In Denver, Colorado on July 2, 2008, a group of about 100 Christian Conservative leaders gathered to discuss the current political atmosphere. I attended this conference and sat on one of its panels to discuss political, social, and economic issues. The next day the press began its coverage and got most of the facts correct. 

The Associated Press headline read, “Conservative evangelicals discuss backing McCain.” Times/CNN: “Christian Conservatives Uniting Behind McCain.” The Los Angeles Times reported “Religious right starts to consolidate for John McCain.” Also the World News Daily headlined “Evangelicals say McCain’s the one.”

 What was not reported was the heated, honest discussion over the current direction of this country and what to do about it. You cannot get 100 unaffiliated leaders together without conflict, emotions, and venting. Many attendees have large followings and influences worldwide. Some could call on political policy makers to push their own agenda and opinions. What the press did not report on was that after the long hours of speeches, nominations, discussions, and even disagreements, the conclusion was met with camaraderie and support. 

I did not meet anyone there whose first choice for President was John McCain, but he was the choice of most who left that room. It was said that the process of Christian political leaders to choose their leaders should have started immediately after the 2000 election. It was clear that Dick Cheney would not be running in 2007, so we should have chosen our nominee and supported him early. We will not make that mistake again.

 While no one group or individual championed the meeting, it was obviously called and attended by those who supported Mike Huckabee for President. After all, it was a Christian political meeting. Mike Huckabee was in the hotel the night before, but did not attend this meeting, and I did not see him in the hotel during the meeting. However, I did speak with him the night before, and he seemed relaxed about the idea of supporting the Republican ticket and had genuine, solid ideas on why John McCain was the only sane choice now. I think his presence there, speaking to so many of his followers and supporters, made the choices on the following day much easier. Supporting John McCain was no longer seen as the group turning their backs on their first choice, Mike Huckabee. 

However, Mike Huckabee’s appearance at the hotel did raise some questions. Did Mike Huckabee approve the support of John McCain? Did Mike Huckabee ask for our support and pressure for the second position on the ticket? I know when the press learns of the appearance of Mike Huckabee at the hotel the day before this event, there will be speculation about his motives. So let me give you my personal, first hand views.

I suppose if any politician was in the same hotel for another reason but found a hundred of his most loyal and financial supporters, he would stop by and say hello to a few of them. That happened the evening before in a private suite. It was not a reception for Mike Huckabee, but he was certainly the star there. He did not give a speech, nor did he discuss the Vice-Presidential position in the suite. What he did talk about were his values, love for his country, and obedience to God. I stayed until he left and spoke to him several times, and I did not get the impression that he knew about the meeting that would follow the next day. However any reasonable person would assume he knew.

However, at the meeting, one of his supporters did come up with idea of sending a letter to John McCain to request Mike Huckabee be added to the ticket. That motion came at the end of the evening and seemed quiet arbitrary and a spur of the moment addition to the conversation. It was a second thought to a comment, and became a motion.

 I know some will wonder if it was an attempt of the “Religious Right” to force Mike Huckabee’s name onto the ticket. It would have been a brilliant move, and I would have supported it; but, I do not think it happened that way. John McCain will get the support of the Christian political leaders, but Mike Huckabee will always have their hearts.

When I was a young boy growing up in Saint Louis Missouri, I was aware of many of the “first” by black people. I remember my adult relatives calling out in excitement of seeing a black person on “American Band Stand” or a game show. I can recall the details of the first black person going to college or getting a high profile job. Every black child growing up in the 1950s remember Congressman  Adam Clayton Powell of New York.

Occasionally, I would catch myself daydreaming about being the first black person to achieve something important. And as every black person, I thought what it would be like to see a black man as president. I did not know much about politics as a child but I knew a lot about race. It seemed important to me that a black man achieve this level. It was important for my family and my race. It was important for everyone around me. 

We thought a black President would change how black people thought about themselves and how white people thought about us. We thought  black President would stop the police brutality housing discrimination and joblessness.

That was childish “symbolism” of the 1950s and I out grew it. In the 1960s I became a teenager and was living in a rural white community. I no longer look forward to seeing the first black do something, I had to become the first black to achieve many of the things I wanted out of life.

Growing up around those white children taught me a lot about white America. Some were nice some were mean, some were smarter than me and some were not. They were not magical, superior creatures, they were just kids like me. I played sports, some were better and some were not. I studied my lessons and I socialized. I learned that the greatest difference between us teenagers were our morals. Some looked at life as an opportunity to take from someone others looked at it as an opportunity to give. As I began to determined my own morals and started to associate with similar people, I found my views of my world begin to change.

It no longer mattered if we had a black President or not. The President did not represent my race. He really would not stop discrimination, I would have to. The white teenagers who had the same morals as I, banded together with others like ourselves and with the like minded adults, changed the world. It was not because we had a good President, it was because we were good people.

I learned that I had to represent me. I had to stop the discrimination. I had to open opportunities for myself and for my family. By not waiting for a leader to lead me, I began to take charge of my own future. Sure I found many people did not like my new style and self confidence, so what? Others wanted me to fail for their own reasons, so what? I had to achieve because it was up to me.

However, many people did not have that mind set. Many never developed that personal confidence in their own future. Some kept and grew the impression that their plight in life was the fault and responsibility of others. These are the people who supports Barrack Hussein Obama today, simply because he would be the first black President. Obama’s polices does not matter to them. He will lift the burdens off their lives, he will make the bullies of life leave them alone. Obama represents the great equalizer. This is the real hope he presents.

White voters and black voters who have been depending upon symbolic representation are idolizing Obama as the great equalizer. It does not matter what comes out about him or what he does, they will only support him more. I understand that mentality and no longer try to challenge it or persuade it. The only hope is for us to show up on election day and out vote them. 

YOU REST…WE WILL KEEP WATCH!

(Above photos taken by Mason Weaver) all rights reserved Mason Media Company.

These photos were taken on Point Loma (San Diego CA) a few years back. I noticed the military graves over looking San Diego Bay. Below the hill was the military base and across the bay is San Diego City. I stood there and watched the Naval Ships slip into the bay. It is comforting to know the last resting place for so many warriors have a constant view of the American Flag being flown over our base and ships.

Have a memorable Memorial Day!

Hillary Clinton is an Expert on “The Plantation!”

By Mason Weaver

www.MasonWeaver.com

Hillary Clinton has compared her battle for the white house with historical battles over civil rights and women rights. As a black conservative and author of “It’s OK to Leave the Plantation”, I understand why Hillary Clinton used the plantation as a symbol in her struggle for votes. Hillary Clinton’s use of the word “Plantation” in past speeches and  “slavery” more recently, was appropriate for the Democratic Senator from New York. As a member of the Democratic Party, Clinton is an expert on Plantation management and the Plantation Mentality.

It was the Democratic Party that fought to keep slavery legal, supported the South during the Civil War, and supported the formation of the Ku Klux Klan. It was the Democratic Party that passed the Fugitive Slave Act, Black Codes, Missouri Compromise, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. It was the Democratic Party that implemented the Plantation Management programs disguised as Anti-Poverty programs. 

We should all sit at the feet of Hillary Clinton and learn from her how to build and manage non-productive schools, how to force the black man out of the family with welfare programs, how to raise the “poverty tax” on a community with gangs and drugs, and how to increase the illegitimate birth rate among teenagers. Stop criticizing when the expert speaks; remain silent and learn. 

There is a lot that Hillary Clinton can teach us about the Plantation. She can teach us how to get 13% of the population to commit 44% of the abortions. Listen to her and learn how to incarcerate 40% of the males under your control. And of course, her political party understands why Midnight Basketball is more important than Midnight Libraries.

The reason Hillary accused others of being like a plantation is because Hillary and the Democratic Party do not like competition. Slave management has always been the domain of the Democrats. They will always be the party to go to for benefits in poverty, never freedom from poverty. The democratic party of Senator Clinton knows that poor, frightened people vote Democratic. She will always support more comfort in your poverty; just make sure not to advocate leaving her plantation.

Just like the days of old, Hillary represents the kind, gentle slave master. She thinks her slaves love her as she takes care of them. She thinks she is a great woman because, on her plantation, slaves have government cheese programs, minimum wages, and low income houses. What her slaves will never have is freedom!

If you want to learn about freedom you will never learn it from Senator Clinton. Senator Hillary Clinton is an expert on slavery, not freedom. It took escaped slaves going North to explain the true horrors of Hillary’s plantation. That journey started the Underground Railroad and it ended with freedom. Today, black conservatives are leaving the mental slavery of Hillary’s plantation and are going to freedom again. Do not forget, on the plantation there was a 100% employment rate. There were minimum wages (as ‘minimum’ as possible). The plantation had universal healthcare to keep the slaves alive just long enough to get the cotton in. The plantation had Master’s housing, food, clothing, and even a plan to take care of the babies made by the slaves. Just like inter city public schools today, the plantation was only interested in teaching slave children to work for Master. It never taught about freedom and how to obtain it.

As a leading member of the slave party, we will never hear her talk about maximum wage or high income housing. We will only hear about managing misery. She is the wise expert, and we should pay attention.

It was the Republican Party that gave us Women’s Suffrage after decades of Democratic foot dragging. If it was not for the Republican takeover of Congress in 1920, women would not have the right to vote. Hillary should thank the Republican Party, because it was them who made her career possible. Hillary thinks black people and women are her pets, and that they need shelter, food and training. Good for you Hillary - teach us more about your plantation.

 Mason Weaver is a motivational speaker. MasonWeaver@MasonWeaver.com

I have been watching the meteoric run of Barrack Hussein Obama for the past few months. It seems obvious that his strength is not in his stance on policy but in the collective American imagination. His victories have come from the imagination of people looking for others to improve their lives. This will make Barrack Hussein Obama harder to beat because, albeit imaginary, he is leading a movement.

Just as Ronald Reagan led a conservative movement, Barrack Hussein Obama is leading an emotional movement. Reagan lead a revolution based upon conservative principles, which were clearly outlined and defined. That movement was founded on the ideas of smaller government, lower taxes, and a strong national stance against communism. Barack Hussein Obama’s movement is based upon imagination and daydreaming about what “hope” means to the individual.

This will make him much harder to defeat because ‘hope’ springs eternal. He has tapped into the cry for help so many utter when they think of their own lives. Even though their personal views may not line up with reality, people vote based upon their perception, not based upon the facts. In order to better understand Barack Hussein Obama we should look at the persuasive power of emotional leaders of the past.

Leaders of great movements have the ability to identify with the problem, real or imagined, of those being led. Bill Clinton had, “I feel your pain” when he ran for President; Barack Hussein Obama offers ‘hope’ that the pain will go away. It does not matter if the pain is in the imagination of the masses - it only matters that they feel the pain.

Reverend Jeremiah Wright has recently made national news with his inflammatory comments, and in the process has introduced America to the phrase “Liberation Theology.” What is Liberation Theology? Is it a new Gospel? Is it comparable to any other theology? This phrase and the philosophy behind it are the remnants of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. Its logical place would be the black church.

The Civil Rights Movement had to begin in the black church because that was where all past organization and motivation for oppressed black people came from. On the plantation, one of the few places for blacks to meet without being watched by white slave managers was Sunday morning church service.  It was also where slaves could have leaders that they chose instead of those chosen by Master. The preacher was one of the few slaves who could approach Master on behalf of other slaves to address grievances.

Thus, the slave preacher was usually in the forefront of the Underground Railroad Movement. He  coordinated with other Christians from the North based upon a common faith and a common theology. Christians like Harriett Beecher Stowe, John Brown, the Quaker church, and the Wesleyan Church worked with Christians like Harriett Tubman to publicly denounce slavery and help slaves escape. On the other hand, you also had the militant slave preachers like Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner who lead revolts and rebellions.

It was a Christian movement which eventually pushed this country to tear itself apart to end the institution of slavery. Then came discrimination as “Separate but equal”, and again, it was the Christian church that lead the way with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Christian Leadership Conference, and the thousands of black churches in black communities throughout America organizing, educating, and strategizing to confront this threat to liberty and dignity.

I was a young man in the 1960s, and while I serving in the Navy a white racist shipmate dropped 2,800 pounds of metal on me in an attempt to kill me. I became permanently disabled and continue to face physical struggles. I went through radical and angry responses and found a solution which worked for me and may work for the rest of America. It was racial forgiveness. Not racial “restoration” and not “liberation theology. It was an old theology called “Forgiveness.” As a Christian, what other resolution was there? What other response could I give?

I could have demanded an apology, special treatment, or punishment for the perpetrator. However, if I demanded anything from anyone, I would be dependent upon them. If I was going to be free, I would have to act like a free man. First, I had to totally forgive the hatred and attempted murder. I had to forgive whatever contributing factor I placed upon my country and white people. The real “Liberation Theology” was not new; it was very old - it was the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The “New Civil Rights Movement” has hijacked the Gospel and twisted it to suit themselves. They have taken the philosophy of forgiveness and turned it into a total acceptance of every lifestyle and belief system possible. They have developed a new philosophy called “Tolerance”, meaning to hold everyone’s beliefs to equal standing with your own beliefs. Not just acceptance of others’ right to hold different beliefs, this new philosophy of Tolerance requires you to view their beliefs as of equal value to yours. It requires a change in your beliefs to tolerate others. This requires you to have no beliefs.

So, Reverend Wright can be a Christian minister and accept beliefs of Farrakhan as equal to his Christian beliefs. He can accept abortions as equal to his Christian faith, and he can believe poverty is caused by government action not individual action.

Reverend Wright could build a great church because the masses love to be taken care of and his passion for their plight gives them hope. I found that real hope lies in the total forgiveness of my Christian faith, and it has truly liberated me from the anger, frustration, and hatred of the past. I went on with my life and have achieved some levels of success, especially in my Christian walk. So, I do not need a Black Liberation Theology. I no longer belong to the black race; I belong to the race of Christ.

I was blessed when Dr. D. James Kennedy produced a biography of my life for his television program, “The Coral Ridge Hour.” It highlights my struggle with the anger and how I found complete release. As this nation struggles with past and present wrongs, this message may help us all adjust. Instead of punishment, reparation, or guilt, let’s try forgiveness.

In the 1940s black men and white men (like Reverend Wright) went to war to fight for the freedom of others, and then came back to America to face discrimination at home. White and black people joined hands again for a new push for civil rights. They took down Poll Taxes, fought against illiteracy, and again, worked for the dignity of all men.

This was the era of Reverend Wright. He and I grew up in the middle of that America, and it formed our views of America. I also joined the military, I also faced open hostility from white America, and I also went on to a radical response to that hostility. However, I came to a profoundly different conclusion about my country and the proper response to these problems. The fight for freedom was just, but the response to being free has not always been justified.

Once World War II ended, the “war industry” disassembled and returned to the actions of community building. People went back to their lives and began to build families, culture, and careers. However, when the Civil Rights Era of the 1960s and 1970s was won, the Civil Rights “industry” did not disassemble, but redirected itself to other areas because there is a lot of money, influence, and power in addressing “problems.” So, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, and the others could not maintain their status as advocates for the MOVEMENT unless the movement continued. You will never see them celebrate the achievements of America. You will never hear them praise the accomplishments of the individual. Furthermore, you cannot expect them to acknowledge the great progress America has made in racial equality. They are crisis managers, so they cannot get paid if there are no crises.

After the Civil War, 360,000 white men had been killed on the Union side. They died fighting their brothers and cousins to free strangers. That was the original “apology for slavery” everyone is crying for today. Those that remained alive returned home and started families while the former slaves dealt with the newness of freedom. Slaves did not blame America for slavery, and despite today’s call for “forty acres and a mule”, most blacks did not expect much from the government. The call for Civil Rights was a call for personal freedom and protection, not government control and management. I did not fight for the right to be managed by America; I fought for my God-given right to participate in the America dream.

To view the Coral Ridge Hour program featuring Mason Weaver, see “The Power of Forgiveness” on my web sight http://americanbeliefs.com/media.html

Barack Hussein Obama recently stated that he “prays to Jesus, not to Allah!” – read the story here: http://www.nypost.com/seven/03032008/news/nationalnews/smeared_o_has_cross_words_100255.htm. I would love to ask him to explain who Jesus is, and then compare his version to the Jesus of the Bible. I cannot ask him personally, so I will ask all of you who are Christians - especially Black Christians - to consider something else he has said about the Jesus and the Bible. Obama has declared the Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount gives approval for same sex marriage. He made this statement in Ohio last weekend. Hear the audio here: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080303b.html.For all of you black folks who support Barack Hussein Obama because he is a black man, how does his belief about Jesus affect your vote? There is something else he said during that speech you may find fascinating. Not only did he use the Sermon on the Mount to justify his support for same-sex marriage, but he also declared a passage in the first chapter of Romans, which condemns homosexuality, to be OBSURE, and dismissed it! Barack Hussein Obama said, “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.” Now, ask yourself a question: even with the liberal, God hating press trying to convince you to leave your Bibles at home when you vote, how can you get your mind around this justification to support same-sex marriage? You can say it is just his opinion; but, isn’t it his opinion about your Jesus?

This is a challenge to your faith. Do you believe the Bible has obscure passages? Barrack Hussein Obama seems to be saying the you cannot read the Bible for yourself, he must determine which passages are important and which are obscure. You cannot make up your own mind he must make it up for you? I challenge the Christians of America to believe God not Barack Hussein Obama. Here is what Romans says in Chapter One, Verse 26: “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” This is not a matter of interpretation; it is a matter of redirection. He is using the Bible because we are still a Christian nation. His beliefs are based upon his flesh, not his spirit. He wants to be president and needs to assure us that his position is near our own. But do you believe that the Bible supports same-sex marriage? Does your pastor preach that the Sermon on the Mount approves homosexual relations? Are you Christians willing to turn your back on Jesus just to find “hope”? Is there hope without Jesus? So, what we have here is Barrack Hussein Obama who appears to be so wise that he can not only interpret Biblical passages, but determine which passages are relevant and which are OBSCURE. I just want to know; is your blackness is stronger than your faith? I just want to know if you can support a man who so easily redirects the truth of the Bible to justify something as anti-Biblical as same-sex marriage. I just want to know if you will stand up for Jesus or stand up for Barack Hussein Obama. You cannot do both.

HOPE! Bill Clinton claimed to be from Hope, Arkansas, Jessie Jackson wants to “Keep Hope Alive,” and Obama has the “Audacity of Hope“. Has anyone noticed the call for hope, but not for experience? Obama is a very Junior Senator who only qualifies for the Presidency by being “hopeful.“ And Hillary Clinton’s experience came from sleeping with Bill Clinton in the White House; well, who hasn’t? This political season has sparked new interest from all kinds of people across the board, so the political novice may not have noticed the prospects of the third party spoilers on the horizon. I wanted to make an observation about the effects the third party candidates will have on this election.It is clear that New York city Mayor Bloomberg and Green Peace Party candidate Ralph Nader will change the political prospects for both the Democratic and Republican parties, but how, and for whom?

Today, Mayor Bloomberg announced that he would not seek the Presidency after two years of widespread speculation - this came on the heels of Ralph Nader’s announcement two days ago that he would seek the Presidency as a Green Party Candidate.

IS THERE A LINK? Yes, there is!

Michael Bloomberg is a democrat who changed party affiliations to run for mayor of the city of New York. He could not win as a democrat, and he knew that his billionaire status would please the Republican Party, who develops a rash every time they need to raise cash for a strong candidate. The party leaders would sleep with a dead camel if the camel could raise his own money.

Bloomberg’s liberal policies and governmental style have not surprised most political observers; Michael Bloomberg is still a democrat, and Senator Hillary Clinton is from New York; she loves third party candidates.

Her husband, President Bill Clinton, won his first term because of the third party candidacy of Ross Perot. The Clinton’s have never won a national election with over 50% of the votes. Hillary would need a third party candidate to help overcome her very high negatives in the polls. She would need a strong third party candidate with the resources to get on ballots in all fifty states and the money to compete in those states. This candidate would not be able to raise money from traditional donors because of the negative effect the campaign would have for the party. Mayor Bloomberg is a billionaire and would have no problem in doing both.

As long as Hillary Clinton was presumed the nominee, Mayor Bloomberg was moving closer and closer to running as a third party candidate. His potential run would certainly take votes away from the republicans, especially if the candidate was a moderate like John McCain. Bloomberg’s run would certainly bleed support away from the republicans and strengthen Hillary Clinton’s enough to over come her negatives.

But as her campaigned weakens and the nomination drifts out of her reach, the probability of another democrat winning the nomination appears likely. So, the politically wise and very patient Hillary begins to look towards 2012 for a re-run to the nomination. If Barack Hussein Obama wins the democratic nomination but loses the general election, she would be the front runner again for 2012. The weak candidacies of Edwards, Biden, and the others would fail as they have always failed. It would take another unknown candidate (perhaps another person so obscure the Clinton’s did not include them in the hundreds of FBI files they supposedly obtained on allies and rivals) to run against her.

If Obama wins, he will also run for reelection in 2012, and Senator Clinton would then need to wait until 2016 for another run, surely against Obama’s Vice President. As I have said, she is wise. What Senator Clinton needs now is not Mayor Bloomberg, because he would only help Obama win. She needs someone to help the republicans win so she can run again in 2012. Enter stage far left, Ralph Nader.

Think about what a Ralph Nader candidacy would do to this race. He can criticize Barack Hussein Obama in ways Hillary could not. Already he has begun to take real shots at his policy. He can attack him on his liberal agenda in ways Hillary cannot touch. He does not have to apologize to the media for being insensitive; everyone knows Ralph Nader is insensitive. He also has his loyal followers who are as fanatical about their beliefs as Barack Hussein Obama’s followers are about this Utopia called “HOPE”. 

Ralph Nader’s run for the Presidency only benefits one person; Hillary Clinton. Maybe she is the smartest woman in America.

What Inspires a Leader to lead? My wife and I have been blessed to be acquainted with many world leaders and influential people. We have known benevolent foreign presidents that leads their people with a kind heart. We have know industry giants that have build great wealth by inspiring others to greatness. We have seen spiritual leaders that have a vision and can direct and define and entire culture. Then there is the uncommon leader that draws people to themselves and motivates them out of service to them.

I remember the very first time I met one of my many mentors I will call “Jack”, he was serving me. I was giving a speech near Palm Springs California and he came to hear me. It was not connected with his business and he only knew me as an author but he came anyway. After my speech we had questions and answer and this man stood up to let a room full of strangers know how much my book “The Rope” had done for him and his business. He was selling my books to this audience for me. He did not have to do that, he was going to get nothing out of doing it but he did it because he had the heart of a servant. That is the key of real success, developing the heart of a servant.

A few months later I was asked to speak at a function of “Jack’s” organization and meet his business partner “David” and their other leaders. It was at this meeting that I began to speculate on the characteristics of leadership. What made these guys go? What compiled them to continue long after they have reached every economical goal, every level of social prestige and the most satisfying lifestyle imaginable?

The answer clarified the evening before the main event began. “Jack” and “David” gathered with all their leaders behind the stage. They did not gather to agree on a strategy to increase their profits. They did not gather to determine how many people showed up to support them. They gathered to have prayer and to ask comfort over those seeking answers to the personal problems weighing them down.

As we stood there in a circle with both male and female leaders, I began to think about the characteristics’ of a successful person.You must have these characteristics long before you become successful because they must lead you like a beacon in the night. Backstage that evening I felt each one of those leaders would have rejoiced if someone from the audience had exploded their business to greater heights than anyone back stage. They would rejoice at the success of others.

I then had a moment to set down with “David” before I went on stage. Here is a man successful before coming to into this business. His motivation was not to provide more beautiful things for his wife, he understood there was nothing he could give her more beautiful than she already was. He was not trying to make more friends his level, of respect had guaranteed many friends. He was not trying to sell a few more products so he could be the biggest badness man in the business. Any conversation you had with “David” would leave you with an understanding of success. Success comes from serving others.

It does not matter if you are a surgeon ”David” or a migrant worker like “Jack”, the heart of a servant brought them successes of extraordinary levels.