Is Black Sen. Tim Scott Black Enough for the NAACP?

Apparently not according to Ben Jealous, current President of the NAACP. Jealous has claimed that Sen. Tim Scott of So. Carolina is just a “token” appointment who knows nothing about civil rights. What a racist statement for someone who represents one of the oldest black organizations in the country to make against a fellow black citizen, who now just happens to have assumed the office of U.S. Senator?

Not only does Sen. Scott have an exemplary record in both business and government, he was appointed to fill the recently vacated seat of Sen. Jim DeMint, who resigned to take a leadership position at the prestigious Heritage Foundation, he was appointed by another minority,

Governor Nikki Haley, who is Asian Indian/American. But, I guess that doesn’t mean anything to Ben Jealous, who, by the way, is of a mixed racial background himself, and who many would say could pass as a white person with no problem at all. Maybe since Sen. Scott is a few shades darker than Ben Jealous, maybe the erstwhile NAACP president is really “jealous” (yes, pun is intended) of the darker-skinned Scott?

This whole sorry episode shows that the NAACP really doesn’t represent all blacks (or negroes) since they condemn all blacks who do not toe the liberal line or who do not stay on the liberal “plantation”. It seems the litmus test for any black person is whether they agree with the liberal philosophy, and if they don’t, they are relegated to the scrapheap of the black community elite.

This hypocrisy is practiced by the same people who condemn Republicans and Conservatives of using race as a political ploy, but it seems that they are the one’s who use race to justify their condemnation of their political opponents.

Look at how other blacks have been treated by the liberals and Democrats. During George Bush’s first term, a black Colin Powell was appointed Secretary of State, he was also called a token and a “house negro”. The praise was few and far between. Later on, after he left government and he supported Obama for president, he was suddenly embraced as a true visionary and a seasoned politician - why the change of attitude? It looks the change in attitude about him was because he came back to the Democrat “plantation” and all his former “sins” were forgotten. His successor, Condolezza Rice, a black academic from Stanford, was also vilified as being a pawn of the “white man” and some vile racial cartoons were drawn depicting her negatively. It was a disgraceful display of the “double standard”.

Here in Florida, outspoken black congressman, Allen West, was routinely denigrated by the Democrats, racially, as being an “uppity black”, an Uncle Tom, and an “Oreo cookie”. The wrath of the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP came upon Rep. West and with the help of their efforts, West narrowly lost his re-election.

So, when the NAACP puts down a fellow black like Sen. Tim Scott for no other reason than he is a Republican, Conservative, or Tea Party supporter, you know that their credibility of being a sincere spokesman for blacks is very much in question.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Government Gone Wild

Special Interests are truly exposed in this Video. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, everyone should watch this alarming Video.

This is one of the most intelligent presentations of the truth that we have seen in a long time. Please take the time to view this short Youtube Video and then share it with your friends.

There Oughta be a Law!

• That Congressmen and Senators should be under some form of “term limits” so that some elected officials can't make a career out of holding public office. According to our founding fathers, our Congressmen and Senators were supposed to be temporary officeholders, not career politicians that held office for 30 or 40 years. Term limits might be 10 years or 5 terms for a Congressman, and 12 years or two terms for a Senator. I firmly believe that corruption will be decreased big-time if this law is enacted.
  
  
• That people, in the interest of good taste and propriety, should not wear clothes that have a tendency to offend the “normal” eye of another person. That means that people should not wear outfits that look like they are trying to squeeze 10 lbs. of potatoes into a 5 lb. bag. There is a limit as to how far a fabric could stretch so that if one of those people attempts to bend over, an explosion might occur thus causing injuries to innocent people. Just go to your nearest shopping mall, sit on a bench and observe the people walking by to see what I mean.
  
  
• That any plastic surgeon who performs “lip enhancement” surgery on overly vain women, and that woman then looks like she can sip a drink through venetian blinds, those doctors should have their license taken away to prevent him/her from creating more freaks than we already have now.
  
  
• That any person, wearing a brand-new warm-up suit and wearing a new pair of Nike sneakers, and who looks like he/she could run in a 26 mile marathon, and they then park his/her car in a “handicap parking space”, should be arrested and then sentenced to work in a hospital as a volunteer for one week as punishment.
  
  
• That a woman riding in the front passenger seat or in the back seat of a car, cannot, under any circumstances, tell the driver what to do, how to do it, and where to go unless they are specifically asked to do so by the driver. This would help reduce the stress of driving tremendously, maintain good spousal relationships, and prevent needless accidents. A win-win-win proposition.
  
  
• That a student attending a public school must dress in a manner that is appropriate and not look like a student is about to attend a Halloween party. Modest school uniforms might be the answer in creating an atmosphere and environment for learning which is not present in today's “anything goes” climate of dress.
  
  
• That any law proposed and passed by a politician must meet the “smell test” of whether or not that politician would, under normal circumstances, be affected by the law being proposed and they must not exempt themselves from the overly ambitious laws that they want to impose on everyone else. “Rotsa Ruck” on getting that passed by today's self-serving politicians.
  
  
• That any interview with an athlete must have an interpreter on hand to explain what gibberish is being said by that “student athlete” or by a “non-degree” recipient pro athlete, or they should just play a recording of the trite phrases and words most athletes utter such as, “We gave it 110%”. “We must work together as team”, “The officiating was terrible”, “We've got to play better defense”, “We need to execute better”, and on and on just to fill up valuable broadcast time between commercials.

Do you think any of these laws will pass? If you do, then I have a “Bridge in Brooklyn” I'd like to sell you.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Empty Inaugural Words

Speaking of crafty speeches, on Monday I read the transcript of President Obama’s inaugural address. I have found it better to read the words and not sit there staring at the TV just to be enraptured.

As we prepare to launch our “Next Generation Today” show on Feb. 4, the critical theme will be “the next 100 days for the Next Generation,” and I read Obama’s words through that filter. I was struck by the fact that he did not talk about our growing debt and government spending.

If there is one glaring item that threatens our children’s future, it is our national debt. The president only mentioned our deficit once, and that was when Obama paid lip service to making “the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit.”

Now, I am not a rocket scientist, but back in 2010 when he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the law was estimated to cost the American people $940 billion. That cost later skyrocketed to $1.7 trillion, and several new taxes from the law just hit all Americans this January. (Notice I said “all Americans.”)

Our deficits in the era of Obama have been $1.42 trillion, $1.3 trillion, $1.29 trillion and $1.1 trillion. We are on track for a fifth straight year of $1 trillion-plus deficits – the difference between revenue flowing into the government and government spending. We are now borrowing 46 cents on every dollar spent.

In his inaugural address, Obama did not mention how we will curtail spending.

On the other hand, average gasoline prices have gone from $1.84 in January 2009 to $3.30 in January 2013, and Obama said in his address, “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and grandchildren.”

When Moms cannot afford to take their kids to soccer or lacrosse practice because of rising energy costs, that is a betrayal.

As a young fella tanking up my Dad’s car on our assigned day during the Saudi oil embargo, I remember being told that government would create a Department of Energy to make us energy independent. Yeah, exactly what I’m thinking.

We sent $2 billion to Brazil for offshore oil exploration; we wasted taxpayer dollars on green energy boondoggles (Solyndra); we are sending jobs overseas for wind blades and solar panels, and anyone remember the Keystone XL oil pipeline?

We are betraying our children.

On the defense front, Obama said “a decade of war is now ending” and “we will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms.” But recent and current events suggest otherwise.

Last September we lost a U.S. ambassador, a State Department official and two former Navy SEALS in Benghazi, Libya. We just learned that radical Islamic terrorists murdered three Americans of the 10 they took hostage at a gas plant in Algeria. No one asked radical Islamists about an end to fighting, and sadly, they do get a vote.

“Strength of arms” – those Obama inaugural words are in contrast to the threat of sequestered defense spending, which would so promote a decline in American military strength that Obama-appointed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke against it.

We need a loyal opposition that will make a stand in the political arena, and the GOP must not continue to acquiesce under perceived media pressure.

Steadfast and Loyal,

Allen B. West

Allen West joined PJ Media as the Director of Next Generation Programming where he is leading the effort to develop new Internet TV shows and other media that can be viewed on NextGeneration.TV starting in February and March 2013.

The Hell with Political Correctness!

When are we all going to go to the window (like in the movie, “Network”) and yell out, “I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore”, when it comes to dealing with the insane, mostly liberal, induced madness called, “political correctness”?

You can't say this, you can't say that, you can't do this and you can't do that - who in hell are these self-appointed arbiters and guardians of proper speech and behavior (a/k/a the P.C Police) to make our lives hell because they deem certain things or actions “verboten”, “not Kosher”, or insensitive, to some real or imaginary groups or individuals? It infects all aspects of our lives especially when it applies to certain “protected” minorities. I thought we had a 1st Amendment right to say what's on our mind, whether it is deemed proper or not. Shouldn't people be allowed to look stupid, say stupid things, and do stupid things as long as it doesn't hurt someone else, besides their feelings? It has gotten so bad that some people, in the normal interchange of conversation, can give someone a compliment and be sued for sexual harassment, that telling an ethnic joke, making a racial remark, or using a harmless non-threatening sexual innuendo, can be a cause for someone losing their job, being fined by a court, being refused a promotion, or being vilified by the media, because they (who's they?) deemed it insensitive or insulting? It is outright lunacy, to say the least.

Look what has happened in our judicial system - today when someone commits a crime, it must be determined whether or not it is a “hate” crime, which carries a more severe penalty, than the same crime committed by someone against someone else who is not in that “protected” class. How absurd! A crime is a crime, is a crime, regardless of who is the victim.

Certain people get a pass, just because they are in the “protected” class. If a white person called a black person a “nigger” it can be considered racial harassment, but if a black person called another black person a “nigger”, that is O.K. or at least it would not considered a “major” offense by the P.C. Police.

Zero tolerance is another area where “political correctness” holds sway. The intentions are sometimes laudatory, but the punishment doesn't always “fit the crime”. A casual remark by one person to another with a sexual connotation might be grounds for a lawsuit, a student taking an aspirin in school might be a cause for suspension, telling an ethnic, racial or religious joke might be cause for a firing or banishment from the industry, but there's one area where the P.C. Police don't seem to get involved in, that's when the topic is slandering or mocking Christians. Anything goes and in many cases it is looked upon favorably by those who are non-believers (generally liberal secularists and atheists). Slander a Muslim, a Jew or other protected minority, and all hell will break loose, but not when it comes to Christians - they are fair game. Shouldn't all religions be fair game, even for obnoxious, and slanderous speech or actions?

It was different years ago, when people could joke with one another, say stupid things to one another, and be free to either be nice or nasty, without a “blow back” or being vilified or harassed by the P.C. Police. We should all be fed up with these “unwritten” restrictions called “political correctness”, and we should all run to the the window and proclaim that “We are mad as hell and we won't take it anymore”. Political correctness be damned.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann