Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Monday, May 7, 2012

Real Unemployment--Higher Than Reported


Even though "unemployment" statistics are reported as around the 8% range, real unemployment is significantly higher. The difference between the two rates are those who have stopped looking for work and those who are working only part-time. This is a healthy amount of people, some 22.8 million. We call these the "under-employed."


When so many people are under-employed, those people do not have money to spend on the extras that drive the economy.  70% of the economy is consumer spending and when a huge chunk of Americans are unable to spend beyond the basics, this has got to hurt the economy badly. No wonder that it has not really recovered. 

Jobs are the answer however, we see nothing coming in the future that will change the dire straits that we are now seeing. This economy will not recover until a sizable piece of these 22.8 million again are working full time and can once again start spending on things that are not basics.

One thing this recession has shown many bosses is that they do not need as many employees as they had prior to 2008.  We were speaking to a shop owner who used to employ 8 CNC grinder operators. They are now putting out as much work with 6 employees. Their profits are up and they will not be rehiring those other two operators again. We do not believe their experience is out of the ordinary.

Additionally, many jobs have gone overseas and most of those will not come back to these shores. So where are we going to get the jobs to help these 22.8 million?  We hope that you do not say "the government should hire them"  because that would be the wrong answer. We suspect there should be some meaningful job incentive offered such as a tax credit which would significantly cut the expense of adding a new employee.  We need to encourage employment but it has to be more than a short-term incentive. We would suggest it be tied to real unemployment and not the government massaged unemployment numbers we hear the Administration touting.

Conservative Tom

P.S. We have previously written about the "numbers" which the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports.  We believe they are being massaged to send a better message for the Administration.  Certain "adjustments" can be taken to make things look better and most of the public will miss the detail and only focus on the reported numbers.  We have a fun bet with one of our loyal readers which is that the "reported" unemployment numbers will be in the 5-6% range by the first of November.  We will see. What is your opinion?



‘Real’ Unemployment Rate Remains at 14.5 Percent

Jobs wanted
A protester in Muskegon, Michigan last December. (Greg Lindstrom/The Muskegon Chronicle/AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) – The “real” unemployment rate – a broader, more inclusive measure of the country’s jobless picture than the one usually used – remained unchanged at 14.5 percent in April, as the economy created a paltry 115,000 jobs.
Known formally as the U-6 unemployment rate, this measure includes those formally counted as unemployed, those known to be marginally attached to the workforce, and those who are working part-time because they cannot find full-time work.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the U-6 unemployment rate remained flat in April at 14.5 percent – meaning some 22.8 million people are either unemployed, have stopped looking for work, or need full-time work but can only find part-time employment.
The U-6 rate is considered to be a more accurate measure of the unemployment picture because it includes a broader sample of those affected by poor economic conditions. By including both unemployed persons and those marginally attached, this measure captures people the BLS would normally count as out of the workforce.
Being marginally attached to the workforce means that a person is not employed and has not looked for a job in the past month – but would accept a job if any were available. The measure best captures people who are available to work but who have given up looking for a job.
The government does not count these people as officially unemployed because they have not looked for work in the past month. They are usually deemed not to be in the labor force at all, and essentially disappear from the government’s survey of unemployment.
By counting people who can only find part-time work and including it in a measure of unemployment BLS is able to track what is known as underemployment – when someone is forced to work part-time because full-time work is unavailable.
This measure provides a deeper look into the relative weakness of the jobs market than that provided by the official unemployment rate because while these people are employed, they are not as productive as they could – and would like to – be.

Obama Viewed Less Favorably Worldwide


Even though he has bent over backwards to show the world that he is different, Obama's leadership favorablity rating has dropped worldwide. It proves the axiom that one must be true to your beliefs or people will think that you are a faker.   

As the world sees Obama's damage the leadership of the United States, it should be noted that they think  he is not the leader many thought he would be.  A job performance  drop over 10% in the past year (when measured by respondents in 116 countries) and much higher in Japan and Greece for example, is not a indicator of good leadership.  

We believe that he either has no core values or has hidden them from view due to how negatively Americans would view them. Either way, he comes off as someone who is disingenuous. 

Ronald Reagan had beliefs that many on the left viewed negatively, however, he lived those core ideas on a daily basis. He knew who he was and what he stood for and proudly trumpeted his beliefs when anyone would listen.  Obama does not. 

Obama, the uniter has become, Obama the divider. He divides us up like a cherry pie. He pits rich verses poor, religious against non-religious and white verses black verses brown. His policies destroys the middle class while he tries to extol their virtues. His advisers don't pay their taxes, yet he demands we all pay more. He bows to foreign leaders. He sends billions to Brazil to develop their oil fields and stops drilling here. He gave sweetheart deals to his union friends in the GM and Chrysler "bankruptcy" while destroying bankruptcy laws. He promised the Russians that he has more "flexibility" after the elections. We could continue on, but the list would be too long.

The world is catching on. Obama is not the man he sold America on in the 2008 elections.   Will US citizens wake up and sweep him from office?  We can only hope so.

Conservative Tom



Obama’s Leadership Losing Luster Abroad, Poll Shows

Obama in Berlin
As a presidential candidate, then Senator Barack Obama received a rapturous welcome when visiting Berlin, Germany in July 2008. A new poll finds that median approval for U.S. leadership under President Obama across 116 countries dropped from 47 percent to 43 percent between 2010 and 2011 (AP Photo/File)
(CNSNews.com) – People in many parts of the world viewed U.S. leadership under President Obama less favorably in 2011 than they did a year earlier, with a new poll showing Egypt, Argentina, Serbia and Iran accounting for the lowest approval rates in Africa, Latin America, Europe and Asia, respectively.
Only 19 percent of respondents in Egypt, 25 percent in Argentina, eight percent in Serbia and nine percent in Iran said they approved of the “job performance of the leadership of the U.S.” in 2011, according to the U.S.-Global Leadership Project poll, released by Gallup and the Meridian International Center.
Median approval ratings for America’s leadership under Obama across 116 countries surveyed in 2010 and 2011 dropped from 47 percent to 43 percent over that one-year period.
Looking at the period since he became president in 2009, the approval ratings dropped in many of the countries surveyed on all continents – in some cases significantly. The trend is most evident in the Americas, with Africa and Europe close behind.
The biggest declines over the 2009-2011 period were recorded in Slovenia (a 32 point drop since 2009), Mexico (-27 points), Panama (-27 points), Chad (-24 points) and Croatia (-21 points).
Other countries where approval dropped from 2009-2011 include Japan (-20 points), Uruguay (-20 points), Greece (-19 points), Chile (-18 points), Argentina (-17 points), Germany (-17 points), Afghanistan (-16 points), Tanzania (-14 points), Brazil (-14 points), Venezuela (-14 points), Colombia (-14 points), Niger (-14 points), South Africa (-13 points), Spain (-12 points), Egypt (-12 points), Ireland (-12 points), Uganda (-12 points), France (-10 points), India (-10 points), Canada (-10 points) and Kenya (-10 points).
“Although the image of U.S. leadership is showing some cracks in the third year of President Barack Obama’s presidency, it remains more positive worldwide than during the last years of the Bush administration,” the report said. “U.S. leadership ratings in 2011 failed to regain the momentum they lost in 2010, and instead remained static or retreated even more in some places.”
Among the findings of interest for the 2010-2011 period:
In Africa, median approval dropped 10 points, from 84 percent in 2010 to 74 percent last year.
The lowest rates were in North Africa, with Egypt, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia all recording less than 40 percent approval. The “Arab spring” revolution did not affect Egypt’s year-on-year scores, while in Tunisia the score rose eight points between 2010 and 2011. Libya, which also underwent a dramatic transition last year, was not among the countries surveyed.
In sub-Saharan Africa, approvals were generally high, ranging from 92 percent in Ghana to 63 percent in Chad.
The biggest drops in approval in Africa between 2010 and 2011 were recorded in Liberia (-25 points), Central African Republic (-21 points), South Africa (-18 points) and Cameroon (-18 points). Accounting for the largest increases in approval over that period were Mauritania and Tunisia (+8 points each).
In the Americas, median approval of U.S. leadership under Obama dropped from 46 percent in 2010 to 40 percent in 2011.
Approval rates of above 50 percent were recorded in only three out of 22 countries surveyed – Haiti, El Salvador and Canada.
Of the rest, Dominican Republic and Costa Rica were at the higher end of the scale, while Argentina and Mexico were at the bottom. Biggest losses in approval were in Panama (-24 points) and Chile (-21 points) while only two countries (Dominican Republic and Honduras) accounted for gains – of just one point each.
In Europe, median approval dropped from 45 percent in 2010 to 42 percent in 2011
U.S. leadership under Obama rated the lowest approval in Serbia, Belarus and Russia, and the highest in Kosovo, Albania and Ireland.
The gulf between approval rates in Kosovo (90 percent) and Serbia (eight percent) “likely reflects U.S. support for Kosovo’s independence from Serbia,” the report noted.
The biggest positive shifts in Europe came from Belgium (+15 points) and Britain (+13 points), while the biggest declines were recorded in Sweden (-15 points), France (-13 points) and Spain (-12 points).
In Asia, median approval of American leadership under Obama dropped slightly, 41 percent in 2010 to 39 percent last year.
Singapore, Cambodia and the Philippines topped the list for high approval rates, while Iran, the Palestinian Authority areas and India were at the low end of the scale.
The biggest drops in approval in Asia between 2010 and 2011 were recorded in Bangladesh (-17 points), Australia (-13 points) and Afghanistan (-12 points). The largest increases in approval over that period were in Cambodia (+11 points) and Pakistan (+8 points).

Friday, May 4, 2012

Palestinian Police Kill Unarmed Israelis


Read More About: , , 
Share This Post
 0
Relinquishing Joseph’s Tomb was supposed to be temporary
By Michael Freund
The Jerusalem Post, April 28, 2011
Earlier this week, an incident occurred that should have provoked outrage across the civilized world. In an act of wanton slaughter, Palestinian policemen opened fire at a convoy of Jewish worshipers near Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus on Sunday. The men had just recited morning prayers at the Jewish holy site in honor of Pessah, and were heading home to prepare for the end of the festival. But they never made it.
At a checkpoint near the tomb, our ostensible peace partners killed Ben-Yosef Livnat, 25, and wounded four other Israelis, one of them critically. Livnat, a nephew of Culture and Sport Minister Limor Livnat, left a wife and four young children. Even as the Israeli vehicles sought to escape, the Palestinian policemen reportedly continued to fire on them.
Although the IDF initially refrained from labeling the episode an “attack,” it’s clear that that is precisely what it was. And by Sunday evening, both Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were calling the shooting an act of “murder.”
Palestinian officials were quick to point out that the Israeli worshipers had failed to coordinate their visit in advance – as though that somehow justified shooting at them. But as Barak rightly noted: “No problem of coordination can justify an incident like this and the shooting of innocent people.”
Even though the identity of the perpetrators is known, none have been detained as of this writing. And given the Palestinian Authority’s track record in punishing those who attack Israelis, there is no reason to suspect that the policemen in question will be made to pay for their crime.
Needless to say, barely a peep was heard from the international community over this brazen assault on the fundamental right of Jews to worship freely. Just imagine what the reaction would have been had Palestinian worshipers leaving a mosque been attacked by Israeli policemen.. We all know how that would have gone down. But the hypocrisy on display should hardly come as a surprise. After all, the Palestinians have been targeting Joseph’s Tomb for years with impunity.
Who can forget October 7, 2000, when Palestinian policemen and Fatah terrorists launched a coordinated assault on the Israeli soldiers guarding the site? After then-prime minister Barak ordered the army to withdraw, a Palestinian mob went on a rampage. Brandishing sledge-hammers and other tools of tolerance, they demolished the tomb – one of the most sacred sites of the Jewish people. In subsequent years, after the structure was repaired, Palestinian vandals repeatedly ransacked and desecrated it.
The Palestinian conduct vis-à-vis the tomb is a clear violation of signed commitments. The Oslo II Accords, signed on September 28, 1995, spelled out specific arrangements concerning Joseph’s Tomb in Article V(2b) of Annex I, which were designed “to ensure free, unimpeded and secure access” to the site.
So much for relying on the Palestinians to keep their word.
The murder of Ben-Yosef Livnat cannot be allowed to pass without a forceful Israeli response. It is simply intolerable that an Israeli can be gunned down in cold blood by a Palestinian policeman.To begin with, Israel should arrest the gunmen who carried out this attack and bring them to trial before an Israeli court. There cannot and must not be immunity for those who murder Israeli citizens.
Moreover, it is time to correct the error made nearly 11 years ago, when Israel forsook this holy place. After the IDF withdrew, the Israeli public was assured that the step was not permanent, but merely a tactical move dictated by the situation on the ground. Just hours after the retreat, the website of Yediot Aharonot reported: “Israel pulls out of Joseph’s Tomb – ‘Temporarily.’” But here we are, more than a decade later, and the tomb still remains “temporarily” abandoned by the Jewish state, in what has become a mark of shame for our nation.
Israel should annex the site, forever restoring it to our exclusive control. And measures should be taken to ensure that Jews can visit safely whenever they wish. As of now, Israelis are allowed to visit once or twice a month, under cover of darkness, like thieves in the night. No nation with even a modicum of dignity would allow such a situation to persist at the tomb of one of its founding fathers.
So let’s put an end to this disgrace. Doing so will send a strong message to our foes, underlining once and for all that the Jewish people will neither cower nor flee. It is time to raise the Israeli flag over Joseph’s Tomb and reclaim this site, and with it, our self-respect as well.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Deneen Borelli Outstanding Black Woman


Months ago, we promised to bring to your attention black conservatives who think for 

themselves and are willing to say so proudly.  We had never heard of Deneen Borelli 

until we read the accompanying piece by J. Christian Adams, however, after reading

the article, we see the reason she was interviewed.  

We Conservatives must encourage all minorities to come over to our way of thinking

as it is in the country's best interests. Men and women like Deneen must be supported 


 by spreading their message. Talk to your friends about her book and if you  

like it, buy it.

Take a few minutes to read about her, it will be time well spent.

Conservative Tom

PJ Media Interviews Blacklash Author Deneen Borelli About Race, Obama and Hockey

May 2, 2012 - 2:44 pm - by J. Christian Adams
Deneen Borelli is a dangerous woman. Her new book, Blacklash, How Obama and the Left are Driving Americans to the Government Plantation, provides an unapologetic portrait of how government dependency has destroyed initiative, and the family unit, in much of black America.
Borelli is dangerous in the same way Sarah Palin is dangerous, or any of the other counter-symbols to left-wing orthodoxy.  As a black conservative, with a sharp wit and courage to speak out, she is a beacon to others who might otherwise be too timid to break out of the confines of racial expectations.
Blacklash tells the story of how one woman who happened to be black also happened to be conservative.  With race playing such a central role in our national discourse, Borelli presents a dangerous symbol to a president who will need extraordinary racial cohesion to win re-election.  Beyond the symbolism, her message is even more lethal to the left: being a racial minority does not mean you have to think a certain way.
ADVERTISEMENT
I had the opportunity to interview Borelli aboutBlacklash for PJ Media.
Adams:  You’re a fan of the New York Rangers and follow the Stanley Cup playoffs.  After Joel Ward of the Washington Capitals scored the series winning goal against the defending champs this week, he was subjected to vile online racial taunts.  “Gorilla” was one of the more mild slurs Boston Bruins fans used.  What does this say about the racial expectations you write about in Blacklash, both in the sense of “keeping people” in familiar places because of their skin color and, perhaps more importantly, that real racism is not confined to red states and the deep south?
Borelli: Yes, I love hockey and for many years my husband and I were season ticket holders for the New York Rangers. There is nothing more exciting than a Stanley Cup playoff game in Madison Square Garden. We have many fantastic memories of exciting games including Wayne Gretzsky’s last game and retirement ceremony. That was an amazing experience!
The comments made about Ward are clearly uncalled for and extremely inappropriate. Unfortunately, social media, especially Twitter, has become a venue for venting outrageous personal attacks about individuals. Like Ward, I’ve also been a target of personal attacks and name calling.
However, name calling is not going to stop me from promoting my views about liberty and I’m sure it’s not going to stop Ward from playing hockey and scoring goals.
Finally, I do not believe that those comments are representative of the vast majority of Boston Bruin fans or hockey fans in general. It’s a shame that a vocal few can tarnish the image of hockey fans and a city.
Adams: In the cases I brought under the Voting Rights Act, you would often see white voter cohesion at about sixty percent in racially polarized elections (meaning 60 percent of whites voted the same way), but black voter cohesion would be around ninety percent, or higher, and the cases were brought to reward blacks with a minority majority seat in a legislative body.  Could you describe the cultural, economic and political influences you write about in Blacklash that produce these astounding levels (90 percent) of racial block voting?
Borelli: Clearly, the overwhelmingly black support for Democrat politicians has not served the black community well. The condition of blacks in Detroit, Los Angeles and Harlem speak for themselves.  Far too many blacks see the government as an ally and become dependent on social services and liberal black politicians, like drug dealers, are more than happy to keep this population addicted to government services and dependent.  This system keeps the politician in power and too many blacks dependent on one party. Monopolies are bad for consumers and voters.
Contributing to the voting monopoly is the lack of diversity in media reaching blacks – it’s an echo chamber of liberal themes and messages including inaccurate claims about conservative and Tea Party goals. Tragically, there is no counter communications effort and I’m hoping Blacklash could be the start to break the monopoly of thought in the black community.
The Republican Party should also be held accountable for conceding this voting bloc, because they don’t try to reach blacks even though most blacks have conservative values.
Adams: In Blacklash, you compare the theology of the churches you attend with Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s sermons.  Do you think Barack Obama was entirely “clued in” to the messaging and racial hostility from Wright’s pulpit, and why is Wright’s particular theology so dangerous?
Borelli: I’ve attended Christian church services my entire life and I never heard any Baptist or Methodist minister or Catholic priest say anything as outrageous as Wright. I find it hard to believe that President Obama, who heard Wright’s sermons for many years, was unaware of Wright’s warped version of Christian teachings. Obama has a pattern of associating with radicals and Wright is just another example.
Adams: In Blacklash, you compare the modern civil rights movement with the noble efforts of the 1950s and 1960s.  I touch on this in my book Injustice also.  I am always struck by the images of the movement from that time – coats and ties, Sunday best, etc. – but also the messages of individual dignity, self-reliance and the expectation that one’s actions and character determine success.  After great victories from that era, something went wrong with the movement – what caused it?
Borelli: I’m awed at the courage and conviction of Dr. King and the other civil rights leaders of that time. Their cause was based in morality and their call for justice was executed with Dr. King’s brilliant strategy of peaceful demonstrations. Tragically, the movement veered off course after the assassination of Dr. King because the void wasn’t filled with another selfless leader.  Those that followed Dr. King and invoked his name became self-centered and focused on money and power instead of a righteous cause.
Adams: Are conservatives and Republicans usually too cowardly to confront racial issues head-on and articulate a competing narrative, and if so, how damaging is that surrender?
Borelli: Most conservatives by nature are not activists and they tend to think that the facts will speak for themselves. Accordingly, too many conservatives think that the black community will naturally recognize the major role Republicans played in promoting equal rights for blacks since the founding of the Republican Party. This passive approach toward the black community resulted in a huge voting bloc for the Democrat Party.
The Tea Party is the activist arm of the conservative movement and it’s adding a much needed advocacy arm to advance limited government policies. As a frequent speaker at Tea Party rallies and events, I’m encouraged by the sincere interest these activists have in trying to reach blacks with the attributes of limited government and liberty. In fact, the most asked question I get at these events is how we can recruit more blacks in our movement.
I believe Blacklash can be used as a way to reach many members of the black community. Blacks need role models and examples of American exceptionalism and my life’s journey from a Democrat to conservative activist provides a compelling example.
Adams: You write in Blacklash of the race hustlers like Jesse Jackson shaking down corporate America, exchanging cash for racial peace.  You criticize particular corporations.  Do you know of any corporations which have had the fortitude to stand up to Jackson’s crowd and tell them to pound sand?
Borelli: Sadly, corporate America is the punching bag of the liberal activists including Jackson. Corporate executives would rather pay the ransom than stand on principle. I’ve witnessed Jackson’s antics at shareholder meetings and encouraged management to reject his claims of racial bias.
Recently, Van Jones’ former group Color of Change’s intimidation tactics forced major companies such as Kraft, Coke and PepsiCo to end their membership with the American Legislative Exchange Council by threatening boycotts of their company’s products.
Unless corporate America finds a spine, black activists will continue to loot publicly traded companies.
Adams: I heard people inside the Justice Department excuse the New Black Panthers, and you write about them in Blacklash.  Why are some people willing to dismiss the significance of groups like the Panthers but at the same time rail against white hate groups? Why the disconnect?
Borelli: Hate groups of any color should be denounced by all political, religious and community leaders.  This is not a matter of liberal or conservative beliefs but a matter of right vs. wrong.
Unfortunately, the New Black Panthers are avoiding condemnation because Eric Holder’s Department of Justice seems to have a color coded justice system and because the liberal media fails to pursue this hate group like they should.  The failure of black leaders including President Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP to condemn the statements of hate from the New Black Panthers relating to the Trayvon Martin tragedy is deplorable.
Adams: What has the minimum wage done to the black community?
Borelli: The consequence of the minimum wage has been harmful to the black community. It’s a contributing factor to the high unemployment rate among blacks, especially the outrageously high unemployment among black teens, which has been reported to be about 40 percent.
Adams: You write “just because someone is black doesn’t mean they have your interest at heart.”  Is this really a widespread assumption in the community, that skin color is so revealing?
Borelli: Unfortunately, some blacks unconditionally follow black politicians and community activists such as Rangel, Sharpton and Jackson without regard to these individuals’ self-serving agendas. The problem is these individuals have a monopoly on the messages in the black community, especially in urban areas. There is no competition for thought or leadership so these individuals can and in many ways do get away with anything.
As I write in Blacklash, President Obama’s policies have been horrible for blacks. Obama’s energy policy, for example, is designed to raise the price of our traditional forms of energy which functions as a regressive tax on low- and fixed-income hard-working Americans.
Adams:  Regarding the corruption of Representative William Jefferson, you say of the Congressional Black Caucus, “it’s showing it’s true color, and it’s not black.  It is the color of arrogance, entitlement, and invincibility that is not race based but bred from years of not being held accountable for their actions.”  Why are they not held accountable, and in what context beyond Jefferson?
Borelli: The Congressional Black Caucus’ (CBC) single focus on progressive policies has not served the needs of the black community. The members of the CBC are not being held accountable because the black constituents in the congressional districts have a group think mentality and unfounded allegiance to their congressmen. Because there is no competition from a different way of thinking or a new approach to stubborn problems, the CBC member can and frequently do get away with anything, including ethics violations.
Adams:  What would Frederick Douglass think of Al Sharpton?
Borelli: I believe Douglass would strongly oppose Sharpton’s message of victimization and government dependency for blacks. Even though Frederick Douglass personally suffered the horrors of slavery, he rose above that terrible experience to promote equality and equal opportunity for blacks through education and hard work but not through special treatment. Douglass was an advocate of self-help as the means to individual independence and self-reliance. In contrast, Sharpton propagates the myth that blacks need special treatment and government support for social advancement.
Adams: What do you hope to accomplish with Blacklash and your work?  Do you want to give hope to five to twenty percent of blacks who might tend to be conservative, or do you think something bigger is realistic?  Is it enough to crack the ideological monopoly, or is more possible?
Borelli: I want to use Blacklash as way to shatter the black establishment’s monopoly of power and thought in the black community. Taking advantage of liberty is the answer to social advancement in America and not government dependence.
My life story is a great example of America’s exceptionalism where anyone can succeed without regard to family name, heritage or money. I’m a nationally recognized pubic figure as a result of hard work and determination, not from my family’s wealth or connections. I hope to inspire blacks, especially young individuals, that with hard work and perseverance the sky is truly the limit.
Adams: I heard your interview about Trayvon Martin on the Sean Hannity radio show with Jesse Jackson’s daughter unwilling to condemn the New Black Panthers.  You were frustrated, and said to Sean, “See, this is what I put up with.”  Could you elaborate about the frustration?
Borelli: I found the resistance of Ms. Jackson to denounce the outrageous comments of the New Black Panthers appalling. I believe her failure to condemn hate speech exposes the real agenda of so-called black leaders is to escalate racial tensions so they can retain power and relevance.
Adams: In Blacklash you publish some of the hate directed toward you.  Since the book has been published, can you update us with the worst hate you’ve received about the book, and tell us why it is important that people see it?
Borelli: Following Blacklash, there remains much of the same negative feedback from some. I’ve been called a sellout, black Tom puppet, slave to money, HOUSE NIGGA, self-hating Auntie Tomasina, a joke and a prostitute for Fox, and I should kill myself.
But the vast majority of comments have been very positive. My book signings have been an especially rewarding experience where I’m warmly greeted by fans and supporters. Importantly, I’ve been contacted by a number of blacks via social media who are extremely excited about the book and very supportive of my message of liberty.