One sunny day in January, 2013 an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Obama."
The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Obama is no longer president and no longer resides here."
The old man said, "Okay", and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Obama."
The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Obama is no longer president and no longer resides here."
The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.
The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine, saying "I would like to go in and meet with President Obama."
The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Obama. I've told you already that Mr. Obama is no longer the president and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"
The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."
The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow, Sir!"
Their paramilitary guys appear to be doing a very good job finding targets for the Predators they control, but management appears badly contaminated by politics. One hopes at least some of that is disinformation.
America's ignorant, narcissistic anti-Europeanism is an embarrassment.
But how do we feel about America's factual, observation-based anti-Europeanism? The French philosopher-journalist Jean François Revel has already reported extensively on European ignorant bigotry in The Anti-American Obsession (which I highly recommend. My mother and the trailing daughters are reading it in preparation for our trip to Germany next month, to armor them against the criticisms they'll be sure to hear -- the Germans pride themselves on what they charmingly think of as 'frankness'). It's been translated into a great many languages since the 2002 publication date, so there's no excuse for Foreign Policy types to be ignorant of that factor shaping American attitudes.
#2
..while Americans had at times "shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" of Europe's achievements.
Achievements which include thousand of graves containing the remains of may American grandfathers, fathers, and other male family members to cover just one of Europe's major failures. More and more, from a historical perspective, it's starting to look like a plausible case can be made that it was a mistake.
#4
"Anti-europeanism" is a false concept. It follows by implication of what they are FOR that real Americans are immune to Euro-marxism, and if that's a problem for anti-American europeans, then being an American "anti-european" is a compliment by definition.
#5
I don't remember the movie, but it had a brief scene of a US Navy ship Captain, who had been annoyed by a British officer. It showed him reading a paperback, entitled "Are The British Human?"
Even as a kid I thought that would prove to be a highly entertaining kook book.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
07/17/2010 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Hey Procopius2K, I've also read the some Europeans think the US contribution to saving the backsides was limited and in some cases not needed.
I only wish the Europeans had said that back before we joined the war. They were really big on saying how much we weren't needed.... how The Brave Resistance actually did everything... back in 1946.
Posted by: Things From Snowy Mountains ||
07/17/2010 13:21 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The journalist is a Guardian staffer. 'Nuff said, there. It's worth taking a few minutes to read the article and the comment thread, to review the standard arguments for both sides. To summarize:
Europe: You Amis are ignorant, cultureless, imperialist bullies, throwing your weight around with your matchless army, and ignoring the advice of your educated, cultured betters. We, the inheritors of ancient Rome and Greece have been pondering these problems for ever so much longer than you existed.
America: *looks around blankly* Did someone say something?
*looks down toward ankles, then lifts up squeaky thing by its tail* Oh, hai Yurope -- say, there's a problem in your backyard that threatens to destabilize the world, and we're going to fix it. You're overdue to help, so we'd like a couple of combat brigades. Advice? No thanks, we ran it through our simulators, and we're good to go; after all, half the command level have served over there in the last decade, and half of them have cousins who emigrated from there. Sure, they were peasants, but peasants generally have a pretty good idea of the lay of the land, we've found.
Europe: Soft power is better. We'll talk to them, and they'll succumb to our persuasive arguments and the charm of our culture, ancient before the first colonist set foot on your shores. What d'you mean, they didn't last time -- they would have, but your army charged in and ruined everything.
etc...
some Europeans think the US contribution to saving the backsides was limited and in some cases not needed.
miscellaneous dear, European ignorance about America is both broad and deep, as is too often American about Europe. Such statements prove it. Or, as was said by President Reagan, although not about Europeans specifically, "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."
Remember the Brits in Iraq? Remember how the "softly, softly" approach was so much better than beastly Yank displays of machismo? Remember how the British had so much more experience in that sort of thing?
#10
I always hear about how Americans pay no attention to foriegn countries, never learn other languages, and the like. My response is, I've been to Europe and I wasn't impressed. Which little POS country should I concentrate on? And, my ancestors risked everything to get away from those peope.
Posted by: Formerly Dan ||
07/17/2010 19:28 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Like other Guardianista memes, this one is an imported invention of American media-left elitists.
"There is this woman. She is waiting to die. Not quite a normal death. She is waiting for her execution. Not quite a 'normal execution.'
"She will be buried up to her chest. Her willing executioners will say 'Allah is great,' and then will hurl stones at her. Not quite normal stones. They will be picked carefully. They won't be too small to give her too little pain, or too large to kill her immediately.
"Unsurprisingly, Sakineh Mohammedie Ashtiani is Iranian. But she is of Azeri descent and speaks only Turkish -- the principal barrier that prevented her from fully comprehending Iran's Islamic court proceedings."
She Is "Convicted Of Adultery -- The Same 'Impropriety'... Erdogan Had Tried Hard To Outlaw in Turkey"
"In 2006, Ms. Ashtiani was convicted of adultery, the same 'impropriety' Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had tried hard to outlaw in Turkey a few years earlier. Since his legislative attempt failed after too many 'shocked' Western faces popped up one after another, we do not know what proper penalty Mr. Erdogan had considered accurate for adultery -- but it cannot be stoning.
"Ms. Ashtiani was forced to confess after being subjected to 99 lashes, although she later retracted the confession. The legal proceedings were complex and straightforward. They were complex because two out of five judges were not convinced that Ms. Ashtiani was guilty. But they were straightforward 'numerically.'
"Article 74 of the Iranian penal code requires at least four witnesses for an adulterer to be stoned to death. Witnesses make the principal evidence. But four witnesses do not mean four 'persons.' Four witnesses, in Iranian law, mean four men or three men and two women (or two men and four women... Muslims choosing to betray their spouses should take care to have a maximum of seven women witness their act).
"By the time this article goes to print, Ms. Ashtiani may have been stoned to death. Unless of course the mullahs decide to give her a pardon not because they would think such a punishment would be too barbaric for the year 2010, but probably because they would think a pardon could spark an international feeling of gratefulness and well suit their political agenda."
"We Know... That Mr. Erdogan Has a Soft Spot For Muslims Being Subjected to Cruelty... [This Is Also] a Great Opportunity For [Him] to Show... [His] Understanding of Islam and Secularism"
"But someone else may come into the picture for a happy ending. We know by evidence that Mr. Erdogan has a soft spot for Muslims being subjected to cruelty in all corners of the world, and Ms. Ashtiani is a Muslim lady. Besides, Ms. Ashtiani speaks Turkish, not Farsi; and perhaps Mr. Erdogan would view her as kin? Above all, Mr. Erdogan has brotherly relations with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who can pardon her.
"That's a great opportunity for Mr. Erdogan to show everyone how much he cares about the plight of Muslims (and Turks) all around the world, that he can love Muslims other than Hamas-loving Palestinians too.
"It could also be a great opportunity for everyone willing to understand Mr. Erdogan's understanding of Islam and secularism. We learned before what he thinks about adultery (that it's a crime), and how the state should behave adulterers (that it should punish them).
"But we don't know what kind of punishment he deems appropriate for adultery. We don't know either what he thinks about 99 lashes, or about the two women=one man equation at the witness booth."
"These Are Taboo Subjects for Islamist Politicians Who Have a Desire to Look Nice to Non-Muslim Westerners"
"These are taboo subjects for Islamist politicians who have a desire to look nice to non-Muslim Westerners -- that's the pragmatic Muslim in them. I can understand their trouble. If they stood against lashes and stoning and two women equal one man rules, they would be speaking against explicit Quranic commandments.
"(For the interested reader, allow me to remind you that Quranic commandments come in one flavor only. About do's and don'ts, the Quran is not discriminatory. 'Don't drink alcohol' is no different than 'Give him/her 99 lashes;' or 'Don't eat pork' is the same as 'Two women equal one man as witness.')"
"So, it would be interesting to learn what the devout mind with perpetual citings from the Quran would say about lashes and stoning and witnesses and what others must do if someone is to be stoned (in fact the Quran also commands that everyone who is aware of adultery in the neighborhood must go and witness the punishment).
"Going back to the dilemma of the pragmatic Islamists... If they stood against not-so-nice-looking practices like the fate awaiting Ms. Ashtiani, they would be challenging the Quran (their Islamism). On the other hand, if they affirmed such practices, they would fear distancing some of their Western allies (their pragmatism).
"Muteness is the best solution. Not for unimportant, sinning Muslims like Ms. Ashtiani, but definitely for the very important Muslims like Mr. Ahmadinejad's best friend in Turkey."
Posted by: Fred ||
07/17/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
By now, everyone no doubt realizes that I am not a fan of the pace at which the federal government has worked to contain the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Sadly, federal officials were slow to act and overly bureaucratic. They have never really understood the urgency of the situation down here. I'm not raising a question of motive; it's simply a function of the federal government being a slow-moving albatross. The only way to attack a crisis like this is with the urgency of a military mind-set. Obama's in charge. He'll take credit for capping the well, if it holds.
Even after the well is finally capped, the damage done to our environment, to the Gulf of Mexico, and to our marshes, wetlands and beaches will take years to repair. There is another type of damage from this spill: its human impact. Thousands of lives, businesses and families are reeling.
Against this backdrop, the federal government unwisely chose to add insult to injury by decreeing a moratorium on deepwater drilling in the gulf. This ill-advised and ill-considered moratorium, which a federal judge called "arbitrary" and "capricious," creates a second disaster for our economy, throwing thousands of hardworking folks out of their jobs and causing real damage to many families. Now this federal policy risks killing 20,000 more jobs and will result in a loss of $65 million to $135 million in wages each month.
To ensure that such a disaster does not happen again, should the federal government increase oversight, or require additional and better equipment or on-site federal inspectors, or even temporarily pause drilling at specific rigs for additional reviews? Of course. Could it? Of course. But by simply stopping all deepwater drilling, federal officials appear more interested in ideology and scoring political points - as they have done with the misguided cap-and-trade legislation - at the expense of Americans who derive their livelihood from the energy industry. I think you're on to something there, Gov. Let's be clear: This moratorium will do nothing to clean up the Gulf of Mexico, and it is already doing great harm to many hardworking citizens. The effects will extend well beyond Louisiana. Since the moratorium was announced, America has already lost two rigs to foreign countries. More drilling companies are negotiating right now to work elsewhere. Every time we decrease our level of production, we make America more dependent on foreign sources of energy. A feature.
On those few occasions when our country suffers a commercial airline tragedy, we do not respond by stopping all air travel for six months. Rather, we get to work figuring out the root cause and set about trying to make air travel safer. We don't grind everything to a halt and put tens of thousands of people out of work, jeopardizing our economy. Maybe The One can look into that, next time.
So, my state joined a lawsuit against the moratorium. We pointed out that a majority of the experts the federal government consulted before the ban, including representatives from the National Academy of Engineering, have stated publicly that they do not agree with the six-month blanket moratorium.
The court sided with the people of Louisiana in this matter. Consider the judge's statements: that the federal moratorium would result in the loss of jobs and livelihoods, that the government's action "does not seem to be fact-specific" and that the "government's hair-splitting explanation abuses reason and common sense."
One might assume that the federal government would back down, lift the moratorium and get on with the business of ensuring that nothing like this ever happens again in federal waters.
Nope.
Our federal government chose to fight on in court, and lost a second time.
Surely now, many of us thought, the federal government would stop its efforts to halt all drilling and instead get serious about more rigorous oversight and inspections.
Nope.
Instead, the federal government drafted a new moratorium. This seems to be a cynical ploy. It will take time to again take federal officials to court. If Washington loses, officials can issue a third moratorium and play this game out as long as they want. Such is the overbearing power of the federal government.
Louisianans, of all people, don't want to see another drop of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. It is our land and our way of life that are being harmed. Yet the administration tells our people to simply file a claim with BP or file for unemployment. Our people want to work, not collect unemployment checks. Working makes them independent; that's not their plan.
We don't want to see the federal government create a second disaster, an economic disaster, for the people of our state thanks to its "capricious" and "arbitrary" actions. The bottom line is this: Thousands of Louisianans shouldn't have to lose their jobs just because the federal government can't do its job. Where have we head that before? Say, Gov, have you spoken to Governor Brewer lately?
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/17/2010 08:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
27,000 abandoned wells, 1 huge gulf dead zone, 1 WTF blowout affecting lives and life in and around the gulf. Think its time to close 33 deep wells to figuring out that NO leaks or blowout will occur? OR is chasing money more important.
#2
Peronsally I have always had the view that the government should have treated like a forest fire. Take charge, jump on it (so to speak), get engineering firms on it (like LM) and get it capped. Obama never took took charge, or did any thing but blame others. They now at least have a technique to fix the problem.
The other thing that comes to mind, is 27K wells and nothing like this until Obama lets it happen (or causes it, but that's my paranoia). Nothing like allowing a disaster to continue in order to reinforce your economy killing philosophies and socail engineering agenda.
#3
It's 'orrid! Damn oysters are off the menu even tho the winter banks have been opened, $1200 bucks a day for a skiff beats the shit out of working the tongs. It's a disastuh!
#4
Common sense. Direct speech. Courage and imagination.
What a pity this man isn't in the White House instead of Young Barry, the kind of idiot JFK was referring to when he said, "Success has a thousand fathers; failure is an orphan."
#5
Governor Jindal is young. A few terms as governor will add to the experience he will need to run for president. (Assuming he is crazy enough to want to run. The MSM will put him through the wringer like they did to Sarah Palin.)
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
07/17/2010 21:41 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The solution to the MSM destroying conservative candidates is to ignore their requests for coverage - marginalize them, ridicule them - point out their bias.
Shouldn't terrorist groups be called terrorist groups? This question is at the center of a new dispute over the future course of the effort in Afghanistan. Pakistan has been promoting dialogue between the Afghan government and some of the most militant extremist groups; the United States would rather see the terrorists defeated.
Among the radical groups in question are the Haqqani network, a clan-based group centered in North Waziristan on Pakistan's tribal frontier with Afghanistan, and the Quetta Shura, which comprises the leadership of the Afghan Taliban. Both are alleged to have strong ties to Pakistan's intelligence service, and both are actively waging war inside Afghanistan against the Kabul government and coalition forces. In no uncertain terms, they are the enemy.
International Security Assistance Force commander Gen. David H. Petreaus reportedly recommended that the Haqqani network be placed on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTO), and Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, recommended the same status for the Quetta Shura. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan - the main Pakistani Taliban umbrella organization that claimed to sponsor Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad - is another good candidate. Branding these groups as FTOs would expand the legal options for combating them and those who give them financial and other forms of support. It also would bring them more closely into the target group for direct attacks, such as with unmanned drones and special-operations forces. Given that the coalition is already in open conflict with these terrorists, it makes sense to let them join the various incarnations of al Qaeda on the government's hit list.
This move may cause problems for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has been making diplomatic overtures to various militants. It will be harder for him to build bridges with groups the United States is seeking to destroy. However, there is enough ambiguity in the politics of that region to believe that this would simply be a complication for the Afghan leader, not a deal breaker. It will give the two sides more common ground: Mr. Karzai and the militants can grouse at their meetings about the impractical Americans and their insistence on old-fashioned concepts like "winning."
Ramping up the pressure on the most extreme of the extremists sends a message to Mr. Karzai about what America considers an acceptable bargain for stability in Afghanistan. The metric of success cannot be peace at any price. Americans may well ask what the sacrifices in Afghanistan were for if the country winds up with a governing coalition that includes the most anti-democratic, hard-core Islamist radicals, including some of the same Taliban leaders who gave Osama bin Laden the support he needed to plan and execute the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and other al Qaeda operations. America's mission in Afghanistan must mean something and must lead to something positive. Rewarding the insurgents with a seat at the table sets a bad precedent - and after the coalition departs, the insurgents may wind up taking the whole table.
Apart from Afghan political questions, the primary reason to list these groups as terrorist organizations is because that is what they are. They precisely fit the definition of violent extremists that the Obama administration has been promoting. They are responsible for the deaths of coalition troops on a daily basis. They loathe the United States and everything this country stands for. They are the types of groups that America pledged to destroy when it declared war on terrorism, and they would be worth fighting whether or not our troops were engaged in Afghanistan.
These terror groups have declared jihad on the United States. Our country might as well return the favor.
#3
Goober, he claims jihad means, "to purify." What he leaves out is the method they use and who they apply that method to, which is namely every one not part of Islam, in case any forgot.
Israel recently released aerial photos of Hezbollah military preparations in southern Lebanon. The photos showed villages being fortified and weapons and rockets being stored near and in schools and hospitals.
Hezbollah has organized an armed militia there, of about 20,000 men. Nearly a third of them have been to Iran for military training. There is a lot of open terrain in southern Lebanon, but the 40,000 rockets are mostly stored, and ready to be launched from, these fortified villages.
The Hezbollah preparations are similar to those used by Hamas, and encountered by Israeli troops during the brief war in Gaza 19 months ago. Hezbollah provides Hamas with military advisers, and Iranian weapons.
Why can't black Americans have a tea party movement of our own?
I have never participated in a "tea party" demonstration or rally. Nor do I think I ever will. The reason is simple: I am black and I am proud and no self-respecting black American would ever openly join that conservative movement or support its goals. Right? Besides, your friends would shun you. But read on; she does have two clues that offer some hope
I'm exaggerating a bit, but really I'm just channeling a debate that erupted last week. At its annual convention in St. Louis, the NAACP passed a resolution denouncing the "racist element" within the tea party movement. "We don't have a problem with the tea party's existence," explained President Benjamin Jealous. "We have an issue with their acceptance and welcoming of white supremacists into their organizations." They should have a test to belong. We'd like that better.
Sarah Palin, the highest-profile tea party supporter, wrote on her Facebook page last week that "the charge that tea party Americans judge people by the color of their skin is false, appalling and is a regressive and diversionary tactic to change the subject at hand." The whole discussion is a prime example of how we have, once again, become a very polarized nation, both politically and racially.
I'm supposed to be on the NAACP's side of this argument. I am a member of the nation's oldest black sorority and the founder of a national organization that focuses on professional black women. And I have a book coming out early next year on the unique challenges facing college-educated black women in the United States. I have a lot to lose by lining up with the wrong crowd: I could be pegged an Uncle Tom or a sellout. And so I have been fearful and silent. But I am increasingly uncomfortable staying quiet. But this op-ed might help sell the book.
The fact is that I support many of the core goals of the tea party movement, not as a black American - but as an American. Let me be very clear about what I agree with and what I find intolerable. I do not support those who hate my president because he is a black man - and that kind of hatred is often displayed on racially charged and denigrating signs at tea party rallies. I do not support those who spew racial venom, especially when incendiary words come from leaders within the movement, as they did last week from Mark Williams, national spokesman for the Tea Party Express. And I abhor and reject anyone who would spit upon or yell racial epithets at an esteemed public servant such as Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), and other black members of Congress, as drooling, terrified liberals claim tea party supporters reportedly have done.
But that visceral hatred is not the entirety of the movement. I admire the principle of protesting peaceably against your government. I, too, am fed up by vast unemployment, underemployment, and making do with smaller paychecks and increasingly burdensome taxes. Like many protesters, I agree that the government has gotten too large and has a say over too much of our lives. I think that our nation's immigration laws should be enforced most vigorously. And I agree that capitalism and a strong national defense are the best ways for this great country to continue to thrive, defeat terrorism and lead as the world's sole superpower. Bingo! Give that lady a cigar!
These are sentiments that many of my black friends, neighbors and family members share. Although I may be virtually alone among my black peers in saying this publicly, I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. In a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, only 77 percent of people who identified as members of the tea party described themselves as white. And you would't be comfortable in that makeup? Not enough of your skin color, you fear? Or are you suggesting the Tea Party is not as uniformly white as your liberal friends fear?
And talking to my friends - fellow black professionals - I hear the same kinds of things: Our taxes are too high, I had to tap into my retirement account, I could lose my home if my husband loses his job, I worry about what kind of future we are leaving our kids with all of this national debt. You're on a roll, sweetheart!
Even people who disagree with me don't think that a public war of words over race is the best way forward. "How is condemning the actions of a few white fools in the tea party going to help put food on the table of unemployed black folks?" a black lawyer friend in his late 30s - a staunch Democrat - asked at a recent dinner party. He didn't see how an NAACP resolution was going to create jobs in cities where black men are experiencing unemployment at Great Depression levels. "The NAACP needs to come up with something better than that move," he said. They're a one-trick pony, cupcake.
Another friend at the dinner, a black woman who works for a member of Congress, agreed. "We need to wake up. Black folks are hurting bad in this current economy, as are many whites and Hispanics. We better start finding a way to work together and stop all of this racial name-calling," she said. "We need a Rainbow Coalition tea party to set this thing off before we all end up getting dumped in the Boston Harbor." Some do see the Rainbow in the Tea Party.
I agree. I got lambasted last week after I wrote a commentary for the Root suggesting that blacks may want to give the tea party movement a second look on substance and perhaps even emulate it. We should, I argued, start our own tea party as a way to protest the historic loss of black wealth since 2007. This did not go over well. How could I take those racist people seriously, some asked.
Well, I don't take racists seriously. I am alarmed by the racial animus and incivility that continues to build among our citizenry - on all sides. But such voices do not represent the entire tea party movement. And it's the movement's ideas I take seriously. But she's too black to join.
To really move forward, we don't need provocative proclamations and condemnations. We need the NAACP and the tea party leadership alike to come up with tangible solutions, ideas that lessen some of the economic and social pain we are all experiencing. Maybe the NAACP could take control of the Tea Party? Holder could order it up.
So why can't black Americans have a tea party movement of our own? That is, why can't we get energized by politicians and proposals that would put people back to work and reduce the burden of taxes? I am all for social programs that feed and help people in rough times, but we need to do more than keep heads above water. Because that'd be racist, not true to the color-blind society you claim you seek?
No community is more in need of this message than the black community. It's too bad that the bigots and the bad actors in the tea party movement have drowned out the substance of a message we all should hear. We know some of them are. Too bad you can't get past the color of your skin.
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/17/2010 08:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What a load of junk science fiction. Now, here's something real.
#2
..I have never participated in a "tea party" demonstration or rally.....I do not support those who hate my president because he is a black man - and that kind of hatred is often displayed on racially charged and denigrating signs at tea party rallies.
If one has never attended a rally how could one know that such signs are often displayed? Other than buying the State Controlled Media play of their narrative, aided and abetted by verified plants, agent provocateurs.
#3
Then they have to put up with garbage like this:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/stephen-glass-redux-thinkprogress-org-publishes-completely-fraudulent-video-labeling-tea-partiers-racists/?singlepage=true
#4
Why do they segregate themselves? Even suggesting they need a tea party of their own is a bit racist. If the author and her friends joined the tea-party movement their numbers would drown out the silly white racist elements. Unfortunately they refuse. Very odd.
#5
A good argument is to specifically point out how indentured the NAACP is to big government.
How big government is no longer the servant of the people, all the people, but tries to be master over the people. By embracing big government, the NAACP is telling black America to take up chains and bind your arms and legs, to become a coffle of slaves driven to market. To be owned as chattels of the government.
Searching for equality in slavery is a fools errand.
Does the NAACP favor that if people of other races are slaves as well, that slavery is acceptable to black people?
Do the leaders of the NAACP think they will be the overseers who drive black and white slaves with whips? Do they think that the big government slaveholders will be so generous as to manumit them if they vote reliably every election for their masters?
In its beginnings, the NAACP tried to uplift black people. Then it tried to get them something for nothing from the government. But it was a deal with the devil, and the devil has come to collect his evil due.
Black people can keep their freedom, but only if they earn it by turning away from big government. Being free means being on your own. Otherwise you will have a rope put around your neck, and you ear will be cut, to show that you have become a slave, as is the Biblical invective.
"Then you shall take an awl, and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your slave forever. And to your female slave you shall do the same."
#7
So why can't black Americans have a tea party movement of our own?
I dunno maybe its just me. But does anybody else think its just a tad ironic that someone who is musing about starting a movement based exclusively on race is calling other people bigots? Anyhoo if she gets her gig off the ground Id be interested. Im looking to start tea party movement exclusively for Eskimos. Not that Im Aleutian or anything. But I wouldnt mind discussing the perils of an over reaching government while (legally) putting some wood to those baby seals.
#9
Our local Tea Party has tried very hard to attract blacks. We've had a number of black speakers, all of whom were enthusiastically welcomed. We've had some blacks attend events and they were generally positive about our goals and their experience, but did not join. They just didn't feel comfortable.
#10
The Democrats need to found a National Association for the Advancement if Stupid People. They seem to have the stupid vote completely wrapped up. It should be a great win for the Democrats as stupid cuts across all demographic lines.
One of the cool thing about the Tea Party is that it is grass roots and decentralized. There is no neck for liberals to get their hands around.
This is a good thing and a bad thing, because the Tea Party has no real ability to sue anyone, either.
I kind of like it that way. Let folks slander the Tea Party all they want. I find it hard to believe that rational folks, or even most of the irrational ones, really believe the insane racist allegations. That $100k reward is still out there unclaimed ....
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
"There is this woman. She is waiting to die. Not quite a normal death. She is waiting for her execution. Not quite a 'normal execution.'
Let's be clear: This moratorium will do nothing to clean up the Gulf of Mexico, and it is already doing great harm to many hardworking citizens. The effects will extend well beyond Louisiana. Since the moratorium was announced, America has already lost two rigs to foreign countries. More drilling companies are negotiating right now to work elsewhere. Every time we decrease our level of production, we make America more dependent on foreign sources of energy. 
Shouldn't terrorist groups be called terrorist groups? This question is at the center of a new dispute over the future course of the effort in Afghanistan. Pakistan has been promoting dialogue between the Afghan government and some of the most militant extremist groups; the United States would rather see the terrorists defeated.
