By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

In a parade in Germany recently, the worldwide audience was treated to effigies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, where Obama was biting the New York senator on, shall we say, her derriere.

Case in Point: The capricious statement by someone in the Clinton camp that white people support her was altogether unnecessary and far more revealing than intended. Equally uncalled for was a parry from Obama’s camp, that Obama gained more than 90% of the black vote in the Indiana Primary.

It is Barack Obama who has enslaved himself to the party that never had his best interests at heart. The elitism displayed by Senator Obama before a group of wealthy San Francisco donors begs the question, is he really an elitist, or a wannabe? Neither is desirable for national leadership.

Recently, in an exchange between Donna (party of the white boys) Brazile and influential Democratic consultant, Paul Begala, Mr. Begala stated that “…the only way to win this in my party (we’re not the monochromatic Republican Party)…is to stitch together white folks, and African-Americans and Latinos and Asians....” 

Was Mr. Begala suggesting that a stitch in time saves nine black votes? And wasn’t it the party of the Thought Police that initially created this horrid division between Americans in the first place when they insisted on thrusting a hyphen (-) between our past and our present?

No longer are we simply and proudly Americans; we are hyphenated racial designations.

But we digress.

For both candidates’ representatives to make such statements reveals they have a Toulouse Lautrec outlook of the intelligence of the American voters. Each camp has sunk to a “coloring” contest: Whose black or white voter count is bigger?

Black Democrats, whether inside or outside the political bullring (and we do mean bull), do not take into account that the majority of modern-day defining moments for black American men and women were the result of the numerous appointments to high office made by George W. Bush. But the response by Democrats to those appointments was, and continues to be, mean-spirited and a slur to those Americans, as well as to our blind-to-color President.

Dr. Condoleeza Rice, the most powerful female in the political arena today, has been smeared a servile black Aunt Jemima.

Also, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer referred to former Maryland Attorney General Michael Steele as slavishly supporting the Republican Party. And lest anyone forget, has-been celebrity Harry Belafonte called General, and then Secretary of State, Colin Powell George Bush’s house slave.  

Democrats’ defense of their own bigotry has been open-ended and shameless. At the same time, the liberal mainstream media have aided them by diverting attention away from their chauvinism with hyped propaganda against the Republican Party. This collusion has been going on for no less than three decades, and with such intensity that black children and young black adults, then and today, accepted these cants as truth and fact.

This narrow-mindedness has grown out of control from grade school all the way up to university. It has been aided through persistent inculcation by liberal pedagogues teaching that Democrats are the party of the disadvantaged. Children have been fed falsehoods for so long they only see hopelessness in their future. This surely has contributed to the unstoppable rise in the number of high school drop-outs.

Young persons’ sense of pride through achievement has been shifted and stifled so that their heroes are rap artists and athletes aided by the liberal media heaping praise on them with kudos and awards. This is what they now aspire to become.

Conversely, we watch silently while many young black Americans, as well as ill-informed young white liberals, sing the praises of black heroes such as Booker T. Washington, Harriet Tubman, and George Washington Carver, either not realizing or acknowledging that they were Republicans.

Now would be a good moment to remind Michelle Obama that it was a Republican woman, Ida B. Wells, who helped found the National Association of Colored Women, and who worked with her white Republican counterparts to establish the NAACP in 1909. Mrs. Obama should be further reminded that it was Democrats that blocked the Welfare Reform Bill which has since served to reduce the welfare rolls by 60 percent next time she goes on an empathetic tirade about her working class roots.

Were all Republicans steadfast and uncompromising with respect to civil rights? The short answer is no. There are bad apples in every cart, barrel, and Congressional district. It is the job of the People to root them out and cast them aside with the power of our vote. The foundation and ideals of true Republicanism has never changed; it has been misrepresented to suit the agenda of the left.

We bring these points up now – again – because it is time black Americans (specifically those who make an effort to vote their conscience, who care about the future of their children and the country where we all live in uninterrupted freedom) to take a very long hard look at the Democratic party they have chosen to be associated with for the last 30+ years.

The father of Black History, Carter G. Woodson, said, “Switch parties if you are not being represented.”

by Tanya Simon

The old saying “Give a man enough rope and he’ll hang himself” has been proven to Barack Hussein Obama. Someone should have warned him to plaster those words in every room of his and Michelle’s mansion, because a political noose awaits anyone who makes a bid for President of the United States.

Over the decades, the length of this rope-a-dope has varied – its measurement depending upon the candidate’s emotional stability (or instability), practical knowledge and know-how. No contender escapes its grip, and none are immune to the burns they cause, because they’re cabled with the same callous tension: blatant criticism from the opposition, party dissension, the digging up of dark secrets and mischief, unscrupulous media hounds, and self-inflicted wounds – to name a few.

It has been just so for Obama, and more so. From the start, this tadpole imagined himself more than a presidential contender; he presented himself as the prince of the people – and princes expect to be coddled and crowned.

Obama seemed to forget that America is not a monarchy, and monarchies are forbidden under the laws of the Republic on which we stand. He was surprised when his regal attitude became an immediate target for core conservatives and straight-thinking democrats to take aim at.

No one was surprised when those marksmen were accused of being whacked-out hate mongers. But that, like the sun rising every morning, was to be expected.

What the accusers never considered is the one unbendable requirement for the office of the President: hardcore qualifications.

Neither Obama nor his hangers-on expected that qualifications would be part of his equation. He prances on with the stilted belief that his over-hyped popularity and his long-winded hyperbole will give him a miss on this condition.

Obama survived most of the muggings thanks to the liberal MSM’s return fire of frayed rhetoric to confuse viewers, listeners, critics, and primary voters. There were also the swarms of his disciples who threw their reputations in his path to take the bullet. That worked for a while. But despite his trainloads of luck, Obama’s support and luck are petering out.

Closer scrutiny of B. Hussein Obama has now revealed the following:

- His leadership skills and experience are deficient.

- His credibility is anemic.

- His lemonade-stand approach to national defense and security, on Iran, on the war on terror in general, on the state of the economy, and on holding down taxes, etc., etc., is a shaggy dog.

The so-called inspiration for his list of dreamy changes has shrunk due to his contradictory statements and failure in being forthcoming about his personal history with a lunatic posing as a pastor.

Following that “pastor’s” initial attacks on America, Obama’s rationalization and justification of that man’s immoralities produced ripples and then waves of doubt and mistrust over his eligibility for the White House.

The final blow came in April. The pastor reemerged and appeared at the National Press Club during which he continued to profane this country. With that, the curtain is ringing down on Obama’s act.

The ground where the senator from Illinois stands was always too unstable for him to take a run at the Presidency. He proved it with his response of being both outraged and saddened after the pastor’s Press Club appearance. (In reality, you can be livid or sad, not both simultaneously – unless you’re one “slick Willie.”)

Obama made the run anyway, which is his right. To everyone’s amazement he boosted himself to center-stage but with silky speechifying. His rallies boggled the mind. They remind me of Verdi operas: an eye and ear-full, energetic, colorful – but still only opera.

Luck and being a talented conversationalist has brought him this far. But luck and storytelling is short-lived. An important point is no degree of earnestness on Obama’s part has convinced conservatives and far-sighted democrats that he can ever make credible the changes he proposes, though some of those slogans might actually look nice on a throw pillow.

As for the political noose: It’s not being yanked on by anyone across the Senate aisle, or by any of those “nasty” conservative talk radio pundits, or even by the Clinton camp. The person with one hand on the political noose and the other on the trapdoor mechanism is none other than a hangman in the prince’s royal retinue:

Obama’s own “prime minister,” Jeremiah Wright.