ACORN and the Democratic Party. What a mix! While ACORN goes out of its way to submit fraudulent voter registrations (for the Democratic Party I might add), the Democratic Party go out of their way to block Republican attempts to clear up the fraudulent voter registrations. If this isn't a sign of lapsed ethics and no faith in the electoral process, I don't know what is. It certainly shows one thing: The Democratic party is willing to compromise ethics in order to win this 2008 election in the United States.
The Secretary of State for Ohio is a Democrat, and she's appealing a court decision demanding her to take off about 200,000 voter registration cards, a ruling which was decided in favor of the Ohio Republican Party. Sounds like voter disenfranchisement, but things are not always how they sound. Those 200,000 voter registration cards all have something wrong: mismatched data. Social Security numbers, addresses, names, dates of birth, etc. All of this type of data is being skewed. So an attempt to keep elections honest and open for people who have legitimate voting rights, the Republican Party sued. The Democrats have mounted a legal defense for illegitimate voter registration cards.
At least 73 of those fraudulent voter registration cards were filled out by 1 person! A 19 year old who was bribed with cash and cigarettes and begged to sign up by ACORN officials. Sure, the kid's 19. Sure he can vote. But he gets to vote one time. Not 73. A homeless 33 year old man was begged and given a sob story to sign up over 13 cards with his name on them! Yet these are the people in ACORN that the Democratic Party is attempting to defend! It doesn't even end with real people signing multiple registration cards. Apparently ACORN-ites have taken to writing down fictitious characters as registered voters! I'm curious to see if Minnie Mouse will follow her beau's politics and vote with Mickey.
I wish it ended here folks, but it doesn't. See, the Democratic party is apparently not content with merely committing voter fraud, it's turning slowly into a modern day thug-ocracy. With Barack Obama's exhortations to "[I want you] to argue with them and get in their face.", throngs of people obsessed with this liberal ideology have taken to do whatever they can to subvert the Republican cause. But please, don't blame Obama. After all, this is a trend with the Democratic party.
The defenders of the common man and personal liberty will only allow someone to exercise those political liberties if it's in the defense of their ideals. Let's take a look at Democrats through history, starting around the time of the American Civil War. In the Aftermath of the American Civil War, Federal Union troops occupied the Southern States, enforcing the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments as they came out as well as the Reconstruction agenda of the Union. African-Americans were allowed to vote as long as the Yankees were standing by the ballot boxes.
By the 1870's those Federal Troops marched out to The Battle Hymn of the Republic, and Jim Crow marched in to the tune of Dixie. Jim Crow laws were passed throughout the south as Democrats returned to power in the vacuum left behind by Reconstruction Republicans who left the formerly rebellious southern states. The laws varied from state to state, but included poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and other such problems to prohibit people from voting against a Democrat. After all, in the wake of the Civil War, who was an African American likely to vote for? A white former slave owning Democrat who only a few years before had owned a plantation with forty slaves? Or the white or black Republican who had campaigned for years to abolish slavery and through Republican influence, had given the African Americans the right to vote, right to due process and citizenship, and right to freedom in the first place?
The KKK rose up. Where? In the deep Democratic South. The White League formed in Louisiana. The Red Shirts formed in Mississippi, and the Carolinas. These thugs went out to the polls and did whatever they could to preclude people from voting that they felt were a risk to the white Democrat racist ideals that they held so dearly. These laws continued well into the 1950's and 1960's until the Federal Government through the Civil Rights Acts, Court Decisions, and others forced these Democrat strongholds to give up on the racist agendas.
Today? Democrat supporters attempt to take a page from history by enforcing the draconian and highly unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts, stating that people would be prosecuted for making statements against Barack Obama. In the 2004 election there were several cases of liberals assaulting people carrying Bush reelection signs, including one held by a child, who at the time, was only about 4 years old. The Democrats are traditional supporters of the First Amendment to Freedom of Speech. When they stage anti-Republican rallies they cry out that their rights are being suppressed, yet when a Republican marches to stage an anti-Democratic rally, charges are filed and the Democratic idea of Freedom of Speech goes out the window. Other countries have experimented with a similar form of Conditional Freedom of Speech, most notably, Germany from the years of 1933 to 1945 and Russia from about 1917 to the 1980's.
When the Ancient Greeks wrote and spoke of governments, they came up with several types, a good and a bad form. The Republic was good. Democracy was little more than mob rule. That is the sort of game that the Democratic party is running. It's up to you to decide where you stand in 2008's election, but please vote intelligently and honestly.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Racism and the 2 party system
The Democrats and the Republicans. Bitter rivals for close to 160 years of American history. The Democratic party in its current phase truly came out of reforms after the Civil War, though it can trace its roots back to the early 1790's with the Jeffersonian Democrats. Since then, to the present day, one of these two parties has been the party of racism. Founded in 1854, the Republican Party has been on the scene a bit later than the Democrat roots. One of these two parties championed abolition of slavery. It was under one of these two parties that African Americans, and indeed all people of every race, were given the Constitutional Amendments number 13, 14, and 15. Amendment 13 abolishes slavery in the United States, freeing countless African Americans from the bonds of slavery. It was enacted in December 1865. The 14th Amendment guarantees due process of law and citizenship for former slaves. It was enacted in July of 1868. Amendment 15 gives African Americans the right to vote. It was enacted in February of 1870. The Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1871, 1957, 1960, and even in 1991 were all passed. Clarence Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court by one of these parties. The famous (or infamous) Little Rock Nine, African American students escorted by the Federal Government in 1957. All of these examples of bridging the gap of racism and bringing together white and black, and truly, bringing together members of every race and ethnicity, were passed under one party. Add to this the first and second African American Secretaries of State.
In contrast, the KKK have arisen, not once, but twice. Thomas Dixon, writer and playwright of several racist works including, "The Clansman" and "The Leopard's Spots" advocated one of these two major parties. Opposition to the 1957 Civil Rights Act, as well as the 1960 Civil Rights Act came from the opposite party as well.
According to this news article from this morning, that party is obviously the Republican party that supports racism and denounces civil rights and liberties. Or is it? Let's look through the history books and see just which party supports racism.
Starting with the Constitutional Amendments. Please remember that in order for ratification of Amendments, it requires state approval of 2/3 of the states in the Union (at the time of enactment) in order to become an official Amendment
December 1865 - 13th Amendment for the Abolition of Slavery - Enacted under President Andrew Johnson (Republican). Based off of President Abraham Lincoln's (Republican) Emancipation Proclamation.
July 1868 - 14th Amendment guaranteeing Due Process and Citizenship - Enacted under President Andrew Johnson (Republican).
February 1870 - 15th Amendment guaranteeing universal suffrage of all races (women's suffrage was the 19th Amendment) - Enacted under and strictly enforced by Federal power by President Ulysses S. Grant (Republican)
Running Scorecard:
Republican Constitutional Amendments against racism - 3
Democrat Constitutional Amendments against racism - 0
Now to the Civil Rights Acts.
1866 - Extended the rights of Emancipated Slaves - Passed under Republican Congress, over presidential veto of Andrew Johnson who only vetoed it because he felt it would act in favor of one race over another. Still a Republican Act.
1871 - "The Klan Act", making the KKK an illegal organization and granting federal power to shut it down - Proposed by Benjamin Franklin Butler (Republican), a former Union General, and passed by President Ulysses S. Grant (Republican).
1875 - Prohibited Discrimination (Later overturned by the Supreme Court in 1883) - Proposed by Charles Sumner (Republican) and the same Benjamin F. Butler (Republican) who wrote the 1871 Klan Act. It was overturned by the Supreme Court because it enforced government regulation into private affairs.
1957 - The establishment of the CRC (Civil Rights Commission) to enforce voting rights and overturn the Jim Crow laws of the predominantly Democrat south. Written into law and enforced by President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican), it's interesting to note that James Strom Thurmond (Democrat) held the longest single manned filibuster in American history to try and stop the bill.
1960 - Further increased enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the 15th Amendment, allowing Federal oversight into all elections, including state and local elections to allow people the right to vote. 18 Democrats divided into 3 teams of 6 to create a continuous filibuster to stop this bill. This became the longest overall filibuster by any party in American History, lasting for 43 hours from February 29th to March 2nd. The bill was signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
1964 - Guaranteeing the rights of the past Amendments and rewriting the 1875 Amendment to allow it to pass Judicial Review - Proposed by President John F. Kennedy (Democrat) and passed with Bi-Partisan support. An interesting note, Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat), the current incumbent Senior Senator from West Virginia opposed this measure.
1968 - Fair Housing Act - Signed into law by President Lyndon Baines Johnson (Democrat). This Act went along with the Act of 1866, which guaranteed citizenship rights (including holding property like real estate), to African Americans.
1991 - Regulation of Discrimination Claims - While it may sound limiting, it allowed for new damages, including emotional distress, to be awarded by the courts. Signed into law by President George H. W. Bush (Republican)
Running Scorecard:
Republican Civil Rights Acts - 6
Major Republican Protests - 1 (Andrew Johnson's Veto)
Democrat Civil Rights Acts - 2 (1964, 1968)
Major Democrat Protests - 2 (1957, 1960)
Now to the action. The grit.
Writing of "The Clansman" and "The Leopard's Spots" by Thomas Dixon - 1905 - Dixon commented on his writing these fictional tales and representing them as historical fact by stating that they were "to revolutionize northern sentiment by a presentation of history that would transform every man in my audience into a good Democrat!"
D.W. Griffith - The Birth of a Nation (1915) - The greatest KKK piece of propaganda ever created. Made, no less, by the son of a Confederate Colonel.
Brown V. Board of Education - 1954 - Supreme Court Case banning discrimination in schools under Chief Justice Earl Warren, appointed by President Eisenhower (Republican) - 1954. It is of note that every other justice on the Supreme Court at the time was appointed by either Harry S. Truman (Democrat) or Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Democrat). However, Justices are there only to interpret the law and hold up any law against the constitution to declare it either Constitutional or Unconstitutional.
The Little Rock Nine - 1957 - Federal Troops escort 9 students in Little Rock, Arkansas to school to enforce integration legislation. Enforced by order of President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
Running Scorecard:
Democrat movements: 2 for racism
Republican movements: 2 against racism
Appointments to Public Offices:
Thurgood Marshall - First African American Supreme Court Judge - Appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat)
Clarence Thomas - Second African American Supreme Court Judge - Appointed by President George H. W. Bush (Republican)
Colin Powell - First (and so far the only) African American on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and First African American Secretary of State. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he worked for President George H. W. Bush (Republican), and as the Secretary of State, he worked for President George W. Bush (Republican)
Condoleeza Rice - Second African American Secretary of State (First African American Woman) - Appointed by President George W. Bush (Republican)
Running Scorecard:
Democrat Appointments: 1
Republican Appointments: 4 (The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is an appointed position)
The final scorecard:
Republicans actions against racism: 15 (3 Amendments, 6 Congressional Acts, 2 uses of Federal power being Brown v. Board and the Little Rock Nine, 4 appointments to high public office)
Republican actions for racism: 1 (Andrew Johnson's veto)
Democrat actions against racism: 5 (2 Congressional Acts, 1 Appointment, Brown v. Board of Education, 1 Nomination of Barack Obama)
Democrat actions for racism: 4 (The longest 2 filibusters in history against the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, Dixon's writings, and "The Birth of a Nation")
Please note that several facts have been left out with the intention of me getting this done in a somewhat timely manner. Jim Crow laws passed mostly by Southern states to prohibit voting were almost entirely passed by states dominated by the Democratic Party. But since I'm not willing to research all of them, you'll notice that they are not represented in the scorecards.
I'm a history major, so with that final tally of major movements for and against racism, I'll leave you to do the math and your own research on the REAL history of racism in America. But to me? It looks like the Democrats are the party of racism. It's pretty sad that people sleep through history. It's amazing what you can learn by reading a history book rather than the liberal media.
In contrast, the KKK have arisen, not once, but twice. Thomas Dixon, writer and playwright of several racist works including, "The Clansman" and "The Leopard's Spots" advocated one of these two major parties. Opposition to the 1957 Civil Rights Act, as well as the 1960 Civil Rights Act came from the opposite party as well.
According to this news article from this morning, that party is obviously the Republican party that supports racism and denounces civil rights and liberties. Or is it? Let's look through the history books and see just which party supports racism.
Starting with the Constitutional Amendments. Please remember that in order for ratification of Amendments, it requires state approval of 2/3 of the states in the Union (at the time of enactment) in order to become an official Amendment
December 1865 - 13th Amendment for the Abolition of Slavery - Enacted under President Andrew Johnson (Republican). Based off of President Abraham Lincoln's (Republican) Emancipation Proclamation.
July 1868 - 14th Amendment guaranteeing Due Process and Citizenship - Enacted under President Andrew Johnson (Republican).
February 1870 - 15th Amendment guaranteeing universal suffrage of all races (women's suffrage was the 19th Amendment) - Enacted under and strictly enforced by Federal power by President Ulysses S. Grant (Republican)
Running Scorecard:
Republican Constitutional Amendments against racism - 3
Democrat Constitutional Amendments against racism - 0
Now to the Civil Rights Acts.
1866 - Extended the rights of Emancipated Slaves - Passed under Republican Congress, over presidential veto of Andrew Johnson who only vetoed it because he felt it would act in favor of one race over another. Still a Republican Act.
1871 - "The Klan Act", making the KKK an illegal organization and granting federal power to shut it down - Proposed by Benjamin Franklin Butler (Republican), a former Union General, and passed by President Ulysses S. Grant (Republican).
1875 - Prohibited Discrimination (Later overturned by the Supreme Court in 1883) - Proposed by Charles Sumner (Republican) and the same Benjamin F. Butler (Republican) who wrote the 1871 Klan Act. It was overturned by the Supreme Court because it enforced government regulation into private affairs.
1957 - The establishment of the CRC (Civil Rights Commission) to enforce voting rights and overturn the Jim Crow laws of the predominantly Democrat south. Written into law and enforced by President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican), it's interesting to note that James Strom Thurmond (Democrat) held the longest single manned filibuster in American history to try and stop the bill.
1960 - Further increased enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the 15th Amendment, allowing Federal oversight into all elections, including state and local elections to allow people the right to vote. 18 Democrats divided into 3 teams of 6 to create a continuous filibuster to stop this bill. This became the longest overall filibuster by any party in American History, lasting for 43 hours from February 29th to March 2nd. The bill was signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
1964 - Guaranteeing the rights of the past Amendments and rewriting the 1875 Amendment to allow it to pass Judicial Review - Proposed by President John F. Kennedy (Democrat) and passed with Bi-Partisan support. An interesting note, Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat), the current incumbent Senior Senator from West Virginia opposed this measure.
1968 - Fair Housing Act - Signed into law by President Lyndon Baines Johnson (Democrat). This Act went along with the Act of 1866, which guaranteed citizenship rights (including holding property like real estate), to African Americans.
1991 - Regulation of Discrimination Claims - While it may sound limiting, it allowed for new damages, including emotional distress, to be awarded by the courts. Signed into law by President George H. W. Bush (Republican)
Running Scorecard:
Republican Civil Rights Acts - 6
Major Republican Protests - 1 (Andrew Johnson's Veto)
Democrat Civil Rights Acts - 2 (1964, 1968)
Major Democrat Protests - 2 (1957, 1960)
Now to the action. The grit.
Writing of "The Clansman" and "The Leopard's Spots" by Thomas Dixon - 1905 - Dixon commented on his writing these fictional tales and representing them as historical fact by stating that they were "to revolutionize northern sentiment by a presentation of history that would transform every man in my audience into a good Democrat!"
D.W. Griffith - The Birth of a Nation (1915) - The greatest KKK piece of propaganda ever created. Made, no less, by the son of a Confederate Colonel.
Brown V. Board of Education - 1954 - Supreme Court Case banning discrimination in schools under Chief Justice Earl Warren, appointed by President Eisenhower (Republican) - 1954. It is of note that every other justice on the Supreme Court at the time was appointed by either Harry S. Truman (Democrat) or Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Democrat). However, Justices are there only to interpret the law and hold up any law against the constitution to declare it either Constitutional or Unconstitutional.
The Little Rock Nine - 1957 - Federal Troops escort 9 students in Little Rock, Arkansas to school to enforce integration legislation. Enforced by order of President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
Running Scorecard:
Democrat movements: 2 for racism
Republican movements: 2 against racism
Appointments to Public Offices:
Thurgood Marshall - First African American Supreme Court Judge - Appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat)
Clarence Thomas - Second African American Supreme Court Judge - Appointed by President George H. W. Bush (Republican)
Colin Powell - First (and so far the only) African American on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and First African American Secretary of State. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he worked for President George H. W. Bush (Republican), and as the Secretary of State, he worked for President George W. Bush (Republican)
Condoleeza Rice - Second African American Secretary of State (First African American Woman) - Appointed by President George W. Bush (Republican)
Running Scorecard:
Democrat Appointments: 1
Republican Appointments: 4 (The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is an appointed position)
The final scorecard:
Republicans actions against racism: 15 (3 Amendments, 6 Congressional Acts, 2 uses of Federal power being Brown v. Board and the Little Rock Nine, 4 appointments to high public office)
Republican actions for racism: 1 (Andrew Johnson's veto)
Democrat actions against racism: 5 (2 Congressional Acts, 1 Appointment, Brown v. Board of Education, 1 Nomination of Barack Obama)
Democrat actions for racism: 4 (The longest 2 filibusters in history against the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, Dixon's writings, and "The Birth of a Nation")
Please note that several facts have been left out with the intention of me getting this done in a somewhat timely manner. Jim Crow laws passed mostly by Southern states to prohibit voting were almost entirely passed by states dominated by the Democratic Party. But since I'm not willing to research all of them, you'll notice that they are not represented in the scorecards.
I'm a history major, so with that final tally of major movements for and against racism, I'll leave you to do the math and your own research on the REAL history of racism in America. But to me? It looks like the Democrats are the party of racism. It's pretty sad that people sleep through history. It's amazing what you can learn by reading a history book rather than the liberal media.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
The lie of the feminist left
"1.) Woman is born free and remains equal to man in rights. Social distinctions may be based only on common utility.
2.) The purpose of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of woman and man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and especially resistance to oppression.
. . .
11.) The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of woman . . .
. . .
13.) For maintenance of public authority and for expenses of administration, taxation of women and men is equal; she takes part in all forced labor service, in all painful tasks; she must herefore have the same proportion in the distribution of places, employments, offices, dignities, and in industry."
- Olympe de Gouges, Declaration of the Rights of Women, France, September 1791
The French Revolution perhaps marked the high tide of woman's involvement in the French government before the modern period. Women like Olympe de Gouges wrote about demanding rights for women equal to men while the National Assembly began according liberties to French people who heretofore had had no rights under the Ancien Regime.
Over two hundred years later in America, the left continues to 'champion' the cause of Women's Rights and the individual rights of a woman to be equal to men, to hold public office, to communicate freely and speak their mind. Well... Maybe not speak their mind. After all, since Democratic hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) failed to gain her party's bid for President, the left has been disgruntled. Ah but there is hope! Or is there? Sarah Palin, the Republican Governor of Alaska, a middle class hockey mom turned politician accepted the Vice Presidential nomination for the Republican McCain ticket.
One would think that feminists everywhere would be overjoyed, especially those feminists who vote Democrat. Their own party betrayed them first by not making Hillary Clinton the Presidential nominee, and secondly by Sen. Obama's pick of Joe Biden as his running mate. For someone who wants change from the 'old white man's game' of politics in Washington D.C., Senator Obama certainly seems willing to play to that tune. Yet, for all their bluster about women's rights, what has the liberal left, including hollywood celebrities, done about Sarah Palin? Mocked her. Threatened her. Called her a 'pig with lipstick' to paraphrase Senator Obama's own comments. They've even barred her from attending shows.
Brigitte Bardot, a French legend of a former actress, called Palin a disgrace to women? Why is that? Because she's been successful in rooting out corruption in her home state? Because she's had just as meteoric a rise as Senator Obama and proven that women can easily compete with men? Because she's stuck to her principles on tough issues like abortion by having a mentally handicapped child rather than killing it? Or is it because she recognizes that humankind alone is not 100% of the cause of every problem facing our environment right now? Perhaps Sandra Bernhard can answer when she gets over her foot in mouth disease after making a gang-rape joke about Sarah Palin.
The liberal left is full of hypocrisy, and it is time that Democrats and Independents realized it. Sadly, they cannot stomach a woman who thinks for herself and comes to the conclusion that a family is important. The liberal left cannot stomach the idea of a woman reaching political heights with conservative ideals. They can't put aside their own agenda long enough to cheer for the fact that a woman, if the McCain/Palin ticket wins in November, will be in the highest elected office of this nation for the first time in history.
Feminists, where do your loyalties lie? To the cause of a woman's right to choose her own destiny no matter what that life is? To the cause of advancing a woman's political participation in the government of these United States? To the cause of educating women to be above the sway of politically motivated alarmists? Or is it to the cause of the liberal left, which loves to play a carrot and stick game with social, ethnic, and religious minorities?
Ladies, the liberal left had the chance to put a woman in the white house, and they failed twice in a row. The conservative right has picked up that slack and given you a candidate that is both a strong woman, and a good mother and role model. The choice to anyone who wants to support the cause of women's rights is clear.
2.) The purpose of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of woman and man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and especially resistance to oppression.
. . .
11.) The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of woman . . .
. . .
13.) For maintenance of public authority and for expenses of administration, taxation of women and men is equal; she takes part in all forced labor service, in all painful tasks; she must herefore have the same proportion in the distribution of places, employments, offices, dignities, and in industry."
- Olympe de Gouges, Declaration of the Rights of Women, France, September 1791
The French Revolution perhaps marked the high tide of woman's involvement in the French government before the modern period. Women like Olympe de Gouges wrote about demanding rights for women equal to men while the National Assembly began according liberties to French people who heretofore had had no rights under the Ancien Regime.
Over two hundred years later in America, the left continues to 'champion' the cause of Women's Rights and the individual rights of a woman to be equal to men, to hold public office, to communicate freely and speak their mind. Well... Maybe not speak their mind. After all, since Democratic hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) failed to gain her party's bid for President, the left has been disgruntled. Ah but there is hope! Or is there? Sarah Palin, the Republican Governor of Alaska, a middle class hockey mom turned politician accepted the Vice Presidential nomination for the Republican McCain ticket.
One would think that feminists everywhere would be overjoyed, especially those feminists who vote Democrat. Their own party betrayed them first by not making Hillary Clinton the Presidential nominee, and secondly by Sen. Obama's pick of Joe Biden as his running mate. For someone who wants change from the 'old white man's game' of politics in Washington D.C., Senator Obama certainly seems willing to play to that tune. Yet, for all their bluster about women's rights, what has the liberal left, including hollywood celebrities, done about Sarah Palin? Mocked her. Threatened her. Called her a 'pig with lipstick' to paraphrase Senator Obama's own comments. They've even barred her from attending shows.
Brigitte Bardot, a French legend of a former actress, called Palin a disgrace to women? Why is that? Because she's been successful in rooting out corruption in her home state? Because she's had just as meteoric a rise as Senator Obama and proven that women can easily compete with men? Because she's stuck to her principles on tough issues like abortion by having a mentally handicapped child rather than killing it? Or is it because she recognizes that humankind alone is not 100% of the cause of every problem facing our environment right now? Perhaps Sandra Bernhard can answer when she gets over her foot in mouth disease after making a gang-rape joke about Sarah Palin.
The liberal left is full of hypocrisy, and it is time that Democrats and Independents realized it. Sadly, they cannot stomach a woman who thinks for herself and comes to the conclusion that a family is important. The liberal left cannot stomach the idea of a woman reaching political heights with conservative ideals. They can't put aside their own agenda long enough to cheer for the fact that a woman, if the McCain/Palin ticket wins in November, will be in the highest elected office of this nation for the first time in history.
Feminists, where do your loyalties lie? To the cause of a woman's right to choose her own destiny no matter what that life is? To the cause of advancing a woman's political participation in the government of these United States? To the cause of educating women to be above the sway of politically motivated alarmists? Or is it to the cause of the liberal left, which loves to play a carrot and stick game with social, ethnic, and religious minorities?
Ladies, the liberal left had the chance to put a woman in the white house, and they failed twice in a row. The conservative right has picked up that slack and given you a candidate that is both a strong woman, and a good mother and role model. The choice to anyone who wants to support the cause of women's rights is clear.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Moral Responsibility And Genocide
As corny as it may sound, beloved Uncle Ben from Stan Lee's famous comic book superhero "Spider-Man" may have said it best when he told a young Peter Parker "With Great Power, comes great responsibility."
I hate to sound corny if I can avoid it if at all possible, but it's the truth. I don't pretend to support war, killing, death, etc. Life is sacred. That's a universal truth, and it transcends all boundaries including age, mental development, gender, skin color, sexual preference, faith, and nationality. Thousands of times in history's grand panorama, power has been misused and people have been downtrodden. At times, those oppressed were driven into extinction. The persecution and wholesale slaughter of a group of people defined by any common thread is genocide. We define genocide as wiping out a race, but what is a race? Hebrews? Africans? Arabs? Indians? Orientals? Europeans? Slavs? Balkans? They're all races, yet are made up of different groups. Some from specific countries, some from specific geographical regions, some having a certain skin pigmentation or other phenotype that sets them apart from other people who aren't like them. Yet others still are bound by economic class or faith. The systematic attack and extermination of any group of people can thus be considered genocide.
So why do we pick and choose who we save from this crime?
Hitler and his allies rounded up Jews, Catholics, Homosexuals, Gypsies, and anyone who didn't fit their perfect ideal for a human being an sent them to Dachau and Auschwitz. The Ottoman Turks attempted to wipe out the Armenians living in Northern Turkey a few decades earlier. Slobodan Milosevic waged an ethnic war against Albanians in the Balkans. In Russia under Stalin, estimates have gone as high as five million people killed in class warfare known as 'De-Kulakization'. In Northern Iraq the Kurds faced genocide at the hands of Saddam Hussein. Every day in Africa tribal groups live under the threat of warlords trying to wipe them off the pages of history. There are other instances, such as the Chinese cleansing of Tibetans and Buddhists near the border of Tibet and China, but these aforementioned examples are some of the more major ones.
Hearkening back to good old Uncle Ben, we are the USA, the leaders of the Western World in many respects. Europe hasn't acted internationally too many times without the United States' lead since the end of World War II. We have the power in the palm of our hands to stop injustice by rallying the greatest governments in our modern world and stopping crimes against humanity, but we hesitate.
It took Pearl Harbor to get us involved in World War II. Yet FDR knew exactly what Hitler was doing and what was going on at Auschwitz and Dachau and other camps. Hell, Henry Ford even gave Hitler $20 million dollars to carry out his Final Solution. Around that same time, Communism wore the mask of Father Stalin in Russia and exterminated 'wealthy' farmers in Soviet Russia. Yet there we ignored it completely, choosing instead the route that led to a cold war. Cuba under Fidel Castro in 1958 made pleas to the United States for help after he and his revolutionaries kicked out the extraordinarily corrupt government that was tied directly to the American Chicago mafia. People died in each of these instances, yet America did nothing. Why?
Now in our modern world we've raced in with UN and NATO backing to stop genocide against the Albanians and arrest Milosevic. As the horrors of these former genocides and economic cleansing came to light, we became determined and vigilant to stop it. The eagle spread its wings and became watchful. Yet since Hussein was put into office in 1979, he'd been waging a war of genocide. And we continued to let him, until recently in 2003 when the US-led Coalition forces attacked Iraq. Even then, the reason for going into Iraq wasn't to stop that genocide, it just happened to be a by-product.
The Western World has a moral obligation... We have the power. We have the moral obligation to put it to use to stop the horrors and atrocities being committed against people all over the world. We cannot and must not afford ourselves the base luxury of being racist to choose which people we will defend. And do not believe the newspapers and TV news which would have you believe that our forces are not welcome in these genocidal conflicts.
Working in the auto industry I have had an opportunity to meet a very diverse group of people. One of which was an Iraqi American who owns a car lot here in the State of Florida. His family including his 8 brothers and sisters were, at the time of the invasion, still living in Iraq. We always wondered how he felt about the goings on in Iraq, until one day a friend of mine and I spoke with him. We asked how he felt and he had tears in his eyes. He said he had been up for days on end waiting to hear from his family, and had just heard from them. They managed to escape to nearby Jordan and contact him to tell him that they were all right after the Republican Guard had set up their positions within Baghdad itself and the Coalition soldiers had to fight street to street among civilians to stop the remnant Iraqi army still loyal to Saddam. He asked us if we could tell him why it took America so long to come over there. He came to America because he loved this country and our way of life. He was only grateful when America invaded Iraq because it provided an opportunity for his family to experience freedom from tyranny and freedom from annihilation under a dictatorship.
Ladies and Gentlemen, here in the United States we have a wonderful document that contains the words, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'
Well ladies and gentlemen, those words do not just pertain to Americans. We have the moral responsibility to ensure that those inalienable Rights are applied equally to ALL men. The very declaration of our independence. The statement that men fought and died for. That ideal, is what is at the core of the American identity, and guess what? It is a universal identity. I've heard people say throughout my time on this earth that we don't have a right or any business messing in other countries, or that we shouldn't send troops abroad to meddle in the affairs of other nations.
We have a great power here in the United States. The power to sow hope and reap a harvest of prosperity by application of diplomacy, force, and justice with the global community, or the power to sit back and allow hate to prosper and fester. We have an obligation to use it for the betterment of humanity and the world around us. We have an obligation to leave the world better than we found it.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse." - John Stuart Mill
I hate to sound corny if I can avoid it if at all possible, but it's the truth. I don't pretend to support war, killing, death, etc. Life is sacred. That's a universal truth, and it transcends all boundaries including age, mental development, gender, skin color, sexual preference, faith, and nationality. Thousands of times in history's grand panorama, power has been misused and people have been downtrodden. At times, those oppressed were driven into extinction. The persecution and wholesale slaughter of a group of people defined by any common thread is genocide. We define genocide as wiping out a race, but what is a race? Hebrews? Africans? Arabs? Indians? Orientals? Europeans? Slavs? Balkans? They're all races, yet are made up of different groups. Some from specific countries, some from specific geographical regions, some having a certain skin pigmentation or other phenotype that sets them apart from other people who aren't like them. Yet others still are bound by economic class or faith. The systematic attack and extermination of any group of people can thus be considered genocide.
So why do we pick and choose who we save from this crime?
Hitler and his allies rounded up Jews, Catholics, Homosexuals, Gypsies, and anyone who didn't fit their perfect ideal for a human being an sent them to Dachau and Auschwitz. The Ottoman Turks attempted to wipe out the Armenians living in Northern Turkey a few decades earlier. Slobodan Milosevic waged an ethnic war against Albanians in the Balkans. In Russia under Stalin, estimates have gone as high as five million people killed in class warfare known as 'De-Kulakization'. In Northern Iraq the Kurds faced genocide at the hands of Saddam Hussein. Every day in Africa tribal groups live under the threat of warlords trying to wipe them off the pages of history. There are other instances, such as the Chinese cleansing of Tibetans and Buddhists near the border of Tibet and China, but these aforementioned examples are some of the more major ones.
Hearkening back to good old Uncle Ben, we are the USA, the leaders of the Western World in many respects. Europe hasn't acted internationally too many times without the United States' lead since the end of World War II. We have the power in the palm of our hands to stop injustice by rallying the greatest governments in our modern world and stopping crimes against humanity, but we hesitate.
It took Pearl Harbor to get us involved in World War II. Yet FDR knew exactly what Hitler was doing and what was going on at Auschwitz and Dachau and other camps. Hell, Henry Ford even gave Hitler $20 million dollars to carry out his Final Solution. Around that same time, Communism wore the mask of Father Stalin in Russia and exterminated 'wealthy' farmers in Soviet Russia. Yet there we ignored it completely, choosing instead the route that led to a cold war. Cuba under Fidel Castro in 1958 made pleas to the United States for help after he and his revolutionaries kicked out the extraordinarily corrupt government that was tied directly to the American Chicago mafia. People died in each of these instances, yet America did nothing. Why?
Now in our modern world we've raced in with UN and NATO backing to stop genocide against the Albanians and arrest Milosevic. As the horrors of these former genocides and economic cleansing came to light, we became determined and vigilant to stop it. The eagle spread its wings and became watchful. Yet since Hussein was put into office in 1979, he'd been waging a war of genocide. And we continued to let him, until recently in 2003 when the US-led Coalition forces attacked Iraq. Even then, the reason for going into Iraq wasn't to stop that genocide, it just happened to be a by-product.
The Western World has a moral obligation... We have the power. We have the moral obligation to put it to use to stop the horrors and atrocities being committed against people all over the world. We cannot and must not afford ourselves the base luxury of being racist to choose which people we will defend. And do not believe the newspapers and TV news which would have you believe that our forces are not welcome in these genocidal conflicts.
Working in the auto industry I have had an opportunity to meet a very diverse group of people. One of which was an Iraqi American who owns a car lot here in the State of Florida. His family including his 8 brothers and sisters were, at the time of the invasion, still living in Iraq. We always wondered how he felt about the goings on in Iraq, until one day a friend of mine and I spoke with him. We asked how he felt and he had tears in his eyes. He said he had been up for days on end waiting to hear from his family, and had just heard from them. They managed to escape to nearby Jordan and contact him to tell him that they were all right after the Republican Guard had set up their positions within Baghdad itself and the Coalition soldiers had to fight street to street among civilians to stop the remnant Iraqi army still loyal to Saddam. He asked us if we could tell him why it took America so long to come over there. He came to America because he loved this country and our way of life. He was only grateful when America invaded Iraq because it provided an opportunity for his family to experience freedom from tyranny and freedom from annihilation under a dictatorship.
Ladies and Gentlemen, here in the United States we have a wonderful document that contains the words, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'
Well ladies and gentlemen, those words do not just pertain to Americans. We have the moral responsibility to ensure that those inalienable Rights are applied equally to ALL men. The very declaration of our independence. The statement that men fought and died for. That ideal, is what is at the core of the American identity, and guess what? It is a universal identity. I've heard people say throughout my time on this earth that we don't have a right or any business messing in other countries, or that we shouldn't send troops abroad to meddle in the affairs of other nations.
We have a great power here in the United States. The power to sow hope and reap a harvest of prosperity by application of diplomacy, force, and justice with the global community, or the power to sit back and allow hate to prosper and fester. We have an obligation to use it for the betterment of humanity and the world around us. We have an obligation to leave the world better than we found it.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse." - John Stuart Mill
Friday, October 3, 2008
Debates and Polls
So I find myself writing about what probably half the world of blogging is writing about. The Sarah Palin - Joe Biden VP debate in the USA last night. I have to admit, I have great respect for both of the candidates who stood up there last night. Both were courteous to one another, both were passionate about their views, and both had the luster of being professional while they were up there as well as at least the veneer of being in touch with their constituency. Biden talking about walking down the street and spending time talking to people from his home town neighborhood worked well for him, while Palin's homey attitude and 'Say it ain't so Joe' responses probably touched more Americans than even she realized. It was good to see politics like that, especially at the end when both families came up and were talking and socializing with one another. That is politics the way it should be, at some of its finest.
So who won? What do the polls say? It depends on the poll. WESH channel 2 ran a poll throughout the debate and displayed the results as the debate progressed. At any given time both candidates were up with a 20 point spread in the poll. By the end, WESH 2's poll among viewers had Biden up in the mid 60's percent tile while Palin was in the mid 30's. This morning on the Drudge Report it showed Palin up over Biden 70 - 28 with 2% saying that neither candidate won.
Polls are used to determine public opinion on just about everything. Run by schools and news media and politically minded organizations, polls do their best to showcase what America wants to the rest of the world and to the candidates. But polls are never the be all or end all of the political world. Don't believe me? If he were alive I'd say you ask Thomas Dewey, Republican candidate against Harry Truman in the 1948 Election. The Chicago Daily Tribune, based on polls, showed Dewey defeating Truman. In 2004, Kerry was shown by all the exit polls as being far ahead of Bush, yet Bush won by a substantial margin. So how can polls be so terribly inaccurate from the truth?
The key lies in the democratic process. We as citizens, are required to go to our local precincts, check in with some form of ID, be a registered voter in our precinct, and vote at a single location. The line can be rather long at times. It all depends on where you live. Many of us work during the day. Our 9-5 jobs keep us pretty busy, so we vote when we can. Usually racing to the voting booth after work, or leaving early to make sure we get the vote in before we start the workday. Polls however, are conducted usually by phone. And usually they're conducted during the day to early evening. Who's home during the middle of the day? The unemployed. Students. Homemakers. The unemployed are, statistically, more likely to side with Democratic candidates. Students at colleges? Very likely to side with Democratic candidates. (Another post will be written about liberal colleges, I guarantee). Homemakers are typically more conservative in their viewpoints. So polls showing Obama leading McCain by 9 points? Obama takes it to mean that he's actually ahead. McCain seems to be smart enough to know that polls mean nothing. What matters, in the long run, is getting up and getting out to vote. Students? typically don't vote. Obama can hold all the rallies he wants at college campuses across the nation and it won't do much to increase the statistic of 18-21 year old voter apathy.
So what should we Americans do when faced with polls? Ignore them. They're about as accurate at predicting the true outcome as a pain in your hip is at predicting rain. Though I'd bet on the pain in your hip more than the polls.
So who won? What do the polls say? It depends on the poll. WESH channel 2 ran a poll throughout the debate and displayed the results as the debate progressed. At any given time both candidates were up with a 20 point spread in the poll. By the end, WESH 2's poll among viewers had Biden up in the mid 60's percent tile while Palin was in the mid 30's. This morning on the Drudge Report it showed Palin up over Biden 70 - 28 with 2% saying that neither candidate won.
Polls are used to determine public opinion on just about everything. Run by schools and news media and politically minded organizations, polls do their best to showcase what America wants to the rest of the world and to the candidates. But polls are never the be all or end all of the political world. Don't believe me? If he were alive I'd say you ask Thomas Dewey, Republican candidate against Harry Truman in the 1948 Election. The Chicago Daily Tribune, based on polls, showed Dewey defeating Truman. In 2004, Kerry was shown by all the exit polls as being far ahead of Bush, yet Bush won by a substantial margin. So how can polls be so terribly inaccurate from the truth?
The key lies in the democratic process. We as citizens, are required to go to our local precincts, check in with some form of ID, be a registered voter in our precinct, and vote at a single location. The line can be rather long at times. It all depends on where you live. Many of us work during the day. Our 9-5 jobs keep us pretty busy, so we vote when we can. Usually racing to the voting booth after work, or leaving early to make sure we get the vote in before we start the workday. Polls however, are conducted usually by phone. And usually they're conducted during the day to early evening. Who's home during the middle of the day? The unemployed. Students. Homemakers. The unemployed are, statistically, more likely to side with Democratic candidates. Students at colleges? Very likely to side with Democratic candidates. (Another post will be written about liberal colleges, I guarantee). Homemakers are typically more conservative in their viewpoints. So polls showing Obama leading McCain by 9 points? Obama takes it to mean that he's actually ahead. McCain seems to be smart enough to know that polls mean nothing. What matters, in the long run, is getting up and getting out to vote. Students? typically don't vote. Obama can hold all the rallies he wants at college campuses across the nation and it won't do much to increase the statistic of 18-21 year old voter apathy.
So what should we Americans do when faced with polls? Ignore them. They're about as accurate at predicting the true outcome as a pain in your hip is at predicting rain. Though I'd bet on the pain in your hip more than the polls.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The liberal death of Personal Responsibility
What does Personal Responsibility mean in our modern culture? The way that we deal with problems. There's a story called 'The Spendthrift and the Swallow' in which a man sells every possession he has, including his coat because he's seen a swallow, a sign of coming spring. The next day, the winter is still there and it's colder than ever. The spendthrift sees the dead swallow and blames it for him being cold in the winter.
Our modern society has become increasingly willing to push the blame for someone's actions onto other circumstances. We look at convicted killers and blame drugs, parental abuse, mental illness, societal pressures, just about anything we can to take the blame off of the person who has committed a crime against society. Why? Why is a man or woman no longer responsible for their actions? And at what point does a society draw the line?
E.g. - A couple of years ago there was an elderly pedophile living in Citrus County. He and his sister in law were habitual drug users. This old man broke into a home, kidnapped a nine year old girl, raped her, and buried her alive. At trial, he was continually brought before mental health experts, claiming he was mentally handicapped and thus was not in control of his actions. Mental illness and drug abuse had forced his hand into kidnapping, raping, and killing a young girl. If we take that as true, then logically it must follow that every mentally handicapped person or drug user or combination thereof will act criminally. However we see from hard evidence that mentally handicapped citizens are not always criminals.
But personal responsibility is not limited to illegal activities alone. The United States education system has been battling over sex education for a long while now. When to start it? What is appropriate to tell children in schools? In some of the more liberal states, there are reports of handing out boxes to girls and boys filled with contraceptives. Condoms to the boys, and birth control pills to the girls. With many states allowing abortions without parental consent, states such as Connecticut, California, Illinois, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, and Nevada as well as others. The schools equip children with birth control and condoms, a virtual pass saying 'feel free to have sex'. And when children in those schools do have sex and a pregnancy results, children can go to the local neighborhood abortion clinic and have an abortion. Yet any time someone mentions talking to kids about abstinence, it's considered draconian.
Is responsibility that difficult to teach? Is it so horrible to teach children respect for the society in which we live that being culpable for our own actions is considered outdated?
Our modern society has become increasingly willing to push the blame for someone's actions onto other circumstances. We look at convicted killers and blame drugs, parental abuse, mental illness, societal pressures, just about anything we can to take the blame off of the person who has committed a crime against society. Why? Why is a man or woman no longer responsible for their actions? And at what point does a society draw the line?
E.g. - A couple of years ago there was an elderly pedophile living in Citrus County. He and his sister in law were habitual drug users. This old man broke into a home, kidnapped a nine year old girl, raped her, and buried her alive. At trial, he was continually brought before mental health experts, claiming he was mentally handicapped and thus was not in control of his actions. Mental illness and drug abuse had forced his hand into kidnapping, raping, and killing a young girl. If we take that as true, then logically it must follow that every mentally handicapped person or drug user or combination thereof will act criminally. However we see from hard evidence that mentally handicapped citizens are not always criminals.
But personal responsibility is not limited to illegal activities alone. The United States education system has been battling over sex education for a long while now. When to start it? What is appropriate to tell children in schools? In some of the more liberal states, there are reports of handing out boxes to girls and boys filled with contraceptives. Condoms to the boys, and birth control pills to the girls. With many states allowing abortions without parental consent, states such as Connecticut, California, Illinois, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, and Nevada as well as others. The schools equip children with birth control and condoms, a virtual pass saying 'feel free to have sex'. And when children in those schools do have sex and a pregnancy results, children can go to the local neighborhood abortion clinic and have an abortion. Yet any time someone mentions talking to kids about abstinence, it's considered draconian.
Is responsibility that difficult to teach? Is it so horrible to teach children respect for the society in which we live that being culpable for our own actions is considered outdated?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)