The Constitution of the United States. What does it mean to you? For me, it’s the life blood of this nation. It belongs to We the People. It doesn’t belong to the temporary politicians, bureaucrats, and jurists that attempt to change it, manipulate it and disregard it, those whose names won’t even be remembered years from now, but only the destruction they left behind. How many of you can name the politicians responsible for social security, medicare, medicaid and all of the departments and agencies of the government of which most are unconstitutional? I’ll bet not very many of you unless you’re an astute historian or just eat, breath and sleep politics. Our Constitution is of few words, relatively speaking, but, of thoughtful words. Those words have meaning and they represent the most heartfelt feelings and concerns of our founding fathers and every word represents their intentions for the direction of this nation. Those words were written with freedom of the individual and limitation of the control of a central government as of utmost importance. The Constitution almost didn’t survive the ratification process because of the fear of many in the Constitutional Convention that the central government could become all powerful. If they could see that central government now, their suspicions would be proven. Each generation of temporary “guardians” of our Constitution have whittled and whittled at it until, today, it is almost unrecognizable as our guiding light. No, they haven’t changed it through the means set aside IN the Constitution, but have, basically, neutered it through unconstitutional laws in Congress, Executive overreach and through political court decisions. We MUST get this nation back on track to adherence to our Constitution and establish this nation, once again, as a Constitutional Republic. If we don’t, this nation will be as so many before us, a flickering and fleeting light that will extinguish.
What is a “patriot” in today’s America? We hear a lot about patriotism, particularly during times of great stress in our country. The Reagan years come to mind, when a simple Hollywood actor turned politician would remind the citizens of this nation just how great America is after they had fallen into despair after the Watergate scandal of the Nixon years, the stagnate Ford years and the failed Carter administration. We, as a nation, had been dragged through the wringer, so to speak, and many of its citizens had lost faith in America. Reagan reminded us of what our founding fathers brought forth from the American Revolution and laid before us a vision of America that could, once again, be the great nation that our founders sought; one that is based on the individual and not the whims of those who seek power to diminish the individual. Patriotism abounded during those brief eight years when some sanity was brought back into the meaning of “America”.
The word “patriot”, I believe, has different meanings as it relates to different countries. For me, the word “patriot” as it relates to America, has its most pure definition when it is used to define our “Founding Fathers” who struggled to free themselves from the tyrannical stranglehold of their parent country, England, AND when used to define those who struggle to guide this nation BACK to the vision of our founding fathers. The Revolutionary “patriots” and the “patriots” of today are not so very different nor are the “loyalists” of Revolutionary times and the “tyrannists” of today or the “neutral”, “conformist” or “status-quo” individuals of Revolutionary times and the “drones” or “disengaged” individuals of today. Pundits, establishment politicians, liberals and many more go on and on about how patriotic they are and seek to put themselves on par with the true patriots of our time. Being a patriot, though, is not what you “say” you are but it is in your actions.
There is a word I used in the previous paragraph that you, probably, are not familiar with. That word is “tyrannist” and you will not find it in the dictionary. I think that most will, immediately, relate to what the word means because it is derived from the word “tyranny”. While this word has been used from time to time with no clear definition as to its meaning, the word was coined and defined by one of our own, Damn Right Rumbleseat, early in 2013 and has been submitted to the various “dictionaries” and Wikipedia for inclusion in those formats. There was, actually, a third definition submitted with the package as follows: 3. A person who advances and/or promotes tyrannical concepts, beliefs or laws. So, now when you read the term “tyrannist” from the Damn Right family, you’ll know exactly of what we speak. We think that it is an appropriate term used for the appropriate individuals to which we refer. The following is a description of that terminology:
What distinguishes a “patriot” from a “conformist” or “drone” or from a “loyalist” or “tyrannist”? Before the Revolutionary War there was a growing discontent with the overbearing rule and unjust treatment of the colonists by the King of England. While this had an effect on all of the colonies, there were only about 35% – 40% of the colonists who felt that there was an urgent need to right the situation and call for an end to the methods of the King and became known as the patriots. There were about 15% – 20% who were absolute supporters of the Kingdom and worked in support of the King. The remaining 40% – 50% did not see the urgent need to react to the situation and were willing to continue the status-quo because, after all, they had it better than in England and they had their lives to live and more pressing things to do and rising against the Kingdom, surely, would bring a negative effect on their daily lives. You can see that the “patriots” were not the overwhelming majority of the colonists yet they were the ones who understood the unalienable rights of individuals granted, not by man, but by God versus the power and control of the elites and were the ones that had the where-with-all to address the issues head on no matter what the cost. Today’s “patriots” probably number around the same percentage as the Revolutionary patriots, today’s “tyrannists” probably number closer to 20% – 25% leaving around 35% – 45% today as “drones” or “low-information voters”. The “patriots” of today have the same sense of urgency that our founding “patriots” had and work tirelessly to get this nation back to its founding principles, however, few of our true “patriots” are in positions of leadership in our governments as were most of our notable founding patriots. They were in positions to put forth the strategy to gain their liberty. It is a struggle for our “patriot” leaders today to garner the support needed to, once again, advance the goal of liberty. After the American Revolution, some loyalists remained in the new United States of America but most either moved back to England or Canada or elsewhere. In the late 19th century and, especially, the early 20th century however, growing numbers of people began to move away from our founding principles of individual rights and move toward collectivism and globalism and began rejecting the principles established in our Constitution. This change was not accomplished in the light of day but behind closed doors and in the darkness of secrecy while thwarting the very Constitution that has guided this nation to greatness. Only in the last couple of decades has this change become so blatant that it has taken over our government, the bureaucracy, the media and our politics and now threatens the very existence of this nation as it was established. Though our founders had the foresight to provide a means for changing the Constitution they made it extremely difficult to do so and would require an overwhelming majority of the body of Congress and the states. Unfortunately, the bodies of this government have conspired, for all intents and purposes, to change the Constitution without this safeguard. The remaining group, the drones or low information voters, have been so bombarded with misinformation and with government handouts that it has become extremely doubtful that these individuals can be rallied by the “patriots” to keep this nation from following the “tyrannists” and falling into tyranny.
The question becomes……Can the “patriots” of today rally the “drones” or misinformed around the cry to revive the Constitution and do they have the same selfless desire to save this nation regardless of the means and the consequences. I believe that they DO have that desire and I Do believe that, if they are not able to rally enough citizens to keep this nation from falling into tyranny, they WILL use whatever methods necessary to protect liberty and the idea of the “individual” over the “collective” and to restore and protect the values set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America. Our founding “patriots” gave us this great nation. Today’s “patriots” will keep the faith and restore this nation as established by the Constitution.
When I was younger, I could not wait to celebrate the Fourth of July. Parades, picnics, homemade banana ice cream, all capped off by fireworks. I no longer celebrate July Fourth. You will not hear me say “Happy Fourth of July,” to anyone.
You may think that I am unpatriotic or even un-American. Quite the opposite.
I believe in our republic. I consider myself to be blessed to be an American. You may now be wondering how I can justify not celebrating July Fourth with my love for the United States of America.
It is really quite simple. I do not celebrate July Fourth. July Fourth is a square on a calendar. A date. Just as I do not celebrate December 25th; I celebrate Christmas. So, on July Fourth, I celebrate Indepence Day. I celebrate the day when brave men of conviction stood up to tyranny. I celebrate the birth of a free nation. I honor those who risked their lives and livelihoods to declare Independence from a nation ruled by a tyrant and proclaim themselves and their countrymen to be Americans. I celebrate their their vision to create a nation built upon Liberty and the Rights of the People.
I urge you all to join me in not celebrating the Fourth of July, but to celebrate, ‘Independence Day.
In his novel, “1984,” George Orwell created the character, Emmanuel Goldstein. Goldstein was the subject of the “Two Minutes Hate” presented daily by the Party and distributed though Party controlled media. While we never learn if Emmanuel Goldstein is real or just a fictitious figure upon which to focus the attention of the populace, he is “real” enough to serve the Party’s purpose.
Though I have read “1984″ several times in my life, I must admit that the last time was three decades ago when I was in college. I think a trip to the library is on today’s agenda.
Goldstein was offered up by the Party as the ultimate Enemy of the State. His purpose was to distract the people from the increasing hardships of life under the Party and to bolster support for the Party.
Goldstein was not the only tool the Party used. The Party also dictated language, creating new words and disallowing the use of others. Each citizen was required to join in a daily exercise regimen led by a Party member through the same state controlled media. Each citizen was monitored through the same media device. Citizens were only allowed certain foods and the quantities of foods, such as chocolate, were dictated by the Party.
Does any of this seem familiar?
To anyone who has read a news report, watched a newscast, or even browsed the internet, it should.
We have elected (and many appointed) officials trying to dictate what we eat and how much of it. Think Bloomberg, sodas and trans-fats. We have media that disseminate only content that is complicit with the government’s agenda. Think mainstream media. We have words we are not supposed to use for fear of offending someone. Those words have been sacrificed and replaced in the name of political correctness. Think “undocumented” as opposed to “illegal.” We are under scrutiny at the whim of bureaucrats. Think Patriot Act and CISPA.
That leaves the “Two Minutes Hate.” Do we have that? No. With the advent of 24 hour “news” outlets, we now have the “24 Hours Hate.” Of course, it is called by different names. The media tell us who we should fear or despise, sometimes overtly, sometimes subliminally. I have noticed this since my teens. In the 1950′s and 60′s, we were told to hate the Soviet Union. In the 1970′s, we were told to hate Iran because of Shah Reza Pahlavi. Then we were told to hate Iran because of the taking of American hostages by those loyal to the regime that replaced the Shah. In the 1980′s we were told to hate poverty, then we were told to hate wealth. This practice continues and is alive today.
Today, media tells us that a primary threat to our nation is what the government has labeled “Right Wing Extremists.” You know, those of us who revere the Constitution of the United States. Those of us who believe government should be held accountable to the people, not vice versa. Those of us who believe that we are still “We The People.”
Increasingly, we have seen baseless allegations hurled at those who refuse to submit to the Party line. We have seen those who dared to stand up for the Constitutionally guaranteed rights our Founding Fathers fought for jailed. The public is being conditioned to hate them.
Since I believe in the Constitution and America as a republic, I could well be Emmanuel Goldstein. You probably are, too.
Remember when the Obama Administration declared that banks wanting to repay their bailout money “may be refused permission” to do so, and that these banks had to clear the Fed’s “stress test” just to become “eligible” to give taxpayers THEIR money back? According to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner
…even then the Administration might force banks to keep the money.
Fast forward April 2013…
The Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit. Hmmmm I wonder if these folks will have the same conditions on their shaky loans
that the big banks did when they got our tax dollars! Oh yeah don’t worry…the Almighty One (in the White House) will tell those banks foolish enough to reopen the door that led to all the risky lending…you know the lending that caused the housing crash, “I’ll decide who pays back monies owed.” So go ahead, buy homes you can’t afford!
What good could possibly come from this?
Here’s a red flag…if its such sound reasoning on the part of the Obama administration, why would housing officials need to urge the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, who have, rightly so I might add, become increasingly cautious, that they will not be
legally or financially responsible should they make loans to “riskier borrowers” who meetGovernment standards but later default? What good would come from this asinine policy? Were there not enough families disrupted or in some cases destroyed when the house of cards came tumbling down? Why would Obama want to push for these new lending policies which are eerily similar to the ones that led this country into a downward spiral? That same spiral that has left MANY still struggling to crawl out of the wreckage caused by the last crash? At some point common sense needs to kick in.
Why would Obama want to push for these new lending policies which are eerily similar to the ones that led this country into a downward spiral?
It’s not like we don’t have any prior experience as to what happens to people when banks lend money willy nilly.
If an American citizen can be detained, tried, and convicted of a crime for not carrying proper identifying documentation, why do immigrants lacking any documentation deserve a pass? What is the rationale behind this? Below is one side of the conversation during a hypothetical traffic stop:
Oh, you have no documents saying you are in the U.S. legally? No, of course you’re not in trouble, you are not a criminal. You merely crossed our border illegally, thumbed your nose at our laws, and told the millions of immigrants who came here legally and worked to become part of America to kiss your ass. What’s that you said? Oh, you are running late to vote? I see. I’ll try to be quick about this. Sorry to inconvenience you. No, don’t worry, you won’t need any kind of identification to vote, so you can just stroll in and vote, probably several times, in fact. That’s right, I almost forgot why I stopped you. You nearly ran over those kids as you sped through that school zone. Okay, I’m pretty sure your excuse that you don’t understand English and couldn’t read the sign is entirely plausible, even though you are conversing fairly well in English now. Even if I wanted to ticket you for some offense, how could I? You have no legal ID, no documentation of any kind and we aren’t supposed to arrest you folks. Have a nice day.
Yes, that little scenario is absurd. Then again, not considering those who have commited crimes to be criminals is equally absurd. If something is established by law, violating that is a crime. No semantics; no gray areas. Have I ever broken a law? Yes, I have. Was it serious? No. Did I accept the consequences? Yes.
Should a criminal be excused because they commited another crime? Absolutely not! Why do we excuse those who commit crimes just because they commited the crime of entering the country illegally?
I have strayed from the title of this a bit. My point is this. I have to carry documents to show who I am. The Constitution guarantees my right to carry a firearm, though I must carry documentation to show that I am permitted to conceal it. Were I to do otherwise, I would be classified as a criminal.
Why do we treat “undocumented” immigrants differently? I wish I could find a logical answer to that question.
First of all, I wanna thank Damn Right Neptune for inviting me in here. Although I think he might be somewhat shocked at what I’ve decided to write about for my first post… I am a hardcore Constitutional conservative, avid hunter and fisherman, STRONG believer in the 2nd Amendment (the entire Bill of Rights, in fact), a tireless advocate of personal responsibility and fervent hater of all things liberal, socialist and collective. So why, then, would I decide to write my first post here about girl scout cookies? Let me tell you a story. It’s a true story, it’s been chapping my ass for awhile now and driving home last night it started coming together in my head enough that I want to share it here….
I’m a married guy who works construction in the summer and plays around blogging year round. I have 4 kids- 3 girls and a boy. The boy and the girls are twins. Things are interesting at my house to say the least. Like most folks, we have the kids involved in various activities- it keeps things quieter at home, helps me and Momma stay somewhat sane, and it’s good for them. Because we believe that kids should be allowed to make their own choices to learn how to be responsible for their decisions, we let them each pick ONE activity to participate in. We certainly don’t let them do EVERYTHING they want. We’re trying to teach them the value of making good choices and living with the consequences of poor decisions. Now, in the words of Ron White:
I told ya that story so I could tell ya this story!
This year, my 8 year old wanted to join Girl Scouts. Fine enough, we thought. She and Momma went to a meeting back in November to check out the troop- the girls all seemed nice enough and the leaders were happy to have a new face in the bunch. Outside of the cookie sales, the time commitment wasn’t overwhelming and my daughter seemed genuinely interested in participating. We decided to let her go ahead and join. Fast-forward to early January and the start of cookie-selling season. Momma, for reasons STILL unknown, volunteers to be the “cookie Mom”. For those of you who don’t know what that means, let me put it to you like this. Basically you are committing anywhere from 10 to 15 hours PER WEEK for the better part of THREE MONTHS to running around, UNPAID, in your own vehicle picking up cases of cookies at the “cookie cupboard”, dropping them off at other troop members’ houses, picking up money they’ve collected, counting HUGE stacks of sweaty wrinkled-up dollar bills, endorsing literally HUNDREDS of checks (some in amounts as small as $4!), taking said cash and checks to the bank to deposit into not one but TWO separate accounts, having other parents “drop by” at any and every hour of the day because they “were in the neighborhood, needed some cookies and knew you’d be home” AND keeping up with not only your own inventory and sales but 10 other families as well. “But wait”, you say, “it’s for the children”….
I’m going to assume most of you are smart enough to realize than in any group, there must be winners and losers. First place as well as last place. No matter how much society tries to teach us that “we’re all winners”, “everyone gets a trophy”, and “equality doesn’t mean justice”; these are stupid, backwards-thinking, liberal-minded, BULLSHIT idealisms that CANNOT apply to real-world situations by the very nature of life itself. Perhaps hard lessons for 8-year-old girls to learn, but certainly simple concepts like this should NOT be lost on a parent….
In case you’ve never been involved with Girl Scouts, here’s how the “rewards” work- the troop gets a percentage of the total sales to keep and use as they see fit, the rest of the money goes to the Council to pay for the cookies themselves, offices, propaganda, whatever. The girls can also earn badges for their vests, much like the Boy Scouts. In addition, depending on how many boxes each individual girl sells, she is eligible for prizes. The prizes range from something as small as a stuffed dog to a laptop computer, so you can see how this would be SERIOUSLY motivating for the girls to go out and sell, sell, SELL!
Now, cookie sales are wrapping up, deadlines are approaching, things are getting hectic trying to collect money and organize everything to close out the season. Some girls sold HUNDREDS of boxes of cookies, some just a few. ALL the girls in the troop were proud of what they had done (either a little or a lot), happy they made some money to fund activities for the year and pleased with the prizes they’d earned for their efforts. But sit down and buckle up, because this is going to blow you away- the PARENTS were the ones screaming it wasn’t fair! And to be fair, it wasn’t ALL the parents, just one single mother with 4 kids from three different guys living in public housing with a “Hope and Change” sticker on her minivan.
I started writing this post 3 days ago, and I had to let it sit for awhile because every time I would think about finishing up I’d get so pissed off I couldn’t even think straight. I’m still SEETHING, but in fairness to the guys letting me take up space on their corner of Al Gore’s internet, I need to get it wrapped up! So here we go….
The mother in question, her daughter only sold 44 boxes of cookies- #3 from the bottom. To put things into perspective, the total sales for the 11 girls was just short of 3000 boxes of cookies. The top three girls, MY daughter (insert proud dad smile here) and two others, sold over 1600 boxes. I imagine you guys can see how, after almost 1000 words, I’m FINALLY getting around to making my point. That means that 3 out of the 11 girls raised over HALF the money for the troop, but the troop as a whole will benefit from the funds in the bank. They’ll take some day trips, go bowling, fishing, earn some badges and that’ll be great. I am, oddly enough, OK with that part of the situation. Team dynamics dictate that some will finish better than others, and as a team they need to function together.
THIS is what chaps my fucking ASS- this obama-voting (I refuse to give the POTUS a capital o) mother TOLD my wife to split up the individual reward points between ALL the girls, so that all the girls could ALSO get “a fair share of the prizes”. She actually said that the girls who sold HUNDREDS of boxes of cookies should GIVE UP THEIR POINTS so that the girls who barely sold ANYTHING could have a “fair share”. Actually, she didn’t say the girls should give up their points, she said the troop should TAKE THEM!
I LITERALLY could not believe my ears when Momma told me what she said. Now keep in mind- had I been around to hear this bullshit, well suffice it to say, it would have been the end of a VERY brief stint for the Girl Scouts at my house. I would have came unglued at the seams, and the cops might have been called. Yes, I get that pissed off at these socialist morons running around spewing absurdities like this! And as if it’s not bad enough that SHE thinks so far left it’s upside down, she TRIED to get her daughter and the rest of the girls in the troop behind her. Now I gotta give credit where credit is due- NOT ONE of the girls thought that was fair!!! EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM thought each girl was entitled (I HATE that word on it’s face, but this IS an appropriate use for it) to the rewards due them in accordance with the efforts expended. Like I said when I started: Socialism- even an 8 year old can see it’s bullshit!
Here are a few final thoughts as I wrap up the first, and probably last, blog post I have ever written and will ever write regarding the Girl Scouts. These are crazy times, my conservative friends. As unbelievable as it is, there REALLY ARE people alive and well in the great USA who believe in the collective. They think that “equality of condition” is the best desirable outcome. They get out of bed every day, living off the dollars WE make and spend most of their time thinking about 2 things- first, how to get more for doing nothing and second, how unfair it is that there are STILL people out there better off than they are. I doubt it crosses their minds to even ponder the WHY….. they hate our very existence; consumed with bitterness and resentment towards others for having the drive to reap the rewards of an effort, be it selling cookies or starting a business. It’s not hard to see why o-bummer got elected in the first place, and it’s not much harder to see why he’s back for round 2. But I submit that we can ALL take a lesson from 11 eight year old girls who realize that all this collectivism and redistribution is NOT the right thing to do.
Wayne Perryman, an inner city minister in Seattle and the author of Unfounded Loyalty, Feb. 2004:
Most people are either a Democrat by design, or a Democrat by deception. That is either they were well aware the racist history of the Democrat Party and still chose to be Democrat, or they were deceived into thinking that the Democratic Party is a party that sincerely cared about Black people.History reveals that every piece of racist legislation that was ever passed and every racist terrorist attack that was ever inflicted on African Americans, was initiated by the members of the Democratic Party. From the formation of the Democratic Party in 1792 to the Civil Rights movement of 1960′s, Congressional records show the Democrat Party passed no specific laws to help Blacks, every law that they introduced into Congress was designed to hurt blacks in 1894 Repeal Act. The chronicles of history shows that during the past 160 years the Democratic Party legislated Jim Crows laws, Black Codes and a multitude of other laws at the state and federal level to deny African Americans their rights as citizens.
History reveals that the Republican Party was formed in 1854 to abolish slavery and challenge other racist legislative acts initiated by the Democratic Party.
Some called it the Civil War, others called it the War Between the States, but to the African Americans at that time, it was the War Between the Democrats and the Republicans over slavery. The Democrats gave their lives to expand it, Republican gave their lives to ban it.
During the Senate debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, it was revealed that members of the Democratic Party formed many terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan to murder and intimidate African Americans voters. The Ku Klux Klan Act was a bill introduced by a Republican Congress to stop Klan Activities. Senate debates revealed that the Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.
History reveals that Democrats lynched, burned, mutilated and murdered thousands of blacks and completely destroyed entire towns and communities occupied by middle class Blacks, including Rosewood, Florida, the Greenwood District in Tulsa Oklahoma, and Wilmington, North Carolina to name a few.
After the Civil War, Democrats murdered several hundred black elected officials (in the South) to regain control of the southern government. All of the elected officials up to 1935 were Republicans. As of 2004, the Democrat Party (the oldest political party in America) has never elected a black man to the United States Senate, the Republicans have elected three.
History reveals that it was Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical Republican that introduced legislation to give African Americans the so-called 40 acres and a mule and Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the bill. Today many white Democrats are opposed to paying African Americans trillions of dollars in Reparation Pay, money that should be paid by the Democratic Party.
History reveals that it was Abolitionists and Radical Republicans such as Henry L. Morehouse and General Oliver Howard that started many of the traditional Black colleges, while Democrats fought to keep them closed. Many of our traditional Black colleges are named after white Republicans.
Congressional records show it was Democrats that strongly opposed the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. These three Amendments were introduced by Republicans to abolish slavery, give citizenship to all African Americans born in the United States and, give Blacks the right to vote.
Congressional records show that Democrats were opposed to passing the following laws that were introduced by Republicans to achieve civil rights for African Americans:
Civil Rights Act 1866
Reconstruction Act of 1867
Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866
Enforcement Act of 1870
Force Act of 1871
Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
Civil Rights Act of 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Civil Rights Act of 1960
And during the 60′s many Democrats fought hard to defeat the
1964 Civil Rights Act
1965 Voting Rights Acts
1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act
Court records shows that it was the Democrats that supported the Dred Scott Decision. The decision classified Blacks and property rather than people. It was also the racist Jim Crow practices initiated by Democrats that brought about the two landmark cases of Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v. The Board of Education.
At the turn of the century (1900), Southern Democrats continued to oppress African Americans by placing thousands in hard-core prison labor camps. According to most historians, the prison camps were far worst than slavery. The prisoners were required to work from 10-14 hours a day, six to seven days a week in temperatures that exceeded 100 degrees and in temperatures that fell well below zero. The camps provided free labor for building railroads, mining coal-mines and for draining snake and alligator invested swamps and rivers. Blacks were transported from one project to another in rolling cages similar to the ones used to transfer circus animals. One fourth of the prison populations were children ages 6 to 18. Young Cy Williams age 12, was sentenced to 20 years for stealing a horse that he was too small to ride. Eight-year old Will Evans was sentenced to 2 years of hard labor for taking some change from a store counter and six-year old Mary Gay was sentenced to 30 days for taking a hat. While authorities sent whites to jail for the same offenses, they sent blacks to the prison camps with much longer sentences. Thousands died from malaria, frost bites, heat strokes, shackle poisoning, others were buried alive in collapsing mines, or blown to pieces in tunnel explosions, and still others drowned in swamps or were beaten and shot to death. Every southern black citizen was a potential prisoner for any alleged small offense, including violating evening curfews. Through the prison camp system, southern owners of railroads, mines and farms had an unlimited source of free labor. The black prisoners played a major role the South’s economic development. Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative, said, in his opinion, “the prison camps were a new form of slavery, but far more inhumane.”
History reveals that it was three white persons that opposed the Democrat’s racist practices who started the NAACP.
Dr. Martin Luther King, several Civil Rights leaders and many historians reported that during the first two years of his administration, President John F. Kennedy ignored Dr. King’s request for Civil Rights. The chronicles of history reveal that it was only after television coverage of riots and several demonstrations did President Kennedy feel a need to introduce the 1963 Civil Rights Act. At that time, experts believe the nation was headed toward a major race war.
History reveals that it was Democratic Attorney General, Robert Kennedy that approved the secret wire taps on Dr, Martin Luther King Jr., and it was Democratic President Lyndon Johnson that referred to Dr. King as ” that nigger preacher.” Senator Byrd referred to Dr. King as a “trouble maker” who causes trouble and then runs like a “coward,” when trouble breaks out.
Over the strong objections of racist Republican Senator Jessie Helms, Republican President Ronald Reagan, signed into law, a bill to make Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday a national holiday. Several Republican Senators convinced President Reagan this was the right thing to do.
Congressional records show after signing the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act and issuing Executive Order 11478, Richard Nixon, a Republican, that started what we know as Affirmative Action.
On December 15, 1994, federal Judge David V. Kenyon issued a court order to the Clinton Administration in the Case of Fairchild v Robert Reich Secretary of Labor (#CV92-5765 Kn). The order demanded that Secretary Reich and the Clinton Administration force 100 west coast shipping to develop an Affirmative Action plan to stop discrimination against, African Americans, Hispanics, Female and Disabled Workers. Female employees were being sexually harrassed, Hispanic were being denied promotions and training, Disable Workers were being laid off, and African Americans were being force to work in an environment where they had job classification called ” Nigger Jobs.” Clinton left office six years later and never complied with the court order. The companies still do not have an Affirmative Action Plan.
President Clinton sent 20, 000 troops to protect the white citizens of Europe’s Bosnia, but sent no troops to Africa’s Rwanda to protect the black citizens there. Consequently over 800,000 Africans were massacre
During the 2003 Democratic Primary debates, the Rev. Al Sharpton, said the Democrat take the black vote for granted and treat African American like a mistress. They [Democrats} will take us to the dance, but they don’t want to take us home to meet mama.”
On December 3, 2002, President Clinton spoke to Democratic Leadership Council in New York regarding the future of the Democratic Party and how they could retake the White House. At no time did he address Civil Rights issues for blacks or doing things to improve the conditions of African Americans. His only reference to Civil Rights was Civil Rights for Gays. His only reference to improving communities was his recommendation to revisit the Marshall Plan to re-build communities in other countries. His entire speech was aired on C-Span.
After exclusively giving the Democrats their votes for the past 25 years, the average African American cannot point to one piece of civil rights legislation sponsored solely by the Democratic Party that was specifically designed to eradicate the unique problems that African Americans face today. Congressional records show that all previous legislation (since 1964) had strong bi-partisan support, even though some Democrats debated and voted against these laws.
After reviewing all of the evidence, many believe America would have never experienced racism to the degree that it has, had not the Democrats promoted it through:
Negative Media Communications
And Flawed Adjudication.
The racism established and promoted by members of the Democratic Party affected and infected the entire nation from 1856 with the Dred Scott decision, to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case. But they never offered or issued an apology.
Today both parties must remember their past. The Democrats must remember the terrible things they did to Blacks and apologize and the Republicans must remember the terrific things they did for Blacks and re-commit to complete the work that their predecessors started and died for.
There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.
The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn’t, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.
The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn’t trying to kill you.
Both of these cases are standing law to this day.
The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.
I didn’t make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.