this theory, I believe I can use the same advice as an adult.  Lately, I’ve been looking at the most powerful people in the world, as well as the happiest and most successful.  What do they all have in common?

They all have a, what seems to be natural, skill to gain support from others.  After all, its “other people” who will be hiring us, buying from us, selling to us, marrying us, befriending us, and voting for us.  The truth is that the art of selling is relevant in every aspect of our lives.  The sooner you decide to learn/master it, the easier life will become.

So…you should care what people think of you because they are who are ultimately going to decide your future.

I am an original supporter of the war in Afghanistan and I’d still be a supporter if I had any trust in those in office.  The big networks are now talking about when to withdraw.  The truth is that civilians and those in the media aren’t qualified to come up with withdrawal plans.  They are basing their decisions on what the Sunday paper is reporting.  Clearly, thats not right.

The #1 reason that I want a withdrawal is not because I’m an expert on war or foreign policy.  It’s also not because of what I read on the net or hear on the radio/TV.  IT’S BECAUSE OUR PRESIDENT IS MAKING WAR DECISIONS BASED ON HIS POLITICAL FUTURE/UPCOMING ELECTION.

We are losing KIDS there every day.  Those on the ground are telling me that the deaths aren’t even being reported anymore.  They are telling me that Iran is becoming more relevant in Afghanistan.  PTSD is a neglected problem while Obama is cutting military benefits to them.  I wonder how he sleeps at night.

Lets remember that our troops did not fail and are not failing in Afghanistan.  It’s our politicians that have failed our troops.  They have failed them because of the rules of engagement upheld my those in office.  A soldier once told me something that has really influenced my thinking, “If you let us go, this war would be over in a month.”  (Click Read More)

Unfortunately, that is too much of a political liability for those who have been elected.

Please, Mr. President.  Get yourself in touch with the over 15,000 wounded soldiers.  Visit those soldiers and see 1st hand the consequences of your actions.  Do you feel the pain of the families of the over 1,700 deaths?

For a man who is described by the following bullet points, I guess I’m not really surprised.

1) Spent 20 years in the pews of Jeramiah Wright.

2) Spent his formative years with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

3) His college years with Professor Derek Bell.

4) Made shady deals with Tony Rezco.

5) Aligned himself with Rashid Khalidi, SEIU, and ACORN.

6) Comes from a Muslim father and a Communist mother.

7) Described Iran and Venezuela as tiny countries who don’t pose any real threat to America.

That is the first thing that needs to be answered before you dive deeper into this subject. Either the answer is (a.) Because they want to get an education that leads to a career, (b.) Their parents are just making them and they can’t wait to get out or possibly (c.) Because they want to have sex…in abundance.

The debate over contraception, which is really a cloak for the debate on religious freedom, got heated last week when Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, gave a mock testimony on the need for her college, and those like it, to provide contraception for “women’s health” to the student body, no pun intended. However, that testimony was ripped apart by conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and lead to a heated debate on the rhetoric towards women because Limbaugh, in an effort to fight obnoxious absurdity with the like through humor, referred to her as a “slut”. This also lead to the President calling Fluke to “see how she was handling it”. What a Superman.

In the above video in her testimony, Sandra Fluke said that female students average about $3,000 a year in contraception. Let’s take a look at a breakdown of that:

According to the CVS website, a “pleasureable” box of 36 condoms cost $15.49. Divide that into a year and you have 6,972 condoms OR enough for sex 19 times a day. WOW.

I am sure Pelosi would love my use of this, the Planned Parenthood website states that birth control pills cost on average is, at most, $50/month. Making a year come to $600.

Let’s go the extra mile and make sure the “women’s health” is doubled down on. $600 for the birth control, leaves $2,400 for condoms, which still allows for 5,577 to be bought OR for Ms. Fluke to have sex 15 times a day while her partner uses a condom and she uses birth control. Some extra advice to Ms. Fluke, if Georgetown offers an extracurricular activities that involve being an equestrian, skip them. (And yes, they do).

Sex is not something that people need, which means contraception is not a right no matter how entitled you think you are to it. If you think you should be provided it because kids are going to do it anyway at college, maybe they should also provide you with a bag of weed and a keg of beer every semester as well, hell, kids are doing that too!

Funny how THIS article came out around the same time. A Stonehill College student, Lindsay Blankmeyer, is suing the school because they have not addressed the issue of her roommate’s sexual behavior driving her into a suicidal depression. While I think both Sandra Fluke and this Lindsay Blankmeyer are both ridiculous in their claims, who has a more solid case? At least Lindsay seems to be more focused on the task at hand… education.

Andrew Breitbart, a pioneer in citizen journalism, died early on March 1st, 2012. A normal everyday voice of a concerned citizen that was able to shock the Mainstream Media on a regular basis. Sources like Fox News couldn’t keep up with him and Leftist media wouldn’t cover his groundbreaking stories because of their own agenda. Sure, their excuse would be that what Breitbart uncovered wasn’t really considered “news” and that his techniques and tactics were not conventional journalism, but isn’t that why we turn to citizen journalism? Because we don’t trust the tactics of the “Old Boys Club” of journalists? Maybe they didn’t cover it because some things didn’t turn out to be COMPLETELY true, like the case of Shirley Sharrod, yet didn’t it spotlight the Obama administration’s lack of control and jumping to conclusions too quickly?

Was Breibart “rough around the edges” as a person? Yes, he often used profanity when speaking and insisted on using words that would make a decent person squirm. Does that change the fact though that he was instrumental in uncovering truths?Anthony Weiner felt the wrath of Breitbart when he was caught in a “sexting” scandal involving a 21-year old student through his Twitter account where a pic of Weiner in his underwear was sent. A man that apparently enjoyed the opportunity for his name to be used in pun jokes, and even INSISTED that this was why Breitbart was lying about him. That is until the truth came out and he apologized to Breitbart and family.

Breitbart was also on the Advisory Board for GOProud, a group that represents gay conservatives and their allies. Andrew fought for their inclusion in the CPAC convention, clashing with social conservatives. He stepped down after an inadvertent leak and outing of a Rick Perry aid. Breitbart was ahead of his time in comparison to the rooted republican party when it came to a social issue that could still garner conservative support. Which makes some of the Left’s hateful tweets after his death shed even more light on the misinformed, I will get to that later.

Shirley Sherrod, of the Department of Agriculture, made a speech at the NAACP fundraiser dinner in March 2010, had snippets of her speech edited out and distributed, showing a racist slant on her employment position. Once Breitbart released the full 40-minute context, the argument over whether or not she really felt that way became a 50/50 split, I still would argue that her true feelings lie somewhere in those snippets and that the full context doesn’t reveal too much more. Yet, by the time the full release came, the Obama administration had already over-reacted and had the influence of firing her. She was later offered an apology and job by the Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

The best of his uncovering though had to lie in his ACORN work. James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, both young conservative activists, posed as a Pimp and prostitute and taped their discussions with ACORN representatives and their horrible advice. This helped lead to massive investigations into ACORN groups across the country and the nation’s questioning of the funding of the organization. This lead to the splitting of the group into smaller factions.

Besides his own websites Breitbart.com, BigHollywood.com, BigGovernment.com, BigJournalism.com, and BigPeace.com, were hardly all he was involved with. He also helped Matt Drudge propel the Drudge Report to one of the most visited sites on the internet and interestingly enough, even helped Arriana Huffington launch the Huffington Post, a liberal website for the collective whiners. You could also find his contributions published in the Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard Online, The Washington Times, National Review Online and Real Clear Politics.

That being said, the reaction to his death has been quite split between mournful adoration and gleefully spitting hatred.

An article written not even 24 hours after his death was titled “Death of a Douche”, the place of publication? Rolling Stone Online.

A shining example of Leftist writing that shows a hint of intelligence by the writer that they know the spotlight will be on them in they write anything hateful about Breitbart’s existence or his joy over Andrew’s death. What is a Liberal writer to do?

Well in Matt Taibbi’s case, he decided that he would make it about his adoration of Andrew’s humor and thought it would be perfectly fine to write about how much he hated Breitbart if he could wrap it in the excuse that “Andrew would have appreciated his humor”, since he had a similar nature. Except if Andrew spoke ill of characters like Ted Kennedy, as this article points out, it was more because of the nature of the beast (In Ted’s case, the cheating on his wife and then leaving the girl to die in a river). Can Matt really make that kind of comparison with Andrew Breitbart?

Apparently Matt Taibbi was targeted by Andrew Breitbart in the past, so what better way to take advantage of the situation than to target his enemy through his own death, insuring that Andrew doesn’t get the last say while also using a title that is sure to grab media attention and shed more light on Matt’s writing, which until this point I would have asked “Taibbi who?”.

Such are the liberal journalists though. Just as MTV is no longer about music, I guess the same can be said in large part to the Rolling Stone.

Here are some examples of hateful tweets on the situation as well:

“@JamesGunn: Was offended by some of these Breitbart jokes till I was reminded the day after Ted Kennedy died, he called him a ‘pile of human excrement”

If I remember correctly, Ted Kennedy was responsible for the death of a young girl in his car, who didn’t happen to be his wife, whom he left to die in a river while he consulted with his attorneys on what to do. Exactly how many deaths was Andrew responsible for?

“@MentalRiot: Andrew Breitbart wasn’t a journalist, reporter, etc. He owned a computer, had the Internet & had no moral compass. He was a piece of shit.”

And that makes you and your commentary on his death different, how exactly?

“@AlmightyBoob : @AndrewBreitbart haha youre dead and in hell being a gay with hitler”

“@jeffglasse : Andrew Breitbart now enjoying afternoon tea with Hitler #goodriddanceyouhack”

“@darrenfiorello: Andrew Breitbart died? Is it wrong that I’m happier about that than when they got bin Laden and Saddam?”

Again, how exactly to compare a brash commentary style to that of dictators and murderers?

And one of my personal favorites considering his activism with GOProud:

“@johnkapp: Andrew Breitbart was a racist, sexist, homophobe. Good riddance.”

Congrats John, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and you obviously knew nothing of Andrew. For you, and others like you, the fact that he was an outspoken conservative was enough for you to spin your hatred.

Take a visit HERE and HERE to see pictures of Sinfield’s Elaine dancing on his grave and another picture of someone pissing on his grave.

This is the intolerance, intelligence, morals, ethics and principles of the “Tolerant” Left in this Country. Keep that in mind this voting season.

By the way, sorry for the couple of months we have been absent from the site, we are back and ready to take on 2012 and beyond!

But the logic was liberally sound.  Students who worked hard and studied longer than their peers—in the spirit of fairness—should be willing to sacrifice their higher GPAs to benefit those whose grades weren’t so high due to laziness or ineptitude (or both).

Ironically, many of the same A students unwilling to take a B so someone else could be saved from an F, endorsed a progressive tax code that essentially spreads wealth from people who earned it to those who did not.

The same crew recently showed up at the University of California, Riverside, to see whether the student body there would sign a petition demanding that the athletic department consider race as a determining factor in team rosters.

Its findings were similar to UC Merced.  While UC Riverside students said they supported affirmative action laws to promote diversity and that race-based preferences “level the playing field” for disadvantaged minorities, they nonetheless refused to sign a petition to apply quotas to the UC Riverside basketball team.  At UC Riverside, 10 out of the 11 active players on the basketball team are black.  Blacks make up only about 20% of the student body.  So why not use affirmative action to promote diversity there?

ExposingLeftists.com’s Oliver Darcy figured this disparity was a natural place to promote diversity.  After all, affirmative action rules UC Riverside’s hiring policy and minority-specific outreach is not so vaguely couched in college advertising.

Diversity and equality are desired in our society, but the glaring double-standard found by ExposingLeftists.com shows where progressive policies promote problems.

Indeed, America walked out of the 19th century of slavery into segregation and Jim Crow.  And while American exceptionalism is responsible for so many of humanity’s historic steps forward, almost a century of post-Civil War discrimination disfigured our republic.  Until the civil rights era, a moral disconnect ruled the day.  But an ensuing onslaught of court rulings and bureaucratic fiat comprised the noble effort to reconcile America’s egalitarian idealism and its discriminatory reality.

Herein lies the rub.

In the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, segregated facilities for blacks and whites were overwhelmingly deemed constitutional as long as they were equal.  It took 1954’s Brown v. Board of Education decision to determine that “separate, but equal” was “inherently unequal” because a segregated education “generates a feeling of inferiority.”

Ending segregation was a good thing, but the Pandora’s Box of reforms such as President Kennedy’s executive order that led to affirmative action and the forced busing laws passed to enforce Brown created mixed results.

Born of moral intentions, these remedies were never properly scrutinized for their immoral results.

Busing ultimately—and unfortunately—left too many school districts more segregated than ever.  “White flight” saw large numbers of white families de facto segregating their children to private schools and suburban neighborhoods.

Affirmative action and its tentacles—quotas, minority-based points systems, group-based preferences, loosened testing and admissions standards—are an affront to our most sacred democratic principle: that all men are equal in the eyes of the law.  For too long, our laws and court rulings have contorted this value.  And the belief that career opportunities and educational successes should be the reward of individuals’ merit and unwavering work ethic has eroded over time.

Tragically—for blacks, women and other “oppressed” minorities—affirmative action indirectly communicates a demoralizing message of inferiority that reinforces the same separatism it set out to solve.  It is pure illogic to think that you can fight fire with fire and get anything but scorched earth.  Reverse discrimination simply cannot cure discrimination.

Today, two mutually exclusive Americas exist.  We are either an affirmative action America, where some among us are held to a lower standard based on skin color or we are all equal under the law, free to fail or succeed no matter what group we happen to be born into.  Both cannot be true.

Be it basketball or big business, allowing the best to advance is the true moral path.

Tonight’s webcast deals with that special little saying “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, a section of the Atlas Shrugged book that deals with this moral standard (or lack thereof) played out in a small section of the United States at the factory Twentieth Century Motors Company.

You can watch the Our Last Stand Webcast Here.

Let us know what you think. Did it make you think or at least consider the possibilities? Leave some comments below and tell us what you think.

It becomes a page turner and a fire-igniter within your soul. Maybe that is a little deep but I have to say that I haven’t been so invigorated for a long time. The fictional dialogue is so rich with content that holds true as much today as it did to Ayn Rand in the 50s’.

As a personal venture, I am taking certain sections of Atlas Shrugged’s dialogue and narrating them for a special mini series of webcasts. These portions of the book that are basic dialogue do not ruin the circumstances that play out through the story.

If you plan on reading it, I highly recommend pushing you to do so because everyone should hear some of what is said. That is a small goal of this mini series.

The first one deals with a response by a brilliant industrialist to the phrase “Money is the root of all evil”.

Forgive my reading if you aren’t a fan of my voice but minimize the window and listen while you go about your work online and let us know what you think.

Enjoy!

Watch the video HERE