And now...finally a new post...

You'd think after a couple of weeks there'd be new material. Well...there is. But first, a thanks to you for waiting as long as you did for new stuff. I honestly didn't mean not to post stuff last week...shortly after my "tease", there was some stuff going on at the homefront that took my time. But now that we're all settled down, it's time to get back to the business of HSNterprizing America...

Here are a few quips about some events from last week, and their segue into current events.

First, I'm glad the whole Sarah Palin/David Letterman situation is diffused. Many people, including myself, felt that Letterman went to far with his joke about Governor Palin's 14-year-old daughter, Willow, being "knocked up" by New York Yankees' infielder Alex Rodriguez while the Palin family was in New York City. After a few days of apologies and comments, the Alaskan Governor accepted the late-night comic's 2nd apology for the "knocked up" joke...saying he was meaning to talk about the Governor's 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, who recently graduated from high school after giving birth to a child of her own.

Bottom line...Letterman's jokes about both the Governor and her daughter were both in poor taste. Not to mention, I know there would've been a lot more flack for the late-night host if he had told jokes like that about a liberal Democratic politician. You see...Palin is a conservative Republican, and any shots taken in her direction were as frequent as ever during the last Presidential campaign. Even though organizations like the National Organization for Women have spoken out against Letterman's jokes, I'm more convinced they would speak out much louder and more harshly against a conservative commentator/comedian. The protests going on outside the Ed Sullivan Theater would've been much more louder, more attended, and more sponsors would've been threatened if Letterman wasn't pulled off the air. Still, once all the smoke cleared, an aging late-night comedian learned a big lesson...while it's not good to make sexually-related jokes about an underaged girl, he should be thankful the target the was offspring of a conservative Republican. Liberals tend not to be so upset if someone on the other side of the political fence gets smeared.

According to a poll featured on a recent issue of USA Today, the Republican Party is having a hard time finding out who their "voice" is. In other words, while Democrats are holding strong under President Obama's leadership, Republicans are struggling behind-the-scenes trying to find someone who will speak for their party's values and positions on issues. The poll said amongst those who are familiar with popular names within the Republican ranks, 13% said talk show host Rush Limbaugh is the party's voice, with 10% choosing former Vice-President Dick Cheney, who made headlines not too long ago by commenting on President Obama's handling of Guantanamo Bay's detainees.

My only question is why are the Democrats and the mainstream media worried about how the Republicans are handling themselves? Maybe...is it because they feel threatened by the recent outcries of people who don't like how our President is handling our economic situations? Or maybe recent comments by Vice President Joe Biden on how parts of this massive spending bill will be "inevitibly wasted"? Or it could be the fact that more and more people are learning about what the billions and billions of dollars authorized in this spending bill be spent on. But whatever the case, more and more people are starting to lean away from the "Yes We Can" mantra said so loudly during President Obama's campaign, and are leaning more towards the "What Were We Thinking" question. Even Obama supporters who passionately supported the "Hope" and "Change" themes of 2008 are getting more and more skeptical about the competence of the current administration. My guess is the more people can see what President Obama is all about...the person who believes that government, and more government, is the answer to life's problems...the more people will shy away from the anti-American train of thought that says, "Government will take care of everything."


The Reverend Jeremiah Wright made his way back into the news again not too long ago with a comment that made just about everyone at least turn their heads, if not their stomachs. When the minister was asked by a Virginia newspaper writer about his interactions with President Obama since his inauguration, Reverend Wright left no stone unturned as to how he felt. He said...

"Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me .... He's got to do what politicians do. And the Jewish vote, the AIPAC vote that's controlling him, that will not let him send representation to the Darfur Review Conference, that's talking this craziness on Israel because they're Zionists, they will not let him talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza—the ethnic cleansing of the Zionists is a sin and a crime against humanity."

Reverend Wright did apologize after saying his comments, but in my view, there's a scripture in the Bible that can explain this rhetoric. In the New Testament book of Luke, the 6th chapter, and the 45th verse, it says this...

"The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks."

Simply put...whatever is in Reverend Wright's heart is going to come out of his mouth. His supporters would say the same thing if his "enemies" said something even remotely racist, let alone anti-Semetic. But the saddest part is that it took 20 years and a presidential campaign for President Obama to leave Wright's church. Only God knows what other kind of hatred was planted in our President that could end up as legislature.


Okay...enough about older topics. Let's get on this week's fare. Seems like the ABC Network is devoting itself more and more to giving President Obama all the airtime he wants to tout his new healthcare initiative. On June 24th, the network will devote much of its news-related programming, from Good Morning America to Nightline, or touting the President's plan, and that includes a prime-time special including a question and answer session with Obama himself. Since word of this got out, several Republicans have complained about the overwhelming favorable coverage the President is getting. Even Obama supporters are starting to wonder if all this attention is warranted. San Francisco Gate writer and blogger Phil Bronstein even said in a recent entry that the media and the President need to "get a room" because of all the "fawning" the mainstream media seemingly does day by day.

And speaking of the President's healthcare plan, it seems like no matter how much he tries to assure us his plan is only an "option" in getting affordable health insurance, there are more and more critics making noise saying if the plan goes through, a government-run healthcare system will endup being the "only" option for people. Even at a speech given in Chicago recently, he seemed to be more defensive about what he wants to do rather than be assertive in presenting his plan. And now, despite the President's and supporters' claim of over 47 million people being uninsured, several reports are showing that number is exaggerated. So is the President using bogus numbers to promote a government-run healthcare system? More importantly, why is the President not allowing any dissenting voices to air their concerns on this "infomercial" airing June 24th? Here's what I think...we all know the media is so "in the tank" for the President that as far as they're concerned, he can do no wrong. The White House says it will have a diverse audience during the "question and answer" phase of the all-day "love fest", but as we've seen before...the President isn't all that keen on answering "tough questions" at events like this. Personally, I don't expect too many hard questions...and I don't expect him to really hit home why the Government must take over the entire healthcare system. And no matter what he says...I believe he ultimately feels if the government isn't in control of whatever the entity is, it's doomed to fail.


Whew...that was a lot of stuff. Thanks for taking the time to read it. More coming soon. Until then...keep enterprising, everybody.

And now...finally a new post...

Sorry I hadn't been posting...

I'll have a new post coming up. It's been pretty busy in my house lately. I'll give quick quips on what I wanted to comment on last week, as well as my takes on the "Obamacare" plans, as well as ABC becoming Barack Obama's personal network as far as promoting his healthcare plans without opposition is concerned.

Sorry I hadn't been posting...

What's coming up...

I'm putting myself on a schedule to try and have new entries put in at least once a week. My free time usually lets me post something on Saturday nights. So unless I say something different...look for new entries at least every Sunday morning.

As for what's coming up next, I'll give my impressions on the whole Sarah Palin/David Letterman situation, a USA Today front-page article asking "Who's the voice of the GOP?", Reverend Jeremiah Wright's recent comments, the Washington DC Holocaust Museum shooting, and why I feel the media is wrapped up in that and a recent abortion-performing doctor at a Kansas church while an American soldier's killing is almost forgotten about.

Plus...my take on the Carrie Prejean situation. Is it better for her NOT to be Miss California?

Stay tuned...and keep enterprising, America!!!!!

What's coming up...

I've got a LOT on my mind...shall we begin?

Let's see...where do we start? Oh yeah...let's start with the potential new Supreme Court Judge, the Honorable Judge Sonia Sotomayor out of New York. Judge Sotomayor is under a lot of scrutiny for comments made in past speeches, and the word "scrutiny" is only a microcosm of all the attention she's received since being President Obama's pick to replace Justice David Souter. On the day Judge Sotomayor was first announced as the President's pick, her story of coming from the projects of the Bronx, New York, attending both Princeton and Yale, and working her way through the courts system until she made it as a judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York.

But in all the "American-dream style" stories about Judge Sotomayor, there is the looming controversy about comments she'd given about judges "setting policy" and about how her heritage gives her more ability to make rulings. Her comments about judges setting policy were said in 2005 at a panel discussion at Duke University...and she made no bones about the notion that legislating behind the bench was very commonplace. That's one thing many conservatives and Republicans are upset about with this pick...but that's not what's been making the news, radio talk shows, and blogs. Sotomayor's much-commented statement...spoken near the end of a lecture given at the University Of California at Berkeley School of law in 2001, in which she says, "I hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." was on its face a racist comment, but placed within the context of a lecture about a lack of diversity in the nation's highest courts. And while I as a black man appreciate the fact there should be diversity in the court systems...diversity for the sake of diversity isn't good.

I know that Judge Sotomayor has tried to "explain" away her comments, and a lot of her media-based and political supporters have done the same thing. It should also be noted that 60% of her decisions have been reversed...and Media Matters is referring to a SCOTUS blog saying that number by herself is lower than the average of all circuit court decisions reversed. However...I think it's fair to note that her record should be scrutinized when she finally does come before the hearing committee that will ultimately decide her fate on the Supreme Court. And I also feel her comments, both on courts seemingly legislating from the bench, and her "wise Latina" line, should be scrutinized to the "nth" degree.

Let's be honest here...we all know that if a white man said what Sotomayor said about the "wise Latina"...even if there was a legitimate context to the line, there would be almost no mercy shown to that individual, and he or she would have to either withdraw his/her name from consideration, or (especially if that nominee was a Republican) have that nomination tarnish the political party in the next campaign cycle. In fact, as far as liberal Democrats are concerned, there is no "legitimate context" to a racist comment. And while we're at it...let's call Democrats out on trying to use the "racist" angle to seemingly protect Sotomayor, and not allow any criticism. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters shortly after her comments were leaked to the public that critics should "be careful" on how they'd critique her qualifications for the Justice position. Hispanic leaders also chined in saying any criticism of Sotomayor would possibly lead to a backlash from Latino voters. Any Republican or any blue-dog Democrat who has the spine to look these "racist-style" tactics in the face and call them for what they are ought to stand up and be counted. Democrats who are trying their best to protect Judge Sotomayor from any heat for her statements are the same people who lambasted nominees President George W. Bush had, such as Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Those two, a Hispanic and a white man, were constantly grilled by Democrats...Alito to the point where his wife cried in disbelief her husband would be treated to harshly. Yet no one on the Democratic side of the political fence was willing to protect the Supreme Court nominee because of his heritage. In fact, if I can say the most obvious sentence in this paragraph...Alito and Roberts, and any other Bush nominee to any other position, were criticised harshly because of politics, and not because of race. It's just more rare when a person of color is not on the Democratic side of the political fence.

Congratulations to radio talk show host Michael Savage for not only holding his own against a British bureaucrat, but also showing what can happen if/when a "Fairness Doctrine"-style cencorship is enacted. Savage was banned from entering Great Britain after Home Secretary Jacqui Smith released a list of 16 people who were denied access into the U.K.. Smith justified her ban on Savage by saying he is "considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence." These claims are ludicrous considering the other people on this ban list include former Russian skinheads, Jewish extremists, a former KKK Grand Wizard, several Muslim extremists, and even a preacher I wouldn't let step on my front doorstep unless I had a guard dog on standby. After many days of publicity here in the U.S. and the U.K. about this ban, Smith resigned her post. Turns out she's stepping down because of a potential scandal involving her husband improperly using money, but that's besides the point.

What is the point is that what happened to Savage in the U.K. could happen to anyone here in the U.S. who doesn't go along with what's happening in Washington...or any other government entity. The much-maligned "Fairness Doctrine" got a ton of criticism from conservative commenators, all saying it would eliminate their voices from opposing the current administration. Rush Limbaugh, and other prominent radio hosts all expressed their disdain for such legislation because, as they put it, it would infringe on the constitution's promise of "freedom of speech". They also cite that Democrats who support the idea of "shutting down conservative talk radio" would try to pass legislation through some back door scheme...all in the name of "fairness". Even though President Obama publicly stated he opposed the "Fairness Doctrine", many politicos are trying as hard as they can to find a way to slip it through, and stop opposing voices. As of now, Michael Savage is suing the British Home Office for defammation. Good for you, Mr. Savage. To have a radio talk-show host put in the same category as terrorists, KKK leaders, skinheads, Hamas leaders, and others who vow destruction on civil society makes no sense at all. Yet...there are many who believe that comparison is not only appropriate, but also enough to have dissenters' voices silenced.

With the ever-expansion of "Gay marriage" popping up across the country, I for one as a dad and a Christian am glad to see that an attempt to pass a "civil unions" bill fail. I say that first of all because I believe that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. Even though former Vice President Dick Cheney said at a National Press Club function not too long ago he supported it, I'm afraid that is a position I could not support. Granted, he does have a gay daughter, and I'm sure he loves her very much. Yet his position is one that is disappointing to many, including myself. Still, with a large gay-rights lobby continually fighting state capitol after state capitol, it's good to see that an old-fashioned, grass-roots effort was made to halt such legislation. Let's hope those who helped in this fight are up to keep going because there are many, many lobbyists on the state and federal level who will not stop until gay marriage is the law of the land.

And finally...good luck to Aurora, Colorado City Councilman Ryan Frazier in his bid for the Colorado State Senate. Frazier is a 31-year-old black REPUBLICAN who is running against Republican Ken Buck in a primary to challenge Colorado State Senator Michael Bennett, a Democrat. And from the looks of it, it seems like people are warming up the idea of a black republican as a viable candidate. Frazier is one of few "minority" republicans who are willing to stand up against the notion that if you have more melanin in your skin than a white person, you're supposed to vote for Democrats. There is a strong mistrust among black voters towards the Republican party, but there are those who are not only fighting through that mistrust, but they are showing a large voting base that it's okay to "not vote for a Democrat" if a voter doesn't believe the Dem. is the better choice. Personally, I think the Republican party has to "roll up their sleeves", engage the voters, and not worry about looking for a particular kind of vote. What I mean is...if someone is running for office, he or she should espouse their values, policies, and plans for the area they want to serve, and not worry about trying to get the "black vote", the "asian vote", the "hispanic vote", and so on. If the candidate's platform is worthy enough for consideration, then many people...regardless of race...will climb on board the bandwagon. Look how many people supported President Obama's run for office? I don't think a black Republican would get that kind of support considering how liberal the media and society in general is. However, people like former Oklahoma congressman J.C. Watts, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and former Pittsburgh Steelers' receiver-turned-Pennsylvania politician Lynn Swann show that someone with a lot of melanin in their skin can make a successful run into office as a Republican...be drawing support based on their platforms, and not their skin color.

Whew...that was a lot. More coming soon. Thanks for reading. 'Til next time...keep enterprising.

I've got a LOT on my mind...shall we begin?

A few quips about "what's what"...

Wow...you stay off the computer for a few days, and the world turns faster than you can think. There's been a lot of action both locally and nationally, so here's what I think about what's been going on lately...

The demise of General Motors was more than inevitable. Even more so the fact that when President Obama (along with President Bush starting the bailouts in the first place...he gave the auto makers $25 billion to "keep this from happening") said government bailouts were the only way this car-making "icon" could stay afloat...that's when I knew this company was heading down the crapper. It seems like our Commander-in-Chief has turned himself into the "Car Maker-In-Chief"...as his plan to nationalize the auto industry is well underway. Now...he did say in the statement from the White House that he nor the government intend to take over the auto industry. However...he laid out a plan that pretty much outlines quite the opposite. In other words...General Motors is now GOVERNMENT MOTORS. The government has a 60% ownership stake in the company thanks to the bankruptcy plan. And...with new government regulations enacted that would force car makers to make "fuel efficient" cars and such by 2016...we can pretty much say the government has taken over. Not to mention, the United Auto Workers (UAW) Union has 17% of the stake in this company, and any private investors have been basically told, "screw you". Oh...did I mention all the jobs that will be lost and the plants that are closing as a result of this? According to the June 1, 2009 Wall Street Journal...

"GM said Monday that it will shutter 17 factories and parts centers by the end of 2011, including seven factories in Michigan and plants in Ohio, Indiana and Tennessee, and cut an additional 5,000 salaried jobs.

The closures will reduce GM's U.S. facilities to 33 from 47 by 2012. Between 18,000 and 20,000 workers will be affected by the shutdowns, Tim Lee, GM's vice president of North America Manufacturing, said during a conference call Monday."

So much for "hope" and "change", huh? To quote blogger and TV/radio commentator Michelle Malkin, "We've been sold a lemon for life."

Sing with me..."Have you driven a Ford...lately?"


I want to be one of the many pro-life supporters out there to not only condemn the killing of Dr. George Tiller, but to also extend my prayers and support for the family. There's no question that many people who are on my side of this issue feel the same way, like him, her, and them. There are millions and millions more who agree that although we disagree with "pro-choicer advocates" on the views of abortion, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the murder of someone who performs abortions. Yes...our views against abortion are passionate, and I can understand why some people think all of us are like the alleged suspect, Scott Roeder, but I can say with certainty that although there were those who were crusading against Tiller's actions...no one with a halfway sane mind would even crusade for his murder. George Tiller's murder was wrong, and Scott Roeder should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


Judge Sonia Sotomayor is also on my radar, but I'll elaborate on a future post on her and how Democrats are being hypocritical about her nomination as opposed to how they acted when President George W. Bush nominated Hispanics and Blacks to various positions on his cabinet. In short...Republicans need to stand up and fight, and Democrats need to stop using the "race card" to their advantage. This is all about POLITICS...and race is only being used as a diversion.


Until next time...keep enterprising.

A few quips about "what's what"...