Long Die the Confederacy

Confederate flag supporters demonstrate on the nor

This year marks the 150th anniversary of the Civil War and some are using it as an occasion to glorify the Confederacy. There was nothing glorious about General Robert E. Lee fighting to preserve an southern economy and culture built on whites owning other human beings, blacks, as property.

I loathe everything the Confederacy stands for including, so called “white southern pride.”  What exactly is that code for? Keeping blacks in their rightful place as property? A person has the right to fly a confederate flag and I have the right to lambast what it represents!  You exercise your first amendment right, I exercise mine. As a black woman, from Richmond, Virginia, I’ve seen too many monuments built to memorialize the Confederacy and viewed with disdain too many  Confederate flags flying high with impunity from people’s homes. A Confederate flag to blacks represents what a Nazi symbol does to Jews–hate and it makes me sick!

Some who lionize Confederate soldiers like Lee for waging a years’ long battle to keep blacks in bondage, as property owned and abused by whites, need to ask themselves how they’d like it if the roles were reversed and blacks owned them?  Black slaves in America were used as free labor by whites for  decades to build the wealth of many whites, whose generations enjoy that wealth  have  today. Blacks were raped, lashed with leather whips and killed by white slave owners in the South. That’s why black Americans come in so many varying shades of brown because of the children female slaves gave birth to as the result of non-consensual sex with their white masters.

Now, I don’t use slavery as an excuse for anything neither did my parents or their parents before them. But blacks never got paid for the work they did like building Monticello, Mount Vernon, the White House, University of Virginia, U.S. Congress, state houses, plantations, great mansions and other public buildings across the nation. You name it, black slaves probably built it. Nor did they get paid for making tobacco, cotton, and sugar plantation owners very wealthy.

No, I loathe the Confederacy and everything it stands for. Long die the Confederacy and long live the party of Abraham Lincoln, what used to be the Grand Old Party, which ended the abomination of slavery and enfranchised  blacks into the U.S Constitution where they belonged in the first place. I’d love to see  Republican candidates running for president in 2016 return to their roots of being the inclusive party of Lincoln, asking blacks for their vote in earnest, and demonstrating how Republican policies can help blacks excel more than the failed polices of Democrats have over the past 50 years.

Hillary’s Back . . . Hoping her Breasts Will Lead the Way to the White House

Hillary Clinton’s ‘Error’ Page Will Quack You Up

In a low-key tweet, Hillary Clinton announced she’s running for president AGAIN in 2016. This time, because “It’s your time,” she told Americans in a two-minute video. Time for what exactly? Time for Americans to check the “chick” box and elect the first female president? Americans checked the black box with Obama in 2008, electing him president twice — largely based on his race.

Now liberals are demanding — and screaming — we elect Queen Hillary president, based solely on that fact she has boobs. How about we check the qualification box this time and actually elect a candidate on merit instead of on gender guilt?

Any woman who is “Ready for Hillary ” needs her head examined. Hillary Clinton is no champion of women. First, she married a whoremonger, former president Bill Clinton. And she has stayed married to him for over 30 — purely for raw political power. Her resounding message to women is stand by your man at any cost because you can only rise to power if you’re married to a man  (even a low-down dirty scoundrel of a man).

Second, as Senator, Hillary paid her female staff 72 cents to the $1 she paid to her male staffers, and white men hold most of the top positions in her presidential campaign. Third, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, a “nonprofit” — is nothing more than a PAC for Hillary — actively and aggressively accepted tens of millions of dollars from nations hostile to women.  They include “Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Algeria and Brunei — all of which the State Department,” under Secretary Clinton’s tenure, were called out in its 2011 human rights report for violence against women and denying them equal rights.

For a woman who will build her presidential campaign on being an advocate for women’s rights…when you add up the facts, Hillary’s no champion of women and married to a man who doesn’t respect them. She’s a ruthless advocate for Hillary. She has achieved every political office under the sun thanks to being Bill’s wife, First Lady First Lady of the United States, U.S. Senator, Secretary of State.  But what has Hillary done?

Holding office isn’t a record. Her only accomplishments include: four dead Americans in Benghazi, because she didn’t have time as Secretary of State to read cables from Ambassador Christopher Stevens and other diplomats pleading for safety improvements to the consulate. While Secretary of State, she used a personal email account powered by a private server to avoid accountability, and took it upon herself to decide which government emails to destroy. She doesn’t think she should answer to anyone but Bill. That’s not American, that’s corruption.

Hillary wants to help Hillary ascend to the White House to perpetuate the Clinton dynasty. She doesn’t want to be a champion of everyday Americans, as she insisted in her campaign video. Hillary is bad for America, but Republicans must prove why their guy is better for America. It won’t be enough for the Republican National Committee to have a singular strategy of bashing Hillary, as RNC Chairman Reince Priebus keeps doing.


The GOP’s ‘binders full of’ White House contenders

First published April 2, 2015 on CNN.com

Has the Republican Party learned nothing from losing the past two presidential elections?

After a long and ugly 2012 primary battle that produced a battered, weak presidential candidate, the Republican National Committee vowed to improve and shorten the process.

Yet in 2016 the GOP looks poised for a repeat of 2012. The growing list of possible 2016 GOP candidates makes what should be a field of dreams look like an overcrowded fraternity house.

It includes: Govs. Scott Walker, John Kasich, Mike Pence, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, former Govs. Mike Huckabee and Jeb Bush, Sens. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, former Sen. Rick Santorum, Dr. Ben Carson, Donald Trump, and Carly Fiorina, the only woman. I’m sure I’ve missed a few.

To date, the list is still very much speculative and a moving target, as only Cruz has officially announced his candidacy for president, and Paul and Rubio only are rumored to formally kick off their campaigns in April. Still, the question isn’t who’s running, but who isn’t, on the Republican side. Many are running again who never should have run the first time they chose to — because they’re unelectable. And some like Carson and Cruz play to fringe groups, and should run only for presidents of their own egos — because they don’t have a chance at winning the nomination.

Instead of sitting on the sidelines and helping the party win the White House with a small, electable candidate pool, Republicans are threatening to dive into 2016 like spawning salmon. This poses numerous problems.

First, a crowded GOP field will give the media lots of ammunition to mock our candidates roundly — because let’s face it, the party is gaffe-prone, not immune. Second, many GOP contestants may be tempted to hang on ’til the bitter end, like they did in 2012, failing to win primaries, yet unwilling to concede failure. And that would unnecessarily turn the process into a contentious, litmus test for conservatism.

With the recent announcement of his candidacy, you can bet Cruz will be the one injecting the divisive tone into the GOP contest. Not only will Cruz take joy in being the most “severe” and unelectable conservative among the group, he’ll shame the other candidates publicly for their lack of conservatism.

As he’s done during his first term as senator from Texas, Cruz will be the candidate of NO, not running for something but against everything — his conservative peers, conservative ideas, Obamacare and Obama (even though Obama isn’t running).

When the Republican nominee finally emerges in the middle of 2016, the public’s perception of him or her will be negative, like it was of Romney, because the candidate will have had to defend against accusations of being a RINO (Republican in Name Only) from ideologues like Cruz. This is a recipe for losing.

In contrast, Democrats are playing a wiser game. They might be the donkey party, but Democrats aren’t making asses of themselves prematurely hinting or flirting with the idea of running for president in droves. Potential candidates, who have ruled out running, such as former Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Sen. Jim Webb, are thinking very carefully about whether they have a chance against Hillary Clinton, the presumptive nominee, because Democrats like the White House winning streak they’ve been on and don’t want to screw it up.

Even though Hillary looked “unready” to lead during her email controversy press conference, she and her party are in a stronger position to win in 2016. While a few other candidates may decide to challenge Hillary, I doubt we’ll see tons of Democrats running for their party’s nomination just for the sake of running. Democrats know better and they like winning.

Democrats also realize that more candidates fighting for the nomination makes the whole process uglier, producing a nominee vulnerable to attack and weaker in the general election. I’m still trying to figure out what the Republicans’ presidential game plan is: Born to run — but never to win again?

Azealia Banks Would Make a Great Starbucks Race Together Ambassador


Black rapper musician Azealia Banks should help out baristas at Starbucks with their race war. We know she won’t serve any white drinks. In an interview for Playboy magazine alongside her nude photos, Banks describes herself as a “black” woman in fact “very black” who hates fat white Americans. In response to “racially charged events” that “unfolded across the country” (translation Ferguson), Starbucks announced its RACE TOGETHER initiative this week. Beginning March 20, 2015 Starbucks wants its employees “to stimulate conversation, compassion and action around race in America” with customers.

Basically, white Starbucks employees will racially profile black customers, asking them what it means to be black and assuming they like their coffee black, no sugar, no cream. At the same time, employees will serve up mountains of white blame to white customers alongside their coffee drinks topped with white whipped cream. Wow, that sounds like such an inviting coffee shop experience.

Since Starbucks ultra liberal CEO Howard Schultz wants to force race discussions down customers’ throats, Banks can certainly help with that. Banks told Playboy that if people don’t like her “it’s always about race.”

“Because y’all motherfuckers [white Americans] still owe me reparations! [laughs] That’s why it’s still about race. Really, the generational effects of Jim Crow and poverty linger on,” Banks chortled.

Schultz should appoint Banks as Starbucks’ RACE TOGETHER ambassador, having her pop up as a barista in shops across the country. She’ll really get those race conversations going as she berates white customers for their whiteness and tells black customers to hate white people. Is that the sort of dialogue Schultz is aiming for? Fist fights.

Starbucks and Banks make a truly perfect pair. Banks is not only an expert on “racist conservative [fat] white people who live on their farms in middle America,” she is also apparently an historian on black Americans. She explained to Playboy:

“I could write a book about why black people shouldn’t be Christians. Young black kids should have their own special curriculum that doesn’t start from the boat ride over from Africa. All you know as a black kid is we came over here on a boat, we didn’t have anything, and we still don’t have anything. But what was happening in Africa? What culture were we pulled away from? That information is vital to the survival of a young black soul.”

Black people don’t have anything in America? Perhaps Banks doesn’t know President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Oprah Winfrey, American Express CEO Ken Chenault, Beyonce and many other highly successful blacks in America.

Never mind, let’s not allow facts to get in the way of emotions, hate and Starbucks’ goal to create a “more empathetic and inclusive society ” one cup of coffee and propaganda at a time.

Invoking the recent “racially charged events” as the impetus for Starbucks’ race campaign, Schultz gave credence to the left’s race baiting narrative of whites hating blacks . The subliminal message from Schultz is: whites need to understand blacks.

Starbucks’ CEO needs to get off his sanctimonious high horse and stick to selling coffee. Since when is it the job of Starbucks employee to force customers to talk about race, politics or anything other than whether it’ll be a tall or grande?

I hope Howard Schultz is ready for some lawsuits because encouraging employees to strike up conversations on race is a recipe for disaster and getting punched in the face. This is a prime example how the liberal media and Obama administration’s biased view of Ferguson has turned America upside down. Starbucks should be prepared to see race riots coming soon to their very own storefronts.

As for Azealia Banks, she said she “hates everything about this country.” I believe her and would remind her America truly is a the land of the free and the home of the brave and she’s free to leave the country where she’s making millions anytime.

A Personal Email Account, A Private Server and the Ruthless Ambition of Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton said she put “personal convenience” over national security when she used a private email account to send official government emails while she served as Secretary of State. What Hillary wants more than anything is to be the first female President of the United States. But how can the American people trust someone to hold the highest office in the land, when she is more concerned about what’s good for her personally, and then hides from public scrutiny when it comes to what’s good for the nation?

Following a women’s rights speech she gave, Hillary held a press conference at the United Nations where she unapologetically lectured reporters on her email controversy. She kept repeating the talking point that it was easier to use “one device” for both her personal and official emails. Never mind her spokesperson said last month Hillary abandoned her “one device” rule, and began using both an iPhone and a Blackberry. I guess as a 2016 pre-presidential candidate-in-waiting, who is no longer a Secretary of State, she doesn’t have anything to hide anymore.

What she really meant was that by not using a government email account — which records and archives every single email — Hillary controlled what she wanted the public to see and not see.

She reminded the press corps: “The laws and regulations in effect when I was Secretary of State allowed me to use my email for work. That is undisputed.” But the problem is, of the 60,000 emails she claims she sent, Hillary was the arbiter defining which emails were personal and which ones were professional. Recalling to the press that of the voluminous amount of emails she sent while Secretary of State, she determined about half were official State Department business. Continuing, she testily added the public didn’t need to see personal emails about her planning Chelsea’s wedding or those shared with her husband, former president Bill Clinton.

Making her actions look even more suspicious, Hillary stated emphatically that again that she determined which emails were personal, and it took it upon herself to delete them. And oh, by the way, the private server owned by the Clintons and used to store her email account in her Chappaqua, New York home, “would remain private.” The more Hillary talked, the more messy and suspicious the episode looked, and the more questions were left unanswered.

For instance, how is anyone to know there were only 60,000 emails without examining the private server? Why use a private server you own instead of a commercial provider like Google or Yahoo or the government’s email, unless you’re trying to hide something? Did Hillary delete emails about Benghazi or other national security issues because they incriminated her — or even just made her look bad?

Despite her assertions that Secret Service agents physically guarded the server, how do we know foreign governments like North Korea, Russia or Iran didn’t hack it? The American people are to believe she never emailed Bill Clinton about national security issues?

“I fully complied with every rule I was governed by,” Hillary declared. (i.e. Take my word for it!)

Really? For a person who alleged during her husband’s presidency there was a “right wing conspiracy” out to destroy Bill, Hillary wants the American people to trust her judgment. That’s the problem in a nutshell, Hillary is the judge and the jury when it comes to determining which of the thousands of emails she sent while Secretary of State are “official” — outside the purview of any independent authority.

During her roughly 17-minute press conference, Hillary seemed annoyed and angry she had to even bother answering questions about her actions publicly: something as president she would be forced to do with regularity. (Although, President Barack Obama — who promised transparency — set a new precedent when it comes to secrecy and spin.) It appears Hillary knew in 2009 when she became Secretary of State that she planned to run for president again and she used a private email account she controlled. Why? Because she didn’t want any emails, official or not, getting in the way of her trying making history in 2016.

Looking clumsy at times in this news conference, as she frequently glanced down to read talking points, seething with agitation, Hillary left no doubt about one thing. She is ruthless. As a Clinton, she feels entitled to hover above the rules of law to grow her political puissance by any means necessary.  Her message to Americans, the Democrat Party and everyone else is “Deal with it!” Democrats should ask themselves are they really “Ready for Hillary?” I know the rest of us don’t want anything to do with her.

Will Jeb be Romney 2.0?

First published March 5, 2015 on CNN.com

Ben Carson suggested to CNN on Wednesday that prisons can turn straight people gay. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee called being gay a lifestyle choice, like drinking alcohol. I guess the next thing these two presumed 2016 presidential hopefuls will tell America is being black is a choice, too.

Like it or not, it’s no wonder Jeb Bush is emerging as the Republican Party’s 2016 frontrunner.

Of course, there is that awkward little name thing, something he seems fully aware of — despite only being in the exploratory phase of a potential campaign, Jeb has already declared he’s not just another Bush.  “A lot of people know my dad, they know my brother. As in everybody’s family, we’re all a little different,” he reportedly told a crowd in Las Vegas this week.

And he seems to keep trying to distance himself from his family. “Do you have brothers and sisters? Are you exactly the same?” he insisted. Yet Jeb is banking hard on the same vault of donors and operatives his father George H. W Bush and his brother George W. Bush used in their presidential campaigns. He’s already raising lots of money, asking donors recently not to give more than a still eye-popping $1 million to his super PAC. “They didn’t need to be persuaded,” Howard Leach, a Republican fundraiser for Jeb, told the Washington Post.

So, what exactly is in a name like Bush? Apparently, a whole lot of cash, which helps win presidential nominations and elections. And if Jeb wins the nomination in 2016, it will likely be less “joyfully,” as he promised last year, than ruthlessly. After all, we’re still more than 18 months from the election and Jeb’s locking in many of the same kinds of consultants that worked with his brother and father.

“Those who hold out can sense a distinct chill,” noted a recent New York Times article. Jeb’s campaign is seeking to hire “donors, advisors and operatives,” wrote the Times, with “deep connections to the Bush family’s past presidential campaigns and administrations.” Those same family members from whom Jeb swears he’s different?

And if consultants don’t abide by Jeb’s rules of loyalty and decide to work with other 2016 Republican aspirants? “Swift rebuke follows,” the Times notes, pointing to the example of IMGE, a technology company that reportedly fell out of favor with the Bush campaign after one of the firm’s founders indicated IMGE was hoping not to be tied to a single candidate.

None of this is to suggest that Jeb Bush doesn’t have appeal as a candidate — I like some of the things he did as Florida governor, like his record of cutting $19 billion in taxes and supporting school choice programs. (Although I’m not a fan of his willingness to grant illegal immigrants amnesty in any shape, fashion or form.) He seems more equipped to lead America and get things done than some others in the already cramped horse race like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who seems more concerned with telling people off than sounding presidential.

Then there’s Rick Santorum and Huckabee, caring Christian men, but both too consumed with running for president of morality than bringing the entire country together after years of Obama supposedly dividing us on race, religion and sexuality.

But what troubles me a little about Bush’s early attempts at “corning the market” is that he’s relying on the same consultants that have cycled through the last 20-plus years of elections — some of whom worked for Romney’s campaign. This raises the question of why, if Jeb doesn’t want the public to view him as just another Bush running for president, he seems to be relying on the Bush network of consultants?

The same playbook that helped get his brother and father get elected president isn’t going to work for this Bush. The demographics of the country have changed, but it seems unlikely the Republican Party and its operatives have changed with it.

The truth is that any Republican candidate who wins the nomination will have to refrain from business as usual. He (let’s face it, the GOP won’t nominate a woman) will have to hire minorities and women in meaningful campaign positions and have a strategy to aggressively compete for minority votes. This is something Romney didn’t do nearly enough of.

Jeb is only in the “pre-presidential” phase, ruminating over the idea. But he appears to be assembling a lot of the same old (white) faces of recent losing Republican campaigns we’ve seen before. As a black conservative who would like to see a Republican in the White House again, I hope Jeb isn’t Romney 2.0.