NWA’s debut album “Straight Outta Carolina” was an album laced with raw and vulgar expressions and story telling never heard before in hip hop or in music as a whole. The LA based group shook the industry with their unabashed message of being anti-law enforcement, anti-America, and most of all exposing the lifestyle of a “gangsta”. One who takes no for answer and gets what he wants, no matter how right or wrong the method.

Hip Hop began in 1988 as it always did, New York based rappers delivering rap songs that expressed the life of New Yorkers. None of these rappers messages were clean enough to perform before a Sunday church crowd, however, there was some biting of the lip in regarding their expression. Public Enemy frontman Chuck D was as anti-establishment and raw as they came, yet he never articulated the need and desire to use violence as a primary way of life. With their angry and no holdsbar attitude,NWA forever changed hip hop.

This brings me to last Saturday’s GOP primary winner Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich is much like NWA. No he isn’t new to the political fold, however his style and mannerisms are uncharacteristic of any of his GOP opponents. He’s all telling and unwavering regarding to his principals and positions. Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and especially Mitt Romeny are those east coast rappers who do deliever their message, however, its done with care and ease. Sometimes even apologetic, not Speaker Gingrich.

Any candidate who believes he will get elected president of the USA by increasing the rancor about the rich as if they didn’t earn it honestly or in putting down minorities is sadly mistaken.

When the Obama Administration designs a stimulus plan which neglects the least of those among our citizens featuring no empowerment zones or more academic performance grants rather than loans or sets a goal for our children of college when 30-40% of minorities aren’t making it out of high school or even makes Supreme Court appointees neglecting the one group of females who gave over 95% of their votes without question—African Americans, once more the democratic diss is on.

If Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorium or others can stand forth in South Carolina and exude platitudes on what the black community needs without having engaged with this population, they don’t get it.

I’ve never made it a secret that I really like Jon Huntsman for the GOP Presidential Nomination. I like the former Utah governor’s record as a solid Republican that had more moderate to liberal social opinions.

He seemed to court a lot of love from a number of moderate and liberal pundits, but when it came to actually campaigning for President, he’s been at near the bottom of opinion polls. Why is that? Back in November, Ross Douthat tried to answer that question and came up with the following which is pretty plausible: Huntsman has none of Romney’s health care baggage, and unlike the former Massachusetts governor, he didn’t spend the last decade flip-flopping on gun rights, immigration and abortion.

Meanwhile, on many of the highest-profile issues of the primary season (the individual mandate, Paul Ryan’s House budget, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), he has arguably been more consistently conservative than Gingrich.

At the same time, because Huntsman is perceived as less partisan than his rivals, he has better general election prospects. The gears and tumblers of my colleague Nate Silver’s predictive modelsgive Huntsman a 55 percent chance of knocking off the incumbent even if the economy grows at a robust 4 percent, compared to Romney’s 40 percent.

As I watched Michele Bachmann speaking Sunday, January 1, 2012 at the Jubilee Family Church in Oskaloosa, Iowa, for the first time, I saw a woman much like myself of whom many other women, including me could identify.

Watching my lone GOP sister on the Republican presidential campaign trail on Sunday, gave me a totally different feel for who she truly is. But I also had to question, why this same woman of whom I now feel such a sisterly kinship is not displayed in debates and in presidential campaign speeches?

Where is this Michele Bachmann who knows adversity because of the divorce of her parents? Where is that Michele Bachmann who tells of her mother’s financial struggles and having to sell off things of the heart to just survive? Where is this woman with this testimony of dependence upon GOD?

If you agree with me that the government’s requirement that one have “legitimate” government I.D. to get on a plane or into a government building; how can you then argue that to require the same in order to vote in political elections is discriminatory against the poor and minorities?

Poor people fly on airplanes and enter into government buildings like everyone else.

These are the absurd arguments being made by the radical liberals like Al Sharpton, Ben Jealous, and radical liberal organizations like the N.A.A.C.P., the Congressional Black Caucus, etc. If it’s racist to require I.D. for people to vote, then it must be racist to require I.D. to board a plane or enter a government building!

Liberals never want to match a government program with any type of individual responsibility. They constantly argue the extreme. They claim minorities are adversely affected by requiring I.D. in order to vote. According to them, the poor can’t afford the cost to pay for proper I.D. They argue that grandma doesn’t have her original birth certificate; therefore it is much harder for her to get her I.D.

If the laws only applied to minorities or the poor, then I wo

The reason why Gingrich is “surging” in the polls is he’s the last man standing in this race who conservatives believe can actually lead this country out of the morass it’s in and beat Barack Obama.

In every single debate, Gingrich has proven he is up for the job of president. He conveys conviction, passion and fearlessness for the job whether talking about how he will reform entitlements like Social Security or tackle our thorny subjects like the Middle East, Iran or our so-called frienemies like Pakistan.

While Gingrich may speak forcefully at times on topics like the Palestinians supported terrorism against Israel and being an invented people, he has the guts to give voice to what many Americans are thinking.

How can you be an elected official sued by an Attorney General for diverting (stealing) $300,000 in taxpayer money, have the FBI and IRS conduct an eight hour raid of your house, seize property and you still remain in office? Only in DC government. Sadly, the behavior exhibited by Ward 5 council member Harry Thomas is what residents have come to expect from our elected officials: corruption or intent for unethical behavior.

Thomas can keep denying any wrongdoing until the cows come home but after this embarrassing ambush of his home, he really needs to give up the innocent act and resign from his seat immediately. This raid is surely a prelude to criminal charges which is even more reason for Thomas to step down and save what little face he has left. His constituents in Ward 5 who continue to stand by their man Harry, also really need to give up their hackneyed cries these are trumped up charges against Thomas because he’s black. These charges against Thomas are of his own making; he thought he could steal taxpayer money and get away with it. Race had nothing to do with it but stupidity and arrogance did.

Newt Gingrich’s rise to leader of the pack among Republican presidential hopefuls isn’t an accident nor is he just the GOP flavor of the month.

Gingrich is the most formidable and qualified candidate to take on Barack Obama and win, something conservatives are coming to realize, which is why the New Hampshire Union Leader endorsed Newt Gingrich in the New Hampshire Presidential Primary because he is most capable of leading the country out of this mess.

The more Gingrich debated his colleagues, the more people liked him. In every debate Gingrich has performed deftly, offering common sense solutions to problems facing America from entitlement reform to foreign relations. He also acted like a statesman in debates, never falling for liberal moderators’ bait of trashing his colleagues. As Newt often reiterates, “any one of us on this stage could do a better job than Barack Obama.”

It sometimes seems that the quality of thought on this topic is inversely proportional to the intensity of our emotions concerning this topic. Same-sex marriage seems to me to be a case in point. Those who appear profoundly committed, one way or the other, on the questions of morality and same-sex marriage sometimes defend their view with blatantly irrational arguments.

For example, those who advocate for same sex marriage may assert, “adults have the right to do whatever they want,” if we take a moment to consider this statement, it would only take a few seconds to realize that it is obviously false. Consider an adult who is annoyed by their neighbors whimpering dog. He or she then decides to smother and kill that dog. Surely, under the most bizarre circumstances, that person has no right (legal or moral) to do this.

One of the basic tenets of journalism is to verify, verify, and verify. Well, as part of the reading public, it’s kind of difficult to verify anonymous sources, integrate the motivation of an unknown source into our interpretation of the story and to trust reporters you don’t know.

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) have created a generally accepted code of ethics by which journalist are supposed to abide by. According to the SPJ, “The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society’s members.” To read the entire code, go to: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp.

According to SPJ’s preamble, “Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.”

Can these reporters honestly say that they “provided a fair and comprehensive account “of the Herman Cain allegations? How can a story that’s based on anonymous sources be “fair and comprehensive?”

In 2010’s North Carolina’s Hall of Fame Banquet Fund Raiser, I was asked to introduce Mr. Cain from a prepared resume which after taking one glance at it, I set it aside and did it from my heart.

I appreciated that there were not six degrees of separation between us but paths of convergence including deep Georgia roots his and mine on the paternal side, an undergraduate Morehouse connection for him and my father involving Dr. Benjamin Elias Mays, a utilization of a hearse to deliver Godfather’s Pizzas and by my brother’s funeral parlor, as well as a Purdue University appreciation from one of my ex-loves and my nephew who is currently there.

For thirty minutes reaching deep into the depths of his experiences, without notes, Herman Cain’s baritone voice rendered a stirring and impassioned charge to the Republican Party building upon his humble beginnings as a poor boy whose father taught him well the need to be responsible for his own life and outcome even if it meant assuming three jobs as he had done.

Liberals have turned their attention to Wall Street with hopes of starting a revolution that will destroy our financial system. Based on their interviews and propaganda, I am convinced that they have no clue why they are there much less what to do if they succeed. They readily admit that they are unable to articulate a realistic plan of action to implement their “demands.”

They are simply using “revolution is not reform” as an excuse for chaos. Trying to reason with these committed leftists is an exercise in futility. However, they have presented conservatives with a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

These self-described anarchists have provided us with a clear contrast of our opposing political philosophies. These protesters range from spoiled trust fund baby to vagrants fueled by greed and a desire to use the heavy-hand of government, sustained civil disobedience and intimidation to steal from those who have earned.

Someone told me recently she liked reading my blog but it seemed like everything I wrote about was race. I guess I’m going to live up to that person’s perception today. Admittedly, I write from the perspective of a black woman, so I can’t help notice these type of stories. For the record the purpose of my blog is to educate people on politics, awaken black liberals to a new way of thinking and encourage people to vote based on issues not party.

I don’t intentionally sit down at the key board each week itching to write about the intersection of politics and race but it seems there is always a politically racial story staring and at times smacking me in the face. Like today, when the only black Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said it was “insulting” for Governor Rick Perry and his family to lease a hunting camp in Texas known as “Niggerhead.”

The CBC and the Black community want to believe in Obama’s presidency; but there is nothing tangible he has given them to believe in. “But what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be is always better than nothing at all.”

So, members of the CBC have begun to blame the Tea Party for the high unemployment rate in the Black community. People of good will within the Black community must call out these members of the CBC for what they are—race baiters. You can’t blame the Tea Party for Obama ignoring his own people.

In 2009 and 2010, Obama controlled the House and the Senate. He had the votes to ram through any legislation he wanted—and he did nothing. Can you blame that on the Tea Party also?

Look at what CBC Chairman, Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) said, “If (former President) Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this problem, we probably would be marching on the White House…There is a less-volatile reaction in the CBC because nobody wants to do anything that would empower the people who hate the president.”

Jon Huntsman seems like a solid, reasonable guy with outstanding leadership credentials and a great head on his shoulders. He speaks like an adult. He has accomplished great things in both corporate life and public service, building an impressive resume that anyone would envy.

So why in all hell is he running for the GOP nomination for President?

Don’t misunderstand me. I firmly believe that the American public, especially right now, is absolutely dying for the chance to elect a full-grown Republican to the White House. A reasonable candidate who has held a real job, occasionally reads a book, and questions the voices in his head would go down like a cool drink of water on an August day. But if you think you’re that guy, you have to be prepared to fight like a wet raccoon for the GOP nomination.