The voice of tradition, I trust, will inform posterity of our struggles for freedom. If our descendants be worthy the name of Americans they will preserve and hand down to their latest posterity the transactions of the present times; and tho I confess my exclamations are not worthy the hearing, they will see that I have done my utmost to preserve their liberty, for I never will give up the power of direct taxation but for a scourge. I am willing to give it conditionally–that is, after non-compliance with requisitions. – Patrick Henry
Category Archives: history
I don’t want to live in a society that does these sort of things…”Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place.
- ‘I do not expect to see home again’…
- ‘I don’t want to live in a society that does these sort of things’
- ‘I believed in Obama’s promises’
- ‘Presidents openly lie to secure the office’
- ‘Government has granted itself power it is not entitled to’
- ‘Whenever we had a debate in the office on how to handle crimes, they do not defend due process – they defend decisive action. They say it is better to kick someone out of a plane than let these people have a day in court. It is an authoritarian mindset in general.’
- ‘Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place.’
Obama care is Unconstitutional
The Constitution is not a document of “compromise”. It is a document of absolutes.
“you have a name that may be ethnically connected to being a Sergeant.” – Lee
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee didn’t understand why Rush Limbaugh calls host Ed Schultz, “Sergeant Schultz.” Racist Rep. Lee brought race into it by saying: “I don’t know that to be your name. I’m a little sensitive to what that is to garner. Is that because you have a name that may be ethnically connected to being a Sergeant. I’m not sure what that is. I find that insulting as well.” Schultz is a white male.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, look up Hogan’s Heroes and Sergeant Schultz:
A No Win Situation for Isreal
The point of the blockade crashers was exactly this – a no win situation for Israel.
1. If Israel keeps them offshore, the press is bad because the “peace activists” (who video shows had stun grenades and other weapons and used them to attack) will be described by the press as just want to help the terrorist organization who has as its charter the destruction of Israel.
2. Let them in, weapons get to the terrorists and the terrorists are emboldened.
3. Try to board and be attacked (update: see video below) and see how it escalates.
No matter what, Israel lost – which was the point of the challenges to the blockade – and the world press will only look superficially at the situation and buy the BS that is being sold them without looking at the reasons and ramifications. And even if 99% of the idiots on the boats were innocent they were being used by the 1%. Nukes and other WMDs surround Israel and Israel is supposed to let the terrorist supporters in or get closer?
The world will eventually pay for lack of stability and vision. Neville Chamberlain should have taught us the folly of appeasement.
Democrats adopt the Jim Crow “one drop rule” to attack critics of President Obama as ‘racists’!
The “one drop rule” was one of the most odious and infamous rules of the Jim Crow era. Now it being given new life by the Democrat Party in order to silence criticism of President Obama. The Democrat machine uses it to impugn the “race” of President Obama. Instead of accepting the fact that critics of the President are attacking his policies, the Democrat establishment attacks those who disagree with the President as “racists.”
Ignoring for now the stupidity of believing skin color or eye color or hair color is an indication of “race” – we’re all part of the human race – what the Democrat defenders are saying is that “since the President is ‘black’ anyone who attacks him is a racist.”
Now why is that relevant? Simple. President Obama’s father was “black” from Kenya. President Obama’s mother was “white” from Kansas. Now to be labeled a “racist” for attacking the President’s policies, one has to accept that President Obama is “black.” Given that one parent was “white” and the other “black,” one must accept the most repulsive, vile, and repugnant “one drop rule” from the Jim Crow era – which meant that “one drop of ‘black blood'” essentially made one “non-white.” In fact, it was much worse than that. In 1911, Arkansas pass Act 320, a.k.a. the “one-drop rule,” making “interracial cohabitation” a felony and defining as “Negro” anyone “who has…any negro blood whatever.” The Supreme Court remedied this stupidity in 1967 when it over-turned the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, but now the racists in the Democrat Party want to bring it back. (For an authoritative discussion, see the book “Who is Black” by F. James Davis, excerpts of which are available on the internet).
Are the people who say that attacks on the President’s policies are racist really advocating adoption of the “one drop rule”? Are the racist Democrats really espousing the “one drop rule” for the President? They are making the argument that the most infamous racists in history were making: that one drop of “black” blood makes you black. The “one drop” rule, infamous in the Jim Crow era. Talk about the critics embracing the worst of the racist past and using it to call others racist!
Skin color is irrelevant, freedom and policies are the only concerns. The true racists are those who think that one’s skin color is relevant and that the “one drop” rule should apply to the President. The President would get the same criticism whomever his parents were, just as President Bush did for some of his idiotic policies. Under the Jim Crow system employed regarding criticism of President Obama, a black mother can never have a white baby, while a white mother can have a black baby. Is that rational? Is it even relevant? No, dividing people by skin color is a technique used to gather power by the divide and conquer mentality. People have the right to be free no matter their eye color, hair color or skin color. This policy means so much for Thurgood Marshall’s insistence that “classifications and distinctions based upon race or color have no moral or legal validity in our society” and Martin Luther King’s wish that his children would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Family history and genealogy is a wonderful treasure, but it has no place in government policy. “Race” is a bad concept who’s time has long gone. Everyone in the United States is “American” without any hyphens. It is time that people started to behave that way.
Saying “no” is admirable if it is pro-liberty.
Saying “no” is a moral imperative to protect the freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Saying “no” is admirable if it is pro-liberty. Compromising your principles when the result is a loss of freedom for the country is immoral and a violation of Congress’ oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
We certainly don’t need to go back to the moon.- Obama administration official
A contrast in vision:
“We certainly don’t need to go back to the moon,” Obama administration official.
“We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.” President Kennedy
And more from President Kennedy:
Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolution, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it–we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not Continue reading We certainly don’t need to go back to the moon.- Obama administration official
Judge by the content of their character not the color of their skin…
Today I resolve to only listen to those who by their words and actions only judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, religion, or gender, racists and sexists, in short.
- I will no longer hear people who worry about whether someone is a “light skinned Negro” without a “dialect.” Senator Harry Reid (D, Nevada). Racist!
- I will no longer hear people who call their grandmother a “typical white person.” Barack Obama (D-Illinois). Racist!
- I will no longer hear people who state “a wise Latina woman … would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.” Justice Sotomayor (D). Sexist and Racist!
- I will no longer hear people who refer to people as “mongrels,” were members of the Continue reading Judge by the content of their character not the color of their skin…
Rancor in politics means not compromising on freedom
The Politico states that Obama’s “gift for healing words would combine with the power of his biography to transcend the rancor of modern politics.” (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=9C86A356-18FE-70B2-A8CD0AA335449DD4). Rancor in politics is caused by one group attempting to gain power over another and that group fighting back. To take freedom and turn the United States into a socialist paradise. To take our liberty for what they claim as a good purpose. The Founders knew this which was why they enumerated powers in the Constitution. The authoritarians knew this too and since at least the 1930s have attempted to pit one group against another for the aggrandizement of their own power. Group politics and group envy is the basis of those power hungry groups who only care about one thing – their own power.
Should the North avoided “rancor” with the South in April of 1861? Should Roosevelt should have avoided “rancor” with Japan on December 8, 1941? Should the Africans who were being sold into slavery by their own people to the Europeans have fought or should they have avoided “rancor” in politics?
Anyone who is being sold into serfdom should fight back to preserve their freedoms. Rancor is perfectly fine. Rancor is good, it means you are engaged and care about being free or being serf. Rancor means not compromising when it comes to protecting your freedoms. Rancor means that power-hungry authoritarians are not getting their way. Rancor means that the line of liberty in the sand is drawn and defended. Rancor means that the defenders of liberty are not willing to compromise their liberty away bit by bit.
Freedom implies free markets. Freedom implies free minds. Freedom implies the freedom to make good, and bad decisions. Every compromise is a grain of sand dripping out of the hour-glass of freedom. It may only seem like a single grain, but given enough time eventually the top of the glass will be completely empty.