Blacks for Bush

  The NAACP betrays black Americans

Through his education policies alone, President Bush has done more for the African-American community than any previous president, including the so-called first black president, Bill Clinton. That's a secret some black leaders may not want millions of African-American voters to know. But just ask the tens of thousands of parents who took advantage of the free choice and tutoring provisions under the first year of NCLB, the majority of whom were minorities. Poll after poll has shown that African-American parents support school choice, which is directly at odds with the NAACP's position on the issue.

  Shay Riley posts: Outsourcing Comes to Africa

  Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America

Powerful, watch the flash movie with the voiceover. The African American Republican Leadership Council linked me to this site. I thank Kweisi Mfume for bringing th AARLC to my attention.

  Reviewing Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics and Applied Economics

In a nutshell buy and read the first one, skip the second one because it really adds very little to his basic thesis. Which is that a free market economy is the best way to allocate scare resources.

Basic economics is better because it sticks closer to the fact. In his second book he spends more time trying to make points. Unfortunately that lead to some disingenuous arguments. For example he demonstrates that white, blacks and Hispanics with the same level of education make the same amount of money when they work the same amount of time per year. Which he uses to show that racism has no effect in freer market economies. Unfortunately he has already taught us that most people are poor because they don't work full time. I suspect the ability to find full time employment is a function of race, and Mr. Sowell knows this so he keeps it out of his discussion on racism.

I suspect the reason Sowell is not read by the left is that they don't accept his premise that we live in a world of scares resources. For the rest of us who know we live in a world of scares resourses this is a must read.

  Bush would have nothing to gain by visiting NAACP

This editorial is true on facts but doesn't mimic my conclusion. I think Bush should show some balls and tell them he doesn't accept Rice and Colin being called "House Niggers". His NCLB act will help million of black children get a better education. His prescription drug benefit will help many older blacks who didn't have access to good jobs with good pensions due to past racism. And that he believes in right and wrong and that he has rescued over 30 million brown people from Tryants.

I understand why he doesn't waste his time, I wish he would.

Should President Bush have accepted an invitation from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to speak at their annual convention this year?

Surprisingly, the majority of people who responded on the civil rights group's Web site on Monday said "no."

"It is a shame that we have turned into a left-wing bomb-throwing organization. What happened to being independent?" wrote John.

"When you're certain to lose 90 percent of a voting bloc no matter what you do, there is little to be gained by speaking to a group that doesn't represent the majority of that group in the first place. Why should Bush give the press material to be used against him by subjecting himself to the ridicule of the NAACP?" wrote Charles Wheeler.

The lopsided responses could mean a couple of things.

It could mean that a lot of African Americans are tired of the NAACP holding itself out to be nonpartisan when in reality, its leaders are joined at the hip with the Democratic Party. It could also mean that a lot of black people don't care a hoot about where Bush shows up. They didn't elect him and have no intention of voting for him in November.

Hardly an invitation

Although leaders of the oldest and largest civil rights organization characterized their request to Bush as an invitation, it was no such thing. Guests reserve the right to decline an invitation. But a summons is another matter. And every year since Bush took office, the NAACP has summoned him to appear so its leadership can get in his face. He attended once while campaigning in 2000, but he has never gone since he was elected.

This year was no exception. Only now the rhetoric has gotten down to the nitty-gritty.

On Sunday, Julian Bond, a leader in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee during the 1960s, and chairman of the NAACP since 1998, blasted the Republican Party for "the politics of racial division to win elections and gain power."

"By playing the race card in election after election, they've appealed to the dark underside of American culture, to the minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality," Bond said. "They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division," Bond said.

"Overdosed on testosterone, they've descended into the very vulgarity they say they want to keep off the airwaves," Bond said, an apparent reference to Vice President Dick Cheney's use of the f-word in a heated exchange with a member of Congress.

I didn't vote for Bush, and he lost my reluctant support for the war on Iraq after his administration was forced to admit there probably aren't any weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq. But I can't blame him for staying out of Philadelphia this week.

After all, the NAACP isn't interested in working with Bush.

With people struggling to keep going in a crippled economy, and the bitter disrespect a lot of black people feel toward this president, his appearance at the NAACP would only be another opportunity for the group to show African Americans how arrogant rich, white, Republicans are.

But because organizations like the NAACP are in bed with the Democratic Party, black voters have lost political clout. John Kerry will stroll into the NAACP convention, promise to protect affirmative action, to increase spending for schools and to kick Bush out of office, and he'll leave with the NAACP's seal of approval on his forehead.

Of course, this is ludicrous.

Once again two super-wealthy white men are running against two super-wealthy white men, and two of those men will try to convince black voters they can better represent their interests because their party is committed to diversity?

What do Dems have to offer?

But what does that mean, if anything. After African Americans gave the last Democratic presidential candidate 90 percent of the black vote, the two black candidates who were bold enough to jump into the primary had to run hobo campaigns. It was a bitter joke.

After hanging in through the entire Democratic primary, Al Sharpton is going to end up with a reality TV show. And although Carol Moseley Braun, the first black female senator, did an admirable job carrying the torch for feminists, her name wasn't even whispered as a possible Kerry running mate. In fact, more than likely another white woman will end up being tapped as vice president before a black man or black woman gets serious support within the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, to make a credible run for president, the candidate still has to be rich, white and male. So if former NBA star Larry Bird thinks white people are tired of paying their money to watch black athletes dominate the sport, then he can imagine how black registered voters must feel.

Ironically, Bush's treatment at the hands of the NAACP isn't much different than the way the Democratic Party has begun to treat black voters. Too often we are not embraced, we are tolerated.

The NAACP didn't really want Bush to come to its party.

Still, leaders had to put his invitation in the mail.

  Kerry said: "I am against the — the war."

July 13, 2004 -- JOHN Kerry has finally spo ken the words that make
the November election an unambiguous choice. On "60 Minutes" on Sunday
night, according to the official transcript released by CBS News,
Kerry said: "I am against the — the war."

He tried to qualify them, to fudge them a bit, but no matter. The
words are now out there and can't be taken back.

The possible future president of the United States opposes the war in
Iraq now being fought by 130,000 American troops.

This is not a tenable position for Kerry. He first came to prominence
as a Vietnam war veteran against the war who famously asked (in what
is perhaps the only genuinely memorable sentence he has ever spoken):
"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

He and John Edwards were reduced to advancing a headshaking argument
on "60 Minutes" to explain why they were right to vote to authorize
the Iraq war and why they are right to criticize George W. Bush's
supposed "failure" to build international support for that war.

If President Bush had had greater success in building international
support for the war in Iraq, they said in unison on Sunday night, "we
would have found out" that Saddam Hussein did not have stockpiles of
banned weapons.

Try to follow the twisted logic here. Kerry and Edwards say, if we'd
done better building a coalition to go to war with us, we would have
somehow magically discerned that Saddam didn't have WMD and therefore
we wouldn't have had to go to war at all.

This is quite a novel argument, so you have to give the boys credit
for adding an odd twist to the current campaign season. The problem is
that the argument is ludicrous in the extreme.

After all, the world's most implacable foe of the Iraq war, French
President Jacques Chirac, actually did believe Saddam possessed WMD.
If he had evidence that Saddam was disarmed, wouldn't he have used
that evidence to stop us from going to war?

Of course he would have. So would German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
So would Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But Putin, who opposed the war, actually thought that Saddam was
preparing to stage terrorist attacks on the United States. As he said
last month: "After the events of 9/11, and up to the military
operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence
several times received . . . information that official organs of
Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the
United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian
locations."

So those who sought to prevent us from going to war with Saddam
thought that a) he possessed WMD and b) he was actively pursuing
terrorism against the United States.

And yet, according to Kerry and Edwards, if those folks had decided to
join us rather than try to stop us, they would have led us to the
supposed truth about how little at risk we were from Saddam.

Wow.

What I want to know is this: How, after Sunday night, could a
President Kerry ask a single man or woman in the U.S. armed forces to
risk his or her life in Iraq when he is "against the — the war"? Don't
simple honesty and decency demand that Kerry immediately announce his
plans for a complete withdrawal from Iraq?

Kerry has made no such announcement. In fact, he continues to proclaim
his support for a huge American presence in Iraq on the grounds that
"the world has a stake in . . . a stable Iraq."

He never speaks about the Iraq war in terms of protecting America from
terrorism, or advancing democracy in the Muslim Middle East, or
liberating a suffering people from more than 30 years of tyranny and
chaos.

He offers no cause higher or nobler than "stability."

That cannot stand. Kerry cannot lead this country to a successful
resolution of the hostilities in Iraq if the only positive value he
sees in victory is "stability." The country won't stand for it.