It doesn't matter now what party Martin Luther King, Jr. was in 50 years ago.

There is a billboard in the South, Alabama I believe, that proclaims that since Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican, blacks should vote for today's GOP candidates. Now, I don't know what party he was affiliated with in 1963, but really,which ever one it was, that doesn't even matter in today's political scene.

Back 50 years ago, most blacks in the south did vote Republican, since it was an original Republican, President Lincoln, that freed the slaves. Southern Democrats were called Dixiecrats, and didn't believe in equal rights for blacks. Now, this wasn't true for all Democrats, as Northern Democrats and those in the Midwest, like President Truman from Missouri who desegregated the military, believed in equal rights for all. But then, after President Kennedy forced the University of Alabama to accept black students, and a couple years later when President Johnson got the Civil Right Act and Voting Rights Act laws passed, all the Dixiecrats in the south changed parties and become Republicans. Now, this caused a schism in the GOP, and slowly but surely, what the GOP became what it is today, the anti-gay, anti-women, anti-black, anti-poor, and anti-immigration party that it is today. It is nothing like the Republican Party that was alive and well even a generation ago, and in a lot of ways, is simply the far right fringe of that GOP, and that's why I now call the GOP The Tea Party. Now, it may not be that way 50 years from now, but that's exactly what it is now.

I don't know what political party Martin Luther King, Jr. belonged to 50 years ago, and really, it doesn't matter what party he was in then. But I'm fairly sure that he would be a Democrat today, and that's what's really important.  

RNC shows Bill O'Reilly lied, and their own bias.

After Bill O'Reilly lied on his Fox News show that no conservatives or members of the GOP were asked to speak at the 50th Anniversary of the "I have a dream" speech, several places reported that the organizers had asked all 50 governors, and all sitting members of Congress were asked to speak. But then, the RNC (Tea Party National Committee), in an attempt to put the blame back on the event organizers, said that they gave the organizers at least 3 names that they could call and try to get to speak. The 3 names that were given were Senator Tim Scott, former Representative J.C. Watts, and Oklahoma Speaker of the House T.W. Shannon. Wait, aren't they all black? Well, yes. Okay, but RNC, are you saying that only black Americans can speak on injustices and poverty? If that's true, then you must believe that former Presidents Clinton and Carter had no right to speak. Or, for that matter, any of the many white speakers who were there and gave speeches.

Bill O'Reilly got on Fox News and lied about the speakers at the 50th Anniversary of the "I have a dream" speech, and the RNC, in an attempt to put blame on organizers, showed themselves to be small minded and biased. The sad part of that is, it was all just a normal day for these two.    

Fox News lies again

Bill O'Reilly once again lied to every viewer on Fox News tonight, but really, when doesn't he? He stated, in an attempt to belittle and demean the 50th anniversary of the March On Washington, that no Republicans or conservatives were asked to speak Wednesday. But, both President Bush 41 and 43 were asked, and declined due to health. Both Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor were invited to make statements, but said they had previous plans and couldn't make it. Why didn't they go? I don't know, so I won't make some ridiculous statement about them not caring about minorities. But why did O'Reilly say such a thing when it is blatantly false? Simply to stroke hatred from Fox News viewers for those that spoke today, and probably 50 years ago. I'm not surprised that he did it, just disappointed. But I shouldn't be, should I? This is really really the way he works, his modus operandi as it were (I hope I spelled that right). Why should today be any different for him than any other day.      

Fox News doctor thinks that since women and men are built differently, women should pay more.

Once again, Fox News have found a way to be the biggest jerks in the country. Why? Well, since women have boobs, they should pay more for insurance. Now, this wasn't one of their political talking heads, this was a doctor they had on air, AND AGREED WITH!

A doctor got on a Fox News morning show and said that due to women having breasts and ovaries, their insurance rates should be higher then men. Excuse me, so you mean men don't have breasts, and men don't get diseases and injuries that women don't get? Don't women live longer than men, so their costs can be pro-rated over a longer time, lowing their rates? Women want birth control for free, so they should may a bigger insurance payment? So, Viagra is free for men, and is now being used by most men longer than women using birth control. No cost to that, huh?

A doctor goes on Fox News and says that since women have boobs, they need to pay bigger insurance premiums. Bravo, Fox News! Bravo! Another great move that will assure women will flock to your station, and the GOP,  for whom you are a complete shill for, and state their beliefs to the end.

Some Tea Party people think Ted Cruz is an American because he was born in Canada.

One of the most ridiculous things I heard this week was one Tea Party backer who said that to her, Ted Cruz is really an American because, after all, Canada is really part of America. She may have been laughing when she said it, but she wasn't kidding. No she said it, and realized exactly how stupid it sounded, so she started to laugh, and then said it again. Now, I'm sure that she must feel that it is a North America thing, so I'm sure she feels the same way about Mexico. Oh, that's right, the Tea Party wants to build a wall and have armed guards every few hundred feet to ensure that no Mexicans enter the country. So they really don't feel that way toward Mexicans, I guess. So, primarily white Canadians okay, but primarily Hispanic Mexicans aren't? Well, thank goodness that the Tea Party says they aren't racists in any way and that racism in America is a thing of the past. Because it sure looks like racism to me. But I'm a simple guy, Tea Party. So tell me, if it isn't racism, why is Canada is so good it's really America and Mexico is so bad that the country needs armed guards to keep them out?

Cruz's birth certificate flap is meant for the Tea Party

Many seem to miss the point about the New York Times article on Ted Cruz and his birth in Canada. It isn't meant for Democrats, but on those Tea Party Obama birthers.

The New York Times brought up the fact that Texas Senator Ted Cruz wasn't brought up so liberals wouldn't vote for him, but to show far right-wing birthers how stupid their argument with Obama being President really is. No one, either liberals or conservatives, is questioning whether Cruz is eligible to be President. While his father was not a US citizen, his mother was a US citizen, who happened to give birth to her son in Canada. He therefore is a U.S citizen, and is eligible to be President. Obama father was not a U.S. citizen, but his mother was, and gave birth to her son in Hawaii. So how is he not eligible to be President? Even if she gave birth in Kenya, and there's no evidence that's in any way true, how is Obama any less eligible to be President than Cruz? He's not, and that's the point of The New York Times article.

The New York Times didn't start the Cruz birth certificate flap to convince liberals not to vote for Cruz, but to show far-right Obama birthers how stupid their position really is.      

Michael Bloomberg should take a chill pill.

Ever since the judge told New York City that the way they were doing stop and frisk was illegal, Michael Bloomberg has railed against the judge non-stop. Well Mayor, it's time to stop.

I don't live in New York, but I do have a brother who lives there, so I do have a small stake in this. I don't want to see him injured or hurt. But the judge, contrary to what the Mayor has said, didn't say that stop and frisk is illegal, but how New York is doing it violates people's 4th Amendment rights. So why didn't Bloomberg say that, while the city doesn't agree with the judge and will appeal, it will try to see how it can continue the policy without violating anyone's rights. Wouldn't that be a legal and prudent way to go? Tell me Mayor, is 85% of your city's crime in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods? That's the percentage of minorities that were stopped. You think that it break no person's rights when almost 90% of those stopped had no guns, and 87% were breaking no laws and had no warrants for them? So, how did these people or actually, why did you stop and frisk these people? You don't think there may be a problem there? At least one person, and it was a judge, did. And I'm sure many others do, too.

Ever since the judge ruled against stop and frisk in New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has railed against the judge and trying to explain why the city did it. Take a chill pill, Mayor. Observe the judge's ruling, and appeal it in court. It's called the rule of law, and you have no more right to go against it than right-wing legislatures who want to do away with gun control laws. And I'l speak out against both sides, and so should others.