The headline:
“White House complains about CBS News [Washington Post] blog post saying that possible Supreme Court nominee is gay.”
So, my question is, what is wrong with being gay? Does the White House have a problem if she is gay? Is there anyone except the White House who cares?
[May 10, 2010 Update:] Elena Kagan’s friends: She’s not gay [Politico]. Again, is there something wrong with being gay that everyone is having a spasm about it? Who cares if she is or isn’t?
Rep. Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson is worried about Guam Tipping over. One wonders what the people of Georgia were thinking electing someone with an IQ equal to his shoe size.
On the 235th anniversary of one of the greatest calls for liberty – “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” – the President of the United States signed one of the biggest curtailments of human freedom in United States history. The irony may have been lost on Washington leadership today, and perhaps the quotation from Washington, DC, today would have been “Liberty or death? Why so extreme? Screw the liberty, just give me health insurance!”
Remember this quotation, it is all the more relevant today:
“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
On the campaign trail President Obama said the “public will have five days to look at every bill that lands on my desk” before signing it into law.
And with the Health Insurance bill, we had 36 hours. The days are growing shorter.
With the “Health Insurance” vote, it has become clear of the two major parties, there is one party of freedom and one party of totalitarianism. Anyone intellectually honest knows the Constitution prohibits government actions such as this (or the Patriot Act for that matter). To see a document of enumerated, limited powers twisted into the opposite by power-hungry politicians sworn to protect and defend it is disgusting. The Founders are not just spinning in their graves, they have spun so fast they have completely disintegrated. Just like the protections in the Constitution.
So, the United States can now throw out the old flag while Congress throws out the last vestiges of the Constitution. As such, a more modern flag is needed. Several contenders to replace the old “Stars and Stripes” with a more timely flag are shown below.
Which do you prefer? Let us know in the comments!
A benevolent dictator is still a dictator, no matter the motives. Whether or not he arises “for a good cause” or not, does not make the result any better. A slave with a benevolent master is still a slave. A slave for a “good cause” is still a slave.
No one would argue that the slaves were “extreme” demanding freedom, but even if they were, as Goldwater said, extremism in the defense of liberty is … Continue reading A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.
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.
How times have changed. Senator Byrd (D), 4/5/2001 (video), transcript:
The Democratic Leadership pleaded with me at length to agree to support the idea that the Clinton Health Care Bill should be included in that year’s reconciliation package.
They came to my office on the floor below. President Clinton got on the phone and called me also and pressed me to allow his massive health care bill to be insulated by reconciliations protection. He called me on the telephone.
I felt that changes as dramatic as the Clinton health care package which would affect every man, woman, and child in the United States should be subject to scrutiny. I said Mr. President I can not in good conscience turn my face the other way. That’s why we have a Senate, to amend and debate freely. That health bill, as important as it is, is so complex, so far reaching that the people of the country need to know what’s in it. And moreover Mr. President, we Senator’s need to know what’s in it before we vote.
And he accepted that. He accepted that and thanked me and we said goodbye.
I could not, I would not, and I did not allow that package to be handled in such a cavalier manner. It was the threat of the use of the Byrd rule. Reconciliation was never, never, never intended to be shield, to be used as a shield, for controversial legislation.
Even ignoring the un-Constitutionality of the bill – which the Continue reading SEN. BYRD SINGLE-HANDEDLY STOPPED PRESIDENT CLINTON FROM USING RECONCILIATION
Pelosi urging Pandora to open the box of H.R. 3200 “so that you can find out what is in it”:
President Obama has proposed a 1.4 % pay increase for active duty military in 2011. This is the LOWEST since 1973. Nice to know that during a time of rampant inflation, while a war is fought in 2 theatres, our men and women in uniform get a LOWER PAY INCREASE THAN WELFARE RECIPIENTS. — from K.P.L.
When the parasites can vote themselves a bigger bite from the host, they will do so. The law is supposed to protect you and your life from being voted into subservience, but when the law is used instead to steal from a disarmed population, the law has been perverted. Today many people believe the concept of personal responsibility means expecting someone else to pay for you and what you believe you “need.”
Today, the parasites are in control and the parasites have realized they can vote themselves a bigger bite from the host. And the chief parasites in Washington want to maintain control by directing where the rest of the parasites can take their bite based on how you are favored – from the filet portion or the keister.