DarkStar Spouts Off

"Minor Election" Tuesday Results

Not much time, so short and sweet:

1. To all of the race baiting pundits and pundit wannabes, there was a push by "Black leaders" in local races to get Black people to vote like they did in the presidential election. It didn't work and the levels were down. So, again, we have regular Blacks not following the direction of "Black leaders." What does that mean or are you going to stand by your race baiting ways?
2. I wrote before that the Democrats were over reaching, and despite what the Obama administration is saying, this WAS a vote about him AND the Democrat controlled congress.
3. The Conservative Party candidate lost the election. Republicans and conservatives who cheered the Democrat leaving the race needs to consider the results.

Scozzafava Quits, Does Hoffman Represent?

Dede Scozzafava left the NY special election after polls showed Scoaazfava falling behind the other 2 candidates. Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman has been pushed by Republicans and conservatives outside of the district and state. My question is, although the district is a Republican district, does Hoffman better represent the district than Scozzafava? If so, so be it. If not, that's a damn shame.

Hmmm... does Owens represent better than both?

Anyway, my point is, national conservative Republicans like to complain about so-called RINOs but if those RINOs represent their districts then what's the problem?

1900+ Pages

If a Representative or Senator had 10 people to read equal pages of the bill, they would each read 190+ pages. Didn't some Representative say there is no way they could read long bills?

Does it take 1900+ pages to "reform health care"? 

Do you think it is likely there are things not related to "reforming health care" in the bill?

Do you think it is likely that there are conflicting provisions in the bill?

Do you think it is likely the legal mumbo jumbo was written in a way to be intentionally obtuse?

There is no damn way this is a good bill.

You've Been Jacked By The State

This is just wrong.

Reporting from Los Angeles and Sacramento - Starting Sunday, cash-strapped California will dig deeper into the pocketbooks of wage earners -- holding back 10% more than it already does in state income taxes just as the biggest shopping season of the year kicks into gear.

Technically, it's not a tax increase, even though it may feel like one when your next paycheck arrives. As part of a bundle of budget patches adopted in the summer, the state is taking more money now in withholding, even though workers' annual tax bills won't change.

Think of it as a forced, interest-free loan: You'll be repaid any extra withholding in April. Those who would receive a refund anyway will receive a larger one, and those who owe taxes will owe less.

This is straight UP gangsta!

Who is to say the state won't issue an IOU on your refund?

Think HARD About This: What Company ISN'T Govt Regulated?

Think very hard about the question I'll pose after this:

The Federal Reserve joined the Treasury Department on Thursday in imposing new limits on executive pay, extending the government's control over compensation at taxpayer-owned companies to institutions that are merely government regulated.

What business ISN'T government regulated?

After years of setting minimum wages, the government is now telling some companies how they should structure pay for those who run them.

Do you think this won't trickle down?

This Is Why I Ignored The Fox News Snub

This is why I ignored Obama snubbing Fox News:

It was, after all, George W. Bush who became the first modern president to refuse literally every interview request from the New York Times over the span of nine years. The NYT's Sheryl Gay Stolberg explained about a year ago, "[Bush] White House officials are quite open about the fact that we have not gotten an interview because they don't like our coverage."

And then there was Dick Cheney, only going on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh for interviews.

No more here to see, next slide.

I Say Get Rid Of Political Parties

Even though I'm currently a Republican, I think the U.S. political system, and maybe the U.S., would be better off if political parties did not exist. So, I'm a bit dismayed at the following in that context:

In a letter dated Aug. 17, the city received the Justice Department's answer: Elections must remain partisan because the change's "effect will be strictly racial."

"Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office," Loretta King, who at the time was the acting head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, wrote in a letter to the city.

Ms. King wrote that voters in Kinston vote more along racial than party lines and without the potential for voting a straight Democratic ticket, "the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more."

I've heard it said that the Democrats are being patronizing to Black voters and that the Democrats feel as though they are "entitled" to the Black vote. I think it's true and this may be an example for all to see.

Double Standard?

Remember when one of the Dixie Chicks spoke out against Pres. Bush? Remember all of the calls for boycotting the group's concerts and CDs? Weren't many of them politically aligned with Limbaugh?

Remember the effort by K. Mfume to get a syndicated talk show and how he was attacked for doing so? Remember how people said he was ideological and that his attempts to get a show seemed shady because the NAACP was saying media doesn't have enough Black faces?

Remember people like Jesse Lee Peterson going after sponsors of Jesse Jackson, Sr's Wall Street initiative? Remember the out cry because of Jackson, Sr's comments and his "shake down" of corporations?

Rush Limbaugh And Team Part Ownership, Part II

If some of Limbaugh's statements are going to come back to haunt him during his quest to be a part owner of an NFL team, these are the statements that I think should be used.

I pointed out in this post that Limbaugh said Blacks haven't advanced in 50 years.

It's a white Republican, Rush Limbaugh, who is saying Blacks have not advanced in 40 years.

I was listening to the show when he said it. Here's a link, although some people may not like the source.

Limbaugh: We know that technological advancement is going along at light speed. And yet during this period of time, whether it be the last 57 years or be it the last 20 years, it seems that a majority of the black population has remained angry, frustrated, and behind. They've been left behind. They are acting like they've been left behind, and of course we've heard that this is because of racism, natural systemic institutional racism in America, that we are unfair, that this country is just horrible and rotten.

When there are statistics that directly contradict this statement, and when Limbaugh, himself, has railed against liberals, particularly Black liberals, who state that Blacks have not gained anything, then I have to ask why the statement ISN'T race baiting.

In my opinion, what Limbaugh said about McNabb wasn't racist. It was a statement about the media, however, it was wrong. There are many examples of the media praising quarterbacks who really don't deserve it. For example, right now I think Tony Romo is one of them.

But, to me, this is a major comment that should cause the team owners to look askance:

Look it, let me put it to you this way. The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.

There are other ways to say the antics of the game is doing damage to the game. To call the behavior gang behavior without the guns?

Huh?

Frankly, it's the 50 years comment that sets me off, even more than the gang comment.

But that's just me.

What Would You Do?

You've been playing organized football ever since you were 8 years old.

You played in high school and you played in college. You think you can play on the professional level so you make yourself eligible for the draft.

You're good.

You know you're going first round.

You're Black.

You don't like Rush Limbaugh.

You get selected in the first round by the St. Lewis Rams, who is partially owned by Rush Limbaugh.

Their first offer is a multi-year contract with a multi-million dollar signing bonus.

What would you do?

What do you expect NON-ESTABLISHED, players to do?

Spouting Off On: I Am Not A Partisan

I am not a partisan.

I am not a partisan because I think and I try to think logically.

I am not a partisan because to be a partisan, means I have to ignore facts that don't make any ideas I have from "my side" look bad.

I am not a partisan because I am a realist, some say cynic.

I am not a partisan because a good idea is a good idea; period.

I am not a partisan because I am God created and confident in the abilities given to me by God.

I am not a partisan because I am a grown a** man.

If I don't fit your idea of a Black person or of a Republican, that's your problem and I refuse to make it my problem.

Roderick, I am a Republican because I am. Grow up and then deal with it.

Observation On Unemployment Stats

Here is an interesting observation about the reporting of unemployment statistics.

During the Bush administration, conservatives , Republicans, and the conservative media crowed about the low unemployment numbers, and rarely, if at all, commented on the unemployment numbers for Blacks (unless the minimum wage was mentioned) or the "real unemployment numbers" that included people who "gave up" looking for a job. However Black progressives/liberals seemed to always use these statistics as well.

Now that Obama is the president, Republicans, conservatives, and the conservative media, are using these numbers (Black unemployment, "real" unemployment) to indict the Obama administration policies. Meanwhile, Black progressives/liberals are continuing to use those numbers as well.

I find that "interesting."

Quickly, Giving Props

I'm not entirely comfortable with how Obama is handling world affairs although I realize there are only two real choices on Iran: talk smack and sanctions, which do nothing, or military action, with an already strained military.

I don't like that he seems to be hesitating on Afghanistan, just go in full bore and see what happens, call it Surge II.

But I think the domestic terrorism case coming to light is being handled well, so far.

Spouting Off On: Options With Iran

All of the blather about Iran and nuclear capabilities comes down to three options:

1. Do nothing and Iran develops a nuclear capability.
2. Jawbone and apply sanctions on Iran and Iran develops a nuclear capability.
3. Take military action against Iran to try to stop or retard their nuclear capability.

People making public comments about Obama's response know these are the only three options. If they don't admit it, their comments should be dismissed.

Just my point of view.

I Told You So

Somewhere in the comments I left all over the net, I wrote that people shouldn't be concerned about what Obama would say when he addressed grade school students. Instead, they should be more concerned with the day to day teaching going on in the school when it concerns politics. Exhibit A:

I told you so.

A Big Ole Company Town

The word of the day is that Detroit is about to be declared financially insolvent.

That is to be expected when a company town like Detroit, loses the company that keeps it running. In this case, the company is "The Big 3" and the businesses that support them. A city or town facing bankruptcy is the norm when the company closes.

So, what is with the political rhetoric blaming Democrats for Detroit's failure?

More later, ...

Obama Administration Foreign Policy

My thoughts these days are brief and to the point.

Missile Defense Shield

There are many critics of Obama's policy to scrap the Europe missile defense plan against long range missiles for a smaller plan to defend against medium range missiles. My initial thoughts were that it was a bad move and I wondered exactly what is on his mind. It really appeared to be caving into Russian interests.

But after thinking about the state of missile defense some, I wonder if it was a bad move. From what I've read over time, the state of missile defense is really not that good. Essentially, people are designing systems to "hit a bullet with a bullet" and the occasional news reports of the tests seem to indicate success until you read further and the indications are that the tests are rigged for a positive outcome. Of course, it could be set up that way so that we learn enough in the process to be able to increase accuracy, but it can also be a case of making sure there is a pre-determined successful outcome.

So, in the end, I'm neutral about the policy shift.

Afghanistan

They beat the Russians, with our help. More troops must enter or defeat is certain.

'nuff said.

There was one other item but I forgot. So, publish it is.

I Know, Criticism Of Obama != Racism

I know, criticism of Obama policies does not equal racism.

[ UPDATE ]

I know that Obama was placed into office because of support from white voters.

Logically, I know this. But,

• When I independently verify from source who knows, the number of threats against Obama is way on the right side of the bell curve...
• When people bring guns to or near town hall meetings on health care...
• When a Black woman with a sign of Rosa Parks is removed from a town hall meeting because she had a sign, while another white person with an anti-health care sign is not removed...
• When screams of "I want my country back" matches the rhetoric of Pat Buchanan...

Yes, I'm looking askance, AKA

giving the side eye.

Givin The Side Eye

When the first Tea Parties were thrown earlier in the year, there wasn't much coverage of it nor was there really a strong response, no matter what the backers said. Then came the ratcheting up of the rhetoric because of the health care "debate" and the town hall meetings. This time, the Tea Party on The Mall in Washington, D.C. drew a decent sized crowd.

I supported the initial Tea Parties because I thought it was a real ground roots response to the prior spending binge done by Republicans and Democrats during the Bush administration years. To me, people were FINALLY fed up at the spending madness and the TARP bailout.

When people started protesting against the "health care reform" being discussed, I supported the criticism of the general ideas and when I read sections of one of the bills, I saw things that I didn't like but I also DID NOT SEE things some critics said about "the bill." But that's a part of normal politics. What caused me to step back and go, "Wha?", was some of the behavior at the "town hall" meetings and some people showing up in the vicinity of the meetings with guns.

Come on. Let's be real. What does gun ownership have to do with what is being "discussed" at the time?

And then came the criticism of Obama's speech to children when the same people complaining didn't complain when such speeches happened before, curriculum or no curriculum.

As I've written before, some of the Obama administration policies I don't like. I think they are wrong and will do more long term harm than good. But the rhetoric is way over the top and I'm giving some of the critics the side-eye.

Is the criticism the result of "the final big government straw" breaking the back of taxpayers or is it more likely something else. Frankly, I'm no longer outright dismissing the "fear of a Black POTUS" cries.

Yeah, that's the side eye.

ACORN

When I saw the video of the "set up" of the ACORN, Baltimore branch, my radar was triggered because I couldn't see ANYONE falling for the over the top story that was given. Then I read that it was tried in other areas and it made my radar really go off.

Then I read that the Washington, D.C. branch was caught as well.

Applying RICO seems to be the right move to me.

Listened To It While Multi-Tasking

I listened to Obama's speech on "health care" while doing other things.

Dude straight up said the "death panel" comments were lies. You don't hear that word used to much by politicians. And then he was called a liar when he said illegals won't be covered.

I'm going to have to read the text.

Role Of The President

If the role of the President of the United States does not include addressing students to motivate them to do well in school, then is it the role of the President of the United States to address men to be better fathers to their children?

Simple Question

Given all of the information that came out about Van Jones, except for the comments on Columbine, don't you just wonder if the Obama administration knows what "vetting" means?

The Prez Wants To Address School Kids

Let me see If I understand this. The President of the United States wants to address school students about education. Because of this, "The Right" is having a major fit saying the President is trying to "indoctrinate" the school children of the United States.

1. Hasn't previous presidents addressed school children in individual classes? Some how it's agreeable for a President to indoctrinate a class of about 30 students? If so, at what point does it NOT become agreeable?

2. If you are a parent, how can the President, who gets to "talk to your child" for a few minutes on one day, indoctrinate your child to think opposite of your indoctrination?

ANYONE who is REALLY upset about this, is a fool.

Oh. My. Good. Ness.

Gonzales Supports Holder On CIA Probe

Say. What!?!?!?!

Former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, a man accused of politicizing the Justice Department and authorizing interrogation tactics that some say led to detainee abuses, praised as an independent legal decision his successor's probe into whether CIA agents tortured terrorist suspects.

In stark contrast to former Vice President Dick Cheney's vigorous criticisms over the weekend of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s reopening of investigations of CIA employees, Mr. Gonzales said Tuesday that Mr. Holder was correct to pay no heed to President Obama's often-stated desire to look forward on the issue and instead to make a legal decision based on the facts.

"As chief prosecutor of the United States, he should make the decision on his own, based on the facts, then inform the White House," Mr. Gonzales said Tuesday on The Washington Times' "America's Morning News" radio show.

Mr. Gonzales said Bush administration attorneys clearly defined what interrogation techniques were legal and those who went beyond the rules should be investigated, despite any chilling effect it might have on future intelligence-gathering.

There has to be more to this. What is in it for Gonzales?

Yeah, that's cynical, so what?