Readers, can I talk to you for a moment?

IT'S ELECTION TIME!!! Vote!

Now I know that Big Homie Obama is not on the ticket so you will most likely be voting for some random white person this election year, but PLEASE, can you PLEASE vote on November 2nd?

We voted President Obama in office, and no matter what you think about him and his policies, he is definitely better than whatever the Republicans (aka Sarah Dum Dum and Old Man McCain) could have ever done. Yeah, he passed legislation that has put my job in danger (I work for a student loan company), and has possibly raised my taxes but hey, it could be worst. I mean considering the state of severe emergency we were in when Republicans were in control, I'd venture to say that Big Homie isn't doing such a bad job. And, if you happen to not vote on November 2nd, you would be wasting the golden vote that you cast back in 2008. For those who do not know, this is how the good ole' American democratic system works---

President Obama (Big Homie) is nothing more than the face of our nation. He doesn't really make decisions. In short, he has a crew of Lil' Homies who come together and vote – and majority vote wins. Once the voting is finalized, the winning vote gets a nice sign off by Big Homie. Since many of us voted Big Homie into office, we obviously liked his plans for our nation. So with any luck, the things that he signs off on are in his (and our) favor. HOWEVER, the only way things can be in our favor is if the Lil' Homies are on the same team as Big Homie. Otherwise, Big Homie would have a whole crew of Lil' Homies who vote against everything that he has worked so hard to build thus far.  Unfortunately, if a majority of the Lil' Homies vote on something that is against Big Homie (and us) he still has to sign off on it. That's the nature of a Democracy.  Come November 2^nd, we need to vote for those who are on Big Homie's team so that his platform can remain and change can continue.

In all honesty, I do not agree with all of the decisions made by Big Homie and his peoples. However, there are many things with which I do agree and I know that with good, comes bad. For example, I agree with most of Big Homie's healthcare reform. I think it was a good idea and should be put in motion. At the same time, I don't feel like the thousands of people who work for student loan companies should be in danger of unemployment because of some little clause in the healthcare bill that took federal student loan lending from private lenders. But see, with the good (healthcare reform) came the bad (unemployment). In some ways it's a catch 22….but if I'm catching some 22's I'ma want it to be on the side of Big Homie.

So what are you doing on November 2^nd? Voting? Yeah, I thought so….

Read More →

Haley Barbour, you are truly a funny man.

Mr. Barbour, current governor of Mississippi and possibly one of the most prominent faces of the Republican Party at the moment, seems to think that he and his generation, (specifically including those of the Republican Party) were the main proponents of racial integration during the Civil Rights era. According to Governor Barbour, he attended integrated schools as a young Mississippian as well as an integrated university as a matriculating college student. It was he (and his generation) who made American racial integration the success that it is now (if you even want to call it a 'success'). And for the record, he says it was the "old Democrats" who fought so hard for racial segregation in America, not the GOP.

Read More →

After reading this article, NO ONE can convince me that our nation's recent obsession with race is not a conspiracy. This is all just so ridiculous….

If you click the link above you will see an article entitled Sherrod Story False, which, aside from being slightly well-written, is pure garbage. The author of this trash is Jeff Lord, a former political director for the Reagan White House. It is almost unbelievable that this man, having been in the position that he was once in, could write such absurdity.

If you don't feel like reading Lord's article in full (which I highly suggest you do) I will give you a brief rundown of what it says:

In general, Lord is accusing Shirley Sherrod of lying during her March 2009 NAACP speech. In her speech, Sherrod speaks about a family member, Bobby Hall, who she states was lynched by white sheriff Claude Screws, sometime in the 1940s. Sherrod states that despite the fact that Screws murdered Hall, he was never convicted of murder by his all white jury; he was instead convicted of violating Hall's civil rights. This story, as told by Sherrod, is one of a black man's lynching at the hands of a white sheriff. This story, as explained by Lord, is completely untrue.

According to Lord's research, Bobby Hall was not lynched by Claude Screws---he was BEATEN TO DEATH by Screws and two other unnamed men. Lord's research revealed that Screws was never charged with the lynching of Hall because he never actually hung Hall; he only beat him to an untimely death.

Lord continues his article accusing Sherrod of knowing that Hall was never "lynched" and he further accuses her of embellishing her story for effect sake. He compares her "untrue" story to that of Breitbart posting the edited video of her speech on his blog and FOXNEWS' subsequent posting of that video on their website. As it seems, the purpose of this article is to discredit Sherrod because of course, you can't blame people like Breitbart or FOXNEWS for their misrepresentations of Sherrod if you don't hold Sherrod accountable for her lies.

Well, I guess it would be understandable to check Sherrod just as we have done Breitbart and FOXNEWS, if she deliberately perpetrated a lie as the truth. But she didn't. And how do I know this? Well….

Since  Lord decided to do all of that completely irrelevant research (because the point of the matter was that Bobby Hall was murdered and his white murder was never adequately charged), I decided to do some research of my own. I took it upon myself to go to a dictionary and look up the word lynch to see just how untrue Sherrod's story is. And guess what I found? I found that Sherrod's story actually is true. How about that?

 According to MerriamWebster.com, lynch (v) is defined as:

                To put to death (as by hanging) by a mob action without legal sanction

In addition, according to Dictionary.com, lynch (v) is defined as:

To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offence or as a act of bigotry

I find it VERY interesting that, while 'hanging' is defined as one example of lynching, neither of the given definitions  indicates that as the only form of lynching. Each definition specifies that to lynch is an action of punishment or murder that is committed without legal authority. Interestingly enough, Sherrod's story was that of a black man who was murdered by a white man without legal sanction or retribution, which is the exact definition of lynch.

So, all of the research conducted by Lord is worthless because he never took the time to simply define the word lynch. Had Lord looked in a dictionary before sifting through court cases and whatnot, he could have saved himself a lot of time and a large portion of his dignity. Sometimes it's the simple things that we forget…or rather purposely neglect to mention…..

I'm just saying.

Mz.Jonezy

Read More →

The sudden attack on black 'reverse racism' and black bigotry fails to end where Geraldo Rivera left off (check this link for more on that).

Shirley Sherrod, a black USDA official has resigned from her position at the request of USDA deputy secretary Tom Vilsack, after it was discovered that Sherrod neglected to fully assist a white man who was in danger of losing his farm---nearly 24 years ago.

Read More →

After an unresolved debate over whether the NAACP is still relevant since the election of President Barack Obama, the organization has been working hard to prove to America that they are still worth our attention.

Most recently, the NAACP has issued a resolution to denounce the “racist” actions of the tea party movement; actions that they say have overwhelmingly been directed toward President Barack Obama. The tea party has fought back declaring that they are not racist and will not stand for the NAACP’s degradation.

If the NAACP feels that an attack on a group of people’s alleged personal feelings toward the President of the United States or black people in general is going to reassert their relevancy in this country, they are wrong. Whether or not the tea party is a group of racist mongrels is irrelevant when it comes to efforts of the NAACP. A group who was part of the fight for voting rights, equal job opportunities for all Americans, equality in our nation’s schools, etc., should not be concerned with the personal feelings of a small few. While the tea party has gained much coverage in recent news, they have yet to reach a level worthy of the NAACP’s efforts—at least not efforts that will result in little more than just words on paper. Unfortunately, passing a “resolution” relating to the alleged racist actions of  the tea party is much like passing a resolution condemning the actions of Red-Neck Johnny from Cheraw, South Carolina because he told his grandson that he doesn’t like Mexicans. It’s pointless.

However, perhaps the NAACP’s planned conversation with BP Representatives about the supposed lack of clean-up jobs offered to minorities will be a success. Who knows…

Read More →

Less that 24 hours after the monumental passing of the health care bill*, Al Sharpton's unclear statement about about socialism has become big news across the internet. Earlier today, Sharpton was on Geraldo Rivera's show speaking about President Obama and the health care bill. Unfortunately, I was unable to see the show when it aired and I am so disappointed that all of the internet clips of the show are no more than 30 seconds long. Either way, I listened carefully to what Sharpton said and from what I can tell, he DID NOT say that that we all voted for socialism when voting for Barack Obama. This is how I interpreted it-

Sharpton was speaking. Rivera interrupted with some comment about socialism. It sounded like he said "So what are you to socialism?" Sharpton responded by saying "Well first of all, then we would have to say that the American public overwhelming voted for socialism when they elected President Obama."

Now, had Sharpton's statement been said alone and not as a response to Rivera's comment, I would be in just as much shock as everyone else. But it seems that in this situation Sharpton is basically saying:

 if you or anyone else thinks that President Obama and his ideas are all about socialism, then you are saying that the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism. Now do you want to say that the American public voted for socialism? Are you saying that America wants to be a socialist country? Is that what you are saying Rivera? Because that's what it sounds like if you are attributing socialism to President Obama.

There is major difference between my interpretation and what is currently circulating around the internet. Maybe if all of these news clips were longer than 30 seconds, we would be able to fully comprehend what Sharpton was saying. For some reason, I think that they have released only 20-30 seconds of the clip on purpose. If we can't hear the whole thing then we can't make an informed opinion.

By the way, FOXNEWS is loving this. A chance to make Obama and Sharpton look like fools? Even if the true meaning of what was said is completely twisted and wrong? Yes!!! One point for team FOXNEWS.*

*At some point I plan to actually write about the health care bill...

**I am really hating FOXNEWS right now. Do not be surprised if I find a way to discredit their ridiculous news reporting on every blog that I write from now on. They make me sick...

Read More →

I was a bit torn between topics to write about today. I wanted to discuss the Texan Board of Education's decision to alter American History in their history books, but I will save that for another day. I am still fuming over their blatant disrespect for Latino/Hispanic and African American history and I did not want to write while angry (that's almost as bad as DWD, driving while drunk). I also wanted to write about the heath care bill. That too will have to wait for another day. Instead, I decided to write about the outlandish ridiculousness that occurred on FOXNEWS the other night between President Obama and Brett Bair.

I think that if you walk into a lion's den, you should be prepared to get bitten. President Obama, consider yourself bitten, chewed up, and spit out (but still alive). This is about the only way that I can describe the March 17th exchange between President Obama and FOXNEWS' Brett Bair. Their interview, which focused on the new health care bill, was nothing more than Democratic/Republican, right-wing/left wing gibberish. President Obama had a point to make and Brett Bair had questions to ask. So, in typical political form, President Obama refused to clearly answer Bair's questions and Bair refused to listen to the points that President Obama was trying to make. So, in the end, it turned out to be a back and forth exchange of disorder. I can admit though, it wasn't as bad as that tomfoolery between Al Sharpton and Tavis Smiley a couple weeks ago. At least I can say that.

During the interview, Bair asked President Obama questions such as what was "in" and what was "out" of the new health care bill, sighting large sums of money that is alleged to be directed toward certain states that may or may not need the excessive funds. As do all presidents, President Obama refused to directly answer such a question and decided instead to take a more diplomatic route by explaining his position rather than satisfying Bair with a clear answer. In my opinion, as an experienced reporter, Bair should have known that his clear cut questions were not going to receive clear cut answers from the President of the United States. Presidents don't answer questions, they explain their platform. The most clear and concise thing that I have ever heard President Obama say was that Kanye West was a "jackass". Remember that? (I'm just kidding…).

Instead of understanding and accepting this, Bair continued to press President Obama to give answers that the President was just not going to give. I understand that you want an answer Bair, but if the man ain't giving it, he ain't giving it. What bothered me the most about the whole interview was the exact same thing that seemed to bother everyone else as well- Bair was extremely disrespectful and rude while trying to force an answer out of the President. Bair cut Mr. President off more times than I could count and made left-wing ideas and concepts seem like the general consensus of the whole country. But that's FOXNEWS for ya, so what else could I expect?

Bair explained that FOXNEWS had received about 18,000 letters from viewers who had questions about the health care bill. Out of those 18,000 letters, Bair mysteriously noted only those that questioned the validity and purpose of the bill, not those that seemed to be in favor of the bill. Now, if FOXNEWS did indeed receive 18,000 letters about this whole health care situation, I am sure that they were not all against or in question of the health care bill. But in FOXNEWS style, Bair (or his producers) choose only those letters that would make President Obama's health care reform idea seem like the beginning of the end for America and its citizens. In the end, I think President Obama held his own, stuck to his guns, and reminded me of why I voted for him back in November 2008. As I always say, he might not be the best at what he does but at least he's trying…

So, into the lions den went the President and, lucky, for him, he came out alive…

Read More →