Better Late....

I did want to see what the general reaction was to the Republican Debate on Fox News. I know this is old news, but I wanted to bring it up anyway. I was extremely impressed with Brit Hume, Wendell Goler, and Chris Wallace. Very fine journalists, I thought the questions were pointed and relevant. I also thought that they touched (and pressed) on issues that were important to voters regardless of party view. Was this a hack job? No. Good coverage, great job to Fox News!

I had real issue with the post debate coverage offered by Fox News. It may just be me, but I think Fox News seriously undermines it credibility when post debate coverage is lead by partisan (however "fair and balanced") personalities. Debates are a place for reporting. I hardly think that Hannity and Colmes are unbiased reporters. When the spin is not only spun by the candidates and their lackeys, but also by the network hosts, too much gets lost in the translation. People aren't allowed to follow the information for themselves. I said it about Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC. Alan played an Hannity-like impotent gotcha, and Sean filled in the sentences and spun for the candidates. As far as I'm concerned there is no place for partisanship at debates by the network. The spinning should be left up to the candidates.

mr

AAAm Update

I apologize that I haven't had a chance to post in the last couple of weeks or so. Finals were last week and I'm in the middle of a summer course that crams a 4 month semester into 3 weeks. That and I'm trying to do as much at the office as I possibly can. It's taking up a great deal of time. During the next few weeks, I may only be able to post once per week. But it won't be long before I get back to posting 2 to 3 times per week or more. I am also toying with the idea of posting an issue of the day, and a new feature "Political Hack of the Week."

I am also going to change the format of my posts. While they are currently quite long, I will shorten them up and get more to the point. I will have a couple of long ones in there as well. I haven't forgot and I am going to post the updates that I promised such as the followups on the Reasons we went into Iraq and why we may never win there. I will also start getting into the hot button social issues that will be the focus for many throughout the upcoming presidential campaigns. I have some views that won't be popular with either liberals or conservatives.

For those who have commented to me personally, I greatly appreciate your feedback. Please also feel free to comment online so others can see your thoughts. But as always, feel free to email me at middlerob@hotmail.com.

Middlerob

The Re-Segregation of a People

The purpose of this site is not to be politically correct. The purpose of this blog is to convey my views and what I think many other people are feeling as well. If you don't like what you read, you are welcome to comment or to go to another site. In the interest of full disclosure and so you know what my perspective is based on, the following is some information about me. I'm a 30ish Protestant white male in middle America. First and foremost I am American. My heritage is predominately English (caucasian) with German, Scottish, and Cherokee Indian thrown in for good measure. I was taught that there is no differences between skin color. I was raised to believe that your standing as a person was measured on your actions, not on your race. The below thoughts are meant to be sincere and honest.

The civil rights leaders of the 1960's did amazing things for their people. People like Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, and others led a generation of Black Americans into their own and stopped unjust segregation in schools and universities, on buses, restrooms, and drinking fountains. Even after the 1960's, reforms continued addressing workplace discrimination, housing discrimination, and other important issues. There is still more to do for civil rights, but not at the expense of the black community.

My opinion: Civil rights leaders, specifically in the African American Community, promote segregation among its own people in order to make themselves more relevant and more powerful in society. In my opinion these leaders are hurting the community more than they are helping. Their efforts are doing nothing more than re-segregating the people that their predecessors freed.

The purpose of Civil Rights Leaders and their movements are to secure rights for people who are not able to secure rights for themselves. Civil rights leaders today are taking advantage of these communities. A large part of the goal of the 1960's was to show America that Black=White. At that point in this nation's history, equality was a very important point to make. For the most part, Americans understand that. There are those that never will, but no amount of protesting and marching is going to change that. What can change it? A more positive and diverse representation of the African American community.

“True equality” is not what makes America great. Just think how life would be if “true equality” were to become a reality. Everyone would drive the same car, live in the same house, dress the same, work the same, have the same intelligence, etc. True equality is not what we should strive for. We should strive for an end to discrimination--the end to judging the quality of a person simply on perceived physical attributes and characteristics that can't be chosen.

Discrimination separates people based on these physical characteristics, giving someone power over them. Racial discrimination is no longer only committed by people of another race. It can be done my members of one's own race as well. Using one's own people to further advance a political agenda, or to gain personal power, is discrimination. The only thing that men like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Malik Shabazz get from representing Black Americans is power, clout, and money. Instead of promoting Black=White, they are promoting Black=Black and re-segregating the black community. To let one of these men represent you, one only need have a single qualification: the color of one’s skin. Is that not a new form of discrimination?

What is it that makes a society great? For the United States it is a celebration of our differences. It is knowing that some are business leaders, some are teachers, some are artists, and others are humanitarians. Some work hard in factories, others work in offices, others work in fields, and still others work in countless other positions all contributing to what makes this nation great. We have people who have immigrated to the United States from all over the world, mixing cultures, ideas, and religions. But instead of celebrating those differences, civil rights leaders are segregating and homogenizing their communities into a political power structure that is elevating them and doing a great disservice to their people.

Some black civil rights leaders welcome people from all walks of life including felons, murderers, gang-bangers, and drug pushers. As long as they are African Americans, anyone can be a member of Jesse Jackson's or Al Sharpton's constituencies. There is one exception (and it is a big one): You must side with them politically. Jackson, Sharpton, Kweisi Mfume, Spike Lee, Harry Belafonte and other African American self-proclaimed civil rights leaders have made awful comments about black men and women that disagree with them. These men and women (even those in power) are minimized and ridiculed. They are called names like "Uncle Tom['s]" (as Spike Lee said about Clarence Thomas), or compared to a plantation slave (as Belafonte implied about Colin Powell). Do these civil rights leaders sound like they are uniting mankind? Is it right to attack or question a person’s race because you don’t agree with them? This is called discrimination.

The message by these leaders is loud and clear to the black community: If you do not agree with your black leaders, then you are not black. And if you are not black, then you have nothing. To a community that has been taught (brain-washed) by its leaders that being black is the only thing that defines them, this is a very difficult and unfair situation to deal with.

Jesse Jackson rushed to the aid (with cameras and microphones) of a young lady in Durham, NC who had allegedly been raped. Why did he rush to her side? She accused 3 white, wealthy students of the crime, and this event could be used to further segregate the African American community. Jesse Jackson cared more that the victim was a black women victimized by white men, than he cared about the truth. While I feel very sorry for this troubled young woman, I don’t feel sorry for her because she is black. I feel sorry for her because she is troubled. On that day or at a previously time in her life, something awful happened to her. For that, and that alone, she deserved sympathy. According to national statistics 200,000 women were raped last year. Where was Jesse Jackson after any of those women were raped? Of those 200,000, 13% of them were African American women (2000 National Crime Victimization Study). Of women that are raped, 80-90% of them are raped by a person of their racial background (US Dept. of Justice, 1994). Does Jesse Jackson not care about them? As with any other politician, they only care about what will give them power. If they don't need you, they don't care about you.

There is one thing that I hope that any African American person gets from reading this: Be proud that you are African American. But please know that there is more to you than just your skin color. If you want to be defined by your race, then Jesse Jackson is the man to follow. If you want to be defined by who you are as a person and what you accomplish, then find another man, or a women, or lead people yourself. Your community continues to be segregated by men that call themselves your leaders. While I consider segregation a crime, segregation by someone you trust is worse.

MR

One Equals Two

Nancy Pelosi among other of our fearless members of Congress decided on a recent fact finding trip to play diplomat to Syria, even delivering a message to the Syrians from Israel. Simple enough. One would think. Last time I read the Constitution the Executive Branch of the federal government was responsible for diplomacy and foreign policy. We'll I've been wrong before. She was chastised by the president for going and then by the Israelis for screwing up the message. Come to find out, our foreign policy is not to negotiate with terrorists or terrorist nations. Hmmm--Hamas, Hezbollah, terrorists sponsored by Syria.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that a single trip by democrat and republican lawmakers, led by the Speaker of the House, totally tried to reverse U.S. foreign policy. But it's OK, the 911 Commission said so. Huh?

Cut to this week....

Secretary Rice this week went to Egypt to an Regional "help us fix Iraq" conference which included diplomats from Iraq, Iran, Syria, and other nations. In the process, Rice did take the time to discuss Iraq issues with her Syrian counterpart.

OH MY GOSH! Condoleeza did the same thing that Nancy Pelosi did! You could see the left wing pundits turning red with excitement! Some of them even blogged about it. Some of them even spewed that crap all over cable news! Damn her! See--Republicans are doing it too!

Wait a minute....

Did I miss something? Last time I checked it was the Executive Branch's prerogative to change it's foreign policy when things weren't working. Didn't the State Department say a few months back that if paths crossed, then the U.S. would discuss specific issues with these terrorist states? You would think the gotcha crowd on the left had just found Deep-Throat. The difference is this--Secretary Rice is the chief diplomat for the United States. The president can approve or deny any action that the Secretary is going to do in reference to U.S. foreign policy. That is his/her job. Last time I checked, madame speaker's job was to keep the House of Representatives in order and work on legislation--not conduct foreign policy.

Next time maybe the speaker will realize that diplomacy on the professional level is best left to the professionals. She taught the Syrians and any future terrorist nation (i.e. Iran) a very dangerous lesson.

The Lesson:

If you want to talk with an Senior U.S. official and they aren't paying attention to you, all you have to do is open your borders to terrorists so that they can get into a country involved in a conflict with the United States to fight and kill American soldiers. All you have to do is continue to hold out long enough and keep your agents fighting long enough, keep sponsoring suicide bombings long enough and the Speaker of the House--third in-line to the presidency-- will make a personal appointment, listen to what you have to say, take a few photos with you, and legitimates your cause to the world, giving hope and life to your effort.

What I don't understand is that some Democrats and some Republicans just seem to be purposefully undermining this country's effort to do something good in this world. They can only be doing it because they are 1) ignorant of what they are doing, or 2) purposefully undermining this effort. To do this at a time when our soldiers and marines are in harm's way is unfathomable to me. Congressmen and women are elected to represent the people of the United States in the United States. Their place in this is in approving and denying funding and in confirming or denying the Secretary of State and other Executive Officers that represent us overseas. That's it, nothing less, nothing more.

Madame Speaker, we are weaker today because of you.

Chris Matthews? Really?

Now that both are finally over....

I don't think after watching all of the highlights of the Democrat and Republican debates this week that anyone actually stood out. And at this point in the process I really don't care. I have to admit, that I didn't actually sit down and watch either debate, I had more important things to do. MSNBC did achieve huge ratings for the Dem debate (Nielson). I haven't seen the Republican debate numbers. According to Media Week, it was MSNBC's best night since the start of the Iraq War in March 2003. While they won the prime time viewing hours, Fox did however pick up the night. Is MSNBC becoming relavent again?

Here are some of my random comments from each debate:


Democratic Debate:

Obama showed a serious lack of experience.

Hillary showed a certain amount of statesmanship.

John Edwards had fabulous hair!

Every one's gotta have a crazy relative: Dennis Kucinich who mysteriously gets re-elected in Ohio. I guess that makes sense, didn't George Bush mysteriously get elected in Ohio? That was a joke.

Under-rated: (even after a less than spectacular performance) is former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

Republican Debate:
Giuliani showed a lack of alignment with the Republican platform.

Romney showed he really has a presidential presence.

Tommy Thompson, has already called MSNBC and apologized for not hearing a question correctly (yeah, right). He's probably only on any polls because Law and Order fans can't remember the first name of the actor that portrays the District Attorney of New York County. (It's Fred Thompson by the way).

Every one's gotta have a crazy relative: Texas Representative Ron Paul.

Under-rated: (after a very impressive performance) is former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

The essence of news professionalism played a very important role in the Democrats debate moderated by Brian Williams. He's well respected, fair, and has a gentleman's disposition. Contrast the Republican debate. All the wisdom that MSNBC could muster was the brilliant and hardly non-partisan Chris Matthews. Then, who did the network pick to lead the debate analysis? None other than the completely un-biased (10, 9, 8, yeah--right) Keith Olberman. Oh--but wait! Who did the network's reporting from the spin room? NBC White House correspondent and Today Show wannabe David Gregory (I hope I spelled his name right). In case you didn't know, he's NBC's chief spin-meister that asks all of the ridiculous gotcha questions at the White House Press briefings. Am I complaining? Nah, just an observation.

The real winner of the debates: In my opinion, there were 2 winners. The first winner was the politicians who got their ego's boosted and all the attention that they could handle (and more than many deserved). The second and real winner was the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. It is now listed on my "places to see before I die" list. It looks like an amazing place. Speaking of amazing, Mrs. Reagan attended with all of her poise and purpose and reminded many of us that we have our own royalty here in the colonies. And our royalty important to us Americans for life as well. And I wonder, will Hillary be as dignified after her political career is over? How will she be remembered? I don't know just yet...

And think, we only have another year and a half of this crap to go.

Almost American?

Today's topic: May Day Celebration!

I look with wonder at our country when all protesters are allowed to protest without molestation even if they have broken laws to get here. I think it is no wonder that people from all over the world look to the United States as a refuge from poverty, as a refuge from political and religious oppression. It is a day like today that I see that the doom-sayers are wrong. The United States of America is a great country!

Regardless of what the world thinks of the United States politically, they still would rather be here than anywhere else in the world. That is absolutely a cause for people to be in the streets today!

Many of us would like to be able to be a safe harbor for every person in the world: the hungry in Africa, the oppressed in Asia, and the poor in South America. But there are challenges that meet humanity all over the world. Some we can stop, others we can help, and still others that we cannot.

If you would like to help a good cause, visit http://www.one.org/. This organization partners with charities all over the world and gives your money to help where it can be most effective. This charity, headed by Bono, is bringing international attention to humanitarian issues all over the world. Please also remember those causes here in the United States that are well worth your support as well.

---------------------------

I hate to change gears on you, but I can't let it go at that....

While all of us should be proud of what the United States stands for, there is a reason that thousands of illegal immigrants are walking around the streets of our cities today. They aren't legal citizens of the United States of America--but they think they are entitled to it.

While I feel their pain, there are millions all over the world that want to be American Citizens. Why should those that gain entry into this country by breaking our laws and cutting in line be rewarded with such an honor? First of all, we are a large country, but we aren't big enough to physically hold all of the people that want to come to the United States. Our infrastructures (including water, sewer, highways, housing, and others), our economy, health system, education system, government, and law enforcement would be completely overrun. The country we know today would become a third world country in very short order. The wealth of this country would disappear. Then who would be there to help those in Africa, South America, Asia, and other continents all over the world? Other developed nations could continue to help, but by how much without the help and leadership of the United States and its Citizens? Developing nations would fall, wars would rage, and our world today would be a distant memory.

The above scenario is perhaps an extreme, but I don't see any real reason why that couldn't happen (great reasoning for an argument, don't ya think).

My point is this. We are a nation of laws. You don't get to pick the ones you want to follow, otherwise, I would follow drivers that cut me off in traffic and put bumper stickers that read "Bushie at heart" over those "Kerry/Edwards 04" bumper stickers and one that reads "Flip-flopper--Doesn't sound so bad now, does it?" on the cars with the "W" sticker on their rear window.

There are people standing in line to get into this country. Proud, honest, hard working people waiting years to get their citizenship. They are ready to start their "Great American Story." Why should law breakers, drug runners, and worse get access before those that come here legally?

Yeah, some things need to change. Maybe the amount of immigrants allowed citizenship each year needs to increase. Or maybe we need to consider a guest worker program (which includes background checks) in areas where workers are needed. An open border policy is not what Americans signed up for. In this political climate there are too many extremes and not near enough coming together.

---------

In this bloggers personal opinion: I think a good trade off between the Democrats and Republicans would be to concede a point on both sides. Republicans should consider a non-amnesty immigrant worker program. But shouldn't Democrats start allowing legislation to limit the power and formation of organized labor unions?

To me, that's a "meet in the middle type-o-deal". Both have a positive effect on the job market. Unions are all but obsolete, and commerce and the consumers are the big losers. Companies won't be afraid to start up new operations in Union territory and will be able to afford increasing wages for entry level jobs enticing legal American workers to accept them.

Just a thought? What do you think? A place to start?

---------------------

Borders need to be controlled. The argument against this, I do not understand.

I have always thought that the only way to keep a problem from continuing to happen was to fix the root of the problem. Being that Mexico and Canada are sovereign nations, we can only affect where the problem begins in the United States--at the border.

One more problem: why are there sanctuary cities? I thought that federal law trumps local law. I think I read that somewhere. Why is it that the same people who are crying for the rights afforded in the Constitution to U.S. Citizens also be given to war criminals held on foreign soil, but when it's convenient they want to ignore the Constitution when it comes to enforcing federal laws.

Circumventing the law of the land is the same problem whether it be at the border or in sanctuary cities. The proper way (and the only way I know) to get around a law is to change it legally, not break it. Now you can say you read it somewhere.