He is a brave man, this Romney who faced the NAACP to tell them that African Americans are at the bottom of the economic totem pole. This, coming from a quarter billionaire, had to be awe-inspiring.

Of course he had observed earlier that the gap in education achievement in the black community versus the rest of the nation was “civil rights issue of our time”. And coming from a privileged preppie whose academic achievement are rooted in boarding school, he has to know what the disparity in learning environment, teacher motivation, teacher incentive, and building comfort must mean, when he compares his institutions of learning to the walls of the public schools that are so common to the demographic he addressed at the NAACP convention today.

Though he may have appeared brave, his appearance as a pandering politician whose selfish ambition to have his resume say POTUS greatly overshadowed this relative bravery. The thought that standing before as group of people who remain at the lower rungs of the social ladder and broad brushing the issues that affect them most, would give him the ’04 Bush numbers in Black votes was a smug and arrogant stance.

Yes, blacks are suffering a 14% unemployment rate in their communities but hasn’t this been a historical fact long before President Obama took office? And aren’t the reasons equally, if not more deeply, rooted in social malaise than in political provision? That is what Mr. Romney needed to address, very specifically, if he intended to garnish the attention and ultimately the support of the Black community.

And why would he say Obama Care? Clearly, Team Romney remains out of touch or they would have realized that the health care plan Mr. Romney pejoratively refers to as Obama Care, will offer the demographic he is trying to woo, the dignity of being offered adequate health care in this nation that offers health care gratis around the world. Mr. Romney has said openly that he likes to fire people who provide him poor service. Maybe he could give us a practical demonstration by giving his team their walking papers. Small wonder that the response from the crowd was a cacophony of well deserved boo’s.

 Mr. Romney hopes to sell a culture of exclusion to a people whose history is marred by exclusion, whose opportunities were always fewer, if existent  rewards lesser, if available. These limits to opportunities are unknown to Mr. Romney who has known nothing less than the lap of luxury and the boundless opportunities that money can buy.

So he did what he has mastered over the course of a career practicing the politics of convenience. He gave us another foppish dislay of obliviating idiocy, showing manufactured emotion for music he doesn’t understand, fidgeting nervously, every time the organ played a church note to punctuated his speech, not sure if he was having a Show Time at the Apollo’s elimination moment. He tried his best to make his Vaudeville Act one that was believable, quoting Frederick Douglas but not explaining why, amongst his employees at Bain, there was not one black hire. He smirked and recited and parlayed and politicked and ended up by telling the Convention that he is a rich American, who will not apologize for his success and who knows how to create  and grow jobs by cutting what he deems as non essential services, like Obama Care and teachers and firefighters and other budget-sapping services.

Mr. Romney still seems not realize that all people are asking him to apologize for is gutting American industry and castrating American job opportunity.

In the end, Mitt left the podium taking with him the ignominious reputation of being the first guest to be booed at an NAACP convention and what was left of his Vaudeville act of trying to woo a demographic he is out of touch with.

 Actually, it wasn’t Alex-nooo, not nearly that clever. It was a GOP House leader named Jim Stamas of Michigan who finds such a lack of the decorum in the use of the word vagina, that he had to ban its user form the floor of the Michigan House.

But how was a girl to know? How was a girl to know that the part of the anatomy, which has taken precedence over the economy on the GOP to do list, is reserved for verbal description only by GOP men, and as an asterisk, a few lame GOP women? And to compound the hyperventilation of the Michigan House GOP over the useof the word, Barb Byrum another Democratic Representative said the other V word – vasectomy. Now come on people, didn’t they think the clever Republicans would get it? Vagina and Vasectomy said at the same forum by two women who were not Conservative? Didn’t they think those men who shy away from the very thing they try to legislate, wouldn’t have caught on and figured that they were suggesting a vasectomy if the vagina has no freedom?

 Look. All jibes aside, we have seen some really absurd stabs at legislation by GOP law makers since the election of President Obama. But for a lawmaker to ban the voices of the peoples’ representatives, because he feels that using the words vagina and vasectomy take away from some manufactured decorum, is tantamount to

“off with their heads”. But this is no Alice in Wonderland. This America, in which, members of the electorate have the constitutional right to vote for representatives to be their voice in political decision making. So who is this  Stamas who dares to think that he has the right to silence the representatives of the people, even if he is courting Koch money, who is he?

I dare say he is the face of the new form of American politics where one Party develops a very insidious agenda, via the spending of obscene amounts of money, to reverse sociopolitical gains in order to change our society into an autocracy ruled by the GOP.

Meanwhile, we are still looking for some reassurance that we saw in Michigan was really a political faux pas. We are all awaiting comments from a Reince Priebus and possibly some sort of intelligent opinion from the GOP’s national House Speaker, telling Stamas how it is done.

My advice? Let’s all exhale, ‘cause tain’t appenin’.

Meanwhile, as if that wasn’t enough GOP entertainment for the week, Neil Munroe from the Daily Caller – a Tucker Carlson invention- interrupted President Obama’s formal remarks on his Administration’s halting of deporting immigrants, who are under thirty and felony free. Munroe’s excuse for what was an obvious, deliberate and decided lack of decorum, was that he “thought that the President was finished.”

Just like Stamas needs a refresher on House Representative protocol 101 – the House is there to serve the people and not the perceived decorum of partisan bigots – Munroe needs a refresher on reporting 101 – listen, assimilate, analyze then question.

But none of this would apply to either of these two gentlemen; especially since their missions are one and the same – disrupt and subvert effort to empower the people of our democracy.

The other day I was going the through my documents folder and came across an old résumé with a cover letter. Back then, I was lobbying for a job at a securities house in the Wall Street district as a trader on the foreign securities desk.  You see, I am series 7 and series 63 certified so I knew I had the qualifications for the job of trader on the foreign securities desk. 

I guess I went into this reverie because I know that it is common knowledge for one to, at best, apply for a job for which one is qualified or, at worst, be given the job because of some sort of privilege – like having a daddy who owns the company or  having some rich folks buy the position for you. That took me to today’s job market and the top job opening for which there are now two candidates  running.

The unique thing about this position is that I am one of the employers who has to scrutinize the résumé of the applicants, so I will be assessing, scrutinizing and analyzing the claimed qualifications of the candidates, exactly like employers who have a vested interest in the businesses, do.

After all, it’s in my best interest to ensure that this country remains the haven for economic success and socio-cultural freedom that it was structured to be by the Framers of the Constitution that our Conservative family refers, so readily, to. When those words were documented on that famous document and its subsequent amendments, they were done with the express intention of ensuring that every American, irrespective of creed, class or color was given the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without the imposition- or more recently, the infliction, of any political beliefs by any governing party.

Having said that, I will now look at the résumés that are in front of me, paying particular attention to the résumé of one, Willard Mitt Romney, mostly because he has submitted a lengthy cover letter, citing several stints of duty that he claims will give him an edge over the competition. As an employer who believes in giving each applicant a fair shot at this very sensitive position, I will now proceed to go through the key parts of Willard Mitt Romney’s  résumé, to determine his fitness for the position of President of the United States.

Be reminded that prior to this assessment, I was part of a panel that watched this applicant compete amongst his peers and saw how he outfoxed, outmaneuvered and outspent the competition; bidding for this position like it has never been bid for before. So I am curious. I am thinking that if someone is willing to bare his character in this way for this job, then he must be bringing something different to the table.

Let’s start with the Bain Capital part of the résumé – the part that gives Mitt more than two decades of work history and the part he uses as his job creation platform. 

Mitt claims that he has created more than one hundred thousand jobs while in the private sector, meaning Bain. For him to think that the creation of  these jobs at Bain – which came as a byproduct of corporate raiding - is credentials for creating jobs within in a nation, then there is something fundamentally flawed with his thinking. First of all, the very nature of that job creation formula included the job elimination factor. And what was so artfully excluded from this claim was that the bulk of these jobs was created in countries like China and India, where compensation commensurate with cost of living, safe working environments, labor unions and retirement packages are not benefits that are provided for workers. So, right there, Mitt has demonstrated that his job creating acumen is peculiar to the third world and thus, disqualifies this claim as a credential to be considered for POTUS.

Now, on to his budget balancing claim.  I am particularly alarmed by his ‘for dummies’ version of budget balancing which, in his words, is simply to “cut, cap and finally balance the budget”. For those of us who are paying attention, I am sure we are revisiting the things he has said he will cut – all which will adversely impact the poor, women and people of color. And he has, also, pledged to cap spending on services that create the spine of our nation, like education and healthcare. The “finally” is particularly disturbing, too, because it suggests that he really doesn’t have a plan and that he is  just bluffing his way; hoping that by singing the cut, cap and finally balance ditty, he will impress the employers with his vast knowledge of “how things work”.

I am sure that by now you are realizing that I am not too impressed with this Willard Mitt Romney but because I feel that we all have a right to apply for this job, I will continue.

This third item is very impressive. We have never had an applicant before who has saved the Olympics so, to me, this stands out as a impressive business acumen, though it does make me quite curious. See, as I know it, the Olympic games have centuries of tradition, so, if my candidate actually saved these games then he does not only deserve to be my employee but also deserves a place in history. After checking, however, I realized that Mitt’s claim of his role was more of a  broad implication that he saved the tradition of these games. As I listened to his many statements on his role, I realized that he repeatedly said he left Bain, where he had created more than one hundred thousand jobs and “went off to save the Olympics”. What would have been a less crafty, more factual statement, was if he had said that he played a role in redirecting mismanaged finances for the games of 2002.

So, having looked at Willard Mitt Romney’s résumé, I am ready to make my decision.

I see this applicant as a fatuous blow hard, who is willing to go to any length to get this position. Though employers are sometimes impressed by passion and ambition, I feel that integrity trumps traits and is seconded only by job knowledge. If job knowledge were to be considered, then as the employer, I would certainly defer that to applicant Obama because, after all, he has given us four years of service in the position and has amassed an impressive list of accomplishments.

 But Obama’s accomplishments were  not the deciding factor for me. What was the deciding factor for me was that this applicant’s only proven prowess was in spending money to obliterate his rivals and in remaking his image every time he opened his mouth to defend a previous politiccal stance.  We do appreciate ambition but when those ambitions are self serving then the candidate is rendered inappropriate to be the country’s CEO. After all, even in Romney’s world of vaulting ambitions, he has to realize that being CEO of America requires far more than being able to create one hundred thousand jobs in an environment where millions are unemployed or underemployed; especially when your CEO skill set is confined to killing jobs, exporting jobs, cutting spending on education and health care  and promoting an employment environment that will outlaw unions and drastically reduce compensation packages for people who have worked as the wheel within the wheel of this economy.

T’aint happenin Mitt, just’aint happenin.

As you leave, please remember to pick up your résumé in the manila envelope at the far end of the table.

First, let me stipulate that we are incredibly lucky to have President Obama as our country’s leader, not because of his politics but more because of how much the politics of the Conservative Right threatens to plunge us into a state of oligarchical rule.

Having said that, let’s examine what his declaration of support for same sex marriage means. Quite frankly, I am afraid that it is merely a show of moral support and though it is a historic announcement from the office he holds, it really will mean nothing more if he does not show that his decision is backed by his assertive engagement in moving legislation forward, in favor of changing the acceptance of same sex marriage at the national level.

My sense is that we will not see this. My sense is that we will hear lots of personal affirmation, much like his declaration of having wrestled his conscience for a number of years. So why would he have subjected his political capital to the flogging that it will undoubtedly receive?

Elementary, my dears, elementary. I have no doubt that the President, like many of us, have zero tolerance for any of the laws that deny same sex couples benefits like sharing each other’s healthcare plan or receiving the after death benefits paid to spouses. I am sure he cringes every time he hears of a service man or woman leaving for war that cannot kiss his or her significant other goodbye at the airport or cannot receive the body of their slain partner when they return in posthumous state. However, the President is an astute politician who understands the effect of well  timed comments and engaging in battles that are popular but not winnable.

Who could forget the legislative debacle that was the battle for Universal Healthcare? Who could forget the words “I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country,” he uttered as Illinois Senator, right before he launched his campaign? We were all ecstatic. Universal Healthcare was going to be a government run plan, which would have taken our tax dollars, at the federal level to create a sensible system of dispensing care and medicine for every citizen at costs that are sensible and that do not force us into bankruptcy.

It was the hope that we had for receiving the state of the art care we see charity organizations exporting to third world countries for our charitable donations; care the fixes cleft palates and vaginal fistulas and osteo deformities and hypertension and heart murmurs and all of the ailments that we pay more than thirty percent of our income to receive. This is what we wanted. This is why so many of us thought that he was such a breath of fresh air. This was a man of the people. He knew that health care was a right and not a benefit. So we voted for him to give us that.

Instead, we got a shameful demonstration of what was mislabeled as negotiation, lost lots of tax dollars to State pork ventures to buy votes from politicians who were so much in the pockets of the medical and pharmaceutical lobbyists that they could care less about the health needs of their constituents.

Now we are here, with our President throwing his full support behind same sex couples, after purportedly wrestling for years with his beliefs and after half stepping through his term in office with a nuanced position on same sex marriage, saying he was not in favor of same sex marriage and was equally not in favor of Propositon 8 which eliminated the right to same sex marriage. See the nuance? See how he was for marriage but was against the thing that offered marriage?

Anyway that’s done now and he has given full throated support of marriage between anyone.  That has made its foot print. It has made him the first US President to support same sex marriage. It has also made him the first incumbent to support same sex marriage and in a general election year. He has made the Conservatives even madder than they were when they had to accept his ethnicity. Even Franklin Graham, whose morals are well known for their loose nature earlier in his life, has lent his wisdom to the situation by suggesting that the President’s support of same sex marriage is tantamount to him shaking his fist at God.

It is conclusive and decided that Franklin is s left over hippie who has had the good fortune of inheriting the family business. The business itself is good and offers all men and women the God given right to happiness and love of our creator.

Unfortunately Franklin and many in his business interpret the nature this business selects the people who should share the love and respect that the tenets of Christianity. For them, cherry picking scriptures to show God’s distaste is better to preserve a certain social mores, though the same God, in the new testament, says that His grace is sufficient and that He has come to fulfill the law and therefore, making Galatians 3:23-29 real for all, even gentiles.

But this is not about Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson and John Hagee and all of the other zealots who feel that they have the right to wield Christianity like their personal Uzi. This is about the President going beyond a full throated support of people who want the rights that they deserve; that they are entitled to.

So, in as much as we are supporting our President through the next four years, all we are asking is that he proposes legislation to underscore his support of marriage and equality and not let this latest social stance go the way of universal health care.

Sen. John Barrasso [R, WY]Sen. Roy Blunt [R, MO]Sen. John Boozman [R, AR]Sen. Richard Burr [R, NC]Sen. Saxby Chambliss [R, GA]Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK]Sen. Thad Cochran [R, MS]Sen. John Cornyn [R, TX]Sen. Jim DeMint [R, SC]Sen. Michael Enzi [R, WY]Sen. Lindsey Graham [R, SC]Sen. Charles Grassley [R, IA]Sen. Orrin Hatch [R, UT]Sen. James Inhofe [R, OK]Sen. John Isakson [R, GA]Sen. Mike Johanns [R, NE]Sen. Ron Johnson [R, WI] Sen. Jon Kyl [R, AZ]Sen. Mike Lee [R, UT]Sen. Richard Lugar [R, IN]Sen. Mitch McConnell [R, KY]Sen. Jerry Moran [R, KS]Sen. Rand Paul [R, KY]Sen. James Risch [R, ID]Sen. Pat Roberts [R, KS]Sen. Marco Rubio [R, FL]Sen. Jefferson Sessions [R, AL]Sen. Richard Shelby [R, AL]Sen. John Thune [R, SD]Sen. Patrick Toomey [R, PA]Sen. Roger Wicker [R, MS]

Though the above list reads like an obituary, it is actually the list of thirty one live men in the Republican Senate who voted no to the Reauthorization of Violence Against Women Act.

In 2010 Marissa Alexander was being physically assaulted by her husband. She had given birth nine days earlier to premature baby girl who was in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at the local hospital. Her husband’s two sons were in the home at the time. The husband, Rico Gray, admitted that he was a serial batterer of his wife. In his deposition, he recounted the  following: “And the third incident (with Alexander) we was staying together and I pushed her back and she fell in the bathtub and hit her head and I– you know, by the time I ran downstairs and got in my car to leave, you know, that’s the time I went to jail, the police picked me up down the street.”

During his deposition, Gray admitted that he threatened his wife’s safety on the day she fired the gun into the ceiling. He agreed that she never pointed the gun at him or the two children and admitted that, after she told him to leave her house and he refused, she discharged the gun into the ceiling and no one was hurt. He later called the police and told them what had happened.

Based upon his complaint, Marissa Johnson was found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and faces a twenty year mandatory minimum prison term. The charge asserts that she placed the life of her abuser and his two children at risk. A twenty year minimum is the statute. This is the sentencing guideline for Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law. 

Stand Your Ground is a law that was legislated to promote a specific agenda for a specific political lobbyist. That lobbyist is the National Rifle Association (NRA)which has very safe haven in Conservative political quarters. It is the ridiculous law that allows a hunter to pursue human prey, huffing and puffing and pledging to shoot the prey while in hot pursuit, demonstrating no fear for his life but he gets the option to post bail, pending trial. It is the ridiculous law that has imprisoned Marissa Alexander, while she awaits a possible incarceration term 20 years, without offering her the opportunity to post bail.

The obituary list shows us which Senators officials are opposed to protecting women against violence. It also shows us which of them either support stand your ground or have failed to speak out against the inherent flaws in this NRA sponsored law.

The problem with the law here in the United States is not how it was written but how it is interpreted by those who are commissioned to uphold it. Maybe there was some genius to the framing of the Constitution but the subsequent laws that sprout out of it do challenge the efficacy of that presumption.

Trayvon Martin’s death constitutes one such challenge. The whole ‘Stand Your Ground’, hunter-oriented, gun lovers law have made the electorate aware of how easy it is for elected officials to shape laws to promote sociopolitical agendas like that of the NRA, an organization, synonymous with severe Conservatism and very open support for White Supremacy.

That said, let’s look at the latest misinterpration of law.  And though the outcome was not as mortally wounding as Trayvon’s death, it remains the kind of tragedy that parents had better be aware of.

In the southern town on of Milledgeville Georgia, USA, six year old Salecia Johnson was having a bad day at Creekside Elementary School. Her tantrum throwing escalated into chair throwing and ripping her classmates’ art work off of the wall. She was escorted to the principal’s office, which is a procedure that would drive fear into seventeen year old boys. Salecia was unphased. Instead she proceeded to show distaste for being spoken to and allegedly knocked over a shelf which injured the Principal. At this point, supposedly in fear for her life, the Principal summoned the police. A police officer rushed to the scene. After all, this was a serious case. He was summoned to contain an angry black woman, all of six years old. Still unphased, Salecia did not calm down when she was ordered to, by this icon of the law, so he handcuffed her and threw her into the back of his patrol vehicle and carted her off to his jail at the police station. He, subsequently, charged her with assault and destruction of property.

What was said after the arrest of this ‘dagerous’ six year  by the school’s Principal, was that Salecia’s parents could not reached so she had to do what was the next best thing – call in the police. Dray Swicord, the Police Chief in charge of the swashbuckling officer who hand cuffed the six year old angry black woman, said “Our policy is that any detainee unreported to our station in a patrol vehicle is to be handcuffed in the back. There is no age discrimination on that rule.” Incidentally, Salecia has been suspended from school until the next semester which begins in August 2012.

In pondering over why there seems to be more harshness when laws are being applied to certain demographics, I began to look at who applies this harshness and why they would feel so predisposed to systematically discriminate some groups in society. Maybe it is the fact the case of Norweigian, Mr. Breivick – notorious for his massacre for seventy seven people to make a White Supremist statement –  was the in the international spotlight for racial intolerance, that I decided to look at what that nation’s behavior towards people of color was.

I stumbled upon a site called White Civil Rights and read of the suicide of a fourteen year old who had committed suicide after being gang-raped by three Africans. The article, written by a James Buchanan,  then went on to criminalize the liberal and progressive political stances and gave some statistics on Black Americans that seem to be the driver for discrimination against blacks by any white community.

In Buchanan’s supreme intellectual analysis, he offers that America has had a 146 year experience of trying to live with Africans. These Africans impose a gigantic tax burden in spite of their large numbers – mainly because they are a non productive breed. They have enjoyed 40 years of racial quotas, have been given preferential entry to universities and jobs and by these acts of  affirmative action, they have stolen much from Whites. He offers that blacks commit half the rapes in the US, though they make up only 12.6% of the population. And, he suggests that if the liberals and progressives in Norway had only visited the black neighborhoods of Detroit and Los Angeles, they would have realized what a bad idea it was to import such large numbers of Africans to his country.

As much as it gives me unbearable pain to reprint this putrid racist crap, I suspect that is the framework of a manifesto that fires the minds of the George Zimmermans in our society. I suspect that those who discriminate so wantonly in our communities and the law enforcement officials who spend tax payers’ dollars to handcuff and lock up a six year old girl, are a citizens who feel that blacks in America are actually here because of the 46 year ‘experience’ of whites trying to live with Africans. I suspect that they really do not realize that the bulk of Africans in this country is the result of abduction that led to enslavement and that the ‘experience’ was not a case study, designed to benefit the first Africans who arrived in America.

Buchanan’s article may have been the musings of an idiot or the ranting of a racist but it really does not matter. What matters is that we are beginning to see more of this type of thinking amongst those who are expected to protect all Americans.

At least, Ted Nugent, of the GOP –oriented NRA, was bold enough to tell us what he thinks of our President.  But we’re still wondering what many on the Supreme Court think and could only hope that laws that produce victims like Trayvon and little Salecia, are quickly revoked from the hands of those who may feel that it’s time to end the ‘experience’ of trying to live with Africans.

“What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, ‘Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.’ Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life,” Rosen said on CNN. “She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority off the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future,” Rosen continued, adding that Romney “just seems so old fashioned when it comes to women.”

Can anyone say what Hilary Rosen said, in the above excerpt, that was so inaccurate, let alone, offensive ?

Her statement was the most fearless and authentic response to authentic response to Mitt Romney’s insertion of his wife into the world of working women, to suggest that he understands their needs.  It is ludicrous for anyone to suppose that Anne Romney could have the same vested interest of the average mother of five, in whether the company she works for has enough funding to keep her job alive. And though it is sweet of Barbara Bush and Michelle Obama to come out in support of Anne’s decision to be a career mom, the facts are that her decison isa  luxury that is confined to the brackets of the rich and the stinking rich.

How many women out there can have five children and claim that they chose motherhood as a career?  How many women with five children have the luxury of visits to pediatric specialists on a timely basis? How many of them have nannies to help nurture their brood, even while  they stay at home to engage the career of motherhood? How many of them have homes in which each of the five children has his own bedroom?

No. These are not baseless questions. These are honest questions that address the unreality of Anne Romney’s normal career at motherhood. Anne  most certainly never went to her OB/GYN visits via subway and most certainly never had to opt for the generic supplement because her insurance would not cover the brand name pre-natal supplements. She never sat in the waiting room, on one of these visits, with about twenty other people, some of whom were disorderly children, tired of waiting with their mothers who had to be seen by the tired OBGYN. She never felt the gripping anxiety of a doctor declaring that he needed to run another test on the fetus but was not sure if the insurance would cover it. She never had to drag herself to the office on public transportation, in all of the discomfort of being eight months pregnant and perform as if she were in the peak of health so that when she returned from her four weeks of maternity leave she would not be sent to another department by a spiteful boss who was waiting to kick her out, anyway. And, I dare say, Anne has never had to wonder if there were additional hours she would be able to pick up to supplement her paltry income.

This is part of the parallel that Ms. Rosen was drawing to the real women in the real world of work. She was not insulting stay at home mothers, at all. Rather, camp Romney is the one doing that by trying to hypnotize us into believing that this woman, who went through pregnancy and child rearing in privileged fashion, is a normal working woman, who understands the necessity of a WIC check and knows what it feels like to be examined on a gurney in an HIP office by a doctor who is apologetic for not being able to give the care he knows is needed because the ‘plan’ won’t cover it.

Hillary Rosen has done what many other analysts and politicians are too politically correct and intimidated to do. The politicians who have come out to publicly chastise her remarks are trying to retain their voting block but are doing so at the expense of political truth, here. This is one time Axelrod came across like an airhead.

Hillary has called a spade a spade. Anne Romney has never worked a day in her life. She has never stepped into the real working environment, having to deal with abrasive personalities and petty issues  for benefits that do not compensate for these troubles. She has never had to complete a project under strenuous circumstances by coordinating the efforts of personalities that were engaged in antagonistic office politics.

These are simply the facts. The Rosen comments were never intended to lessen the worth of the stay at home mom. Rather, they were made to draw a stark, real paralell to what is the life of the average working woman. Indeed, Anne Romney was never a part of this demographic and will never be and as such will forever be disingenuous with her ‘shoutouts’ to the stay at home moms, in her politcal campaign efforts to show that Mitt understands the needs of this voting block.

We should all be grateful for the bold, brave, honesty of politcal analysts like Rosen. She did not retreat to the politcally neutral stance that all women’s work is equally as important. That was not the issue. The issue here was that one politician, whose shameless prostitution for his Party’s nomination, will see him do and say anything that is necessary to secure it.

Rosen, the real working women and all those who know that there is a clear line of demarcation between being a quarter billionaire and working for a daily living, appalaud Ms. Rosen’s representation of those women who know what it is to work for the means to support a family.

And no.

Ordering around nannies, butlers, chauffeurs, home school teachers, undocumented immigrant gardeners, and the assortment of other hired help that attend the stinking rich, simply do not count.

As Rick Santorum graciously conceded defeat to no one in particular, there are many of us who respected his stoicism on what he made his belief system. Indeed, he took Conservatism to retarding proportions but at least he stood for something; and did so with the conviction that his immediate rival will never be able to demonstrate. For him, his victory was predicated upon waging a full scale cultural war, dismantling the gains achieved by women over several decades and identifying groups, like blacks by name. Santorum knew that the game now had new rules, since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to allow unlimited funding by any one donor to any candidate. He had a man named Foster Freiss in his pocket; a man who had little respect for women and even less for blacks who dare to become President. Rick, played to this man and as such, succeeded in executing an exploratory venture to run for President in 2016. We are truly sorry that he had to leave the race on account of the health of his daughter, though we cannot lose sight of the fact that he was about to receive a vote of no confidence in his presidential bid from his home state.

With Santorum gone, Romney now becomes the GOP shoo in as Presidential nominee but his effectiveness remains very questionable. He has proven not to be the type of Conservative that will bring out Southern voters. We saw how badly he lost to Newt and Rick amongst this segment of the electorate. Mitt is not much of a darling amongst women voters, either. He has pledged to ‘get rid’ of vehicles like Planned Parenthood and is ready to reverse social gains like Roe v Wade. And amongst students, he has the same flavor of popularity. He has indicated that he will roll back financial assistance programs and will advocate that those who do not have the financial means to attend Ivy Leagues should go to community colleges, instead.

With Rick gone and both Newt and Ron on life support, this should be a celebratory period for Mitt. He will finally receive his party’s nomination – a goal he has sought relentlessly and has shown that he is willing to engage in political prostitution to achieve. In receiving it, he would have outdone his father’s political achievements, as well as, his mother’s political ambitions. He would have accelerated past his brother, Scott, who lost his bid for the public office of Attorney General.

Mitt’s drive for the White House has hardly been about being President. He has taken every ideological position that he could, to keep him viable aand will brazenly embellish his accomplishments to bolster his actual achievements. Really! Does he really think that he saved the Olympics, that sport that has been around for centuries? Couldn’t he just say that he helped to stem the financial bleeding that was occurring from the organized misappropriation that was taking place? Absolutely not!! That hardly has that heroic ring to it, you know, the type that one could use when one is running for the office of POTUS .

Mitt is on the verge of achieving the family goal. He has now gone where no other Romney has been and for that he is about to be crowned emperor. In just a few weeks, he will be wearing that coveted political gown, complete with crown and scepter. A Reince Priebus will say to the world at large that they are proud to offer him the Party’s nomination for President. Mitt will feign coyness and in a blubber of words will say something to the effect, that he accepts. Wearing his new clothes this new emperor will leave the convention, just as he entered; conscious that there is greater benefit for him in winning the title than the office, for then every one would be able to confirm that he is just another wind bag who could Super Pac his way to office. This emperor will have new clothes.

But, alas ! The clothes shall have no emperor.

After the Lawrence O’Donnell three- pronged dissection of Joe Oliver- the “like an uncle like a best friend” spokes person for George Zimmerman – we can safely conclude that he is a hired hand, employed to attempt to refute the abundant evidence that Zimmerman’s murder of Trayvon Martin was triggered more by race than it was by the criminal intent Zimmerman suggests.

The whole situation is very curious. Oliver has been more of a failure in his broadcasting career than not- as is evidenced by his constant rotation amongst broadcasting stations which seemed to replace him as soon as someone better came along. Zimmerman, too, has had a career of failures, perpetually pursuing a career in law enforcement which continued to elude him because of a besmirched record drunkenness and battery.

Somewhere along this continuum of unrealized ambitions, these two men met and even then, there were shades of expediency to their meeting. According to Oliver, he was like a friend and uncle to Zimmerman, albeit knowing him for an intermittent six years via a mother-in –law and employer – Digital Risk-  that may have been moonlighting opportunities for these two men who were failing at their individual passions of broadcasting and law enforcement.

Now, as if by some perverse twist of fate, these two hapless beings have found a way to ride each other’s failures; as if in a last poetic hoorah, to trounce the hand of failure that they have both been dealt.

Oliver’s on –again- off- again job as a media personality gives him the kind of open door to the public that Zimmerman feels he could capitalize on at this moment of his implosion. Who better than a black man, to sell his story of remorse and piety to an angry nation, when he is seen as the racist murderer that he is?

And for Oliver, what better than the most controversial story of the hour, to profile alleged media prowess and try to shine the spotlight on  a career that is on life support? Why not use this as a ‘Custer’s last stand’ to try to get enough fame to become a syndicated broadcaster?

If played correctly, Oliver feels that he could be the healer of black/white racism in America by constantly reminding viewers that he as a black man he could empathize with the fear  Zimmerman feels for black rage. Plus, by virtue of his color, he is in the unique position of knowing black vernacular and knows that coon or goon, whether preceded by the universally derogatory F word, is merely term of endearment amongst black people.

From the hole in which Zimmerman is hiding from the Black Panthers who, in his deluded mind, have placed a paltry ten thousand dollar bounty on his head, Oliver’s front -man stance gives him an opportunity to say some of his best friends are black – as he invokes terms like ‘Black Panthers’ and ‘hunt’ to remain true to his obsession with the hunter and the hunted.

Right now, there seems to be a diabolic ring to this unholy union. These two seem to have come together by the perverse machinations of fate, for as much as George Zimmerman is a racist murderer, Joe Oliver is equally a hay maker whose morals are so abysmally low, that he is willing to step over the dead body of an innocent victim, to reach that unattainable height of syndicated newscaster.

And maybe, if he does get there, he will try to take Zimmerman as his body guard.

I was leaving this this story for Rush Limbaugh..

After all, for the past three weeks or so, he has been trying desperately to convince the media market that he is not a bigoted, sexist, racist broadcasting personality who has managed to garnish a bully pulpit because he appeals to the unsophisticated intellect of that sliver of consumers, who feel that churlish insults and disparaging innuendo mark political progress. From Rush cameth nary a word.

So, having been disappointed by this mogul who has, once again, not used his media reach to inform or edify, I will take to task the murder of Trayvon Martin; if only because his death reverts us to an era when racial profiling, especially of black men, was a blood sport for white men with hair trigger fingers.

The first question I was hoping to hear from the bellicose Rush, was why is George Zimmerman, not yet behind bars charged with first degree murder; of course asked in that inciting Rush snarl that provokes both empathy and sympathy. If there ever was a time that we needed Rush to put a citizen on trial, it is now.

Really, what was Zimmerman’s concern when he saw this youthful, slender, black man walking to his own home armed with a bag of skittles? Was he intimidated because the skittles was king size bag? What was his motivation for accosting the youth, in the first place? Did Zimmerman think that he is still living in that era of American history, when neighborhoods were separated by whites-only signs?

Then, of course, comes the other question that Rush could have posed via his media – if he was really into reporting news for the good of the nation, rather than just promoting propaganda for a far Right agenda. Why, (with the tone of incredulity that only Rush could  summon) is this man on neighborhood watch with a 9mm? Isn’t that against the usual neighborhood watch guidelines? Isn’t Zimmerman with a gun more like vigilantism? Where are the Articles of Association of this neighborhood watch, for scrutiny to determine the legitimacy of Zimmerman toting a gun at all?

Then, as if that question is not enough, is there a need for the media to now be calling Zimmerman half – Hispanic and emphasizing that he is not a full-blooded white male? Is the media trying to deflect the obvious racial profiling of this watchman, whose record notates lengthy racial profiling against black males?

There is a problem here that I wish the Rush media would have stepped in on. It is the fact that in 2012, a black man walking after dark, in a neighborhood that is perceived too upscale for him, is in real and present danger of being considered an intruder and will be gunned down  by those who tote guns for this particular purpose; a practice that prior to the Civil rights act of 1965, as popularly described as a ‘nigger hunt’. The NRA, too, has endorsed this reckless disregard for life by lobbying for lax gun control via dubious patriotic slogans like Charlton Heston’s Wild West declaration of “from my cold dead hands”. These occurrences, though separated by many years, are not mutually exclusive.

Now, in 2012, an overzealous neighborhood watchman, whose Barney Fife ambitions have amounted only to him being a student of criminal justice, felt that he had to speed up his career by gunning down a black man, in a neighborhood, he felt that the visiting Treyvon had no business being in.

Zimmerman was a walking time bomb. According to records, he has placed 46  911 calls in 201,1 as the neighborhood watch man. These calls were largely in reference to a ‘suspicious black male’ and stand as testimony to his preoccupation with looking for a way to be somebody who made a difference by using the trigger words “black male”. What is stark testimony here, too, is that the official who should have been monitoring the neighborhood watch calls as a matter of course and duty, failed to recognize the pathology of the loser behind all of these unfounded reports.

Zimmerman is also known as the neighborhood watch man who went door to door asking neighbors to look out for black men who came in to the community, since in his professional estimation, they were up to no good.

The comparison of Zimmerman’s actions to the lynching of Emett Till in 1955 may be considered harsh and unfair. I may be inclined to agree, except that in 2012, half of a century later, we are witnessing a disturbing resurgence of racism and bigotry that chip, not so subtly, away from the gains we made for race and gender equality in 1965.

To preserve these gains, which make us the humanitarian and democratic giant we are on the world stage, is what I expected Rush to do, via his vast platform, to people who share the sick passions of a Zimmerman and those of Rush’s own anti female sentiments.

Rush has chosen to remain silent on this real human tragedy; which gives me the opportunity to step in and kill two birds with one stone by calling for justice for the murdered Trayvon Martin and calling, again, for journalistic professionalism from Limbaugh, who has the advantage of a bully pulpit to shut down murder in the name of race, in this 2012.