To me the main thing that same sex couples are looking for is not tolerance but blind acceptance of their lifestyle with the power of government to force it on society by making it a crime to reject the homosexual lifestyle.
I tolerate homosexual behavior because I think what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is nobody's business provided they hurt or bother anyone else. I refuse to accept the homosexual lifestyle by allowing gay marriage, gay couples adapting children or getting custody of their own children, tax breaks, or any of the privileges and rights that marriage brings.
Posted 27 May 2003
I think that politicians at all levels from your local school board to the highest levels of government are cowards who are afraid to accept responsibility for their actions. They hide behind bureaucrats, zero-tolerance policies, and blue ribbon committees like the 911 and BRAC Commissions so they do not have to make any hard choices that may threaten their reelection. They just throw up their hands and say "I feel your pain but I can not do anything because (fill in the blank) is tying my hands. I know it stinks but what can I do?"
The proper reply by you should be something like this: "The problem is not (fill in the blank) but gutless politicians like you and your colleagues who passed the laws and approve the regulations that created this (fill in the blank) Frankenstein so you do not have to take any responsibility."
I have used the above line many times with my representatives when they try to hide from issues. We need to take back our government and Constitution by any means available.
Posted 27 May 2003
If I Were Welfare Czar .........
I would take a tough approach with those who refuse to participate in society. Welfare should not be "dignified", it should be a source of shame and those on welfare should be "encouraged" to get off of it. Since these people refuse to act like self-supporting adults they will be treated like dependent children. Nor will there be any benefits of any kind for illegal aliens except for emergency medical treatment. After recovery in a secured hospital ward they will be deported.
I am not talking about the unfortunate people who are orphaned, old, retarded or handicapped by no fault of their own. A society is judged by the way its treats its most helpless citizens and they should be supported and treated with compassion.
The following rules will also result in lower costs and better control on spending. To be able to help more prople:
1. All able-bodied persons and their immediate family will be housed in a secured compound such as a closed military bases. Single men and single women will be housed in separate supervised dormitories by age group. Families will be housed in patrolled apartments.
2. All residents will wear ID badges at all times.
3. Education opportunities, sports and recreation, job placement services, and medical treatment will always be available in the compound for those who desire or need it.
4. There will be curfews except for those with permission to be out. There will be a roll call every morning and bed check at curfew.
5. Telephone, television, and internet access will be tightly controlled.
6. Personal clothing will be allowed except for gang related or other offensive clothing. For those who need clothing uniforms will be issued.
7. All main meals will be served in dining hall for everyone. No carryouts.
8. Permission must be given for residents to enter or leave the compound or visit living areas other then theirs.
9. Chores such as landscaping, child care, dining hall KP duty, trash pick up, etc. will be assigned to residents unless they are in an education program and keeping up their grades or working a job outside and needs some support as they transit from welfare to self-reliance.
10. Residents will receive a basic allowance for their personal needs and can earn extra money working in the compound.
11. All minors will be in school and families face expulsion from the compound if children are truant or disrupting classes.
12. No alcohol, drugs, criminal, or gang activity will be tolerated.
13. Residents will be held responsible for their behavior and punishment and sanctions will be handed out after a fair hearing. Ultimate punishment will result in expulsion and possible criminal charges if a crime was committed.
14. Residents can leave anytime they want but if they do so they will not receive any welfare benefits outside of the compound. On the other hand a resident can stay as long as they like if following the rules, doing their chores, and exhibiting good behavior.
Posted 27 May 2003
I am a dangerous man because I understand how taxes, education, economics, and government work. I have an interest in history and have read many of the great classics, the latest being "War and Peace". My great passion is the Constitution and I have spent much of my adult life protecting and defending it from all enemies, foreign and domestic, as a uniformed and civilian member of the US Air Force. I live my life the way I see fit and really do not care how others live theirs as long as my rights and privileges as a citizen of the United States are not made less equal than other persons because of some trait such as color, sex, or sexual orientation.
I am a dangerous man because I am a well educated thinking freeman who is concerned what is happening to this country. The PC elite fear and despise me for that and they call me and others like me fascist, sexist, racist, homophobe, or whatever they can think of if. That is why the elite want hate speech laws, so they can shut up people like me for speaking my mind with threat of prison or "sensitivity" reeducation camps to learn the Orwellian Stopthink (term from "1984").
I am a dangerous man because I mock Hillary and hold Bill responsible for 9-11.
I am a dangerous man because I am like the men who stood up to tyrants like Hitler and Stalin.
I am a dangerous man because I am like the man who stared down a Red Chinese tank.
I am a dangerous man because I am like the men who fought the British and the men who wore blue and the men who wore gray.
I am a dangerous man because I believe in freedom and liberty for all and stand up against the liberal elite PC nazis where ever I find them.
When I was young we used the word nigger not as a derogatory term but as a form of slang. Neither I nor anybody I knew ever used it directly at a "colored" person.
We had "nigger piles" versus dog piles today.
A person riding alone in the back seat of a car was "riding nigger"
When we fixed something half assed we "nigger rigged" it.
Eeanie, Meanie, Minie, Moe
Catch a nigger by the toe ....
And we kept short clubs for self-defense called "nigger sticks" in our cars.
I do not use such words anymore because to do so shows a lack of education and tolerance towards others. However I do believe freedom of speech means just that. As free and sovereign citizens we should be able to say anything we want to anybody no matter how offensive. As early Supreme Court decisions ruled you can't yell fire in a crowed theater and your freedom of speech ends at the tip of the other guy's nose. So if you are not threatening public safety or whipping up a mob to violence you should be able to say or write anything you want, both public and private, without fear of "speech codes", "hate crimes", and "hate speech". If someone gets offended that is the price of freedom. The village idiot has the same right of freedom of speech and expression as the most pious and tolerate citizen.
Posted 17 April 2004
I can see how someone who is born into an Islamic lifestyle and does not know any other type of life can accept it restrictions on every facet of their life unquestionably. What I can not understand are those people who voluntary convert to Islam (I am not talking about people who are forced to convert or die). It seems to me to be a harsh and joyless life: no movies, art, literature, music, nor freedom of expression or individuality of any kind unless approved by your local Islamic clerics who is backed up by the power of a repressive State.
Have you ever seen photographs or film of any Iman or Ayatollah who smiles or seem friendly and approachable? They look so stern, uncompromising, and cruel. These clerics lead an even more harsh life than the common folk and I think that any feelings of humanity have been wrung out of them. As long as they think they are doing God's work they have no care whatsoever who is killed or maimed, even other Moslems who they consider not Islamic enough.
Posted 2 February 2004
Why is everybody arguing about where and how to prosecute Saddam Hussein for his crimes? Why can he not be tried more than once?
He can be tried in Iraq for crimes committed in that country ;
He can then be tried for crimes against the United States such as being behind an attempted assassination of George Bush the Elder and maybe 911, and the abuse and murder of American POWs and other war crimes;
Then on to the Hague for crimes of aggression against his neighbors.
Note To The Above Observation:
When I write a short piece like the above I usually send it to editor of the local newspaper. It was published and on Christmas Eve some guy called my house to comment about it. He was very polite and informed me that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in 911. I said I agree somewhat and pointed out I wrote "maybe 911" but did point out that while Saddam may not know about individual operations he did allow terrorist training camps in his country including aircraft interior mock-ups.
He tried to blame the Kurds for 911 because the training camps were in the Kurdish areas and defended Saddam by saying that he did not know about it. I said he was a dictator of a police state and nothing gets pass him, especially since the camps were known by the rest of the world for a long time. He also stated that Saddam helped the US by killing terrorists. I said Saddam killed a lot of people he did not like. I then asked if Iraq was better off now than then. I never got a straight answer.
I just cannot understand why many Americans thinks that Bush invaded Iraq not to protect our country and world against a regime that had the capacity for WMDs and allowed terrorists to train in his country but for the benefit of the oil companies. Also why do they continue to defend Saddam?
These people have never forgotten Florida and hate Bush so much that they are willing to risk American lives to defeat him politically. In fact I think that many of them are hoping and praying for another massive terrorist attack just so they can point fingers at Bush.
Posted 2 February 2004
If you read the biographies of the elite of the left they, almost without exception, are either rich or well off, very articulate, and have attended and teach in the best schools in the country. My question is how come such well-educated people have absolutely no common sense or grasp on reality? They say and write the most ridiculous, stupid, and outrageous theories and opinions. Do they really believe what they are writing and saying or just a bone being tossed out to the uniformed masses that think government is their savior and means of financial support?
Back in high school and early college years I was a liberal. I recall being part of the very first Earth Day and was involved in other liberal causes. Winston Churchill said, "If you are young and not a liberal, you don't have a heart. If you are old and are still a liberal, you don't have a brain." He is right; as I have gotten older I just simply cannot see how any thinking human can be a liberal. I could never be a liberal again unless I was given a lobotomy: no more being cursed with the power of reasoning, intelligence, and independent thinking. I would become a good little liberal who believes everything that the liberal elite say and write and then vote for them.
Posted 14 September 2003
What I like about Internet and talk radio in general is that you and I can get the opinion, information and news that the big four networks, the government, and the big city newspapers either ignore or pooh-pooh as the ravings of the anti-government, gun carrying, extremist right wing, and inbred nuts hiding away at isolated cabins in Montana. You can, horrors, make up your own mind. Of course you still have to filter the crap from the legitimate news. What I tell the liberal media whores I also tell Internet news outlets and talk radio: don't try to BS me, there is more than one news source I can cross check with. To all those persons who thinks that the First Amendment needs to be limited will find the DemocRATs, Hitler, and Stalin strongly agreeing with them.
Posted 28 December 2002
The modern civil rights movement has hijacked and perverted past giants like Martin Luther King to their own personal power and wealth. That is why I laugh and shake my head when they complain about whites quoting him. The self appointed black leaders are worst than the ante-bellum masters of the plantations and the later post war racist, usually DemocRATs officials, that kept them in conditions very close to slavery. As least with those white men the blacks knew where they stood and who the enemy was. These past enemies have been replaced by the House Negros of the liberals who pretend to be the friends of the "oppressed" blacks. The old plantations of the South with white men in white linen suits drinking iced tea on the porches watching their darkies at work has now been replaced by the Je$$e Ja¢k$on types and a new welfare plantation where their votes are what these new masters demand rather than their labor.
Posted 28 December 2002
I am bypassing the United Way with my donations again this year. The reason is that some United Ways persist in discrimination against the Boy Scouts because they are trying to instill values into their members and keep boys away from homosexuals. I will give money directly to charities.
I know that our local United Way and the vast majority of Untied Ways across the nation do not do this, but a nation wide boycott will be the only way to send a strong message to force the discriminating ones to stop this PC nonsense or be booted out of the national United Way organization.
When that is accomplished, I will sign up again.
Posted 20 September 2002
"You know I don't understand something. Now it has been proven over and over that all the stupid governments (My Note: Socialist & Communist) don't work. I mean look at the countries around the world. Yet somebody is always trying again. They go through it screw up lives for years and we wind up back where we started. Then we start over again. The basic idea behind these people is always the same. Somebody works and somebody else gets part of the results. How long does it take for people to figure out this ain't ever going to work. After people go through the stupid and guilty cycle it's all over."
My Reply:
That is because the newest generation thinks they will avoid the same problems and mistakes that their fascist/socialist/ communist predecessors made and then they fall into the same traps. The major trap is that the masses will never act the way you want to because we are free thinking individuals, not animals trained to jump through loops. Part of human nature is survival and selfishness. If those two needs are not fulfilled we as individuals will not care a whit for society, only what we can take out of it for ourselves.
That is why capitalism is the natural order of things, not artificial theories like socialism and communism. If a man can better his own situation, society improves because of the goods and services he produces. When a surplus and personal wealth results, he will set up and donate to charities and other good works. Not because he believes in socialism but because it is in his best interest to keep a rich and free society going. That is why socialism and communism always fail when tried. Old garbage and new garbage smells the same.
Posted 22 August 2002
Federalism was supposed to be an equal partnership between the national government and the individual States (not provinces, not departments, not sections) which were considered to be 13 sovereign Nations. This relationship was recognized in the Constitution in two main ways: the States set the rules for how they assign their Electoral College votes for the selection of the president and Vice President and the appointment of Senators to the Congress as "ambassadors" to the national government. Further safeguards was the Ninth and Tenth Amendments that had to added before some of the States would ratify the Constitution. Later Supreme Court opinions and Constitutional Amendments has reduced the States to not much more than lines on a map. If we are to be free men and women we must return to the Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended else we will have nothing but anarchy, revolution, and war among ourselves.
Posted 14 March 2002.
I am reading the book "Don't Know Much About The Civil War" and while giving slight coverage to other causes such as high tariffs and low prices for southern agriculture goods he says that then main reason was slavery and devotes most of the pre-war section to it. He asks the question would there be a "Civil War" if there were no slavery? After all, he writes, there were serious many disagreements between the States before and since the war that also threaten to separate the country but those disagreements were always headed off by compromise and agreements.
That question has really made me rethink my stand on the root causes of the War Between the States and I would have to say no. The flip side is that if there was not a war between North and South there would be no reconstruction amendments (13 to 15) either. The slaves were freed of course but the other issues of States Rights and tariffs (really a consumption tax) were never settled and the 14 and 15th amendments weakened State Rights that, in turn, lead to later populist amendments and unconstitutional laws that furthered weakened the political power of the States and citizens.p> If there was no War Between the States in 1861 to 1865 I think it would of came later in the 1930s when Roosevelt introduced socialism and grabbed massive amounts of power for the Federal Government which violated the concept of Federalism, an equal partnership between the States and the national government. Many States, especially those that reserved the right to secede when ratifying the Constitution or in the South during the 1850s over protective tariffs that only benefited the North, would be stronger and stand up to Roosevelt.
My opinion is that with government getting bigger and our personal wealth and freedoms getting smaller I think a second Revolution or War Between the States is inevitable with or without the history of the 1861-1865 war.
Posted 15 February 2002
Welcome to the new Amerika. Since the liberal left's position on society is built on lies and trashing American culture, nothing is out of bounds for them. If they have to trash famous Americans, living or dead, that stand in their way they will. If they have to throw their own people to the wolves, they will, If they have to rewrite history (George Orwell's, "1984") they will. If they have to nationalize the entire medical industry to control our lifestyles as they think we should live, they will. If they have to take away our guns, automobiles, property, and personal wealth to control our actions, they will. If they have to openly lie, cheat, and steal (like they did in Florida) to win elections, they will.
Make no mistake; the left in this country thinks that the wrong side won the Cold War. They want to create a new USSR in this country and avoid the same mistakes that brung the USSR down. But they cannot succeed because of the human spirit and the yearning to be free. Napoleon failed, Hitler failed, the USSR failed, and the PRC will fail because there are too many good men and women who stood against them.
The DemocRATs are calling the Republicans a "regional" political party because they are un-represented in New England, the land of socialist liberals and Unions. On the opening webpage is posted the Newsweek county by county vote results map from the 2000 presidential election. Mostly all the DemocRAT's wins were in the large cities and counties bordering Mexico, blue islands in a sea of red. If anyone has become a regional party, it is the DemocRATs depending on mostly minority, mostly liberal, city dwellers who think they are so superior to us who live in the red areas. How many popular revolutions were fought from the countryside, laying siege to the cities?
I am convinced that there will be a second American Revolution or War Between The States coming to the United States within the next generation or two. Look at what is happening against federal encroachment in Oregon over water rights and the income tax revolt in Tennessee. Keep your powder dry and your ears and eyes open.
Posted 27 July 2001
The other day I was thinking (I know, very dangerous thing to do) that the plight of the Black race in the United States will never improve until they cease bloc voting for one political party. In the 2000 election they voted 94% for DemocRATs and, because they are concentrated in a few large cities, those votes have a huge effect on national elections. Just look at the Newsweek election map by county to see the large metro areas in blue.
My argument is that the Black vote is a "given" by both DemocRATs and Republicans. The DemocRATs just throw a few bones to them after the election and ignore them till the next election. The Republicans do not reach out to Blacks as much as they should and so do not break the bloc voting despite the fact that Republicans have much more Blacks in high political and party offices than DemocRATs do. The ones who suffer from this sad state of affairs the most are the Blacks themselves.
For example, an overwhelming majority of Black parents support school vouchers to get their children out of those hellholes called public schools. But the DemocRATs who are beholding to the more powerful and wealthier teacher unions who oppose school vouchers are listened to and Black families are ignored.
I have also wondered how this situation has ended up this way. The Republican Party was founded in the 1840s by various anti-slavery groups and finally succeeded in electing a Republican president in 1860, Abraham Lincoln. DemocRATs created the Confederate States of America because they could not accept Lincoln.
Postwar, the first gun control laws in the United States was passed by DemocRATs in the South to keep freed slaves from arming themselves. All the Southern State officials, who stood in the university and school doors, loosen dogs and fire hoses on civil right marchers, who looked the other way while White Racists did their thing were all DemocRATs. The various civil rights and voter acts passed in the sixties by the Congress would never have become law had not the minority Republicans overwhelmingly supported them since many Southern DemocRATs (Including Al Gore, Senior) voted against them.
Now the Blacks in the United States look upon the DemocRATs as their protector against the evil Republicans? All they did was exchange one oppressive plantation for another, as slaves they supported the master's plantation with their labor controlled by the overseers. The new DemocRAT liberal welfare plantation is supported by their votes and controlled by the new plantation overseers, the Je$$ie Jack$on/Al $harpton type house niggers. Old or new, they are still slaves and victims; abused and misused by their masters, the DemocRAT Party.
I really can't think of a solution to this problem as long as the Blacks allow themselves to be slaves and victims of the DemocRAT Party, who has kept the Black race down lower than the KKK could of even dreamed about doing themselves.
Posted 18 June 2001
Looking at history, every wave of immigration to the US until the most recent learned English. There was no need for official language laws because they knew that in order to succeed and prosper they had the learn the language. Lately the newest immigrants, legal and illegal, seems to think that rather than learn English, the rest of he country has to learn their language and accommodate them. A common language is the glue that holds a nation together, it is the one thing all the people have in common. Else this country could become balkanized and be destroyed, piece by piece, by her enemies. remember, there are too many people, domestic and overseas, who think that the wrong side won the cold war.
If you dig deeper, you will discover that the only advocates of bi-lingualism is the self appointed leaders of the various ethic groups. The common folk want their children to learn English because they know that is the only way they can function and advance in our society. All this is is another way for the elite fascist Je$$ie Jack$on type liberals to divide the country along language lines and give themselves power and money. And not to far behind is the DemocRAT Party doing what they do best, pandering and trying once again to undermine society for their own selfish political purposes.
Posted 21 April 2001
Throughout history we sometimes hear of "lost" generations, usually after a bloody war where an entire generation of young people are mentally scared and a society takes decades to recover. I fear that we in the US has our own lost generation in the black DemocRAT controlled inner cities. This generation will remain lost until successful black men like Booker T Washington, George Washington Carver, Justice Thomas, Walter Williams, and Thomas Sowell become the role models. Not the Je$$e Ja¢k$on type race hustling poverty pimps, thugs and murderers in the entertainment and sports industries, and the local pimp or drug pusher on the corner who wears gold chains and drives fancy cars.
Posted 5 March 2001
When a remarkable group of men gathered during the hot summer days in Independence Hall over two hundred years ago they produced the first of two great documents, the Declaration of Independence. They were advocating treason against the Crown and the few that fell in their hands paid the ultimate price. Even those who avoided direct capture paid high prices. The first national government that these men set up was called the Articles of Confederation, but it had many problems and so a new constitutional convention was called to amend it. Quite illegally and acting on their own authority they created a brand new document, the Constitution of the united States (yes, a small 'u'). To create a remarkable document was one thing, but selling it was another.
So the Federalist papers were written, primarily by Jefferson and Madison, who later became the third and fourth presidents. They were released for publication as anonymous "letters to the editors". You can see some back and forth banter and debate in the Federalist Papers if read in order.
The primary reason of the Federalist Papers was to explain the intentions and reasons why the Constitution was written the way it was and to urge it's adoption. Even today, Judges still refer to the Federalist Papers when deciding constitutional matters because it states the original intent of the founding fathers. Also within those pages are warnings about checking the rising power of the national government offering security over freedom and avoiding fractionating the country. "Fractionating" does not mean political parties as the DemocRATs claimed during the Clinton impeachment procedures, but dividing up the people into groups pitted against each other, what we would call "Balkanization" today. This warning has been ignored and as a result we have affirmative action, preferential treatment, and other laws that create a "protected class" of persons and give great political power and money to their "leaders" who in turn do all they can to keep these divisions alive. Balkanization will eventually lead to restrictions to all of our freedoms such as "hate speech" laws which simply would be any act or word that the government says is hate speech and that will be the end of the First Amendment.
As for the right to keep and bear arms it precedes our independence. In Concord and Lexington, the primary objective of the British Army was to disarm the colonists by seizing the armories in those two cities. They did not count on farmers and shopkeepers taking up their private arms against them and so began the War of Independence. At first, the founding fathers did not put the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. To these men it was a given fact that a free people have a God given right to firearms for hunting, self-protection, and keeping tyrants at bay. The first ten amendments along including the right to keep and bear arms were added to the Constitution at the insistence of the States before they would ratify it since even then they feared a powerful national government.
The second amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". Regulated, in the context of the day, mean "well trained", a word from the military term "regiment". It also uses the words "necessary to the security of a free state". What this meant at the time and now is to take up arms against all enemies, foreign ----- and domestic. The militia is mentioned numerous times in the Constitution, and no, the National Guard is not the militia. The militia is made up of the free persons of the individual States and most State constitutions have a militia clause in there. The National Guard is NOT the militia. They are a reserve of the US armed forces covered by a different set of laws than the militia.
It was either Hitler or Stalin who said "Bring me the children and they will be mine forever". That has been true throughout history and is being practiced in the government schools. The children simply are not being taught American history and government anymore. They are being told that the Constitution is a "living document" that was originally created by a bunch of dead, white male slave holders to keep non-white males and women in their place. That is how hidden "rights" are found to justify an ever expanding national government that will eventually trash the Constitution and lead to a People's Democratic Republic of the United States, a successor to the Soviet Union.
Of course we will not wake up tomorrow and find the secret police busting down our doors and taking our weapons, banned books, and other contraband from our homes. We will not see next week the reeducation camps. We will not see next month national ID cards that "classify" us by race, "gender", and sexual orientation. We will not see next year checkpoints on the highways to regulate where and how we travel. But if things keep going the way they are we will.
Every new generation must be taught the norms, values, and traditions of society by the current generation. If the elders fail to do that, there are selfish and evil people who are more than willing to step in to advance their own agendas. There are always Hitlers and Stalins in the wings, waiting. I truly believe that President Clinton was an evil man and a fascist. In another place and time, he would be a Hitler or Stalin. But can future generations keep the next Clinton in check if the people are not aware of their rights and responsibilities of living in a republican free society? Not if Americans alive today fail to pass on to the next generation faith in the Republic that has been passed down for over 200 years.
That is your legacy Z, you either have to completely support the Constitution in its entirely, even the parts you do not agree it, or completely lose it. You will decide if your children or grandchildren will be slaves or free persons, just like every generation before you have decided.
WHO ARE THE RACISTS? (Sep 12, 1999). This was my reply to someone on a message board who blamed the religious right for all of the discrimination in the country today and I think it bears being repeating and expanding it here:
In reply to your statement about the religious right, if you bother to study real American history, (not the PC crap that is being taught today) you will find that the political party that supported slavery was the Democrat Party in the years before War Between The States (not Civil War). It was the religious right wing of that day that founded the Republican Party in 1841 to abolish slavery. The Southern States DemocRATs was also the party that passed Jim Crow segregation laws after that war and the first gun control laws in the country whose purpose was to deny firearms to blacks for their self protection against the KKK and so-called racist Committees of Public Safety.
It was the Southern States DemocRATs which unleashed the dogs and turned fire hoses on protesters during the civil right movements during the fifties and sixties. George Wallace, who stood in the door of the Alabama State University to prevent blacks from entering, the governor of Arkansas who called out the National Guard to keep Little Rock High School from integrating, The infamous sheriff Bull Conner of Alabama were all DemocRATs.
It is the DemocRATs and their liberal allies who still keep the black man down by telling him that he can't make it on his own and created a new plantation for the black race to keep them in line. It is not called "Tara" or "Twelve Oaks" like it was in "Gone With The Wind", a brutal system that forced black slaves to work all day to earn their keep. The new plantation has names like "Welfare" and "Entitlements" and the way they earn their keep is to vote for DemocRATs and lick the boots of the new overseers, race baiting poverty pimps like Je$$e Ja¢k$on who in turn are beholding to their Democrat Party masters if they want to keep their wealth and power. That is why when independently minded men like Justice Thomas, Congressman Watts, Ken Hamblin, and Thomas Sowell leave the plantation, they are called "traitors to their race", "not black anymore", or "acting white". Walter Williams, another black man who had left the plantation to become a respected economics scholar has written:
"No one denies that weighty problems confront a large segment of the black population. But those problems have little to do with discrimination. There is no evidence that colleges are turning away black students with 1200 on the SAT, but there's a plenty of evidence that blacks are not achieving high SAT scores. There's no evidence that businesses don't locate in black neighborhoods because white owners and investors don't like dollars coming out of black hands. There's a plenty of evidence that black criminals make economic activity in black communities unattractive. There's no evidence that discrimination accounts for today's unprecedented, devastating illegitimacy, family breakdown and dependency rates. There's a plenty of evidence that irresponsible personal choices do. The major problems that stand in the way of broader advancement will be solved only when blacks finally recognize that our destinies lie in our hands and only we can solve what are essentially black problems -- not Washington, politicians and the intellectual elite."
The DemocRATs is the party that forces black children to remain in substandard schools, in league with the left wing NEA, and poor, black families in dangerous federal housing projects where drugs and violence are a way of life. The DemocRATs do all this to buy the votes of the people who take their handouts and say "Thank you, master, for saving me from those evil conservatives who is keeping the black race down". It is beyond me why after forty years of Democratic rule in the Congress you would think the blacks would catch on that the DemocRATs are just using them for their own selfish purposes --- just like the slave holding plantation masters did.
Find for me example where the so called religious right has done as much damage to the black race in this country as the DemocRATs and liberals have done.
 |
|
|
|
 |
