Republicans who want to see the party restored to relevance will have to start forcefully asserting their independence from the craziest extremes. There is no other way to restore GOP credibility. The major concern now for rational Republicans is how to wage that internal fight in a manner that preserves a chance of winning control of the brand.

Controlling the Republican name is important. A third party is a very weak option. The last time a 3^rd party emerged successfully in America the result was a civil war. Holding onto the brand will not be easy, but it should be a primary goal at the outset.

The party still functions. It still has offices, budgets, and most importantly – the legal ability to place candidates on the ballot in every corner of the country. Beyond that structural capacity the party is deeply ill and losing any capacity to shape policy or any hope of governing effectively at the national level.

Traditional Republicans have been reluctant to engage in open dissent out of respect for party’s ethos of disciplined unity. Tea Party groups could give a damn about unity. They have shown no concern whatsoever in undermining party interests in favor of their own. “Party unity” is a pillow pressed over our faces. It will be necessary to forge compromises to make any party realignment work, but an open split with the extremist wing will have to come first.

What would a successful revolt look like? It should come in three phases.

First the Republican organizations alienated by the party’s extremist binge need to make contact with one another and begin to coordinate. We must work together to build institutions, even small ones, with more formal organization than we can sustain through Facebook groups or message boards.

This is a time-consuming, costly step, but it cannot be skipped. When Virginia Lt. Governor Bill Bolling explored the option of challenging Tea Party darling Ken Cuccinelli for Governor as an “Independent Republican” he quickly declined. He found that there were no organized, prepared institutions ready to assemble campaign resources and money to support such an effort. We have to build those structures.

Who might participate in such an effort? Perhaps conservative donors who have supported marriage equality initiatives. GOP County officials in the North and in urban areas frustrated by pressure from Tea Party groups or weakened by an extremist national message. Conservative minority groups tired of being patronized by national Republicans and scorned by the far right. Traditional conservative commercial interests more concerned about infrastructure, education, and economic development than divisive culture war issues. The interests exist, but no one is attempting to rally them to a cause like this.

In the second phase, those institutions need to hash together a pragmatic policy agenda that party figures and potential candidates can rally around. We need a core program that preserves traditional Republican commercial priorities without the corrosive white identity appeals that have poisoned Republican expansion.

Armed with a loose organization and a coherent agenda, rational Republicans will then be in a position to offer cover and support to candidates or party officials who want to openly challenge the extremes. We will be ready for the third step, providing assistance to a major Republican candidate who chooses to run a general election campaign against a more extreme GOP nominee. We could offer alternatives for a future Mike Castle or Richard Lugar unwilling to roll over for the Tea Party.

This is the critical gateway that all the early efforts should aim toward – a series of successful high-profile post-primary contests that will expose the weakness of the extremist fringe. This will set up crucial confrontations inside the party infrastructure that will force previously reluctant insiders to openly choose sides. In that effort, pragmatists will then have allies in office openly aligned with (and indebted to) the effort.

All of this is much easier said than done, but we can’t start doing it until more people are willing to discuss this possibility in the open. Can Republicans win without the Tea Party? Absolutely, and we can start doing it consistently if we drop the useless pretense of “unity.” Voters have responded extremely well to candidates who have deliberately set themselves against the extremes.

Senator Lisa Murkowski won a write-in campaign in 2010 against her own party’s Tea Party-backed nominee. Maine Senator Angus King cruised to victory in 2012 with no party support from either side. Former Republican Lincoln Chafee won a race for Governor of Rhode Island without party support. In the 2012 election, not a single Senate or Gubernatorial candidate won a greater share of the vote than Romney by running to his right.

If David Dewhurst had continued his fight for Texas’ Senate seat into the general election campaign, no one today would remember Ted Cruz. That did not happen because the pragmatic conservatives who form the largest bloc of the electorate had no organization to support him and no cover with which to protect from the downside risks. That has to change.

General election voters would warmly welcome a candidate willing to stand up to the far right. The challenge comes from the primary process and the party infrastructure. We must build institutions strong enough to support a general election campaign for a pragmatic Republican that bypasses the primary.

The Tea Party’s signature victories have come from defeating Republicans in the low-participation environment of primaries and caucuses. They cannot hold their own against candidates who refuse to submit to the will of a tiny minority of activists. The far right political program is a rotten door just waiting to be kicked in.

Fielding successful general election challenges to radical nominees will only complete the first stage in restoring the party’s potency. More work will lie beyond that goal to re-establish the party’s dominant hold on America’s center-right coalition. To get started, traditional Republicans need only find their voice and stiffen their spines. Once we do, we’ll wonder why we waited so long.

#####

Chris Ladd is a Texan who is now living in the Chicago area.  He is the founder of Building a Better GOP and has served for several years as a Republican Precinct Committeeman in DuPage County, IL, and was active in state and local Republican campaigns in Texas for many years. (Email: chrladd AT gmail DOT com)

Other cities experienced flash mobs in 2011, but they presented a particular problem for tourist-dependent Philadelphia, where millions of visitors come every year to see the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall, and Franklin Court—not to mention the famous corner of Ninth Street and Passyunk Avenue, where Pat’s and Geno’s vie for cheesesteak supremacy.Source: City Journal.

Read full article. (link)

]]> http://www.hiphoprepublican.com/florida-republican-cites-fight-the-power-in-battle-against-obama-video/feed/ 0 http://www.hiphoprepublican.com/a-new-age-in-humanity-a-film-review-of-junkhearts/ http://www.hiphoprepublican.com/a-new-age-in-humanity-a-film-review-of-junkhearts/#comments Sat, 18 May 2013 02:09:42 +0000 admin http://www.hiphoprepublican.com/?p=3635 New Age Films have much in common with each other. Films such as Rachel Getting Married, Sky Fall, The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo, as well as the early Surrealist Films ( such as A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Catch 22, and Mash) depict larger than life characters, sets, and tales combined with excellent performances, societies gone awry. In Junkhearts, starring Eddie Marsan, Tom Sturridge, Romala Garai, and Candese Reid as Lynette, similar themes emerge.

Drug addiction, dysfunctional families, interracial dating, mating, and hating as well as racism, the generation gap, Government bureaucracy, and violence run-amuck are all hallmarks of New Age Films. Junkhearts, written by Simon Frank; directed by Tinge Krishnan; and produced by Karen Katz and Hustle Productions tell the story of a former riot gear police officer who tries to drown out past thoughts by  consuming alcohol and smoking cigarette. Overtime, he sinks instead into the hell created by post-traumatic stress disorder. The nature of which revolves around his a particular judgment call while on the job in a high-level stress situation.

Shaken from the torture of his memories by a young black runaway, who sleeps on the streets at night, Frank, portrayed by Eddie Marsan as the former police officer, begrudgingly commits himself to helping Lynette escape the life she would otherwise endure by offering her a place in his home in which to live. As suspenseful as it is heart-wrenching, Junkhearts will have viewers both on the edge of their seats as well as make the audience questioning its own cultural values and its belief in Karmic Forces and Dharma.

Although there is nudity, drug usage, sexual situations, and extreme violence in Junkhearts, I would recommend that parents watch this film with their teenage children. The musical score is also quite good and is typical of New Age Films in that the musical score always compliments and is a component of the script.

Junkhearts, which premieres on May 21st, 2013 by filmbuff, can be viewed on iTunes, Amazon, nook, vudu, Cinema Now, XBOX, Google play, Movies On Demand, and The PlayStation Store. On a scale of from one to ten, as is the case with most New Age Films, I rate Junkhearts a ten.

*****

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Cleo Brown is the movie reviewer for HipHopRepublican.com. She lives in Manhattan and has a Master’s Degree in Contemporary African-American History from The University of California at Davis and has done work on a Ph.D. in education at The University of San Francisco. She has published several poetry books and is featured in Who’s Who in Poetry.

Some say Heritage shouldn’t have let him resign, that they “caved” to  political correctness. They think that if scientific arguments can be  constructed that some groups are less intelligent than others, then the topic  should at least be up for discussion.

And it should. However, if the conversation went my way, Richwine would  still be deemed not ready for prime time — but not for the reasons we’re used to  hearing.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/jason-richwine-race-immigration-article-1.1344963#ixzz2TamM8j3J

These cousins knew better than to rely on the government. They understood America as a nation of social mobility and rejected the notion of statically remaining a part of their crumbling surroundings. One cousin took to books and writing. The other, who never was fond of school but had a mind for business, decided entrepreneurship was his path to success. Due to his outstanding record in school and enthralling essays the scholar won acceptance at a prestigious university where he majored in political science. Mr. Entrepreneur used his business sense and ruthless temperament to abolish competition on his rise to power.

By age 22 each cousin had reached what seemed to be the pinnacle of success with respect to his field. The scholar graduated with a degree in political science summa cum laude. Concurrently the entrepreneur’s company expanded due to the rapid sales of a new product.

At this point the entrepreneur began to have legal troubles due to a new government program intended to curb his field of business. The political science major was rising steadily in his career as a politician. In his run for city council, he railed on the effort to imprison those engaged in the business in which his cousin was affiliated. He called the government’s war on drugs racist and detrimental to the community he represented. However, he never called for drugs to be legalized—because that would thwart his cousin’s business operation. Instead, he rallied the community to petition for more funding. The funding could be for anything. It mattered not, because in his city all that was needed for election was a promise and enough substance on that promise to get by.

The 80′s were coming to a close and the drug dealer was finally released from prison after a three year stint. He still managed to run his operation from his cell, and therefore had his throne ready upon return. The streets changed during his time incarcerated. A usually business first drug world, in which the best product sold, turned into a violent pursuit of the same customers. Always cold-hearted, this troubled him in the least bit. With carefully planned executions of rivals, his crew maintained their prowess.

Rampant violence alarmed the public, and the politician knew he had to call for action. He conceived the idea of banning handguns from his city. With his pitch of social justice, which always seemed to be government dependent, he easily obtained passage of the law. Contrary to his belief that reducing law abiding citizen’s right to defend themselves would quell the violence, murders continued to occur at alarming rates in his city. The drug dealer’s operation felt no pressure from the law because he ran an illegal business and never felt the need to arm his crew with legal firearms.

By the late 90s the cousins decided to get together at the politician’s beach house. They reminisced on their childhood and paths to success relative to their interests. At this point the crack epidemic cooled, so the dealer decided to retire a multi-millionaire. His cousin, however, felt the city council awarded him too little power and was plotting his run for the House of Representatives.

They were enjoying two premium filet steaks, and engaged in a dialogue that had never occurred in their lifetime. Similarities between each cousin’s rise to power, wealth, etc were discussed at length. Overall they concluded both held the same view of their community, success, and work. Both rejected the government’s attempt to hold them static as members of the proletariat. They employed their strengths to earn success. Neither felt bad about their acquired wealth, but agreed not many from the neighborhood could accomplish half of their achievements. Therefore, government aide was needed for the less fortunate stated the politician.

The dealer retorted he was expected to meddle in a dead end job and depend on the government his whole life, but chose a different road and if he could do it anyone could as long as they use their God given talents to the fullest. Finally, they realized the system they rejected on their roads to success was the same one the politician championed in every single election and the dealer took advantage of to earn millions. Like a sign from Above they felt a feeling in their chest that told the same thing: “I left my community only to ruin it with the same system I rejected.”

A sip of wine, a puff from cigars, and the conversation turned to the upcoming election……..

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Doug Knickrehm is originally from Omaha, NE but currently lives in the Bronx, NY. He is a student at Fordham University where he majors in Finance. He is also Mentor at the Crotona center for boys in the Bronx. His current favorite artist are Curren$y, Z-ro, Clipse while his favorite Politicians are Ron Paul, Tom Coburn, and Gary Johnson.  He is a Libertarian whose issues of interest include race, economics, and drug laws. He be reached at @beachousewishes on twitter.

Whether Black or White, middle to upper class, urban, rural or suburban, most Americans operate under the assumption that the U.S. still ranks as No. 1 in the world.  Yes, the U.S. remains the world’s largest economy, and we have the largest military by far, the most dynamic technology companies and a highly entrepreneurial climate. 

However, Blacks who still preen at the thought of Obama being the “commander in chief” are going to have a “rude awakening” when it’s all over. A sobering 2012 index analyzed 142 countries in eight categories: economy, education, entrepreneurship & opportunity, governance, health, personal freedom, safety & security and social capital. The index shows that the U.S. is no longer “the top dog” rather, 12th in prosperity; 3rd in oil production; 7th in literacy; 27th in math; 22nd in science; 49th in life expectancy; 178th in infant mortality; 3rd in median household income; 4th in exports and 39th in income inequality.

The first step in solving any problem is to recognize there is one. As we move toward the future, it’s important that we note that the decisions that created today’s growth – decisions about education, infrastructure and the like – were made decades ago. What we see today is an American economy that has boomed because of policies and developments of the 1950s and ’60s: the interstate-highway system, massive funding for science and technology, a public-education system that was once the envy of the world and generous immigration policies.

The economic bottom is falling out while the Black middle class waddles down “discount aisles at Walmart.” We are the group at the highest risk of economic downturns, but over the past 50 years, Blacks have bought into a mindset of dependency. Ninety-three percent of Black Americans recently voted for a continuation of that dependency on government for handouts from food stamps to welfare. Democratic leadership has caused Blacks to collectively accept the fact that America has become a debtor nation.

Suck it up. Let’s acknowledge that the big government agenda the Democrats have pursued over past years has stunted economic growth and led to staggering levels of wealth decline among Blacks. Cartoon character Pogo provides great insight: “We’ve met the enemy and they is us.” Our plight today is based on our past practices to “go along to get along.”

Much of America’s forward growth depends on the results of the 2014 congressional elections and 2016 presidential campaign. What kind of decisions will the masses of Blacks make about being open to the messages of Republicans?  In his book, America the Beautiful, fiscally and socially conservative figure, Dr. Benjamin Solomon “Ben” Carson, Sr., an African-American neurosurgeon and director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, pushed himself into the forefront of the public’s attention. In his book, Carson provides new perspectives on our educational system, capitalism versus socialism and our moral fabric, to which people should be attentive.  America the Beautiful is an incisive manifesto of the values that shaped America’s past and must shape her future, the book calls upon us all to use our God-given talents to lead and improve our lives, communities, nation, and our world.

America can be great again. Good leadership is what we need. All that’s required is leadership that will fight for moral values, stand up for what is right, and strike down the wrong laws for the right reasons. Maybe it’s “mainstream” Blacks have adopted that cause them to accept leadership that has followed the same path of profligate spending and reckless disregard of the long-term economic drain for short-term economic gains.  We have opted for mediocrity and self-indulgence and we have reaped the harvest that we have sown.

We become great again by becoming an informed and educated electorate, making the right decisions to go forward.

*****

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: William Reed is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Black Press International. He has been a Media Entrepreneur for over two decades. A long-time Washington insider, Reed’s special strengths include: public and community relations; grass-roots organizing; script and speech writing, legislative affairs tracking and research; and access to a network of national and local government, business and organizational policy-makers and public opinion-molders.

Katlynn continued to study musical theater at the High School For The Visual and Performing Arts in Houston.    A lead role in a dramatic short indie film would prove to be her first official introduction to film acting. Next would be guest star roles on the hit BET dramedy “The Game”, as well as the sitcom “The First Family”. While exploring acting Katlynn continued to focus on her music by teaming up with producers The J.A.M (Santana, Leona Lewis) for her first single, “Stuck In The Middle”, an upbeat pop song. The follow up track, “Overboard”, would be the result of her collaboration with Dan Workman (Destiny’s Child, Beyoncé).   In 2012 Katlynn teamed up with Houston based music management firm 3SixtyMusic Group, LLC and Grammy nominated producer/songwriter Cedric “Dabenchwarma” Smith.

CLICK  Check out her latest: Let Me Go (Lisnr Enabled) – SoundCloud - CLICK

http://katlynnsimoneworld.com/

HHR Artist of the Month – Katlynn Simone singing Payphone – Maroon 5 – (Katlynn Simone Cover)

George is disturbed by the commonality of Americans and with the government saying that it is all right to stay in the middle class. George mentions how there is nothing wrong with an individual wanting to reach higher than just middle class. If one can set their mind to it then there is nothing one cannot achieve.

When asked if there is a platform to outreach the Latino communities of New York City George mentions how he want’s to reach out to every community because he wants to help everyone not just specialize on one group. Yet he did mention how the Latino communities play an important part of New York City and how Latino immigrant’s hard work ethnic has transformed them into successful entrepreneurs and benefited New York City.

George wants to instill the entrepreneurial spirit by turning human capital into capital. One of the major platforms that George wants to do is create business opportunities and have full employment. George also wants to make NYC a business friendly environment and making it a better environment for small businesses to start and for the current small businesses to prosper.

George wants to lessen regulations on businesses to create more revenue for the city through payroll tax incentives. As Mayor, George would appoint a Deputy Mayor for Workforce Development to make sure jobs are being created, lessen the regulations on businesses and that there is an increase of businesses being created.

When asked about fighting crime in New York City George wants to continue to keep New York City as the safest city in America from terrorism and violence in the communities. George wants to make a “focus impact” by assigning the responsibility of the community to the people of the community.

George also wants to get the trust of the communities and to make sure that former inmates get jobs out of prison and to lessen the impact of crime by replacing it with jobs.

On the education front as mayor George wants to make sure that the department of education educates the students of New York City. Education is an important part of being mayor and George wants the education of every child in the city to be of value because it translates into a better society and higher quality workforce.

To learn more about George, his platform, volunteer opportunities, donate to his campaign or to be part of his campaign visit www.mcdonald2013.com

- Interviewed by Jose Fulgencio, former Editor in Chief of El Republicanos (HHR’s Spanish Blog)  Follow on Twitter @jful51

#####

Jose Fulgencio is currently a Lecturer in the Political Science Department at Oklahoma State University, a graduate student finishing his M.S. in Entrepreneurship (May 2013) and is in the process of launching his third business venture with the guidance of the School of Entrepreneurship faculty at Oklahoma State University.

The most obvious solution to this problem carries serious dangers. Granting parents a greater freedom to choose their children’s schools would break the bond that allows public employee unions to feed on undeserved populations. At the same time it could open up our schools to forces that might end public education as we know it.

The school choice argument is dogged by a paradox. In fact, every American family gets to choose the public school their children will attend. We choose our public schools by choosing which home to purchase or rent.

That means that our range of school choice is constrained by real estate economics. My kids can attend the best schools my housing dollars can buy. If I discover that I’ve made a poor decision, my ability to choose a different school depends on my willingness or economic ability to pick up stakes and move away. In practical terms, most school districts will allow some leeway in school choice among the various schools the district maintains, but choosing a public school outside the district generally requires a move.

School choice is also complicated by the difficulty in evaluating the options. There is no commonly accepted, reliable empirical metric for school quality. Measuring educational outcomes is extremely complex, influenced by wealth, family life, individual initiative, community values, the talents and skill of a teacher, and the quality of the school’s administration.

Even if such a standard were devised, the problem is compounded by the unique needs of each child. An environment that serves one kid extremely well may fail a child with a different profile.

There are some upsides to our current approach to school choice. It encourages a high degree of investment in the community. In competitive neighborhoods, property values are tied to education, encouraging the parallel growth in libraries, kids’ sport’s organizations, parks, and other services.

It also encourages families to invest a great deal of effort in making their school choice successful. Parents are reluctant to pick up and move at the slightest sign of displeasure, creating stability and inspiring collaboration. The model encourages a community to take an interest in quality schools, supported them in numerous intangible ways as well as financially.

The neighborhood choice model also feeds some serious problems, some of which are tied to the difficulty of evaluating educational quality. In the absence of empirical evaluation criteria schools are basically assessed on the testing success of their students. That success may (and in most cases probably does) have very little to do with the quality of the school and a great deal to do with the educational preparedness of the students and their families.

Without any reliable means of empirically assessing schools, our method of school choice acts as a sorting system pooling students by class and race. The kids with the greatest probability of success based on their parents’ education and income end up grouped together. This further complicates assessment, as the best prepared students find themselves in the “best” schools.

The system also feeds racial segregation. This is influenced at times by outright racism, but perhaps more often by the simple tendency to seek out the familiar. Almost sixty years after forced school segregation was outlawed, our schools are more segregated than they were in the 1960′s.

In principle, granting parents a broader freedom to choose their children’s public schools should encourage an accountability that is desperately lacking in public education. In many parts of the country public schools function as an expensive bureaucratic subsidy for teachers and administrators who cannot be held accountable, cannot be disciplined and cannot be fired. There are sections of the country, dogged by institutionally dysfunctional public schools, which probably have no hope for any relief without completely replacing the existing public school infrastructure.

That said, the kind of education reform that would break the stranglehold of public employee unions on failing public schools could threaten many of the finest values of our system. Like reckless chemotherapy, some proposed cures might kill the patient. Worse, killing the patient is the central goal of some of the forces in this debate. Which is a greater threat to kids, unions that use public schools as a political and financial host, or reformers hostile to any access to information that challenges their received beliefs?

Public school policy is a deeply unsatisfying subject in which there are no easy solutions and all of the options are dangerous. The time has come, however, to recognize that many of the outcomes we fear most from an expansion of school choice are already a daily reality for a huge percentage of the nation’s children.

Public schools must be more accountable for educational outcomes. Their performance should be more transparent. Schools must be given more incentive and discretion to experiment with new ways of operating. There is no credible way to accomplish these essential goals without giving parents the freedom to take their tax money to schools that best suit their needs.

The structure of such a system must be carefully devised in order to avoid creating even more unequal conditions, or developing a parallel system of Christian fundamentalist madrassas. We can only accomplish this goal by reaching a consensus on the basic values of our system and making an affirmative choice to put children’s futures at the highest priority.

*****

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Chris Ladd is a Texan who is now living in the Chicago area.  He is the founder of Building a Better GOP and has served for several years as a Republican Precinct Committeeman in DuPage County, IL, and was active in state and local Republican campaigns in Texas for many years. (Email: chrladd AT gmail DOT com)