Poll shows most ethnic voters support ban on same sex marriage & Democrats believe that voters, not the legislature should decide…

In 2000 California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22, which declared that “only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in the state of California”. And an interesting side story was the fact that ethnic voters were amongst the measure’s most ardent supporters with 65% of Hispanics, 62% of Blacks and 57% of Asians voting to protect marriage.

Well, it looks like not much has changed as a recent poll shows that California’s ethnic voters are still vehemently opposed to allowing same sex couples to wed and are among those most likely to support a measure that would protect Prop. 22 from activist judges by making it state constitutional amendment.

According to a Survey USA Poll conducted on April 24, 2008, 58% of Blacks, 60% of Latinos and 57% of Asian voters in California still do not support same-sex marriage. Furthermore, 57% of Blacks, 46% of Hispanics and 55% of Asian voters said they would be willing to support a state constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Another interesting fact: Only 14% of Democrat’s polled believe that the legislature should decide the fate of same sex marriage. As a matter of fact, a whopping 45% of Democrats said that the voter should decide. This flies in the face of the Democrat controlled California Legislature who has for the last two years in a row, violated the law and voted to legalize same sex marriage.

Should Republicans compromise their values in order to win? A lesson from the Compromise of 1877...

There are many in the Republican Party who claim that the only way we can win is by changing our positions on some of the more controversial issues. Specifically, they would like to see us eliminate our Party’s opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, as is outlined in our party platform.

It is for these folks that I offer this brief history lesson, outlining what happens when we compromise what we knew to be right in order to win an election. It was Republican's agreement to the Compromise of 1877 eventually ended reconstruction and ushered in 100 years of Jim Crowe and oppression of blacks, all so we could have a Republican in the white house .

Here was the agreement- The 1876 presidential election ended with no clear winner. So, Democrats agreed to accept the Republican presidential electors (thus assuring that Rutherford B. Hayes would become the next president), provided the Republicans would agree to the following:

• To withdraw federal soldiers from their remaining positions in the South
• To enact federal legislation that would spur industrialization in the South
• To appoint Democrats to patronage positions in the South
• To appoint a Democrat to the president’s cabinet

Once the parties had agreed to these terms, the Electoral Commission performed its duty. The Hayes’ electors were selected and Hayes was named president two days before the inauguration.

This deal effectively ended reconstruction. As it died, Republicans and Democrats made promises that the civil rights of all Southerners would be respected. And for a few years this was the case.

However, by the 1880s it was clear that the northern troops would never return. Thus, as the threat faded, Democrat officials were less likely to investigate and convict those implicated in voter intimidation, making Democratic victories even more lopsided as black voter participation (the most important Republican in the south at the time) began to decline.

Then, by the 1890s, the “redeemer governments” began to segregate facilities by race and the lynching of blacks began to accelerate greatly and soon more blacks than whites were being killed without the benefit of a trial. The final "approval" of the redeemer governments came in 1898 when the Plessy v. Ferguson decision legalized segregation with the famous phrase, "seperate but equal."

With that victory segregationists accelerated the separation of the races and soon did not even bother to worry about the "equal" part. Also in the 1890s, the great denial of civil rights to Southern blacks became commonplace as poll taxes, literacy tests and intimidation effectively ended the practice of voting by Southern blacks.

This 19th century version of "postpartisanship" would in the end, ruin our nation and our party for the next 100 years; all because of our willingness to sell out our values, simply to win an election.

Star Jones Lynches Bill O'Reilly for saying he wouldn't lynch Michelle Obama...Huh?

Here’s the deal…

On his radio show, Bill O’Reilly was responding to a caller regarding some recent allegations against Michelle Obama, wife of presidential candidate, Barak Obama. O’Reilly responded to the caller declaring that:

“…I DON'T WANT TO GO ON A LYNCHING PARTY AGAINST MICHELLE OBAMA UNLESS THERE'S EVIDENCE, HARD FACTS, THAT SAY THIS IS HOW THE WOMAN REALLY FEELS. IF THAT'S HOW SHE REALLY FEELS -- THAT AMERICA IS A BAD COUNTRY OR A FLAWED NATION, WHATEVER -- THEN THAT'S LEGIT. WE'LL TRACK IT DOWN.”

Well in response to his comments former TV personality Star Jones felt it necessary to write an open letter to her fans on her website in which she stated:

I'M SICK TO DEATH OF PEOPLE LIKE FOX NEWS HOST, BILL O'REILLY AND HIS ILK THINKING THAT HE CAN USE A RACIAL SLUR AGAINST A BLACK WOMAN WHO COULD BE THE NEXT FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES, GIVE A HALF-ASSED APOLOGY AND NOT BE TAKEN TO TASK AND CALLED ON HIS CRAP.

Where was the racial slur?

He was saying that he did not want to join the rest of the right wing media (what little of it there is) in going after Michelle Obama without some proof that she had said or done something wrong. He wanted here to have her day in court.

Back in the days of the “wild west” people used to bring together mobs to go after and punish people whom they believed had done wrong. These mobs were not concerned with justice, they simply wanted vengeance. We used to call these mobs "Lynching Parties". And they did not only lynch black people!

Like most liberals who attack conservatives, Star Jones is pretending to play mind reader; acting like she has a crystal ball that allows her know the motivations behind what someone says. She then plays on people's fears and biases (in this case black people) to make a declarative statement that has little to know basis in fact.

It is a stretch to say that O' Reilly was advocating for the "lynching" of Michelle Obama. And it is absurd to say that he said it the way he did because she was black.

Let's not be so quick to judge the motives of others when they say something questionable. Bill O'Reilly wasn't willing to "lynch" Michelle Obama without giving her a chance. So let's return the favor and not be so quick to lynch him.

Hate from the Pulpit

Senator Barak Obama’s quest for the presidency has been in major turmoil over the last few weeks. These problems have stemmed from controversial comments made by his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. These statements were made from the pulpit of his church which Obama attended for over 20 years. For those of you who have not heard these comments, let me just say that they were incendiary, anti-American, racist and needless to say, not very Christ-like. (Click Here to see the video)

But the fact that Jeremiah Wright would make such hateful comments doesn’t surprise me at all. The truth is, he is not the only “Man of God” that has chosen to use his platform to advance an agenda that has nothing to do with God.

Just this week the San Francisco Chronicle wrote about sermon delivered by a Rev. Amos Brown on Easter Sunday. According to the Chronicle:

The Rev. Amos Brown's Easter sermon at the Third Baptist Church of San Francisco didn't have much to do with Jesus' crucifixion or resurrection from the dead and instead covered everything from skyrocketing gas prices and the subprime mortgage crisis to race relations in the United States and presidential politics.

During his fiery Sunday morning speech, he called President Bush a "one-eyed man," told the predominantly African American congregation that the country is as segregated now as it was 50 years ago and said "America is running on fumes right now ... we are on the wrong road."

So, instead of using the occasion to recognize the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ; Rev. Brown chose to berate the President of the United States, and declare the recent criticism of Obama to be a conspiracy hatched by white America. I must have missed that part of the Easter Story…

Like the Pharasis in Jesus’s time, Jeremiah Wright and Amos Brown have taken to perverting their roles as Shepards, leading their congregants not to Christ, but to a modern day “Black Nationalism” that is based in hatred and mistrust of America; White America, specifically.

Now this is not to say that these men are not entitled to express their opinions. But God holds those who represent him to a higher standard.

I will not go as far as saying the Barak Obama agrees with all of his pastor’s views. But I do believe that his decision to sit under the teachings of a man who possesses such heartfelt views does raise legitimate questions about his judgment.

And his lack of judgment in the selection of his pastor should serve as an indication of how he will go about selecting his advisors, should he become president.