Hip Hop Republican

Go Mia, Go! Black Republican Mia Love Wins Utah GOP’s 4th Congressional District Nomination

HHR — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:05:21 +0000

Black Mormon Conservative Mia Love won the GOP’s 4th Congressional District nomination at the Republican convention today.

Mia Love pulled a major upset, winning the Republican Party nomination in Utah’s 4th Congressional District, advancing to face U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson in November. Love won 70.4 percent of the vote from the delegates while former state lawmaker Carl Wimmer captured 29.6 percent.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51023

Blacks/African-Americans for Mitt Romney

HHR — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:58:55 +0000

http://www.facebook.com/pages/African-Americans-for-Mitt-Romney/329999860367367

African-Americans who believe that Mitt Romney represents the best opportunity for black America.

@Blacks4Romney on Twitter

Move over SOPA & PIPA: Here comes CISPA

HHR — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:16:16 +0000

In the wake of SOPA and PIPA, there is yet another terrifying bill on the table. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (or CISPA for short) which is currently being discussed by Congress.

In Washington, Congress is discussing the best way to avert the ongoing cyberattacks and some legislators have put forward a new act which, if it passes Congress, will allow the government access to personal correspondence of any person of their choosing.

Much like the Big Brother tactics in the United Kingdom recently, this bill will likely cause an outcry of condemnation and criticism, as happened with the deceased SOPA and PIPA bills.

Dr. Ada M. Fisher: Trayvon Martin could be any of our sons

HHR — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 22:56:38 +0000

Dr. Ada M. Fisher

Riding his bike on his way to the library up the street on Fulton Avenue in a reasonably upscale neighborhood of Salisbury, NC not far from home, my then sixteen year old son was accosted finding a police car in front of him and one behind his bike. Seems that two white males had accused some black kid of something and my youngest son was stopped, asked to get in the police car and taken to the country club to be paraded before these kids who said they were harassed. Without a chance to call me, he was profiled simply because he is black appearing though he is a Native American and had on a burgundy paisley printed shirt not a solid burgundy one the accusers had described.

The outrage surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin is reverberating through the heart and soul of the African American community for no matter our political stripes; all of us know implicitly that the rules are not the same for blacks and whites when it comes to our juvenile males. Statistics bear this out. Most of us who are African American parents try to tell our kids that the ‘sag and drag’ look with their pants or the ‘hoodies’ of the hood add unnecessarily to the scary perception and portrayal of them as counter culture and trouble bound. We let them know that the crowd they hang with can get them killed even if they are innocent. We tell them you can be at the wrong place at the wrong time and get killed or hurt, but so too can you if you are minding your own business in the right place as my son was to learn.

Whenever I have seen a young male spread against the police car, he is usually black whose appearance seems threatening to many. Many of our youth do drugs but so too do parents and those hammering at the door to legalize marijuana? But that is no reason to smear a victim of a crime.

What justification can there be for putting a contract or wanted poster out on George Zimmerman, the accused shooter, with a $10,000 bounty by “The New Black Panthers”? This should be against the law and subject to an FBI probe. This case does not give the media the right to try this case in the courtroom of public opinion in leaking titillating bits of the story in a manner certain to sell papers while fueling racial fires. How can fair trials be had or an impartial jury fielded when the information needed isn’t secured until trial? Though he rightfully apologized, Spike Lee had no right to tweet out an address thought to be Zimmerman’s which could have gotten the accused shooter or the people mistakenly identified hurt.

The pimping preachers constantly seeking publicity and an opportunity to be the spokesmen for all things black or the congressional member describing the deceased as being hunted down without the full story disclosed or the premature statements by the NAACP do a disservice to their causes in not insisting upon the rule of law being applied with all deliberate speed rather than fanning the flames of racism without a hearing, an arrest or proper investigation of the matter.

To Fox News and others criticizing the rush to judgment by some in the African American community regarding the death of Trayvon Martin, I do understand the swelling outcry against the failure to arrest the shooter and bind him over for a trial. My letter to my city on the handling of the mess with my son and other things I’ve seen regarding our youth who are handled less than admirably before they often have a hearing on accusations, didn’t get a full citizen board investigation about things pointed out.

As a gun owner and one who passed a conceal carry class, this case is not about the gun laws, but about one armed man and one unarmed young man in a nation increasingly taking up sides rather than letting the law run its course. I’ve always said I believe in the right to bear arms unless that gun is pointed at me when I maintain my right to defend myself.

About the Author: Dr. Ada M. Fisher was previously a Medical Director of Amoco Oil Company and is a physician. She is a member of the American College of Physician Executives and is Diplomat of the American Board of Disability Analyst. She is licensed secondary education teacher for mathematics and science, as well as the NC Republican national Committee Woman.

Contact her at P. O. Box 777; Salisbury, NC 28145; telephone (704) 223-2321; DrFisher@DrADAMFISHER.org. Pending book Common Sense Conservative Prescriptions Solutions Good For What Ails Us, from Amazon.com

Brian Becker: How Asians are Succeeding with Booker T. Washington’s Philosophy

HHR — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 22:46:38 +0000

By Brian Becker

Right after the end of slavery, a highly spirited debate emerged in black America over how to reach equality with whites. The debate was primarily between Republican Booker T. Washington, who believed that black people should win their equality through self-reliance and the development of vocational and job skills, and “Radical Democrat” W.E.B. DuBois, who believed black people should do so by engaging in the arts and using government as a means to reach equal footing within the population.

To DuBois’ own credit, he believed in immediate equality, while Washington was more passive due to his belief that blacks should attain equal rights by developing vocational skills to such a high level that employers couldn’t afford to turn them down. DuBois’ determination helped him become the first head of the NAACP and, as such, his imprint on Black America is felt heavily today.

But the issue to be discussed here isn’t so much of which leader had the better strategy for attaining equal rights. It’s rather who had the better vision for Black America once equality had been achieved. In this regard, DuBois’ post-civil rights era vision of Black America won and has come to life: a black population highly successful in entertainment yet also highly reliant on the government. The economic results are even clearer: a black population disproportionately unemployed and in poverty. But what would black America look like today had black people, following their hard-won fight for equality, instead embraced Booker T. Washington’s philosophy? For the answer, look no further than America’s much less talked about minority group: Asians.

Washington’s vision for black self-reliance is in many ways being lived out by America’s Asian population, which is the most self-reliant major ethnic minority group in the country. According to the most recent data available from the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families Program (TANF, a.k.a. “Welfare”), Asian adults make up 2.3% of its recipients while blacks make up 34.1%, Hispanics 24.2% and whites 35.4%. When these statistics are compared to the fact that Asians make up approximately 5% of the population, blacks 14%, Hispanics 17% and whites 65%, one can see that Asians are the most self-reliant among the major minority ethnic groups.

To understand why Asians are so self-dependent and black people are disproportionately government-reliant, it’s important to look at what is arguably the single greatest cause of poverty in the United States: out-of-wedlock childbirth. Asians have children out-of-wedlock at a rate of 17%; the lowest of the four major ethnic groups (with whites at 24% and Hispanics at 52%).

At the same time, black people have children out-of-wedlock at a rate of 77%; higher than any other ethnic group. Correspondingly, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the per capita average annual incomes of the four major ethnic groups are as follows: Asians earn $30,265.00 per year; whites an average of $28,034.00; blacks an average of $18,135.00 and Hispanics an average of $15,603.00. Asians make more money than white people. The fact that Hispanics have the lowest income is largely because they are an immigrant population with about 25% of them here illegally.

But to understand why the black population is so reliant on the government, it’s important to know that DuBois sympathized with Marxism, whose tenets have a good deal in common with the Great Society welfare programs of the 1960’s. These programs were largely targeted toward black people to help them assimilate into mainstream American society following the end of segregation. In fact, many saw these provisions as a wink-and-a-nod apology for the crimes committed against black people.

However, in the decades that followed the legislation’s passing, the black out-of-wedlock childbirth rate more than tripled in large part because people got free money from the government for having children. This has played a major role in black poverty today. However, the fact that Asians, to this point, have largely rejected the temptation of free government programs and have such strong family values has helped them promote the same culture of self-reliance that Booker T. Washington envisioned for the black population.

Washington’s second goal for black people was for them to develop strong vocational skills. When he founded Tuskegee University in 1881, the U.S. economy was highly reliant on industry, which required many people to have a certain trade. But since then, our economy has modernized and nine of America’s top ten highest paying jobs are in science and engineering.

They’re today’s vocational skills, and ones Washington would’ve no doubt wanted to see black people taking part in in much larger numbers than they are now. No coincidence, Tuskegee University today places a strong emphasis on math and science in its curriculum. And it’s common knowledge that science and engineering is an area where Asians excel. More specifically, doctors and physicians are strongly associated with this field. According to Health System Change, 75% of U.S. doctors identify themselves as white, 3.8% as black and 5.3% as Hispanic while 17.2% consider themselves Asian (remember that Asians make up only 5% of the population).

At the same time, according to the U.S. Labor Department, doctors who practice primary care earn an average of about $185,000.00 per year while those in specialized medicine take in roughly $340,000.00. If we were to combine those numbers in any way in the form of a two-person family, such a household income could buy a beautiful home, at least one luxury car, and potentially a swimming pool and/or tennis court. Yet, black people make up a tiny percentage of today’s doctors, scientists and engineers. In good part because of that, their neighborhoods by-and-large don’t display the same luxuries as those of their white and Asian counterparts.

The flip side of this problem is the disproportionately large number of black people who dream of becoming successful in entertainment. While entertainment (as well as sports) is seen by many young black people as the best way out of poverty, the reality is that radio stations only have enough airtime for a few new songs per week; television networks only enough for a few new shows a season; and movie theatres only enough space for a dozen or so new movies a month. The production companies who select their talent do so from a pool of hundreds of thousands of potential applicants.

That leaves many aspiring black entertainers – already members of a minority population – without a job or with a low paying one. The increasing problem with this is that, in the decades to come, science and engineering jobs will command increasing salaries. The people who hold these already high-paying jobs, regardless of their race, will see their standard of living continue to improve. At the same time, many jobs in other fields will remain stagnant or be shipped overseas.

And all this leads to one very important question: With all the talk about racism holding back black people, just how is it that Asians earn more money than whites? The reason is simple: without even knowing it, they’re using Booker T. Washington’s philosophy. And unless you believe that there’s someone in the U.S. government who would discriminate against blacks but not against Asians, it’s proof that, had black people also followed Booker’s philosophy, their neighborhoods today would be wealthier, safer and more prosperous. And they’d be making more money than white people, too.

About the Author: Brian Becker was born and raised in New York City. He works in the sales industry and is presently making a career change to get involved in the political sphere. He’s currently producing a documentary about race relations in the United States.

Contact Information: polifilmmaker@aol.com

Robert George: My Trayvon Moment

HHR — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:43:01 +0000

Robert A George the conservatiave editorial writer for the New York Post and blogger writes about his very own “Trayvon Moment” as a child growing up in Annapolis, Maryland.

So, about 25 years ago, I was living in Annapolis, capital of Maryland, sitting right on the Chesapeake Bay.

It has a distinction of being one of the early capitals of young America AND a major port for the US slave trade. Yes, down by the docks, there’s even a plaque commemorating Kunta Kinte’s arrival.

Today, Annapolis’ great claim to fame is being home to both the US Naval Academy and St. John’s College, a liberal arts institution of which I am a proud graduate.

At the time of this anecdote, it was either the summer before or after my graduation. I was walking down Prince George Street, which runs up from the docks toward the college, to visit friends living off-campus. My friends lived in the back half of a house — with, alas, a non-functioning doorbell. This particular day, the residents in the front half (the landlord/renting family, as I recall) weren’t home.

After several minutes of fruitless knocking/banging on the front door, I walked around the side of the house, tried a back gate, yelled up to my friends — ultimately to no avail. (Yes, kids, this is what life was like before cellphones!)

Continue Reading: http://raggedthots.blogspot.com/

Trayvon Martin: Yes, It’s About Race…and Stupidity

HHR — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:33:56 +0000

Jack Sharkey , a libertarian blogger in New Jersey, writes a great piece on the Trayvon Martin case. He argues that we shouldn’t diminish the role racism may have played here, but we do our society a disservice if we ignore the entire realm of possibilities in this case.

On Sunday, February 26, seventeen year-old Trayvon Martin was killed, ostensibly for being young and male, and possibly because he was black.

Racism is the easy answer in this case, but it wasn’t just racism that killed Trayvon, it was a combustible mix of over-zealousness and systemic failure that killed Trayvon Martin. We shouldn’t diminish the role racism may have played here, but we do our society a disservice if we ignore the entire realm of possibilities in this case.

Zimmerman has been allowed to walk because of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law which allows the use of deadly force when a person feels their life is in danger. Prima fascia, the law is sound, but if it simply gives Florida police the authority to close a case without any investigation because they agree on the facts as provided by the survivor, the citizens of Florida need to be concerned about the kind of State they live in.

Continue reading » …

The Voodoo Math of the GOP Nomination

HHR — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:22:12 +0000

Right now it appears that the most likely winner of the GOP delegate race may be no one.

There will be 2286 voting delegates at the convention in Tampa in August, meaning it takes 1144 to win. Of the 810 delegates awarded so far, Romney has won roughly 454. It is too early to pin down a precise number.

Romney needs roughly 690 of the remaining 1461 delegates — less than half. Romney is the only candidate with a realistic shot at winning that number, but it won’t be easy. In some tough states where he currently trails he would have to somehow win by solid margins. And there are ghosts hiding in the numbers.

For starters, not all Romney delegates are Romney delegates. 339 of the delegates which will be officially awarded to a candidate will not actually be bound to that candidate (*see list of states/territories below).

For example, in Pennsylvania voters elect a slate of delegates proposed by the various campaigns. Those delegates are free to vote as they choose at the convention. How committed those delegates are to voting for the candidate they putatively “represent” will depend on the success of that campaign in picking a reliable slate.

In many other states, like Iowa, the campaigns have even less control over delegate selection. Although Santorum “won” the Iowa caucuses, the 28 delegates from Iowa won’t be selected until that state’s convention in June and will be free to vote for whomever they want in Tampa.

That opens doors for Ron Paul. He is trying to build a force of shadow delegates. His unique goals mean he has no reason to either quit or negotiate. The Paul campaign understands the machinery and they have been working very hard to get their people into delegate slots putatively assigned to other candidates. This is harder than it sounds, but reports suggest the effort may be working. No one will know for certain until the convention.

There are also about 100 delegates that are completely independent — Republican dignitaries or officials from each state who are under no obligation to any campaign. Presumably many of these will lean toward Romney, but they will be free to do what they want on the convention floor.

Unless someone drops out or there is some remarkable, unanticipated surge of conservative enthusiasm for the Mittster, it is unlikely that Romney will be able to accumulate a decisive delegate lead going into the convention.

If no one secures the nomination on the first ballot at Tampa, then all of the delegates who are otherwise bound to a candidate are released from their commitment. They can vote for whomever they please, including candidates who did not participate in the primary race or who quit.

Pay close attention to Sarah Palin and Donald Trump’s travel itineraries for August.

In short, a Romney delegate lead will matter little unless: a) he can secure a very solid majority, at least 10 percent beyond 1144 — enough to take all suspense out of the first ballot, or; b) the delegates he “controls” are truly, emotionally committed to him and won’t bolt after a failed first ballot.

In principle, Romney could reach a deal. He could offer the VP slot to Santorum and promise to name Gingrich as the Territorial Governor of our new Moon Colony. On paper this should work, but even this scenario has hazards.

A delegate who is “bound” to Santorum has no obligation to do what Santorum asks. His bound delegates can’t vote for Romney until he releases them, but once he releases them they can do whatever they want. They might follow his recommendation or they might listen to the voices in their heads.

If Romney and Santorum have a large percentage of the delegates between them then they should be able to work out a successful deal even if some delegates don’t cooperate. But even if they manage to work a deal, the first ballot at the convention would be uncertain. Uncertainty would complicate any agreement and invite hijinks. The outcome would hinge on discipline and organization, two values that have been scarce in this election season.

Could a Romney-Santorum ticket win in November? Not likely. But Mitt Romney has a 0 percent shot at the White House if he doesn’t get nominated. If the first ballot in Tampa fails, his odds of being on the ticket at all plummet. Being chained to a male, sweater-vested version of Sarah Palin beats being sent home to Michigan or Massachusetts or Utah or wherever it is he lives without ever getting a chance to face Obama.

Take all those factors together and you can see that Romney’s “I’m mathematically inevitable” pitch is more spin than reality. There’s little real math in this math because the fudge factors figure so large. If Romney fails to run away with the remaining primaries you can expect a wild nominating season to end with an ugly showdown in Tampa.
*States and territories that do not “bind” their convention delegates: Iowa: 28, ME: 24, MN: 40, ND: 22, Guam, Marianas, VI, Samoa, PR: 59, LA: (18)*, PA: 72, IN: (19)*, WV: 31, MT: 26

This post has been updated since its original publication.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Chris Ladd is a Texan who is now living in the Chicago area. He has served for several years as a Republican Precinct Committeeman in DuPage County, IL, and was active in state and local Republican campaigns in Texas for many years.

Also check out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-ladd

Demetrius Minor: The Power of American Exceptionalism

HHR — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:10:29 +0000

By Demetrius Minor

This election year’s theme has evolved around one common theme: The identity of America. We’ve heard the rallying voices calling for “restoring”, “believing”, “saving” and “reviving” America. There is this undeniable feeling with oneself that America is wayward, distraught and dysfunctional.

The choice is quite simple and fundamental: We can continue to march towards an European socialistic society or we can be a nation of economic prosperity, constitutional liberty and freedom.

America’s soul has been entrenched by big government welfare and mandates that fringes on individual rights. The enhancement of government, by means of a weak and anemic private sector, has changed America from being an economic promised land to a nation that is being defined by unemployment, joblessness, a divided political front and a lack of efficient leadership at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

It is quite embarrassing and shameful that we currently have a President who does not understand the power of American Exceptionalism. It is quite common for President Obama to travel worldwide “apologizing” for what he perceives to be the flaws and imperfections of America.

I wish he would the time to have gratitude for this country. American Exceptionalism is about being what you dream to be. It’s about taking advantage of the fact that America is one of the greatest nations known to mankind and that it flourishes with plenty of opportunities for many individuals to succeed. American Exceptionalism is not about government dependency.

While it is quite obvious that the absence of government in its entirety will release a society into total chaos and disorder, it is the notion that government will meet all your needs that has caused many to be apathetic and indolent. American Exceptionalism is about YOU. It is the encouragement to produce good work ethic.

It is the blissful reminder that if you dream and believe in God and within oneself, that you can indeed, be what you want to be. It is not about piggybacking off of other’s successes and blessings. It is not about being entitled to something without working hard and diligently for it.

American Exceptionalism promotes the idea that America is great and that the power of free will has empowered individuals to become successful in life. The idea of big government necessity is pure selfishness. The fact that many just want to depend on the government to provide them services without putting in the work and effort as others, is not only selfishness, but its robbery from those who have worked diligently in their life.

I refuse to adhere to the thought that government serves as a lifeguard and rescue mission. My success in life is dependent on Almighty God, the encouragement of family & friends, and the effort I personally put in to achieving my goals. Many may perceive this to be an egotistical analysis. On the contrary, it’s the beauty of American Exceptionalism. Don’t ride the coattails of government. Empower YOURSELF.

About the Author: Demetrius Minor is a graduate of Augusta State University and a former White House intern. He is currently a Program Director and Radio Co-host at WNRR TalkRadio1380.

Here is the link to the “Major Points with D. Minor” facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Major-Points-with-D-Minor/124343780961925

People can follow the show on Twitter at @dminor85

Demetrius contact info is: dminor85@gmail.com

Jordan Cruger: Reenergizing Moderates in the Republican Party

HHR — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:12:49 +0000

by Jordan Cruger

“I guess it was bound to happen.”

Those were the words of Senator John McCain as he campaigned in South Carolina’s primary, in 2000, against then-Governor George W. Bush.

McCain was referring to Bush’s attacks on his character, as McCain campaigned for more conservative South Carolinians to gain what his camp thought would be unstoppable momentum if he won the state.

Twelve years later the story is the same with Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney. Demagoguery has ruled the day for Santorum and Gingrich. They are both resorting to attacks on Romney that they know the conservative base loves. They’ve added a new bad word to the ultra-right dictionary – “moderate.”

Just look at Rick Santorum on Nevada caucus night. Confident as ever, he blasted the frontrunner Romney for being just that, “moderate.” He even went as far as to compare Romney to other moderates who lost elections in the past: Gerald Ford in ‘76, George H. W. Bush in ‘92, Bob Dole in ‘96, and John McCain in ‘08. His comparisons are unfair however, as all were running in general elections, and at difficult times for Republicans.

Santorum failed to admit his own ultra-conservatism took him from a 6 point victory in his reelection to the U. S. Senate from Pennsylvania in 2000 to a resounding 18 point crushing landslide defeat to Robert Casey, Jr. in 2006. Let him try to excuse himself by calling it a tough year for Republicans, when also in 2006 a Republican from the same Northeast Region, in Maine, a blue state, won a sound 53 point reelection victory. That was Olympia Snowe, a moderate.

Yes, the all too personal affront to any Republican today is to call them a moderate. Apparently showing any reasoning power or governing capability through some compromise is too unbecoming for the base. For years, with needless arguments on social issues which never created a single job, the GOP has been washing out Republicans that make sense. Republicans who can speak to social progress to bridge the gap. People like Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman were and are now being ostracized as “liberal” or “RINO” (Republican in Name Only).

That is only sad because moderate Republicans were once the voices of reason that kept the GOP stable. People like Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, Charles Percy, Edward Brooke and Mark Hatfield were pro-business leaders, and yet able to disagree with Democrats while working for the needs of the people they served. Whether or not he wants to admit it, Mitt Romney is that sort of Republican. After years in the private sector, in 2002 he ran successfully as a progressive Republican for Governor of Massachusetts and started a health care program in that state that remarkably worked.

Yet all of this is a problem for the modern Republican Party. The demagoguery of people like Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, Joe Walsh and other reactionary Tea Partiers lies in dismantling parts of government that have actually benefitted people who do depend on services by the government. Some of what they say, however, does hold substance.

Much of the government has become bloated. The tax code, for example, is in dire need of reform, and much to the Tea Party’s credit they are very consistent on cutting spending. But today we are being confronted by anti-intellectual politicians who think folksy one liners, gutting some necessary parts of programs and battles on family values are the way to build governing strategy. These people are not working for the greater good. They are using doctrinaire methods of politicking and further dividing, not just Republicans, but Americans as a whole.

It is pivotal to take our party back from far right extremists who Governor Rockefeller repudiated. We need more pragmatic Republicans, thinkers who are not afraid to politically expand their base. We need moderates to start speaking up. What is needed now is a “moderate insurgency,” the same type of energy that was used to defeat others in the sensible center. And yes, we must challenge the extremists who are in office, as well.

Many, many moderates here in the Northeast are interested in bringing back the old guard of politically independent Republicans, those not beholden to ideology or ideologues. Somewhere in this party there is still a Nelson Rockefeller or a Jacob Javits. I still believe it is possible to regain our lost ground.

About the Author: Jordan Cruger is Vice President at the John Jay College Republican Club. He is very active in political campaigning and is a Political Science Major at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Food Science, Climate Science, and Politics

HHR — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 12:45:09 +0000

By Chris Ladd

As I kid I liked to get up early with Grandma and sit with her in the kitchen while she cooked breakfast. She’d give me coffee, Southern-style – thin, sweet and creamy. It was a treat because it was so wrong. Coffee, as any medical professional could have explained at the time, stunted your growth. Breakfast, by the way, was always the same; sausage and bacon with eggs, biscuits and gravy. My grandparents lived into their eighties and nineties respectively in daily defiance of scientific wisdom.

I grew at a reasonable pace.

You can still find medical websites repeating the advice that gave rise to the ‘stunt your growth’ myth. Coffee drinking was once believed to cause calcium deficiency and bone loss, a tie that is generally discounted now.

Rummage through your pantry or refrigerator and you’ll find a whole host of items that might be regarded as either a superfood or a health threat, depending on the results of the latest study. Butter, margarine, wine, chocolate, eggs, bread, potatoes, any of them have been considered a health risk or a great choice at different times based on different research.

Our struggle to make well-informed food choices can shed a lot of light on the political challenge of climate change.

Science is a process we use to establish objective facts. Science takes a question like, “what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow” and finds an answer through observation and repeatable experiments. While science is very good at answering a specific question like “how much fat is in this doughnut?” it has a harder time answering complex matrix questions like, “What should I eat?”

Whether this egg is a good choice for me for breakfast this morning depends on a galaxy of variables almost impossible to model adequately in an experiment. My genetic profile, the type of egg, how I cook it, what I ate yesterday or will eat today, my lifestyle, along with innumerable other factors affect the result.

The more variables that affect the outcome, the more difficult it is to construct a meaningful experiment. The farther you get from any experimental capability, the farther you get from reliable scientific results.

Climate science is a matrix of millions of factors interacting in ways that we scarcely understand. Determining how a change in one of those variables will affect the whole is no small challenge. Scientists have been able to build computer models that simulate historical climate patterns with some impressive accuracy, but that is not the same thing as having a genuine experimental capability.

Scientists have successfully established that the Earth’s climate is warming. There is almost universal agreement that human carbon emissions represent a factor in that warming. Unfortunately, that is limit of what science has been able to establish with demonstrable precision at this point.

How much warming can we expect, precisely? When? How much of the warming is due to human carbon emissions? What else may be driving up temperatures? What, exactly, will a reduction in carbon emissions to say, 1990 levels, do to our climate if anything? What will warming mean, precisely, in five, eight, ten years to this particular glacier?

Fine research by outstanding scientific professionals has produced answers to these questions that are quite literally all over the map. We’re learning how immature the entire field of climate science is and how difficult it is to accurately test their hypotheses.

Along the way we’re being reminded that climate change happens all the time. The dramatic warming we’ve seen over the past century is not unprecedented. According to EPA and IPCC research, global temperatures remain relatively cool compared to their 5,000 year average. We’re discovering new forces that shape our climate, like Criegee biradicals that may counter warming in ways we’ve yet to ascertain. Researchers cannot tell us with confidence that even the most radical proposals will actually bring down temperatures.

The complexities involved in matrix problems such as this help explain why our annual hurricane estimates are utterly useless, why you can’t get an accurate weather forecast for next Thursday, and why no one can tell you with scientific precision what you should have for dinner tonight. You don’t have to be a mental giant like Einstein, Hawking, or Rick Santorum to recognize that science, for all its value, has some weaknesses. Those weaknesses can be addressed with time and energy, but we have to factor them into present-tense decisions.

If the fix for climate change was as simple as changing a light bulb then the disagreements over these details might not matter much. However, we’re being asked to undertake the wholesale re-engineering of the entire global political and economic order.

The left’s giddy enthusiasm for climate change makes their position sound just as politically driven and scientifically suspect as Michele Bachmann’s support for intelligent design. The solutions proposed by the left seem influenced less by science than by the desire to establish an economic order they have failed to achieve by other means. The competing climate freakouts on the extremes of the left and right are undermining everyone’s efforts to formulate sensible policy.

Climate change is a scary prospect, but a highly ambiguous one. We should not undertake an expensive, wholesale economic re-engineering aimed solely at carbon reduction. While we work to understand the true scale, shape, and meaning of climate change we should embrace reforms with powerful secondary benefits, like fuel-efficient technologies, power grid improvements, and exploitation of strategically reliable fuel sources.

Building a vast global bureaucracy for monitoring and rationing carbon is an exceptionally bad idea that in the eyes of future generations is likely to make us look ridiculous. Worse than parachute pants.

Enjoy your coffee, chocolate, red wine and carbon dioxide in moderation and await further scientific bulletins.

Also check out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-ladd

Trae Lewis: Mass Appeal – Why the United States Senate lacks black representation

HHR — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:15:59 +0000

By Trae Lewis

Only six black senators have served in the United States Senate: three Republicans and three Democrats, including current President Barack Obama. In the current 112th congress, no United States Senators are black.

There is no tangible reason for this disturbing fact, however, some elements are clear and present as to give a possible answer. The premier element is money. Regardless of candidates demographic, in order to be a serious general election US Senate candidate you must spend on average 6 million dollars from the date of declaration to your conceivable win.

That alone excludes many credible candidates from entering US Senate races. Despite this, a good number of black candidates still are able to have the financial backing to enter a US Senate race. This article will focus on the candidates that did enter and examine the reasons why some won and others did not.

The age-old natural direction is to attribute the lack of black representation in the US Senate to the controversial “Bradley effect”. The Bradley effect is a theory to explain observed discrepancies when a white candidate runs against a black candidate in a statewide election, the white candidate will always surely win. The win based on the fact no state has no more than 35% of its voter population black, and very few blacks win outside majority held black electorate districts. The theory has some legitimacy, however, L. Douglas Wilder for governor in Virginia, Edward William Brooke for US Senate in Massachusetts, and most notably Barack Obama for US President, defeated their white opponents in grand fashion.

What made Wilder, Brooke, and Obama different from Kendrick Meek who lost his US senate bid in Florida in 2010, Denise Majette who lost her bid for US Senate in Georgia in 2004, and Harold Ford, Jr. who lost his bid for US Senate in Tennessee in 2006. All three losers were credible, popular, congressional representatives prior to their lost. The three even turned out a sizable number of black voters in each race.

To summarize the aforementioned US Senatorial loses; I reference the late rapper Gang Starr’s 1994 hit “Mass Appeal”. The candidates did not have “mass appeal”, meaning when they ran for office, the race of their skin was not a factor for their lost, however, the candidates trying to use their skin color to win their race was a factor for their lost. Meaning, Meek, Majette, Ford, and a host of others have lost statewide races because the overtones of their campaigns were centered on race. All three were US Congressional Democrats from overwhelmingly black districts. Their appeal based on the notion why 80% of Black Americans are Democrats in the first place, that the Democratic Party reflects the interests and priorities of racial minorities. In each of the candidates’ case, all three had congressional records as being “super liberal”, even for Democrat party standards.

As recent as 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. These numbers only increase to the more conservative and moderate end in states such as Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee where Meek, Majette, Ford ran. Few candidates, regardless of party and demographic, are able to win statewide elections based on careers that have been established on being a crusader for the most extreme end of a political ideology.

Additionaly, Meek, Majette, Ford, and many other Black Democrats have made careers on racial causes, which is suitable for their majority black congressional races, however, the US Senate must appeal to voters from all demographics, especially to voters who believe race plays no factor in their everyday life. A voter in that sense would find no reason to vote for a candidate whose entire political strategy is off racial rhetoric. White Democratic candidates, notably the Southern United States blue dog Democrat have forged tactics with Democratic Party principals, but in a wider political ideological appeal package, which is needed to win statewide contests.
While running for US President, Barack Obama eloquently gave his famous “race speech” on March 18, 2008, in which he stated race has and always will be a factor in politics, however he will not be running as a black man for President, yet as an American running for President. Obama wisely separated his campaign from racial rhetoric, which help separated him from being a winner and his opponent the loser.

About the Author: Trae Lewis is currently the president of the Baltimore Area Young Republicans and serves as the Nationalcommittee Man for the Maryland Young Republicans, lifelong conservative and registered Republican since 2006, the same year he graduated from Howard University with a BA in political science. In 2010 he served as the field coordinator for the “Ehrlich for Baltimore City” gubernatorial campaign. Since 2010 he has appeared and been featured in numerous Baltimore area print, radio, and television media outlets speaking on the cause of the Republican Party and conservatism as a whole.

ODE TO WHITNEY HOUSTON

HHR — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:22:51 +0000

Whitney, as you began to take your heavenly journey,
We all saw a picture of you on a medical gurney.
Then all kinds of thoughts flooded into my head,
Because I knew many things were about to be said.

The show must go on they all said,
While they were partying, you laid dead.
All sorts of people began invoking your name,
This seemed more about cashing in on your fame.

Kelly Price was all over CNN,
Was that the best way to remember your friend?
Every time I turned around ,
On another network you could be found.

CNN’s Don Lemon was almost in tears,
Saying your music had touched his life for years.
My, my, my, what a difference a day makes,
Because the next day he had quite a different take.

He began rampant speculation on your cause of death,
Your spirit, from your body had barely left.
He claimed you had such a heavenly voice,
But the tools of speculation were his journalistic choice.

So-called friends who were with you days before,
Have turned into such media whores.
Before your body was placed in the ground,
All over TV they could be found.
To the media, do you know no shame?
Even in death, it’s all just a game.
It’s all about ratings and making money,
But, when it happens to your family it won’t be so funny.

To the media, public figures are mere sport,
Calling an 18 year old child they did resort.
Bobbi Christina doesn’t deserve this type of attention,
So, why in your stories is she even mentioned?

Though Whitney had her own demons to bear,
In her death she was treated so unfair.
When you look at her life as a whole,
She seemed to be such a beautiful soul.

Cissy, no parent should have to bury a child,
But, you will see her again after a while.
You have handled this situation with class and grace,
I pray God will continue to shine his favor upon your face.

Cissy, Whitney’s home going celebration,
Filled my heart with great jubilation.
You only had Whitney for 48 years,
So I understand why your eyes filled with tears.

That’s such a short time in the big scheme of things,
But just think of how many hearts she made to sing.
God gave you that gift of song,
This gift will help you to be strong.

Stevie, isn’t it amazing that love’s still in need of love,
Alicia, you are that angel from above.
The way you sang that song it was very clear,
That Whitney was someone you held very dear.

But, then there was another side to this event,
A side that had an ugly bent.
One person made me so furious,
Why he behaved so, I’m just curious.

Could Al Sharpton not watch and pray?
Why would he send out tweets while your funeral was underway?
Could he not sit there and show his respects,
As long as he got in the media, he figured what the heck?

Maybe he was angry because he was not asked to speak,
So, other ways to get into the media he did seek.
Al, I can’t take you anymore,
You are the biggest media whore.

You claimed in your tweet you told Bobby Brown not to be a distraction,
But then you became one by your very action.
Tweeting during Whitney’s funeral was a classless act,
But, then again, your history of this type of behavior is a known fact.

Whitney deserved her one moment in time,
Sharpton, your behavior was such a selfish crime.
Do you see no shame in upstaging the dead?
Maybe next time you should use your heart, not your head.

Whitney, now that you have completed your journey, may you be at rest
For 48 years you gave us your best.
Though you were an icon all over the world,
To Cissy, you were just her little girl.

Raynard Jackson is president & CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC., a D.C.-public relations/government affairs firm. He is also a contributing editor for ExcellStyle Magazine (www.excellstyle.com), Freedom’s Journal Magazine (www.freedomsjournal.net), and U.S. Africa Magazine (www.usafricaonline.com).

Andrew Simon: CPAC 2012—A Change in the Network

HHR — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:01:02 +0000

“An atheist, a libertarian, and an evangelical walk onto a stage…”

Anywhere else, such a description would be a lead into a punchline. CPAC, however, is a world onto itself—and the stakes at the 2012 CPAC convention were no laughing matter.

A veritable conga line of conferences, seminars, speakers, and open bars, the event allowed for crucial networking opportunities and exposure for candidates, pundits, students, and undecided voters. Of course, the week focused on the presidential candidates, but more interesting to see were some of the surprising shifts that seem to be developing at the grassroots level.

While there were no shortage of speakers and presentations emphasizing a focus on conservative social policy, the real stars of the show were those that were able to articulate visions of the party focusing on American Exceptionalism, sound fiscal policy, strategies to empower social mobility.

Allen West, and particularly Marco Rubio, made these the cornerstones of their presentations, and the roars of adulation that followed spoke for themselves. “Why can’t they be running for president?” was probably the single most asked question at the convention.

In a seminar on GOTV strategies, a moderator offhandedly asked the attendees who their favorite candidate was, to a cacophony of responses. The second question—who’s been your favorite speaker—had a reply so unanimous and so loud that it could be heard from well across the hall.

Rubio’s speech had a profound impact on the convention. It succeeded in bringing together an audience coming from divergent religious, social, and fiscal backgrounds, fiercely competing in support of their chosen presidential candidates—as did West’s.

Where the 90s had our party caricatured as one focused on the “3 Gs” – “God, Guns, and Gays” the next decade is shaping up to be one that sees a party shift towards the “3 Es” — “Exceptionalism, Economics, and Empowerment.” For those in attendance, it was no surprise to see the results to the “personal core beliefs” CPAC straw poll.

The response “My most important goal is to promote individual freedom” dwarfed all other priorities combined, including a focus on gay marriage, abortion, the military, second amendment rights, and terrorism. Naysayers are likely to point out the obvious—that the convention was over 55% under the age of 25, and that there has always been a traditional slant away from social issues among younger voters.

The fact is, however, that anyone who was on the ground was able to see just how broadly the sentiment was shared—across virtually all geographic, socioeconomic and age ranges represented at CPAC.

The “3Es” managed to find themselves into the core arguments of nearly all of the issue-based discussion panels: approaches to military spending, strategies for education, attracting more minorities to the party—and the list went on.

All things considered, they seem like an obvious trio to hammer onto as central tenets for the party. For all of his eloquence, Obama has consistently failed at articulating a feeling of American Exceptionalism; from bows to Saudi Kings to apologism at home and abroad, Obama, if not a “malaise” President, has certainly failed to inspire a feeling of it being “Morning in America.”

As for the economy? It’s obviously the number one issue on voters minds, and with more and more blue collar workers losing their jobs overseas everyday, while Obama continues to refuse to initiative policies like the keystone pipeline that could have added tens of thousands of new jobs with the swipe of a pen, it may be the most critical factor to Republican 2012 victory. Empowerment?

It covers a lot of ground, but boils down to a hunger for a fair shake at the American Dream, without arbitrary government dictates or bureaucratic roadblocks creating a glass ceiling for our personal pursuit of happiness or those of our children.

It empowers lower income parents with big dreams and big dedication for their children to have the vouchers they need to take them to a school where they stand an honest chance at a good education; replacing policies that institutionalize inter-generational poverty with programs that provide strong educational, apprenticeship and mentorship programs to turn tax users into tax payers; allowing those disenfranchised with government retirement plans to invest their money as they see fit; and providing the resources for small businesses to form and prosper without obstruction, to hire the most qualified candidates for every position without bureaucratic meddling, and to be able to provide returns to their owners and shareholders that are capable of making their businesses a more attractive investment than opportunities abroad.

A 3E agenda is more than a socially conservative, or libertarian, or Baptist, or atheist view of America—it is the only blueprint capable of saving our government from walking off of the precipice into an economic and moral abyss. The CPAC attendants knew it. Rubio knows it. West knows it. Herman Cain knows it. Obama and the current administration clearly do not.

The hope, now, is that the remaining candidates for the Republican residential nomination will be able to tap into the new paradigm shift, and generate the same explosive energy that Rubio, West and Cain achieved at the convention.

For the sake of the nation, I for one would much rather see Rubio or West as 2012 VP serving under any of our remaining presidential candidates, than the 2016 presidential nominee of a nation ran into the ground by four more years of disastrous fiscal and foreign policy.

If we want to empathize with struggling voters, energize the electorate, and exorcize the Obama administration, it’s time for us to upgrade to a 3E network.

About the Author: Andrew Simon is the former Vice President 2004-2006 of the Campus Conservatives at the University of Calgary in Calgary, Alta. He has worked and volunteered for Lee Richardson, a Member of Parliament Calgary, Alta. Between 2002-2005 Andrew organized a program focused on underprivileged communities in which, in exchange for volunteering to share a skill, tutor, or mentor, low income adults and their children were eligible to go to lessons taught from any other member of the initiative at no cost.

Chris Ladd: Attack of the Vampire Mortgages

HHR — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 01:30:07 +0000

The U.S. Attorney General has unveiled a joint state and federal settlement with banks aimed at “righting the wrongs” of the housing bubble. It’s a start – a start that comes after the battle has mostly ended. The reality is that the window of opportunity to address this crisis has effectively closed. Middle America is wilting under an attack of Vampire Mortgages and a deadlocked Washington will not be coming to their aid.

The “landmark” settlement sets aside $17bn dollars for principal reductions on underwater mortgages. That sounds like a lot of money until you compare it to the official figure of $700bn in negative equity Americans face so far from the housing bubble. And that estimate is based on some laughably optimistic assumptions. The rest of the settlement relies on the usual palliatives, with refinancing continuing its role as the favorite solution of policy makers. Solving the mortgage crisis with low-cost, Federally-subsidized refinancing is like using cough medicine to treat lung cancer.

Since World War II, home ownership has been the most reliable method for lower and middle income families to build capital. Thanks to Wall Street innovations the financial dreams of tens of millions of families have become a trap. Millions of Americans are now being sucked dry by vampire mortgages that will never, at any interest rate, produce the value that previous generations counted on.

Many homeowners who haven’t tried to sell remain blissfully unaware that they are underwater. As Joshua Rosner wrote more than a decade ago in his warning about the then-emerging housing bubble, “a home without equity is just a rental with debt.” Millions of Americans are now de facto renters.

Economists blame the housing slump on unemployment and weak economic conditions. By that reasoning, helping people avoid foreclosure and refinance to a lower-cost mortgage leaves them in better position to get on with their lives when economic conditions improve. With their emphasis on esoteric models and narrow assumptions, economists have completely missed the gaping hole in the hull of our economy.

Americans are now saddled with housing debt that will never produce the value they are counting on. To make matters worse, the losses incurred by those who engineered this crisis were largely socialized, meaning that these same people being bled by vampire mortgages will, over time, have to pay the banks’ debts from the housing bubble as well as their own.

The phony housing boom reached much farther into the pockets and prospects of ordinary Americans than most people appreciate. Nearly a third of all home mortgages are underwater, but that’s not the worst of it. In addition to conventional mortgages, there are currently more than 13 million home equity loans outstanding. By some estimates more than 90% of those loans are underwater, potentially raising the number of non-performing mortgages nationally to nearly half.

In some markets, housing prices adjusted for inflation may not return to their Bush-era highs in our lifetimes. Last year the Case-Schiller home price index was still running more than 20% above the long-term average. There is no rebound coming.

In 2011, home values remained nearly 20% over-valued. Double-click for full image.

Federal action to slow foreclosures and hold down interest rates are prolonging this pain while doing nothing to address the real problem of dead equity. Even if employment and incomes increase, these vampire mortgages will undermine the value of home-ownership for decades to come, depriving millions of Americans of their best hope for building capital.

In spite of the mounting financial harm, people will not abandon these mortgages except in the most dire straits. For most Americans, a mortgage is not a simple business decision. It affects your peer group, who your kids play with, and what church, Little League, or bunco group you participate in. A mortgage is tied to the very large issue of what school your children are going to attend and what quality of education they can expect.

Renting for a few years would make the most financial sense for millions of families, but our rental infrastructure is weak. There are no large-scale corporate house rentals with the kind of even quality you can find in corporate apartments. And the apartment market is, naturally, focused on smaller units. Families are not going to abandon the mortgage if they can possibly avoid it. The vampire will feed.

Refinance merely decreases, slightly, the cost of maintaining dead equity. Refinance programs have been an unmitigated failure, but they remain attractive in Washington as way to talk about solving this problem without actually having to do something.

What might have worked? Allowing homeowners to have their equity readjusted as part of a bankruptcy (a “cram down”) would have been a sensible response. No one would receive this relief without the discipline, scrutiny or credit impact of a bankruptcy, but millions of people now being bled by a vampire mortgage could remain in their homes without having their mortgage suck them dry for a generation.

Instead we socialized much of Wall Street’s debts. Then we added trillions in Federal deficit spending in an effort to pour fuel into a broken machine. The additional trillions the Federal Reserve has poured into mortgage bonds to maintain artificially low rates has mostly created a windfall for banks and for individuals unaffected by the crisis. Those same homeowners bleeding from non-performing mortgages will also eventually have to pay off the banks’ bills in the form of higher taxes and interest rates.

The Obama Administration could have done something about the housing collapse. Instead Obama wasted all of his political capital on a failed effort to realize Ted Kennedy’s dying dream. Hung over from Obama’s bender Washington is locked in a hopeless stalemate, unable to pass even the simplest legislation.

So the vampire continues to drain the financial futures of struggling homeowners. The banks got what they needed, but homeowners are on their own. Washington’s favorite “solution,” refinancing into lower interest rates mortgages, will make it cheaper to feed the beast, but it won’t stop the bleeding or rescue the middle class from a generation of diminished horizons.

At least all of our health care problems have been solved.

Also check out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-ladd