RSS

Tag Archives: Republican party

Being A Constitutionalist

Greetings All,

I wanted to share my thoughts today on what being a constitutionalist means to me, and why that means more to me than party affiliation, or any other political boxes I can check:

Folks, I am a constitutionalist before I am anything else. This allows me, to have political allies from all walks of life, as long as we can agree that the law of the land must be adhered to, as well as the legal blueprint for amending it. This doesn't mean the law is without imperfections, nor are those who created it. The same is true for those whose job it is to defend it. We're all inherently, flawed human beings. We make mistakes, and we must correct them legally as a society at times. History is replete with major and minor instances of this. This is why I consider Americans, who readily accept political legerdemain, used to circumvent legal procedures when it suits their interests, the most unpatriotic citizens there are.

As for me, I've accepted the inevitable reality, that putting my own personal agendas and biases aside, and honoring the constitution, means there will be things I am opposed to, but must allow to legally stand. That is, if my arguments to the contrary are not legally strong enough, to influence a different outcome. I really wish more Americans would follow suit. It's such a relaxing political place to be…

Until next musing,

Talitha McEachin

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 19, 2017 in Philosophy, Politics, Society, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The “Obamaphone” Nonsense

The “Obamaphone” Nonsense

So recently, I retracted a prior criticism of former POTUS Barack Obama – the whole “food stamp president” nonsense. While this post isn’t a retraction, I want to share my thoughts on another erroneous label affixed to him – the infamous “Obamaphone”. The ironic thing about this, is that it’s origins are rooted back to 1984 when some Americans were still in “Will we ever see a black president?” mode. A “Barack Obama” if you will, was still a dream. 1984? Yep. When Ronald Reagan was president. Some even argue that it goes back as far as Roosevelt, but I digress. That year, the FCC created the Lifeline Assistance program. That’s the actual name of the “Obamaphone” program, technically. 

Obviously, cellular phones weren’t ubiquitous as they are now, in 1984, which is why the program provided free landline phone service, mainly to senior citizens. Interestingly enough, after eight years of the Obamaphone misnomer, so many remain ignorant of its history.  Am I the only one who’s never heard of an “Reaganphone”? What about a “Bushphone”? “Clintonphone” perhaps? What about a “Trumpphone”? (that sounds like the world’s worst megaphone ever). You haven’t because they were never labeled as such, even though the program existed in every presidency since Reagan. In fact, Safelink Wireless offered the first such cellular (keyword alert!) phone service in Tennessee in 2008, near the end of Bush’s second term. Barack Obama wasn’t elected until November of 2008. The program started three months earlier. 

There are some very, obvious motives and suspicious undertones, if I’m polite, associated with slapping this erroneous, derogatory misnomer onto the first black president, and literally none of his predecessors, but for now I’m not gonna go there (Hmm, no pun intended, but, did I just do that?). Now to be fair, the number of participants in the program, did increase significantly under the Obama administration, but that’s to be expected, with the expansion of any government program to assist the destitute in a recession. It’s a domino effect. If you had no problem with the program under Reagan, both Bush’s or Clinton, it’s simply hypocritical to have whined about it for the last eight years under Obama. I’ll be discussing three more things, I, and/or my political “macro tribe” got wrong, or, that were generally misunderstood or wrong when it comes to Obama. Then I’ll balance it by discussing the same number of things I stand by firmly, as far as my criticism of his presidency goes. Stay with me folks, this is about to get really interesting…

 
6 Comments

Posted by on July 7, 2017 in Politics, Society, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I Was Wrong about Obama

Greetings friends!

I’m back with my latest musing, on why I was wrong about a prior criticism of former president Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus package. As a Republican and Conservative libertarian, I have to work harder at objectivity when assessing his successes and failures. My missive here is to share one of his successes, which I erroneously deemed a failure:

After researching certain aspects of Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus package, I now see the labeling of him as the “food stamp president” quite differently. I haven’t written about it in a while, but I think a prior criticism I hurled his way was wrong. I didn’t agree with people calling him the “FSP” – I stand by that, but I understood why many called him that. Some attributed it to racism, and I’m sure that’s true for some percentage of his opponents, but certainly not all. I refuse to entertain the notion that all, or most Republicans are racists. It’s a stereotype, and I don’t play those games. In his economic stimulus, he expunged the work requirements, making the SNAP/FS program more accessible to Americans in need. We were in a recession, people were out of work and losing their homes. Many who had never received any government aid, found themselves swallowing their pride to feed their children. Most had at least one job, but simply didn’t make enough to make ends meet. It’s still true today that most SNAP recipients are working.

Barack Obama helped millions defray their cost of living by putting food on their tables. In other words, the criticism was that under his presidency, the highest number of people were food stamp recipients, due to the economic crisis. While there’s some truth to that, it’s a bit misleading for me and others (like Newt Gingrich), to assert, that he was responsible for the economic crisis, therefore forcing people on the SNAP program. That’s a faulty cause and effect. No, he recognized the crisis we were in, cause notwithstanding, and deliberately (key word) expanded the program, so millions could eat. The trade off was that the number of recipients under his watch soared. He deliberately took that hit on his economic report card. You don’t have to be a member of MENSA to understand, that loosening rigid requirements means more qualified applicants. You may not agree with his solution, and that’s your prerogative, but it was his solution, in his best judgment. The ends justified the means to him. That’s the job America hired him to do. If you want me to believe, that a Harvard educated attorney and former Senator couldn’t foresee, that the number of recipients would increase after removing work requirements, you may as well be asking me to believe in five-legged unicorns. Believing that is also an attack on his intelligence, and mine. You’d also have to ignore the trillions in debt, created by Bush before him. 

Some will argue that his motive was to increase government dependency – one rung on the ladder of socialism. The problem lies in the fact that it never happened. We aren’t a socialist nation. If I’m wrong and that was his goal, he failed utterly, so it doesn’t matter anyway. There will be criticisms of him that I’ll stand by, but this isn’t one of them. I’m humble enough to retract this view. Of course, there’s a valid counter argument to this reassessment that isn’t lost on me. Once the economy improved and the recession ended (2012), the number of SNAP recipients should have done down. That didn’t happen. The question is why, but that’s a lateral issue, one that’s unrelated to the “food stamp president” label. That’s also another musing.  I’m reassessing my view of his presidency, before writing a critical essay on his legacy. In order to fairly assess his presidency, you have to look beyond the numbers. There’s a lot of gray area. You have to dig deeper. Fair is fair, and this is one view that I’m totally comfortable with amending.

Until next musing,

Talitha K. McEachin

 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 5, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I Was Wrong…and I Admit It

Consevative Libertarian blogger Talitha McEachin

Consevative Libertarian blogger Talitha McEachin

Friends,

I’ve never been a person incapable of retracting a statement or admitting when I think I’m wrong. Previously, I’ve blamed both parties for the government shutdown but I think I was wrong. The GOP is to blame. I know that won’t be a popular opinion coming from me but you all should know by now that I don’t care. I’ve said it before & I’ll say it again – legally, all the way to the SCOTUS & with a conservative justice tipping the scales & writing the majority opinion, the left has won the healthcare battle. I don’t like Obamacare for a number of reasons, but that’s not the point. They went through the legislative & judicial process & came out victorious. I don’t support the filibustering going on by Republicans in Congress & I’d feel the exact same way if roles were reversed. As my liberal friend & fellow blogger Yvette Carnell expressed it:

“Obama is right to insist that the GOP allow a bill to go into affect that he, along with a Democratic House and Senate, already passed. He has no duty to negotiate now, nor should he. That moment has passed. The GOP does, however, have a duty not to thwart the implementation of a law already passed by a majority in Congress. This false equivalency stuff is nonsense.The only thing the GOP can do now is work to elect a Republican Senate and President. That’s how real change happens, not through obfuscation and threats.”

If we want to repeal Obamacare, we need to take the Senate and the presidency in 2014 & 2016 respectively. Let’s focus on that. My other caveat is that if we are successful in doing that & repeal Obamacare, yet return healthcare back to the mess it was before, we will crumble as a party & lose the trust of the American people, who want a real solution to our healthcare woes no matter from whom it comes.

Until next time, be blessed! – TKM

 
2 Comments

Posted by on October 10, 2013 in Politics, Society

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Chidike Okeem: The Black Conservative Intellectual Civil War

I’m not going to preface this wonderfully written piece with my thoughts as I normally would. I’ll allow Mr. Okeem’s editorial from Hip Hop Republican to speak for itself:

The leftist assessment of the black conservative is that such a person is angered and frustrated at being born black, which leads to the adoption of conservative views in order to compensate for this perceived “congenital deficiency.” While this is a preposterous accusation to make against all black conservatives, it is intellectually dishonest to pretend as though this characterization of the black right came into existence wholly out of left field. Indubitably, there are some black conservatives whose proclamations and behaviors lend credence to the stereotypical leftist view of black conservatives.

Black conservatives are not intellectually monolithic, and we certainly do not read from the same script of talking points. Essentially, black conservatives can be divided into two groups: solution-oriented black conservatives and fame-oriented black conservatives. Solution-oriented black conservatives prefer to use their platforms to intellectually engage with people and offer serious ways to move black people forward. Inevitably, this encompasses astutely criticizing both the left and the right when criticism is required.

By contrast, fame-oriented black conservatives feign interest in issues regarding black progress, when, in reality, popularity among white conservatives and profit are their fundamental goals. Fame-oriented black conservatives never see an opportunity to bash black people and black liberal leadership that they do not take, but they conveniently manage to turn a blind eye to every shortcoming and malfeasance of white conservatives. Fame-oriented black conservatives are the right-wing versions of the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons. They are people who care more about their bank accounts than bettering the lives of black people.

There is a civil war occurring between the intellectual, solution-driven black conservatives and the fame-oriented, pseudo-intellectuals on the black right. The winners of this war will determine the political future of black America. If the black conservative continues to be identified as a self-hating person who is simply a puppet for white conservatives, black people will never associate with the Republican Party or American conservatism. However, if this war is won by black conservative intellectuals who are truly about black elevation—and not the elevation of their personal bank account balances—black conservatism has a chance of truly permeating the inner cities and changing the voting behaviors of black people.

The most identifiable feature of fame-oriented black conservatives is their absurdist addiction to the inconsequential issue of whether or not blacks choose to identify as African American or just American. They call this the “unhyphenated American” movement. While this issue is unimportant to regular people, it is deeply important to pseudo-intellectual, fame-oriented black conservatives, because it is the key issue that they use to ingratiate themselves with white conservatives.

When “Rev.” Jesse Lee Peterson—a darling of the white right and “unhyphenated American”—argued that blacks being carried on slave ships is equivalent to traveling on coach airplanes, before earnestly thanking white people for slavery and removing his forefathers from Africa, he was not making an argument to reach out to other blacks. Rather, Peterson was talking to a certain white conservative audience that enjoys such rhetoric—particularly coming from a black man. It is no wonder why Sean Hannity comfortably sits on the board of Peterson’s organization dedicated to the supposed “advancement of black men.” 

To continue reading, please click HERE.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 18, 2013 in Featured Guest blogs, Politics

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“But You’re Black & the Tea Party is Racist!”

Consevative Libertarian blogger Talitha McEachin

Consevative Libertarian blogger Talitha McEachin

As a black woman who is a conservative, Republican & Tea Party member (Note: I’ll be changing my registration to Independent soon actually & recommend it to everyone), I have endured some very vicious attacks from some on the left, especially from other black people, but also from whites as well. As a conservative with a libertarian lean on some issues I have endured vicious attacks from some on the right as well but I digress. That’s not to say that all black conservatives endure this, but I feel confident in saying that the majority have. That has never deterred me and to be fair, I have met many on the left who have disagreed in a civil manner & even agree with me on some things. All on the left do not attack me for my political affiliation, not by far. Lately though, several on the left have emailed me or sent me messages on social media asking “Why are you a member of the racist Tea Party?” or “How can you be black and be a Tea Party member?” to which I have answered calmly to some, although it really irritated me to be honest. Nonetheless, instead of answering every individual message like this, I decided to share my ranted response on my blog, so that anytime someone asks me this, I can simply share the link & continue the dialogue, if necessary, after they have read this response, so here it goes:

FYI: The “Tea Party” movement was started in 2009. It is only named after the 1773 Boston Tea Party but has not been around that long. It is a grassroots, political movement with no central leadership, not a political party & ANYONE who believes in adherence to the constitution, reducing spending & taxes as well as the national debt & deficit is welcome. Are there racists in the Tea Party? I’m sure there are in some groups, but the same can be said for most, if not all large, grassroots organizations. That’s like walking into a full sports stadium and asking “Is there anyone in here that’s NOT a sports fan?” Well, sure there probably is, but obviously most in attendance are sports fans. Get my drift?

I’m really tired of the insistence on the part of some on the left, that the Tea Party exists for the sole purpose of racism. If you don’t agree with the platform fine, but it’s not a “racist” organization. When people on the left tell me this, it’s very insulting, because essentially you’re saying that as a black person, I’m too stupid to know what’s good for me politically, which is something I hear black liberals lament about quite often, regarding the right, when they are accused of being on a “liberal plantation”. I don’t like either charge & I would never be a part of anything inherently racist. If you want me to take you seriously when you offer criticism of the GOP, conservatism or the Tea Party, please give me more than accusations of racism.

Even if such charges have merit, that doesn’t mean the right’s position on any issue is automatically wrong. If a Neo Nazi stood up and said “The national debt is $16,784,436,417,497.89 trillion dollars as of April 20th 2013 and we must reduce spending” is it not true just because a Neo Nazi said it? Stop it with labeling an entire group of people racist just because they are white and/or right-wingers and start making sound arguments against issues & policy. I’m really tired of the whining from some & would greatly appreciate it if questions regarding my political affiliations did not include my race, which is irrelevant. Black people are not politically or otherwise, monolithic. Deal with it.

 
24 Comments

Posted by on April 20, 2013 in Politics

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Zo Hit The Nail On The Head…

Greetings Everyone,

You all know that President Barack Obama won re-election. Alfonzo Rachel shared some very important thoughts via his Youtube channel  I had to share them with you all. Zo is right, it was is the liberal culture that we were are up against & we weren’t prepared. Anyway, please listen to this video & share, share, share! Please also follow Zo on Facebook here. Here is Zo’s video:

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 9, 2012 in Featured Guest blogs, Politics

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: