By Roland S. Martin
Editor-in-Chief
RolandMartinReports.com

Whenever there is an uprising among the people of this country in the form of protest and organized dissent — especially with a presidential election 13 months away — the discussion inevitably shifts to what will it all mean for one of the nation’s two political parties.

No matter how hard its representatives have tried to suggest that it isn’t partisan, the tea party is nothing more than a sub-group of the Republican Party. If there were a healthy number of tea-party Democrats, then it would be true that the faction is non-partisan. But there isn’t, so it’s nonsensical to waste time not calling the tea-party Republicans exactly what they are: tea-party Republicans. From day one, the tea party aligned itself with the GOP, and that remains true today.

Yet, the attempt by Fox News, conservative radio show hosts and the GOP presidential candidates to associate Occupy Wall Street protesters with the image of far-leftist radical hippies marching in lockstep with the Democratic Party is wrong, shameful and pure intellectual dishonesty.

Being concerned about the nation’s well-being and the depths to which big-money interests are driving the nation’s policies is not a partisan question; it is a moral one. GOP presidential candidates want to cheapen the discussion by suggesting that Occupy Wall Street protesters hate capitalism. I sense they despise a nation that has come to be one wherein Fortune 500 companies and big banks run ads about how great America is but work hard to destroy America by shipping jobs overseas and engaging in shameful business practices that require the taxpayer to bail them out.

It’s real simple — and insanely stupid — to examine the true anger of Occupy Wall Street as a bunch of young folks with nothing to do. If we recall March 2009, when the AIG bonuses came to light, folks in every corner of this nation were angry at what they heard. Political ideology didn’t matter. It was seen as a matter of right and wrong.

That’s why the various leaders of Occupy Wall Street, no matter how local and de-centralized, must look at their effort as not one whose aim is to galvanize and put one party into office. Instead, the movement should be about candidates of both political parties, as well as independents, speaking to the American people’s needs and desires.

This tea-party-versus-Occupy-Wall-Street construct is a ridiculous one. From a media perspective, it’s a cheap and easy narrative, but in the end, it doesn’t tell the full story.

As someone who is more enamored with studying the intricacies of the civil rights movement rather than memorizing key speeches of its leaders, what was clear to me was that the civil rights movement wasn’t about getting a Democrat or Republican elected; it was always about ensuring full freedom and equality for African Americans who were denied their rights as citizens.

At different points, Republicans and Democrats were allies of the civil rights movement, while at the same time, some Republicans and Democrats were virulent opponents.

It wasn’t about party for civil rights leaders; it was about principle.

And that’s exactly where we sit today. As I listen to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators and watch as their protests proliferate across the country just like the lunch-counter sit-ins that spread like wildfire across the south in 1960, I notice that the goals and ideals sound eerily familiar. While in the ’60s, it was about race, the civil rights battlefront today is about class. It’s about the widening gap between the rich and poor and how the middle class is being pushed down into poverty rather than being helped upwards.

This struggle is the moral dilemma the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. frequently discussed. If folks would stop focusing on the last part of his “I Have a Dream” speech and read all of what he said at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on Aug. 28, 1963, they would understand that.

So what if Russell Simmons, Kayne West and other celebrities have millions and are showing support for Occupy Wall Street? When Harry Belafonte; Dick Gregory; Sidney Poitier; Bob Dylan; Joan Baez; Peter, Paul and Mary; Charlton Heston; Mahalia Jackson and other celebrities attended the 1963 march, no one said, “How dare those individuals with big bank accounts stand in solidarity with those with no bank accounts?” When it comes to fairness, your values matter more than your tax bracket.

If labor unions and politicians want to stand in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street, that’s a good thing. If individuals who work on or used to work on Wall Street want to show their support for the need for systemic changes to this system, more power to them. If self-identified Democrats and Republicans want to show their moral outrage, praise God.

Moral movements aren’t supposed to be poisoned by politics. When that happens, the legitimacy is lost. If politicians want to use their voices in support, they should. But at no time should Occupy Wall Street be about getting one party elected to local, county, state and national office.

The time has come for men and women of conscience in this nation to stand up. It’s vital that we select individuals, regardless of party, who choose not to form an incestuous relationship with the rich, who are only about fattening their bottom lines while ignoring the plight of others.

As Dr. King said, “An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.”

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as Originally Reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

While the media’s political high priests go gaga over Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann’s lying about the effects of the HPV vaccine and Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s cozy role with pharmaceutical giant Merck, the biggest issue to emerge from the CNN/Tea Party Express debate is virtually being ignored.

On Monday, a basic question about what the GOP should do to appeal to Latinos turned into a vicious discussion about building a wall along the Mexico-U.S. border, about how the DREAM Act is a horrible piece of legislation, and the typical Republican talking points about how awful illegal immigration is for the country.

Remember: The question had nothing to do with confronting illegal immigration. It was a softball question that any amateur politician could have answered in his or her sleep. About the only one who looked like a sane human being was Perry, who defended his efforts to provide state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants, a position that was met with resistance from the other candidates and the Tea Party audience.

Whether it was a foaming-at-the-mouth Rick Santorum or a pouncing Bachmann, what every candidate on that stage should have said is that Latinos should be attracted to the GOP for the same reason as white — or any other — voters. The common interests of good education, low crime and a chance to live the American Dream cut across every age, race, gender and sex.

But when the GOP hears the word “Latinos,” it’s as if something clicks that says, “Oh, yeah! Illegal immigrants!”

There’s no doubt that the ignoring of the original question showed the true intentions of Republicans on the stage; you’d think that Democrats would have seized on the moment, hitting Hispanic radio and TV over the next few days to drive home the idea of a Republican Party that is hostile to Latinos.

Instead, Democrats focused on the gaffes of Bachmann and Perry — and missed a chance to hone in on a group of voters that President Barack Obama desperately needs to win re-election, especially in the western states.

What this revealed is that when it comes to appealing to Latinos, the nation’s largest minority group, a lot of Republican minds revert to a default position of negativity. It reminds me of a group of black Republicans in Illinois that met with party leaders about appealing to African-American voters. When the black Republicans finished their strong presentation, the first statement they heard was, “We are not going to support welfare.”

The party leaders ignored the data on school choice, economic empowerment zones and religious issues, because for the largely white Republican leadership, black outreach was all about welfare.

To gain some perspective on the importance of the Latino vote, I reached out to Matt Barreto, a professor at the University of Washington and a partner with Latino Decisions, a polling firm that works with Pacific Market Research.

“In order to win the presidency in 2012,” Barreto told me, “the Republican challenger is going to need to carry 40 percent or more of the Latino vote nationally.

However, most candidates in the Republican field seem to be doing everything they can to run away from Latino voters as they court the conservative Tea Party crowd. As they currently stand, the Republican field has absolutely no strategy to connect, (reach out), or appeal to Latino voters, which polling numbers back up.
“In the Aug. 2011 ImpreMedia/Latino Decisions tracking poll, 45 percent of Latinos said Republicans don’t care about the Latino community; 27 percent said Republicans were outright hostile to Latinos; and just 18 percent said Republicans were doing a good job connecting with Latino voters. Likewise, there doesn’t seem to be any movement in favor of voting Republican among Latinos in 2012.

“Back in Nov. 2010, Latino Decisions reported that 19 percent of Latino voters said they would vote Republican in 2012, and in our Aug. 2011 tracking poll, exactly 19 percent say they will vote Republican in 2012. The Republican candidates face a considerable gap of 20 points with the Latino electorate if they have any hope of winning states like Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico, which all flipped red-to-blue in 2008.”

That would all sound like good news for Democrats, but Barreto said that they, too, have problems.

“If the Republicans have a weakness in reaching out to Latinos,” Barreto said, “the Democrats are currently not exploiting that. The DNC and the Obama re-election campaign have, so far, done very little public outreach on either Spanish- or English-language TV. While things may be happening behind the scenes, connecting with average voters takes targeted outreach, and so far that doesn’t seem to be happening.

“While the Democrats rate much higher than Republicans, just 43 percent of Latinos say the Dems are doing a good job of reaching out to their community, and when it comes to voting in 2012, just 38 percent of Latinos are certain to vote for Obama, with an additional 16 percent saying ‘maybe.’

Rather than waiting until Oct. 2012 to make a mad dash for the Latino vote, both parties need to start now by talking to Latino voters, and whoever takes this seriously in 2011 will reap the benefits in 2012.”

Obama is clearly in a better position to attract a sizeable share of the Latino vote, which will be a crucial cog in his re-election effort. If the GOP wants to actually win, it is going to have to become more than just a southern, white party. The Democrats clearly have a lock on the black vote, which the GOP won’t waste any resources trying to crack.

… Which leaves their opportunities for growth with Latino voters.

But after listening to Monday’s debate, the current crop of GOP candidates mostly showed that if the topic isn’t illegal immigration, they have no plans to appeal to Latino voters. And that’s a position they could come to regret the day after the elections in Nov. 2012.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as Originally Reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

There are times when even I want to round up as many members of the media as possible, put them all in a Noah’s Ark-type boat and set them off to sail in the hopes of never seeing them again.

Watching, listening to and reading all of the media reports about the GOP nomination essentially being a two-man race between former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry has set my blood to boiling. Here we sit, four months before the first ballot is cast, and, already, my comrades in the media have thrown everyone else overboard and declared that it’s really between these two.

Rep. Michele Bachmann’s win in the Ames Straw Poll, which is in fact a bought-and-paid-for contest, seems like it took place three years ago, rather than less than a month ago. The conventional wisdom says that Romney has been the frontrunner since he entered the race; he has an economics background and can raise a lot of money.

Then, guess who shows up with a Texas-sized swagger? Perry. He comes from a big state, has access to big bucks, has big-movie-star looks and talks a big game.

Uh-oh! That’s it! We now have our perfect match-up.

Really?

Look, I get the polls. And yes, it could come down to the two of them. But our actions are utterly shameful when we choose to negate every other candidate solely because we, the media, have determined that he or she can’t be elected.

Bachmann? Too crazy. Paul? A space cadet. Newt Gingrich? A retread. Jon Huntsman? Too moderate. Rick Santorum? Too preachy.

The problem with these pre-determined winners and losers is that our coverage is slanted toward those who we think stand the best chance at winning, thereby denying all other candidates the opportunity to put their messages forward.

The danger we face today is this: So many more sources are covering politics, and the echo chamber gets so loud that the voices of the folks who really matter — the voters — get drowned out by the all-knowing sages in Washington, D.C.

I’ve given one of the establishment folks I always see and hear the nickname “The Oracle.” I often say that we exist in his Matrix.

When he speaks, it’s as if God has appeared in the flesh.

Give me a break.

A lot can happen over a four-month period. All of the candidates will be put through the ringer, and it’s the voters who must sift through the madness to make an informed decision. I just don’t believe we’re helping this process along by narrowing the field, making our own calls and then continuing this ridiculous game of hype in an attempt to draft others into the race.

Seriously, why do we even bother asking former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani if he’s going to run? Folks, the man ran one of the worst campaigns in eons in 2008. If it weren’t for former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, Giuliani’s campaign would have earned the title “worst of the worst.”

We continue to chase Sarah Palin around the country, even if she’s just stopping by a museum. Our actions have become atrocious.

Too many of us in the media want to make our status more important than it is. And it’s clear that this decision to narrow the GOP field fits our agenda — not that of the people.

If there’s one thing 2008 taught us with the election of President Barack Obama, it was to throw conventional wisdom out the window. Maybe the only way we do that is by throwing out all of these professional, Washingtonian political reporters and commentators who make it more about them than the American voter.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as Originally Reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Source: Rev. Al Sharpton / The Huffington Post

As much as President Obama worked to keep his jobs plan and Congressional address from being juxtaposed with the Republican debate, the last two evenings proved remarkable for anyone concerned about the state of the nation. On one side, you had a president outlining methods of kick starting job creation, while on the other, you had a flock of candidates who received the biggest applause after a comment regarding high numbers of executions in the state of Texas. The president once again urged his opposition to put petty differences aside and pass his bill quickly, meanwhile GOP presidential hopefuls were busy attacking Social Security and each other instead of providing us with solutions to our jobs crisis. To the voting public, these two nights portrayed everything we need to know about the next election: keep progressing forward, or revert backwards to a place where our intelligence is insulted and the rich keep rewarding themselves.

“The purpose of the American Jobs Act is simple: to put more people back to work and more money in the pockets of those who are working,” stated the president in his address in front of a joint session of Congress on Thursday evening. Calling for tax incentives for small businesses and $1500 tax cuts for working Americans, he pushed for job creation in many industries while providing additional tax credits for those companies that hire the long-term unemployed. But perhaps most noteworthy from his speech was the tone that this president set; it was firm, to the point, conciliatory and yet forceful all at the same time. It was, in effect, brilliant. Although the devil will be in the details that are scheduled to be released a week from this Monday, the president has literally checkmated John Boehner.

In this highly anticipated jobs speech, our commander-in-chief urged every member gathered in the room to put their differences aside and pass the plan immediately. Again rising above partisan politics, he appealed to a new level of patriotism thereby leaving his opponents as nothing but petty if they were to challenge his job creation ideas. Addressing workers’ rights and collective bargaining rights, the president acknowledged the importance and relevance of unions and labor in our society. Highlighting the need to have the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share in taxes, he stressed the importance of assisting those hurting the most by doing things like extending unemployment insurance for another year.

There will be those that will continue to criticize the president no matter what he says or does, but after Thursday night, nobody can deny that he has the nation’s best interest at heart. While he spoke of saving schools and encouraging future engineers, GOP candidates continued to pander to their base and avoid any real discussion of any real solutions the evening before. While some folks like Rick Perry and Mitt Romney appeared the clear frontrunners, none of the Republican candidates gave any substantive answers in terms of job creation. As they touted death penalties, attacks on Social Security and of course attacks on one another, they failed to address the real issues Americans lose sleep over. With unemployment remaining painfully stagnant, their non-existent ideas will keep them non-existent at the polls.

The depth of our current economic crisis is so complex that there are no easy answers. But if we are to maintain our strong standing in the world, we must begin to follow through on the president’s suggestions as quickly as possible. The work starts now, and it will take all of us to dig ourselves out of the trenches and push forward.

This week of debates and speeches has left one thing clear: we can either continue bickering with one another much like candidates did on Wednesday evening, or we can create and work towards sustainable resolutions as our president now calls each and every one of us to do.

Follow Rev. Al Sharpton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheRevAl

Source: Etan Thomas / CNN

I have the utmost respect for Dr. Cornel West and Tavis Smiley. Their accomplishments are vast. Dr. West, an academic philosopher at Princeton University, has for decades spoken up for the poor.

Tavis Smiley, talk show host and author, has always used his platform to discuss the issues of the black community and the country as a whole.

President Obama said during the 2008 campaign that we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable. That is a simple injunction that many in politics do not follow.

That said, I respectfully disagree with West and Smiley’s characterization of President Obama’s first term in office. West has simply described it as a failure, and referred to the president as “the black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs,” and the “head of the American killing machine.” Smiley has accused the president of ignoring the issues of the black community. The two held a 16-city “Poverty Tour” earlier this month, during which they aired their complaints about Obama.

To hear them tell it, one would think that Obama is in the back pocket of Wall Street and the banks and has turned his back on the working poor, impoverished and middle class in America.

I am not looking at President Obama’s first term through rose colored glasses. There is always room for criticism and improvement; our president’s decisions are far from perfect.

But the criticism from West and Smiley leave out a lot. They ignore the positive moves Obama has made to benefit — in real ways — the black community, the poor, the disadvantaged, and the country as a whole.

Let’s take Obama and health care reform.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which he shepherded and signed into law, insurance companies are no longer allowed to deny insurance to individuals because of pre-existing conditions. Children can now remain covered by their parents’ insurance until age 26. No longer will there be kids fresh out of college starting in entry level positions walking around with no health insurance.

The prescription drug cost for Medicare recipients was cut by 50%. More than 30 million people who did not have access to coverage will now have that access.

This legislation is not perfect — it lacks the public option many had hoped for — but it is the largest federal reform in a lifetime, a tremendous accomplishment.

Then there is the Children’s Health Insurance Re-authorization Act, signed into law by Obama, which provides health care to millions of kids .

Let’s talk Obama and education.

President Obama signed The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which invests $5 billion in early childhood programs like Head Start.

Studies show such programs help kids stay in school longer, earn more money in the long term and have lower involvement in crime.

President Obama also expanded Pell Grants, which help low income students pay for college.

He has done what no other president had done before by enacting the Student Aid and Financial Responsibility Act, which makes college more affordable while ending federal subsidies to private lenders and replacing them with a Direct Loan program. This is a direct contradiction of West’s claims that the president has “sold out” to the big banks. The banks lost billions on this act; in taking them out of the equation, students are no longer held hostage to credit markets.

Somehow, these accomplishments, which have a direct impact on the poor are not mentioned in West’s and Smiley’s critique.

There’s more. Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination

Through the HIRE Act, signed in March, 2010, Obama gave $18 billion in tax breaks for small businesses. He signed a bill extending unemployment insurance.

To review, then: Putting money into community colleges, job readiness programs, putting actual checks into actual hands — these things don’t sound like the actions of someone who doesn’t care about the poor and impoverished.

There is a very real crisis in this country.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 45 million Americans live in poverty. Unemployment is 9.1 %. Such statistics are, as Rep. Maxine Waters has said, “unconscionable.”

President Obama has been demonstrating that he knows this. So why make someone like him your enemy when you are fighting on the same side?

If West and Smiley would like Obama to do more, that’s valid. If they feel, like Rep. Elijah Cummings, that “people need to know that the president feels their pain,” that too is understandable. But the facts simply don’t support the accusation that Obama holds a laissez-faire attitude toward economically marginalized Americans.

He has faced huge partisan resistance. His campaign adviser, David Axelrod, says Obama will soon announce a jobs plan that is expected to include an extension of payroll tax cuts, new revenue for transportation projects and an extension of emergency unemployment benefits. He notes that there’s nothing in the proposal “that reasonable people shouldn’t be able to agree on,” yet many Republicans are already preparing to reject whatever the president puts on the table.

Are they trying to stymie job creation initiatives, and then blame the president for high unemployment when the election rolls around?

I’m not saying that President Obama should be exempt from criticism, nor do I believe it is some act of racial treason for a black person to hold our president accountable for his actions. But West and Smiley have a responsibility to present a fair and complete picture, not a skewed version. Could their slanted criticism result in so many of the working poor and impoverished working class becoming so discouraged that they stay home on election day in 2012?

If they think they have issues with the president not doing enough for the poor now, wait and see what happens if the opposition takes office. Then they would really need a poverty tour.

We must not forget the mess that President Obama walked into. Obama said in his victory speech, “even as we celebrate tonight we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime. …The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year, or even one term.”

To follow this topic visit CNN.

Source: Mary McNamara / The Los Angeles Times

The Oprah Winfrey Network’s fall schedule is overstocked with shows hammering home the same inspirational self-love formula, but here’s how to shake things up.

Dear Oprah Winfrey:

It’s been a month and a half since you announced that you would be forfeiting the much-deserved vacation you planned to take after the final episode of “The Oprah Winfrey Show” to devote yourself to the struggling Oprah Winfrey Network. Now, I realize that is not a lot of time, but I’ve seen the description of the new fall lineup, and I’m a little concerned.

The new “Rosie O’Donnell Show” could be terrific, or not, as Rosie tends to be, but the three other new shows — a reality show about a St. Louis family-owned soul food restaurant (“Welcome to Sweetie Pie’s”), a wedding makeover show (“Don’t Tell the Bride”) and a series of interviews with famous people (“Visionaries: Inside the Creative Mind”) — seem simply more of the same. That is, reality TV designed to inspire us.

When you began your network, you said you did not want to contribute to the air of “meanness” you felt permeated much of television. Unfortunately, the folks at OWN appear to believe that the only alternative to “mean” is earnest. As in earnest documentaries, earnest reality shows or earnest, expert-driven self-help. All of which require, by their very nature, an endless succession of troubled individuals attempting to better their lives through selective revelation and the acceptance of the healing power of self-love. In “Finding Sarah,” which boiled the OWN narrative down to its essentials, the former duchess of York sought self-esteem as if she were on some psychological treasure hunt.

The few shows that tried to provide a little counterpoint — “Becoming Chaz,” “The O’Neals,” “Our America With Lisa Ling” — were overwhelmed by the insistent harmony of the choir singing to the preacher.

Here’s the thing. Too much “inspiration” is a drag, and too much advice is annoying. As on your iconic show, they need to be balanced with other flavors. Here are a few ingredients from your own recipe for success that you seem to have misplaced:

1. Fiction. Do you only choose uplifting nonfiction for your vaunted book club? No, you do not. So there had better be a scripted drama or two in the works, because reality, as a genre, is based on our need to judge our fellow humans no matter how much you tart it up with good works. An obvious choice would be to create the Oprah version of “Masterpiece Theatre,” in which your favorite modern novels could be dramatized, but there are plenty of series ideas out there that would work for OWN, just as female cop shows have worked for TNT and the oddball-driven procedurals have worked for USA.

2. Humor. For a woman who has used humor so effectively in the rest of her career, you have allowed it to be all but excised from your network. Things do not need to be mean to be funny. Rosie will no doubt add some sass, but don’t be afraid to go younger — I am sure there are hundreds of comedians, female and male, dying to come up with the OWN version of “The Daily Show.” Seriously, how great would that be? And TV could use a smart sitcom about women doing something other than coping with smart-mouth kids.

3. Dissent. What lifted “The View” from a.m. background noise was the fact that the women honestly did not agree with one another on many things. Just ask Rosie. Conflict provides both energy and integrity to television — if everyone agrees all the time, someone is lying a lot, and I’m not talking about scientists arguing with theologians about the nature of miracles (although that show would have worked better if every episode hadn’t ended with them agreeing to disagree or if it had been a scripted drama with a little romantic tension.)

4. Romantic tension. Are you telling us that love and sex aren’t parts of living your best life, Oprah? Because all we’ve gotten so far are a show about infidelity and Dr. Laura Berman dealing with a bunch of troubled marriages. Who needs to turn on the TV to see those? If we can’t smolder and make out, we don’t want any part of your revolution.

5. Contrast. Currently, OWN is so determined to be upbeat it’s become one-note. Watch it for a few hours and you feel like you’re going to church. If you think you’re reinventing television, you’re not — right now, you’re just making it a bit more self-righteous.

But give yourself a break, Oprah. You don’t have to reinvent it; there are plenty of terrific templates out there that you can tweak and twist and Oprahfy to your heart’s content. Just please try to have some fun while you’re doing it. For a woman who now runs her own network, you don’t seem to be enjoying yourself, and frankly, neither are we.

Sincerely,

Mary McNamara

It’s only fitting that during the week we were to dedicate the memorial in Washington, D.C., to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., an earthquake would hit the region and the entire east coast would be bracing itself for a hurricane. When we think about the enormity of Dr. King’s work — work for which he gave his life — as well as the efforts of the many folks involved in the Civil Rights Movement, it’s plain to see that their actions struck at this nation’s core with the ferocity of nature’s force.

At Thursday’s MLK Memorial Foundation luncheon, which honored the veterans of the movement, former Congressman Bill Gray said the Civil Rights Movement was America’s third revolution, following the American Revolution and the Civil War. But some critics of the King memorial claim that because he wasn’t a president, he doesn’t deserve such an honor on the National Mall. That isn’t so, and we should forever be thankful for Alpha Phi Alpha, Inc., King’s fraternity — and mine — for leading the effort over the last 25 years to making this memorial happen.

It’s important to understand that King is vital to this nation’s history, and thus he belongs on the National Mall. Across the tidal basin is the Thomas Jefferson Memorial, which honors the man who articulated the vision of America. To the left sits the monument of George Washington, who led the nation in the fight to establish America.

Behind the King monument is the Lincoln Monument, dedicated to the man who kept America from tearing itself apart.

But out of all of these men, it took a King to force America to live up to its ideals. Americans loved to recite the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, but for many, those were simply hollow words. Americans really didn’t understand what it meant to be an American, until King and many domestics, postal workers, day laborers, doctors and lawyers forced the nation to make it happen.

So when Americans now travel to the nation’s capital, they can pay homage to a great man who was serious about his work, serious about the plight of the poor and the disenfranchised and serious about making America a better — and freer — place.

The King Memorial, while it bears his name, really represents freedom fighters. What should inspire all who see it is that no matter your station in life, you can be a difference-maker. Dr. King was just 25 when he was drafted into the movement. If there is something in your community that needs to be addressed, do it. Don’t wait. Don’t whine. Don’t complain. Don’t pass the buck. Just be willing to serve and care — and do it out of love and compassion.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as Originally Reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Source: Jasmyne Cannick / JasmyneCannick.com

L.A.’s Congresswoman Maxine Waters has started a firestorm after her comments yesterday at Wayne State Community College in Detroit regarding President Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus, and Blacks.

When asked why the Black members of Congress don’t pressure the president she replied, “We don’t put pressure on the president because ya’ll love the president. You love the president. You’re very proud to have a black man — first time in the history of the United States of America. If we go after the president too hard, you’re going after us.”

I almost fell out of my chair. While what she said is absolutely true, I was just shocked to actually hear a Black member of congress say it publicly.

I don’t think it’s a secret that the majority of Black people are still celebrating the election of “the first Black president”—whether they voted for him or not. With us, because he’s Black, we feel some since of ownership and kinship when it comes to the President.

However, I can’t say that it’s a mutual adoration—in fact, these days I’d go as far as to say it feels like “the first Black president” might even be shuckin’ and jivin’ when it comes to us with no shows at the NAACP (2009), Urban League (2010), and National Action Network’s (2011) conferences—but time enough to speak to Latino’s with the DREAM Act and gays about DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Black people—well all we get is “a rising tide lifts all boats” speech, and tell your kids to stop eating Popeye’s for breakfast and to turn the TV off.

Me–I long fell out of love with the President. I don’t talk about it much because doing so can be a detriment to your well-being in certain company.

To be honest, I’m just not that impressed with his policies regarding poverty and more importantly on Black issues. And while the two issues are not synonymous, there are a lot of poor Black unemployed people.

I’ll admit, I expected more. I hate to think that a white woman would have done more for the poor and for Blacks than “the first Black president.” Or that a cheating philandering white man would have made sure that my grandmother’s other senior’s Social Security checks weren’t less $200 every month now.

But that’s me and just framing your mouth to say anything negative about “the first Black president” around the wrong people could result in exerting the kind of energy I really don’t have to waste in arguing with people—who while they love their “first Black president” haven’t voted since 2008, won’t vote again until November 2012, and couldn’t tell me who their councilmember, Assemblymember, or State Senator is to save their life—but will fight to the death over “the first Black president.”

And no—I am not a Republican, but at the same time, I’m not and haven’t been feeling the Democrats either–who have a tendency to be just as racist as their counterparts—they just hide it better.

In continuing her comments on the president and Black people Rep. Waters said, “all I’m saying to you is, we’re politicians. We’re elected officials. We are trying to do the right thing and the best thing. When you let us know it is time to let go, we’ll let go.”

Now keep in mind that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are themselves member of Congress, i.e. politicians, who like any other politician are concerned with staying in office. Waters herself knows that as long as Black people continue in this love affair with “the first Black president,” while she might want to say something against the president’s policies, it might not be in her best interest if he wants to get re-elected. Although with Congresswoman Waters—if anyone is safe in doing so and retaining their seat in Congress, she is. Black people love her as much or more than the President himself.

So even while in Rep. Waters words, “ our people are hurting” and “the unemployment is unconscionable,” I truly believe that Black people’s love infatuation with “the first Black president” is what keeps them blind to all this or at least the president’s role in it. We like to rationalize all of the president’s actions or inaction with six simple words, “but he’s the first Black president.”

But the plot thickens.

Now, whenever challenged on what the president has or hasn’t done for Black people the message has been drilled into our heads to blindly and without much thought repeat something to the tune of “let’s just him re-elected. Once he’s safe and in office for another four years, he’s going to look out for Black people.”

As if.

If he hasn’t shown up for us now, I have little—make that no faith—that another four years will do the trick.

And no—I am not of the mindset that the Black president has to be the president for Black people. I’ve spent enough time working in politics to know that’s of the question. But what I did expect was that “the first Black president” would do more for Black people in this country than pay us lip service and that for the poor they’d show up in his agenda for America not just as an afterthought or third in line to middle class and corporate America.

To be fair, the president isn’t alone my disappointment—the whole of Congress can join him in that. My point is that, since he’s “the first Black president” and it is assumed that the majority of Black people are following blindly behind him like he’s the second coming of Jesus Christ himself here on Earth, I felt it my duty to say something for the few Blacks who don’t subscribe to that train of thought.

To follow this topic visit JasmineCannick.com

When talking to a friend who wanted to cheat on his wife, the Malik Yoba character in the movie “Why Did I Get Married?” talks about the 80-20 rule, which says that in relationships, you likely have 80 percent of what you need, and if you cheat, you’re chasing the 20 percent of what you want.

Please, can someone explain the 80-20 rule to the Texas A&M Board of Regents and the chorus of Aggies who are pining to join the Southeastern Conference?

As a Texas A&M graduate, and a major football fan – I have season tickets to the Houston Texans and often fly home to attend games – it is clear that Aggies are reacting with misplaced emotions and ego run amok that has nothing to do with logic.

Last year, it was the Pac-10’s aggressive pursuit of the University of Texas, and Colorado and Nebraska bolting to the Big 10. When the Big 12 made concessions to A&M and Texas in the form of a bigger payout, both schools re-affirmed their commitment to the Big 12. Now that Texas has signed a 20-year, $300 million deal with ESPN to launch the Longhorn Network, Aggies are raging mad, suggesting the partnership will give the t-sips (our nickname for Longhorns) an unfair recruiting advantage.

The anger of Big 12 schools at the Longhorn Network with regards to airing high school football games, as well as pulling games away from the Big 12 TV package, are more than legitimate. But there are some fundamental issues that Aggies need to accept in their belief that the SEC will mean greener pastures.

1. Go ask Arkansas. In 1990, Arkansas bolted the Southwest Conference for the big money of the SEC. A powerhouse in the SWC, Arkansas took the money and ran, but for years, it was a laughingstock in the SEC. How many BCS games has Arkansas played in? ONE. The 2011 Sugar Bowl was their first-ever BCS bowl game. Football national championships won as a member of the SEC? None. Men’s basketball? One. SEC football titles won in SEC? None. So Arkansas has banked a lot of dough, but has it translated to major bowl games and football titles? Not at all.
2. Three critical letters: B-C-S. Right now, the Big 12 is one of six conferences with automatic bids to the Bowl Championship Series. If Texas A&M left, that goes out of the window. Right now, the power teams in the Big 12 are Oklahoma, Texas, A&M and Oklahoma State. If you want a shot at a national title and the big money paydays, it’s smarter to stay put than add yourself to a SEC logjam. Fewer major conferences is not the answer.
3. Competing with Texas. Look, one of the reasons why Texas has dominated the football scene in the state the last decade is because the Aggies have sucked. Is that too strong of a word? Fine. We’ve been grossly mediocre. When Texas A&M was winning, we were dominant nationally, and in a number of years, overshadowed the University of Texas. The only thing that will turn that around is winning. Yes, winning cures everything. If A&M had maintained its success on the field, it would have a stronger hand to play. Right now, it doesn’t. Texas does.
4. Lose the Texas inferiority complex. Land grant universities have always fought this. Look at Alabama and Auburn. The Tide has always seen itself as the more urbane university while Auburn has been portrayed as the country hicks. In Kansas, K-State is treated as a second-class school compared to the more cultured Kansas. In the Lone Star State, A&M has always fought being second fiddle to UT. Texas is located in Austin, and governmental leaders have always seen it as the flagship school and for years, deposited the big money there and not in College Station. Fine, it is what it is. But use that as a chip on your shoulder. Running off to the SEC won’t solve that. Aggies need to have high self-esteem and not give a flip about the Longhorns. When I came out of Jack Yates Magnet School of Communications, I was told UT had the top journalism program. I didn’t care. Aggieland felt better, and I didn’t have to wear that hideous burnt orange. No doubt my career has turned out fine. This is about low self-esteem when Aggies say they are operating in the shadows of Texas. Running away doesn’t solve that. Taking it on head on is the only way to get over it.
5. In-state rivalries matter. The beauty of the SWC was that nearly every school was located in the Lone Star State. That is not the case with the Big 12, but it’s still great to see the amazing rivalries in the workplace. We won’t have the same intensity with Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt and Mississippi State as we do with Baylor, Texas Tech and Texas. There will be nothing special about facing any school other than Texas on Thanksgiving. Rivalries have meaning, and go far beyond football. For goodness sakes, the entire Aggie War Hymn is aimed at the University of Texas! We hate one another whether it’s softball, soccer, swimming, golf, handball, lacrosse, equestrian or track and field. Going to the SEC means that amazing back-and-forth is gone. In essence, Texas A&M is willing to sell its soul for the big bucks of the SEC.

Texas A&M has a better shot of being a dominant school in sports by staying right where they are. That 20 percent may look good today, but there is no doubt that if the Texas A&M family walks away from the 80 percent, they will regret it for years to come.

In all of my years covering politics on the local, state and national level, many stories have earned the “Are you serious?” look.

The newest one? The so-called sexist cover of Newsweek depicting Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Conservatives have been up in arms, slamming the “liberal” Tina Brown and Newsweek for choosing a photo that supposedly depicts Bachmann as the political equivalent of Jack Nicholson in “The Shining.”

To the angry conservatives, and delusional feminists, give it a rest. There is nothing sexist about the photo, nor does it reveal a flaming liberal bias. But this is the perfect cable news story. We are treated to fake outrage; condemnations from conservatives and feminist voices; nonsensical shouts of “They wouldn’t do this to a man.” And then it all goes away.

In fact, Newsweek should be ripped to shreds because the photo doesn’t even go with the headline, “Queen of Rage.”

I’ve run three weekly newspapers, and I can tell you that if I wanted to show a person full of rage, I wouldn’t pick the crummy photo Newsweek chose.

When I ran the Dallas Weekly, I wrote a cover story on Khallid Muhammad, former national spokesman for the Nation of Islam. I ran a photo of him preaching, and his face had a serious scowl; he was sweating like crazy — it was taken in Jasper, Texas, where James Byrd Jr. was dragged to his death behind a pickup truck — and he was wearing military fatigues.

Now that image went perfectly with the headline of someone full of rage.

But let’s not act like Rep. Bachmann hasn’t used anger at the political system to her advantage. She rails against one thing or another every day. She’s not a nut case like Glenn Beck, but she has no doubt employed anger against President Barack Obama and liberals to become a darling of the tea party, and a reliable provider of a quality soundbite.

Now when I see stories discussing her makeup and whether she is sexier than Sarah Palin, hell yes, that’s sexist. Even trying to suggest she will take Palin’s supporters implies that she can only compete for women voters.

Is that Newsweek cover any worse than any column by Maureen Dowd of The New York Times challenging the manhood of President Obama?

But folks, get a grip. If media writers can openly opine about whether President George H.W. Bush is a wimp; if Mitt Romney is soulless; if Tim Pawlenty is Mr. Boring; then surely we don’t have to lose our minds and come up with a faux sexist narrative about Newsweek’s Bachmann cover.

Maybe media types needed this story so they don’t have to cover something far more substantive. Say, like a falling economy while the idiots in Congress chill for a month.

Now that’s something to be angry about.

When congressional Republicans, egged on by the boisterous voices of the tea party, vigorously objected to President Barack Obama’s signing a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia in December, GOP stalwarts were called in to explain why it was necessary to support the effort.

By having the secretaries of state under Republican presidents weigh in, GOP critics couldn’t just lay the blame at the feet of Obama without having to trample the integrity of Henry Kissinger, George P. Shultz and James A. Baker III.

Once they publicly came out for the treaty and were photographed in the White House, the momentum shifted, and the treaty was approved.

No matter how principled someone may be when he comes to Washington, he is going to have to learn how to play along with others. That’s the rule in the sandbox, and it should be the same rule in Congress.

But we have become a nation in which the strong ideologies that the left and right clutch to for dear life don’t allow for middle ground. In fact, if you even broach the idea of compromising, activists on both sides will tear you to shreds and make it hard for you to even win a primary.

As a result, we have elected mercenaries to Congress who aren’t interested in the well-being of all Americans, just the sliver of the voting public that sent them to the nation’s capital. They play to the activists who raise money and turn out en masse at rallies.

The ongoing debate over the debt ceiling is a prime example of this unwillingness to consider an alternative viewpoint that could avert a crisis.

On one side, Democrats didn’t want the GOP — or even President Obama — going near entitlement programs as a part of deficit reduction. When the president put those on the table in his negotiations with Republicans, Democrats revolted in anger.

Social Security and Medicare have long been strong political rallying points for the Democrats, and they want to keep that edge.

President Obama made clear that revenues had to be a part of any plan. The Congressional Budget Office has been clear that the Bush tax cuts contributed $3.3 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. Talk to conservative activists, TV pundits and members of Congress and they swear that it isn’t true. But it is. Facts simply aren’t debatable.

So instead of confronting cuts that adversely impact the national debt, House Republicans saw that as a non-starter, refusing to allow any revenues to be a part of any debt ceiling deal. As a result, Obama’s grand plan of a $4 trillion debt reduction was shot down, but House Speaker John Boehner’s plan came to slightly less than $1 trillion. And fiscal conservatives are happy?

The reality is that President Obama is a Democrat; Republicans control the House; and Democrats control the United States Senate. Both sides can push their perspectives as hard as possible, but unless we stop treating the word “compromise” as a dirty word, we will have endless partisan fights that make ideologues feel good but the nation in a worse state than it was before, and we will not move this country forward.

The House has passed Boehner’s plan. Now the Senate will take up Majority Leader Harry Reid’s debt plan. They are very different. Let’s pray that both parties don’t dig in their heels and learn to give a little. Otherwise, the nation’s credit is jeopardized, and those already hit by the recession will be plunged even further into the economic abyss.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Watching Republicans and Democrats squabble over their ideological battle lines with regard to the debt ceiling is the same as looking at a bratty child fall out in the middle of the floor with a temper tantrum when he doesn’t get his way.

On one hand, Republicans are trying desperately to hold on to their purely insane ideological position of there being no revenue or tax increases. It is as if these idiots refuse to believe any data that make clear that the massive tax cuts put in place by President George W. Bush have increased the federal deficit. But they are afraid of running afoul of Grover Norquist and his Kool-Aid drinkers at Americans for Tax Reform, who are more than willing to protect the millionaires and billionaires in this country — with their jets and yachts — from having to pay taxes at previous levels.

Then there are the Democrats, who have this equally insane belief that we can reduce the deficit and not touch Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Those three areas, along with the billions we continue to spend on national defense, constitute most of the dollars we spend on the federal budget. And those costs are spiraling out of control. So of course, we must make some hard choices, and yes, that will mean making adjustments that might upset seniors.

At the end of the day, this ludicrous standoff is doing severe damage to America’s credibility in the financial markets, and even toying with not increasing the debt ceiling could have severe repercussions on all of us. But when clueless representatives, such as Michele Bachmann, suggest that nothing would happen if we were not to raise the debt ceiling, they just prove they would destroy this nation in order to preserve an ideological purity.

Right now, Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, the world’s two leading credit rating agencies, have put the U.S. and our AAA credit rating on their watch lists, with S&P stating Thursday that “owing to the dynamics of the political debate on the debt ceiling, there is at least a one-in-two likelihood that we could lower the long-term rating on the U.S. within the next 90 days.”

No party can try to claim that the other is at fault for this perilous situation. Both have contributed to this mess with their unwillingness to make the tough choices. And yes, American taxpayers must absorb the burden, as well, because when a politician makes the tough choice to cut or not fund our every whim and desire, we toss him out of office.

This debate is all about politics. No matter that not raising the debt ceiling would impact every American in a negative way. Social Security and military checks would be in jeopardy; expect to see massive losses in our 401(k) accounts; and access to credit, already difficult, would become nearly impossible. But Democrats don’t want to touch Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, because those are a potent bat to bash Republicans with in every election.

We just saw the Dems win a congressional seat in a hard-core Republican district in New York based on Rep.

Paul Ryan’s Medicare proposal. They know seniors vote in larger numbers than anyone else, and losing a potent political weapon is unthinkable for them. So that’s why they are angry with President Barack Obama for putting the options on the table.

Republicans are like a suicide bomber when it comes to the mantra of low taxes and smaller government; no matter how much damage is done, as long as they hold their ground, they think they are doing the right thing. Get angry all you want about my making the suicide bomber analogy, but even threatening to blow up the American economy is akin to committing suicide, all for an ideological purity. But by holding firm to their position, they know it appeals to their core voters.

That is precisely why I’ve despised the labels of Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. Damn an ideology. At some point, you’ve got to analyze a situation and say, “This is the right thing to do.”

But all of these politicians are afraid of one thing: losing their jobs. Frankly, they really don’t care about the millions of jobs that we have seen lost in this economy over the past four years. It is about those 435 powerful jobs in the House of Representatives, the 100 in the Senate and the one at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

This is when the American public, especially the silent majority, must get off their collective butt and say, “Get this deal done. Now.” Enough with the tea partyers driving Republicans over a cliff with their insistence on no revenue increases. And enough with Democrats bowing down to the liberal left, which says “no mas” to any entitlement cuts.

All of you who sit passively by and watch as the ideological purists make all the noise and dominate the cable news shows must take a stand and say, “Enough!”

All Americans should be blowing up the phone lines and email inboxes of their representatives every day until a debt ceiling deal is brokered. Sure, you may not like a revenue increase or an entitlement cut, but thinking the other side must share the full burden is just dumb. “Shared pain” is not a negative statement. It’s real and necessary.

If the GOP gets its way, we lose. If the Democrats get their way, we lose. We simply cannot continue down this insane path of ideological purity driving our nation’s agenda. If President Ronald Reagan understood that he would have to accept revenue increases and President Bill Clinton saw that welfare needed to be changed, then Obama must be followed in brokering a deal in which all sides have skin in this game.

So, folks, it’s time for you to get in this game. Pick that phone up. Send that email. We aren’t in the room negotiating this deal, but I can guarantee you that if Congress and the White House hear from the millions of us with enough common sense to compromise, a deal will get done.

None of us wants to see the carnage that would ensue if we let the self-inflicted bomb to our economy go off.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds were long considered first ballot Hall of Famers, but the steroids scandal, which has dominated baseball since the ’90s, has destroyed their reputations and could very well keep them out of Cooperstown.

Right now, Clemens is spending his days in a federal court in Washington, D.C., accused of lying to Congress about his own steroid use. Bonds is appealing an April conviction of obstruction of justice for giving an evasive answer to a grand jury, but he was acquitted on the more serious charges.

What’s amazing is that federal prosecutors have spent years going after Bonds and Clemens. And at best, they are going after them for supposedly lying to a grand jury or Congress. Don’t get me wrong, we are supposed to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but looking at the amount of time and dollars spent by the feds on these two baseball players, you would think that they were drug kingpins.

Yet while this is going on, the biggest crooks in the world — almost single-handedly took down the United States economy with their shady banking practices — are kicking it in their private suites at the baseball park, enjoying the huge bonuses that continue to flow on Wall Street.

Lady Justice is not supposed to be blind. You screw millions of Americans out of billions of dollars and force the federal government to bail your firm out with billions of dollars, but then prosecutors won’t even bother to knock on your door. But lie to a grand jury about injecting yourself with steroids? Your world will be turned upside down!

This really shouldn’t be an either/or scenario. But with the nation’s unemployment rate at 9.2 percent, and the country still trying to dig itself out of a cataclysmic situation that culminated in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, surely the American people should get some satisfaction out of seeing Wall Street fat cats walk the perp walk and answer to their activities in court.

But we don’t see any of that.

Instead, all we see today are federal prosecutors talking about baseball and syringes, and Casey Anthony’s attorneys gloating about getting their girl off.

It is unfathomable to think that Wall Street executives are getting off scot-free and continue to receive million-dollar bonuses. It’s shameful to listen to them whine about the clamps being put on them by federal regulations; it was lax oversight and the total relaxation of rules that allowed them to go haywire, all in a search for quarterly profits to boost their personal wealth and sink ours.

It’s degrading to watch Wall Street’s protectors in Washington, D.C. — Democrats and Republicans — cry mightily about onerous regulations and suggest that anything meant to protect consumers from these dastardly devils is a “jobs crusher.”

Sorry, folks, I really don’t care about Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds and steroids. Spend all day if you like arguing about the integrity of the game. What’s more important is the integrity of the legal system where there is supposed to be fairness in going after wrongdoing.

The feds have fulfilled their obligations with baseball. And they have struck out when it comes to holding Wall Street accountable.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

President Barack Obama was hailed as the best communicator since President Ronald Reagan when he came into office in 2009, but at this current pace, his White House, and by extension the Democrats, appear more like King George VI in “The King’s Speech.”

The stuttering and stammering when it comes to discussing this economy is making the president and his party look like some of the most confused individuals you have ever seen. When the May job numbers came out, they call it a bump in the road. If the economic news is not moving as fast as analysts and commentators like, they revert to blaming President George W. Bush’s porous stewardship of the economy in his final term. And when it is time to take ownership and accept the reality that it now boils down to them, they give that deer-in-headlights look.

Look, Mr. President, you wanted the job. Well, this comes with the job. If you do well, you get the praise, such as with the killing of Osama bin Laden (unless you bother to listen to a lot of your conservative media haters, who couldn’t even bring themselves to giving you credit). But when things aren’t going so well, such as our sluggish economy, you’re going to take the hit. So deal with it.

That’s why it was refreshing to see Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), and chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, make a forceful statement last week that her party owns this economy.

“We own the economy,” she said. “We own the beginning of the turnaround, and we want to make sure that we continue that pace of recovery.”

Republicans reacted with glee to seeing a top Dem accept responsibility for the economy. They feel that it will be a yoke around the Democrats’ necks come the 2012 election.

That feeling is perfectly understandable, but not entirely a negative thing.

For anyone to suggest that today’s economy is worse than what we experienced in 2008 has to be nuts. It was stunning and debilitating to see a monthly jobs report that showed hundreds of thousands of jobs lost every month. By the end of the year, we had lost 2.6 million jobs. Yes, 2.6 million. My CNN buddy, Ali Velshi, was Mr. Doom with his daily reports on the stock market. Our nation was in a panic, and no one knew where to go and what to do.

Yet today, we have seen 25 consecutive months of private sector job growth. Have they been small? Of course! But I sure as hell would rather see the gaining of 30,000 and 50,000 or 100,000 jobs a month then to see us losing 584,000, like we did in December 2008. The issue is that economists say we need closer to 300,000 new jobs per month to get back to normal.

Well, it’s time for President Obama to stand up and say this is the new normal.

So, we better get used to it.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said repeatedly that it may be several years before unemployment falls below 7 percent. He said to expect slow growth. It’s time for our political leaders to stop lying to us, thinking we are going to return to the fast lane days. They need to make it clear that we’re driving in the school zone today.

Folks, we’ve been so used to riding high on the hog with our inflated economy that we don’t know what to do when it comes to reality. We lived through years of BS Internet companies, exploding off the pages with nonsensical valuations based on crack-like highs. And when the high wore off, we saw that we were in worse shape.

We’ve lived so far above our means with credit cards, a crazy homeownership market and outlandish spending habits that now we are paying the consequences for our actions.

So President Obama needs to make it clear: Our economy is slowly getting better, and we might as well accept the reality that we are not going to sprint our way out of this recovery. This will be a marathon.

Yes, no one wants to hear that. We want to present our usual American optimism that isn’t based on reality. Just be straight with the public and don’t present a fictitious perspective on where we should be. This isn’t 1984, so stop saying what President Reagan did. We didn’t face a near meltdown of our financial system, coupled with the massive job losses, and a housing disaster.

Dems should say, “Look, we came in with a mess, and we put the plan of action to work to get us out of the mess. Did some stuff work? Absolutely. Did some stuff not work? Sure did, and we’re fixing it.”

You say it with confidence and conviction, and you defend your policies, even when your critics are blasting you. Instead, we get a president and Democratic Party that twists and turns in the wind, hoping a voice of confusion will mollify the critics.

It won’t.

Yes, I’m grateful to have a job. But there is no guarantee I will keep it. So I’m saving my money, got all of my debts paid off, and hoping to ride this economy out like the three hurricanes I’ve lived through. It’s going to be a rough period for some time. I know it, we feel it, so let’s get used to it.

President Obama and the Democratic Party, no matter what you say or do, you’ll be judged on the economy. If you get thrown out of office in November 2012 because the American people think someone else can do better, fine. But there is nothing worse then getting booted from office when you weren’t even smart enough to go down fighting.

If President Obama and his administration, as well as his party, keep up their pitiful efforts in discussing this economy, go ahead and start drawing up plans for your library in Chicago. Because what they are doing now is embarrassing.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

It’s Father’s Day. I am NOT BBQ’ing. It’s MY day. But I will coach yo azz if you ain’t handling the grill right! #rolandsfatherdayrules

• If u bought me some socks, let me put them on & then kick yo azz out the house. Socks? Socks?! Some damn socks?! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• If your kids are acting a fool at my house & their daddy don’t do anything, all the other men get to whip his azz for sorriness! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• Today is a day for MEN. Single mothers? We love you, but you got your day – Mother’s Day. This is FATHER’S DAY. #rolandsfatherdayrules
• Hear ye! Hear ye! If the hateful azz son-in-law puts on “Papa Was A Rolling Stone,” somebody better call an ambulance! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• If hateful daughter-in-law says ONE nasty thing, I’m playing Natalie Cole’s I’m Catching Hell (Living Here Alone). TRY ME! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• If bad azz grandkids come by screaming for their XBox/Wii/Nintendo, watch this house turn into the game Black Ops! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• If I get a card & inside u write, “Here’s the $50 I borrowed from you,” I’m straight cussin’ you the hell out! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• If I walk into the living room & y’all watching Living Well With Montel Williams, I’m cussin’ EVERYBODY out! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• If y’all watching anything on OWN, Lifetime, Oxygen, E!, or We TV, furniture will be moving in the living room! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• If y’all bought me a two-year subscription to O Magazine, People, or Us Weekly as a gift, I will cuss you out. Wrong day! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• I don’t care if I get out of the bed at 1 pm, I still want Father’s Day breakfast. You hear that wifey? Remember, my day! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• It’s Father’s Day ALL DAY. Don’t act like it ends when Sunday dinner is over & the table has been cleared! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• If y’all watching OWN, Lifetime, Oxygen, E!, Hallmark, or We TV on MY tv furniture will be moving in the living room! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• Today is Father’s Day. If I called my dad “pops,” y’all would be going to a funeral! #rolandsfatherdayrules

Sports and politics have always mixed. We’ve had former athletes hold elective office; mayors, members of Congress and governors are always making bets with one another when their teams play each other in big games; and it’s great to see the respective national champions or winners in pro sports visit the White House for a congratulatory pat on the back from the president of the United States.

But there are some moments that deserve to be called out, such as Ohio Gov. John Kasich issuing a resolution declaring the Dallas Mavericks honorary residents of the state of Ohio.

Is he stuck on stupid?

The only reason he issued the declaration is to take a swipe at LeBron James, an Ohio native who gave Cleveland seven solid years of play, but left on his own free will when his contract ended to go to Miami.

With the Dallas Mavericks beating LeBron and the Miami Heat, Kasich showed how petty Clevelanders and Ohio residents are who are still upset with LeBron.

He didn’t demand a trade. LeBron simply chose to leave Cleveland to go to Miami. This is a guy who never got into trouble, never got arrested, and did a ton of charitable work in the state. So you’re upset that he left?

Ohio, you’re still mad because of “The Decision”? It’s time to grow up and move on. Seriously. If not, y’all need to join Rep. Anthony Weiner and seek treatment.

A few months ago I was in Ohio and spoke at an event in the state capitol and Kasich was there. We got a chance to talk education and voter suppression. He’s a nice guy and I enjoyed our chat.

But on this one, he looks like an idiot. A governor is supposed to be above silly and petty stuff like this. Leave this kind of crap to the sports radio hosts, columnists and bloggers.

Lastly, I don’t believe a single Dallas Maverick is a taxpayer in Ohio. LeBron is. He still owns homes there, has family there, and continues to do charity work there, namely in his hometown of Akron.

So Gov. Kasich, good job. You managed to diss an Ohio athletic icon, but also a taxpayer and constituent. I bet you don’t mind LeBron cutting a check to pay his property tax bill, especially with your state facing a multi-billion dollar deficit.

It’s safe to say you just lost all votes in the James household.

Lastly, governor, as a native Texan, we have no desire to be honorary residents of Ohio.

We already live in God’s country.

Whoop!

Whenever there is an issue dealing with race, misogyny, sexual orientation or some other hot-button issue, we often hear the cry that we need to have a national discussion about it, whether in the media, in our homes or in our churches.

Yet what always seems to happen is that the discussion ends up being you take your side, I take my side, and we express our righteous indignation. Then what was supposed to have started as a conversation turns into a knockdown, drag-out fight, with folks cussing one another out, naturally causing others not to talk, to discuss or to think.

Case in point: Tracy Morgan’s graphic and violent anti-gay “rant” or “bit” or “comic routine” or “meltdown” during a standup act last week in Nashville.

We haven’t seen any video of the show or heard the audio, and are basing our judgments of what he said on the account of someone who was in the audience, was offended and wrote about it on Facebook.

I got wind of the issue when I read Morgan’s apology for what he had to say. When I saw the CNN.com story, my initial thought was, “Damn. Talk about hateful, nasty and crude.”

Yet as I followed the traffic of discussion on Facebook and Twitter, all of a sudden I began to see how folks were categorizing what he had to say and began to ask myself about the other implications of our reaction.

So I wrote a piece for my nationally syndicated column on that, and all hell broke loose.

“You hate gays.” “You’re homophobic.” “Why can’t you be on our side?” “Why are you defending Tracy Morgan?” “Comedians have a First Amendment right.” “It’s just jokes, folks!” We had a strong back and forth on Facebook, Twitter and e-mail, and it was easy to see the passions aroused by what Morgan said and what I wrote.

My goal wasn’t to defend Morgan, as some have said. What stirred me to comment was seeing someone say that, “Comedians should never joke about murder or bring harm and violence to children.” Someone else tweeted me, “Bigotry has no place in comedy.”‘

So I cited examples of jokes about the murder of O.J. Simpson’s ex-wife and her friend; a comedian joking he wished he showed up at home and his wife was dead; a ton of jokes about beating kids; hitting a 1-year-old in the throat or stomach; and many comedians who have used a gay slur incessantly in their acts, and presented stereotypes of how gays and lesbians talk and walk.

These aren’t the same as what Morgan said, but they could easily be seen as offensive to many.

Yes, all of these come from popular comedians who are loved and adored by millions.

To the people who rightfully condemned Morgan’s anti-gay comments, and to everyone else, I asked them to answer honestly: “Have you ever laughed at vile, nasty, offensive comics who told sexist, racist and homophobic jokes?”

The response? A resounding yes.

I can sit here and tell you with no uncertainty, that I have laughed hysterically at jokes based on sexist, racist, or homophobic stereotypes told by a litany of comedians. That’s right. LOL. LMAO. ROFL.

Take your pick. I’ve listened to Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, Flip Wilson, Lisa Lampanelli, Bill Maher, Rick Ducommun, Bernie Mac, George Lopez, Martin Lawrence, Don Rickles, Carlos Mencia, Andrew Dice Clay, Kathy Griffin — and the list can go on and on and on.

I’ve watched Lampanelli, marketed as the Queen of Mean, call a guy in the audience a Hispanic slur; rip someone as “a skinny Jew;” cuss out a guy by telling him she uses the N-word and doesn’t care; and on and on and on. Is there anyone or any ethnic group that Don Rickles hasn’t insulted? And he’s a comic legend!

So, I think we should make an effort to have a real discussion and not just a knee-jerk reaction when some of us say that the comedy stage has no place for sexism, racism and homophobia. Are we really being hypocritical?

Are we saying that as a society, when we have major social epidemics, those are off limits to the comedy stage? Just the other day I watched comedian Patrice O’Neal’s stand-up act late one night on Comedy Central. He had a bit about how good sex felt for someone not wearing a condom. To a socially conscious person, that’s an abomination when you look at the HIV/AIDS rates in America, especially in the African-American community. (O’Neal is black.)

When a prominent HIV/AIDS activist took me to task on my Morgan column, I asked her about O’Neal’s bit, knowing the issue is her passion. I didn’t get a response. Child abuse is a major problem in America. But don’t let me pull out the video clips of comedians of all colors, genders and sexual orientations talking about beating a kid with anything they can get their hands on. Are we saying that because it’s a societal problem, no joking and no laughing are allowed?

When groups that have been oppressed begin to make sweeping pronouncements about what can or cannot be said, there are going to be the contradictions that have to be confronted.

I’ve had some long, running battles on Twitter, radio, TV and in person with African-Americans on the N-word. For me, I don’t like it and I don’t use it. On one hand, black folks will blow up when someone white uses the N-word. A lot of folks were offended when people who were not black used the N-word in “The Hangover II.” But if that was a movie with a predominantly black cast? Nothing.

The NAACP had a bury-the-N-word ceremony at its national convention in Detroit a few years ago, but the NAACP Image Awards, which were created to promote the positive images of African-Americans, has honored comedians and musical acts that have used the N-word in their work.

So society says it’s bad, but then for some it’s fine — so what’s the mixed message we’re sending?

Let’s look at the gay slur, the F-word. When Kobe Bryant directed the F-word at a referee and he was caught on camera, there was a huge uproar. He was hit with a $100,000 fine, and the largest gay and lesbian civil rights group, Human Rights Campaign, issued this statement: “Hopefully Mr. Bryant will recognize that as a person with such fame and influence, the use of such language not only offends millions of LGBT people around the world, but also perpetuates a culture of discrimination and hate that all of us, most notably Mr. Bryant, should be working to eradicate.”

Really? I had a gay Twitter follower who said that Lampanelli is his absolute favorite comedian and he sent me a YouTube link to one of her standup acts. In the clip, she used the F-word with impunity while thanking her gay and lesbian fans for showing up. She had to have used it more than a dozen times.

So I asked this guy how he could say the F-word was wrong, but his favorite comedian used it with ease. His reply? She’s a friend of the gay community and has donated money to gay causes.

So if the HRC says we’re to eradicate the F-word from our language, just as the NAACP says we’re to get rid of the N-word, then why do we allow the exceptions to the rule, and end up praising the offenders as friends of our communities?

In response to my Tracy Morgan piece, I had gays and lesbians write me saying that I didn’t say the same about Michael Richards or other examples of people who have used the N-word. Even Keith Boykin, whom I have known for some time, took me to task.

But I told them, and him, that I said repeatedly on CNN that Richards’ N-word blowup wasn’t a part of his stand-up act; it wasn’t a bit; it wasn’t a routine; he lashed out at a patron. Is there a difference? You bet.

Who remembers when Duane “Dog” Chapman was caught using the N-word on his son’s answering machine? I was on CNN and was asked if he should lose his A&E show. I said, not at all. He made these comments in private, was on his son’s answering machine, wasn’t in the workplace, and it didn’t rise to the level of him losing his show. Yep, the black guy who has called out racism said a white guy like Chapman shouldn’t lose his show.

One gay blogger tweeted me and said I had been wrong to call for Don Imus’ firing because he was a comedian like Morgan, and that I employed a double standard. I replied that Imus wasn’t a comedian; he had a respectable morning show that attracted presidential candidates, members of Congress, media titans, authors, academics, you name it. I said over and over that had Imus still been a shock jock, we would have placed him in that category because we’re used to having them make sexist, racist, homophobic comments.

Are people shocked by anything that Howard Stern says? No. Think about the kind of stuff he has said about any group. What happens when we hear it? Our response for the most part has been, “Well, he is a shock jock.” And we move on with our lives.

So if we’re honest, we are known to make exceptions to the rule. Our society will have a different standard for a shock jock then we would for a traditional morning show host. Our society will let comedians say things on stage that if someone else said them in the workplace, we would be filing lawsuits.

And what is so amazing is that this same society will pay to go be insulted, or laugh at a comedian insulting another group, and we will go home saying how great the show was. Then we turn around and say that bigotry has no place in our society. Really?

This isn’t an attempt to muddy the issue of dealing with Tracy Morgan. Let’s hold him accountable; let’s all agree that what he said was vile and despicable.

But if we leave it there, and do not become more introspective as a society and confront our own contradictions on race, sex, homophobia and violence, we will have allowed the moment to go to waste and failed.

If all expressions of bigotry are wrong, then it’s wrong on the comedy stage. If all sexism is wrong, then there isn’t an exemption on the stage. If racism is always bad, then let’s have zero tolerance. If all homophobia is unacceptable, then no one — friend or foe — gets a pass. If violence against women should never be joked about, then let’s hold even comedians accountable. If we say that no one should ever joke about violence committed against children, gay or not, from this day forth, it ends.

Don’t dismiss this. Think about what I’m saying. Think about what you accept and don’t accept. For God’s sake, don’t just offer a surface rebuke of Tracy Morgan, think about how profound sexism, racism and homophobia — and violent crime based on such bigotry — is in our society, and how you are willing to deal with it.

If anyone can qualify for the phrase “stuck on stupid,” it’s Rep. Anthony Weiner.

This story was a benign and silly one for me from the beginning. OK, the New York congressman said his Twitter account had been hacked, that he really wasn’t the one who sent that picture to the woman in Seattle. It has happened before.

But what was crazy was listening to him give a different explanation over and over. I was bugged with that, and it just wasn’t making any sense. It was driving me nuts!

First, he told reporters that it was all just a prank.“I was hacked,” he told CNN the day after the story broke. “It happens to people. You move on.”

Then he started tap dancing, saying he couldn’t be absolutely sure the photo of a man in his underwear wasn’t him. But he had an explanation. “Photos can be manipulated,” he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “Photos can be of one thing and changed to something else. We’re going to try to get to the bottom of what happened,” he said.

Initially, liberals didn’t want to hear any of the drama, suggesting it was really a conservative attack on an outspoken member of their own tribe. Conservatives, on the other hand, were giddy to see the loudmouth Weiner contorting in public like a pretzel. He’s never been shy about blasting his critics, and many saw this as payback.

But now, after an ashen Weiner stepped to the mic and finally told the truth, that he indeed sent the photo in question — and had online contact with six other women — we have the truth.

And you know what? That’s all we wanted. The truth.

Had Weiner just told the truth, at best, this would have been a 48-hour story. Instead, his repeated lies turned this into a weeklong discussion, and it was unnecessary.

He looked even more stupid trying to joke his way out of the lies. Looking back at his various interviews, man, does he look like a fool!

So guys, if you do something stupid and get busted, just own up to it. We call that being a stand-up guy.

But if you do something, get busted, and then try to lie your way out of it, all that happens is that you get attacked, your credibility is attacked, you look like a complete fool, and you draw others into your lie. And someone usually gets hurt.

Just ask those poor souls who spent thousands of dollars on lawyers after President Bill Clinton lied about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

Should Weiner resign? Nope.

I simply don’t think what we know right now is worthy of a resignation. But if Weiner has to be the butt of jokes on late night TV for the next year, if his name and images go down in the Political Sex Hall of Shame — joining the likes of Sen. David Vitter, Clinton, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and countless other politicians — then good.

Rep. Weiner, you earned your way onto this list, sir! You lied.

When Bishop Eddie L. Long stood before his congregation in Lithonia, Ga., May 29 to declare that he would be looking forward, not focused on the past, his supporters said that’s the right thing to do. He had just settled civil lawsuits that alleged he had coerced young male followers into sex.

Sorry, bishop, as a man of God who is the shepherd of an international ministry, we cannot simply let you off that easily.

From the moment Bishop Long was first accused eight months ago, he had the benefit of the doubt. He was innocent until proven guilty, and I wrote in a column that if he was innocent, he should defend his name and character with every fiber in his body.

And he said as much before his congregation.

Yet now he settles a lawsuit, keeps the details private, refuses to speak publicly about the accusations, and expects some form of forgiveness? It’s just not that simple.

To my legal friends, I get the whole issue of settling a lawsuit to risk further damage and put it behind you. But when you are a pastor who has preached against gay marriage and homosexuality, has openly talked about the covenant between a husband and wife, and has talked about the importance of men leading their families as strong men of faith, there is an expectation on you that is greater than the one on the average man.

Some have suggested that I and others who aren’t members of his church should shut up and that it’s up to them to accept him at his word. Again, I disagree.

I remember vividly hearing Bishop Long for the first time in June 1999 and loving the sermon, “A Fresh Anointing for Change,” quoting it on many occasions. When I worked on a television project in 2000, I attended Long’s New Birth Missionary Baptist Church for three months, regularly attending services and tithing to his ministry. When I served as news editor at Savoy magazine, we did a photo spread of pastors and fashion and recommended he be a part of it. Last year, my wife and I spoke at a black marriage summit at Hampton University in Hampton, Va. We were the luncheon speakers, and Long was the evening speaker.

I’ve watched his worship services on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, bought and read several of his books, and purchased numerous videotapes and tapes of his sermons. Lastly, I’ve discussed his efforts to reach out specifically to black men to get them involved in the church, even writing about it in an essay in my book “Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith.”

So count me as one of the committed Christians who poured a seed into his ministry and who has a reasonable expectation for the pastor to be a stand-up man and speak honestly about what has happened.

He is someone whom thousands follow, and they should hear the truth and nothing but the truth from Bishop Long.

Not his lawyer, not his spokesman, not his wife — him! He should not have decided on a private mediation; he should have demanded that everything be discussed in public.

Again, count me as someone who believes that if you are truly innocent of such heinous allegations, you don’t go behind closed doors. You defend yourself publicly and shame those who try to muddy your name and derail your ministry.

Bishop Long has utterly failed even his own preaching. He has stood in the pulpit and demanded accountability of others but clearly believes that different rules apply to him.

With his refusal to address the issue publicly, openly and truthfully, I don’t see how any pastor could participate in a conference with Long on the rostrum. I don’t see how any gospel musician could go to his church and stand in the pulpit with him to sell CDs. As a churchgoing man, there is no way I could sit under the spiritual leadership of a pastor who was unwilling to stand before his congregation and address the issue head-on.

I know all about forgiveness. It is one of the tenets of being a Christian. But I am not to forgive foolishly. If Bishop Long wants forgiveness, he needs to be open in discussing what really happened — or didn’t happen — with those young men and allow all of us to decide for ourselves whether we are willing to grant it.

If his followers are angry with me for writing this, then so be it. But there is no way that I can sit here and talk about the righteousness of ministers of the Gospel (my wife is an ordained minister) and make excuses for Bishop Long or any other pastor in a similar situation.

As Christians, we are supposed to expose darkness with light. In this case, Bishop Long chose to keep the truth behind closed doors and say, “Trust me; it’s all good. Everything is fine.”

John 8:32 says Jesus told his disciples, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Bishop Long, I’m not saying you are Jesus, but to your followers, it’s time for YOU to reveal the truth so YOU can be set free.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

As a political analyst, I’m supposed to be one of those folks who are so into politics that every time a new poll comes out, they dissect the margin of error, the number of respondents and whether it was conducted via land line or cellphone.

Sorry, folks, when it comes to the drama each day about who will run for president on the Republican side, I feel like an actor in the movie “He’s Just Not That Into You.”

Don’t get me wrong. I am following the daily spectacle of who is up and who is down in the GOP presidential sweepstakes. But really, I care more about whether the Dallas Mavericks and Miami Heat will go seven games in the NBA finals and what spaceship captured Scottie Pippen and brainwashed him into actually saying that LeBron James may be a better player than Michael Jordan.

Let’s just shoot straight with all of you: Average voters really aren’t thinking right now about the leader on the Republican side. Seriously, they aren’t. The field is in constant motion, and not all of the candidates have gotten serious about this race. The one thing we have is a lot of time before any candidate has to hunker down and get involved.

What has been most interesting thus far is who has opted not to run: Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and television clown Donald Trump.

We all know that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is in and is joined by former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former radio talk show host and Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain.

Now we’re left to wonder whether former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, John Huntsman, ambassador to China and former governor of Utah, and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas will make it official and join the field.

Traditionally, presidential campaigns don’t start until after Labor Day. But in 2007, we saw then-Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, along with other challengers, announce early in the year their presidential ambitions, thus treating us to one of the longest campaigns in history.

Everyone assumed that we would see the GOP candidates announcing the day after Obama was sworn in to office, but a lot changes in politics, and this is no different.

The Iowa caucuses aren’t until Feb. 6, which means that if all the candidates are in by Labor Day, they have five months to make their case to the voters there. Plus, the old model of announcing early is over. With social media and the ability to raise funds online, it’s not that critical to announce early. In fact, the earlier you announce the more time the media and your opponents have to define and attack you.

So any poll right now really is meaningless and is just a snapshot of what someone feels today. A recent CNN poll shows that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the preferred candidate of Republicans and independents. Here is a guy who previously has said he would have to be talked into the race!

Giuliani ran one of the worst campaigns in history in 2008, and were it not for former Sen. Fred Thompson’s comatose campaign, Giuliani would have been the worst. But Giuliani is at the top of the heap, with 16 percent, and Cain, who has no political experience whatsoever, has 10 percent, ahead of a congresswoman, two former governors and a former U.S. senator.

Chalk all of this up to the shakeout and weed-out process. Republican voters are not ready to pay attention to any candidate until the candidates stop with the exploratory committee announcements and make clear whether they are in or out. Palin can go on a big bus tour and tout her new movie, but until she steps to the microphone and says “I’m a candidate for president of the United States,” it really doesn’t matter.

So kick back, fight the springtime allergies and enjoy the latest big-budget movie to hit the big screen this summer; I’ll be figuring out how to lower my golf handicap to less than 8. Then, after the summer hiatus, we all can get serious about who will end up opposing President Obama in the race to become the 45th president of the United States.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

To everyone, have a great Memorial Day weekend. And give thanks to the troops who have given their lives for this country. Now its time for Roland’s Cookout Rules, don’t get it twisted …

If you are having burgers & hot dogs, we are NOT showing up. That’s a cookout for kids; not grown folks! #Rolandscookoutrules

If you are having portabella mushrooms on the grill, I’m cussing your azz out & leaving. That’s a fake cookout! #Rolandscookoutrules

If you still wear a jheri curl, you are not allowed anywhere near the BBQ pit. We don’t need your special sauce #Rolandscookoutrules

Unless you have a real job that can be proven with a time card or check stub, there will be NO take out orders #Rolandscookoutrules

If your child support payments are not up to date, your invite to the cookout has been revoked! #Rolandscookoutrules

Off brand beer or sodas will get you two smacks upside your head & an immediate ejection from the cookout! #Rolandscookoutrules

Wannabe rappers: we will not play your CD at the cookout. Only established acts who don’t cuss or shoot folks allowed #Rolandscookoutrules

You can play ball after we eat. No musty azz folks are allowed near the food. #Rolandscookoutrules

If you drop off your kids & leave, I’m calling Child Protective Services for abandonment. Watch your own bad azz kids! #Rolandscookoutrules

The drunk azz uncle we all have is not allowed to serve drinks. He will likely steal the liquor. #Rolandscookoutrules

I know folks on a health kick, but if I say get some bread, that’s WHITE bread! Brisket & multigrain don’t work! #Rolandscookoutrules

A grown azz man cookout means brisket, ribs, links, chicken. If you want turkey on the grill, stay ya azz at home! #Rolandscookoutrules

If u don’t eat beef or pork, you better enjoy the baked beans. That’s the only meat we have! #Rolandscookoutrules

If your stingy azz brought some meat, that don’t mean only you get to eat it. One pit, one family! #Rolandscookoutrules

Bruhs, if your new woman comes by & don’t speak to erbody in the house, take her azz back where you picked her up! #Rolandscookoutrules

Sisters, if your new man comes by & looks one of my nieces up & down, all the men are whuppin’ his azz. Got it? #Rolandscookoutrules

If you are a smoker, you better quit 3 days before the cookout. We don’t want to smell nicotine all in your clothes! #Rolandscookoutrules

If you have not previously been certified by my mama, your potato salad & cole slaw cannot be put in the rotation. #Rolandscookoutrules

To anybody who owes me money: hell no you are not welcome to the family cookout! #Rolandscookoutrules

We have an old school cookout. If it’s time to play Scrabble, we want the board game w/real tiles, not your iPad! #Rolandscookoutrules

If you have not been family-certified, you CANNOT play spades, dominoes or bid whist. Go practice & come back #Rolandscookoutrules

If u just started baking, you are not allowed to bring any desserts. Only approved pound cake/peach cobbler allowed. #Rolandscookoutrules

The recliner is for daddy, mama, big mama or paw paw. You sit in it as long as they aren’t there. 1 show up, you azz up! #Rolandscookoutrules

If we get 2 discussing politics & u say “Barack,” I’m bustin’ u in the head w/big mama’s cane. It’s Pres Obama #Rolandscookoutrules

If politics come up & you defend Rush, Donald Trump, Glenn Beck or Hannity, I’m bustin’ you in the head w/big mama’s cane. #Rolandscookoutrules

If u didn’t bring extra underwear for your kids, & u knew they aren’t potty trained, your sorry parenting azz can’t eat #Rolandscookoutrules

If u need a ride & u are just calling, I guess u having Popeye’s on Memorial Day #Rolandscookoutrules

If you are to boogie to do the Cupid Shuffle or the Electric Slide, you can leave my house now! #Rolandscookoutrules

If you don’t remove your hat in my house or your do rag, it WILL be removed. Ya feel me? #Rolandscookoutrules

If you are an ex-felon, don’t act like none are in your family! – you must remain outside at all times. No excuses. #Rolandscookoutrules

If you are divorced & we never liked you, your sister Pam can drop the kids off & pick them up. #Rolandscookoutrules

If you are in a multilevel marketing program, & you try to pull a brochure out, you will be forcibly removed by the ex-felon. #Rolandscookoutrules

If you are complaining about the heat, shut the hell up! We don’t do cookouts in the damn winter. #Rolandscookoutrules

When i say put some Ross on, I mean Diana Ross. NOT Rick Ross! #Rolandscookoutrules

When I say put the King on, I mean BB King, damn sure not Elvis! #Rolandscookoutrules

When I say put some soul on, I mean Stax/Atlantic/Chess Records, not neo-soul! #Rolandscookoutrules

When I say put some Motown on, I mean when Berry Gordy owned Motown! #Rolandscookoutrules

And when Big Al Carson’s “Take Your Drunk Ass Home” is played, I mean it. TAKE Y’ALL’S DRUNK ASSES HOME! BOOM! #Rolandscookoutrules

If you show up with your underwear showing, that ass we see will get whupped! #Rolandscookoutrules

Bruhs, if you show up Timbalands & jeans, I’m patting you down. No one legal wears those hot azz clothes to a cookout #Rolandscookoutrules

Ladies, if we can see your organs, your clothes R 2 tight. The ladies on the usher board will pull you aside & school you #Rolandscookoutrules

Fellas, no wife beaters. A sweaty man in a wife beater at a cookout is nothing great to look at #Rolandscookoutrules

If your kids are out there dancing like a pole dancer, I’m snatching them off the dance floor AND their mama & daddy! #Rolandscookoutrules

If u go use the restroom, we are doing a hand inspection before you get near any food. Wash up! #Rolandscookoutrules

Ladies, if your legs look like a Chia Pet, wear some pants. Lord, please, no hairy legs! #Rolandscookoutrules

Lastly, If you found a way here, find a way back. There will be no passing of the hat to call u a cab with ya broke azz! #Rolandscookoutrules

Source: Sara Patterson / The Commercial Appeal

The morning he was scheduled to cover the Democratic National Convention in 2000 for MBC Network, Roland Martin woke up with a sharp pain in his side.

He was a 29-year-old freelance producer who didn’t have health insurance, he told the audience of new graduates and their loved ones at LeMoyne-Owen College Saturday.

By the next morning, Martin had to call an ambulance to get to the hospital, where he learned he had appendicitis. He left five days later having lost an organ and gained $100,000 in debt from medical bills.

This was not the way he’d pictured his life back in 1991 when he received his bachelor’s degree in journalism from Texas A&M.

“Today is the end of one process and the beginning of another,” he said. “And all of the starts and stops are a part of that process. … I went up, down, sideways, to get where I am now.But the point of his story, Martin told the historically black college’s 141st graduating class, is that life’s path is a far cry from the linear structure one follows in school, climbing from one grade to another until it’s over.

“And if you’re just happy you graduated, you missed the point.”

After delivering his commencement speech, the CNN correspondent received a degree of his own from LeMoyne-Owen — an honorary doctorate.

LeMoyne-Owen then awarded 110 degrees to a new pool of Memphis graduates, though they weren’t alone in their accomplishment, as Rhodes College and the Memphis College of Art also held spring commencement services Saturday.

The LeMoyne-Owen ceremony was warm and lively, with each grad receiving cheers and applause as they crossed the pulpit in Mt. Vernon Baptist Church to receive diplomas.

Several students who graduated with distinction were lauded for their accomplishments and all received an uproarious standing ovation at the close.

“I fought back tears,” said Rosaland Lewis, 34. “I really feel like I’ve accomplished something.”

Lewis received her bachelor’s degree in business administration while raising two children, 8 and 12 years old, respectively.

“I’m the oldest of 12 brothers and sisters, and I wanted to set a pattern,” she said. “I wanted to finish what I started.”

Her sentiments were echoed by Aqua Bratcher, 41, who graduated Saturday at the same time as her 22-year-old cousin Jennifer.

“I have three kids, and I wanted to show them that I could do it,” she said.

Edward Bachus, 25, said he plans to go back to his job as a deputy jailer at 201 Poplar, though his ultimate goal is to become an ambassador or diplomat.

“I’ve been coming (to school) on and off,” the political science major said, taking a moment to gather his thoughts. “It’s a blessing to be able to finish.”

Any Christian will tell you that when an individual confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord and savior, they are considered saved. No if, ands or buts. That’s when the conversation should end.

Yet for some reason, the question as to whether President Barack Obama is a true Christian continues to be challenged by many, and one of those who should know better is the Rev. Franklin Graham.

As the son of the Rev. Billy Graham, Franklin Graham is often called upon by national media outlets to discuss matters of faith. But when it comes to the question of President Obama’s faith, Franklin Graham has gotten a free pass from far too many folks in the media. And to be honest, his back and forth answers help to muddy the waters.

Recently, in an interview with ABC’s Christiane Amanpour on her Sunday show, “This Week,” Franklin Graham was asked whether President Obama is a Christian. He replied, “He has told me that he is a Christian. But the debate comes, what is a Christian?

“For him, going to church means he’s a Christian. For me, the definition of a Christian is whether we have given our life to Christ and are following him in faith, and we have trusted him as our Lord and savior. That’s the definition of a Christian. It’s not as to what church you are a member of. A membership doesn’t make you Christian.”

Instead of challenging Graham with President Obama’s own words about his salvation, Amanpour ignores Graham’s sleight of hand by asking if he actually believes the president.

“Well, when he says it, of course I can’t — I’m not going to say, “Well, no, you’re not.” I mean, God is the only one who knows his heart,” Graham said.

But that’s exactly what he did! In Graham’s own sly way, he managed to say that he believes President Obama is a Christian because he said so, and then question if he’s really a Christian by suggesting that he’s just a guy who thinks if you show up at church it makes you one.

This two-step is dangerous because all of a sudden Graham has become the arbiter of who is and who isn’t a Christian through the eyes of those in the media. By even asking him the question, we are affording Graham a level of respect that he doesn’t deserve.

In fact, if anyone wanted to truly challenge Graham, all he or she would have to do is actually read what Obama has written on the matter.

In his best-selling book, “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama wrote that he “felt God’s spirit beckoning me.” And as a result, “I submitted myself to His will and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.” And he was baptized at Trinity United Church of Christ in the 1990s.

Yet polling from last year showed that 1 in 4 Americans believe the president to be a Muslim.

There is no doubt that his name plays into that as well as the fact that his father was a Muslim. I wonder if Dr. Ergun Caner has to contend with that. He was actually a practicing Muslim who converted to Christianity. And today, Caner is the dean of the late Jerry Falwell’s Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.

It is simply a stubborn fact that too many Christian conservatives like Franklin Graham refuse to accept, something that Bishop T.D. Jakes — one of the world’s most prominent pastors — finds “insulting.”

“We didn’t question the Christianity of President Bush when he said he accepted Christ, and I’m disappointed in Rev. Franklin Graham in that regard,” Jakes told me Friday for my Sunday morning news show, “Washington Watch,” on the TV One cable network, which airs at 11 a.m. EST. “I wish he had the diplomacy of his father, who brought the gospel to people without being nuanced by politics, because when you do those things you offend people that you are actually called to save and to serve.

“And I would hope that he would see the rationale in apologizing for such statements — because if the president’s faith is suspect then all of our faiths are suspect, because the Bible is quite clear about what it takes to be saved, and the president has been quite open about his accepting Christ and him openly confessing it before men. And if it’s good enough for the Bible, it ought to be good enough for the rest of us.”

While Jakes has the courage to take on the issue, far too many fellow Christians have refused to call out Graham for his shenanigans, which is clearly an attempt to cast doubt on the issue. Where are the likes of pastors Rick Warren, Rod Parsley, Robert H. Schuller, John Hagee, Richard Land, Dr. Julius Scruggs, Paige Patterson, Samuel Rodriguez or even the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops? Are they too afraid to offend their congregations by directly challenging the erroneous assumptions of Graham and speaking truthfully and prophetically?

When Graham has gone on CNN, ABC and other media outlets offering his contradictory statements, they should have the courage to come out and say even Billy Graham’s son is dead wrong.

This isn’t an ideological issue. This has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. It doesn’t matter if you are Catholic, Methodist, Baptist or any other Christian denomination. It has everything to do with Christian values and standing up and defending a fellow follower of the faith.

But the reality is that these days, when the Rev. Franklin Graham speaks, he sounds more like a partisan politician rather than a prophetic pastor.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

America, as a nearly 20-year professional journalist, it is with the utmost sadness that I offer to you a heartfelt and sincere apology for my industry’s creation and spectacle of the individual we all know — some love and others despise — as Donald John Trump Sr.

For the last two decades, my beloved media industry has chronicled every crazy antic, sadistic statement, business announcement, marriage, divorce, birth announcement and the selling of multiple products. It’s as if our livelihood depends on showering gobs of ink and airtime on “The Trump.”

We have afforded him the kind of respect normally reserved for people who have truly made a major difference in this world. Instead, the builder of gaudy buildings — replete with the kind of extravagance that would make a Saudi oil titan blush — has demanded that he be referred to as Mr. Trump. When he walks into a room, head turns, women faint and men quickly realize they are mere mortals compared to the indomitable Mr. Donald Trump. He is truly the most interesting man in the world (tongue planted firmly in cheek).

Yet with his flirtation with running for the Republican nomination for president of the United States, we have finally pulled the curtain back from this Wizard of the Weird. And what has been revealed is a man so obsessed with the sound of his voice that even when he lies, he pretends that it is the absolute truth.

Fact? What fact? I will just dismiss that with the wave of the hand or just refer to the press as Obama lovers to settle that.

With his rampant lying about President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, Trump dominated the airwaves, pushing aside any discussions about real issues of the day. With breathless promos, respected TV networks and their anchors, correspondents and reporters actually held interviews with Trump, seemingly giving him the benefit of the doubt as he continued to advance his lies.

Instead of starting every interview with the most important question, “Donald, why do you keep lying?” we fell for the okey doke as if his joining of the birther movement somehow gave their wild, outlandish and untruthful view a dose of credibility.

Magazines, newspapers and online sources also got in on the act by running a number of stories, taking his pronouncements of running for the presidency seriously and even commissioning polls that showed Republican voters held him in high regard. All based on the hyping of a lie?

All of this created a firestorm of media attention, which all culminated in the coverage of President Obama’s news conference actually releasing his long-form birth certificate.

In addition, on that day, what did we see? A split screen of President Obama and “The Trump,” who was beaming like a proud hunter who bagged his prey.
Folks, the lavish attention paid to Trump — not only over the last few months but also over the last two decades — has been pathetic and morbidly obese. And no one in the media wants to own up to the reason why respected journalists actually would ask Trump about his opinion on domestic policy and world affairs. Trump is an attention grabber and a ratings magnet. Or as Robert Traynham, host of Comcast’s “Roll Call TV,” said on my TV One show, “Washington Watch,” on Sunday: “He makes good copy.”

Folks, therein is the real issue. Ask any real journalist and he or she will laugh at the crazy things that Donald Trump says. They will admit that his only knowledge about foreign policy is the Miss Universe pageant, but because viewers and readers love to rubberneck at the scene of an accident, it is great to see the potential train wreck when he opens his mouth.

I have had producers tell me their show ratings go up when he’s on. Forget the fact that what he says is a joke, news operations nationwide have allowed themselves to be pimped into running his outlandish comments. None of the major news organizations in this country is immune from doing this. NONE.

So, why should any journalist be shocked that Trump would be so callous and ridiculous in joining the birther crowd? He knew we would eat it up, giving him tons of airtime to spew his garbage. But like crack addicts in need of a fix, Trump is willing to supply us that hit so we can achieve that high, no matter how devastating it is to our system.

The destruction he left in his wake didn’t matter. As long as got what we wanted — more ratings, newsstand sales and record page views — and he got the attention that he desired, everyone was happy.

America, for this, I am sorry. I am sorry that my media brothers and sisters failed in being honest with you. I’m sorry that even as we patted ourselves on the back for our tough interviews with him on the birther issue, it does not negate the many times that respected journalists actually interviewed the gossip page mainstay about serious matters.

We fed the beast for years, and none of us should be shocked to see the beast go on a rampage. Again, America, I’m sorry.

Let’s just hope that respectable news organizations will remember the last couple of months and leave Donald Trump and those like him in the celebrity news trash bin.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Source: Global Grind

Donald Trump isn’t a racist but he is a liar, according to Roland Martin. The American journalist, TV commentator and frequent CNN contributor has been on a rampage as of late when the conversation turns to “The Donald.”

Martin went on a Twitter rant about Trump calling the real estate mogul pathetic and a travesty. In a tweet this morning, Roland said “Do not support Trump’s #CelebrityApprentice. He’s a travesty. I refuse to stay at Trump hotels; will NOT watch #CelebrityApprentice or buy products that continue to advertise on his show. He’s pathetic.”

Trump answered the claims about being a racist and stated “I am the least racist person on the planet. I have a great record on that, especially in terms of my friendships. And I have never heard of Roland Martin.”

After all the back and forth, GlobalGrind decided to reach out to Martin to ask him his thoughts on the matter. Here’s part of the  conversation.

Global Grind: Do you think he will run for president?

Roland Martin: Hell no! Quote me as clear as day, Donald Trump does not have the guts to run for President. I’m a native of Texas and there is a saying we have in Texas, you’re all hat and no cattle, and when it comes to politics, Donald Trump is all hat and no cattle. Donald Trump does not have the guts to stand on that stage and debate against serious people who are running for office. He reminds of that scene from that movie “American President” when the Michael Douglas character says “your 15 minutes are up.” This is a man who is toying with the idea of presidency, pure and simple. I can guarantee you right now, Donald Trump will not be on the ballot in Iowa for the first doggone caucus. He will not be on the ballot in New Hampshire, he is not going to campaign in South Carolina, because he does not have the intentional fortitude to run for President of the United States.

To read the entire interview visit GlobalGrind.com.

INDIANAPOLIS — As the final seconds ticked off the clock Tuesday night at Conseco Fieldhouse, the Texas A&M fans were exhilarated at winning their first-ever NCAA women’s basketball national championship, while the thousands of Notre Dame fans went home saddened by coming so close to winning it all.

It was a fabulous championship battle, as the two teams went back and forth, slugging it out like a heavyweight bout. It was a major contrast to the debacle at the NCAA men’s championship game in Houston the night before as Butler put up enough bricks against Connecticut to build a massive home. It wasn’t a well-played game on both ends of the court, and the reaction from those in attendance as well as home viewers left much to be desired.

If you want to call me biased since I’m a 1991 graduate of Texas A&M, that’s fine. I’ve never hidden the fact that I am a major supporter of my alma mater, and I would have moved heaven and earth to be in the Hoosier state to witness the national title game in person. But if you are a basketball fan, there was little doubt that the women’s Final Four was far more entertaining, exhilarating and better overall than what the men produced.

That’s right. This man is willing to say publicly that he enjoyed watching Danielle Adams, Skylar Diggins, Sydney Colson and Maya Moore far more than any of the men from Virginia Commonwealth, Kentucky, Butler and Connecticut.

And don’t get it twisted; there have been many women’s games over the years that caught my attention. The epic battle between UConn and Tennessee rivals that of North Carolina and Duke. So much of that is due to the war of words between Geno Auriemma and Pat Summitt. I bet Don King and Bob Arum didn’t dislike one another as much as these two do.

It is sad to listen to men, and especially women, denigrate women’s basketball as being inferior and not up to snuff compared to men. It’s great to see high-flying dunks by the men, but when you watch true team ball played by women, you’re reminded about what the game is all about: T-E-A-M.

What a lot of this comes down to is pure sexism by men.

It was stunning to read some of the insensitive comments posted on my Facebook and Twitter pages. The sexuality of the women was questioned, and individuals who would be angered if someone denigrated their race were quick to do the same based on gender.

So essentially it’s fine and dandy to assail other women, but when it’s one of your own family members, that somehow changes it all? I’m sorry, folks, that’s just plain dumb to me.

Yet the same disregard for the women’s game was evident among the top male basketball sports analysts. I get many of their tweets, and my BlackBerry was buzzin’ on Monday night during the men’s final. But on Tuesday, these astute individuals, many former players, didn’t say a word about the women’s championship game. At least LeBron James had the courtesy to send out two tweets congratulating Texas A&M on winning the title.

There is no question that the ratings gap between the women’s and men’s game is evident. Americans vote with their remotes, and even with a horrible game, Butler-Connecticut garnered an 11.7 game rating on CBS. The Notre Dame-Texas A&M women’s final on ESPN pulled a 2.3 overnight rating, averaging 3.8 million viewers.

But as we know from TV shows we watch, a show like “Mad Men” on AMC doesn’t pull in the same ratings as Charlie Sheen’s “Two and A Half Men” on CBS, but the quality difference is unquestioned.

If someone says they simply prefer not to watch a particular sport, I’m fine with that. Hockey and soccer have never been at the top of my viewing list. And even though I played baseball growing up and in high school, it bores me to death these days. But it’s not based on gender, as I see with women’s basketball critics.

But for that person who says watching men and women play boils down to quality, I can guarantee you that watching the top women’s teams is just as enjoyable as the top men’s teams. Whether it’s your alma mater or not.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Every four years, the folks from the great states of Iowa and New Hampshire get on my nerves.

While voters nationwide want their say in choosing a candidate for the next U.S. president, folks from these two states have a holier-than-thou view of themselves. They assume they know what’s best for the country — only they have the innate ability to discern the imposters from the genuine candidates. As a result, we all have to sit back and watch as every politician runs to Iowa and New Hampshire. They kiss the butt of every no-name county official or precinct chair, calling them on the birthdays of their children and doing all kinds of silly stuff just to wrangle their precious endorsement.

Please, pass the bucket. I think I’m gonna be sick.

Now Iowa and New Hampshire, joined by the abrasive folks from South Carolina, are in a tizzy because Florida legislators are demanding that their state move up their primary in order to have a sizable say in who gets the Republican nomination.

Their dastardly behavior has ticked off the Republican National Committee, but especially politicians in Iowa and New Hampshire, who are desperate to hold onto their exalted status.

Now here is what’s hilarious: Iowa and New Hampshire are mad that Florida legislators are taking such action, yet those two states actually passed laws telling the rest of the nation that they come before all of us! Seriously.

In Iowa, they passed a law that says their first-in-the-nation caucus must be held eight days before New Hampshire holds their primary. And in New Hampshire, they, too, passed a state law saying their primary must be held seven days before any other states.

So if you live in the other 48 states, you don’t mean a darn when it comes to presidential politics because these two arrogant states have taken the position that they mean more than anyone else.

And what’s shameful is that the two major political parties, which are not bound by the laws of the two states, participate in this trifling game out of a sense of tradition as well as an unwillingness to offend officials from the two states.

When the jockeying went on in 2008, officials from both states made it clear that they would be willing to change the law to ensure they go before anyone else. If someone moved their primary or caucus to the first week in January, well, Iowa and New Hampshire pledged they would go in December.

Last time, Michigan and Florida ran afoul of Democratic Party rules and had their delegates stripped, so when their primaries rolled around, it had no bearing on the delegate count.

Despite the camp of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton trying everything to make them count, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean held firm and said they broke the rules.

Now the folks from Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina want the RNC to remove the convention from Tampa, Fla., if the legislature goes through with changing their primary date. Good luck with that.

Frankly, this whole process is really stupid. Yes, stupid. The folks from Iowa and New Hampshire can say they come from small states and it’s easier to do retail politics there, but that’s just a bunch of nonsense. They should just admit that they love the millions and millions of dollars that only comes to their states in terms of TV, radio and print ads, housing, and the bringing in of hundreds of campaign workers.

To me, It has always made more sense to have regional caucuses and not let one state determine the fate of candidates. What’s wrong with having the first round of voting take place in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio? The second round can consist of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, New York and Pennsylvania. The third round can be Nevada, Utah, Arizona and Colorado. In the fourth round, we can have South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Washington, D.C., Kentucky and Tennessee. And then group the rest of the states according to regions. Round one can be the third week in January, round two can be the third week in February, round three can be the third week in March and so on.

This way, far more voters can have a say in who should be president; the candidates won’t have to tailor a message to fit the likes and dislikes of just one or two states. And all of the attention — and fundraising dollars — won’t be lavished on who finished first and second in Iowa and New Hampshire.

It is time for the RNC and DNC to tell Iowa and New Hampshire that they don’t control the path to the presidency. And I call on every other state to pass laws demanding when their primaries should be held. Let’s stop treating the rest of the nation like second-class citizens. This is the only way to force the hands of the parties and stop with the catering and bending over to satisfy the whims of officials in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

There’s nothing like causing a huge stir on Facebook and Twitter with 140 characters, and that’s certainly what I did Thursday when I took to social media to show my disdain for celebrating St. Patrick’s Day.

This is what caused some of my followers to get a little stir crazy: “Is today St. Patrick’s Day? That’s a holiday I care nothing about. Never have. Is there a point other than wear green & drink?”

It didn’t take long for the furious responses to come flying in, and I must say that I wasn’t bothered a bit.

Yes, I was aware of the historical significance of St. Patrick’s Day, which originally was designated as a religious holiday celebrating Christianity in Ireland. March 17 also has been designated as a day of spiritual renewal and for the offering of prayers for worldwide missionaries.

That may have been the initial purpose of the day, but be truthful; hasn’t the day been reduced to one of wearing green (pinching someone if he or she doesn’t have it on) and getting flat-out drunk to the point of not knowing your own name?

For as long as I can remember, St. Patrick’s Day has been all about wearing green and drinking. I was born Catholic, and trust me when I say that church and prayers never were associated with St. Patrick’s Day.

Maybe in the old country of Ireland St. Patrick’s Day is celebrated as originally intended, but not in this country. Public drunkenness is what the day has been reduced to.

That seems to be the problem with most holidays in this country. For some reason, Presidents Day means a plethora of mattress ads in the paper.

Are we suggesting America’s commander in chief is always sleeping on the job? Christmas is more about Santa and reindeer than the celebration of the birth of Jesus. Christians have called Easter Sunday “Resurrection Sunday” to celebrate the death, burial and revival of Jesus Christ, but many of you think of bunnies, hard-boiled eggs and chocolate. Memorial Day is supposed to be about honoring those in the U.S. military who have died in service, not what will be the big blockbuster movie to debut.

The problem could be that in a capitalistic society, the mixing of spiritual holidays with pagan rituals justifies them in the eyes of many. Our desire to spend, spend and spend could be at the heart of the issue. Do you want to tick off a family member? Tell him Christmas gifts won’t be under the tree this year.

As a result, if we slap a holiday logo on a sale sign, boom! The holiday celebration is now on!

Maybe it’s time for people of accountability to tell others that the commercialism needs to stop. St. Patrick’s Day should return to being about the spirit — and not the spirits sold at the bar.

Get angry all you want. Post comments saying I’m being unfair to the Irish. But I’m just as critical about folks who only see the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as an excuse for a barbecue rather than as a day of service.

The next time there is a holiday, especially a nationally recognized one, remind yourself and your family why it was created. Maybe that will change how you celebrate it.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Gas prices are skyrocketing nationwide, and Americans are angry that they have to spend more of their hard-earned money at the pump each week.

The crisis in Northern Africa, specifically in Libya, has led the dramatic rise in the cost of oil over the past month, which now tops $101. And with summer approaching, Americans are fretting over whether to hit the highway for vacation because of the price of gas. It’s averaging $3.54 nationwide and is expected to go even higher.

Our political leaders? Some Democrats and Republicans are leaning on President Barack Obama to open the strategic petroleum reserve and use some of the millions of oil barrels we have on tap to alleviate the price.

In his news conference on Friday, President Obama said he’ll release the oil if needed.

“All options are on the table when it comes to any supply disruption,” he said.

Is this Groundhog Day or what? Three years ago, this nation went through convulsions when gas prices skyrocketed. Folks were sharing rides, which pushed elected officials to broaden public transportation plans. Hybrids and electric cars started getting a second look from gas-conscious drivers. And all the talk was about alternative energy and not being dependent on Arab leaders in the Middle East.

And when those gas prices went back down? We yelled, screamed and cheered. Forgetting about all the pain we endured, we then pulled the SUVs out of the garage and filled them up with gasoline.

This is the American story: Alleviate us from our pain, so we can go back to business as usual. And when the crisis responds, we’ll fret, scream and go bonkers.

Please, stop the madness! When are we simply going to reach the conclusion that as long as this nation has a Charlie Sheen-like addiction to gas, our chains can be yanked at any time, which will send our economy into a tailspin?

The U.S. Energy Department predicts that with the dramatic rise in gas prices, the average American family will spend an additional $700 annually on gas. And with money already tight, that is a huge hit.

Unfortunately, our crack-like view on oil continues to lead us down the road of agony and despair. Our political leaders have no courage to own up to the special interests and gas lovin’ Americans.

They say, “Dammit, enough! We can’t move forward like this!”

Democrats and Republicans are now saying President Obama needs to allow for drilling off the U.S. shores. Really? So, that’s the only answer? Everyone knows there isn’t enough oil to satisfy America’s thirst. But oh, no, we keep this charade up.

America will never be able to transition our system from an oil-dependent economy to an alternative plan, unless we accept the courage to make the tough choices today and get the payoff later.

I don’t care what Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) says about the energy-efficient light bulbs. The old ones were cheaper, used more energy, and I had to buy a lot more. The government forcing a new light bulb standard caused some pain on the front end with my wallet, but over the long term, fewer bulbs are being bought, and I’m seeing the decrease in my light bill.

Until this nation accepts this reality, we will continue to be driven crazy by oil-possessing countries.

This alternative energy must be based on wind, natural gas, electric and solar. How can the United States create solar technology and then allow the Chinese to become the leading manufacturer of wind turbines and solar panels?

Embracing non-oil energy alternatives can absolutely create jobs in this country, and we should require Americans to make their home more energy efficient with products built by Americans. What’s wrong with that?

No one alternative energy source can replace oil. It has to be a comprehensive plan that addresses our long-term needs. And it is going to mean that we spend money. Yes, we will be impacted in the short term, but if someone told me we could spend $500 billion today, and that would create millions of jobs over the next several years and lead to an energy economic transition, I would ask where I should sign up.

But when we have no courage, we will lose every time.

So if the only thing you know is “drill, baby, drill,” and that gas is our only option, great. Have a great time. And every time gas skyrockets, just smack yourself upside the head with that gas pump, since you’re the reason we remain stuck on stupid when it comes to energy in this country.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

When then-Sen. Barack Obama gave the speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that thrust him into stardom, he made it clear that it’s time to shed the red state/blue state nonsense and embrace the concept that “We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”

So if we can stop with the ridiculous labels and categorizing of states politically, can we also do away with the nonsense of who hails from real America?

This insulting, degrading and separatist view came into full view this week with the nonsensical comments of Fox News host Mike Huckabee, who continued the false assertion that President Obama was raised in Kenya. It was such a blatant lie that Huckabee tried to clean it up later by saying he meant Indonesia.

But what was even more galling was the former Arkansas governor trying to advanced the fictitious notion that Obama has a worldview that’s essentially un-American and out of the norm.

“I have said many times, publicly, that I do think he has a different worldview and I think it is, in part, molded out of a very different experience,” Huckabee said in a radio interview. “Most of us grew up going to Boy Scout meetings and, you know, our communities were filled with Rotary Clubs, not madrassas. And I just do think that there is — again, I am not saying he’s not a citizen, I’ve never said that, I’ve said the opposite. I’ve never said he’s a Muslim.”

First, real reporting by a real news network like CNN proved that Obama didn’t grow up in madrassas, a Muslim religious school. Was part of his childhood in Indonesia? Yes. But part was also in Kansas and Hawaii? Yes. And just in case Huckabee skipped a geography class (similar to Minnesota GOP Rep. Michelle Bachmann skipping American history), Hawaii and Kansas are two of the 50 U.S. states.

This divisive language does nothing to advance the different communities in which all of us were raised. Many still chafe at former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin defining “small town” America as “real America.” Hell, I get offended as a native Texan when I meet a New Yorker who assumes I’m from the country and haven’t been to a civilized world. That kind of worldview is dumb and filled with stereotypes and bone-headed assumptions.

You would think Huckabee would be careful with such language. There is no doubt he doesn’t like folks making ridiculous comments of inbred families in Arkansas or a state full of hillbillies.

See, Huck, I wasn’t raised in Indonesia.

Both of my parents are black, and I can tell you that my neighborhood didn’t have a Rotary Club. And there is no indication that Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts were in full force in Houston’s Clinton Park. But that doesn’t mean I’m less of an American than you.

This is what happens when you have a view that doesn’t fully take in everyone. It sort of reminds me of Sen. Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign when he kept harking back to the days of Ozzie and Harriet when life was so much simpler. He never seemed to understand that if you were an African-American oppressed under Jim Crow or a woman without many rights, you wouldn’t look so fondly on the good old days.

When we began to define America only through our lenses, we fail on so many levels. What makes America truly great is that there is no one American way of life and no one culture; it is a combination of different flavors, blends, palettes and colors.

During an interview Friday from Los Angeles for my TV One Sunday morning show, “Washington Watch,” Gen. Colin Powell, a son of immigrants, dismissed Huckabee’s analysis as “just another way of attacking” President Obama politically and to “try and confuse people.”

“We’ve got to knock this nonsense off,” Powell said. “Barack Hussein Obama, as I have said before, was born an American. He is an American. He’s never been anything but an American.”

He agreed that trying to divide the nation is “coded” language that’s wrong and dangerous.

“I made the point that there is not a good America or a bad America. There is not small-town America is good and big-town America is bad. Don’t tell me that I lived in a bad America because I was born in Harlem and raised in the South Bronx,” said Powell, who was honored Friday with the NAACP’s President’s Award for his lifetime achievement.

“I had a great upbringing, and I had parents who believed in America with all their heart … but they were immigrants … I was a black kid living in a segregated country, and all that has now changed. And so any American is a good American if that American believes in the country; believes in himself; and is contributing to our society. We shouldn’t fractionate ourselves by north, south, east, west, rural or urban.”

Maybe Mike Huckabee ought to spend some time with an American hero like Gen. Powell. He could learn a thing or two about an America that doesn’t look like the one he grew up in.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.) now says he was stunned after an elderly man at a town hall meeting said, “Who is going to shoot Obama?”

Broun was so stunned that it took him three days to finally issue his own statement on the comment, which was reported in the Athens (Ga.) Banner-Herald. Broun now says the comment was so offensive that he didn’t want to even “dignify it with a response.”

“Therefore, at that moment I moved on to the next person with a question,” Broun said in his statement. “After the event, my office took action with the appropriate authorities. I deeply regret that this incident happened at all. Furthermore, I condemn all statements — made in sincerity or jest — that threaten or suggest the use of violence against the president of the United States or any other public official. Such rhetoric cannot and will not be tolerated.”

I’m sorry, folks, this is simply utter BS, and Broun’s statement isn’t worth the paper it was released on.

You would think that a sitting member of the House of Representatives would not take kindly to anybody — young, middle age or elderly — making a joke about shooting an elected official after that body, and the nation, was stunned at the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords on Jan. 8 as she met with her constituents.

In his statement, Broun said such comments “cannot and will not be tolerated.”

But he did tolerate it. Just imagine what the story would have been had Broun manned up and looked that elderly man in the eye and said, “Sir, how dare you? I don’t care if you disagree with the policies of President Obama. I don’t care if you are a Republican and he’s a Democrat; that man is the president of the United States, and you or anyone else should be ashamed of making light of shooting OUR president. This nation suffered greatly after the tragic assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and we fervently prayed for the health of President Ronald Reagan when he was seriously wounded. Sir, I ask you to apologize right now to me, to the people in this room and to the president.”

If Broun had made that kind of tough statement, there is no doubt that he would have been applauded for showing some conviction and denouncing — on the spot — any hateful comments.

Instead, Broun stood there like a wimp. And according to blog commenter Mark Fermer, Broun laughed along with the audience to the question.

So, what did Broun say in response to the question?

“The thing is, I know there’s a lot of frustration with this president,” according to the Athens Banner-Herald. “We’re going to have an election next year. Hopefully, we’ll elect somebody that’s going to be a conservative, limited-government president … who will sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare.”

“There’s a lot of frustration?” Broun essentially tied shooting the president of the United States to those not happy with President Obama’s policies.

It’s this kind of hateful rhetoric that should anger the American people. And conservatives and Republicans should be outraged that one of their own would even utter such a comment. If this comment had been made at a town hall meeting of a democrat under President George W. Bush, and a House democrat responded with a similar meek response, the right wing would rightfully be up in arms for the lack of an immediate denunciation. It’s perplexing to me why folks are just unwilling to set an audience straight for nonsense.

In 2008, while speaking at an election forum in Houston, a fellow speaker made a comment about the work being done by President Bush in Africa, especially as it related to malaria and HIV/AIDS. The mostly black audience of 1,000 essentially said nothing.

I grabbed the microphone and scolded them for their silence. I said it was shameful that their dislike of President Bush would allow them to not be thankful for the billions he earmarked for the Motherland to eradicate the deadly diseases. Then, and only then, did the audience begin to clap in approval.

It would have been wrong for me to not say anything at that time. Giving credit to good deeds in Africa doesn’t even compare to a fool joking about shooting the president, but we can’t be so impotent in not challenging our supporters, friends or family for their ridiculous behavior.

Rep. Broun, shame on you for not setting that elderly man straight; shame on the others there who didn’t immediately stand up and chastise him for the comment. And shame on that man whose ignorance knows no bounds. Clearly, he has no respect for this nation and the office of the president of the United States.

Whether you voted for him or not, if you’re an American, President Barack Obama is OUR president. And he deserves the proper dignity and respect we expect of all those who have held that office.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

The feud between Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and that state’s employees has all of a sudden become ground zero in the battle between efforts by the GOP to shut down unions as they exist and those same union workers desperate to hold on to long-fought wages and benefits.

This pitched battle is clearly a precursor to the 2012 elections, but it is also the latest shot across the bow of union purists who are relentless in waging a war against government and business for the benefit of their members.

My dad is a union man, working for nearly three decades for Amtrak. I strongly believe in unions and their right to exist, as well as to fight on behalf of the little man or woman who doesn’t stand a chance against big business and government officials who see them as the enemy.

However, with all of that said, the economic climate we live in today means that union activists will not be able to fend off the calls for their members to pay more for health benefits and accept other concessions in order to meet budget shortfalls on the local, state and national levels.

Walker wants public employees in Wisconsin to pay more for health care benefits and to contribute to their pension plans. Frankly, those are reasonable requests. Where he has largely run into trouble is in the effort to end the collective bargaining rights of the various public employees.

First, the need to pay more for health care and pensions. An increasing number of Americans who work in the private sector are paying 50 percent or more of their health care costs. Yet when you look at government employees, many local and state governments are paying upward of 80 percent to 90 percent of health care costs. I do not think unions will be able to win over the public when elected officials ask them to pay for an additional 5 percent to 10 percent of their health care costs.

Workers nationwide are being asked to pay for more, and it is unreasonable for public employees to think that taxpayers are not going to ask them to do the same. A few years ago, when I ran the Chicago Defender, workers with the City Colleges of Chicago went on strike because they were being asked to pay more for health care.

That was six years ago. Over that period, health care costs have skyrocketed, and that is putting even more pressure on public entities when it comes to budget shortfalls.

Anyone paying attention to the crisis at General Motors prior to the government bailout would have seen that the health care obligations for retired and current employees contributed to the massive debt the company built up. Yes, GM negotiated these concessions years ago, and employees went to work every day thinking the company would take care of them for life. Well, those days are long gone, and they will not return.

The same can be said of the massive pension obligations. For years, government officials and private companies told workers that once they retired, a gold watch and a pension for life would be waiting for them. But too many officials held off on putting the money into their pension funds, trying to pay for other things and not taking care of the workers they leaned on for years.

Today? Cities from Houston to Chicago are facing billions in pension shortfalls. And with no help coming from the state or federal governments, everyone is scrambling to solve the problems.

This comes down to basic economics. If no additional revenue is coming in due to a refusal to raise taxes, coupled with the dramatically falling property tax revenues, government officials have no recourse but to go to the negotiating table with unions.

No one likes to lose benefits. We all want what was promised years ago. However, it is simply not going to happen. As long as these budget deficits are staring taxpayers in the eye, unions are putting themselves in a difficult situation by thinking they will not have to give something back.

Otherwise, union workers will end up like the police and firefighters in Camden, N.J.: playing hardball, only to see a mayor slash their jobs and leave half of the cops unemployed with no health care and limited choices for the future.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

It’s always interesting talking to American youth, especially African-Americans, who are quick to suggest that the “old ways of doing things” — like marches, rallies, protests and boycotts — have no effect on changing public policy today.

Maybe someone should tell that to the people in Egypt, who brought the 30-year regime of Hosni Mubarak to its knees and forced him to resign over the course of 18 days.

While Mubarak tried desperately to hold onto his powers, the millions of Egyptians, led by the nation’s disgruntled young, made it clear that waiting for him to not seek re-election in September wasn’t enough; they wanted him gone. Today.

Their ability to remain unified reminded me of “the fierce urgency of now,” often proclaimed by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. When the people want freedom, asking them to wait is a waste of time. What did Dr. King title his letters from a Birmingham, Ala., jail? “Why We Can’t Wait.”

As the developments in Egypt were covered each day, it was eerily similar to that of the Civil Rights Movement. The spark in North Africa began with a Tunisian farmer setting himself on fire to protest police trying to extort money from him. In 1955, the fire burning inside African-Americans was lit by the brutal murder of Emmett Till.

In Egypt, the nation’s youth used Facebook, Twitter and Flickr to get their message out and to show the world that they were unwilling to continue to live in a state of oppression. During the Civil Rights Movement, long before Time, Newsweek and The New York Times showed up, the Chicago Defender, Memphis Tri-State Defender and a host of other black newspapers were the outlet used by leaders to get their message to the masses — as chronicled by Gene Roberts and Hank Kilbanoff in “The Race Beat: The Press, the Civil Rights Struggle, and the Awakening of a Nation.”

One of the galvanizing forces in Egypt was 30-year-old Wael Ghonim, a Google marketing executive. His arrest, and subsequent release, rallied the people even more.

We can’t forget the arrests of a 26-year-old preacher in Montgomery, Ala., and other cities that put the attention on the oppressive nature of Jim Crow all across the South, galvanizing his supporters. That man was Martin Luther King Jr.

His insistence of following a nonviolent path to changing America was seen and felt all across Egypt. Knowing full well that they would not have the sympathy of the world if they chose to take up arms against their oppressors, the Egyptian protestors maintained their commitment to civil disobedience. And just like when Bull Connor and angry mobs showed their violent ways against fellow Americans, the world seethed with anger as pro-Mubarak supporters killed protestors and the secret police were unleashed with fury. The people in Egypt were just as brave and fearless as the people in Selma, Ala., and Little Rock, Ark.

During the Egyptian crisis, even the reaction from today’s American political leaders was similar to the lack of forthrightness during the Civil Right Movement. Instead of being unequivocal in standing for full freedom for all Egyptians, political leaders hedged their bets, trying to protect their interests and not those of the people demanding a change.

While many feared for what America would look like when Jim Crow was crushed, too many fear what will happen in Egypt in a post-Mubarak world. It is abundantly clear that those demanding freedom will not accept anything less. They want free and fair elections; they want the government to care more about the poor and disenfranchised, not just the well-to-do.

Martin Luther King Jr., Ella Baker, Whitney Young, Roy Wilkins, Dorothy Height, A. Philip Randolph, Fannie Lou Hamer, Fred Shuttlesworth and countless others didn’t settle for some freedom; they demanded full access to democracy.

And I have no doubt that the people of Egypt will not stop protesting and rallying and mobilizing and organizing until their dreams of democracy become a reality.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

OK. Here we go! It’s time for Roland’s Valentine’s Day Rules!

If your woman is already asking you what is planned for Feb. 14, tell ‘em, “Nothing!” But March 14 will be jumpin!

Ladies, if your man spends $150 on some roses that were $40 a month ago, smack his azz for being a bad steward!

If you have been putting off that dental visit, schedule it for Feb. 14. Nothing says I love you like a root canal!

If your mate says you get that “special attention” in bed on Feb. 14, ask them why the other days aren’t special!

Who gets the best Valentine’s Day gift? RETAILERS! Why? Because Feb. 14 is really THEIR day!

If your woman comes out of the bathroom in a flannel gown after you took her to a 5-star French restaurant, there is NO love in your house!

If your man comes out of the bathroom scratching and his knees and ankles look like he’s been kicking floor, put on BB King: the thrill is gone!

If Valentine’s Day is the day to say I love you, doesn’t that mean I Hate You the other 364 days? So say it!

Why are you mad I wrote “I Love YOU” on a post-it note & didn’t buy a Hallmark card? What happened to it’s the thought that counts?

Ladies, stop the peer pressure on Valentine’s. No, I didn’t buy her flowers. Yes, your man is a cheating on you. Mind yours, I mind mine!

If you ask me what I’m getting my wife for Valentine’s Day, say a new friend for her because you are too damn nosey!

If your woman says u cheap because her Valentine’s Day gifts weren’t expensive enough, take ‘em back. Might as well be cussed out and save money!

On Feb. 14, rent Precious & For Colored Girls. Nothing says “I Love You” like those 2 movies!

On Feb. 14, sit down with your mate & watch the TV marathon of Oz. Nothing says “I Love You” like a prison drama!

Feb. 14 is the best day to babysit your ignant nieces and nephews. Tell your mate: “I just love the kids! Wanna come?”

Feb. 14 is the best day to work late. If she gets mad, tell her she motivated you to put in the extra work on the job!

Unless you are a Kappa, Delta or Santa Claus, you have no business wearing those red “I Love You” socks from last year!

Wanna surprise your lover on Feb. 14. Book a weekend getaway to Egypt. Lots of love for Mubarak to go around!

Ladies, ain’t NO difference between flower shop roses and convenience store roses. NONE!

Breakfast in bed on Feb. 14: a microwaved honey bun & an apple. SAME as toast and sliced fruit. The thought counts!

In my mind, baby, I got you a new house & car on Feb. 14 to say I Love You. Remember, it’s the THOUGHT that counts!

Why do I go in on Valentine’s Day? Because it’s not about love; it’s about commercialism. Gifts, flowers, meals, cards, candy and stuff.

Feb. 14 should be called “Makeup Day.” It’s the day folks focus on their lover to make up for the other 364 days of ignoring them.

Feb. 14 is a day of peer pressure. Women put pressure on men; men put pressure on men. Folks have ridiculous stress levels. Why?

I’m a romantic. I like pleasing my wife. Going out. Buying gifts. Showing love & affection. But why do it on one day and not the other days?

McDonald’s launched 365Black to focus on Black History 365 days a year. So why not focus on 365Love? Show your love DAILY, not for one day.

I would think your lover wouldn’t mind “just because” flowers on Oct. 14, Nov. 14 – my birthday! – May 14 or June 14.

I think your spouse would love a card from you on a day other than Valentine’s Day. Or a gift. Or a donation to their favorite charity.

I think your lover wouldn’t mind a spa treatment on a weekend in July or October or May. Is that less significant than Valentine’s Day?

Our silly infatuation with Valentine’s Day has cheapened love. It has made it about the pocketbook & not the heart. The motive is the problem.

If Valentine’s Day is your thing, no problem. But don’t pressure your lover to do things on this day. If all the focus is on Feb. 14, YOU have a problem!

In 6 or 7 hours, the crib will be packed with crazy sports fans ready for the Super Bowl party. Here are Roland’s Rules for today!

Rule 1
It’s Pitt vs GB. I don’t want to hear a damn thing about how your team COULD have made it. They didn’t. Shut up.

Rule 2
The SB party begins after 1 pm. If u don’t go to church, don’t come early. It’s Jesus THEN football u heathen!

Rule 3
Chips are an important pre-game meal. If u bring ANY off brand chips, u will be refused service & thrown out.

Rule 4
If u don’t like football, DO NOT bring your hatin’ azz to the Super Bowl party! I’m not listening to your BS today!

Rule 5
NONE of my 4 HDTV’s are for non-Super Bowl viewing today. U want to watch something else, bring your own damn TV.

Rule 6
Unike the party poopers at the White House, team gear is allowed. But no MLB, NHL, NBA stuff. This is the NFL’s day!

Rule 7
No, we will not set aside you a plate because u are running late again. Bring your azz to the Super Bowl party on time!

Rule 8
Non-football discussion is not allowed during the game. Take that ish outside. I’m not having it!

Rule 9
Fellas, if your woman knows more about football than you, don’t start none. I’m taking her side, ya punk azz!

Rule 10
The TV DOES NOT turn to any other coverage. At haltime, we’re watching the Black Eyed Peas. No turning!

Rule 11
HEAR YE! HEAR YE! DAMN THE COMMERCIALS! WE WILL NOT BE REWINDING OR PAUSING TO SEE THE DAMN COMMERCIAL AGAIN!

Rule 12
I have a Bose system. If u choose to question every play call, i’m turning it on full blast & bust yo ear drums!

Rule 13
Your playing days in Pee Wee, high school & college doesn’t measure up today. It’s NOT the same, so SHUT UP!

Rule 14
Today is FOOTBALL food. If you grill portabella mushrooms, I’m whippin your azz, going to Popeyes & going home!

Rule 15
EVERYONE watches the Super Bowl. There will be no kids room. Yours have ADD, keep their azzes at home.

Rule 16
If there is a great play, don’t call/text asking, did you see that play? Dumb azz, it’s the Super Bowl. We watchin!

Rule 17
If you bring your Franklin Covey & are planning the rest of your work week, I’m throwing you the hell out!

Rule 18
If you are working in a multi-level marketing scheme, I’m smackin’ yo azz today. I don’t wanna hear it. NOT today!

Rule 19
If you come to my party passing out business cards, I’m revoking your party privileges. No business today!

Rule 20
If you are coming to my party & selling your kids candy & candles for a BS school fundraiser, I’m cussin’ your azz out!

One last rule: if u want to watch Bill O’Reilly interview President Barack Obama, I’m throwing your azz out!

If Chicago Bears quarterback Jay Cutler isn’t as accommodating the next time a fan walks up to him for an autograph, don’t blame him. When you suffer a knee injury in the NFC championship game and you’re treated like you cheated on your wife or turned over top secret military documents to Osama bin Laden, then you might be a bit hesitant, as well.

Like many Americans, sports are a part of my life. I follow football (Houston Texans), basketball (Houston Rockets), baseball (Houston Astros), high school (Jack Yates in Houston) and college sports (Texas A&M) with a passion like any other. One closet in my home is nothing but athletic gear of my favorite teams.

If there was a choice between all of the premium movie channels on DIRECTV and catching all of the NFL and NBA games, sorry, the movies lose out. That’s just the way it has always been growing up in my family. It wasn’t about playing sports, although I did spend two years on the baseball diamond in high school and the basketball court in junior high. Athletics provide a bond between folks who otherwise have nothing in common.

Yet with the passion for sports, not once have I ever felt it gave me the right to demand that athletes go out on the field and perform, no matter the cost to their health and livelihood.

It’s shocking, stunning and sad when listening to sports talk radio, reading blogs and watching folks on TV, whether they are fans or former athletes, act like nothing matters more on earth than seeing a player risk it all for a game.

There is no doubt that the stories of athletes fighting through pain are legendary.

Willis Reed of the New York Knicks is still brought up as a warrior willing to give it all. He essentially played on one leg in game 7 of the 1970 NBA Finals, inspiring his team to victory and the title over the Los Angeles Lakers.

Kirk Gibson’s body was wracked with pain in game 1 of the 1988 World Series as his Los Angeles Dodgers faced off with the Oakland A’s. The gritty player could barely walk. But when manager Tommy Lasorda put his beaten-down slugger in as a pinch hitter, Gibson slammed a walk-off homerun. The Dodgers eventually won in five games.

The stories can go on and on, and these remarkable athletes showed tremendous courage.

But when the cameras disappear and there are no more plays of the day or ESPN’s SportsCenter highlights, the fans aren’t privy to our conquering heroes being unable to get out of bed, pick their children up, cuddle with their wives or even remember basic facts about their lives.

Some studies suggest the life span of football players is considerably shortened due to the frequent hits they endure.

It’s shameful that for the sports fan today, we have become like the Romans at the Colosseum, cheering and cheering our gladiators to where only the strongest remain standing after they have vanquished and killed the opposition.

Their lives are unimportant to us. All that matters is seeing them bring us the gratification of winning, so we can talk trash to our family and friends, collect on the bets we placed (or likely pay up big when we lost), and buy more and more gear to say “we” won.

Like any other fan, it’s great to see our favorite sports teams raise a championship trophy and banner. Skipping work to attend a victory parade is often justified. But no sports fan has the right to be indignant when athletes choose to remove themselves from a game due to injury.

We have become so arrogant to suggest that if athletes are getting paid millions of dollars, an injury should be ignored and they should be carried off the field. It is as if the tickets and gear we buy means athletes should ignore all common sense and keep performing.

“Leave it all on the field” is a familiar refrain of athletes, but does that mean their actually lives?

For all of the fans cheering around the world on Sunday as they watch the Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers play in the Super Bowl: not one of them will take a crushing hit, risk a devastating injury on any given play, or possibly be carried off the field strapped to a stretcher.

Athletes are human. They are individuals with a job to do and are compensated to do it, like all of us. So in all of our earnest desire for them to bring us satisfaction, let’s remember we are watching someone’s son, brother, uncle, husband, cousin or friend.

Once the crowd has stopped cheering, athletes have a lot more life to live. At the end of the day, it is only a game.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

If you live in a crime-ridden neighborhood where your home has been broken into a dozen times and your children’s school is considered low performing, wouldn’t you take drastic measures to ensure they get a quality education?

That’s exactly what Kelley Williams-Bolar did, pulling her 12-year-old and 16-year-old daughters out of the decrepit school they attended in Akron, Ohio, and enrolling them in a suburban district where her father lived.

Williams-Bolar used her father’s address, where she alleges she lived part time. Yet the Copley-Fairlawn school district felt she was lying about being a resident. The district hired a private eye to follow her, videotaping Williams-Bolar leaving her public housing home and dropping her children off at the suburban school.

They confronted Williams-Bolar and demanded that she repay the district $30,000, saying she didn’t have the right to have her daughters in the district since she wasn’t a taxpayer.

When she refused, Williams-Bolar was indicted on two felony charges, found guilty and sentenced to 10 days in prison. As a result, the aspiring schoolteacher will never be able to enter the classroom due to the felonies on her record.

Once the story hit the national media, it led to significant coverage and angered folks nationwide. Some see this as an issue of race: the mother and her children are black; the district is largely white.

But that really isn’t the fundamental issue. What this problem should highlight for anyone is the clear disparities in urban and suburban school districts and how we have an education system that is unequal and unfair.

Too many Americans are delusional in thinking we have a national education system that is fair. It isn’t. We all know that you can go from community to community and see some elementary, middle and high school campuses that look like college campuses, while others look like prisons. Those districts with money hire teachers with master’s degrees and Ph.D.s; districts with little money rely on those with just teacher certificates. Those with money can invest in iPads and laptops; those without money are thankful just to have enough chalk, erasers and pencils.

It’s so bad that teachers nationwide often dip into their own pockets just to purchase school supplies for many of their students.

Yet well-to-do schools might have athletic complexes that rival universities in top athletic conferences.

Did Williams-Bolar break the law? Yes. Was her sentence fair? Of course not. When faced with a school system that will put our children further and further behind the learning curve, I dare say that many of us would have a “by any means necessary” focus to ensure they had the best chance to succeed.

In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama presented his bold vision to transform our nation’s education system, but when the bulk of dollars come locally due to property taxes, there isn’t much the federal government can do. And that means if you live in a well-off neighborhood, you’re likely to see thousands more dollars being spent on education in that district, as opposed to districts where the property values are much lower.

The jailing of Williams-Bolar also raises the controversial issue of school choice. The Obama administration says it fully supports school choice, but that is limited to charter and magnet schools. I’ve long contended that all choices should be presented to parents, including vouchers, allowing those from the worst performing schools to be able to take the dollars allocated for their child and enroll in a private or parochial school.

If we are going to truly confront the education crisis in this country, nothing should be off the table. Whether we like it or not, there’s not one way to educate a child. Take your pick: public school, private school, home school, charter schools, technical schools, college preps, ROTC academies, magnet programs, all-male, all-female, even online-only schools. You name it, I’m for it.

All Williams-Bolar wanted was for her kids to have a shot. And at the end of the day, that’s what we all should want. But it is going to require men and women of conscience to stop with our attitude of protecting what we see as ours. We must be willing to create an education that is truly one this nation could be proud of.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Malcolm X once said that the one man you should be most afraid of is a man who is willing to die for what he believes.

When it comes to tackling the enormous deficits that are affecting our cities, counties, states and this country, we need politicians who are willing to lose their jobs at the ballot box in order to emphasize what he or she believes is right.

Case in point: Mayor Dana Redd of Camden, N.J. Camden is routinely ranked as one of the most dangerous cities in America. Yet due to a $26 million budget shortfall, Redd made it clear that unless city workers, especially police and firefighters, accepted a pay freeze and paid more for their health care, she would have to slash jobs.

Knowing full well that the last thing Camden residents could stomach would be fewer cops on the streets, the unions said no to the mayor’s request, essentially daring her to make the threatened cuts.

She dropped the ax, and it wasn’t pretty. Nearly half of the police force was fired, and one-sixth of all city workers — 335 in all — got pink slips. The workers were understandably angry about the firings, but Redd made it clear that the city had to have a balanced budget, and unless concessions were made, she had to do what she had to do.

Yes, her actions were drastic, but it is also a reality that municipalities are facing. Property values have plummeted; meaning those depending on property taxes must do so with less revenue. And with folks pinching pennies due to the economy, raising taxes is considered political suicide. Couple that with state governments facing their own deficits, and cities and counties can’t look for a bailout; they are on their own and must do more with less and make the necessary cuts.

These moves have nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. This is all about living within your means — something every family has to contend with these days.

Surely, Redd knows that her actions could result in anger at the ballot box, but she’s on the money. And frankly, it’s time that voters — yes, voters — get serious about the nation’s financial problem and accept their role in this debacle.

When I hosted a morning show on WVON in Chicago, callers would often say they wanted this and that.

When I asked how it would be paid for, none would have an answer. When asked if they wanted taxes raised, they said no. Well, what about cuts? Nope. It is as if folks think there is a rainbow in the sky with a pot of gold at the end, which no one else has tapped into.

This is the message that Gov. Jerry Brown is trying to preach in California. Universities are angry about the massive cuts he’s proposed, but he’s making it clear that everyone has to share the burden of fixing the state’s $25 billion budget deficit.

In New York, former Gov. David Paterson kept sounding the alarm, but state officials from both parties, and all of the liberal and conservative interest groups, ignored him. Andrew Cuomo is now sitting in the governor’s mansion, and he’s threatening to shut the state down unless they face the music.

The only way this nation will get its fiscal house in order, local or national, is if we have politicians give us the news, regardless of how the pain is administered. Nationally, Democrats can’t be protective of Social Security and Medicaid, and Republicans can’t hold onto every defense dollar.

This week, the Republican Study Committee in Congress offered a thick packet of cuts totaling $2.5 trillion. Missing from it? Anything dealing with defense. On my One Cable Network TV show, “Washington Watch,” Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), chairman of the committee, said that everything should be on the table.

Frankly, their proposal should be thrown right in the trash. It’s clear that our elected officials are afraid of ticking off the particular needs of voters, so they kick the can down the road, hoping someone else takes on the tough stuff. That means voters must be strong enough to back up the hard choices that our elected officials must make.

Look, we all want parks, roads, care for the needy, protection by police and fire, potholes fixed in a timely manner, fresh flowers along our roads and highways, and all of our entitlements, but as a nation, we simply can’t afford it.

Instead of folks slamming Mayor Dana Redd for taking draconian measures, she should be celebrated. At least, she had the guts to do what so many others were afraid to actually do: lead.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

In the wake of the emotional and impressive memorial service to honor the six killed and 13 wounded in Tucson at the hands of a deranged gunman, the conventional wisdom is that despite pleas for civility, we will return to the pre-shooting days of yelling, screaming and highly charged partisanship.

In his speech to the nation, President Barack Obama, acting as the healer in chief, called on all Americans to rise above the nonsense of making politics a rhetorical blood sport and instead have a civil debate on the issues.

“I believe we can be better. Those who died here, those who saved lives here — they help me believe,” said President Obama. “We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us. I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.”

The knee-jerk reaction from many in the call for civility is to say that the First Amendment gives them the right to say what they want and when they want. But the right to freedom of speech also gives all of us the right to say “no” and “you’re not going to talk to me that way.” We can probe and debate yet we can do so without all the rancor and bitterness.

I found it laughable to listen to my media colleagues talk about this need for civility, yet many of us fan those flames by booking, promoting and giving more airtime to those who rant and scream at the top of their lungs. In the world of TV and radio, you’ll hear someone say, “Now that was a hot discussion! Can you come back tomorrow night?” Forget that the discussion ended up as being nothing but an attack on the other person, savagely ripping into “those liberals” or “those conservatives.” What often happens is the issue at hand is ignored, and folks walk away from a fight where no one benefits.

I’ve never been one who has shied away from being passionate about an issue, but as a responsible individual, I always accept the reality that what I say matters. People do listen. Folks form opinions based on what is said. And we can ramp up their blood pressure higher and higher or we can say, “That was a spirited debate.

Now let’s go and get a drink.”

If we want to embrace the notion of civility and humility in our discourse, it means not falling into our old habits. I was impressed that Roger Ailes, head of Fox News Channel, relayed to Russell Simmons’ GlobalGrind.com what he told his staff after the Tucson shootings: “I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast. I hope the other side does that.”

Who knows if this edict will be photocopied and posted in the office of every Fox talk show host — and throughout its newsroom — to serve as a reminder to everyone when the nation moves further away from the shooting.

And Ailes is correct that those who vehemently oppose the views of Fox News and conservative radio hosts must also adhere to the president’s call for civility. Maybe we should all make “Remember Gabby and the Tucson 6″ buttons, T-shirts and bumper stickers, as a way to stop someone in their tracks that chooses to become out of control.

It was the attempted political assassination of the moderate Arizona Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords that ended up costing six people their lives and leaving another 12 wounded.

In an e-mail a day before the shooting, it was Giffords herself who openly discussed the toxic political dialogue that resulted in death threats against her.

“After you get settled, I would love to talk about what we can do to promote centrism and moderation. I am one of only 12 Dems left in a GOP district (the only woman) and think that we need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down,” Giffords wrote to Republican Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson to congratulate him on being named director of Harvard’s Institute of Politics.

Yes, we know the actions of the mentally ill shooter weren’t tied to the heated political rhetoric played out on radio, TV and online, but it still isn’t a healthy environment.

But as she heads for a long recovery from being shot in the head, “Remember Gabby and the Tucson 6″ should constantly ring in our ears.

Let’s have vigorous debates over the issues. But let’s do so as adults, not as petulant and out-of-control children.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

As a huge fan of college football, I’ve waited all year for this day: the crowning of a national champion.

So whatcha think? Will it be Delaware or Eastern Washington?

Yes, those two teams will square off in Frisco, Texas, Friday night to crown the national champion in the Football Championship Subdivision the right way: at the conclusion of a playoff.

No, I’m not talking about that joke of a game Monday night in Glendale, Ariz., for the national championship, where the only folks smiling will be the Arizona tourism commission and the supporters of the Bowl Championship Series.

The idea behind the BCS was to be able to use a variety of polls, factoring in all sorts of mathematical models, in order to determine which teams should square off for the national title.

After they show up armed with all of their highfalutin computers spitting out reams of data to show that Auburn and Oregon are without a doubt the nation’s top two teams, dare I say the BCS supporters are still full of crap.

There is no bias on my part against Auburn and Oregon, two fine football teams. But it is nonsense to suggest that this is the best way to crown a national champion. Not only is it undemocratic, but there is no doubt that determining who should play for the title of the best major college football team in America based on a poll is also un-American.

And that’s exactly how the brains behind the BCS want to keep it.

Folks, this is nothing more than a cartel. This current system is designed to keep out the upstarts that are not in the major conferences. This supposedly fair system makes it clear that only automatic qualifiers get a shot at playing for the big money and the big trophy. SEC? Yep. Big 12? No doubt. Big East? Thanks a bunch. Big 10? Hello, baby! ACC? Yes, sir! Pac-10? Sweet.

Yet if you’re from the “Little Sisters of the Poor” conferences — those are the words of Ohio State University President Gordon Gee when he derided TCU and Boise State for even being considered for a national championship game — you have to hope and pray the pollsters don’t screw you. That means the Mountain West, Sun Belt, Conference USA, the Mid-American and Western Athletic Conference all must rank in the top 12 of the BCS poll in order to get the automatic bid.

In the world of the BCS, this is all fair and above board.

Sorry, it stinks to high heaven.

There are a lot of folks to blame for this nonsense, but a lot of it lies at the feet of the presidents of the schools in the major conferences.

In fact, lying is a good word because they do an excellent job of it in trying to get us to believe academics is at the heart of their opposition to a playoff.

We’ve heard for years the ridiculous argument that the presidents put the student first in student-athletes and that a playoff would take too much time and keep them from their final exams.

Yet not a single college president opposing football playoffs can explain why in the Division 1-A — now known as the Football Bowl Subdivision — playoffs are used in basketball, baseball, golf, lacrosse, soccer, softball, tennis and volleyball.

For years, football teams in Division 1-AA, sorry, the Football Championship Subdivision, have had a playoff. That means teams earn the title the right way: on the field.

If there wasn’t a playoff in college basketball, Butler would have never been able to advance to the finals last year. Every year, the notion of a Cinderella team advancing into the Sweet 16, Elite Eight or Final Four would be moot because we could just pencil in the power conferences.

In the arrogance of the presidents, coaches and, yes, the media, these are the so-called best and toughest conferences in the nation. Forget those little schools that don’t have the big budgets and TV contracts; the big boys decide who is good enough.

Sorry, not buying.

A playoff is fair and just. Win on the field and keep winning, and you play for the title. Lose? You go home. Simple. Clean. Concise.

Like many fans, I’ll watch Auburn and Oregon because I love football. But don’t think that whichever team wins, they’ll be national champions. They will simply be the best team to win a supposed national title because they hail from one of the cartel conferences.

I’d rather raise a toast to Delaware or Eastern Washington.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

As a strong proponent of parental responsibility, it both amuses and angers me to see some parents lining up behind an initiative to sue McDonald’s over the inclusion of toys in their Happy Meals.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest is leading the charge in this case by pushing the state of California to ban the toys. The group suggests that the toys in Happy Meals are inducing children to eat the burger and fries, thus contributing to the obesity epidemic in America.

As I asserted in my past column that supported first lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” initiative, I fully back efforts to end obesity among our children. But at what point do some folks use common sense?

For example, in a Chicago Tribune story, parent Monet Parham said her 6-year-old daughter was so enamored with toys offered in partnership with the movie, “Shrek Forever After,” that she pestered her mom to collect every toy. That would mean going to McDonald’s every week, since the promotion was a weekly giveaway. And that’s not something Parham wanted.

So instead of being a parent and telling her child, “no,” Parham decided to become a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Instead of being the grown-up and not giving in to the demands of a bratty 6-year-old, Parham thought it made more sense to sue McDonald’s to make her job as a parent easier.

I’ve long maintained that the problem today isn’t children or the world changing. Instead, the problem is punk parents changing. Yes, I know that’s a strong phrase, but when a parent can’t control a 6-year-old, we have some issues.

Do I have any biological children? Nope. But my wife and I have raised six of my nieces at different times. And when they lived in our home, we would take them to McDonald’s for a Happy Meal. And when we went, we would order them apples instead of fries. Instead of a soda, we would get apple juice or milk. Yes, it was that simple. All we did was order the healthier options on the menu, and the girls were happy with their Happy Meals.

Why is this so hard? There is a fundamental role that government can play when it comes to nutrition. Going after the cigarette makers who enticed children with cartoon characters to smoke? Good. Limiting trans fats in cooking? No problem here if it makes us healthier. But the McDonald’s lawsuit is ridiculous.

What we desperately need today are real parents. Parents should understand that it’s not their job to be friends with their children; they need to be parents.

It’s not a bad thing to have a disappointed child who doesn’t get his or her way all the time. Parents need to give their child the right look when the child begins to act like a fool and throw a tantrum.

I am not one of these adults who subscribe to the notion that no one can tell them what to do and they can do it all. For instance, I support sex education in schools and don’t believe that we should leave that up to the parents. It’s called education for a reason! Count me as a major supporter of schools changing their menus to have healthier-eating options. And I’m also down with school uniforms. The heck with the peer pressure of the haves and have-nots based on designer clothes. None of these prevent parents from doing what they want to do with their children. It’s all about focusing on the broader needs of the child.

What has to be understood is that a lawsuit isn’t the answer to everything. And if we want our children to be healthier, banning a toy will do nothing to make that happen. Push McDonald’s to make it more visible as to what healthy options are on the menu. I love the idea of having calorie counts on foods — it has changed my mind on many occasions as to what I was going to buy in a fast-food restaurant. Push fast-food joints to have a healther menu option by adding a salad, fruit and/or water instead of fries and a fountain drink. All of these make sense.

Trying to ban a toy because a parent can’t say “no” to their child is ludicrous.

My nieces and nephews know full well that when it comes to who is on control, Uncle Ro Ro doesn’t play around. I’m not their friend or buddy; I’m their uncle. What I say goes. I don’t negotiate. I don’t consult. I don’t give in. I make it clear: my money, my rules. As my dad told me, “When you’re grown enough to pay all of your bills, you can make the call.” __If a niece or nephew wants to go to McDonald’s every week for a month just to get a toy, but the deal is we only go once a month, here is the option: “We go once a month or not at all. Your call.”

Trust me, even the biggest child pest has enough sense to figure out that once a month is the better option.

Parents, buck up and become the adult in the family. Stop blaming everything on an outside agency or corporation. Maybe McDonald’s should think of suing sorry parents for not doing their jobs. Now that’s a lawsuit I’m willing to support.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

One of the reasons Defense Secretary Robert Gates commissioned a study on how the military feels about gays serving openly in the military was because it was ridiculous to listen to politicians rambling on and on, and not listen to those who have to do the heavy lifting.

And when the results were released showing more than two-thirds believed that the work wouldn’t be harmed by changing the 17-year-old law, it was clear evidence to many that the law needed to be overturned.

But when massive flip-floppers like Republican Sen. John McCain ignores the advice of the defense secretary and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — and continues to come up with more reasons why the rule needs to be kept in place — it’s no surprise that the measure failed to get enough votes this week to get beyond a GOP filibuster.

It was largely Republicans who blocked the measure from being repealed in the 57-40. The only Democrat to go along with them was Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

Supporters of the repeal say they have the votes to overturn the law, but who knows if moderate Republicans will come up with more reasons why they can’t support the legislation. But it’s absolutely clear that it’s now time for this law to be revoked.

In an interview on my TV One Cable Network’s Sunday morning news show, “Washington Watch,” I talked with the top enlisted officer serving in Afghanistan, Command Sgt. Maj. Marvin Hill. He made it clear that soldiers serving in the battlefield can be led to implement the changes if Congress will act.

“I’m thinking that the troops are ready for something like this,” the Memphis, Tenn., native said. “They are well led. We know that if there is a change, that change will have to be led, and it’s going to have to be led by senior leaders such as myself — and others across the battlefield.

“Senior leaders are the ones [that are] going to set the tone in the unit and enable the unit to move forward.”

When Sen. McCain was behaving like a reasonable politician whose word could be trusted, he said that if the top brass in the military supported repealing DADT, the former POW would follow their lead.

That was when more folks were against the measure. Now that the winds have shifted, so has McCain, who has promised to filibuster any effort to change the law.

As for members of the military who are as dead set against repealing the law as McCain, Command Sgt. Maj. Hill says it might be time for them to find another line of work.

“If there are people who cannot deal with the change, then they’re going to have to do what’s best for their troops and best for the organization and best for the military service and exit the military service, so that we can move forward — if that’s the way that we have to go,” said Hill, now serving in Afghanistan after three tours of duty in Iraq.

See, that’s what we call leadership. No flip-flops. No double talk, just straight talk. You know, the stuff Sen. McCain used to be known for.

When we have members of our military shedding the same blood on the battlefield, nonsensical that we would be discharging able-bodied men and women willing to serve their country because of their sexual orientation. I’ll bet $1,000 that if someone was on the front lines and mired in a fierce firefight, they wouldn’t give a flip if the person coming to their aid were homosexual. All that matters is that a fellow soldier wasn’t leaving his or her comrade on the battlefield to fend for himself or herself.

Our soldiers are showing tremendous courage on the battlefield fighting terrorists. It would be nice if our political leaders in Washington, D.C., had an ounce of their courage and commitment to get rid of a law that serves no usefulness in the 21st century.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

“Wait for it! Wait for it! Wait for it!”

That’s the famous line comedian Katt Williams uses in his stand-up act as a signal to his audience that the punch line to one of his jokes is coming.

That also could be the motto for Republicans these days when it comes to the Democrats eventually caving on the Bush tax cuts. For all of the bravado during the midterm elections coming from President Barack Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and countless other Democrats about not extending the cuts for millionaires and billionaires, it is becoming abundantly clear that Dems don’t have the intestinal fortitude to face down the GOP on this issue.

For several months, President Obama has said that he is willing to extend the Bush tax cuts for Americans making less than $250,000, which, over time, would have a $3 trillion effect on the U.S. deficit. Yet he has said that the nation’s richest Americans — those making more than $250,000 — don’t need the tax break and that the U.S. doesn’t need the additional $700 billion impact on the deficit.

The argument seems pretty simple, and the polling data back up the president. Poll after poll shows that most folks support extending the Bush tax cuts on the middle class but not on the top 2 percent of wage earners in America.

But the position of the Republicans is simple: We will acquiesce on tax cuts, but if all don’t get them, none will get them. That’s why the incoming speaker of the House, Ohio Republican John Boehner, labeled as “chicken crap” the bill that passed the House for extending the cuts for those making less than $250,000. In fact, congressional Republicans released a letter this week saying they will block any legislation Democrats offer up before dealing with the Bush tax cuts.

They have drawn a clear line in the sand and don’t care one bit about bipartisanship while demanding that President Obama compromise his position to come to their side of the room.

The calculus by the Obama administration is clear: If we can negotiate a deal that temporarily extends the cuts for all and we can get unemployment benefits extended, then that’s a win-win for the economy and all will be well.

But it won’t. Republicans will portray the move as forcing the president’s hand and making him bow down to their wishes, while the left will see this as the latest example of a party and a White House bending over backward to do what they say is right for America while the opposition makes clear that it wants to do what is right for its political base.

Frankly, the Republicans are going to play chicken with the Democrats and force them to blink, because they know Dems and President Obama don’t have the stomach to fight.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says his No. 1 goal is to make President Obama a one-termer, and the White House responds with smiles and “can-we-all-get-along” happy talk.

Whether you agree with them or not, Republicans always have been willing to use fear to their advantage, even if that means a burn-the-boats mentality. Like it or not, they are tougher than Democrats, and even the Democrats know it. While the Dems have to deal with a caucus mixed with Blue Dogs, doves, African-Americans, Hispanics and gays, the Republicans have mostly hard-chargin’ white conservatives who are in lock step with one another. The message: We ride and die together. The Dems’ message? Feel free to jump off if the road gets a little bumpy and your stomach goes squeamish.

If President Obama really believes that extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest of the rich would be bad, he should draw a line in the sand: It’s either a cut for those making less than $250,000 or else. Is it risky? Absolutely. Is the White House concerned that there could be a backlash if the GOP doesn’t blink and the Senate refuses to take up the House legislation? Of course it is.

But if your opposition always thinks you’re going to back down eventually, it’ll just wait you out until you give out. For the GOP, Dec. 31 is the drop-dead date for the cuts to expire. Republicans are going to hold out for all the cuts because they know the Dems will cave. The Democratic Party isn’t willing to flood the zone and truly paint the Republicans as standing in the way of giving the middle class a tax break. Democrats aren’t willing to go to the mats and fight for what is a so-called conviction.

Malcolm X once said the most dangerous man is one who isn’t afraid to die. Let me say now that the most susceptible man (or woman) is one who talks big but shrivels into a fetal position when push comes to shove. Democrats may be showing us they are unwilling to back up their talk with action.

And the Republicans are counting on that.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

It’s clear that we can’t go 24 hours without Sarah Palin saying something so stupid that it defies logic, but leave it to the Kim Kardashian of Politics to find something wrong with First Lady Michelle Obama’s effort to curb obesity among America’s kids.

In a radio interview Wednesday with conservative talker Laura Ingraham, Palin takes dead aim at the First Lady’s “Let’s Move” initiative, which is all about getting our children active, involved in exercise and healthy eating.

In the Wacky World of Wasilla’s finest, Palin tries to cast the effort to fight obesity as part of Michelle Obama’s “different worldview.”

Here is a portion of the transcript from HuffingtonPost.com: “Take her anti-obesity thing that she is on. She is on this kick, right. What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat. And I know I’m going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician’s wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track.”

Hmmm. “Let’s Move” is Obama’s “kick”? Maybe someone should kick Sarah Palin so she can understand how devastating obesity is to the future of the United States.

According to the First Lady’s Let’s Move website:

- Obesity rates among children have tripled in the last three decades, and one in three children are obese;

- One-third of all children born after 2000 will suffer from diabetes;

- Our children are less active today than any other time in American history, spending 7.5 hours a day watching TV, playing video games, or simply involved in efforts that don’t require movement;

- Obesity is contributing to the vast increase in hypertension among Americans.

Now, since Palin is always talking about our nation’s military and how we have to honor them and show them love and affection, what did a group of generals say a few months ago about obesity on America’s national defense?

In an study released in April by Mission: Readiness, a nonprofit group out of Washington, D.C. (missionreadiness.org), more than 150 retired generals and admirals concluded that 27 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds are too fat to join the military.

The culprit? Junk food and too much fat in school lunches.

“Today, otherwise excellent recruiting prospects, some of them with generations of sterling military service in their family history, are being turned away because they are just too overweight. Our standards are high because we clearly cannot have people in our command who are not up to the job. Too many lives depend on it,” the study stated.

During his testimony before Congress, the former head of the California Army National Guard, Retired U.S. Army Major General Paul Monroe said that “80 percent of children who were overweight between the ages of 10 to 15 were obese by age 25.”

He and other military leaders want Congress to enact a massive child nutrition bill to remove all junk food and high-calorie beverages out of schools; improve nutrition standards in schools and upgrade school menus; and “help develop new school-based strategies, based on research, that help parents and children adopt healthier life-long eating and exercise habits.

Monroe testified: “In 1946, Congress passed the National School Lunch Act as a matter of national security. In the past retired admirals and generals have stood up to make it clear that America is only as healthy as our nation’s children. Childhood obesity is now undermining our national security, and we need to start turning it around today.”

So, Sarah Palin, are you going to also rip into this decorated American and say that he and 150 other military leaders are dead wrong?

I recently sat down with Michelle Obama for a primetime special on TV One Cable Network dedicated to her Let’s Move initiative, and it was startling to listen to her talk about the horrible statistics and the shape we’ll be in in the future, figuratively and literally.

“The crisis that we’re facing around childhood obesity hits everything,” Obama said. “It’s about education, what our kids are learning about nutrition in the schools, the quality of the food in the schools. It’s about our neighborhood development. How are neighborhoods designed? Are our kids – do they have access to safe places to play? Are we structuring communities in a way that facilitate healthy living? Are there accessible and affordable healthy foods in our communities? And it’s about economic opportunity as well because if folks can’t afford to put food on the table, then they’re eating what they can.

“So this is one of those issues that requires us to talk about a little bit of everything. And it makes us look at ourselves a little more closely and it makes us look at the broader society. So we’re beginning to understand this is a threat.”

This latest broadside by Palin shows how reckless and ridiculous she is. Libertarians and far right conservative Republicans are always talking about government intrusion into our lives, but when we look at clean water, our air quality, and food supply, thank God for governmental standards.

Don’t think for a second I’m not paying attention. I’ve increased my health awareness, am changing my diet and working out more to lose weight, and am pushing family members to do the same. That’s really the whole point of Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move.”

Any Republican with common sense should see that Sarah Palin poses an immediate threat to the future of this country. She only proves that every time she opens her mouth.

Sarah, for the benefit of the nation, stick a fork in it.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.”

As a second-generation caterer, I would ordinarily be peacock proud and hyena happy about the prospects of anyone getting married. Yet when I saw the obese coverage around the wedding announcement of Britain’s Prince William and his fiancee, Kate Middleton, it was sickening to watch.

There was no one TV broadcast or cable network that was more egregious than the other. Frankly, all were shameful with the level of attention given to the announcement of next year’s nuptials. It’s wrong for anyone to suggest that Prince William isn’t a newsmaker, although this wedding is more entertainment than politics or hard news. Yet this was the lead story on NBC’s evening newscast? Really?

It was more perplexing considering the announcement was reported on the same day that President Barack Obama awarded the Medal of Honor to the first living soldier since Vietnam. With the United States engaged in two wars, and so much attention being put on our soldiers, it made perfect sense for the national media to turn everyone’s attention to one of our own, Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta of Iowa, who is the first living recipient to receive the award in 40 years.

How can today’s journalists seriously talk about the softening of news and more Americans caring about gossip rags and celebrities walking down the street to buy a cup of coffee rather than the news that truly affects their lives?

Look, I get the mammoth ratings from the wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana in 1981, but seriously, what we have seen on display this week has been ridiculous.

In the media, we often talk about news judgment.

It is all subjectively based on the person or persons who make the decisions in each respective newsroom. I can guarantee you that if I had my own TV show or was executive producing one, the royal wedding wouldn’t have made it into the first block. No doubt it would have been mentioned, but it would have been beyond me to put a wedding announcement of a royal couple from another country at the top of an American newscast.

Longtime journalist Ted Koppel recently blasted the opinion-driven TV shows on Fox and MSNBC, and Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia went as far as saying the two should be shut down. Frankly, I find the latter to be nonsensical, but it is important that we sometimes step back and say, “Are we contributing to dumbing down the public by virtue of some of our dumb news decisions?”

Let me be clear: There is a place for sports, entertainment and lifestyle-related stories. I disagree when someone suggests that such stories aren’t news; they are, just a different type of news. But there is a such thing as overkill, and when it came to the royal wedding announcement, my brothers and sisters in the media embarrassed themselves with the over-the-top coverage.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

The day after Republicans trounced Democrats in congressional, gubernatorial and statehouse races, one of my CNN colleagues asked “The Best Political Team on Television” about the first thing the president should focus on.

They said he should show contrition; immediately move to the center in order to attract independent voters; drastically scale back his “liberal” agenda; and make massive changes to his staff and bring in some new blood.

For me, the answer was simple: He must go to his base and make some serious amends for ignoring many of them over the last two years, as well as heal some seriously wounded souls.

My colleague Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist, immediately began to shake his head and said that wasn’t the most important thing. I stand by what I said that night: It doesn’t matter if you make an all-out attempt to go after independent voters. If Obama has a shaky base leading into 2012, he doesn’t stand a chance of winning a second term.

Prior to the election and in the last two weeks, I’ve traveled to Los Angeles, Norfolk, Va., Fort Valley, Ga., Cleveland, Jackson, Miss., as well as chatted with religious leaders from Chicago to New Jersey to Texas and Democratic (and Republican) donors and activists. And it is safe to say that there is considerable frustration, anger and resentment with the White House and the Democratic National Committee’s failure at Retail Politics 101.

In President Obama’s first few months in office, major donors to the Democratic Party grumbled that the usual perks weren’t coming their way and they were not happy. The response from White House officials was pretty much, “so what?” Sure, the average person trying to make ends meet really doesn’t care what a fat cat donor has to say, but when you look up and are desperate for them to fund, get out the vote initiatives and bolster candidates in need, then you care how they feel.

President Obama may frown upon such things as having to take White House Christmas party photos with donors, but it comes with the territory. And when donors close their checkbooks due to an inattentive White House, it has repercussions beyond the president’s own campaign.

One of the surprising aspects of the 2008 campaign was President Obama’s religious outreach. It was a robust effort that was shocking to Republicans and Democrats alike, who were not accustomed to seeing such an aggressive effort. But in the wake of the midterm election, religious leaders have been particularly upset with the president’s faith-based initiative. It has clearly not been as public as under President George W. Bush, and some say that played a role in Democrats losing significant portions of the Catholic vote this year. The White House responds with a litany of things they’ve done in the area, but are those visible and known to those pastors who talk to thousands of congregants each week?

Religious leaders often tried to get the White House to link the economic agenda and health care to a moral calling. They felt that by engaging church leaders, they would have been able to stem a lot of the misinformation that was running rampant. But when angry town hall meetings took place, they were largely led by congressional members rather than in places where a more civil discourse could be expected. Some believe religion and politics shouldn’t mix, but they go hand-in-hand.

Any advertiser will tell you that they covet the age 18-49 demographic because they are highly impressionable and will change their minds when it comes to what products to buy.
Older purchasers are set in their ways and are much harder to reach. The same goes for politics.

The hype surrounding Obama’s candidacy was palpable among young voters. The energy and excitement was stunning, and it even led folks like Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill to admit that it was her children who leaned heavily on her to back Obama’s presidential bid. Yet the enthusiasm generated has been replaced by pessimism. These voters are not going to simply come out and vote every time on general principle. They must be cultivated over a longer period of time and kept engaged. Yet the White House has missed many opportunities to do so.

For instance, last year, when college students used social media to organize simultaneous protests in 31 states, I called the White House to see if the president was going to make some kind of comment about the protests to send a signal to them that he supported their efforts. That would seem right up the alley of a community organizer. But the response was no. I asked why, and the response was that the emphasis at the time was on health care.

You would think that aligning with students to protest a dramatic increase in college tuition would have been a perfect way to get them to back his financial aid changes. But that didn’t happen. The issue isn’t that the bill was eventually passed. The critical need was to reach out to young voters and tell them, “You were with me. I’m with you.” The White House missed a perfect moment. And holding a rally on a college campus two weeks from Election Day is too little, too late.

Lastly, Democrats collectively lost the white vote in the midterm election, but they drew a majority of minority voters. An Obama victory in 2012 will require a massive turnout among black and Hispanic voters, which will require more than a media outreach plan two months before Election Day.

In the first 21 months of his presidency, President Obama appeared on the “Tom Joyner Morning Show.” Heard on more than 100 stations and by 8 million listeners, Joyner is the most influential voice in urban radio. I’m a senior analyst on Joyner’s show, and I blasted the White House for the failure to make the president available to Joyner’s show as well as other minority media outlets. In the last three months of the campaign, Obama was on Joyner’s show three times and on other nationally syndicated shows. And Obama talked to minority columnists, bloggers and networks like Telemundo and Univision.

This massive outreach can’t be a one-time thing. It has to take place throughout 2011 and 2012 if the president expects to rebuild the coalition that put him in office in 2008. He spent a lot of time talking to NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and Fox, but his team better be smart enough to put him on TV One, BET, Telemundo, Univision and other outlets.

There is no way a Republican president would ignore the power and reach of Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck. In fact, the Republicans would hold conservative radio day at the White House, inviting those hosts to do their shows from the White House. Are Dems not smart enough to do the same for progressives and urban radio?

Will the liberal/progressive base desert President Obama? No, but he needs them to be highly energized and not passively backing him. It’s not the percentage of young voters, women and minorities; it’s a huge turnout among each demographic.

Right now, President Obama has ticked off both his friends and his foes. We all know that his foes will never support him, but if he has a lackluster response from his friends, he will have a lot more time to spend with them at home in Chicago rather than at the White House in 2013.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book, “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Tuesday’s election results are a bitter pill for the president and his supporters to swallow. To be essentially routed by the Republican Party from top to bottom goes beyond humbling. It’s a wholesale rejection of the Democratic Party as well as many of the policies championed by President Obama.

So what world do we face now?

In many ways, I view the first half of President Obama’s term like the first half of a basketball game, the president’s favorite sport. Some things good, some bad. At times we were leading, but now we are clearly losing at the half. And like any smart team leader, his job is to now go into the locker room and make some pivotal half time adjustments.

Here are the four adjustments I think the president must make to regain his footing, get back in the game, and lead his team to victory:

One: Team communication is a must. When a team is defending against the pick and roll, each player must communicate to know what the other is doing. That’s basketball. Poor communication also hurts in politics. By your own admission, Mr. President, you and your team have done a poor job of communicating what you are doing, why you are doing it, and what it will mean for the American people. You said on Jon Stewart’s show that the American people don’t know a lot of the things you have done. Well, that’s not their problem, that’s your problem.

YOU have to make it clear. Frankly, your communications team has been weak. They have missed or flubbed opportunities to make your case. Sir, giving a great speech is one thing, but your communications team speaking persuasively to the American people on a daily basis is another. And that has to improve.

That leads me to the second issue, Mr. President. You have GOT to pass the ball. We often hear from your aides that no one is better at communicating the issues than you. That may very well be true. But just like in basketball, you CANNOT play all five positions. In order for a team to win, that means every player must play their role and do their job.

The business community has complained that your administration is anti-business. So where is Gary Locke, the commerce secretary? Jobs is issue No. 1, so where is Labor Secretary Hilda Solis? Her appearance on our show today is the first time. There’s a foreclosure epidemic, so where is Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan? We’ve said it on this show before that Attorney General Eric Holder has had a straightjacket placed on him. Discussions about energy policy? I never see Energy Secretary Stephen Chu. It seems that the only Cabinet members who have free reign to speak out are Arne Duncan at Education, Hillary Clinton at State, Bob Gates at Defense, and to some degree, Kathleen Sebelius at Health and Human Services.

Mr. President, those may be your starters, but you need to play the bench, too. Let them engage, take some fire, deliver some blows, and show folks that they are in this battle with you. There simply is no way one player can take on the opposing team all by himself.

Three: Go on the offensive. A running team knows when to push the ball up court, hoping to put the opponents on their heels and run them out of the gym. There has been a passive attitude emanating from your administration. Sir, when the other team continues to drive the lane and score on you, sometimes you have to deliver a few hard fouls to get their attention and send a signal. You must do the same.

Your opposition is emboldened by ripping you to shreds. Only rarely has your team engaged in the kind of fighting that can quickly get the attention of your opponents. This isn’t time to keep taking hits and act like they won’t stick. Mr. President, those body blows have stuck. Your White House is holding back the Democratic National Committee. It’s time to let it go. Let them foul hard and be aggressive. If you don’t, your opponents will do whatever they want with you, and you’ll be on the losing side in two years.

Four: You’ve got to be the true team leader like Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, Hakeem Olajuwon and Kobe Bryant. When times got tough, their teammates looked to them for inspiration, energy and guidance. Right now, your teammates — the broad coalition of millions who put you into office — are confused by the conflicting messages sent out by your administration. In many ways, this movement has been abandoned. Young folks, African-Americans, Hispanics and so many others are waiting to be engaged and to be put to work — to work with you to achieve victory.

But if you’re standoffish, don’t talk to them regularly and don’t inspire them, your agenda will never resonate with them, and you’ll have a team in disarray, not knowing what to do. You want be a transformational figure like Ronald Reagan, but that means leading your movement and keeping them involved.

For all sports fans — and President Obama knows this — no game is won in the first or second quarter. Yes, you can fall behind and look seemingly out of it. But until the clock reads zero, zero, zero, there is always time to rebound.

Mr. President, I get the question all the time as to whether you will win a second term. Frankly, we don’t know. But right now, I do know that you are behind and in desperate need of a second-half comeback to have any shot in 2012.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Sarah Palin thinks that if the Republican Party doesn’t totally embrace the Tea Party movement, it might as well consider itself “through” as an organizing entity.

What Palin and those who agree with her must recognize is that if the Tea Party doesn’t do a better job of rejecting candidates who can win a primary but not the general election, it will not be as big a force as it likes to think it is.

It’s nonsense when purists on the left or right say they would rather lose on principle in order to maintain their purity. That’s stupid. If your party is out of power, you can’t drive legislation. And when you’re in the minority, all you’re doing is shouting and not leading.

Democrats and Republicans are both studying the electoral map and trying to figure out what races to focus on, and how they can gain a critical edge in the final days leading up to the November 2 midterm elections. GOP prognosticators expect that they will end up with 48 or 49 added seats in the House, giving them control of that chamber.

If that’s the case, the GOP elites will probably look at the Tea Party faithful and say, “If you hadn’t given us Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Linda McMahon, Ron Johnson and Rand Paul, we would have taken down the Democrats and taken over the U.S. Senate.”

Of course, this is presuming that those candidates can’t dispatch Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada, Chris Coons in Delaware, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal in Connecticut, Russ Feingold in Wisconsin and Jack Conway in Kentucky.

A study of the polls as of late reveals that every single one of those races, other than O’Donnell’s, is neck-and-neck, and they will all boil down to aggressive get-out-the vote drives on both sides.

Johnson has been a pretty moderate voice throughout the campaign and was embraced by the Tea Party faithful after he gave a stinging rebuke of the health-care bill passed by Congress and signed into law.

But when you look at some of the loopy and outlandish comments made by Angle, O’Donnell, McMahon and Paul, it is clear that in order to succeed, you must get beyond what it takes to win in a primary and appeal to a broader audience for the general election.

Just ask Ned Lamont. He won the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut in 2006 because the progressive/liberal community despised Sen. Joe Lieberman’s support for the war in Iraq and attacked him with everything they had. Lamont was unable to topple Lieberman in the general election even though he had the progressives’ endorsement and the Democratic party line on the ballot.

Angle, O’Donnell, McMahon and Paul have all been dogged by some pretty outrageous comments, angering Republican operatives while providing fodder for their liberal critics:

• If it weren’t for Reid’s porous approval rating in Nevada, he would be dusting Angle, with her constant running away from the media and her allusion to an armed revolt if the “tyrannical (federal) government” isn’t reined in.
• McMahon, who help build the World Wresting Entertainment behemoth with her husband, Vince, has had to battle criticism about the violence in the sport, rampant drug use and its portrayal of women. Although the millions she has poured into the campaign have made it easier for the GOP to stomach her involvement in the race, going back and forth on the minimum wage was a major rookie mistake. Now she’s trying to close the deal against a candidate who has major issues with telling the truth about his military record.
• Rand Paul and his chop-the-federal-government view is music to the ears of the Tea Party, but when he said he disagreed with key parts of the Civil Rights Act, he went from a potentially serious candidate to the absurd. He quickly backtracked after MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow used his own words to show him to be clueless, and he has continued to lead in the race, albeit it by a small margin. But such views are troubling for a party that has virtually no relationship with the African-American community.
• And what can we say about O’Donnell, who couldn’t get right where she graduated from and when; who has touted herself as a constitutional scholar after going on a seven-day fellowship organized by a conservative foundation; and who made flat-out weird statements on Bill Maher’s old show, “Politically Incorrect,” about evolution and witchcraft.

These candidates may have caught the fancy of the hard-core elements during the primaries, which are known to be all about the fringe, but that doesn’t mean they have what it takes to win over the voters in a general campaign.

Were it not for the widespread total disgust at the nation’s economic condition, it’s safe to say voters wouldn’t tolerate these candidates’ burn-the-barn-down rhetoric. But if the Tea Party wants to be a true movement, one with legs, it is going to have to think practically and with a goal in mind: winning.

Yes, it has provided a desperate emotional lift for the Republican Party and a grass-roots base to build from, but at the end of the day, if you can’t push the ball into the end zone and put the seat in the “R” column, all you’ve done is gotten close.

And in politics, close ain’t good enough. It’s about winning

If you think I’m one of those folks upset with James Jones — the Florida father who jumped on his daughter’s bus to confront the bullies who were terrorizing his daughter — you’ve got another thing coming. In fact, we should recommend Jones as Father of the Year.

Caught on tape, Jones angrily yelled at the children that were bullying his 13-year-old daughter, who has cerebral palsy. He later issued a tearful apology saying he was wrong. No, James, you weren’t wrong; the punk children who bullied your daughter were wrong. And the punk parents who didn’t discipline their own children are wrong, too.

I can sympathize with James because I witnessed my dad do the same exact thing when I was in middle school.

Some students on our bus were roughhousing one day and another kid pulled down the sweater of a girl, exposing her breasts for all to see. This kid’s name was “Roland.” Now I had nothing to do with it, and the two of us didn’t even look alike. Yet when friends and family of the girl heard about it, they assumed it was me. More than 40 kids were on the bus and they all knew that wasn’t the case, but her supporters didn’t care.

My brother and I were threatened repeatedly with physical harm, so we clearly didn’t want to ride the bus home. We made up a reason to not take the bus and begged my dad to pick us up. When he got to the school and demanded to know the truth, he got out of the car, jumped on the bus, and said, “Point out to me who keeps messing with you.”

Now I may have been scared of the school bullies, but I was more scared of my daddy! So I told him. My dad walked over to a kid and asked him, “Are you messing with my sons?” He made it clear we had nothing to do with it and said he didn’t want to hear about this one boy hurting us. So, this kid pulled out a knife on my dad and threatened him.

My dad laughed, snatched the knife from him, and said, “Don’t you ever do that again to me or anybody!” He then looked every kid in the eye and made it clear that he didn’t want to hear one more story of them bullying his sons or he would be back.

Suffice to say, no one messed with the Martin sons again.

But my dad wasn’t the kind of person who would protect his sons like that.

He was the kind of person who would travel around our Clinton Park neighborhood and break up kids fighting, even following some home to talk to their parents and grandparents. He was never afraid to go to another parent and hold them accountable for the actions of their child. And more often than not, the parent was stunned to hear about their children being bullies and disciplined them themselves.

Bullying has always been in schools, so that is nothing new. But it’s different today because kids are committing suicide due to the constant taunting. We can have all the town hall meetings about bullying, but what is going to change all of this is to have teachers, administrators and other parents get in the face of parents and guardians. They need to make it clear to parents that they must discipline their own children and teach them not to be bullies.

A child must understand that there will be repercussions for his or her actions. When I have witnessed one of my nieces hit and push around her sister or one of her cousins, I take immediate action and intervene. As the grown-up, I don’t even wait for their mother and father to say something. I’m their uncle, and as an adult, I won’t allow that behavior to set in.

Bullying does not have to go along with reading, writing and arithmetic in our schools. It can end immediately if we are willing to hold parents accountable for their children. And if the parents don’t want to step up, then other adults must be willing to stand up.

A child has enough on his or her mind in school than to have to deal with being bullied. None of us should pass this off as “what kids do” when it is resulting in the suicide of even one child.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Newt Gingrich has always been seen as a visionary when it comes to politics, whether from those on the right who love him and his critics on the left who loathe him.

The former speaker of the House of Representatives and the chief architect of the Contract with America — a document that helped usher a Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 — is a war buff always making battle plans.

Like any good general, he studies his opposition and looks for weaknesses, so he can declare victory and the opposition can be toppled. But Gingrich’s latest salvo in crafting a plan to attack Democrats is so shameless and pathetic that he should be embarrassed for even suggesting it.

In a 673-word open letter to Republican candidates, Gingrich implored GOP candidates to develop a closing message that is solely built around the economy. In it, he wrote the following: “It is an unassailable fact that in June, more food stamps were distributed by the government than ever before in American history. (It turns out that Barack Obama’s idea of spreading the wealth around was spreading more food stamps around.)”

He later added, “You can use this vivid contrast between the record of the Pelosi-Reid Democratic Congress and the last time the Republican Party took control of Congress to powerfully illustrate the difference for every American between the Democratic Party of food stamps and the Republican Party of paychecks.”

What is so amazing is that Gingrich offers an analysis between the state of the country when Republicans were in control of Congress in 1994 and the current condition when Democrats are running the show. Anyone with half a brain should be laughing at how Gingrich managed to skip over a budget surplus left by President Bill Clinton in 2000, which later became a deficit under President George W. Bush; outrageous spending by Republicans who ran Congress under Bush; the massive financial deregulation that was pushed by Democrats and Republicans alike; and the terrible state of the economy that precipitated bank bailouts under Bush and continued stimulus under Obama.

For guys like Gingrich, those are measly details that need not be mentioned. But we all know that you can’t discuss today’s economy with asking the most important question, “How in the hell did we get here?”

It is always in the interest of politicians to paint a wonderful picture of themselves while ignoring all of the devilish and horrible things they or their parties did, but this notion of painting Democrats as the party of food stamps is atrocious and flat-out wrong.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is right when she assails Gingrich as wanting to exploit class warfare in this country.
But the Democratic House leader shouldn’t be the only one who is speaking out against Gingrich. Republicans with many constituents in their districts who have had to ask for food stamps should also be saying, “Hey man, you’re talking about my people!”

I don’t know of anyone who really wants and desires to have to apply for food stamps. Liberals, conservatives, independents, Democrats and Republicans all want jobs. Wanting a paycheck isn’t a conservative value, nor is it the sole province of liberals. Everyone one of us would like to be paid for our services, and it cheapens the political dialogue to see a so-called smart man deploy such a childish game plan.

Maybe part of the problem is that while Gingrich complains about hard-working Americans having to apply for government food stamps, he spent 20 years at the federal government trough picking up his welfare — also known as a government check for his work — as a member of Congress. So while he assails those who have been forced to ask for food stamps, he happily collected his six-figure government check, which has paved the way for him to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in book deals, speeches and consulting gigs.

See, that’s how it’s done. A former government worker telling wannabe government workers what they need to do to begin picking up their own version of food stamps.

If this is the kind of vision Gingrich has for America, none of us should desire to see him on anyone’s ballot. He has the nerve to question President Obama’s values? Newt, anyone who is so crass to want to capitalize on the misfortune of Americans — in one of the most difficult economic times we’ve seen in generations — doesn’t deserve to represent those same individuals now or in the future.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book, “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Source: Roland Martin / CNN

As President Obama travels to Illinois to lend a hand to the campaigns of U.S. Senate candidate Alexis Giannoulias and embattled Gov. Pat Quinn, he should stay focused on them and not his former chief of staff.

As Rahm Emanuel crisscrosses around Chicago, he is drawing lots of attention. But when the president comes to town, the attention needs to be lavished on the two races in November and not a local race in February.

Obama will likely avoid mentioning the Chicago race, but he is always likely to go off script. This is one time when the teleprompter is important. Quinn and Giannoulias are locked into tough races and need all the face time they can get.

To follow this topic visit CNN.

It’s laughable to watch political prognosticators on various TV shows as they weigh in on Rahm Emanuel’s chances of becoming the next Chicago mayor. If you trust any of them, you swear President Barack Obama’s outgoing chief of staff sees the position as a birthright that he is about to assume now that Richard M. Daley is stepping down.

Folks, don’t buy the national media hype. As they say, all politics is local, and in this case, Emanuel has a long way to go before he can even think of moving into the fifth-floor mayoral sweep.

Chicago has long been called a city of neighborhoods, and as a resident of the city for the last six years, I have witnessed the territorial views of its residents live and in full effect.

River North. Bronzeville. South Loop. Hyde Park. Beverly. Bridgeport. You name it, Chicago is a city that is all about its neighborhood boundaries. When you ask someone where he or she was born and raised, he or she is likely to give you the street address rather than just the South Side, North Side or West Side. And those boundaries are often defined by race.

With that being said, the issue of race will be a major obstacle for Emanuel, and not because he’s Jewish.

First, it’s assumed that because he was a Chicago congressman for six years, he’s well known in the city. Not true. Yes, he did represent a Northwest Chicago district, but there are political strongholds all across the city, and he’s going to have to navigate them.

The Chicago Sun-Times commissioned a poll shortly after Daley announced he wasn’t seeking re-election, and Emanuel placed fifth with 7 percent, within the margin of error. Those topping the poll: Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart (12 percent); state Sen. James Meeks (10 percent); Congressmen Luis Gutierrez and Jesse Jackson Jr. at 9 and 8 percent, respectively.

Chicago has never had an Hispanic mayor, and African-Americans are still chomping at the bit to revive the legacy of former Congressman Harold Washington, who stunned the nation with his election in 1983 when he bested a younger Richard M. Daley and Mayor Jane Byrne in the Democratic primary. No one thought he had a chance because race has loomed large in heavily Democratic Chicago; it was on full display when Washington eked out a victory that November against Bernard Epton, a white Republican that no one gave a shot and some say he subtlety stoked the fears of white residents about a black takeover.

Washington’s death in 1987 still resonates in the city, and with Daley reigning supreme for two decades — running everything from the schools to public housing to the rail system and the city college system — that enormous constituency sees this as an opportunity to finish what Washington started.

When you look at the city’s 50 wards, African-Americans dominate five out of the top 10. And of the top 23 wards with registered voters, African-Americans control a majority in 12 of those. Don’t assume that Emanuel, being a Democrat, can easily win those.

And if you’re one of those folks who think it’s wrong for me to focus on race, then you clearly don’t get Chicago politics.
It is an open secret in Washington, D.C., that the Congressional Black Caucus despises Emanuel. A longtime CBC member told me that normally when they meet with the president, the chief of staff attends the meetings. But in the time Obama has been in the White House, Emanuel hasn’t attended one meeting and he has always given a cold shoulder to black members of Congress. And if you ask black political operatives, pollsters and insiders, they all have a “why-I-can’t-stand-Emanuel” story.

If he wants to win the mayor’s race, just having the public support of Obama isn’t enough. He is going to have to deal with Congressmen Danny Davis and Bobby Rush as well as Jesse Jackson Jr. All three have massive ground troops, and if they are willing to rally around someone like the Rev. James Meeks — also a state senator (I attend his church, Salem Baptist Church of Chicago) who can also pull white social conservatives to his side — Emanuel can forget about getting a significant share of the black vote.

Then there is Chicago’s Hispanic community. The population is substantial, but to win, they need to be registered voters. And of the percentage making up a large portion of the 50 wards, the voters are more toward the bottom. Yet winning their votes is vital to building a winning constituency. With many blaming Emanuel for nothing when confronting immigration reform over the last 18 months as well as facing brutal scrutiny from Gutierrez, a major immigration reform proponent, he’s going to have to do a lot of politicking in order to win.

And of course, there are the city’s white voters. You have the Lakefront liberals and the city’s blue-collar workers, who are strong union supporters. Emanuel has been at odds with unions in his time as chief of staff, notably over health care and the primary bid of Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln. And the national labor leaders will be quick to remind their supporters in Chicago just how good of a friend Emanuel was or wasn’t.

Emanuel will also have to stare down Dart, a white man who won office with a multiracial coalition and has gained high marks, especially for refusing to follow-through on serving residents with eviction notices from their foreclosed homes. If Dart is in the race, along with Alderman Robert Fioretti, a savvy politician from the West Side of Chicago, they will able to win a sizeable portion of the white vote, thereby leaving Emanuel on the outside looking in.

Emanuel rightfully gets praise for his tough-as-nails approach to politics. But in a city that is used to Daley running the show with an iron fist for so many years, frankly, this might be the wrong time for someone with Emanuel’s style to seek the city’s top post.

We can expect a bruising battle in February for the job, and as many as 15 candidates could be on the ballot. The top two vote getters will go to a runoff, and there is a strong chance that Emanuel may not be one of those two. His runs are certainly a gamble, and it’s suffice to say that this could be the riskiest political decision Emanuel has ever had to make.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

The power of any pastor over his or her parishioners is derived from their “calling” to minister the Gospel from God, or as some call it, the anointing by the Holy Spirit. But the role of a pastor – the Bible speaks to being a shepherd of a flock – also comes from the belief that it is their moral standing as the earthly representative of God to lead their congregations spiritually.

If you read the writings of Paul in 1 Timothy 3 (New International Version), he offers the following instructions: “Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church)…He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.”

As we witness the salacious and troubling sex allegations leveled this week against Atlanta mega-church pastor, Bishop Eddie L. Long, it is clear that many are confused to hear four young men come forward and allege that the man of the cloth, the husband and father, sexually coerced them and used the power of his prophetic position to engage in sex with them. It is even more shocking considering Long has preached with conviction against homosexuality and gay marriage.

The details outlined in three lawsuits – a fourth man stepped forward on Friday – have rocked the Christian community. Bishop Long isn’t just a preacher with a storefront church. He oversees a massive 240-acre complex in Lithonia, Georgia, just outside of Atlanta, a congregation of 25,000 members; schools; and an international ministry that is seen on TBN, Daystar, The Word Network and online. He is widely respected as a strong man of God who ministers annually to fellow pastors, men, youth and a mega women’s and marriage conference.

His influence is tremendous and far reaching, even in the areas of education and politics and Georgia.

With all that said, and I fully understand that he has vigorously denied the allegations, there is no doubt in my mind that for the sake of the church, Long and his family, he needs to remove himself from the pulpit as the leader of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in order for the issue to be resolved to its conclusion.

In an interview with me on Thursday on the Tom Joyner Morning Show, Long’s attorney, Craig Gillen, said his client would speak for the first time on Sunday at 11 a.m., and address the issue before his congregation.

While I disagree with waiting five days since the allegations were revealed – if someone accused me of doing this and I know in my heart I didn’t do it, I would be screaming from the top of Georgia’s Stone Mountain – Long first and foremost owes an explanation to his personal family, and then his church family.

If he does indeed stand before the New Birth family, Long should be honest and forthright; not mince words or engage in double talk; and after whatever he says, he should take it upon himself to “sit himself down.”

In the Christian church, when a pastor is accused of wrongdoing, going through a divorce or violating the biblical call to be above “reproach,” the senior pastor orders them to be “sat down.” That means they don’t carry out their ministerial duties. The point is to protect the integrity of the Word of God, as well as to allow that pastor to get his or her affairs in order.

As the leader of New Birth, there is no human authority above Long. But he has a heavenly father that he has to answer to, and he must not allow his personal travails to interfere with the good and expansive works of the church. Souls still need to be saved; people still need to be healed; the sick still must be cared for; and the naked clothed.

Yet I also hope that when Long speaks, he does one of two things: If in his mind and heart he has done no wrong, he will launch a vigorous defense of his name and integrity, and vow with every fiber in his body to fight the charges, even if that means spending every dime he has and not settle the lawsuits.

But if he is guilty of what is alleged, I pray that Long doesn’t stand before his church as its spiritual father, and continue the charade of saying “I didn’t do it” and tear into his accusers. God, Long and those young men know what took place, and as someone who has listened to many of his sermons and read his books, Long has often talked about the need for Christians, especially men, to be accountable for their actions and confessing their sins.

If guilty, and he truly cares about his enormous flock, he will stand before them and admit to the error of his ways, and not put them through more pain and heartache. He is a charismatic pastor who has always been known to preach an uncompromising Word, unwilling to say what folks want to hear, but instead, what they need to hear.

Bishop Long, your congregation, and the world, doesn’t want to hear excuses. They don’t want ambiguity.

Your motto at New Birth for years has been “Taking Authority.” This is the time for you to live that credo out before your flock, no matter what the outcome will be.

Democratic political operatives are excited and filled with enthusiasm over the prospect of running against several tea party candidates in November, suggesting that the Republican nominees are so extreme and out-of-touch that there is no way they stand a chance of winning in November.

Have you listened to the euphoria in Democratic circles since Christine O’Donnell’s victory this week over the legendary Mike Castle, a congressman, former governor and the man considered absolutely unbeatable? The GOP establishment had already started measuring the drapes in his U.S. Senate office. And the GOP was salivating at the chance to see Vice President Joe Biden administer the oath of office to the man who would occupy his Senate seat.

But Castle is busying himself this week packing up his campaign office after O’Donnell dusted him in the Republican primary.

The same has taken place in other races. In the New York Republican gubernatorial race, Rick Lazio was also considered a shoo-in to face New York Attorney General Mario Cuomo in November, yet a tea partier with a racist streak in his body, Carl Paladino, beat the former congressman badly.

These victories, and others, have left the GOP establishment reeling, unable to figure out how the devil they danced with has now consumed the party. What was supposed to be party unity to target the Democrats is now a party civil war, complete with infighting, backbiting and finger pointing.

The political punditry has sounded the bell and declared that for Democrats, their potential loss of the U.S. Senate is now a false alarm. And O’Donnell has assured the GOP they can’t take it over.

Such talk is hilarious to Dick Armey, the former Republican House leader who is the founder of FreedomWorks, a conservative activist group aligned with tea partiers.

I caught up with Armey in the Washington, D.C, airport on Wednesday, and he had a Cheshire grin on his face as he talked about the O’Donnell victory.

Armey, who didn’t endorse anyone in the race, wondered how GOP’ers could be so angry since it was an open primary.
O’Donnell had the right to run and only spent a fraction of what Castle did to win the primary.

He said that in the end, it doesn’t matter what polls say, what pundits try to intimate, or how much money you have. All that counts is if you have more votes than the other person.

And he’s dead right. Which is why Democrats shouldn’t see tea party candidates like O’Donnell, Rand Paul in Kentucky and Sharron Angle in Nevada as a firewall to keep them in power. What they should be doing is having a laser-like focus on their core supporters and driving them to the polls.

If they want to cast the tea partiers out of the mainstream, go right ahead. I don’t think that will work for a second. What will matter is that voters are — in the words of the late comedian Robin Harris — “pissed off to the highest level of passivity.”

This election will boil down to a rage that cannot be estimated about the economy. It was in shambles when President Barack Obama took over, and it’s still dragging along like a ball and chain on our collective feet.

If Democrats aren’t focused, they’ll look up and have to contend with Sen. O’Donnell, Sen. Rand and Sen. Angle. Falling asleep at the wheel in this rancorous and unpredictable election will result in nothing but disaster.

Dems, you didn’t pay attention to Scott Brown and look how that worked out for you in Massachusetts. You might not want to be as carefree about these races, lest you want to be like Castle — scratching your heads on Nov. 3 and asking, “What in the hell just happened?”

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book, “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

The Republican Party’s message for voters backing their candidates in November is pretty simple: this country is broke, the Democrats are making matters worse, and the economic policies advanced by President Barack Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have been disastrous for the average worker.

Yet, if you ask Democrats about their central message to keep control of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, you’ll likely get a lot of head scratching, finger pointing and eyes rolling to the skies — maybe in search of an angel descending from heaven to give them a clue.

All of this explains why poll after poll shows Republicans fired up and ready to go in November, while Democrats are thinking that they are walking their own slow walk to the execution chamber.

The White House clearly understands they have a major problem on their hands, and that’s why they have desperately tried to recalibrate their message this week by making everything about the economy.

At his news conference Friday, President Barack Obama came out of the gate firing at Republicans. He tried to draw the line between what he sees as a party of obstructionists saying no to anything that he proposes and Democrats trying to bring the nation out of the deep economic rut.

“These policies of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, of stripping away regulations that protect consumers, running up a record surplus to a record deficit — those policies finally culminated in the worst financial crisis we’ve had since the Great Depression,” Obama said. “And for 19 months, what we have done is steadily worked to avoid a depression, to take an economy that was contracting rapidly and making it grow again; a situation where we were losing 750,000 jobs a month, and now we’ve had eight consecutive months of private sector job growth; and made investments that are going to strengthen the economy over the long term.”

Part of the problem for many Democrats is that they have no heart. There is an unwillingness to fight for what they believe in.
Instead, they would rather wring their hands and point fingers at Obama and Pelosi instead of standing up for what they passed.

What’s the point of fighting to get control of the House and Senate in 2006 if you’re scared to defend your actions in 2010? I would rather lose an election fighting for what I believe in than wimp out and try to say the problem is everyone else.

There is no incumbent Democrat running for Congress who isn’t happy that they are in the majority, but now they are trying to hide from the voters. That’s just dumb. So, man up and woman up and stand before the voters in debates and town halls, and say, “Yea, we passed the stimulus bill because we needed to do something to get this economy going. Yes, it included tax cuts as well as money to save the jobs of police and firefighters. Yes, we passed health care because that is a right for every citizen in this country. And yes, we didn’t sit back and wait for Wall Street to roll over us again. We went after them, too.”

While President Obama keeps uses his analogy of the Republicans putting the car in reverse and the Democrats wanting to put it in “D” to drive, he should add: “We are on the road to recovery, and all they’ve done is put up detours and road blocks, trying to force us off the road. Saying no isn’t progress. Unnecessary holds on appointments doesn’t mean progress. Protecting the rich and ignoring the middle class isn’t progress. If you want those kinds of leaders, go right ahead. But putting them back in office is like driving a car on the wrong side of the freeway — all you will do is wreak havoc and cause a massive wreck.”

Voters don’t have time for political wimps. We need leaders with conviction, determination and guts.

Dems, you’ve controlled the House, Senate and the White House for nearly two years, so own up to it by defending what you’ve done. Yes, you may lose anyway, but at least lose with some dignity and go out with a fight.

If not, you don’t deserve to be in power in the first place.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book, “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Now that we are a week removed from the march on Washington organized by the self-named rodeo clown, Glenn Beck, it’s clear that the event was nothing more than an exercise in ego worship. It’s still unclear if the event was about the troops, restoring the honor of America — whatever that is defined as — an effort to reclaim the civil rights movement, which I’m still laughing at, or a tent revival intended to move Americans closer to God.

So many conflicting agendas and purposes left nothing more than a headache. Now that conservatives had their shot, Oct. 2 represents an opportunity for progressives to come to the nation’s capital and rally their faithful.

Four months ago, one of the major participants called to alert me of the event and to give me the purpose. After listening to a litany of reasons for the march, as well as the various participants, I couldn’t help but be as blunt as possible: “What in the hell is the agenda? A 25-point plan?”

It’s impossible to count the number of marches, rallies and calls to action that I’ve covered in my 18 years as a professional journalist. And with all certainty, I can tell you that the ones that failed miserably are those with so many reasons given that no one was able to take that mass action of civil disobedience and apply it to legislative action. It’s not interesting at all to see folks who focus on meeting, talking and then dispersing. For me, it should be about meeting, mobilizing and acting.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech is hailed as one of the all-time greats in the history of the world, yet without the subsequent Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, those words spoken at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom would have been just another speech. The forces behind the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom planned it as a way to pressure Congress and the Kennedy administration to pass a strong civil rights bill.

What folks seem to forget is that what happens on Saturday at the rally is immaterial; it’s what happens on Monday, then Tuesday, then Wednesday, and so on, that really makes the difference.

So, on Saturday, Oct. 2, a number of progressive organizations will rally in Washington, D.C. Frankly, I’m uninterested in hearing from 40 different speakers talking about 40 different things. The centerpiece of the rally — essentially funded by labor organizations — should be to pressure Congress to get moving on a massive jobs bill that supporters say is designed to help small businesses.

The bill that is getting the most attention is the Local Jobs for America Act, which is sponsored by Rep.
George Miller, D-Ga., chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. According to supporters, the bill will save or create 1 million public and private sector jobs over the next two years, including teachers, firefighters and police officers.

President Barack Obama has constantly chided top Republicans for blocking the bill from moving forward, saying it will provide money for small businesses to borrow, as well as extend tax credits for them.

“It is paid for,” the president said Friday. “It will not add one dime to our deficit.”

His push for the bill came on the same day the Department of Labor says the unemployment rate rose to 9.6 percent, with the loss of 54,000 jobs, largely due to seasonal Census jobs ending. The private sector added 67,000 jobs last month.

On Wednesday, I talked to Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele on my segment of the Tom Joyner Morning Show. Steele said the jobs bill will only be a further burden to small businesses.

“I agree it sounds great on the headline on top of the newspaper, but the reality of it is, look at the bill and does it do for small businesses what small businesses need to have done,” Steele said.

He added: “How much credit and capital is made accessible to them?” And Steele questioned the regulatory burdens small businesses will have to face, namely with health care.

Those are legitimate questions that deserve a hearing. But preventing even a real discussion from moving forward makes no sense. If Republicans and Democrats both say they want the economy to grow and prosper, then put all of your cards on the table and let’s see what you’ve got. Saying no isn’t a plan of action.

Progressives are standing around and spending precious time complaining about the tea party and how they are mobilizing their people. Well, shut up and get to work.

And you can do that by helping America get back to work. The last thing we need is another march for the sake of marching. Instead, we need to see folks plan marches that have a real benefit other than to give them face time on the camera. With our economy still sluggish, we need folks on both sides of the aisle focused on growing our economy and making it healthy.

Over the next month, let’s see what progressives have planned for Oct. 2. But I’ll go ahead and say it right now: If there is no plan of action to mobilize supporters of the event to put maximize pressure on Congress to pass a much-needed jobs bill, then they are wasting their time. And yours.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Roland Martin discusses Glenn Beck, the “self-professed rodeo clown” and the Restoring Honor Rally that took place on Saturday August 28 2010.

After watching mainstream media treat the rally as if it was some kind of massive movement and call Beck the an intriguing person of the week, Roland decided to put what took place on Saturday into perspective.

Listen to Roland Martin’s analysis of the entire weekend starting with Beck’s interview on Friday with Joe Madison.

Download audio file (martintjmsglennbeckcivilrights083010.mp3)

Audio Download

By Roland S. Martin

Very few things will make my skin crawl more than listening to someone totally misrepresent the famous “I Have A Dream” speech the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave on Aug. 28, 1963.

It’s clear that far too many people haven’t bothered to actually read or listen to the speech. Instead, folks – especially those who likely would have branded King a communist, socialist, Marxist or a racial hell-bent on destroying America – love to tout Dr. King’s “content of character” line in order to push back against a variety of issues, especially affirmative action.

Just today, I saw a press release from Project 21, a coalition of black conservatives, suggesting that a rally planned Saturday by a radio talk show host and Fox News personality is akin to the 1963 march.

Coby Dillard, a member of Project 21, is quoted as saying, “”The dream of Dr. King — that every person be judged by their character rather than their color — is one of the tenets that makes our nation honorable in the minds of people around the world. Dr. King’s legacy is a gift to us all, and no one person or organization holds claim to his work and his message. I can think of no better way to honor him by renewing our shared commitment to uphold those principles that have held our country together throughout history.”

It’s clear that Dillard, and so many others, haven’t read a history book or other publications surrounding the march, and instead, love to continue to spread falsehoods, misrepresentations and outright fabrications stemming from the Washington, D.C. march.

First, we need to stop calling it the March on Washington. It was officially called the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. If you leave off the “Jobs and Freedom” part, it sounds like black folks just went for a walk that day. Upset with the lack of economic opportunities for blacks at the time, as well as the voting rights injustices, the organizers wanted to put pressure on Congress and the President John F. Kennedy administration to put their muscle behind a comprehensive civil rights bill.

No, the 1963 march had nothing to do with some hokey values espoused by a radio/TV windbag. It was a day to assemble a mass of people to represent a show of strength, and to get leaders in Washington, D.C. to listen to the urgent need taking place across the country.

Second, we continue to misrepresent Dr. King’s speech as the “I Have a Dream” speech.

As CNN’s Soledad O’Brien reported in the special, “MLK Papers: Words That Changed a Nation,” the speech was never called that. It was actually titled “Normalcy – Never Again.” In fact, the “I Have A Dream” portion, which represents the bottom third of it, wasn’t in the original text.

As Soledad reported, Dr. King often gave variations of the “Dream” portion of the speech, and on that day, he was encouraged by gospel great Mahalia Jackson to tell the audience about his “dream.”

There is no doubt that his soaring oratory about the need for racial harmony continues to send chills down our spines today, but if we as a country get so excited and wrapped up in the “dream” sequence, we forget the economic nightmare Dr. King painted in the top two-thirds of the speech. When I give speeches, I often tell folks the “I Have A Dream” portion is the “hoop” part, which is when the pastor begins sing, scream and shout when he/she has finished the sermon. But the real measure of a sermon is the scripture, which serves as the thesis of the sermon.

So let’s get to the meat – or the purpose – of Dr. King’s 1963 speech.

At the top he lays out the vision of slaves being freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, yet 100 years later, “One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land.”

Then he makes clear that the purpose of going to the Lincoln Memorial is to “dramatize a shameful condition.”

“In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check,” Dr. King said. “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.

“This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the ‘unalienable Rights’ of ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’ It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check; a check, which has come back, marked ‘insufficient funds.’

“But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.”

King then began to talk about the “fierce urgency of now,” laying out the treacherous conditions upon which Black people lived in, and having to deal with violence and the trampling upon their rights.

He laid bare the despair of not being able to stay in hotel rooms; having to drink out of segregated water fountains; and the lack of voting rights.

Then King launches into the portion about his “Dream.”

Folks, the fulfillment of Dr. King’s dream wasn’t about getting along. It was about every man and woman being afforded equal rights, and an opportunity to find a job, raise their family and not have to suffer from policy brutality. His speech wasn’t partisan or political; it was prophetic and was about prosperity.

How is it relevant today? If anyone wants to model that march, then stop with the ego driven nonsense and focus on pushing Congress to enact a jobs bill so Americans can work. Tell Democrats and Republicans to stop playing footsy with lobbyists and looking out for Wall Streets interests. Tell leaders in Washington, D.C. to give a damn about the poor of this country, from the hills of West Virginia to the dusty roads in Alabama. Tell some Republicans to stop their shameful condemnations of Americans who can’t find a job.

For the nearly 250,000 who gathered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Aug. 28, 1963, it wasn’t about ego, it was about results. There was no partisan agenda; it was one where whites and Blacks refused to stand idly by and watch Black Americans denied an opportunity to thrive in this country. In the final five years of his life, Dr. King fought for equal pay for sanitation workers in Memphis, and was planning a Poor Peoples Campaign for DC, to highlight the economic injustices.

Please, take the time to go and read or listen to the speech. Understand the context. Examine the overall mission. And don’t try to pimp and pervert Dr. King’s prophetic word so you can score some political points.

And that goes for a charlatan, even if they have a TV or radio show, who seeks to align themselves with Dr. King’s momentous and radical speech 47 years ago.

“My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.”

When those words were spoken on July 25, 1974, they were eloquently put by an outstanding woman and fellow Texan, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. She was a member of the House Judiciary Committee investigating the impeachment of President Richard Nixon.

And as I have listened and watched the stunning debate over the potential location of a Muslim community center and mosque two blocks away from where the World Trade Center towers were destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001, Jordan’s precise words keep coming to mind.

In the aftermath of the tragic 9/11 attacks, many Americans felt it was critical for the United States to not the let the terrorists — al-Qaida — win by taking from us what we succeeded in getting from the British between 1775 and 1783: our freedom and democracy.

Yet in our zeal to fight terrorism worldwide, we have chipped away at our precious rights, willing to surrender hard fought civil liberties under the guise of protecting ourselves from terrorists at home and abroad. And we stand today, a nation embroiled in a local zoning dispute over the possible building of a 13-story Muslim cultural center that will house a mosque, a theatre and other amenities.

It has been described as the “Ground Zero Mosque,” which is ridiculous considering it will be two blocks away from the site of the fallen World Trade Center towers. Yet what has been fascinating and demoralizing to watch is the clear and unmistakable religious bigotry that has taken over this conversation. Critics of the project contend that they are not trampling our precious constitutional rights of religious freedom by opposing the project. They contend that it is simply in bad taste to build it so close to ground zero, and that Americans are far too emotional about issue.

Other words really come to mind. Irrational. Hysterical. Intolerant. Hypocritical.

Over the last several years, we have witnessed Americans troops shedding blood on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting for American liberty and values. We hold ourselves up with self-righteousness as the paragon of democracy and freedom, yet we are quick to stifle the freedom of others we simply don’t agree with.

A lot of the hateful rhetoric spewing out of talk radio, on blogs and on mainstream TV stems from a deep-seated mistrust, hatred and dislike of anyone practicing Islam. In our politically correct way, we say that we respect Muslims who aren’t intent on launching a jihad, but the venom evident in the words of many shows that not to be true. As James Carville debated this issue on CNN with Bill Bennett, Carville talked about his Muslim friends being sickened by this, only to see Bennett demand if they publicly repudiated the Muslims involved in 9/11 and terrorism.

Is that what we’ve come to? We willingly want to demand to see IDs of Hispanic-looking folks who might be here illegally, but we also want any American Muslim to prove their patriotism by denouncing any and every crazed and deranged Muslim in the world who seeks to do us harm? Never mind that we have Muslims fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan — proving themselves to be worthy Americans who are on “our side.”

The pain and heartache that was created on 9/11 was unbearable for many Americans.

The nation was traumatized, shocked and paralyzed by the brazen acts caused by the bastards who didn’t swear allegiance to peace, but instead to a murderous man named Osama bin Laden and a loose-knit terror network named al-Qaida.

For some reasons, Republicans have lost sight of the fact that even President George W. Bush made clear that America hasn’t been at war with Islam. And clearly some Democrats are so afraid to stand up for the U.S. Constitution that they are about as weak as a wet sheet of paper.

Now instead of joining hands with fellow Americans, including Muslim Americans, our deep-seated hatred of Muslims is calling us to detest this community center and mosque.

As the drama has unfolded with rapid speed over the last several days, I’ve tried to understand how a nation so willingly to pronounce our “American values” across the world could so easily forget that the early American settlers left a nation to escape religious persecution. Our Founding Fathers could have easily created a national religion. But they had the foresight to see into the future and allow this to be a land where anyone could choose, or not choose, to practice their religion freely.

Years ago while interning at the Houston Defender, I remember writing an editorial about a Texas ACLU lawyer and member of the NAACP defending a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, who was being ordered to turn over membership roles of the group. No matter how much the attorney detested the KKK personally, he spoke of their rights being just as important as the NAACP, and he cited how efforts were made in the 1940s, 50s and 60s to force the NAACP to reveal their membership roles.

Fighting to protect and uphold the U.S. Constitution even means defending those we can’t stand. We cannot be so willing to exclude someone from the protection that the document affords.

Rep. Barbara Jordan also spoke to this issue in that tense hearing room on July 25, 1974:

“Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States: ‘We, the people.’ It’s a very eloquent beginning,” she said. “But when that document was completed on the seventeenth of September in 1787, I was not included in that ‘We, the people.’ I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision, I have finally been included in ‘We, the people.’”

Any American who claims to love this nation with all of his or her heart should take the same view — no matter how raw our emotions have been rubbed or how much anger we have for the despicable human beings who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11. None of us should be so angry and shameful that we trample the one document that has held this nation together all of these years.

I am a believer in Jesus Christ; He is my personal Lord and savior. I am an American who loves this country with all of my heart and soul. But I also believe that the building of a Muslim community center near the World Trade Center site will not be an insult to the souls lost when those planes flew into the Twin Towers. It will not be a slap in the face to others traumatized by the events of that day. Allowing this project to go forward will show the best of America. It will mean that we not only love and respect our values, but we also revere them to the point that we allow something to go forward, even when other Americans disagree.

Even the pain of 9/11 isn’t enough to turn our backs on the U.S. Constitution. THAT would simply be un-American.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

The beauty of having your own radio or TV show or column is that you have a wonderful opportunity to address many of the significant issues of the day by using the enormous platform that has been bestowed upon you.

That’s why when I read — and then heard — the stunning, childish and venomous discussion Dr. Laura Schlessinger had with one of her callers, it was clear to me that the firebrand radio talk show host blew a perfect shot at using a discussion around race, which could have really helped a lot of people.

Dr. Laura is getting ripped, and rightfully so, for her continuous use of the N-word during a discussion this week with a black female caller. Instead of paying attention and listening to the woman’s genuine concerns about the racist comments made by the friends and family members of her white husband, Dr. Laura made her out to be the villain.

It was clear that Dr. Laura has a beef of her own when it comes to black folks being too sensitive about matters of race, and that’s why she tried to use the example of black comedians using the N-word to buttress her position that the woman should really pipe down and not be so sensitive about such issues. She could have easily pivoted from the caller’s question to this issue, but she didn’t and instead chose to dig herself deeper and deeper into the racial abyss.

First, Dr. Laura needs to step back and realize that, yes, black comedians use the N-word on stage, and it’s something that I have protested and called for all African-Americans to stop using. But let’s be honest, comedians of all ethnic groups do all kinds of crazy stuff on stage — dissing African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, whites, men, women, gays, Jews, the mentally challenged, you name it. So, when the B-word, C-word or F-word is used on stage, are we to say that is perfectly acceptable language offstage?

Dr. Laura also fails at political analysis by asserting that a lot of black folks voted for President Barack Obama because he’s half-black. Should someone remind her that Obama got 95 percent of the black vote. Pretty pale Democrats like Al Gore and Bill Clinton received between 90 percent and 92 percent of the black vote. Dr. Laura, that’s largely a Democratic thing; it’s not necessarily a black thing.

Yet as I listened to the caller, and as Dr. Laura continued haranguing her, it was clear that Dr. Laura — who has made millions dispensing advice on the radio — needs to have someone sit her down and explain how she not only screwed up by tossing out the N-word repeatedly, but she also had a chance to be a part of what many considered to be essential: a national discussion on race.

The caller was disturbed about those in her husband’s inner circle driving their racial stereotypes, as well as making racial comments in front of her.

When I keep hearing folks talk about the need for a national conversation about race, it’s not all about President Obama leading it. If we are to conquer our racial demons, it’s necessary for the caller’s white husband to be willing to look his friends and family members in the eye and say, “Your comments are insulting to my wife and I want you to stop. Now!”

The real problem many of us have when confronting racial matters is that we are too unwilling to challenge those closest to us. No child wants to enter into a verbal battle with his or her mother or father who could hold racist views or accept racial stereotypes. But none of us can be silent when that happens. It was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who said, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

Do you recall the restaurant scene in the movie, “The Blind Side,” where the “friends” of Sandra Bullock were making off-handed racial comments? When she had enough of their mess, she made clear that she would be dining with others. She refused to allow their racial hang-ups to stain her. Bullock could have easily kept the friendship intact by saying nothing and moving on. But she chose a different path.

Dr. Laura had the same opportunity. She could have listened to the woman and dispensed some genuine advice that might have helped the caller and her listening audience. Instead, she grabbed the chip on her shoulder that revealed to us that she is clearly annoyed when some blacks complain about racism. She compounded that by telling the woman she should never have married outside of her race if she couldn’t stand racial humor. Folks, that’s NOT how to do it.

Dr. Laura has apologized, but that hasn’t stopped folks like Marc Morial, CEO of the National Urban League, from calling on The Talk Radio Network to drop her syndicated show.

If we truly want folks to “get over it” — that’s what Dr. Laura essentially told this black woman to do when it came to racism — it is going to take us reforming the bigots, and not admonishing the offended. I fundamentally believe we can get people to see their racial bigotry or insensitive views and offer them a pathway toward healing, but that can only happen when we’re willing to challenge one another — friend or foe — as well as look into the mirror and confront our own deeply embedded views on race.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Republicans like Sens. Lindsey Graham, Jon Kyl and John Cornyn are practically tripping over themselves to jump on the latest “Dumb Way to Solve the Illegal Immigration Problem” bus by suggesting Congress examine the repeal of the 14th Amendment, which deals with the question of becoming a U.S. citizen.

The far right has latched onto the idea that the provision is being abused by illegal immigrants, choosing to come to America to have their children here — thus greatly contributing to the illegal immigration problem we have. They are even trying to suggest that how it is being used today bears no resemblance to the original intent of the Founding Fathers when it was created.

Of course, the 14th Amendment was not in the first U.S. Constitution as drawn up by our framers. It was adopted on July 9, 1868, to prevent Southern states from denying citizenship to former slaves and their children, since they didn’t choose to come to America. They were brought here for the purpose of the vicious and dehumanizing free labor plan that helped build the nation — slavery.

It’s clear that Congress is choosing to apply a Band-Aid to the illegal immigration problem instead of dealing with it head-on. We have members on both sides of the aisle who care more about protecting their precious jobs and partisan poll numbers, instead of actually finding a bipartisan solution to fix the problem. So instead of leadership, we get dumb and asinine suggestions like this one, which will do absolutely nothing about the estimated 10 million illegal immigrants in the country.

That’s right, nothing.

So, what is the GOP’s plan? To make it retroactive? OK, how about we take it all the way back and toss out all of the white descendants and anyone else non-Native American. If you really think about it, they were here first, and all of us are simply intruding on the land that was truly theirs. Who thinks Graham, Kyl, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and the other bumbling idiots we call U.S. senators, would actually be able to pass the DNA test to establish if they are Native American or not?

But hey, since it is in vogue to alter the U.S. Constitution, why don’t we just go all out and have congressional hearings to re-examine the entire document? We have blue ribbon panels in Washington, D.C., for everything else, so why not pop the hood of that old document and bring it into the 21st century?

Let’s start with Article 1, which states that you must be at least 25 to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives and 35 in the U.S. Senate. Since our men and women can die for America beginning at the age of 18, get driver’s licenses at 18, vote at 18 and drink at 21, this is an arcane law.
We’ve got zillionaires building Fortune 500 companies before they are eligible to run, so why not let them take their shot? If you can be senile and serve as long as you want, why not give the young bucks a shot?

Whack the Second Amendment. That’s right, we don’t need it. If no one had guns, would we really be that bad of a country? According to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, on average, more than 100,000 people are shot and killed annually. The framers originally intended for militias to be created. With the number of city, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies, we should get rid of every gun in America. We’re paying these people; therefore, let them do what they do. If guns were banned totally, our crime rates would be similar to that of countries like England — our rate is 31 times higher than that developed country.

Tighten up the 10th Amendment. By doing this, we get rid of the constant battles with states rights. Just put all of the relevant laws on the federal level, such as jurisdiction over education and voting, and then we won’t need to have 50 different ways of doing business.

Let’s junk the 22nd Amendment. If we’ve got a great president, why limit how long they can serve? I don’t mind a four- or five-term president. As long as the people are happy, let ‘em keep handling our business! Franklin Delano Roosevelt is consistently voted the best president in American history. Would he have gotten that designation by just serving two terms?

It’s un-American for a group of people to have no representation. The 23rd Amendment provides presidential electors to the District of Columbia. That’s not enough. They need their own members in the House and two senators. Fair is fair, and this is dead wrong.

The Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified, and it should have been. Why continue to screw over women in a male-dominated world? Come on, guys, stop being wimps and let the ladies have their say.

I’m willing to put $1,000 down that the Republicans — and Democrats — won’t bother backing any of this. They’ll likely say this is going too far and we should take it one step at a time. The same folks want to ban gay marriage in the Constitution and now change citizenship. Sorry, folks. The U.S. Constitution is far too precious to be messed with by a bunch of rabid politicians who don’t have the guts to look their far left and right supporters in the eye and say they are going to truly lead on immigration.

Let me know when this silly sideshow is over. I, and other Americans, am too busy trying to tackle real problems. This clearly isn’t one of them.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

While Glenn Beck continues to pathetically assert that he is a modern-day Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his listeners and viewers are the rightful heirs to the civil rights movement he spearheaded, it may catch some by surprise that tea party leaders claim their movement is about advancing the civil rights of Americans.

During a debate Wednesday night on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, tea party spokesman Mark Williams — who moonlights as a radio talk show host — blasted the NAACP for not doing anything to fight crime in the inner city, as well as advancing issues that go against the U.S. Constitution.

I had to do everything I could to maintain my composure, considering NAACP’s long and storied history has been about forcing Americans to actually uphold the Constitution and apply it evenly to all citizens, especially African-Americans.

Yet as Williams continued his tirade, I really did want to hear exactly what civil rights issues he and other tea party members are fighting for. I’m sure that if you talk to civil rights organizations — the folks who are on the frontlines every day — that would come as a surprise. I asked Williams if he would be willing to sit down and meet with the NAACP, the National Urban League, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and other civil rights organizations to actually find common ground on various civil rights issues. His response? Attend the more than 70 tea party rallies in the fall as a participant.

Yea, right.

So with my suggestion in mind, it would be great for Williams, Sarah Palin and other tea party leaders, advocates and supporters, especially those candidates receiving their backing in November, to clearly state their position on some of the civil rights issues of the day. The following are not in a particular order of importance:

1. Education: President Barack Obama and the Democratic establishment are against the notion of school vouchers. Republicans have advanced the issue for years, yet in Illinois, it was GOP members who could have made the difference in vouchers being offered to students who attend the schools that rank at the bottom in Chicago. State Sen. James Meeks (who is also founder/senior pastor of Salem Baptist Church of Chicago, where I’m a member) fought hard to pass the measure, but he was rebuffed not only by a lot of folks in the Democratic Party, but also a number of Republicans. While we all wait for the day when our public education is fixed for the have-nots, will the tea party make education a civil rights issue and demand that students in the worst schools be allowed to leave via vouchers? Will the tea partiers fight to equalize funding across the board for those inner-city schools that are unable to compete with suburban schools?

2. Racial profiling: There is nothing more insidious and unconstitutional than to watch police officers pull folks over or frisk them, not based on anything in particular but the color of their skin. Numerous cities and states have documented this horrible practice. The NAACP is gearing up to advance a federal anti-racial profiling bill.
Will Mark Williams and the tea party join them in an effort to say no more to this hideous practice?

3. Voting rights: The right to vote is at the heart of our democracy, and it’s shameful to watch members of both political parties use archaic rules to prevent folks from voting. We have seen voters with no history of criminal activity purged from voting rolls. It’s time that we have consistent rules nationally, and not be subject to various state, county and city rules. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the Bush vs. Gore decision that there is no affirmative right to vote in the United States.

Our Constitution forbids the rights of minorities and women from being disenfranchised — it’s interesting to note that basically white men can be denied the right to vote, depending on how you look at this. For instance, in Chicago, if you move from one address to another, you are automatically removed from the voting rolls. Why not have your voting rights follow you to a new address? We have a driver’s license that is legally in all parts of a state, so why not the voting card?

To fix the overlapping and confusing rules, it’s time we amend the Constitution and establish a clear and affirmative right to vote. Tea partiers, are you willing to support that? Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. has had such a bill ready to be voted on for nearly a decade.

4. “Don’t ask, don’t tell”: Tea partiers claim they are all about the U.S. Constitution and are patriots. OK, fine. How crazy is it for someone who is gay being kicked out of the U.S. military solely because of his or her sexuality? The right wing has made a major effort to keep gays and lesbians from serving openly, and the left has fought to have the measure repealed. If the blood of a homosexual flows the same on the battlefield as a heterosexual, then what’s the problem? Mark Williams, is this the kind of civil rights you and the tea party support or oppose?

5. Leading a 21st-century Poor Peoples Campaign: At the time of his assassination in 1968, Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference were planning the Poor Peoples Campaign set for Washington, D.C., to show the plight of poverty in America. Today, we have Republicans in Congress who are against a jobs bill and extending unemployment benefits, but they are ardent supporters of keeping the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Will the tea party put the concerns of America’s poor at the forefront of their movement?

The Civil Rights Movement wasn’t just about those people at the top, but it also included the downtrodden, disenchanted and ignored. I haven’t heard tea partiers talking about the least of those among us. So, Mark, will we see tea partiers descend on the nation’s capital to demand that lawmakers stop ignoring the nation’s poor?

It’s easy for Williams and other tea partiers to casually toss out that they are fighting for the civil rights of Americans. Fine, put your money where your mouth is. Heading into the midterm elections and 2011, it’s time to call the tea party express together at the table with the civil rights establishment to forge a comprehensive civil rights strategy.

Saying it is one thing, tea partiers, but doing it is another. You’ve talked the talk, but now it’s time to walk the walk. So, what say you?

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

LeBron James is a grown man who made a grownup decision to take his massive basketball-playing ability from Cleveland to Miami in a desire to get the one thing every true baller desires: the opportunity to call yourself a champion.

Forget all the nonsense about him “owing” his hometown and how his legacy could have been cemented had he stayed in the Midwest and continued to try to win a title in Cleveland. LeBron had the absolute right to pick up his things and go where he thought it was best to win, and he did it.

Enough with all of this ridiculous chatter that he’s a selfish, spoiled basketball prodigy. LeBron was an employee of the Cleveland Cavaliers. He had no ownership stake and no control. Everyone talks about what his presence meant to the Cleveland economy. Did he own any of those businesses? No. But he made them, and the Cavaliers, richer by his play.

There is undoubtedly a tradeoff, because being a star athlete is a two-way street. You become richer by virtue of folks coming to see you play, and the league, team, marketers and surrounding businesses get to piggyback off of your success. LeBron gave them a solid seven seasons, and everyone enjoyed the ride. Say thank you for the LeBron gravy train, and now, like any smart business owner, you need to figure out your next revenue stream.

Now, let’s deal with the fans. I read with fascination about how LeBron “owed” the fans. Really? What exactly did he owe them? We need to stop with this belief that fans in a city “own” a particular player. We get to sit back and enjoy the skills of these modern-day gladiators in our gleaming new Colosseums, while they bust their butts, play injured and have to take all of the criticism when things go bad.

As fans, we justify it all by saying, “Well, he’s getting millions to play, so he should shut up.” We need to grow up and realize that once his playing days are over, we will say, “Thanks, LeBron, now move over so we can worship the next stud.” In fact, when a particular athlete has overstayed their welcome, the fans are the loudest in telling him to leave the court.

To me, there is a huge difference between a player like LeBron James and Albert Haynesworth of the Washington Redskins. Albert has pocketed nearly $40 million and has refused to show up at training sessions with Washington because he doesn’t like the defensive scheme. That is dumb.

LeBron showed up and did his part, and when his contract was up, he exercised his free will to do as he pleased and shop his talents. He did what every single American wants: to go to a new job where the desires you always wanted can be fulfilled. So how is that wrong?

No one — athlete, stockbroker, Wal-Mart greeter, grocery store clerk, secretary, journalist — wants to treated like they are a piece of property. We all desire the freedom that comes with making our own choice as to where we want to work and achieve the goals in life that we all set.

I can identify with that. In 1993, I decided to leave the Austin American-Statesman, where I was the county government reporter. The then-city editor sat across me and said, “I felt like it was a punch in the gut when told you were leaving.” He had an indignant, paternalistic tone that I found offensive.

See, I was making $24,000. When the Houston Chronicle pursued me for a job a few months earlier that would be around $27,000, I was told I was talking myself out of a job in Austin. So when the Fort Worth Star-Telegram offered me a gig at $32,000, I didn’t even bother seeing whether Austin wanted to counter. The new job allowed me to go to a bigger market and have the upward mobility I desired, so I took the job.

So I told the city editor, “Look, you didn’t take some kid off the street, teach him how to talk, write and dress. You paid me for a service, and I delivered. Now I’m choosing to take my skills elsewhere.” I then got up and left the meeting.

It was offensive to me that my bosses at the paper felt like I was being an ungrateful employee. I wanted to do more with my talents, and I refused to allow someone to make me feel bad about my decision. It’s my life, my career, my choice. So how is that bad?

Now I get folks who didn’t like LeBron having a one-hour special to announce his decision. But we are all used to the hype in sports. Do we really need a six-hour pregame show for the Super Bowl? Can’t we play the NBA All-Star Game without all of the side attractions? Would boxing be boxing without the wild and crazy news conferences? Hype and sports go hand-in-hand.

That’s why I found the letter written by Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert so pathetic. Here is a man who was enriched by the play of LeBron James; according to Forbes, the value of the franchise increased by $100 million with his on-court performance.

Yet instead of being a gracious owner and simply reaffirming his commitment to the fans to put a winning team on the court, Gilbert ripped LeBron to shreds, calling him “narcissistic” and his decision to leave a “cowardly betrayal” and “a shameful display of selfishness.”

Gilbert even went on to trash all athletes by saying, “It’s time for people to hold these athletes accountable for their actions. Is this the way you raise your children?”

In an interview, Gilbert later said LeBron quit on the team in the playoffs the past two years.

Really? So if he was all of that, Dan, why did you want to re-sign him? Who wants a quitter on his team? If LeBron had chosen to stay in Cleveland, rich boy Dan would have been all smiles, slapping his back, getting ready to count the money he could make off of the back of LeBron. So who would have been the real selfish, narcissistic individual, Dan?

Gilbert now says it’s time to speak out against LeBron, yet as long as James made him richer, he would have kept quiet. Sorry, Dan, you’ve pimped LeBron long enough.

LeBron showed Dan Gilbert that only LeBron owes LeBron an explanation. No owner, CEO or boss has the right to demand that someone stay as an employee. The employee has a right to live their life as they see fit.

As the CEO of LeBron James Inc., he did what’s in the best of interest of him. And as the most important shareholder, isn’t that what he’s supposed to do?

I’m sorry, folks, but the loyalty that used to exist from teams and companies is gone. Some still believe in it, but for many of us, we’re simply a dot on the spreadsheet. Business is cutthroat, and we have to accept that reality.

So, King James, go to Miami and do your thing. Grow your corporation to be as big as you want it to be. And never look back at the haters who are mad you chose not to act like a highly paid indentured servant or 21st-century slave, held in place by the invisible shackles dressed up as loyalty to a city, owing the fans and satisfying someone who is clearly an ungrateful owner.

PORT SULPHUR, La. — This Fourth of July weekend in New Orleans will be packed with nearly 300,000 people, as the National Education Association holds its annual convention. Folks from across the country will descend on the Crescent City for three days of partying and concerts, featuring Mary J. Blige, Alicia Keys, Janet Jackson and Earth, Wind & Fire — all headliners at the 16th annual Essence Music Festival.

But for the residents in this rural town, as well as others in Pointe a la Hache, the county seat of Plaquemines Parish, they, too, are concerned about the earth, wind and fire. Yet it’s not the musical group. Instead, it’s the devastation being wreaked on their way of life in the region as a result of the BP oil catastrophe, the worst environmental disaster in American history.

While local, state and federal officials throw as many resources as possible to prevent the millions of gallons leaked thus far from causing more damage to the beaches and coastline of the Gulf Coast, the residents here are under a heavy degree of stress. Some are admittedly still facing post-traumatic stress, a result of Hurricane Katrina five years ago. And now, they face the possibility of losing their livelihood as the oil makes its way to the east bank of the Mississippi River.

The water means everything to the people here. The local economy is based entirely on the money earned from the fishing industry, and since May, their boats have been idled because of the oil disaster.

I am here to shoot a special for my TV One cable network show, “Washington Watch.” This town is largely African-American, and considering our network targets blacks, it was an ideal place to focus our attention. But the heartache and strain I am hearing in Pointe a la Hache is the same in other towns, whether the faces are white, Hispanic or Asian.

It really is hard to fathom what this disaster will do to the residents here, many of them third-generation fishermen. The water is all they know, and if they can’t make a living doing this, there really is nothing else to do. The countryside of southern Louisiana is gorgeous, the heat stifling and the mosquitoes plentiful, but this is very much a coastal community. There are no massive shopping centers, large manufacturing facilities or high tech parks.
The bottom line: No fishing; no money; no life.

On Thursday evening, a number of the town’s residents filed into the Greater Mount Sinai Baptist Church in Port Sulphur for a community rally with the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. Prior to the meeting, several of the fisherman vented their frustration to the Rev. Tyronne Edwards, who has been a leading voice on the oil disaster here, and Billy Nungesser, president of Plaquemines Parish.

Nungesser told the fishermen — many dressed in T-shirts, jeans and work boots — that he feels their pain. He is doing everything he can to fight through the bureaucracy and get resources to the fisherman, namely jobs converting their fishing boats into 300 skimmers to pick up the oil.

“This week they (BP) are supposed to put a whole ‘nother crew of boats out and rotate some of them off on a 30-, 60-, 90-day (schedule) to get some money for the people that ain’t been” working, he said, adding that the outside contractors are being paid $3,000 a day for oil cleanup.

“What we are trying to do is get work for all of the fishermen full time.”

Rev. Edwards, with a black-and-gold Bible in hand, said it’s time for President Barack Obama to come to small towns like Pointe a la Hache and hear firsthand from the men and women who are scraping by, angry with the bureaucracy that is preventing the resources from flowing.

Rev. Edwards is still seething from a meeting last week with Kenneth Feinberg, the Washington, D.C., attorney appointed by President Obama to oversee the $20 billion fund BP established to assist victims of the disaster.

“This guy sounds like BP all the way,” said Edwards, who didn’t like Feinberg suggesting to fishermen that it’s best that they take $100,000 now instead of trying to sue.

“He’s detached,” Nungesser chimed in.

It’s clear that frustration is running high. And whether it’s BP, Gov. Bobby Jindal or President Obama, residents here are in unanimous agreement: More can be done, and it needs to be done now.

One fisherman said that Plaquemines Parish is their home and they want to see it thrive, but things are reaching a boiling point.

“What do we have to do? Wreak havoc down here to get people’s attention because that’s what it’s coming to.”

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Dear Cable News Executives:

It is 2010, but the National Association of Black Journalists sees our cable news networks moving backward when it comes to who they believe is worthy of anchoring prime time news shows.

NABJ was founded in 1975 to encourage news media companies to hire and to promote more Black journalists. At that time, black journalists originally hired to cover riots during the turbulent 1960s found they were not being assigned to meaningful beats or were only allowed to cover “Black” stories.

NABJ’s advocacy for fair hiring practices paid off. Many of our founders, including columnists Les Payne in New York and DeWayne Wickham in Washington, D.C., and anchor Maureen Bunyan in Washington, D.C. remain prominent figures in the media.

NABJ continues this advocacy today. To be candid, we have been focusing our talks with media executives on ways they can increase the diversity of their news management teams. It is our belief that a diverse management team improves coverage decisions and hiring practices. It seems, though, that the companies have taken that to mean that we don’t care about who is on the air. We’re watching, and we do.

Over the past several years, NABJ Executive Board members have met with leaders of the top media companies. Our message: “Let us help if you are looking for diverse talent.”

Some of the companies have reached out, but the names we have submitted never seem to be called in for interviews.

Three years ago, Ebony magazine’s Kevin Chappell noted, “While CNN has the most Black news anchors with eight, the other cable networks don’t fair as well… and none of the national cable stations has any Blacks in prime-time slots.” Find this article here.

Nothing has changed. NABJ questions CNN’s decision to hire former New York governor/attorney general Eliot Spitzer to co-host a new show in Campbell Brown’s old time slot. The company missed another opportunity to place a person of color in prime time. It just seems that cable news can never find diverse candidates who are good enough to meet their standards. We want to know your standards.

Are you telling us that CNN could find no one better than an ex-politician who quit being New York governor after consorting with prostitutes to grace America’s living rooms each night?

CNN does have Tony Harris anchoring in the morning, and Fredericka Whitfield, T.J. Holmes, and Don Lemon on the weekends. But that’s not prime time. The same can be said about MSNBC which last week named veteran Lawrence O’Donnell as the anchor of its new 10 p.m. show.

“In his story, Chappell talked with NABJ Member and CBS News anchor Russ Mitchell who summed up what many of us have witnessed over the years. Mitchell told Ebony “I’ve been to journalism conferences over and over again, and heard some executive say ‘I’d like to hire more African-Americans, but I just can’t find any qualified ones out there.’ That was b.s. then, and that’s b.s. now.”

NABJ couldn’t agree more.

Sincerely,

The National Association of Black Journalists

Millions of Americans are currently enthralled with the performance of our USA soccer team in the 2010 FIFA World Cup, as evidenced by the eruption of cheers when Landon Donovan scored a goal in the final minutes of the match against Algeria.

His winning goal has been hailed as a watershed moment in American sports history, and “futbol” fans are predicting he will be talked about years from now in the same breath as Hank Aaron, Joe Namath, Bobby Orr and Wilt Chamberlain.

Sorry folks, it’s just not going to happen, despite the praying by CNN’s United Nations correspondent, Richard Roth, to make it so.

It’s not that I detest soccer/futbol, but the reality is that Americans have not taken to the sport. As a native Houstonian, I sport the gear of the Houston Rockets, Texans, Astros and my Texas A&M Aggies (Houston has the largest concentration of Aggies), but the MLS’ Houston Dynamo didn’t make the cut.

Every year, I hear fans say that “it’s just around the corner” or “this is the year” or “the moment has arrived” when soccer is accepted along the lines of football, baseball and basketball. To be honest, even the National Hockey League has suffered immeasurably. And judging by TV ratings, the lack of a major TV deal and limited stars well known to non-hockey fans, it’s safe to say it is no longer viewed as one of the four major sports.

There are a myriad number of reasons why soccer hasn’t caught on, but no one can say it’s because of the lack of interest among the nation’s youth. Millions of kids nationwide play the sport, from inner cities to the suburbs. Yet once they become teenagers, soccer falls by the wayside and the interest shifts to baseball, football and basketball.

There have been several attempts at launching a major professional sports league, and the latest is the Major League Soccer (MLS), which has been around since 1993.
The league has valiantly tried to reach the big time, but it has struggled and largely caters to its small but loyal audience. If you walked into any sports bar in America and those there could choose which games to watch, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, Major League Baseball, the PGA Tour or the National Hockey League would all likely win out over MLS.

Although I’m not personally a soccer fan, I’ve watched a few minutes of the World Cup. But it simply hasn’t been a “must see” for me like the Ryder Cup or even the Olympics.

And to be honest, the Olympic Games are probably the greatest comparison in terms of measuring the interest of soccer to American fans. Every four years, we go nuts over our “amateur” athletic stars. We cheer wildly when the U.S. bobsled team wins gold, love to see our track stars fly around the oval, and are enthralled with gymnastics. But once the Olympic Games have ended, we store our “USA! USA!” chants for four years.

I consider myself to be a huge track fan and would love to see it on TV more, but the reality is that in other parts of the world, track stars are treated like Kobe Bryant and LeBron James. Yet if Usain Bolt walked through a mall anywhere in America, he might get a few stares, but he wouldn’t be bombarded with autograph requests for photos, even though he is the Kobe of the track world right now.

So soccer/futbol fans worldwide, don’t take it as insult that Americans don’t worship soccer the way you do. Everyone has their likes and dislikes. That’s really just fine. You do you, and we’ll do what we do.

As for the World Cup, I’ll be cheering for the Donovan-led USA soccer team to do well, while flipping back and forth to the NFL and NBA cable channels, pining for my two favorite sports to return in the fall.

It’s just the American in me.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

A lot of the attention this week was focused on the female Senate and gubernatorial candidates winning primaries in California, Arkansas, Nevada and South Carolina. Their wins were huge as they fought back salacious rumors of affairs and charges of buying an election, fended off a huge battle against big labor, and rode the tea party express to victory.

Yet with all of the drama in those races, Florida always seems to be the gift that keeps on giving. It could end up being the most interesting race with long-term ramifications.

With Gov. Charlie Crist abandoning his bid for the Republican nomination, because of former Florida Speaker of the House Marco Rubio drubbing him in the polls, all of the attention has been focused on these two candidates.

Oh, yea, there is a Democrat running in this heavily Democrat-leaning state, and Rep. Kendrick Meek is feverishly trying to remind folks of that. He has been on the campaign trail for months and is running third in the polls behind Crist and Rubio.

On paper, Democrats should take this race easily, especially with two Republicans likely to split the vote.

President Barack Obama won the state in 2008, and Democrats outdistance Republicans by some 700,000 voters. Despite Rubio’s rise, he is largely a darling of the tea party, and they have been the archenemy of the left as they are driving GOP candidates farther to the right.

Conventional wisdom suggests that Democrats would be locked and loaded: sending White House surrogates to Florida, targeting the GOP opponents with money from labor and teacher unions, and trying to rebuild the coalition that put Obama in the White House — namely, young, minority and women voters.

Yet this has been slow to develop, and if I were a Republican, I would be salivating at the Dems lacking of a sense of urgency. The massive grassroots efforts that ushered Obama into office has seemingly gone back to sleep and is in desperate need of being reawakened.

And if I were a Dem, I would be saying that taking this seat from the GOP column may help keep the Senate in the control of Democrats.

If you look at President Obama’s falling poll numbers, as well as the influence of the tea party and a surging Republican Party, it’s abundantly clear the electoral map of 2012 will not look like 2008. I would bet money today that Obama doesn’t win Indiana, North Carolina and possibly Virginia, meaning he will have to run a 2000 or 2004 campaign. And that means winning re-election by scoring victories in Ohio, Pennsylvania and, yes, Florida.

By keeping the momentum going in Florida, Democrats are going to have to invest the time and resources, and the first act would be to drive the Meek campaign to victory.

He has some issues that Democrats have acknowledged.

As a member of the House, he doesn’t have major name recognition across the state. And Meek is going to have to spend lots of times knocking on doors if he is to become the junior senator from Florida and the only African-American in the U.S. Senate.

But Florida is also notoriously expensive, which means his coffers will have to grow exponentially. He’s raised $5.5 million thus far and has the enthusiastic support of former President Bill Clinton. Yet that’s likely what he’ll have to spend in the final two weeks of the campaign.

That’s if he is able to fend off the challenge of billionaire Jeff Greene, who recently jumped into the race, and is expected to spend millions of his own money to grab the nomination.

Meek expects to beat Greene, but that means having to spend time and money on him, and not on Rubio or Crist. And for a candidate who needs to introduce himself to a wide voter base, every minute and dollar is precious. Greene has already dropped $5 million and will likely inundate voters with TV and radio ads.

And if Greene wins, don’t think for a second that black voter turnout won’t be severely depressed in November. And a novice political watcher knows Democrats can’t win without their most important and loyal constituency.

Furthermore, the Democratic primary is in August, leaving the candidates two months to focus on the general election. Rubio can stay centered on Crist now that Crist is running as an independent; he can court voters from both sides. Meek has to target Crist and Rubio, while keeping a watchful eye on Greene so as not to lose the primary.

If Meek has to spend most of his cash against Greene, he will be at a severe disadvantage with two months to go, and that’s a very short window to raise upward of $15 million to compete effectively.

Already, this is turning into a strange race. The state’s teacher unions co-endorsed Crist and Meek, which was a major surprise to political watchers, especially considering it was Meek who changed the state constitution mandating smaller class sizes.

There are six months to go before Election Day and a lot can happen between now and November. But it is certain that Republicans would love nothing more to put another chink in the armor of Obama by beating Meek. And Democrats would hate losing a statewide seat in a state they theoretically dominate.

But a good ball coach will tell you that no game is won on paper; it is won on the field.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama.

Excuse me for not shedding a tear for the recent electoral losses of Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama.

Instead of sticking to their principals when it came to their politics, both decided to play crass politics by switching parties in order to make it easier to be re-elected. Well, we see how well that worked out for them.

Specter, a longtime moderate Republican, was down big-time in the polls against a Republican opponent and took a major gamble last year by deciding to run as a Democrat. Yet that didn’t do him much good, as he lost to Rep. Joe Sestak in the Democratic primary. Because he has been in office for so long — 30 years in the U.S. Senate — he also got swept up in the anti-incumbent fervor we’re seeing nationwide.

But anyone with any sense would tell you that Specter was no Democrat. He was merely a Republican trying to find an easier route to keeping his political seat.

Then there is Griffith, who rode Democratic enthusiasm to win a seat in Congress two years ago. But after watching the first year of President Barack Obama, he decided to start calling him and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi socialists and said he was ashamed to be a Democrat.

Thinking this was the right time to switch parties and be hailed as a victor by the right wing, Griffith got crushed at the polls, losing to the Tea Party favorite Mo Brooks by 24 points.

Griffith didn’t realize that if voters in a Republican primar