This question was recently asked of me numerous times by White Americans, White Europeans, Black Americans, and others. The funny thing is that I have wondered this too. However, the interesting part about this question is the fact that people are asking it in the first place.

When I think about it, something must not be right. I don't recall ever hearing anyone ask what is an Italian American or German American. So why would anyone ask what is an African American?

I think the first aspect of my wonderment is that I can't seem to figure out how or when I (a year long tan American) stopped being identified as a Black American and started being identified as an African American. I'm sure someone has the answer.

Unfortunately, it is a little fuzzy to me and it seems to be a little fuzzy to others as well. For myself, I'm pretty sure it has something to due with some of my ancestors who probably came from the continent of Africa so long ago. I'm also pretty sure that it has something to do with people wanting to be politically correct. I'm not sure how politically correct it is since I'm a little fuzzy about its use. But, this is what I know.

First, I am an American that happens to be black with some ancestors who are more than likely from Africa.

Second, I recently met a man from Nigeria (a country on the continent of Africa) who is a US citizen. During our conversation, he informed me that he is an African American or more accurately said a Nigerian American. Needless to say, after he pointed out that he was an African American, I began to ponder the use of the term as it applies to me.

Third, I recently met a White American who lived in Africa for 15 years. Believing myself to be witty, I said, "Wow, you are an African American." I was not prepared for his response. He said, "That's funny because my 19 year old daughter speaks the language and considers herself an African American given that since the age of four Africa has been her home. Once again, I began to ponder the use of the term as it applies to me.

Fourth, some White Americans were born in Africa and consider themselves African Americans. Once again, I ponder.

Fifth, a White Frenchmen recently said to me that he has African friends in France and they simply don't understand why 4th and 5th generation Blacks in America are called and considered African Americans. Good question. As stated earlier, I continue to ponder.

So, based on what I know, the second aspect of my wonderment is that if I'm an African American then what in the world are all these other people. They all seem to think they are African Americans. To be honest, I don't mind sharing this identification but these other folks do make me ponder.

Although, I can't speak for everyone else, I'm perfectly happy with being identified as an American first who happens to have a year long tan (a.k.a. Black).

Right now, it doesn't seem that I have much of a say in what I am identified as other than the fact that I continue to ponder.

By: Kevin D. Moore
Copyright © 2007 Knowledge Driven & Moore LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Kevin D. Moore is the author of "Did You Ever Wonder Why Black People Do The Things They Do?" and is the President of Knowledge Driven & Moore LLC Knowledge Driven and Moore a motivational speaking and consultant company on Leadership, Management, Communications, and Diversity. Additionally, he is a Chief Information Officer (CIO), a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, and a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York.

Submitted by:
Darren Winslow
California Personal Injury Attorney Directory

It is clear that the aftermath of September 11, 2001 was a shock to the very fiber of the parchment on which the constitution was penned. America was alarmed by the revelation that this new threat not only threatened us abroad, but it was able to plan, bring the plan to life and execute its scheme right at home, on American soil. This was new situation in the minds of Americans who had become complacent after the defeat of the Soviet Union. Terrorism had never been considered so dangerous, for it had never come so close as it id on 9-11. The Clinton Administration was immediately attacked by many. Some of the criticism was justified, lots of it was embellished.

Bill Clinton was faced with a new enemy in the heart of the peace dividend and frankly was caught with his pants down. To say he had done nothing to combat it over the many years of attacks is unfair, but he did pass up many opportunities to stop this swarm of invaders before the attacks, but I think it is safe to say that no president in Clinton's time would have reacted any differently. The terrorist vermin were still in their mutation period and had not been able to muster the resources to pull off what they did during the first year of George W. Bush's presidency. The Clinton Administration had treated terrorist acts as criminal acts and not literal acts of war. That was the current approach at that time as it had been for all his predecessors. We knew there were some people who hated America, but we had blinded our eyes to the fact that there were religious fanatical movements that wanted and desired the downfall of the United States of America. Our false sense of security and the inordinate feeling that our nation was somehow immune to deadly acts of terror was like a lullaby that rocked us into a deadly slumber. When President Bush was forced to come to grips with the deadly reality of the threat of terrorism on our own soil, he took the needed steps to once and for all declare war on those that wished us woe! One hopes and suspects that Bill Clinton would have done likewise.

Fundamentally, President George W. Bush was faced with two decisions. One was to do nothing, which was unthinkable, and would have merited a call and a vote for his impeachment. Clearly, this course of action was preferable to liberals who would have been satisfied with the hope that we would not be attacked again. The other crucial choice for President Bush was to take action and draw out the terrorists where they live. This was clearly one of the goals of the war in Iraq, which had been a terrorist-harboring regime for decades. He brought the terrorist there to fight rather than to face then here at home. Bush chose the second choice because he felt that this was what would make America safer and indeed it arguably has done so. Bush took effective action to fight Bin Laden and his terrorist forces, such as finding their funding sources and to drying up. Many of them have been captured; their leaders killed or captured. America has faced no new attacks here and many have been thwarted by the new Homeland Security Department. Is it not only right that George W. Bush be given a fair amount of credit for being a tough-minded leader who refused to pretend any longer that we could conduct the affairs of state by the status quo?

Just President Bill Clinton was unjustly criticized about not doing enough to stop an emerging Osama Bin Laden, so also, President George W. Bush has been unfairly attacked as having not done enough to wait and try all avenues before invading Iraq. Yet, when he faced the United Nations, he strongly desired their aid, but none would give it other than myriads of useless and spineless resolutions. Bush also faced another hard decision. Would he go it alone or would he give up his policy in hope that another terrorist attack would not happen. Bush chose neither! He built a coalition of more than 40 nations that has been called "the coalition of the coerced and the bribed" by Senator and would-be president John Kerry. There have been deaths in many of nations in this war in Iraq, yet most of the members of the coalition of the willing have stayed the course or finished their mandates and left Iraq as full partners in the war on Terror. It is simple to see that the major powers of the world still have their head in the sand. Bush met with advisors who told him of the threat of terrorism in Iraq. They told him that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Numerous intelligence records showed nuclear capability in Iraq. President Clinton also saw the same intelligence and called for regime change, a policy that actually originated with the Clinton Administration and which was heralded and seconded by such notables as John Kerry, Hilary Clinton and Edward Kennedy, of all people. When Bush saw this, he did the only thing that seemed right. He chose to attack Iraq.

Now, more than five years later, no weapons of mass destruction have been found. Yet, it is clear that the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq was itself a weapon of mass destruction. Most attacks in Israel had Saddam's fingerprints all over them, including $35,000.00 paid out to the families of suicide bombers. It is clearly documented that Saddam sent his emissaries to meet with several of the 9-11 terrorists and that he harbored many terrorists and terrorist groups such as were found and killed in Northern Iraq during the war. What more justification was needed? He simply carried out his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The following is an excerpt from Bush's speech at the GOP Convention in New York:

"In Saddam Hussein, we saw a threat. Members of both political parties, including my opponent and his running mate, saw the threat, and voted to authorize the use of force. We went to the United Nations Security Council, which passed a unanimous resolution demanding the dictator disarm, or face serious consequences. Leaders in the Middle East urged him to comply. After more than a decade of diplomacy, we gave Saddam Hussein another chance, a final chance, to meet his responsibilities to the civilized world. He again refused, and I faced the kind of decision that comes only to the Oval Office; a decision no president would ask for, but must be prepared to make. Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time."

Here, President Bush clearly made the point that he could not risk the danger of Saddam. He chose to go on the offensive. If we had chosen to sit on our hands and hope no other attacks would come, America would have been attacked many more times. But now, due to America's aggressive offensive in the war on terror, "a free Afghanistan is fighting terror, Pakistan is capturing terrorist leaders, Saudi Arabia is making raids and arrests, Libya is dismantling its weapons programs, the army of a free Iraq is fighting for freedom, and more than three-quarters of al-Qaida's key members and associates have been detained or killed."

Who can argue that America and the world is not a safer place? If your argument is that the Middle East is still as dangerous today as ever, you are right. The Middle East will never have true peace. The Arabs and the Israelis are in an eternal conflict that will never be settled on Earth. The extremist Muslims hate America because we support Israel. As long as we have good leadership in America, we will continue to support Israel. Thanks to Bush, intelligence is being restructured so that in the future, no misguided reports will ever confront another president. And there will never be any more rape rooms, torture chambers, children conscripted to fight in a dictator's military and parents murdered in Iraq at the hands of an evil tyrant. Just because no WMD's were found, does that mean we should just run from the fight? If we did, everything we've fought so hard for would be destroyed and America would be overrun at our gates buy barbarians who would infiltrate our nation until the point of our collapse as the Roman's finally faced as they tired of defending their empire from invaders bent on their destruction. The terrorists want America as weak and vulnerable as possible. I pray this doesn't happen. Under President Bush, this will never happen. A President Kerry is a totally different scenario.

Democrats say they can fight the war on terror better, but they can't tell us how. One week they tell us that we needed to go to war in Iraq and the next week they tells us that it was a mistake. Almost every Democrat in congress voted to go to war in Iraq, but now, just when we appear to be turning the corner in the Iraq war, is unwilling to fund the troops. It is striking that now that the troop surge is working, the argument against the war has changed. Now, the numbers of troops at risk is no longer touted as a logical reason to pull out the troops. Instead, it is now proclaimed that the reason why President Bush should withdraw the troops is because the Iraqi government is not trying hard enough to make political change. It is clear that the democratic controlled congress would negotiate with the terrorists in order to get out of the war we must fight. Such antics would spell the end of society as we know it.

Perhaps the greatest threat to our nation is not the war in Iraq at all. It is troubling that while America fights the battles for our survival as a culture, we are in a steady moral decline, and no president has the power to change that. Bush has appointed federal judges to high positions who will hopefully interpret the law fairly and not legislate from the bench. Immoral judges are one of the biggest reasons that America is facing a steady decline toward doom. America is, in a real sense, at war with itself and the liberal establishment of those who support gay marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, and an end to the war on terror. They are those who would end what America conservatives have shed their blood to defend! The people are facing the same situation as the first settlers faced in the early days of America. England's king and its parliament were imposing unfair laws and taxes on the colonists, and the settlers became sick of it. They looked to the Magna Carta and said they would no longer put up with that kind of treatment. So, they fought to be freed from the grip of England, and meanwhile they discovered the major flaws in the Articles of Confederation. The legislators had too much power and the people were being over-ridden in favor of the legislature. That's why the U.S. Constitution was born, to give the people of America a voice. We support the right of misguided, unrighteous, immoral and reprobate citizens to speak their minds. Yet, we must defend this nation from the terrorists of the land and the terrorists of our moral society. One is as lethal as the other.

By: Steven Clark Bradley
Steven Clark Bradley lived abroad for over 17 years and has been to 34 countries, including Pakistan, Iraq and Turkey. He has a master's degree in liberal studies from Indiana University. He speaks French and Turkish. He has been an assistant to a prosecutor, a university instructor and a freelance journalist in Ramallah, Palistine, Israel, Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan. Steven is the author of three novels, Nimrod Rising, Probable Cause and Stillborn! available through publishamerica.com, borders.com, barnesandnoble.com and Amazon.com. His website is http://www.stevenbradley.net.

We lost our homes in the wildfires of 2003 in Lake Arrowhead. It was a time that we just didn't think we would ever get over. So to see homes burning once again in Lake Arrowhead and San Diego was a déjà vu.

At the time, it was heart wrenching to see everything we had go up in smoke. There was nothing left in the ashes, absolutely nothing, except for a jar of pennies my son was saving but we couldn't tell that they were pennies, as they had all melted into one big heap of copper.

From where all the houses had burned, it looked like a nuclear war had come through. The fire randomly picked and chose which homes to take. Three hundred homes in our neighborhood had burned to the ground yet one house across the street made it completely unscathed, and a few yards up the road a lone wooden playhouse had been spared.

We lost everything. Our thirteen year old family cat, Baby Ruth, perished in the fire. All of our physical memories like photos of ancestors, my great grandma's rocking chair, a violin that had been played by my husband's great great grandfather; all of it gone. Yet in spite of all the destruction, we felt very thankful. Our family was intact.

We lived next door to my parents who had a cute little mother-in-law house. Our daughter could walk to Grandma's every day with it being only twenty yards away. Our homes were deep in the woods of Cedar Glen and even deeper in the stands of trees that were dying from the bark beetle. The unforgiving pest, which had already ravaged forests from Colorado to Alaska, beetle had been attacking Lake Arrowhead and its surrounding communities for years. The result of its ravenous consumption was millions of trees standing like matchsticks ready to fuel a fire unlike anyone could have ever imagined.

In mid October 2003, Lee and I were scheduled for a number of lectures in the Midwest. We decided to take my mom and our then four year old daughter with us to the Colorado dates. Dad and our three teenagers stayed at home.

On our way back from Colorado, our teenage daughter reached us by cell telling us there was a fire up on the mountain. She was concerned. From the tightness in her voice, we knew this was real. The "Big One" everyone on the mountain had feared for so long had arrived.

Lake Arrowhead and the surrounding mountain communities had just two escape routes, and they were inadequate in the best of circumstances. Lee called some colleagues at the newspaper and some friends we knew at the fire department. They related the seriousness of the situation. There were fires everywhere, and some were threatening Big Bear and Cedar Glen. Evacuation was still voluntary, but the firefighters said it would be wise to get out now. We called our kids and Dad and told them to meet us at the bottom of the mountain at a local hotel for the night. No one expected the houses to burn. We assumed we'd be back in our house within a few days. We left food out for Baby Ruth since she was nowhere to be seen, and we commenced our waiting out the fire.

One of the problems when there is a fire is that there are rarely accurate news reports. One report will swear that all the local businesses are totally wiped out, and then moments later another reporter on another channel will be standing right in front of them depicting them as perfectly fine. We didn't get accurate news. The only news that was real was of true videos capturing neighborhoods that burned. We actually saw our homes burning on the television news. We knew at that moment that we were officially without a home.

It took over a week for the fire to be extinguished before we were able to return home. When you lose your home to fire, there is something inside of you that insists you have to see the remains.

When we turned onto our block, we couldn't even tell where one block ended and the next one began. The fire had taken our roads, our cars, and our animals. It had eaten everything and left nothing. The ashes were still warm after a week. It was a moonscape.

While we were there, a woman approached, asking if this had been our home. We nodded but just couldn't speak. She said she owned a rental in Lake Arrowhead and wondered if we would like to live there until we figured out what we were going to do. Amazing. An angel (and many more angels) would come to our aid that day. When we arrived at the rental home, someone we didn't even know had already gone from neighborhood to neighborhood asking if they would be willing to clean out their garages and give us anything we might need. That evening a huge moving van pulled up full of new everything: clothes, dishes, bedding, beds, more than we could have ever needed. Phone calls came from people with gift cards to grocery stores and clothing stores. It was truly incredible, the kindness that was offered us.

FEMA was a gem. Right after the fire they met us at a restaurant parking lot to fill out all the paperwork required to put money in our hands as soon as possible. We expected maybe a week's worth of rent, or maybe some grocery money, but FEMA set us up with funds for everything we lost and additional living money for six months. Again, the kindness and the help was overwhelming.

It can be hard to look at the bright side when something like a fire uproots one's life, but by concentrating on all the good and kindness offered from strangers, and by concentrating on what you do have and what you can rebuild, will reduce some of the sting.

A house is just a thing, possessions are replaceable, and our memories are something we brought with us and we can keep. The wildfires could never steal those from us.

Four years later we have seen firsthand that even out of the darkest time, or impossible situation, that good can still peek through and take the day. We had always wanted to live in Oregon and the 2003 fire gave us the freedom to do that. We are so grateful for our lives and especially grateful for all the people who helped us through such a trying experience.

To those of you who may have lost a home in the wildfires in California, life will get better. It may be hard to believe or understand right now, but in a few years you will see and appreciate the fact that you have made it through. You will appreciate your family all the more and will always hold a special place in your heart for the kindness exhibited by all the volunteers who helped you through this trying time. And one day, when you return to look at the place where your house once stood, in addition to the new signs of life and regrowth sprouting from the ground, you will have the memories that will keep you in good stead. Life always regenerates itself.

By: Beth McCain
Beth McCain is a published author and writer in self improvement as well as humor genres. Beth and her husband, Lee, are instructors and lecturers in applying the Law of Attraction, or better known as the Secret, in your life to attain what you desire. Please visit: http://www.bethandleemccain.com.

Appearing as a guest on the late night Craig Ferguson show Wednesday October 17, 2007 Vicente Fox former President of Mexico until 2006 was asked how he viewed America. In a Republican-ese right wing kind of reply he said we should "return to our values." He added that the rest of the world is still looking to us for the leadership we had given in the past. At this juncture in our national life this notion is little more than syrupy nostalgia, although it was good to hear an outsider saying what millions of us have known all along.

Fox also said that we needed to exercise "tolerance." He reiterated the call for tolerance several times and added that even though he is a devout Catholic he is very tolerant of all others who pursue the "spiritual life." He intimated that tolerance was the very heart and principle of all good diplomacy and politics.

President Fox's statement coupled with President Bush's recent statement about "all religions praying to the same God;" make for good news but are proof that politicians make poor theologians. Some one should remind them that not all that is "spiritual" is divine. Cultism, witchcraft, tarot, channeling, and a long list of spiritual practices are indeed "spiritual" but the question remaining is; what spirit?

Not all that is spiritual is generated by God. The god of this world (Satan) is also a spirit and only the woefully or willfully ignorant can't see that he has a lot of spiritual tricks, callings, manifestations and religions in his little bag.

We have only to look at recent legislation in California to see what happens when the popular notion of "tolerance" crosses into the realm of law. In California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill in October 2007 that disallows the use of the words, Mom, Dad, husband and wife in California schools.

The new language laws in California are an example of tolerance becoming militantly intolerant. But now gays and transsexuals are protected from any offence imagined or real. This is accomplished at the expense of offending over 95 percent of the heterosexuals and their families who reflect the make up of California schools. Is this tolerant?

Has any one asked the question; just how many high school and elementary students are gay or transsexual? Gay high school students, a few perhaps but transsexual or elementary school transsexuals; just how many of them are there in California? Has California changed its laws to defend the sensitivities of a non-existent group of people?

Have we traversed from the silent majority up to the moral majority only to slide over to the tolerant majority; then all the way back to the silent majority again? This trek to nowhere is reminiscent of a line from a Marx Brothers movie. Groucho trying to get someone to join him in a business venture said he would give his potential partner a full 20 percent of the business. After reminding him that 20 percent of nothing is nothing, he offers this assurance. "Don't worry because I've worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty" Enter American morality; the new partner of tolerance and diversity!

From the days of the Hula Hoop craze to the present Americans have loved the pop swings from one new thing to another and until now no one was seriously hurt on the way. Now we risk hurting ourselves irreparably with something that claims to take the hurt off of everyone. Vicente Fox may have hit the nail on the head. What we once had is looking qualitatively better than what we're getting into.

Tolerance is a word that is sailing around at the speed of stupidity. The confusion it creates is apparent when Islamic groups like CAIR go about pointing out every perceived insult to Islam in America even as America and the rest of the world are not afforded a speck of tolerance in return, in fact the doctrine and ideology of Islam forbids it. A cartoon, a negative statement about Muhammad or refusal to convert to Islam can result in death. Yet there are Americans who also watch for any and all possible intolerant language as it pertains to Islam. Double standards notwithstanding; this is the stupidity connected to the word "tolerance" that betrays its obvious lack of wisdom and social importance.

It does well to note that the Bible says in the spiraling immorality predicted in the last days one person will emerge to bring the entire age to its culmination. That person is referred to as the antichrist. One trait or proclivity that he possesses is that he decides the world would be better if he changed the way we count time and he calls for a change in the laws. (Daniel 7:25)

Since the antichrist is referred to as the man of "anarchy" you needn't guess at the way he plans to change the laws. Somewhere between "if it feels good, do it" and the word "tolerant" he will pull the plug on almost every folkway, more, commandment or moral code ever known. The only law that will be seriously enforced will be the one that calls for the supremacy of his rule.

For over 35 years now I have explained to thousands of people that the singular difference between the antichrist and every other despot or dictator in history is what causes him to succeed where all others have failed to dominate the world. Instead of using military might to draw the world into submission he uses the economy.

In the EU today the newly forming seat of the antichrist is already checking the morality of the countries waiting with baited breath to join the economic mega block. Poland is but one example. The EU is insisting that the Poland which is the native land of the former much beloved John Paul, must lessen or eliminate its stand against abortion and the practice of homosexuality before it can come under the full graces of the European Union. Poland, however, is not the only country under EU scrutiny for its moral stand.

Tolerance can hardly be tolerated when it is used to contort or eliminate the very binding threads that have held civilization together through every scourge, war or catastrophe. A woe is pronounced on the architects of the unbridled and poorly defined idea of tolerance as it is being touted in today's thinking. It will go unheeded by most but it should be heard nevertheless... Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye say, wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord. (Mal 2:17)

By: Michael Bresciani
Rev Bresciani is the author of two Christian books one that is entirely on the second coming of Christ. He is a contributing columnist for several online news and commentary sites. His articles are read throughout the world. Please enjoy a visit to http://www.americanprophet.org.