I believe in American Exceptionalism. I believe that God has blessed this nation, above all others, with more Freedom and Liberty than any other place on the planet. I also believe that I am very, very lucky to have been born here and have been able to enjoy this Freedom and Liberty my entire life. Therefore, it does not surprise me one bit that people who live elsewhere want to come to America to enjoy those same things. The American People know this, so they have created laws and procedures for immigrants to follow to allow them to do just that. So far, so good.

The problem comes when people who want to immigrate to America ignore these laws and procedures, and decide that they have a right to be here and enjoy the benefits of citizenship without bothering to shoulder any of the responsibility. When I was growing up, people like this (people who shirk responsibility and live off of someone else’s work) were called bums. It didn’t matter where they came from or what they looked like; I called them bums because of the way they acted. Today, people are crossing the border into America and shirking their responsibility to follow the law to allow them to stay here. They also use a myriad of public services (medical, welfare, education) while mostly failing to contribute to the upkeep of these services. I call these people Illegal Aliens. Again, it doesn’t matter where they came from or what they look like; if they didn’t follow the law to get here, they are an Illegal Alien.

In the United States, the vast majority of Illegal Aliens enter from the country of Mexico, and the vast majority of the people who stay illegally are Mexican. This is not some conspiracy thought up by a group of old white guys who hate brown people, as the liberals would have you believe. Rather, this is the result of geographic location and economic opportunity. The Mexican government, for whatever reason, has never been able to offer its citizens an economy which would allow them to grow and prosper to the best of their ability. Good jobs are hard to come by, wages are low, and education is not a priority. The natural result of this is that the people who live there are looking for a better life for themselves and their families. Totally understandable by any rational mind.

Canada, on the other hand, has a much better, more robust economy and makes education a larger priority, therefore wages are much better than in Mexico. Canadian citizens are not, for the most part, in a position where they have to relocate to do better for their families. Therefore, the natural result is that absent a reason to leave, they tend to stay put. And that is all there is to it; it is a natural result that more Mexicans have crossed into the United States illegally because it is a natural result that more Mexicans are looking to come here. There is no conspiracy or racism involved here, again despite what the liberals will tell you.

Now, with regard to Illegal Aliens, if their first action upon entering this country is to break the law, why should we let them stay? Why should we allow them to consume medical, educational, and welfare services others have supported for free? The answer is, of course, we shouldn’t. The way to enforce this is to have people who are requesting one of these services prove they are here legally. If they can’t, except in a genuine medical emergency, they should be denied these services.

Another thing that has to go is Birthright Citizenship; the concept that if someone is born on US soil they are automatically an American citizen, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. Rather, citizenship for a new born should only be granted if one of the parents is already a citizen (natural or otherwise) at the time of the birth. “In the process” doesn’t count; you’ll need to apply for the new born’s citizenship after you have received yours. This of course will end the phenomenon of “Anchor Babies.”

Domestic changes would also have to be made to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Huge, huge financial and regulatory penalties must be assessed against those employers who continue to hire Illegal Aliens. The government needs to come up with a quick, low cost way for employers to check on the citizenship status of anyone who applies for a job. Would this mean some sort of National ID Card? Maybe, maybe not. Let loose the intellectual beast of the free market to create and design the best way to do this. I hear that smart people with incentive can do miracles.

Finally, if a so-called “Coyote” is caught, the penalty should be a federal felony with heavy fines and a long, mandatory jail sentence, after which comes deportation. Also, any assets used in the smuggling of Illegal Aliens across the border should be subject to seizure by the authorities.

Implementing these common sense measures will:

1. Prevent the closure of institutions which are being bankrupted by excessive misuse by Illegal Aliens.
2. Remove the incentive for Illegal Aliens to cross the border just to get citizenship for the baby, so they can mooch off of him/her.
3. Remove the number one reason Illegal Aliens cross the border in the first place: paid jobs.
4. Make it unprofitable to be in the people-smuggling business.
5. Go a long ways towards securing the Southern Border of our country.

As for the millions of Illegal Aliens already in the country, mass deportation is simply not an option. As much as I would like to simply send them all back to wherever they came from, it just isn’t feasible or possible. So what becomes of them?

Most of these Illegal Aliens will be caught during the enforcement of the new hiring regulations on employers. So, since it is likely that the company would keep the worker if the illegality were cleared up, these workers should be given a choice: Deportation or

1. Payment of a huge fine.
2. Must begin the citizenship process immediately, AT THE END OF THE LINE.
3. Must not commit any crimes during the citizenship process. If they do, they’re out.
4. Must file and pay all income taxes in full during the citizenship process. Failure equals deportation.
5. Must remain gainfully employed during the citizenship process.
6. Must take the final citizenship test in English.

Certainly, this is not a perfect solution, but it is a common sense solution. No doubt those on the left who live in fear of losing the Hispanic Vote in upcoming elections will call me a racist and accuse me of hating brown people. Oh, well. I’m not really concerned with them because they made up their minds a long time ago that anyone who doesn’t believe the way they do is automatically a racist and a hater. I could cure cancer, and they would blame me for killing an innocent biological entity. These people don’t think, so nothing I or anyone else says will matter to them.

Lastly, let’s mention the 800 pound gorilla in the room. I believe a vast majority of Hispanic American citizens are just as fed up with illegal immigration as everyone else. They work just as hard as anyone else to pay their taxes and support their families. Illegal immigration is screwing them just as bad as anyone else.

That’s right, S. 909 — aka, the “hate crimes bill” — being pushed through by the Obama Administration as one of its highest legislative priorities would make it a federal crime to commit a violent act against anyone based on race or gender orientation – unless the race was Caucasian and the orientation was towards the opposite sex.

Lest anyone have any doubts about Mr. Obama’s primary intention to target those who don’t share his pigmentation or gender orientation biases, the President’s own Attorney General journeyed to Capitol Hill on June 29 to set the record straight. Here, in fact, word for word, is how AG Eric Holder described the intent of the Obama hate crimes bill when put to the test by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

“We are talking about, if in fact the person, we are talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of their skin color, sexual orientation, that is what this legislation is designed to cover.”

You know, I’ve never understood these types of laws. If one person is murdered by another, and the murderer is caught, tried, convicted, and then sentenced to death, what else are you going to do? Use dirty needles if his crime was motivated by hate? Make the murderer eat really bad Chinese takeout for his last meal? I mean, death is death and you can’t really punish someone any more than that.

So, it looks like the Obama Administration wants certain victims of crime (i.e. “protected classes”) to be taken more seriously than others. That is, if you are a white, heterosexual Christian, your murder, in the eyes of the Obama Administration, is less horrific to society and is less of an offense against the law than a non-white, gender bending pagan.

Here’s another example of “justice” under this proposed bill:

For example, Mormons living in California who have been the targets of various criminal acts committed by gay extremists including vandalism, extortion, and verbal and physical attacks would not be victims of “hate crimes” per se, even though they were targeted by gay extremists solely because of their affiliation with the Mormon church.

So, even if a white person’s murder was motivated by hate, the bill won’t apply to his murderer. How’s that for equal protection under the law? Didn’t Obama claim that he was a Constitutional Law Professor? Man, do I feel sorry for anyone who he has “educated” regarding our Constitution. Then again, if you’re going to destroy something, it is probably easier to do if you know exactly what it is you’re destroying.

The damage this “man” is doing to our country, our way of life, our judicial system, and economy will take many decades to repair, if it can be repaired at all.

Ahh, but this is the left-coast. You just knew it wasn’t going to end there.

The Port of Seattle’s Holiday Decorations Advisory Committee (hereinafter “Dirtwads”) has decided that from now on, trees can be displayed at Christmas Time at the airport, but no specific religious decorations will be used to ensure that nobody gets offended.

Welcome to the port’s holiday forest.

There may be firs or hemlocks, spruces or pines at Sea-Tac Airport this holiday season, but there will not be a Christmas tree.

Not by definition, anyway.

Nor will menorahs or Buddhas be present.

So recommended the Port of Seattle’s Holiday Decorations Advisory Committee on Thursday.

“No specific religious symbols should be used,” recommended the committee, formed after the port was slammed internationally for yanking down — then reinstating — its airport’s nine Christmas trees last December.

In trying to craft holiday decorations that won’t offend or exclude anyone, the decorations committee — chaired by K + L Gates counsel Fredric Tausend — kept it neutral.

So, in an effort to cater to probably 0.0001% of the population, the Dirtwads have decided to offend the remaining 99.9999% of the population by removing Christmas decorations from the trees, and instead have a bunch of trees with no specific purpose or meaning displayed throughout the airport. Brilliant. Prevent offense by denying the existence of the holiday.

Port of Seattle Airport Division Managing Director Mark Reis said that just because a tree is permitted doesn’t mean it will be gussied up to look like Christmas.

“The very traditional single, iconic Christmas trees is not one of the areas we will be exploring,” Reis said. “There is the traditional, conical-shaped single tree — that the von Trapp family would have presents beneath and with balls and lights on it — versus something more natural and outdoors looking in a Northwest setting.”

I think these Dirtwads are afraid of Christmas Trees. I can’t really think of anything else to explain this. I thought the whole idea behind diversity, as preached by liberals, was to be tolerant of other people’s beliefs. How does removing Christmas Trees from public display show tolerance? If anything, it shows intolerance of other religious beliefs.

Here’s an idea: instead of removing the Christmas Trees, what if the Dirtwads allowed the Jewish community to decorate their own display at the airport? Why is that so hard?

But rather than risk having multiple religions make requests for inclusion, the committee decided to aim for expressing the overarching principals — the “universal values” — at the heart of the religions whose holidays anchor the season.

Why is including more than one religion a risk? Isn’t having more than one religion practically the definition of diversity? Why dilute the meaning of the holiday to the point of no meaning at all?

So, instead of Christmas Trees next Christmas Season, folks at the Seattle airport will be treated to a “peace and harmony” fir tree, if in fact, they will allow a fir tree to be placed in the display at all.

How does any of this make sense?

It doesn’t! As usual, the liberals of the Northwest have taken a perfectly harmless tradition and loaded it down with so much crap that the only thing they can do is something incredibly stupid.

These people are in control of Congress. Think about that tonight when you go to bed.

HAT TIP: Michelle Malkin

Oakland city officials today announced two new resolutions condemning recent federal immigration raids and formalizing the city’s intention not to cooperate with the U.S. government effort to deport undocumented residents.

The resolutions, one by Mayor Ron Dellums and the other by Council President Ignacio De La Fuente, both condemn the recent raids, which included one on Friday at an East Oakland manufacturer.

Both resolutions are also an effort to update Oakland’s 1986 “City of Refuge” ordinance which only applies to refugees fleeing political violence in Haiti, El Salvador, Nicaragua and South Africa, De La Fuente said. His proposed ordinance would give refuge to any undocumented immigrant regardless of national origin.

The council president, Dellums, Police Chief Wayne Tucker, City Councilwomen Jean Quan and Jane Brunner, and other city officials appeared at a City Hall news conference to support both resolutions.

The measure by De La Fuente and co-sponsors Quan and Brunner would direct city departments and staff not to cooperate with any federal immigration investigation, detention, or arrest procedures. They will introduce the measure Thursday to the City Council Rules Committee, De La Fuente said.

This means that Oakland is joining cities such as San Francisco, Virginia Beach, and others in allowing illegal aliens to come to their town, settle in, get a job, and suck up all the welfare benefits, education benefits, and free medical care they can.

Here’s an idea: If these cities really want to pay for all of the welfare benefits, education benefits, and medical care these illegal aliens are going to use, the Federal Government should let them. That is to say, the Federal Government should immediately stop any federal funds which are being sent to these cities for such services and let the local taxpayers foot the bill. As a taxpayer who lives in Texas, there is no reason I should have to pay for education, medical care and welfare for illegal aliens in California, so stop using federal money in these cities to pay for these things.

The wack-jobs in these so-called “sanctuary cities” are awfully loose with other people’s money; let’s see how loose they are with their own money.

I am writing to you once again regarding the language used in today’s society when referring to black people. Recently, Don Imus called the members of the Rutgers womens’ basketball team “nappy-headed hos.” As was richly deserved, he was roundly pummeled by anyone who could find a microphone and television camera, and eventually fired by both MSNBC and CBS. It is more than obvious that what he said was, at the very least, horribly inappropriate and at most, downright racist, and he should have been fired. This letter is not, in any way, shape, or form, an attempt to justify or defend what he said.

What this letter is attempting to do is to find out when the hypocrisy with regard to the language used to refer to black people is going to end.

Rapper Snoop Dog, aka Calvin Broadus, Jr. had this to say:

“It’s a completely different scenario,” said Snoop, barking over the phone from a hotel room in L.A. “[Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We’re talking about ho’s that’s in the ‘hood that ain’t doing sh–, that’s trying to get a n—a for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain’t no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC [the cable network home to Imus] going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mutha—–as say we in the same league as him.”

As pointed out by Newsbusters and Michelle Malkin, apparently its alright for black people to call other black people these names because it “comes from their soul.” However, if a white person calls a black person one of these names, its evil and racist and that white person must be severly punished. Can you see the double-standard here?

If you read the Malkin post linked to above, you’ll see just a small sample of the language used to refer to women by chart-topping black hip-hop artists. Most of it is even more disgusting than what Imus said. Yet, these artists are celebrated throughout the black community. They sell millions and millions of CDs just filled with this language, yet no one in the black community (with the exception of Bill Cosby) speaks out against it. No one gets upset when Snoop Dog or any other rapper calls black women “hos.”

Next, consider that these hip-hop artists’ music has been crossing over to a large, white audience for the past several years. These whites blast that stuff out of their radios in their cars and in their homes. They play this stuff at their parties and at their clubs and on their iPods. So, for the past several years these whites have been hearing black artists refer to black women as “hos” and not hearing one bad word about it from the black community. Is it really so surprising that these whites would then start to refer to black women, or women in general, in the same fashion?

Recently, in answering the statements made by Imus, coach C. Vivian Stringer said this:

“It’s not about them (players) as black or nappy headed. It’s about us as a people,” Stringer said. “When there is not equality for all, or when there has been denied equality for one, there has been denied equality for all.”

Equality? Equality?

How can there be equality if the same words spoken by two people have a different meaning just because of the color of their skin? Equality would be this group of women getting just as disgusted and upset about these remarks if they had been spoken by Snoop Dog. Equality would be the black community getting outraged each and every time some black rapper drops yet another “N-Bomb” in their lyrics.

There is no equality between the races with regards to language. Apparently, blacks can say whatever they want without fear of reprisal, while whites must now consider each and every syllable spoken for any hint of racial content.

So, now comes the request I want to make. You can’t have it both ways; either calling black women “hos” is ugly and disgusting or it isn’t. It doesn’t matter what color the speaker is, it means the same thing. So, I want the black community to make a choice:

1. Declare that the use of this type of language is hurtful, disgusting, and unacceptable regardless of who is using it; or
2. Declare that the black community is, in fact, not equal to the white community because the black community is not willing to be accountable for the racial stereotypes they themselves perpetrate through hip-hop music.

Pretty simple, isn’t it? Equality means more than getting the same jobs and getting paid the same money; it means handling the same responsibilities. In society you are held accountable for your actions, and if you are asking to not be held accountable then you must admit that you are not equal. If you are willing to be accountable for your actions and words, then you are truly equal and you belong with the rest of us.

Nick

Previous: An Open Letter to Black America

A state lawmaker angrily lashed out at a legislative committee this morning after it rejected her request to hang a portrait of Coretta Scott King in the state Capitol, saying the committee’s action was comparable to calling King an N-word.

Rep. Roberta Abdul-Salaam (D-Riverdale) also asserted that the House Special Rules Committee’s action was worse than radio shock jock Don Imus calling the Rutgers University women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos.”

“It is just like calling Mrs. King a nappy-headed (N-word),” Abdul-Salaam told reporters after the committee rejected House Resolution 376, killing it for this legislative session.

“There is already talk about boycotting in this country. We just need to really expand it to Georgia, if necessary,” she said. “It is absolutely time to realize that you cannot continue to conduct yourselves in such a manner and think that there will be no repercussions.”

This situation is the text book definition of the “Victim Mentality.” Some people will use every single thing that doesn’t go their way as proof of racism and victim hood, and it is just as sickening as true racism. Why? Because each time this happens, it diminishes the damage caused and outrage at true racism. True racism should always be abhorrent to people, and should always generate tremendous outrage. However, when people continually make huge media blow-ups over situations like this, and scream “racism!” at the top of their lungs to every newspaper and television reporter they can find, it desensitizes people to the point where they almost ignore racist acts entirely.

As an aside, I have no idea what this lady is talking about when she says that there “is already talk about boycotting in this country.” Did I miss something? Is there some group of people planning some type of nation-wide boycott of someone or something?

You’ll notice that Ms. Pelosi is wearing a traditional headscarf — for women a symbol of submission to the men in their culture who barely let them survive, let alone vote or walk on the street unaccompanied. However, if you think about it, this symbolism is exactly right for the American Left at the moment. Months and months of debate over what to do in Iraq have shown the American people that the liberals in America want to do nothing more than submit to the demands of the terrorists and remove the American military from the Middle East. The only real difference between the women of this culture and the liberals is that most of the women resent having to be submissive while the liberals look for any opportunity to submit to our enemies.

In an interview with ABC News, Cheney said Assad has “been isolated and cut off because of his bad behavior and the unfortunate thing about the speaker’s visit is it sort of breaks down that barrier.”

“It means without him having done any of those things he should do in order to be acceptable, if you will, from an international standpoint, he gets a visit from a high-ranking American anyway,” Cheney said.

Pelosi’s spokesman Nadeam Elshami responded to Cheney by saying Pelosi pressed Assad on issues of concern.

In my opinion, her actions show how little Ms. Pelosi knows about international diplomacy and dealing with foreign governments who are hostile towards the US. It also shows how little she cares about what is best for America and how much she cares about making the Bush Administration look bad. It must be a deep seated hatred of President Bush which allows her to be paraded around in a dog and pony show through the Middle East.

The politics of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress: bad for America, and a guarantee of future humiliation and destruction for the American people.

The new study found that temperature rises had a significant impact on the number of pre-schoolers presenting to emergency departments for fever and gastroenteritis.

The two-year study at a major children’s hospital showed that for every five-degree rise in temperature two more children under six years old were admitted with fever to that hospital.

The University of Sydney research is the first to make a solid link between climate changes and childhood illness.

Okay, now look at how this all progresses:

• Two-year study done at one hospital;
• Study uses only pre-school children;
• The only admissions used were for fever or gastroenteritis;
• Therefore a solid link now exists between Global Warming and childhood illness.

You see the stretch they’re making? I never took any kind of statistics class in college, but even I know that this is a very flawed conclusion they have come up with here. If you read a little further, you begin to see how this “study” came up with its conclusions:

The study, published in the International Journal of Environmental Health Research, analysed several different climate factors, including UV index, rainfall and humidity, collected from the Bureau of Meteorology in 2001 and 2002.

The International Journal of Environmental Health Research is a part of the International Federation of Environmental Health which made this policy statement in June of 2006:

There is now widespread agreement amongst climate scientists that the earth is warming. It is well-known that human activity such as burning fossil fuels causes emission of CO2 and other gasses to the atmosphere. Other gasses such as Chlorofluorocarbons (mainly caused by industrial activities), Methane CH4 (mainly caused by natural bacterial activity in wetlands, including rice fields, and by burning biomass) and N2O (mainly caused by burning fossil fuels) are even more potent in terms of climate change, compared to CO2.

In other words, they’re already on the Global Warming Bandwagon. Do you realize how easy it is to do a research study when you start with the results in hand?

If you read to the end of the article, you get to this nugget of information:

He said it was still unclear whether the heat directly triggered the illnesses or whether other heat-related problems, like pollution, were responsible.

So, at the end of this study, they don’t know definitively what caused the kids’ fevers, but they do know that it is because of Global Warming. This is what happens when science and scientists settle for consensus rather than definitive fact. True science is based upon verifiable facts derived from the results of repeated and repeatable experiments. These people who claim Global Warming is a world crisis make this statement based upon “widespread agreement” among scientists who are just as biased as the rest of us.

It is well known that many climatologists do not believe that Global Warming is a looming crisis, but rather that the Earth’s climate is going through a natural warming/cooling cycle which has been happening for years. So, since the environmental wackos could not convince everyone to tow the “we’re doomed” line, they now say that they know Global Warming is a crisis because there is “widespread agreement.” They don’t base their position on facts, they just base it on the fact that some climatologists agree that there is a problem.

I think that before you cripple the economy of the greatest country on the planet, you’d better have a lot more that a consensus of a group of like-minded climatologists.

Recently, President Bush was asked to compare Senator Barack Obama to other people who had run for, and been elected, President. In his remarks, the President described Mr. Obama as “articulate.” Apparently, the definition of the word “articulate” has changed since I was in school some twenty-five years ago, because Democrats are squealing like stuck pigs about condescension. Excuse me? According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the word articulate means: Expressing oneself easily in clear and effective language: an articulate speaker. Sounds like a compliment to me.

However, after watching two black women on Fox News this evening, it appears that I have it all wrong. According to these two women, the word articulate, when applied by a white person to a black person, is a code word used to signal condescension and ridicule.

As a middle-aged conservative white man, I am confused. It appears that no matter how careful I am when I try to compliment a black person, what I am really doing is ridiculing and insulting them. Democrats, apparently, believe that conservative whites will never think black people are worthy of praise, and I’m not really seeing any blacks come out and tell them that they are wrong.

Therefore, I would appreciate it if Black America would please pool their collective talents and intellects and publish a book which tells White America exactly what we are allowed to say when we wish to compliment a black person without suffering the wrath of the Democrats and Black America. I work with Blacks who frequently perform brilliantly, and the last thing I want to do is to complement them, only to find out later that I was really insulting them.

It would be nice if you could make this book available as quickly as possible, otherwise the only alternative White America will have is to not say anything at all to Black America. Unfortunately, political correctness has gone amok, and it appears that silence is the only safe way to proceed.

Thanks for reading (no, this isn’t code that really means I’m surprised that you can read).

Nick

As a white liberal running in a majority African American district, Tennessee Democrat Stephen I. Cohen made a novel pledge on the campaign trail last year: If elected, he would seek to become the first white member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Now that he’s a freshman in Congress, Cohen has changed his plans. He said he has dropped his bid after several current and former caucus members made it clear to him that whites need not apply.

“I think they’re real happy I’m not going to join,” said Cohen, who succeeded Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., in the Memphis district. “It’s their caucus and they do things their way. You don’t force your way in. You need to be invited.”

Cohen said he became convinced that joining the caucus would be “a social faux pas” after seeing news reports that former Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, had circulated a memo telling members it was “critical” that the group remain “exclusively African-American.”

Other members, including the new chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., and Clay’s son, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., agreed.

“Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. … It’s time to move on,” the younger Clay said. “It’s an unwritten rule. It’s understood. It’s clear.”

The bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, a House aide said, but no non-black member has ever joined.

Of course, you won’t hear the ACLU protest and threaten to file lawsuits over this like they would if it was whites preventing blacks from joining some group. The reason you won’t see the ACLU sticking its nose into this is because the CBC membership is 100% Democrat. Seeing as how the Democrats and the ACLU work together on almost everything, there’s absolutely no danger of any ACLU legal actions here, despite the clear case of discrimination by the members of the group.

What’s that you say? It’s the Congressional Black Caucus, so naturally it would only contain black members? Well, what about the Boy Scouts? Isn’t that obviously a group for young males? The ACLU didn’t think so when it filed lawsuits of all sorts against the Scouts for not allowing girls in. What’s difference between the two groups? The fact is, the CBC is a liberal organization consisting of black lawmakers who, due to political correctness gone awry, are allowed to do as they wish. The Scouts, on the other hand, are a quasi-Christian organization which teaches conservative values and therefore is regarded as evil by the ACLU.

Now, you’ll notice that the anti-white sentiment shared by all of the CBC membership is not codified in the bylaws; rather it is adhered to as an “unwritten rule.” This is, no doubt, so that the CBC membership can claim to be for diversity and multi-culturalism, while all the time practicing discrimination and maintaining a membership which is anything but diverse.

Also, it should be no surprise that some of the most outspoken players of the race card are members in good standing of the CBC. People like Charles Rangel, Alcee Hastings, Jessie Jackson, Jr., Sheila Jackson Lee, and Cynthia McKinney never miss a chance to stand in front of a television camera and scream about discrimination.

Just remember: Democrats believe that their recently acquired majority in the Congress is a sign of a “New Direction for America.” If judged by their actions and not by their words, it seems that the Democrats are taking the country back to the early 1700′s.