Fringe groups have been alleging that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. since he announced his run for the presidency three years ago. At the time, he submitted an official record of birth, a document most states give to anyone seeking a copy of their birth certificate, as proof of his citizenship. But the birthers–those who maintain Obama was not born in the U.S. – didn’t accept that document; they wanted to see his original birth certificate.

The President, who chose to rise above the foolishness, said it was finally time to dispel the rumors because the media was giving more attention to this non-controversy than it was to important national issues, such as the economy and public safety. When Obama released the document, he pointedly compared those who were making an issue out of where he was born to side shows and carnival barkers…and he was right; that is exactly what Trump has become. No one outside of the fringe is taking Trump seriously as a presidential candidate. Instead, people tune in to see what shocking thing he’ll say next. Americans aren’t looking to Trump to leadership – they are looking to him for laughs.

Now, Trump wants to see the President’s school transcripts, saying he doesn’t know how the President, who admitted to not being the most studious youngster, was accepted into Harvard Law. Trump maintains the President got into Harvard because of affirmative action. We don’t know how Obama got into Harvard Law…but he did. And he went on to edit the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year and became president of the journal in his second year. Even if affirmative action opened the doors of Harvard to Obama, he made the most of the opportunity given to him and excelled. And that is all that matters.

The President should not bow to these latest demands…he should treat Trump like the clown he is: trapped in a big media circus of his own making.

The recession has seen an increase in the number of homeless people in this country. With so many Americans out of work or employed in low paying positions, rent is an expense that eats away at a large chunk of whatever income they bring in. Without these government subsidies, we’ll see more and more families forced into the streets. Similarly, foreclosure counseling has helped a great number of people stay in their homes. Without access to this service, more people will lose their greatest asset. Of all the programs the Republicans could look to cut, housing is the one area they should leave alone. It’s inconceivable that a political party would fight so hard to extend tax cuts for the rich while working equally hard to keep the poor down and to move the middle class into poverty and homelessness.

Congress has gone back and forth, arguing on a budget that would carry the federal government through the remainder of this fiscal year. There is a sense of urgency; if no agreement can be reached, the government will shut down and any ‘non essential’ government business would cease. Federal workers would be out of work and the services they provide no longer available, creating frustration for all of us. Recently, the President approved a temporary budget that will keep the government running through March 18. But, he and Congress need to decide on a longer term budget, one that will keep the government funded through September 30. Already, there is some dissatisfaction with the $4 billion in cuts in the temporary measure. Indeed, America has to make some tough decisions about how it spends its money if the nation is to reduce the deficit. Intellectually, most Americans understand and accept that truth. The progressive thinkers among us just don’t want those cuts to come at the expense of the poor and working class.

Call your Congressman and express outrage over the Republican budget proposal. Tell them to keep their hands off housing programs. Demand that they stand up for the average American. Not sure how to get in touch with your legislator? Visit www.usa.gov to find out how.

Union employees, including teachers and others, from around the Midwest (some even came in from New York) flocked to the Wisconsin state capital en masse to protest and continue to do so. The state legislature’s 14 Democrats oppose the plan and don’t want to vote on it. Instead of staying in Wisconsin and simply not showing up for the vote, which would have been in violation of the law, they left the state to prevent the state legislator from having the necessary number of members needed to vote on the legislation.

Wisconsin definitely has a big mess on its hands. Soon, Tennessee, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio – all of which have similar legislation in the works – may be dealing with their protests and stonewalling from state Democrats.

Supporters of the proposals in all the states say these types of cuts are necessary to reduce state deficits. Yet, Governor Walker, a Tea Party backed Republican, has proposed tax breaks for corporations. If Walker is truly interested in sorting out Wisconsin’s finance, why would he, on one hand, give away revenue by cutting corporate taxes and then, on the other, jeopardize the job and financial security of union employees, all of whom are tax paying citizens? Something here doesn’t compute.

Also interesting is the fact that Walker received more than $40,000 in campaign contributions last year from a political group run by David and Charles Koch. The two Koch brothers run a booming gas and oil business and have been uncovered to be major financial supporters of the Tea Party movement. Is Walker, and other politicians like him, doing his own bidding, or is he paying back the Tea Party for its support by moving their agenda forward?

We may never know for certain. But we do know this: balancing the budget, whether it be at the state or federal level, on the backs of public employees who provide the services we all need to maintain and enjoy our quality of life is unfair. Especially when rich corporations are being given tax breaks. Walker’s attempt is an old maneuver from the Republican playbook of the past and the Tea Party of new. Opponents of union busting legislation must stand strong and reject these modern day union busting efforts.

The First Lady recently announced that she will spend two weeks in November traveling the country, campaigning for Democrats tangled up in hotly contested races. As part of her work, she’ll speak at rallies and fundraisers in at least nine states. It makes sense that the Democrats are reaching out to Mrs. Obama for help. With a 68 percent approval rating – compared to the President’s 50 percent – she is, at the moment, the most popular White House representative.

America didn’t always love Mrs. Obama. In fact, during the 2008 elections, she was often labeled as ‘pushy’, ‘cold’ or ‘unpatriotic’ by the public and media alike. In the blogosphere, she was accused of emasculating her husband. However, the First Lady soon won everyone over with both her brains and her commitment to children and became an asset to her husband’s campaign, helping him secure the highly sought after ‘soccer mom’ vote. Today, she is perhaps the most popular First Lady since Jacqueline Kennedy.

She’ll put that popularity to work in an intense tour of the nation, where her ultimate goal is to tout the policies of her husband and, more importantly, preserve the Democratic controlled Congress. Obviously, stepping into the political arena in this way opens the First Lady up to attacks from critics. While it’s understandable, and even fair, that opponents criticize her political views, it’s unthinkable that they’d attack her personally. In recent weeks, there have been negative comments made about the First Lady’s weight and wardrobe, two things that have nothing at all to do with politics.

The public’s disillusionment has the Democrats fighting for their political lives. If Obama magic does, in fact, strike a second time and resurrects the party, let’s hope the Dems do a much better job of supporting and protecting the First Lady than they have her husband.

Historically, women have always earned less than men. When women first went to work outside of the home, they typically took on ‘pink collar’ jobs that, for many reasons, paid a lower salary. However, as women began to become more educated and branch into different fields, even those dominated by men, they found that their salaries remained lower than that of their male counterparts…even if they were doing the same jobs.

That is changing. According to newly released statistics, women earned just less than 83 percent of the weekly wage men did in the second quarter of this year; 10 years ago, women earned around 76 percent of what men did. African American women, especially, have seen the income gap widen: the weekly salary for black women increased by nearly 9 percent, while that of black men dropped more than 2 percent.

Now, for the bad news. Women are earning more but men, typically employed in industries hit hardest by the recession, are increasingly finding themselves out of work. This is disturbing because it makes one wonder what will happen to the pay gap when the economy rebounds and the men who are currently unemployed go back to work. Will it continue to shrink or will it widen?

The fact remains that women, who make up nearly half of the workforce, earn less than their male peers at every education level. It is not a positive sign when a woman’s financial success is tied to the financial hardships of her male counterparts. The income gap should be closed not because men are being locked out of the workplace but because employers pay equal money for equal work.

President Obama understands what too many of us do not: HIV/AIDS is still a pressing issue in this country and that a comprehensive federal strategy is needed to combat it. To that end, the president has proposed a plan that aims to reduce this country’s HIV infection rates by 25 percent in five years.  The plan, the first national strategy of its kind, will also expand early access to medicines, improving the quality of life for those who do become infected with the virus.  Unfortunately, the money the federal government uses to fight AIDS doesn’t always make it into the communities that need it most. While the President’s plan doesn’t increase the $19 billion dollars it spends to fight HIV/AIDS, it rethinks how and where those dollars are spent and will redirect funds to those hardest hit by the HIV/AIDS epidemic: gay and bisexual men and African-Americans.

Currently, gay and bisexual men account for slightly more than half of new HIV infections while African Americans make up around 46 percent of new infections. Under the proposed plan, agencies that serve these hard hit populations will see increases in their funding. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the President promises to work to end treatment, housing and employment discrimination issues that plague people infected with H.I.V. 

This plan is an ambitious one. But it is necessary. HIV/AIDS is still a very real threat to so many, especially our black women, who make up more than 6 percent of new HIV cases among all women and who are more than 21 times as likely to die from HIV/AIDS as white women.  We owe it to ourselves – and future generations – to not only applaud the President’s new approach but to also take it into our own hands to keep ourselves safe and healthy. For more information on HIV/AIDS prevention, visit www.greaterthan.org.

Residents of urban areas, many of whom are African American, suffer disproportionately from many issues mainstream society may not: failing schools, high dropout rates, lack of access to quality and affordable health care, poverty, high unemployment rates and increasing incarceration rates. While we certainly want those who live in these communities to receive increased attention and governmental support, it is not realistic.

America is a country with a variety of people and variety of obstacles to overcome. It is naïve to think the President would be able to push such an agenda through Congress if it is explained as something that would primarily benefit blacks. As a people, we represent just 12 percent of the population and we don’t have the votes in Congress to get such legislation through. Pursuing a black agenda would render the President ineffective and he would not succeed.

But let’s be clear: residents in urban areas are benefiting from the President’s efforts. What Obama is doing with his employment and training legislation and what he did with healthcare and education will undoubtedly affect African Americans. While these agendas support the entire nation, they will disproportionately benefit urban residents.

Many of our leaders are quick to dismiss the President’s efforts as not being ‘black enough’. They should open their eyes and realize that he is delivering to the masses what he promised while also affecting changes in our community. And he’s doing it while trying to work across both political aisles. Although the urban agenda isn’t obvious, the urban benefits are clear. We should applaud and support the President as he works and recognize that he is, in fact, President of the entire United States of America.

According to a recent study by the Kaiser Foundation, healthcare insurance premiums for families have increased 113 percent over the last ten years.  The group, a private non-profit that focuses its work on the major health care issues facing the U.S., also found that the general inflation rate increased by only 28 percent over the same period.  The average cost of a family policy offered by employers rose 5 percent while the average wage only increased 3 percent.  Some companies are eliminating health benefits to its employee’s altogether; between 2000 and 2008, the total percentage of U.S. companies offering health insurance to its workers dropped 6 percent. Small businesses, which drive the nation’s economy, are most likely to drop coverage, citing rising insurance costs.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton and then First Lady Hillary Clinton tried to reform America’s healthcare system. Then, America spent more than $900 million each year on health care.  That reform never came to pass and the country continued on with the same ineffective system. Thanks to government’s inaction, we are spending more on healthcare –an expected $2.6 trillion this year – and more people are finding themselves uninsured.

When there is no competition, health insurance companies have free reign to increase prices, hurting millions of people, most of whom earn modest incomes, in the process. Those days are over.

Healthcare companies should be required to compete with a public insurance company or co-op to ensure both companies that provide insurance to workers and the workers themselves are getting the best possible prices. As we gear up for the fall, and Congress considers sweeping healthcare legislation, there will be many more public debates on the pros and cons of healthcare reform. It is important to remember that, for far too long, Americans have been falling into debt to pay their medical bills while insurance companies continue to fatten their bottom line. We all deserve better.