Film Review: Runaway Slave

When Runaway Slave comes to a theater near you, drop what you're doing and go see it.

Having heard Rev. C. L. Bryant speak before, I thought I had an idea what to expect but I underestimated the power of the documentary.  It's very powerful.

Visually, the movie has a gritty, urban, edgy feel to it that contrasts with rural rolling hills and scenic neighborhoods as narrator C. L. Bryant makes his way from one city to the next, crossing America, ultimately ending up in Washington, D.C., where he movingly stands at the Jefferson Memorial reading lines from the Declaration of Independence.  I have to say, I got a tear in my eye on that one.

Bryant drives across the country asking black individuals along the way "Are we free at last?  Are you free?"  He strides purposefully across the nation and listens inquisitively at both Tea Party rallies and NAACP rallies.  He asks black Americans what they are prevented from doing today because of their skin color.

The only person who wouldn't, or couldn't, answer that was Rev. Al Sharpton who refused to speak to Bryant in the documentary.

C. L. Bryant tells of his journey from liberalism to conservatism.  He was a chapter president of the NAACP in Garland, Texas at one time, a position he lost because of his pro-life stance.  He also lost the position of pastor of his church because of his conservatism.  But Bryant has brought his message to a much larger audience now with Runaway Slave and it's a message that everyone needs to see.

The thesis of the documentary is the enslavement of black society by big government.  Bryant tries to determine why 95% of the black community votes Democrat and why the nation is still so racially divided. People like Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are described in interviews as "poverty pimps" because while they claim to represent the best interests of black America they are profiting from the continued degraded social status of blacks.

To support his thesis Bryant talks to many black leaders across America such as Alveda King who spoke strongly against Planned Parenthood and cited the high abortion rate in black society.  She noted the prevalence of Planned Parenthood in black communities and suggested they "target" black women.

I was particularly impressed with Marvin Rogers, author of Silence Makes the Loudest Sound.  Watch this clip:


Author Marvin D. Rogers Discusses his Highly Anticipated Book! from Marvin D. Rogers on Vimeo.


He really impressed me and I'm ordering his book today (there's no Kindle version).

Steve was impressed with Mason Weaver.  He wrote a book entitled It's OK to Leave the Plantation.  Watch this clip of Weaver speaking in 2009:



Bryant spoke with many other black leaders and the takeaway is that it is the Democratic party that has enslaved the black community to a life of poverty and entitlements.  You are not guaranteed success by the Constitution, you are guaranteed opportunity.  Nothing is handed to you.

Bryant also talks with well known black  leaders like Allen West, Herman Cain, and Thomas Sowell, but it was the lesser knowns like K. Carl Smith and Kevin Daniels that impressed me so much.

The movie opens July 27 in wider release; right now it's just in Bossier City.  The film website is here.  There you will find release locations and dates, all the interview participants, and video clips.

If you're anywhere close to Shreveport/Bossier, go to Regal Cinema on Shed Road and see this film.  We were pleasantly surprised to see C. L. Bryant himself striding to the front of the theater as the credits rolled.  We gave him a hearty round of applause and then he was swamped with people who wanted to shake his hand and speak with him.

The film is powerful, moving, articulate, and speaks to all of us.  It's one that I'll want to see more than once and if you get a chance to see it, drop everything you're doing and go.




Update:
Linked at The Dead Pelican - the one stop shop for ALL news Louisiana!
The film has been held over through July 19th at Regal on Shed Road in Bossier.
Buy tickets here.

Related Posts:
Andrew Breitbart Talks About His Legacy With CL Bryant
A New Underground Railroad
I Dare James Earl Jones to Watch "Runaway Slave"!
Trading One Form of Tyranny for Another

Here's A Good Idea: Obama Should WALK to John Boehner's Office!

I've always been of the opinion that much of the left lives in a fantasy world where money grows on trees and the government can give cradle to grave assistance to everyone.  The perfect world is a nanny state where half of your french fries are substituted for apples.

My suspicions of lefty lunacy are confirmed in this ridiculous bit of "advice?" from Juli Weiner at Vanity Fair entitled "Lessons From The West Wing:  How Obama Can Rein in Republicans":

Think back for a minute, to the Aaron Sorkin-less dregs of The West Wing, season five. The Democratic president, Josiah Bartlet, is locked in budget negotiations with the authoritative House Speaker, Republican Jeffrey Haffley. After weeks of legislative back and forth, the G.O.P. recoiled from a previously agreed-upon bipartisan compromise at the 11th hour. It’s really not so different from this summer’s protracted, miserable debt-ceiling debate.

Bartlet refuses to yield to the unreasonable demands of the Republicans, and allows the government to shut down. After a few days of stalemate, Bartlet walks from the White House to the Capitol building, where he tries to see Haffley. Cameras trail him the whole way there. The Speaker keeps the president waiting for seven minutes, and eventually Bartlet turns around and walks home, reporters in tow.

She then goes on to say that Boehner's speech was "rambling" last night and suggests maybe Obama should do the same thing as this fictional West Wing president: take a walk, cameras in tow, to Boehner's office.  A publicity stunt!  That'll do it!

I'm going to assume Ms. Weiner is speaking tongue in cheek and couldn't possibly believe that Obama would deign to walk to John Boehner's office with a gaggle of reporters and cameras in tow.   Isn't he "too smart" for such publicity gimmicks?

In Ms. Weiner's fantasy land of television, "public opinion turns against the Republicans" because they were rude to the president, kept him waiting for seven minutes, and in the end the president got his way in the budget debate.

Of course, in reality, Democrats don't pass budgets.

Whether Ms. Weiner is just jesting with us or just showing off her pop culture skills, one does wonder how much liberals confuse reality with make believe. 

As the debt debate drones on it does baffle the mind how Democrats think we can keep spending and growing government. 

I'm reminded of Palin when she said Democrats live "on a unicorn ranch in fantasyland" which in Ms. Weiner's world would be The West Wing.

Shooting from the Hip

Let's just "shoot from the hip" here and point out that this increasing paranoia of gun metaphors is getting ridiculous.  The "double barrel" effort of the left to paint every phrase and nuance as a cue to some nut job extremist or as a sign that Republicans are crazed gun toters is turning our discourse into a "tinderbox" of perceived missteps and inflammatory rhetoric where it just doesn't exist.

The Hill points out that Mike Pence wants to repeal Obamacare "lock, stock, and barrel."  Writer Mike Lillis suggests that this is Pence's refusal to restrain his aggression.  (To be fair, Lillis also points to Rep. Steve Cohen's comparison of Republicans to Nazis.)

While the left wants to depict the right as the only ones who use gun metaphors, we've seen that's simply not the case.  So, keep your powder dry, people.  Get off the hair trigger and keep your objective in sight by first remembering that some of these expressions are now just common American vernacular and your new perception of them doesn't change that reality. 

Get a grip.

Even in Baby Steps The Obama Agenda is Dangerous

In the face of overwhelming defeat in November, the Democrats and Team Obama are considering "a new, more incremental approach" to their power-grabbing, economy-destroying agenda.  As if they have a choice.

According to this story in today's Wall Street Journal, Team Obama is considering "piecemeal" implementation of immigration reform, energy policy, and closure of Guantanamo, rather than the huge, sweeping, in your face legislation we've become accustomed to.

In fact, it was all Rahm's fault they couldn't get it done so far as he had become "mistrusted by the left" so now Obama has "a better chance to repair relations with the party's liberal base." 

Team Obama attempts to hint at an attempt at bipartisanship with regard to immigration reform:

Under the incremental scenario, the White House would embrace Republican proposals to step up immigration law enforcement and border and port security in exchange for measures such as the DREAM Act, which would give illegal immigrant children a path to citizenship through military or public service. White House officials could add an agricultural-workers program to that bill but put off dealing with the bulk of illegal immigrants until later.

But again, when the Dems lose control in November, what choice will they have?

Even piecemeal, the Obama agenda is still a far left liberal agenda, an economic disaster, and thrashing of American principles and values. 

Media Hypocrisy in Action

Doug Ross has a post on the Chelsea Clinton wedding that probably nails down pretty well the way lots of folks feel about the event.  At least, his wife's rant says what I was thinking, anyway. 

One one level, I honestly don't care if Chelsea Clinton had a huge wedding.  I don't begrudge her that one iota. Personally, the Jenna Bush wedding is much more my style.  Heck, when Steve and I married earlier this year (after EIGHT years of talking about it), we spent less than $100 and that included the license, the hamburgers at the restaurant on Fox Run Golf Course at Barksdale, and a gift for the chaplain that performed the ceremony.  His wife took our pictures and we had a big ol' time. 

Now, I realize Chelsea's situation is different.  It's her first wedding and her parents are important people with lots of money.  I get all that.  Every young girl, I suppose, dreams of the gorgeous wedding.  I'm certainly not suggesting Chelsea have a justice of the peace wedding. 

What is so galling is the media and this is what Doug points out in his post.  The hypocrisy of the media is obvious when you consider what would have been written had the Bush's held such a huge shindig for daughter Jenna's wedding.

"Those elitist, out-of-touch Republicans!"  I can just hear it.

Just let me hear one time from the liberals that conservatives are out of touch elitists.  Let me hear just one time how the Democrats are for the little people.

Hypocrites. 

Colin Powell Still Stands With Obama

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was on Face the Nation this morning expressing his continuing support for Barack Obama. Powell, as you recall, endorsed and voted for Obama and stands by that decision today.

From Powell's perspective, the problem with this administration lies not in the fact that the message or policy is wrong, but that the American people are to dense to understand it:

Former Secretary of State General Colin Powell said Sunday he had no regrets about endorsing Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign, but that the president "put too much on the plate for the American people to absorb at this time."

We can only focus on one thing at a time, you see.

When asked if Washington is "broken," Powell said it's not broken but it isn't functioning very well:

"In some ways the government is functioning. It's doing what it's supposed to do, but not well enough. The American people, I think, see the extreme positions being taken, too left on the Democratic side, too far right on the Republican side, the Tea Party movement is also now become a force in American politics. Of course, you've got the overhang of cable television and the Internet, all of which heightens tension and makes it harder and harder for our political leaders in the Senate or in the Congress to quietly make the compromises that are necessary."

It seems as if Powell thinks television and the Internet are hindrances to good government, but thank goodness for them both because where would we be now without them? I don't think the American people really want Congress to "quietly make the compromises that are necessary." To many Americans that simply means "backroom deals" like Mary Landrieu's Louisiana Purchase.

Granted, some compromises have to be made, but by both sides. And sometimes there is no compromise to be found. One should not be expected to compromise their principles or values. We are taught to stand up for what's "right."

Powell did say one thing that I agree with:

"[Americans are] looking for leaders in both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party in the House and Senate to start finding ways to compromise and get the country moving and not just scream at each other."

I do think people are tired of the bickering, but that's just politics. That's how it's always been and always will be when you have differing opinions. People feel strongly about the health care issue, for example, and it's safe to say that there may not be a lot of compromise to be made on that issue. Certainly there is some, but many people don't feel the need to compromise their feelings on, say, abortion for example. It's not helpful to "scream at each other" either.

But when Democrats, Harry Reid, wave the heavy stick and say either pass health care the way we want it or we'll just push it through with reconciliation, how can one expect there not be a howl of indignation from the other side? Is THAT compromise?

Powell invoked the Founding Fathers in his appearance today and pointed out that even they had to compromise when writing the Constitution. But they didn't have Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to deal with.

And I guess as Powell sees it, they didn't have the Internet and cable TV either. But somehow I just can't believe we'd be better off right now without it!

Bayh Bails (UPDATED)

Now this is interesting:

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh will not seek re-election this year, an unexpected decision that comes on top of other high-profile Democratic retirements.

The two-term senator is known as a moderate Democrat. His retirement gives Republicans yet another opportunity to pick up a seat in a year when several incumbent Democrats are considered vulnerable and some have already decided to jump ship.

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan both announced their retirements in January. Democrats are trying to defend open seats in Delaware and Illinois as well.

Former GOP Sen. Dan Coats had been planning to challenge Bayh in November. But a senior Democratic source told Fox News that recent polling showed Bayh way ahead of Coats, and that the retirement must have been a personal decision.

Bayh's staff said the latest polling showed Bayh ahead of Coats by 20 points.

More to come...

Update: Wow! His replacement better be standing in the wings already:

Bayh's decision will set Dems scrambling for a replacement. The deadline to file to reach the ballot is tomorrow, meaning any Dem considering running for the seat must make a decision quickly.

Update 2 (10:14 a.m.) Apparently Bayh is tired of being in Congress:

"After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so by serving in Congress has waned," Bayh will say.

Sounds like he has other plans. Michelle Malkin asks,

Question: What’s Bayh going to do with his $13 million war chest?

Answer: Preserve his political viability.

Exit question: Who will replace him? HuffPo reports Ellsworth is a possibility:

A name floated by the operative as a possible replacement for the Democratic seat is that of Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) a blue dog from Evansville who came to office in 2006 riding an anti-Republican wave.

Update 3 (10:28 a.m.) The Memeorandum links are growing. Professor Jacobson has more of Bayh's statement.

Firedoglake sees the writing on the wall: "Putting IN-Sen in play seriously raises the possibility of a Republican takeover of the Senate in November. It’s still a long shot, but definitely in the realm of the possible."

Update 4 (10:40 a.m.) Ed Morrissey makes a good point when he questions the reported "lead" Bayh holds in the polls. The recent entry of Dan Coats into the race might have changed that picture:

His “lead” was over state-level challengers, not necessarily Dan Coats, who hadn’t been in the mix long enough to get polled. Bayh couldn’t get above 45% against anyone, a bad position for any incumbent. The $13 million is a good point, though, and at least Bayh was competitive. Looking at Lincoln’s numbers, or those of Harry Reid, in comparison put Bayh in a relatively stronger position in his race, at least until he quit.

Update 5 (10:55 a.m.) Phillip Klein at American Spectator sees Bayh's exit as a move that will possibly make it more difficult to pass the health care bill:

One of the many implications Sen. Evan Bayh's retirement could have is to make it even more difficult for Democrats to pass comprehensive health care legislation. In the broader sense, news of a strong moderate Democrat feeling the need to step aside could make other red state Democrats even more nervous than they already are about reelection and thus uneasy about casting a tough vote. But more specifically, the most obvious Democrats to seek Bayh's seat are Indiana's Democratic congressmen: Reps. Brad Ellsworth, Baron Hill and Joe Donnelly. All of them have already voted for the original version of the House health care bill, and it's unlikely that any of them would want to cast another vote for the bill during a difficult race for the Senate.

Read the whole thing.

Update (11:40 a.m.) Speculation is rising that Bayh might be considering a 2012 run against Obama as a challenger. I'd say this is unlikely, but stranger things have happened. Via Jonah Goldberg at The Corner, however, the possibility arises.

Democrats or Republicans on National Security Issues?

The Washington Post article this morning about Obama inserting himself into the debate over where the KSM trial should be held (finally) quoted a statistic that has been puzzling me. It seemed off the wall to me when I read it this morning but I didn't question it too much at the time because I was more focused on the bigger issue, it seemed to me, which was that Obama is now paying attention to matters of national security.

The Post said this morning that Obama is more trusted on matters of national security than Republicans, which is so very odd to me (emphasis mine):

According to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, 55 percent of voters say military tribunals should be used to try suspected terrorists, compared with 39 percent who say the civilian court system should be used. In November, there was an even split on this question. Still, Obama has an advantage on national security, with a majority of Americans continuing to approve of the way he is handling the threat of terrorism -- his highest-rated issue -- and 47 percent saying they mainly trust Obama on the issue compared with 42 percent who trust the GOP.

Yet according to Rasmussen on February 10:

On national security, Republicans are trusted more by a 49% to 40% margin after leading by 17 points in January. This marks the first poll to show Republicans earning less than 50% of voters’ trust on the issue since August of last year.

And in the War on Terror (still Rasmussen):

Recent polling shows that voter confidence in U.S. efforts in the War on Terror is near its lowest level in recent years. Only 36% of voters say the United States is safer today than it was before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, marking the lowest level of confidence since Rasmussen polling first asked the question in 2002.

So where does the Washington Post come up with these numbers?

The closest I can get is this Washington Post - ABC News poll dated Jan. 12-15, 2010 in which Obama does have more favorable numbers.

When asked if respondents approved or disapproved of the way Obama is handling terrorism, the results were:

b. The threat of terrorism

      -------- Approve --------   ------- Disapprove ------     No
      NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opinion
1/15/10    55       31         23      42       14         28         4
11/15/09   53       31         22      41       14         27         6
9/12/09    55       31         24      34       12         23        11
6/21/09    57       NA         NA      36       NA         NA         7
4/21/09*   57       NA         NA      26       NA         NA        17
*Pew

It's interesting. Curious, but interesting. The number of those who disapprove has climbed from 26 to 42 yet those who approve has stayed pretty much the same - from 57 to 55.

The sampling for the latest poll is supposedly:

          Democrat  Republican  Independent  Other  No op.  Dem.  Rep.  Lean
1/15/10       32         23           38        7      *      17    20     9

When asked how much confidence one has in (item) to make the right decisions for the country's future, 47% trusted Obama to 24% who trusted Republicans in Congress and 32% trusted Democrats in Congress.

And on preventing another terrorist attack in the U.S.:

a. Preventing further terrorist attacks in the United States

      -Excellent/Good -   -Not so good/Poor -     No
      NET   Exc.   Good   NET   Not so   Poor   opinion
1/15/10   58      8     50    41      30      11       1
9/7/06    66      9     57    33      24       8       1
1/18/04   74     14     61    25      19       6       1
9/7/03    80     19     61    19      16       3       1
9/8/02    75     13     62    23      21       3       2

Obviously that number has changed since Obama took office.

At any rate, I can't find the numbers WaPo refers to in their article today and they don't link to the poll. This January poll is the closest I can find.

I just don't believe more people trust Obama with national security than they trust Republicans, although I guess it could depend to which Republicans one refers. The Democrats, after all, is the party who just charged a man with explosives in his undies on an airplane in Detroit with nearly 300 people as a common criminal rather than an Al Qaeda trained enemy combatant.

I'm not trusting them. No way.

"Centrist" Democrats Like Their Abominable Bill Just the Way it Is

After 25 straight days of "the longest Senate debate in recent history," our senators are now off work until after the first of the year. Meanwhile, the health care bill that we had to hurry up and pass because "people are dying!" sits on a lonely desk somewhere waiting for more changes, revisions, and debate. That won't happen until January, although no doubt the back room deals and bribes are still underway.

The Hill reports this morning that there is "very little wiggle room" in the upcoming talks to merge the two bills. Nearly two dozen "centrist" senators, including Mary Landrieu, who don't favor changing their version of the bill very much. (Although how anyone can call Mary Landrieu a "centrist" escapes me.)

They don't want a "bill that imposes a tax surcharge on the nation’s highest income earners or reduces the tax burden on so-called Cadillac health insurance plans, which are held by many unionized workers." They also don't want a public option included in the final bill.

Landrieu is adamant about keeping that provision that taxes those "Cadillac" plans because she's concerned about cost-containment. If she's so worried about cost-containment, she should refuse her $300 million bribe, but that's beside the point.

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska says he won't support the bill if it taxes those making over $500,000.

Do either of those two people have any credibility left?

These senators that were bought off, Landrieu, Nelson, and all the others, try to excuse this action by saying that it's just politics; it's done all the time! If you don't understand that, you don't understand politics! Mary Landrieu said, “Those who have dubbed this provision the ‘Louisiana Purchase' know little about lawmaking and even less about my views on health-care reform." Business as usual. Got it.

I'm sure back room deals are, in fact, part of how Washington works and I'm sure it's been that way for a long time. Doesn't make it right. And it especially doesn't excuse passing bad legislation. If you make a back room deal to get something for your state, at least try to be sure the rest of the country isn't getting totally screwed in the meantime.

At any rate, the poor, overworked senators are all back at home (call them!) as are your representatives (call them, too!). They'll mosey on back to Washington in January, all the while patting themselves on the back for their "historic" achievement, and begin the final task of driving the nails into the heart of the American heath care industry and economy.

Historic, indeed.

(H/T: Memeorandum)

On Polls and Third Parties

I'm always so cautious about polls. My opinion of polls is that you can always find one that supports what you want to hear. So with that in mind, I'm excited, yet cautious, about the Club for Growth poll that shows a Hoffman surge in NY-23:

A poll released today by the Club for Growth shows Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman surging into the lead in the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district to replace John McHugh, the former congressman who recently became Secretary of the Army. The poll of 300 likely voters, conducted October 24-25, 2009, shows Conservative Doug Hoffman at 31.3%, Democrat Bill Owens at 27.0%, Republican Dede Scozzafava at 19.7%, and 22% undecided. The poll's margin of error is +/- 5.66%.

Club for Growth has endorsed Hoffman, but does that take any validity from their poll? Who knows. I'd like to say no, but were it in reverse, I'd probably discount the results; say if ACORN produced a poll that showed Scozzafava surging, I'd ignore it.

There's a lot of analysis out there over the past few days about the state of the GOP and the role of third parties. Glenn Beck did a spiel on that yesterday. He was on Fox & Friends this morning commenting on his interview with Hoffman; he noted how Hoffman isn't some polished, professional politician that's been on television forever. He comes across as a regular Joe. Beck says you're going to see more and more people like Hoffman, people who have never run before but who are tired of what they're seeing in Washington and who want to get back to the principles of our country. People are not necessarily going to vote for the letter-designation after the name anymore.

Is this a good thing? Or is it, as Newt says, going to hurt the party in the long run? Here's the deal. This is where I am with it. The party be damned. I've never actually associated myself with "party" and in fact was a registered Democrat up until about eight months ago even though I haven't voted for a Democrat in years. It has always depended on the candidate for me, and how closely they mirror my own values. Most of the time it's a Republican. But if it's a Conservative or a Libertarian or even a Democrat (not likely!), that's where I'm voting.

If that makes the Republican tent too small, then so be it. If it's the end of the Republican party, what have we lost? As it is right now there isn't much difference between that and the Democrats.

I think in Hoffman, people are beginning to see that one individual CAN make a difference. He's providing hope to a lot of people, and not that phony, slick, glamorized "hope" we were encouraged to buy into last year. Real hope. Real grassroots hope.

Run, Doug, Run! Good luck!