May I present people, intelligent people that know how to think, these people also explain their thoughts and conclusions. They aren't star struck. They are also not afraid to express their opinions. They are also not afraid to call a spade a spade, a liberal a liberal, and a Marxist a Marxist.
First, may I present a young, handsome, African American Conservative:
You'll never see that on the drive-by media!
Here's one you did see on the liberal media, although not intentionally; and on CNN for that matter! Yet another African-American Conservative:
I believe he articulated his desires and issues quite eloquently and intelligently.
Perhaps, just perhaps, African-American Democrats may just want to study some history. Especially around the time of slavery and the civil war. A new political party was formed in support of freedom for all. It was once a "third party" that many of the Whig and older Federalist party defected to out of conservative solidarity. It was the party that got an unlikely candidate elected to be President of the United States. That party was the Republican Party and that President was Abraham Lincoln. The south mostly consisted of Democrat slave owners. The North, while also having Democrats, had a majority sympathetic to the new Republicans. Although those remaining in the Whig party didn't care if the south seceded or even had slaves, the Republicans grew tremendously quick.
Well, after the North won the Civil War, and President Lincoln ended slavery and of course new amendments made to the Constitution, the Democrats didn't like the idea. Some local southern Democrat offices helped to start and fund a new organization and movement designed to secretly, yet overtly make former slaves lives a living hell. This new organization was the Klu Klux Klan. True, it was not "officially" sanctioned by the national Democrat party, it was funded and endorsed by local chapters. The national party never denounced it either. It was essentially the militant wing of the Democrat party.
As history progressed and racism remained, it was always the Democrats in the various local and State governments resisting change (for the better) for African-Americans. In fact, those most resistant were always Democrats, including Governors!
As history progressed further, and the 1960's happened. The liberal "peace" movement was the perfect time for the Democrat party to be suddenly seen as "friends of the oppressed." It was pure genius. They, instead of fight the "former slaves" decided to instead buy off their loyalty. They offered and promised handouts, social programs and such as a means to "get even with whitey". The genius here is that instead of conventional slavery, they would instead enslave them financially and still keep their votes and loyalty. They would promise them that the USA did them wrong, so now the USA would support them by giving them what they "deserved". Programs like welfare, low income housing government projects and such were excellent means to gain a loyal enslavement. A free check from the government meant they wouldn't be asking for and competing for "white jobs". It also guaranteed poverty and a means to keep them somewhat angry.
The message of the Republicans, that anyone can succeed if they worked at it and tried hard was lost to the free handout.
The last conservative statement given by a Democrat was John F. Kennedy, and was apparently lost to deaf ears: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." That is a basic Republican and Conservative standard, yet spoken by a Democrat... how odd.
What's happened today? The Democrat party has managed to indoctrinate and and convince people to vote for a system that is a social system that has historically failed miserably time and time again, and resulted in the poverty and failure of cultures. They, through an African man, have managed to tell people to go to hell and at the same time made them look forward to the trip by sheer devotion.
Obama is a false messiah, an anti-Christ (that is the definition). There have been and will be many more, but he is one of the bigger ones. It is amazing that a group of people that have a long history of oppression by many nations and cultures, would embrace something and someone so against personal freedoms and liberties, that it can only be attributed to long term genius of deception and indoctrination.
Unfortunately, this time the enslaved people are chosing enslavement of their own free will because the guy looks like them and says he will give them free things.
Frankly, sometimes, in the very end, after all efforts to show you the truth are exhausted, you get what you deserve.
Incidentally, the only Presidents in the history of the USA that employed and entrusted African-Americans with cabinet, military, and advisory positions where Republican Presidents (Reagan, and both Bush's).
People of all races will vote Democrat, thinking that 60 years of failed social programs, just might work this time. According to recent studies of respected economists, the great depression dragged on ten times longer by FDR's socialist "New Deal" than if the market was allowed to recover on its own. The new socialist restrictions on a capitalist economic system actually limited the market's ability to recover. How Hoover failed was by doing nothing at all to combat serious issues with the economy, which were socialist restrictions and a lack of control of greed (yes you read that right). Even capitalism has its severely uncontrolled dark side called "Monopolism". If you take the "human" out of capitalism it becomes cold Monopolism quite quickly, and that's what happened with the great depression. Had Hoover put in controls on worker's rights and basic decency, I seriously doubt the depression would have been much to speak of and so-called workers unions would have been unnecessary.
Now to today's economy. Democrats try to blame it (along with everything else) on the Bush administration. I'm afraid not. It's socialist restrictions put on banks and the stock market, enforced by two bloated government insured bureaucracies allowed to run amok with their socialist rules and agenda which nearly ruined the banking system and thus the economy. All aspects traceable to the Jimmy Carter administration, Clinton administration, and the congressional oversight committees chaired by Barney Frank. Not allowing banks to refuse risky home loans was a major factor in this. The so-called "everyone is entitled to a home" was a socialist rule and a big problem for the economy to support forever. It's like chopping down the whole forest just to keep warm. That's how Democrats create "good economies" and how they leave it to a Republican to clean up the mess and take the blame when there's no more forest to burn.
Socialism cannot be maintained. When you steal from the rich, and give to the so-called poor, eventually the rich become poor or get to a point to where it isn't worth working 60 hours a week for only 30 hours worth of take-home pay (and employing 30 people) and know it's going to some bum that doesn't want to work (France anyone?). It's a fundamentally flawed system that will never ever work. Why bother? Just fire 25 of those workers and leave it at that.
What better way to control people! Have them all dependent on the government. Remember the Soviet bread lines, poor quality housing, bad public safety, no freedoms, etc? That is the kind of government that Obama wants. That's the kind of power he wants over you, because you are "too stupid" (or can't be trusted) to make your own decisions. He will take care of you, the government will know best. Remember, he's the "saving messiah".
Now, listen to this. Companies give people jobs. Many "rich" people own companies. Many invest in companies. These companies could not make their money without PEOPLE employed for their various tasks. The greater the employee's responsibi
lity and affect on profits their actions have, the larger their compensation is. Usually, this involves a lot of expensive schooling or years of experience. Not every rich person is born rich. In the USA, most are self-made rich. They got that way by having a great idea and working hard at it.
Now, if someone like Obama, wants to steal hard earned money from companies and those that achieved an income level by working hard and a long term personal and financial investment to get there, then they would have to get rid of those employees making them money, when that money that Obama takes from them could be paying employee's wages. Social taxation feeds high-unemployment. France (and now a lot of Europe), is an excellent example of this social burden. It's why none of them have growing economies.
The USA got to be as great and powerful as it is because of capitalism and enginuity AND the desire to sell a new idea. Take away the incentive and you take away the economy it's based on.
The only permanent poor in this country are living in Democrat run areas of this country (New Orleans anyone?). Using socialist welfare programs to just barely keep them alive. That money would be better spent teaching them a trade and giving them an incentive to work hard and thus improve their lives, instead of keeping them where they are, by a regularly given handout. A hand-up and must more useful and compassionate than a handout ever will be. Besides, doing so would leave more funds and more means to better support and take care of those that truly cannot take care of themselves like the severely physically and mentallty challenged.