Opinion 1.0
Never a dull moment in Washington, (except for C-SPAN). when I awoke this morning, I was curious to see the "demspin" that was going to populate the morning news programs. I wasn't disappointed. Reverend Al "Sharpie" Sharpton was out there on every and any news program that would give a five minute soundbyte to back Harry (Dr. Smith) Reid, no matter how much of a hypocrite he appeared to be. Maybe it was me, but, I didn't think that Sharpie believed what he was saying. I know they have to go to bat for each other, however, this will come back to bite them next November. This will be in republican campaign commercials, starting in the summer. The democrats already have a huge hurdle to overcome (Obamao), and with a democrat controlled congress presenting socialistic policies and spending gigantic amounts of taxpayer's money. They will have to change the hearts and minds of the American people, NOT! The liberals refuse to compare "Dirty Harry's slur with Trent Lott's. Sharpton said that Lott has always been a racist and Reid has always been on the side of people of color. First, who elected Sharpton for anything? Sharpton has made racist comments himself. ( quote: "They Jewed it up.") Every black American I've spoke with says that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do not, in any regards, represent them. So, who do they represent? Themselves, special interests? I'm not sure. Reid is faltering in his bid for re-election in Nevada by double digits. He is desperately trying to hold on to his Senate leadership position presently. RNC Chair Michael Steele has called for Reid to step down along with a plethora of republicans, conservatives and political pundits. This is a drastic example of democrat double standards. Remember George Allen? In 2006, Allen used the word, "macaca," which was determined to be a racial slur. Allen lost his bid for the senate in Virginia. What is the difference? Reid is a horrible senate leader, doing anything to get the healthcare bill passed including bribery with the American taxpayer's money. Reid has a flagitious demeanor and is very condescending to anyone who disagrees with him. Today, there were many excellent debates on this issue. Ann Coulter and Al Sharpton went at it and Ann pointed out that no matter what the democrat pundit said, it is a double standard and the American public sees right through it. I hope the American people come out in force and voice their opinions against Reid and for that matter, congress and the administration. Join an organization that best represents you. (You angry mobs, you!)
Coulter v. Sharpton:
Juan Williams:
Reid the Racist:
Sorry, had to do it:
Harry Reid, Liberalism & Race:
By E. W. Jackson, Sr.
Harry Reid is developing a well-deserved reputation for playing the race card. Last month he accused opponents of his secret healthcare bill of being the same as those who opposed ending slavery. It was a highly objectionable historical analogy based on extremely flawed logic. Those who are fighting to stop ObamaCare are upholding the ideal of freedom -- from government intrusion, confiscatory taxation and oppressive debt.
Reid, liberal Democrat and Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, has now admitted to a 2008 comment calling Obama "a light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." Joe Biden said something similar during the presidential campaign when he opined that Barack Obama is "articulate, bright and clean."
Liberals wear their racial obsession as a badge of moral superiority. We are seeing the prideful dark side to their championing racial justice. It is noblesse oblige, the arrogant belief that minorities owe them so much -- their very lives and livelihoods -- that liberals are entitled to have their stereotypes and prejudices overlooked. The beneficence they have bestowed upon the seething masses of dark skinned people places liberal racial morality beyond question. Dark skin does not matter to Reid or his colleagues of course, but they are sufficiently enlightened to observe that it matters to the less sophisticated. Conservatives, "tea baggers" and those rural white folks who cling to their guns and Bibles are the ones we need to be concerned about, not the self-benighted liberal intelligentsia.
Perhaps not. Barbara "call me Senator" Boxer accused Harry Alford of the Black Chamber of Commerce of racial betrayal for not agreeing with the NAACP on Cap & Trade. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said that the opponents of the liberals' healthcare reform were "white Aryan support groups." Jesse Jackson said that Rep. Arthur Davis is not a black man because he voted against the healthcare bill. Maureen Down accused George Bush of racism because he appointed "white men" to the Supreme Court. Nancy Pelosi accused Americans who showed up at the healthcare town hall meetings of being Nazis and racists. Long before President Obama turned the Prof. Gates incident into a racial issue, he made the still too little known statement in his autobiography, "white folks greed runs a world in need." He no doubt learned that little rhyme from his racist mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
The truth is that Harry Reid and his liberal cohorts are the very definition of racists. They do not see "minorities" as individuals, but as part of a faceless group of victims. Joe Biden and Harry Reid give us a clear picture of how liberals view black Americans: none too bright, not very clean, have very dark skin and speak Ebonics or jive, except for Obama and a few others. That is called racial stereotyping. Liberals deny they do this, but out of the abundance of their hearts, their mouths speak.
Conservatives on the other hand see people as individuals, not unwashed and victimized masses. They do not look upon black Americans as a group to be rescued, but as individuals to be respected -- or not -- based on character and ability. This view of life makes them far less susceptible to the racial obsession which drives liberals to politically correct madness. When Trent Lott made his infamous Strom Thurmond remark, most Republicans -- including then-President Bush -- refused to stand by him, Although in my view they overreacted, they were unwilling to rationalize or justify racist speech and behavior. They do not suffer from the delusion of liberals who see themselves as the privileged paragons of racial sensitivity.
Blacks will eventually wake up to the truth and break free from their emotional bondage to liberal Democrats. Unfortunately, with a media dedicated to their indoctrination, they will not do so sua sponte. Black business leaders, ministers, writers and commentators must begin to point out the hypocrisy of liberal racism and paternalism. Individuals and families within the black community must reject liberal and government largess and messianic political pretensions. The focus of black progress must become earning respect instead of playing the victim.
Liberals have assigned the victim role to black people, and Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others, have taught many to play it well. It is time to reject that role, and say to Harry Reid and others who live in their liberal alternative universe, "You can no longer buy our silence or support by throwing us a few bones. We no longer want scraps from your elite table. We no longer want your affirmative action or your victim status. We want the earned respect and honor that comes with being Americans who work, produce and contribute to our society."
Then Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Sheldon Whitehouse and others will find they can no longer use black people like pawns on a chess board. Their paternalistic bigotry will no longer be overlooked. The resignation of Harry Reid as Senate Majority leader would be a start.
E.W. Jackson Sr. is an American who happens to be black. He an author, minister, retired attorney and President of STAND [Staying True to America's National Destiny]; standamerica.us; Email: stand@standamerica.us.
Bold statement of the week:
Coulter to Sharpton: 'Did He Ask You to Stop Using That Negro Dialect?'...
Health Care Overhaul Bill Is 'Hanging by a Thread': Dodd
Health care reform is "hanging on by a thread," and one or two votes could determine the outcome of the heavily-debated bill, Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd told CNBC Monday.
"Everyone feels, I guess, to some degree who have been for this, that they would have liked something different, and that's not uncommon when you're considering an issue of this magnitude," Dodd said.
Some progressives, for example, are disappointed that the Senate bill, unlike the House version, does not include a public option, he said. Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas are two people who voted for the bill in its original form and are now carefully watching what changes are being made.
President Obama's administration has come under fire lately for putting too much emphasis on health care reform, causing many to question whether Democrats will retain their majority control come November. But Dodd, who is retiring this year, said it's an issue that needed to be dealt with — otherwise it would "strangle our economy," he said.
Dodd to Keep Pushing Financial ReformPolitical 'Retirements' Add Up for Both PartiesRates to Rise For 2-3 Years: Leon CoopermanIs a Global Financial Overhaul Coming?Government and Economy Top News
"If this is all about surviving politically, then we're missing the whole purpose of what we're supposed to be doing," he said.
Last week, Dodd, 65, announced that he would not run for reelection in November. His announcement was seen by many as a concession that he and the Democratic party are facing an uphill battle. But Republicans have said that as a result of his retirement, Democrats have a much better chance of holding onto his seat.
As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Dodd said he is also moving forward with the financial reform bill, and that the committee is closer to answering fundamental questions, such as too big to fail.
He hopes the legislation will more strictly regulate derivatives and consolidate the number of financial regulators, and he hopes to mark the bill up in the committee by the end of the month.
He said the committee is in agreement that there should be an independent agency to protect consumers, but there is still debate over which form it will take.
Dodd also said he thinks it would be a "travesty" not to confirm Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's nomination, and that in the absence of taxpayer money, the government should have no say in banks' compensation practices.
Kill Bill Vol. III
Opposition to Senate Healthcare Bill: Call your Senators!
"We the people" must stop the Obamacare Proposals: I am formally asking (pleading) with you to muster up the initiative and enthusiasm to fight the healthcare bill that will emerge in the end of the year. First, there are 2 bills (proposals) that will somehow be merged into one bill. Liberals are adamant about some form of "Public Option" (Government Run Option) and federally funded abortion. I think the democrats believe they can push this bill through while we are sleeping. The democrats have blocked many bills that would allow the final bill to be posted on the internet 72 hours prior to a vote. Why? you know why. We must oppose this more than we did over the summer. Let them know, we are not against healthcare reform, just not a total makeover. Call and email your representatives. I have emailed and called mine so many times, they are referring to me by my first name. Write an old fashioned letter, it has a lot of importance. Attend your local tea parties and townhalls to voice your opinions and make a overwhelming presence. Below, is a little list how you can get involved. It is our civic duty. "It is our Country."
http://www.congress.org/
http://www.joinpatientsfirst.com/
http://www.freedomworks.org/
http://www.resistnet.com/
http://www.teapartypatriots.com/
http://www.teaparty.org/
http://www.taxpayer.org/
http://www.taxpayer.net/
info@cmpi.org
http://www.fairtax.org/
http://www.conservativeamericansunited.org/
CALL YOUR SENATORS! EMAIL YOUR SENATORS! CALL YOUR SENATORS! EMAIL YOUR SENATORS!
Daft statement of the day:
"December was the 14th coldest in 115 years."
Federal Government
What are you saying? Climategaters? What?
Common Sense - continued
By Thomas Paine
APPENDIX
SINCE the publication of the first edition of this pamphlet, or rather, on the same day on which it came out, the king's speech made its appearance in this city. Had the spirit of prophecy directed the birth of this production, it could not have brought it forth, at a more seasonable juncture, or a more necessary time. The bloody-mindedness of the one, show the necessity of pursuing the doctrine of the other. Men read by way of revenge. And the speech instead of terrifying, prepared a way for the manly principles of independence.
Ceremony, and even, silence, from whatever motive they may arise, have a hurtful tendency, when they give the least degree of countenance to base and wicked performances; wherefore, if this maxim be admitted, it naturally follows, that the king's speech, as being a piece of finished villainy, deserved, and still deserves, a general execration both by the congress and the people. Yet as the domestic tranquility of a nation, depends greatly on the chastity of what may properly be called national manners, it is often better, to pass some things over in silent disdain, than to make use of such new methods of dislike, as might introduce the least innovation, on that guardian of our peace and safety. And perhaps, it is chiefly owing to this prudent delicacy, that the king's speech, hath not before now, suffered a public execution. The speech if it may be called one, is nothing better than a wilful audacious libel against the truth, the common good, and the existence of mankind; and is a formal and pompous method of offering up human sacrifices to the pride of tyrants. But this general massacre of mankind, is one of the privileges, and the certain consequences of kings; for as nature knows them not, they know not her, and although they are beings of our own creating, they know not us, and are become the gods of their creators. The speech hath one good quality, which is, that it is not calculated to deceive, neither can we, even if we would, be deceived by it. Brutality and tyranny appear on the face of it. It leaves us at no loss: And every line convinces, even in the moment of reading, that He, who hunts the woods for prey, the naked and untutored Indian, is less a savage than the king of Britain.
Sir John Dalrymple, the putative father of a whining jesuitical piece, fallaciously called, The address of the people of ENGLAND to the inhabitants of America, hath, perhaps from a vain supposition, that the people here were to be frightened at the pomp and description of a king, given, (though very unwisely on his part) the real character of the present one: "But," says this writer, "if you are inclined to pay compliments to an administration, which we do not complain of," (meaning the Marquis of Rockingham's at the repeal of the Stamp Act) "it is very unfair in you to withhold them from that prince, by whose NOD ALONE they were permitted to do anything." This is toryism with a witness! Here is idolatry even without a mask: And he who can calmly hear, and digest such doctrine, hath forfeited his claim to rationality an apostate from the order of manhood; and ought to be considered- as one, who hath, not only given up the proper dignity of a man, but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and contemptibly crawl through the world like a worm.
However, it matters very little now, what the king of England either says or does; he hath wickedly broken through every moral and human obligation, trampled nature and conscience beneath his feet; and by a steady and constitutional spirit of insolence and cruelty, procured for himself an universal hatred. It is now the interest of America to provide for herself. She hath already a large and young family, whom it is more her duty to take care of, than to be granting away her property, to support a power who is become a reproach to the names of men and Christians. Ye, whose office it is to watch over the morals of a nation, of whatsoever sect or denomination ye are of, as well as ye, who are more immediately the guardians of the public liberty, if ye wish to preserve your native country uncontaminated by European corruption, ye must in secret wish a separation But leaving the moral part to private reflection, I shall chiefly confine my farther remarks to the following heads:
First. That it is the interest of America to be separated from Britain. Secondly. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan, reconciliation or independence? with some occasional remarks.
In support of the first, I could, if I judged it proper, produce the opinion of some of the ablest and most experienced men on this continent; and whose sentiments, on that head, are not yet publicly known. It is in reality a self-evident position: For no nation in a state of foreign dependance, limited in its commerce, and cramped and fettered in its legislative powers, can ever arrive at any material eminence. America doth not yet know what opulence is; and although the progress which she hath made stands unparalleled in the history of other nations, it is but childhood, compared with what she would be capable of arriving at, had she, as she ought to have, the legislative powers in her own hands. England is, at this time, proudly coveting what would do her no good, were she to accomplish it; and the Continent hesitating on a matter, which will be her final ruin if neglected. It is the commerce and not the conquest of America, by which England is to be benefited, and that would in a great measure continue, were the countries as independent of each other as France and Spain; because in many articles, neither can go to a better market. But it is the independence of this country on Britain or any other which is now the main and only object worthy of contention, and which, like all other truths discovered by necessity, will appear clearer and stronger every day.
First. Because it will come to that one time or other. Secondly. Because the longer it is delayed the harder it will be to accomplish.
I have frequently amused myself both in public and private companies, with silently remarking the spacious errors of those who speak without reflecting. And among the many which I have heard, the following seems the most general, viz., that had this rupture happened forty or fifty years hence, instead of now, the Continent would have been more able to have shaken off the dependance. To which I reply, that our military ability at this time, arises from the experience gained in the last war, and which in forty or fifty years time, would have been totally extinct. The Continent, would not, by that time, have had a General, or even a military officer left; and we, or those who may succeed us, would have been as ignorant of martial matters as the ancient Indians: And this single position, closely attended to, will unanswerably prove, that the present time is preferable to all others: The argument turns thus- at the conclusion of the last war, we had experience, but wanted numbers; and forty or fifty years hence, we should have numbers, without experience; wherefore, the proper point of time, must be some particular point between the two extremes, in which a sufficiency of the former remains, and a proper increase of the latter is obtained: And that point of time is the present time.
The reader will pardon this digression, as it does not properly come under the head I first set out with, and to which I again return by the following position, viz.:
Should affairs be patched up with Britain, and she to remain the governing and sovereign power of America, (which as matters are now circumstanced, is giving up the point entirely) we shall deprive ourselves of the very means of sinking the debt we have or may contract. The value of the back lands which some of the provinces are clandestinely deprived of, by the unjust extension of the limits of Canada, valued only at five pounds sterling per hundred acres, amount to upwards of twenty-five millions, Pennsylvania currency; and the quit-rents at one penny sterling per acre, to two millions yearly.
It is by the sale of those lands that the debt may be sunk, without burden to any, and the quit-rent reserved thereon, will always lessen, and in time, will wholly support the yearly expense of government. It matters not how long the debt is in paying, so that the lands when sold be applied to the discharge of it, and for the execution of which, the Congress for the time being, will be the continental trustees.
I proceed now to the second head, viz. Which is the earliest and most practicable plan, reconciliation or independence? with some occasional remarks.
He who takes nature for his guide is not easily beaten out of his argument, and on that ground, I answer generally- That INDEPENDENCE being a SINGLE SIMPLE LINE, contained within ourselves; and reconciliation, a matter exceedingly perplexed and complicated, and in which, a treacherous capricious court is to interfere, gives the answer without a doubt.
The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is capable of reflection. Without law, without government, without any other mode of power than what is founded on, and granted by courtesy. Held together by an unexampled concurrence of sentiment, which is nevertheless subject to change, and which every secret enemy is endeavoring to dissolve. Our present condition, is, legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; a constitution without a name; and, what is strangely astonishing, perfect Independence contending for dependance. The instance is without a precedent; the case never existed before; and who can tell what may be the event? The property of no man is secure in the present unbraced system of things. The mind of the multitude is left at random, and feeling no fixed object before them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts. Nothing is criminal; there is no such thing as treason; wherefore, every one thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases. The tories dared not to have assembled offensively, had they known that their lives, by that act were forfeited to the laws of the state. A line of distinction should be drawn, between English soldiers taken in battle, and inhabitants of America taken in arms. The first are prisoners, but the latter traitors. The one forfeits his liberty the other his head.
Notwithstanding our wisdom, there is a visible feebleness in some of our proceedings which gives encouragement to dissensions. The Continental Belt is too loosely buckled. And if something is not done in time, it will be too late to do any thing, and we shall fall into a state, in which, neither reconciliation nor independence will be practicable. The king and his worthless adherents are got at their old game of dividing the continent, and there are not wanting among us printers, who will be busy spreading specious falsehoods. The artful and hypocritical letter which appeared a few months ago in two of the New York papers, and likewise in two others, is an evidence that there are men who want either judgment or honesty. It is easy getting into holes and corners and talking of reconciliation: But do such men seriously consider, how difficult the task is, and how dangerous it may prove, should the Continent divide thereon. Do they take within their view, all the various orders of men whose situation and circumstances, as well as their own, are to be considered therein. Do they put themselves in the place of the sufferer whose all is already gone, and of the soldier, who hath quitted all for the defence of his country. If their ill judged moderation be suited to their own private situations only, regardless of others, the event will convince them, that "they are reckoning without their Host."
Put us, says some, on the footing we were in the year 1763: To which I answer, the request is not now in the power of Britain to comply with, neither will she propose it; but if it were, and even should be granted, I ask, as a reasonable question, By what means is such a corrupt and faithless court to be kept to its engagements? Another parliament, nay, even the present, may hereafter repeal the obligation, on the pretence of its being violently obtained, or unwisely granted; and in that case, Where is our redress? No going to law with nations; cannon are the barristers of crowns; and the sword, not of justice, but of war, decides the suit. To be on the footing of 1763, it is not sufficient, that the laws only be put on the same state, but, that our circumstances, likewise, be put on the same state; our burnt and destroyed towns repaired or built up, our private losses made good, our public debts (contracted for defence) discharged; otherwise, we shall be millions worse than we were at that enviable period. Such a request had it been complied with a year ago, would have won the heart and soul of the continent- but now it is too late, "the Rubicon is passed."
Besides the taking up arms, merely to enforce the repeal of a pecuniary law, seems as unwarrantable by the divine law, and as repugnant to human feelings, as the taking up arms to enforce obedience thereto. The object, on either side, doth not justify the ways and means; for the lives of men are too valuable to be cast away on such trifles. It is the violence which is done and threatened to our persons; the destruction of our property by an armed force; the invasion of our country by fire and sword, which conscientiously qualifies the use of arms: And the instant, in which such a mode of defence became necessary, all subjection to Britain ought to have ceased; and the independency of America should have been considered, as dating its area from, and published by, the first musket that was fired against her. This line is a line of consistency; neither drawn by caprice, nor extended by ambition; but produced by a chain of events, of which the colonies were not the authors.
I shall conclude these remarks, with the following timely and well intended hints, We ought to reflect, that there are three different ways by which an independency may hereafter be effected; and that one of those three, will one day or other, be the fate of America, viz. By the legal voice of the people in congress; by a military power; or by a mob: It may not always happen that our soldiers are citizens, and the multitude a body of reasonable men; virtue, as I have already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it perpetual. Should an independency be brought about by the first of those means, we have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest, purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months. The reflection is awful- and in this point of view, how trifling, how ridiculous, do the little, paltry cavillings, of a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed against the business of a world.
Should we neglect the present favorable and inviting period, and an independence be hereafter effected by any other means, we must charge the consequence to ourselves, or to those rather, whose narrow and prejudiced souls, are habitually opposing the measure, without either inquiring or reflecting. There are reasons to be given in support of Independence, which men should rather privately think of, than be publicly told of. We ought not now to be debating whether we shall be independent or not, but, anxious to accomplish it on a firm, secure, and honorable basis, and uneasy rather that it is not yet began upon. Every day convinces us of its necessity. Even the tories (if such beings yet remain among us) should, of all men, be the most solicitous to promote it; for, as the appointment of committees at first, protected them from popular rage, so, a wise and well established form of government, will be the only certain means of continuing it securely to them. Wherefore, if they have not virtue enough to be Whigs, they ought to have prudence enough to wish for independence.
In short, independence is the only bond that can tie and keep us together. We shall then see our object, and our ears will be legally shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as well as a cruel enemy. We shall then too, be on a proper footing, to treat with Britain; for there is reason to conclude, that the pride of that court, will be less hurt by treating with the American states for terms of peace, than with those, whom she denominates, "rebellious subjects," for terms of accommodation. It is our delaying it that encourages her to hope for conquest, and our backwardness tends only to prolong the war. As we have, without any good effect therefrom, withheld our trade to obtain a redress of our grievances, let us now try the alternative, by independently redressing them ourselves, and then offering to open the trade. The mercantile and reasonable part of England will be still with us; because, peace with trade, is preferable to war without it. And if this offer be not accepted, other courts may be applied to.
On these grounds I rest the matter. And as no offer hath yet been made to refute the doctrine contained in the former editions of this pamphlet, it is a negative proof, that either the doctrine cannot be refuted, or, that the party in favor of it are too numerous to be opposed. Wherefore, instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or doubtful curiosity, let each of us, hold out to his neighbor the hearty hand of friendship, and unite in drawing a line, which, like an act of oblivion, shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissention. Let the names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and let none other be heard among us, than those of a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the RIGHTS of MANKIND and of the FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES OF AMERICA.
Quote du jour:
"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world."
Daniel Webster
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.americanspectator.com/
http://www.newsmax.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.politico.com/
http://www.drudge.com/
http://www.biggovernment.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.cnbc.com/
http://www.foundingfathers.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.snopes.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment