Tag Archives: Civil Rights

Pimping Out Harriet Tubman For Profitable Racism

harriet-tubman-sex-tape-photos-9

 

harriet-tubman-sex-tape-photos-9 

How do black leftist get ahead? They profit from racism.

Racism has become the best method of success in a country where slavery was abolished in 1865 and the 1965 Civil Rights Act eradicated segregation against black Americans once and for all.

It’s too bad that idea sticks like hard peanut butter in the throats of leftist progressives, both white and black, who have always wanted blacks to remain in slavery and deny them their constitutional rights as free individuals.

Case in point: Hip hop Def Jam founder Russell Simmons, who produced one of the most offensive videos about one of America’s greatest women: Harriet Tubman, the woman accurately known as “Moses,” because she led her people out of bondage. And despite Russell Simmons latest race hustle, Tubman accomplished her heroism without prostituting herself!

harriet-tubman-sex-tape-photos-2

Russell Simmons’ Harriet Tubman enticing “Massa” to have sex with her

That’s right; the video is “The Harriet Tubman Sex Tape.”  Think Hollywood actresses filming their sexcapades and then releasing the footage to the public.

In Simmons’ video, Harriet Tubman entices her “Massa” into bed to have sex with her. Unbeknownst to the master, someone is hiding in the closet filming the encounter for Harriet to use as blackmail.

harriet-tubman-sex-tape-photos-5

Russell Simmons’ Harriet Getting it on with “Massa”

After Tubman has sex with the “Massa,” she lets him know she filmed the encounter and she “has leverage” to use against him by telling everyone “about his negro loving ways.”

According to Simmons, his portrayal of Harriet Tubman “outwitting the master, I thought it was politically correct.”

One must ask how Simmons would even consider such a portrayal of Miss Tubman as “politically correct” when female slaves were often raped and beaten.

The NAACP doesn’t find this PC humorous. Simmons was forced to pull the video and publicly apologize.

Simmons is shocked by the NAACP’s reaction. Russell Simmons always gets away with race-baiting. This time the hip hop billionaire went too far in the eyes of the NAACP.

It’s too bad the NAACP wasn’t that outraged over disc jockeys Opie and Anthony who let a guest talk about wanting to rape Condoleezza Rice.

But it shouldn’t come as a shock that Simmons doesn’t see anything wrong in demeaning an American woman who risked her life to free black Americans from slavery. Simmons, who produces hip hop music overflowing with filthy language that glorifies black-on-black gang violence, raping women, and killing cops, all of which Simmons defends, is also known for progressive, racial, controversial statements.  

In the real world of slavery, Miss Tubman toiled in bondage. She was not enticing the “Massa” to sleep with her for favors.

The real Harriet Tubmanserved with distinction as a soldier, spy, and a nurse, spending time at Fort Monroe, where Jefferson Davis was later imprisoned.”

Miss Tubmanled roughly 70 slaves to freedom using the Underground Railroad and later went on to become a humanitarian and women’s suffragist.”

Furthermore, Harriet Tubman helped paved the way for all American women of all color and race.

When apologizing, Simmons justified the video:

My first impression of the Harriet Tubman piece was that it was about what one of the actors said in the video, that 162 years later, there’s still tremendous injustice.

 

“162 years later,” America does not have slavery, and segregation is non-existent. In fact Mr. Simmons, America has a black president in the Oval Office, elected by a majority of white Americans!

Look around Mr. Simmons, America has had black Americans in political office for decades, as well as prominent black businesspeople and celebrities.

Let’s get something else straight: Those actors in that video have no idea what Miss Tubman, or any slave went through. American slaves were not hanging around fields making fun of their lives, they were toiling under a whip!

Early Black Americans were not living the life of Russell Simmons and Oprah Winfrey (who screams if store clerks don’t prostrate to the pampered billionaire). Slaves suffered more than any American today—including Simmons— can possibly comprehend.

Freed slaves walked from state-to-state to be reunited with their lost families, and they took whatever work they could to earn a living.  Unlike leftist progressives like Simmons, who wants to keep slavery alive in order to guilt white Americans into a life of  atonement, freed slaves wanted to leave slavery behind, in the past.

As esteemed economist and author Thomas Sowell says:

[I]f you have ever enslaved anybody, an apology is not going to cut it. And if you never enslaved anybody, then what are you apologizing for? The very idea of apologizing for what somebody else did is meaningless, however fashionable it has become.

 

That’s problem with professional race hustlers like Simmons: Slavery and racism is not only fashionable, but enormously profitable.

Simmons makes money off black-on-black crime by glorifying it in music and videos, as well as fashion. And it is black Americans who are used for profit by progressive blacks—Simmons, Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan, Oprah, Obama—in order to create racial tension and animosity toward whites.

This fabricated-for-money tension, as Thomas Sowell notes, is tearing America apart:

[I]f we start operating on the principle that people alive today are responsible for what their ancestors did in centuries past, we will be adopting a principle that can tear any society apart, especially a multi-ethnic society like the United States. Even if we were willing to go down that dangerous road

 

Progressive pimps like Simmons are taking black America down that road, back to the past where progressives want black American’s lives postponed, while wealthy leftists like Simmons stay ahead using black Americans for profit.

Of course Simmons, who produces violent videos, says he “does not condone violence against women in any form.”  That explains those lovingly abusive hip videos about raping women.

I’m sure Harriet Tubman were alive today she would be Simmons’ biggest fan!

Despite not “condoning violence against women,” Simmons must have thought the video was humorous or he never would have lampooned a woman, whose life before escaping slavery, was brutality, not enticing slave masters.

Heaven forbid Simmons use his money to produce authentic, historical movies about Harriet Tubman, who gave many hope, and continues to be an inspiration to women of all races and colors. Instead, Simmons spends his money to degrade Miss Tubman’s life prior to her successful efforts as an abolitionist.

Perhaps someone ought to lampoon Russell Simmons at a rodeo. Oh wait, making fun of progressive black Americans is racist, trashing Allen West and Condoleezza Rice as Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemima is putting black conservatives in their rightful place—the plantation. 

URGENT: How to beat Barack Obama’s executive order gun control

thoughts from a conservative mom2

It is often said that the Second Amendment is the First Amendment. Without it there can be no others. The Obama Administration just announced plans to use as many as 23 new executive orders to weaken our Second Amendment. These new orders will chip away at our Constitutional right to possess and bear arms. From limiting the amount of ammunition we can buy to an outright reinstatement of the assault weapons ban; the government is coming hard after our firearms.

The Democratic Party are very adept at using horrifying events to force their will on the American people. Never one to let a good crisis go to waste they are masters at capitalizing politically on major events they see fit to further their agenda. So whenever there is a tragic and catastrophic occurrence that brings our nation to its knees they are ready to take advantage.

First it starts with their cohorts in the media sensationalizing the story. Next it is usually followed by the anti gun lobby pressuring Congress to act. Finally after the major pushback from the NRA and pro gun lobby it usually just ends with a whimper, some sharp rhetoric, and empty speeches.

Not this time. Something is different. Barack Obama feels politically indestructible after winning reelection under the weight of the worst economy since the Great Depression. He feels emboldened by his victory and unstoppable in the face of his adversaries. The fact is he should feel that way. The Republicans in Congress have already capitulated on the fiscal cliff so why would they stop him on anything else?

The answer is they won’t but the American people can and here is how we can do it.

The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights, codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases, and asserts that cases may not be re-examined by another court.

The key here is civil cases. The Seventh Amendment actually could be used effectively to thwart any attempts by Barack Obama to restrict our Second Amendment rights through the use of executive orders. Anyone who has ever needed to retain legal counsel knows just how expensive it can be to litigate as well as defend from litigation. Why not put that same expense and burden on the Obama Administration instead?

According to recent figures from the Department of Health and Human Services there are approximately 80 million gun owners in America. Gun owners in this country are a very diverse group. Contrary to what the liberals want you to believe they are not all hillbilly, bible thumping, Southerners. They are as varied as the avid hunter to the single mother and everyone in-between.

According to The American Bar Association there are approximately 1.2 million attorneys practicing law here in America. Imagine if we could get at least five million of the 80 million gun owners to file separate and individual civil rights lawsuits simultaneously against our government? Think about what kind of impact that would have on our Justice Department? The Obama Administration and Attorney General Eric Holder would be so overwhelmed with trying to answer all those lawsuits they would probably just give up and here are the reasons why.

In order to make these lawsuits more impactful on our government it is vitally important to file these lawsuits in such a way where the risk for the government is greater than the reward. In filing these lawsuits the petitioners must demand a jury trial of their peers.

Additionally, they must also request that the respondent, in this case the government, pays their attorney fees. By adding these two caveats into the language of the lawsuits it would make the government think twice in regards to fighting them.

Furthermore, the cost associated with defending the executive orders would be so astronomical that it would literally bankrupt our already bankrupt nation; and stall Barack Obama’s draconian remake of America in the process. Our government is already 16 trillion dollars in debt so there is no extra money to fight back with. With the economy already on the constant brink of collapse the political risk would be too damaging to survive. It is for these reasons that the government would rescind any and all executive orders in regards to gun control.

For those of you who are reading this let me save you the suspense. I am not an attorney nor do I play one on television. What I am is an expert in politics and strategy.

The Republicans in Congress have already shown us that they are not up to the challenge. Their actions on the fiscal cliff deal were nothing short of inept. If we are to count on them to protect us we will never survive as a nation.

Barack Obama and the Democratic Party know they can run roughshod over the Republicans in Congress. They also know that they can execute their leftist agenda on America with little to no resistance. It will be up to us Americans to stop them. We need to outsmart, outfox, and out think the left in order to halt their oppressive agenda for America. We must think outside the box and be more creative in how we attack them.

We can throw around words like treason and impeachment all we want but lets be honest we don’t have the votes right now to see that through. If we win back the Senate and keep the House that’s a different story. But for now we must remain steadfast and vigilant.

Our Founding Fathers were true visionaries. They were the best and brightest men of their time. They created the Constitution in order to protect us from enemies both foreign and domestic. It is time we use what they gave us to defend ourselves and our nation from our government.

My goal is for this article to get passed around more times than a peace pipe at an Occupy Wall Street Rally. So please email, repost, and retweet this to as many people as you know, especially gun owners and attorneys. Time is of the essence here and we must fight now to preserve our rights later. A good idea can only become a great idea when it is acted upon.
..

Suggested by the author:
www.joshbernsteinpoliticalwriter.com
An armed society is a polite society
Reading, writing, and marksmanship
What the word forward means in Obama’s America
House Republicans cave on spending cuts and embrace higher taxes

Republicans Advocate Surrender After Defeat

undocumented-democrats-democrats-politics-1338770687

Evidently Romney campaign consultants were paying way too much attention to Michelle Obama’s War on Cafeteria Lunch Ladies. Consequently, when her husband offered a campaign built around Bread & Circuses; they countered with healthy eating and free–range elephants.

A role reversal that proved fatal.

More than once I’ve heard discouraged conservatives complain that ignorant voters were responsible for re–electing Obama, but that’s simply not true. Misguided and short–sighted voters, yes, but certainly not ignorant.

Obama supporters voted for the candidate who gave them the most freebies. Union members voted for the Government Motors bailout and the prospect of “card check.”

Government employees voted for bigger government and its number one disciple. Hispanics voted for a freeze on deportation and amnesty for illegals. College students voted for low interest student loans and possible loan forgiveness.

Unmarried mothers voted for food stamps, welfare, free contraceptives and — for the sexually disorganized — federally–funded abortion. Homosexuals voted for homosexual marriage. And blacks voted for the black guy.

Now, proving there is no one more gullible than a panicked Republican, some of our “leaders” are considering amnesty for illegal aliens.

Amnesty for illegals will be called “immigration reform,” just as adulterers call fornication “marriage reform.” Passage will be equivalent to allowing a family who squatted on land inside a national park to keep the land as part of “ownership reform.” It wouldn’t be fair to evict them, don’t you know, because they built a house and their kids would have to change school districts.

Unfortunately for Republican leaders who put power before principle, amnesty is wrong for four reasons.

First it’s morally wrong. Rewarding lawbreakers, only encourages more lawbreaking, erodes respect for the rule of law and discriminates against potential legal immigrants who are waiting their turn. Amnesty also serves to take jobs from low income US citizens and depresses the wages of those that have jobs.

Secondly, it solves nothing. Democrats — who make short–term memory loss part of their governing philosophy — conveniently forget the US granted Hispanics a massive amnesty during the Reagan administration. That “never to be repeated” amnesty legalized over 4 million illegals. This final solution possessed such deterrent power that over 12 million illegals are demanding amnesty this time, a four–fold increase.

Third, amnesty will damage Republicans at the ballot box. Let’s assume 4 million of the approximately 12 million illegals are of voting age. These are not Republican votes in waiting, they are, as fellow columnist Mike Adams says, “undocumented Democrats.” All 4 million will be voting Democrat from now on.

It’s a fact the GOP never gets credit for anything involving civil rights. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed a larger percentage of Republicans supported the bill than Democrats, yet Democrats get all the credit. If I recall correctly Ronald Reagan was a Republican, yet even after the passage of amnesty during his administration, the GOP still has a problem with Hispanics.

Four, “socially conservative” Hispanics are like Iranian “moderate mullahs.” GOP “experts” claim Hispanic “family values” mean their natural home is the GOP. Yet on Sunday, November 4th, these “socially conservative” Hispanics sat in Catholic churches and heard homilies about the Obama administration forcing the church to violate basic Catholic beliefs. Then they rushed to the polls to vote for the most radical abortion–supporting president in history.

The only way for Republicans to profit from amnesty is to invest in companies producing the velvet Obama paintings that will soon be joining the velvet JFKs gracing the walls of many minority homes.

No wonder Democrats are so eager to cooperate with the GOP on this “bi–partisan reform” legislation.

Republicans simply cannot win a bidding war with Democrats and remain Republicans. It will take time for a values and civic virtues campaign to be successful, because changing public attitudes is a long-term project. So I suggest Republicans conduct asymmetrical electoral warfare.

Presidential election years have larger turnout that favors Democrats. Off–year elections have smaller turnout and give our base a larger impact. Nationally, during the education process, the GOP can concentrate on winning off–year elections and build up conservative margins in the US House, gain a Senate seat or two and defend the rest during Presidential years.

All the while concentrating our message on the benefits of individual liberty, personal responsibility and marketplace competition. Democrats and “progressives” are now using the ballot box to exploit the cultural pathologies their incompetent policies have created over the past 40 years. Over the short term it may prove to be an indestructible ideological loop.

But if conservatives aren’t in this fight over the long term, why are we in it at all?

The Gettysburg Address Today

On June 1, 1865, Senator Charles Sumner commented on what is now considered the most famous speech by President Abraham Lincoln. In his eulogy on the slain president, he called it a “monumental act.” He said Lincoln was mistaken that “the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here.” Rather, the Bostonian remarked, “The world noted at once what he said, and will never cease to remember it. The battle itself was less important than the speech.”

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.[1]

For reasons “progressives” will either deny or refuse to acknowledge, this speech seems especially relevant at this moment in history. Through a combination of political correctness, secular multiculturalism, victimhood and intentionally misinformative rhetoric, America is now as deeply divided as during the 1860s. Ironically, we’ve returned to this place of division due largely to actions taken by a man who sold his candidacy on a message of post-racial reconciliation. Equally ironic is how this man’s major political allies aid and abet the Marxist takeover of America by equating resistance to massive government intrusion into private lives with racism.

Obviously “progressives” need a history lesson.

In the presidential election of 1860, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, campaigned against the expansion of slavery beyond the states where it already existed. The Republican victory in that election resulted in seven southern States declaring their secession from the Union prior to Lincoln’s taking office on March 4, 1861. It’s important here to note that secession was led and participated in by Democrats (read: “progressives”) who insisted on maintaining slavery as a legal American institution.

In September 1862, Republican Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation made ending slavery in the South a war goal. Confederate commander Robert E. Lee won battles in the east, but in 1863 his northward advance was turned back after the Battle of Gettysburg. Confederate resistance collapsed after Lee surrendered to Grant at the Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865.

Reconstruction, which began early in the war and ended in 1877, involved a series of federal and state policies. The long-term result came in the three Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution: the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery; the Fourteenth Amendment, which extended federal legal protections equally to citizens regardless of race; and the Fifteenth Amendment, which abolished racial restrictions on voting. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were all passed without Democratic (read: “progressive”) support. In fact, they actively fought against all three Amendments.

Following the Civil War black leaders made substantial progress in establishing representation in the Republican Party. The first 100 black Congressmen elected to office were all southern Republicans. After Democrats (read: “progressives”) passed Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, and founded the KKK to intimidate and exclude blacks from public life, there wasn’t a single black elected to Congress for 75 years.

Besides excluding blacks from equal participation in public life, Democratic (read: “progressive”) white society also kept blacks in a position of economic subservience. When blacks fled the segregated south to live and work in the north, they were denied employment unless they agreed to join organized labor unions. In order to join a union, being a registered Democrat (read: “progressive”) was a requirement. The choice offered to blacks fleeing the south for employment in the “liberal” north was: become a Democrat (read: “progressive”) or you and your family will be left to starve in the streets. This was especially true during the FDR years.

Ever since black separatist Muslims assassinated Republican Christian Martin Luther King Jr. and LBJ hijacked the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, Democrats (read: “progressives”) have lied to American blacks. They’ve falsely accused Republicans of being the oppressors of the black community.

History shows us that, unlike the Civil Rights legislation passed following the Civil War, which Democrats (read: “progressives”) fought, the 1960s Civil Rights legislation passed with significant Republican support. In fact, it never would have come to a vote in the Senate without the efforts of Republican Senator Everett Dirksen, who broke the Democratic (read: “progressive”) filibuster.

Through a persistent combination of political correctness, secular multiculturalism, victimhood, misrepresentation and misinformation, Democrats (read: “progressives”) have continued to abuse and manipulate blacks into voting Democrats (read: “progressives”) into office.

Upon review, the cities and states with the highest percentage of unemployment and the largest budget deficits, are all run by Democrats (read: “progressives”). Cities and states with the highest taxes and biggest spending are the most regressive places to live in America. Many of them are either already bankrupt or are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Impoverished blacks have been voting for Democrats (read: “progressives”) for the past fifty years are still poor. This should tell all Americans exactly what they need to know about “progressives” and their policies.

For the second time in history, Democrats (read: ”progressives”), for their own personal and political gain, are doing everything in their power to divide America along racial lines. They’ve drawn the battle lines and are now openly and arrogantly daring their opposition to stop full implementation of the “progressive” agenda. ”progressives” continue to lie, cheat, steal, and manipulate the masses in order to slake their unquenchable thirst for unrestrained power.

Once a cracker, always a cracker.

I pray to Almighty God that another Gettysburg Address will never become necessary. Should such an occasion again arise, as before, the responsibility will rest squarely upon the shoulders of “progressives”.

sources:
[1] Showcase: Gettysburg Address: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/the-gettysburg-address-today/

National Right To Carry: An Individual Right, Not A State Right

The U.S. House of Representatives voted on National Right To Carry on November 16th.

An unusual argument against gun rights has been presented by the small-government crowd, of which I consider myself a member. Ed Morrissey at Hot Air best describes this issue:

For permit holders like myself, the ability to travel with my pistol into other states without having to worry about reciprocity issues would be helpful indeed.  But that doesn’t address other fundamental issues involved, such as the ability of states to set their own rules for permit issuance and carrying.  Some states, like Minnesota, require a certain amount of training to get a permit, while others do not.  Should Minnesotans be forced by the federal government to have non-residents carrying in the state under less-restrictive conditions than their own citizens have to address?  For that matter, should Minnesotans have the right to carry in Illinois while the state forbids its own residents to do so, even apart from the question of whether Illinois’ policy is intelligent?  (Let’s just stipulate that it’s idiotic, but also that Illinois voters don’t seem to be in a rush to correct it, either.)

To put this argument in context, I ask the reader to consider the following (intentionally absurd) “news story”:

A debate is brewing in Congress over the National Right-To-Not-Be-Murdered (NRTNBM) Act. This act, if passed, will allow bearers of state-issued No-Murder permits to resist murder in other states.

But some small-government thinkers challenge the validity of a federal no-murder mandate.

“We must respect the right of states to determine who may lawfully resist murder” says Bob Walters of the State’s Rights Institute. “There are legitimate public safety concerns here. If State A issues a No-Murder permit to anyone, but State B only issues No-Murder permits to persons who can prove a need to not be murdered, should State B be forced by the Federal government to recognize State A’s lower standards? I respect the right of people to be murder-free, but states should be free to decide who may be murdered and who may not.”

Rob Parker of the National Anti-Murder Association disagrees. “Every American has the right to not be murdered, whether they happen to be standing in New York City or in Tulsa, Oklahoma.”

Legal analyst Bobby Jones gives us insights into the legal framework of the bill: “To date, the Federal courts haven’t ruled that the ‘Partial Faith & Credit’ clause of the Constitution extends to the right to not be murdered. However, the Eleventeenth Amendment explicity states that the right to not be murdered ‘shall be infringed in a manner prescribed by Congress’, so the courts will likely rule that this law, if passed, would meet Constitutional muster.”

48 of the 50 states have procedures for issuing no-murder permits. Vermont allows any person over age 16 to resist murder without a permit. Only Illinois requires that all residents submit to murder. If the NRTNBM Act passes, Illinois would not be required to recognize other states’ no-murder permits.

Murderer-rights advocate Robert Brady strongly disagrees with the intent of the bill: “In a civilized society, only police and military should be murder-free. We’re all safer when the government exercises a total monopoly on murder. Allowing just any common citizen to decide whether or not to be murdered will mean blood in the streets. Besides, studies say that a person with a no-murder permit is 347.9 times more likely to kill their own children than to resist murder, and I promise we didn’t fund that study.”

I use this farce to make a point: Each of us has an inalienable, natural right of self-defense. We have a right to go about our lives unmolested, and a right to use whatever means are necessary to assure that condition. We have a right to keep and bear arms for that purpose, which- despite the absolute phrase “shall not be infringed“- has been infringed upon to an intolerable degree by the federal government and by states and municipalities.

For those who mistakenly invoke “states’ rights” and resist a “federal mandate” recognizing individual rights, let’s take a trip back through history. At the end of the Civil War, southern states began writing laws to disarm newly-freed blacks (freed, incidentally, by a “federal mandate”). These states claimed a “states’ right” to deny gun rights to blacks. The federal government created another “federal mandate”- the Fourteenth Amendment- to combat this tyranny. As Justice Clarence Thomas explained in the McDonald decision (incorporating the Second Amendment on the states), the Fourteenth Amendment was created specifically with the First and Second Amendments in mind, and it is historical and legal irony that the Second Amendment was among the last of the Bill of Rights amendments to be “incorporated”.

Incidentally, I have twice criticized Herman Cain for holding to this absurd “states’ rights” view (here and here).

Why were these “federal mandates” legitimate? Because one of the legitimate powers of our government is to guarantee and protect the rights of the individual. The fact that our government frequently fails to exercise this power, does not mean that it should be prevented from exercising it. Without the power to “mandate” the recognition of both natural and Constitutional rights, our country would cease to be the republic our Founding Fathers created, and would become a majority-ruled democracy, where individual rights are subject to popular will.

Let’s also be clear about something else: Governments don’t have rights! In our form of government, people have rights. Governments have powers, which are limited in scope.

Stated differently, we already have a series of “federal mandates” on the subject:

The Second Amendment, which provides that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”;

The Ninth Amendment, which extends protection to all rights (including the right to self-defense), not merely those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights;

The Fourteenth Amendment, which imposes the Bill of Rights on the states;

The ‘peaceable journey’ provision of the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act, signed by President Reagan in 1986, which requires states to allow persons to transport firearms during travel;

The ‘Full Faith & Credit’ clause of the Constitution, which requires states to recognize the comparable acts of other states.

In sum: If we assume the Second Amendment’s “well-regulated militia” provision doesn’t reference Congressional authority (Article I, Section 8) to train and discipline (in other words, to “regulate”) the militia, but rather authorizes Congress to “regulate” individual behavior;

And if we assume the Ninth Amendment is an “inkblot” which doesn’t actually guarantee the exercise of unspecified natural rights;

And if we assume that government, rather than our Creator, grants us our rights;

And if we assume that the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is limited by the violent acts of others;

And if we assume that the Fourteenth Amendment was only intended to guarantee “certain” rights;

And if we assume the word “Full” in “Full Faith & Credit” is actually a synonym for the word “Partial”;

And if we assume that states have “rights”, rather than “powers”, and among those “rights” is the right to decide who may exercise civil liberties and who may not;

And if we assume that our Founding Fathers didn’t intend us to have “a republic, if you can keep it”, but instead intended us to suffer the “tyranny of the majority” of a popular democracy, and intended for government to enforce popular whims rather than protect individual rights;

Then perhaps there is a valid argument against a “federal mandate” recognizing greater freedom of personal protection.

Or we can ‘mandate’ that people learn how to read before interpreting the Constitution.

Revealing Dr. King’s Dream

Nearly half a century ago, one of the most famous speeches in American history was delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in our nation’s capital.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a civil rights leader in a time where racial bigotry was a fact.

Many have tried to justify the facts, explain them away, make excuses for the hatred and violence committed against so many innocent lives, but the facts speak for themselves: racial injustice was real- and it was wrong.

Sadly, almost 50 years later, many say and believe that little progress has been made in realizing the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King.

Has The Dream gotten lost along the way, these past 50 years?

Where exactly did The Dream go wrong? Is it having an emotional breakdown? Is it hearing voices not its own? Is The Dream suicidal? Is there any hope left for The Dream?

The Dream has decided it just cannot go on this way any longer, and has decided to seek help. In this series of articles, we will attempt to help The Dream find the answers it is looking for. We will peel back the layers of it, to reveal the deepest, darkest, most breathtakingly beautiful, yet painful and haunting facts and emotions that are so tightly intertwined in history.

We will answer the above questions, and others along the way, as we revisit the years between 1963 and today, to see how much has or has not changed. We will separate cold, hard facts from raw emotions and enabling, destructive attitudes trapped in a virtual time warp of political rhetoric.

You are being given a very rare opportunity- an invitation to sit in on the therapy sessions of The Dream. This series of articles will attempt to break down Dr. King’s famous speech, shining the beautiful light of truth on the very heart and soul of his dream.

If you accept the invitation, be prepared to start the hard work. As is the case with any therapy, it will not be an easy journey. You will witness painful truths. You will have to decide if what you have been told all your life is indeed the facts, or if the facts have been twisted and manipulated to fit the needs of someone else.

There is much wisdom in the age old saying that “the truth will set you free.”

Will you accept the invitation to sit on on these sessions? If you do, you have a little bit of homework to do before our next session.

Please write down anything and everything you personally believe to be truth about race relations in America. Do you believe we, as a nation, have made progress in making Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Dream a reality?

Thank you for your interest in finding the real truth that is hidden in plain sight of The Dream.

I look forward to our next visit.

I Have A Dream
by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
August 28, 1963

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity.

But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God’s children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the Negro. This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor’s lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with a new meaning, “My country, ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.”

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

__________

Part 1 in a series

__________

Source:

DrMartinLutherKingJr.com

Jesse Jackson: It’s Civil War vs. Civil Rights

Jesse Jackson posits the argument that Conservatives want to re-fight the civil war in order to destroy his civil rights.

Social justice, slavery and more are thrown about as he attempts to dismantle the logical argument of true freedom – individual rights –  by pushing big government enslavement. His crowd is eating it up.

“Should you choose unity over individual freedom, you have simply volunteered yourself into the company of slaves”

Civil Rights Protests/Union Protests: Apples and Oranges!

I read an article today about a black man who marched for civil rights in the days of Martin Luther King. You know, back in the days when American citizens were not only protesting to get real workers’ rights, but also ‘fighting’ for their constitutional civil rights; back in the day when people were being killed simply for demanding that the government recognize their constitutional rights. This man’s name was Herbert. In this article Herbert compared the protesting in Wisconsin with the civil rights protesting of the sixties. In this story Herbert mentioned about how important it was for “the people” to “stick together.” (I ask, “Who are the people he is talking about?”) Then Herbert mentioned that “we need to become strong.” (Again I ask; “Who is the ‘we’ Herbert speaks of?”) Then Herbert mentioned that if “We don’t become strong we will lose our rights.” (Herbert, what do you mean if we don’t become strong? What do you mean if we don’t stick together?)

Well, I need to help Herbert get a little perspective. First of all I am saddened by how black people were treated in America for many years. I did not grow up in a prejudiced home, or a prejudiced society. The people I hung with as a teen-ager and young adult treated everyone the same. It still tears my heart out to know that there was a day when one race of Americans could hate another race of Americans simply because their skin was a different color. Those were issues that once split this nation in half. Well for the most part, those days are over. (Unfortunately prejudices of all types still exist in this world. You can’t fix stupid!) Black Americans today have the opportunity to walk the dream of Martin Luther King. The American dream is open to anyone who willing to work for it. The ultimate example of that is our own American President!

Herbert, the budget battle going on in Wisconsin these days is not between “we the people” and the Governor of Wisconsin. The protestors are not protesting against the ‘evils’ of Big Business. The protestors in Wisconsin are not protesting the right to vote, the right to work wherever they want, or the right to buy a home. They are protesting the ability to keep their union privileges. (Notice I said privileges not rights!) They are protesting to such a point that they would rather have these union privileges than help our state survive economically. Herbert, you were right about one thing in your story. People do need to stick together. In this situation the people of Wisconsin need to stick together in order to help their state. And the people in Wisconsin should also be sticking together as they work to remove the vermin who are striving to destroy this state. The budget crisis in Wisconsin is genuine. The only way “we the people” are going to solve this crisis is if we all stick together and do what is best for all the people of the state, not just public union people. The protesting in Wisconsin is not between abused, over-worked, underpaid minority workers and greedy corporate owners. The protesting in Wisconsin is not between poorly treated workers who want safer working conditions and better benefits and big business. The protesting in Wisconsin is not between the poor, oppressed working man and the filthy rich business owners. The vast majority of workers protesting in Wisconsin involves middle to upper class public union employees; citizens who already enjoy incredible union perks. Most of these ‘poor’ ‘woe-is-me’ protestors are union people with two to three cars in the driveway of their $200,000+ homes. The protesting that is going on in Wisconsin today is by people who want to do what is best for their wallets or for their unions before doing what is best for Wisconsin.

Herbert, I too am a union member; have been for thirty-five years. So even though I am a private union employee I need to let you know that I am not part of your “we the people” who must “stick together” to save our union privileges at any cost! I definitely believe I need to help this state because that will help everyone in the state and not just a few. I am simply a tax-paying Wisconsin union-member who is sick and tired of paying for both my benefits and someone else’s! I am a union member who cares more about helping all the people in this state, and the state itself. Herbert, contrary to what the big AFL-CIO tells you, if the state is not economically healthy, the businesses which provide jobs will not be healthy. And again, contrary to what the big AFL-CIO tells you, raising taxes to pay for higher and higher public union employees’ wages and benefits will not attract more businesses to our state.

It really saddens my heart when I read articles written by black people who foolishly compare the public union protesting (i.e., whining) that is going on in Wisconsin to the seriously denied civil rights protesters of the sixties. It is so disingenuous to see people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton showing up to help highly-paid, luxuriously benefited public union workers. These men know what worthy, honorable protesting is all about. Jesse and Al are similar to old hippies who show up at protests hoping to re-kindle the days of old when they protested the Vietnam War. (These boys also like seeing their faces on the nightly news.)

Herbert, don’t bring shame on yourself by comparing what real suffering black workers had to endure in the sixties to what is going on amongst the well-paid, lavishly benefited public union employees of today! You lessen what black people did in the sixties if you continue to compare the legitimate protesting that the black people had to endure to get their civil rights enforced, to the whiny protesting of rich, spoiled public union workers.

SIDE NOTE: I constantly hear these public union people whining about being fed up. Fed up with what? Public union bus driver, what are you fed up about? You made over $100,000 last year! And union teacher Joan, what is your beef?  You work a few hours a day, nine months a year and you still make more money than what a vast majority of Americans make. Mr. and Mrs. Public Union Employee, you make more on your check and in benefits than most private union sector workers make. So again, what are you fed up about?

If you public union employees need something to be fed up about, be fed up with something genuine. If you want something to protest, protest something that benefits all Americans. Protest the high taxes that most Americans are paying! Protest how your taxes are being used for useless pork barrel projects. Protest the billions of dollars in ‘aid’ that we send to countries that don’t even like us. We could use that money to help our own people! If you want to unite people to a righteous cause, unite people to protest elected politicians who are ‘owned’ by unions; politicians who no longer do the bidding of the majority but instead are led by union thugs. If public union employees want to protest their ‘difficulties’ they have that constitutional right to do so—just so long as they do it legally. I say, these public union protestors should use all their energy and use their vast numbers to protest the illegal aliens who come into this country and steal jobs from Americans and receive a fortune worth of tax-payer funded ‘freebies’! There, go protest that!

Today there is another group out there who wants to try to control a free people. The very thing that was once wrong—terribly wrong—with this nation. There was a time when many in this nation once believed they were a better race of people. They believed they had the right to treat fellow citizens with contempt. These arrogant people believed they were above the law of the land. They actually believed they were the law. This race of people got too powerful. They saw nothing wrong with abusing the constitutional rights of others. They got so powerful they even tried to control the ability of a free people to think and act for themselves. Many unions and union people today have become that prejudiced, unlawful people. Many of these unions have decided that they should be deciding what is best for all Americans–just as they decide what is best for their members.

So again Mr. Herbert, I encourage you – do not cheapen the difficult, sincere civil rights protests of the sixties by comparing them with the selfish, whiny worker protests that are going on in Wisconsin.