Who are the Anarchists Now? Arizona Immigration Enforcement

Let’s put this in perspective, you are often asked to show your ID when you use your credit or debit card, you have to produce ID to get a loan, buy a home, apply for assistance, enroll for school, fly on a plane, stay in a hotel, or rent a car.  Every time I have been stopped by the police I have been asked to produce license and proof of insurance.  But asking for documentation to prove legal residency in this country is an affront to civil rights? What about my Civil Rights?

I will now have to prove to the IRS every year that I have purchased Federally mandated health insurance, but we cannot ask anyone to prove legal residency in this country? Seriously?

I still cannot wrap my mind around the mental gymnastics required to reconcile that a person who is here illegally, has not committed a crime. If you will break our laws to get here in the first place why are you amazed we automatically think you will break others while you are here?  How does one become an UNdocumented worker if Documents are irrelevant?  I mean really we do not have pass amnesty at all if we just quit being a nation of laws.

Of course, that would gloss over the fact that Arizona has become the 2nd place winner in the World Kidnapping Olympics…right behind, huh…Mexico City.  Phoenix has more Kidnappings per day than anywhere else in the USA.

It is Racist to affirm enforcement of a Federal Law?  Of course it is.  And all the cops are racists too.  Arizona is only 30% Latino according the the last census (which I am sure did not include many of the soon to be citizens of this country), so I am sure none of the police officers are Latino, and none of them would be married to a Latino. Nope they are all a bunch of White Racists.

What the pResident and the Left Stream Media are asking the border states to do is to ignore Federal Law, which puts us in the powerful and unique position of getting to choose which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore.  If the Feral Government is so intent on not enforcing their own law then why not do as Silverfiddle from Western Hero suggests and repeal it?  Just do away with Customs and ICE and Border Patrol, and all of that.  If we can pick and choose what laws we want to follow or not, then why have them in the first place?  That is the logical conclusion to the line of thought now being pushed.  Most liberals are in favor of not enforcing Marijuana laws as well.  So if we are not going to follow Drug Laws, and we are not going to follow Immigration laws, and we rarely follow voting eligibility laws, then guess I don’t have to follow laws that I don’t particularly like either.

NO, that is wrong, we do not get to pick and choose, folks.  Just because we do not think a law is Just (for the record I am in favor of the AZ law, and have mixed opinion on the weed issue) we do not get to decide whether or not we follow it.  People who know me and have been listening know that I have said repeatedly that whoever gives amnesty to the illegal aliens in this country is pretty much guaranteed a 60 year electoral majority.  This is about politics plain and simple, this is how the most rapidly unpopular administration our nation has ever seen plans to stay in power.

I think that this has been a goal of people like William Ayers and Saul Alinsky for years and years, Anarchy for everyone, courtesy of the Progressive Liberal Establishment.

Arriba La Raza, Viva La Reconquesta!

-KOOK

De-Constructing our Progress to Communism Pt. I

We are facing a constitutional crisis in this Country. In debate, one of the best ways to disprove an opponent’s argument is to attack their thesis statement, and not the particulars of the faulty premise.  The faulty premise in this case is that the “General Welfare” clause allows congress to legislate anything and everything under the sun. Seemingly all of the Democrats and apparently many of the Republicans, along with hordes of the populace believe that there are alternate interpretations of the constitution, which allows certain usurpations of power by the Federal Government.  But we do not have to guess at the Founder’s intent on these things, because we have documents providing their meaning and intent.   Amongst our elected non-representatives who have an opinion or a clue (and most do not) as to where they might derive the power for their “Progressing to Communist” agenda they will cite the “General Welfare” or the “Commerce Clause”.  Below are just a very few of their recent comments regarding their authority for their usurpation of our rightful power; for the rest check out this Link at CSNnews.com

In response to the question, “Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”, these are how some of our supposed representatives answered:

House Speaker Pelosi Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.)  “Are you serious? Are you serious?” (How dare you question my authoritay! peasant!)
 
• Sen. Bernard Sanders (I.-Vt.) “Where in the Constitution? Probably the same place that comes Medicare and Medicaid and the CHIP Program and the Veterans Administration, and the health care programs that we’ve been doing for many, many decades.” (full disclosure on Bernie, he is an avowed Socialist)
  
• Sen. Claire McCaskill (D.-Mo.)  “Well the -- we have all kinds of places where the government has gotten involved with health care and mandating insurance. (not at the same time) In most states, the government mandates the buying of car insurance (ya, if you choose to own a car, I guess we could choose to kill ourselves and therefore not need medical insurance), and I can assure everyone that if anything in this bill is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will weigh in.”
  
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) “Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That’s how Congress legislates all kinds of various (unconstitutional) programs.”
  
• Sen. Mary Landrieu (D.-La.) (Of Louisiana Purchase v 2.0 Fame) “Well, we’re very lucky as members of the Senate to have constitutional lawyers on our staff, so I’ll let them answer that.(cause I don’t have the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.)
  
• Sen. Ben Nelson (D.-Neb.) – of the famous Cornhusker Kickback “Well, you know, I don’t know that I’m a constitutional scholar (having never read the constitution myself). So, I, I’m not going to be able to answer that question.”
  

 

And now for someone with credibility…

James Madison, American politician and political philosopher,  fourth President of the United States, has been called the "Father of the Constitution," he was the principal author of the document. He wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, the most influential commentary on the Constitution. The first president to have served in the United States Congress,  and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution and thus is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights". As a political theorist, Madison's most distinctive belief was that the new republic needed checks and balances to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

I think his credibility speaks for itself.  In Federalist #41 Madison explained the very concept so many of our non-representatives have misconceptions about (my translations in Blue as always, and I have edited out some of his commentary , rest assured I do this for brevity and clarity)

Some, …, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution,... It has been urged ..., that the power "to...provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.

No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. (people who make this argument are grasping at straws, and are ridiculous)

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; (if this was the only language granting congress power, and if we hadn’t spent the time enumerating powers in the constitution, these objections might have some merit)

though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. (even if the above were true, what a strange way to grant unlimited authority to congress)

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare." (if this interpretation was followed then the words "to raise money for the general welfare." would allow congress to take away all the other rights we just listed)

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? (read the rest of the sentence, the part after the semicolon, when we explain what we meant)

If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? (do we have to spell it out line by line and repeat ourselves over and over to keep you from keeping half of what we said and disregarding the rest?  Why listen to the general terms and ignore the specific ones that follow which we included for clarification?)

 

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? (why list other powers if that first general sentence gave the congress unlimited authority?)

Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. (“Make me a sandwich, put ham and cheese between two slices of bread.”  See what he means?)

But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. (The specifically enumerated powers are there to explain and qualify the general meaning.  It is absurd to think we put them there to confuse what we meant.  If there is any misleading as to what we meant either it was by the authors, or by the people making the objections, and it was not the authors)

…How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation! (you hang yourself with your own rope!)

-KOOK

De-Constructing our Progress to Communism Pt. I

We are facing a constitutional crisis in this Country. In debate, one of the best ways to disprove an opponent’s argument is to attack their thesis statement, and not the particulars of the faulty premise.  The faulty premise in this case is that the “General Welfare” clause allows congress to legislate anything and everything under the sun. Seemingly all of the Democrats and apparently many of the Republicans, along with hordes of the populace believe that there are alternate interpretations of the constitution, which allows certain usurpations of power by the Federal Government.  But we do not have to guess at the Founder’s intent on these things, because we have documents providing their meaning and intent.   Amongst our elected non-representatives who have an opinion or a clue (and most do not) as to where they might derive the power for their “Progressing to Communist” agenda they will cite the “General Welfare” or the “Commerce Clause”.  Below are just a very few of their recent comments regarding their authority for their usurpation of our rightful power; for the rest check out this Link at CSNnews.com

In response to the question, “Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”, these are how some of our supposed representatives answered:

House Speaker Pelosi Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.)  “Are you serious? Are you serious?” (How dare you question my authoritay! peasant!)
 
• Sen. Bernard Sanders (I.-Vt.) “Where in the Constitution? Probably the same place that comes Medicare and Medicaid and the CHIP Program and the Veterans Administration, and the health care programs that we’ve been doing for many, many decades.” (full disclosure on Bernie, he is an avowed Socialist)
  
• Sen. Claire McCaskill (D.-Mo.)  “Well the -- we have all kinds of places where the government has gotten involved with health care and mandating insurance. (not at the same time) In most states, the government mandates the buying of car insurance (ya, if you choose to own a car, I guess we could choose to kill ourselves and therefore not need medical insurance), and I can assure everyone that if anything in this bill is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will weigh in.”
  
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) “Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That’s how Congress legislates all kinds of various (unconstitutional) programs.”
  
• Sen. Mary Landrieu (D.-La.) (Of Louisiana Purchase v 2.0 Fame) “Well, we’re very lucky as members of the Senate to have constitutional lawyers on our staff, so I’ll let them answer that.(cause I don’t have the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.)
  
• Sen. Ben Nelson (D.-Neb.) – of the famous Cornhusker Kickback “Well, you know, I don’t know that I’m a constitutional scholar (having never read the constitution myself). So, I, I’m not going to be able to answer that question.”
  

 

And now for someone with credibility…

James Madison, American politician and political philosopher,  fourth President of the United States, has been called the "Father of the Constitution," he was the principal author of the document. He wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, the most influential commentary on the Constitution. The first president to have served in the United States Congress,  and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution and thus is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights". As a political theorist, Madison's most distinctive belief was that the new republic needed checks and balances to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

I think his credibility speaks for itself.  In Federalist #41 Madison explained the very concept so many of our non-representatives have misconceptions about (my translations in Blue as always, and I have edited out some of his commentary , rest assured I do this for brevity and clarity)

Some, …, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution,... It has been urged ..., that the power "to...provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.

No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. (people who make this argument are grasping at straws, and are ridiculous)

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; (if this was the only language granting congress power, and if we hadn’t spent the time enumerating powers in the constitution, these objections might have some merit)

though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. (even if the above were true, what a strange way to grant unlimited authority to congress)

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare." (if this interpretation was followed then the words "to raise money for the general welfare." would allow congress to take away all the other rights we just listed)

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? (read the rest of the sentence, the part after the semicolon, when we explain what we meant)

If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? (do we have to spell it out line by line and repeat ourselves over and over to keep you from keeping half of what we said and disregarding the rest?  Why listen to the general terms and ignore the specific ones that follow which we included for clarification?)

 

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? (why list other powers if that first general sentence gave the congress unlimited authority?)

Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. (“Make me a sandwich, put ham and cheese between two slices of bread.”  See what he means?)

But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. (The specifically enumerated powers are there to explain and qualify the general meaning.  It is absurd to think we put them there to confuse what we meant.  If there is any misleading as to what we meant either it was by the authors, or by the people making the objections, and it was not the authors)

…How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation! (you hang yourself with your own rope!)

-KOOK

Empathy2.0

KMBR just did a post on empathy and how mr. o thinks he can use it to his advantage. Here is "empathy" defined. It is not exactly a bed of roses.
Our pResident has used the word "empathy" to describe how he want's his pick for Supreme Court Justice to decide cases. Let's take a closer look at the word "empathy" for a minute or two.
Wikipedia defines empathy this way:Empathy is the capability to share your feelings and understand another's emotion and feelings. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes," or in some way experience what the other person is feeling. Empathy does not necessarily imply compassion, sympathy, orempathic concern because this capacity can be present in context of compassionate or cruel behavior.
Empathy is actually a communist code word for action. It used to hide Anti-capitalist, anti-American , and anti-Christian actions. Roe V. Wade was a supreme court decision that demonstrated empathy for women that were undesirably pregnant for instance. What about empathy for the Unborn, not to mention the fact that it takes action by 2 people to make the unborn children being aborted (murdered). Glen Beck pointed out on his T.V. show yesterday that Adolph Hitler figured out how to enact the "final solution" that caused 6 million deaths by an act of empathy in which a severely handicapped child was "put down." This was sold as an "act of mercy" to the German people. When there was no outcry, others were mercifully "put down."
The bottom line is: Empathy cannot be acted on in masse without discriminating on others. You can feel sorry for those who's circumstances are worse than yours but when special rights are given to such people, others have to pay for those rights. Take illegal immigrants for instance. How can illegals be moved up as a group without pushing American Citizens down? It is one thing for individuals to help others out of empathy but when government steps in and extends rights to such groups, others must move out of the way. Just ask the Jews and Gypsies that survived the NAZI holocaust and ask those who are trying to survive the environmental holocaust being put on people here in America. Ask the children that were never born about their parents actions...oh I almost forgot that they never had the chance to be born. I have stated before that I believe we are quietly following the path of the Weimar Republic/Nazi Germany pre World War II and this is another example that reinforces this view.

Empathy2.0

KMBR just did a post on empathy and how mr. o thinks he can use it to his advantage. Here is "empathy" defined. It is not exactly a bed of roses.
Our pResident has used the word "empathy" to describe how he want's his pick for Supreme Court Justice to decide cases. Let's take a closer look at the word "empathy" for a minute or two.
Wikipedia defines empathy this way:Empathy is the capability to share your feelings and understand another's emotion and feelings. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes," or in some way experience what the other person is feeling. Empathy does not necessarily imply compassion, sympathy, orempathic concern because this capacity can be present in context of compassionate or cruel behavior.
Empathy is actually a communist code word for action. It used to hide Anti-capitalist, anti-American , and anti-Christian actions. Roe V. Wade was a supreme court decision that demonstrated empathy for women that were undesirably pregnant for instance. What about empathy for the Unborn, not to mention the fact that it takes action by 2 people to make the unborn children being aborted (murdered). Glen Beck pointed out on his T.V. show yesterday that Adolph Hitler figured out how to enact the "final solution" that caused 6 million deaths by an act of empathy in which a severely handicapped child was "put down." This was sold as an "act of mercy" to the German people. When there was no outcry, others were mercifully "put down."
The bottom line is: Empathy cannot be acted on in masse without discriminating on others. You can feel sorry for those who's circumstances are worse than yours but when special rights are given to such people, others have to pay for those rights. Take illegal immigrants for instance. How can illegals be moved up as a group without pushing American Citizens down? It is one thing for individuals to help others out of empathy but when government steps in and extends rights to such groups, others must move out of the way. Just ask the Jews and Gypsies that survived the NAZI holocaust and ask those who are trying to survive the environmental holocaust being put on people here in America. Ask the children that were never born about their parents actions...oh I almost forgot that they never had the chance to be born. I have stated before that I believe we are quietly following the path of the Weimar Republic/Nazi Germany pre World War II and this is another example that reinforces this view.

Of all the people...addendu

I am doing this as a quick mini post as I will be making a road trip across the state today to go see Glenn and Bill-O in Tampa with a litttle detour on my way to my favorite wildlife reserve in the 'glades.

If this political movement doesn't bring about massive change, the ever swelling government will crack down on us. Look at how mr. obama attacked the press in his State of HIS Union speech. That was the first time a sitting President has ever attacked the press (which has been softer on o-loser than any other potus in my lifetime). That attack, which which just like the attack on the STOTUS, gave no opportunity for rebuttal, was actually playing it really close to impeding on the Constitution which guarantees freedom of the press, and that the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government. The Supreme Court cannot respond, being a "nonpolitical body", yet neither above nor below the president. There are proper methods and protcols in place for the Potus to lay out his objection to what was an obscure ruling while not attacking, nor surrounding the supreme court justices with supporters to applaud while they must sit silently. Just as the press which can respond, but does not get a State of the Union address with every broadcast tv, talk radio and other media outlet focused on them in a singular manner to make to give a rebuttal. That is why the attack on the Supreme Court, and to a lesser degree the attack on the press bordered on being unconstitutional. Remember, that the President is an elected representative of, and therefore speaks for us the American People. I believe that the potus should be censured for his actions Wednesday night. Also, his speech writer should be called on to resign due to the innacuracies of the Speech regarding the actions of the Supreme Court regarding the overturning of McCain-Feingold, which, at least allowed groups such as ACORN to have an uneven playing field in the 2008 presidential campaign. I will both look into, and keep calling for a Congressional Censure regarding this matter and hope others will do the same.

Of all the people...addendu

I am doing this as a quick mini post as I will be making a road trip across the state today to go see Glenn and Bill-O in Tampa with a litttle detour on my way to my favorite wildlife reserve in the 'glades.

If this political movement doesn't bring about massive change, the ever swelling government will crack down on us. Look at how mr. obama attacked the press in his State of HIS Union speech. That was the first time a sitting President has ever attacked the press (which has been softer on o-loser than any other potus in my lifetime). That attack, which which just like the attack on the STOTUS, gave no opportunity for rebuttal, was actually playing it really close to impeding on the Constitution which guarantees freedom of the press, and that the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government. The Supreme Court cannot respond, being a "nonpolitical body", yet neither above nor below the president. There are proper methods and protcols in place for the Potus to lay out his objection to what was an obscure ruling while not attacking, nor surrounding the supreme court justices with supporters to applaud while they must sit silently. Just as the press which can respond, but does not get a State of the Union address with every broadcast tv, talk radio and other media outlet focused on them in a singular manner to make to give a rebuttal. That is why the attack on the Supreme Court, and to a lesser degree the attack on the press bordered on being unconstitutional. Remember, that the President is an elected representative of, and therefore speaks for us the American People. I believe that the potus should be censured for his actions Wednesday night. Also, his speech writer should be called on to resign due to the innacuracies of the Speech regarding the actions of the Supreme Court regarding the overturning of McCain-Feingold, which, at least allowed groups such as ACORN to have an uneven playing field in the 2008 presidential campaign. I will both look into, and keep calling for a Congressional Censure regarding this matter and hope others will do the same.

Of all the people...addendu

I am doing this as a quick mini post as I will be making a road trip across the state today to go see Glenn and Bill-O in Tampa with a litttle detour on my way to my favorite wildlife reserve in the 'glades.

If this political movement doesn't bring about massive change, the ever swelling government will crack down on us. Look at how mr. obama attacked the press in his State of HIS Union speech. That was the first time a sitting President has ever attacked the press (which has been softer on o-loser than any other potus in my lifetime). That attack, which which just like the attack on the STOTUS, gave no opportunity for rebuttal, was actually playing it really close to impeding on the Constitution which guarantees freedom of the press, and that the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government. The Supreme Court cannot respond, being a "nonpolitical body", yet neither above nor below the president. There are proper methods and protcols in place for the Potus to lay out his objection to what was an obscure ruling while not attacking, nor surrounding the supreme court justices with supporters to applaud while they must sit silently. Just as the press which can respond, but does not get a State of the Union address with every broadcast tv, talk radio and other media outlet focused on them in a singular manner to make to give a rebuttal. That is why the attack on the Supreme Court, and to a lesser degree the attack on the press bordered on being unconstitutional. Remember, that the President is an elected representative of, and therefore speaks for us the American People. I believe that the potus should be censured for his actions Wednesday night. Also, his speech writer should be called on to resign due to the innacuracies of the Speech regarding the actions of the Supreme Court regarding the overturning of McCain-Feingold, which, at least allowed groups such as ACORN to have an uneven playing field in the 2008 presidential campaign. I will both look into, and keep calling for a Congressional Censure regarding this matter and hope others will do the same.

Harry's comments invoke slavery tradition, far more racist than you think...

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying and the press and politicians are trying to bury our history in a major way too. Yesterday, Michael Steele went on Fox News Sunday and made quite a strong statement about how Harry Reid's "lightskinned" comments harken back to the 1950's and 60's. Again, Steele totally botched a perfectly good opportunity to really show how totally racist those comments were and here's why. Steele should have said those comments harken back to the 1850's, not 1950's. Those comments clearly go right back to traditional antebellum southern plantation slavery. For those of you who don't know why, let me break it down for you. Within the slave trade there were different "types" of slaves that were worth different amounts of money. Now I will use the term "slave" where other more offensive terms would have originally been used as I think this is a horrible stain on our history. When slaves were traded, they had different tiers of value. For a plantation there would be slaves to work the fields, and slaves to work in the house. A typical field slave would usually be a darker skinned men, and the rule of thumb was the bigger the better. Slaves to work in the house were more often women to attend to the women of the house, but some men would work in the house too as cooks butlers, etc. A typical plantation owner did not lift a finger when a slave could do the work. A "House slave" was often chosen to be so because they were thought to be more intelligent. Such attributes that slave traders and slave owners tied to intellect were being well spoken and often lighter skinned. See for yourself:

Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In many households, treatment of slaves varied with the slave's skin color. Darker-skinned slaves worked in the fields, while lighter-skinned house servants ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States - Cached - Simila

At slave auctions, such designations were made and prices varied because of just such stereotyping. Now when a story comes out that Harry Reid decides Americans will accept Barack Obama because he has just such attributes, it not only shows his racist viewpoints, it screams to the rest of America that he thinks WE still feel that way. For a century, our forefathers fought and died to end slavery and to promote equality, so that the words "All men are created equal..under God" in the Declaration of Independence and such language in the Constitution was more than just writing on a piece of paper. Yet liberal elites like Harry Reid call the masses of Americans racist with total impunity. If you weren't furious about this before I hope now you have given it a little more thought. Then to add insult to injury, Reid comes out and apologizes to mr. obama, and to "African-Americans" that may be offended, but the people that he really called racists are the rest of Americans. Now he and fellow Dems are claiming that those comments are nothing like the comments Trent Lott made regarding long time Senator Strom Thurmond's failed segregationist 1948 presidency run in 2002 that caused him to lose his speakership. Fellow race pimps like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson agree saying that Reid's liberal voting record regarding civil rights excuses him from responsibility for making such comments. LIKE HELL IT DOES!!!! I will do everything in my power to wake America up to just how gross of an insult this was, to all Americans who have bent over backwards for generations to reverse the mistakes of our forefathers. I hope you will too, no matter your skin color.

Harry's comments invoke slavery tradition, far more racist than you think...

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying and the press and politicians are trying to bury our history in a major way too. Yesterday, Michael Steele went on Fox News Sunday and made quite a strong statement about how Harry Reid's "lightskinned" comments harken back to the 1950's and 60's. Again, Steele totally botched a perfectly good opportunity to really show how totally racist those comments were and here's why. Steele should have said those comments harken back to the 1850's, not 1950's. Those comments clearly go right back to traditional antebellum southern plantation slavery. For those of you who don't know why, let me break it down for you. Within the slave trade there were different "types" of slaves that were worth different amounts of money. Now I will use the term "slave" where other more offensive terms would have originally been used as I think this is a horrible stain on our history. When slaves were traded, they had different tiers of value. For a plantation there would be slaves to work the fields, and slaves to work in the house. A typical field slave would usually be a darker skinned men, and the rule of thumb was the bigger the better. Slaves to work in the house were more often women to attend to the women of the house, but some men would work in the house too as cooks butlers, etc. A typical plantation owner did not lift a finger when a slave could do the work. A "House slave" was often chosen to be so because they were thought to be more intelligent. Such attributes that slave traders and slave owners tied to intellect were being well spoken and often lighter skinned. See for yourself:

Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In many households, treatment of slaves varied with the slave's skin color. Darker-skinned slaves worked in the fields, while lighter-skinned house servants ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States - Cached - Simila

At slave auctions, such designations were made and prices varied because of just such stereotyping. Now when a story comes out that Harry Reid decides Americans will accept Barack Obama because he has just such attributes, it not only shows his racist viewpoints, it screams to the rest of America that he thinks WE still feel that way. For a century, our forefathers fought and died to end slavery and to promote equality, so that the words "All men are created equal..under God" in the Declaration of Independence and such language in the Constitution was more than just writing on a piece of paper. Yet liberal elites like Harry Reid call the masses of Americans racist with total impunity. If you weren't furious about this before I hope now you have given it a little more thought. Then to add insult to injury, Reid comes out and apologizes to mr. obama, and to "African-Americans" that may be offended, but the people that he really called racists are the rest of Americans. Now he and fellow Dems are claiming that those comments are nothing like the comments Trent Lott made regarding long time Senator Strom Thurmond's failed segregationist 1948 presidency run in 2002 that caused him to lose his speakership. Fellow race pimps like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson agree saying that Reid's liberal voting record regarding civil rights excuses him from responsibility for making such comments. LIKE HELL IT DOES!!!! I will do everything in my power to wake America up to just how gross of an insult this was, to all Americans who have bent over backwards for generations to reverse the mistakes of our forefathers. I hope you will too, no matter your skin color.

Harry's comments invoke slavery tradition, far more racist than you think...

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying and the press and politicians are trying to bury our history in a major way too. Yesterday, Michael Steele went on Fox News Sunday and made quite a strong statement about how Harry Reid's "lightskinned" comments harken back to the 1950's and 60's. Again, Steele totally botched a perfectly good opportunity to really show how totally racist those comments were and here's why. Steele should have said those comments harken back to the 1850's, not 1950's. Those comments clearly go right back to traditional antebellum southern plantation slavery. For those of you who don't know why, let me break it down for you. Within the slave trade there were different "types" of slaves that were worth different amounts of money. Now I will use the term "slave" where other more offensive terms would have originally been used as I think this is a horrible stain on our history. When slaves were traded, they had different tiers of value. For a plantation there would be slaves to work the fields, and slaves to work in the house. A typical field slave would usually be a darker skinned men, and the rule of thumb was the bigger the better. Slaves to work in the house were more often women to attend to the women of the house, but some men would work in the house too as cooks butlers, etc. A typical plantation owner did not lift a finger when a slave could do the work. A "House slave" was often chosen to be so because they were thought to be more intelligent. Such attributes that slave traders and slave owners tied to intellect were being well spoken and often lighter skinned. See for yourself:

Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In many households, treatment of slaves varied with the slave's skin color. Darker-skinned slaves worked in the fields, while lighter-skinned house servants ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States - Cached - Simila

At slave auctions, such designations were made and prices varied because of just such stereotyping. Now when a story comes out that Harry Reid decides Americans will accept Barack Obama because he has just such attributes, it not only shows his racist viewpoints, it screams to the rest of America that he thinks WE still feel that way. For a century, our forefathers fought and died to end slavery and to promote equality, so that the words "All men are created equal..under God" in the Declaration of Independence and such language in the Constitution was more than just writing on a piece of paper. Yet liberal elites like Harry Reid call the masses of Americans racist with total impunity. If you weren't furious about this before I hope now you have given it a little more thought. Then to add insult to injury, Reid comes out and apologizes to mr. obama, and to "African-Americans" that may be offended, but the people that he really called racists are the rest of Americans. Now he and fellow Dems are claiming that those comments are nothing like the comments Trent Lott made regarding long time Senator Strom Thurmond's failed segregationist 1948 presidency run in 2002 that caused him to lose his speakership. Fellow race pimps like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson agree saying that Reid's liberal voting record regarding civil rights excuses him from responsibility for making such comments. LIKE HELL IT DOES!!!! I will do everything in my power to wake America up to just how gross of an insult this was, to all Americans who have bent over backwards for generations to reverse the mistakes of our forefathers. I hope you will too, no matter your skin color.

People said....

When Obama wrote a book and said he was mentored as a youth by Frank,(Frank Marshall Davis) an avowed Communist: People said it didn't matter.

When it was discovered that his grandparents, were strong socialist, sent Obama's mother to a socialist school, introduced Frank Marshall Davis to young Obama: People said it didn't matter.

When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school and his father and step father were both Muslims: People said it didn't matter.

When he wrote in another book he authored “I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” People said it didn't matter.

When he admittedly, in his book, said he chose Marxist friends and professors in college: People said it didn't matter.

When he traveled to Pakistan after college on an unknown national passport: People said it didn't matter.

When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate: People said it doesn't matter.

When he sat in a Chicago Church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew hatred for America and preach black liberation theology: People said it didn't matter.

When an independent Washington organization, that tracks senate voting records, gave him the distinctive title as the "most liberal senator": People said it didn't matter.

When the Palestinians in Gaza set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for his election campaign: People said it didn't matter.

When his voting record supported stealing constitutional rights such as gun control: People said it didn't matter.

When he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done, People said it didn't matter.

When he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan and Mummar Kadaffi and Hugo Chavez: People said it didn't matter.

When it was pointed out that he was a total, newcomer and had absolutely no executive experience: People said it didn't matter.

When he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals: People said it didn't matter.

When his voting record in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question: People said it didn't matter.

When he refused to wear a flag, lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry: People said it didn't matter.

When people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises: People said it didn't matter.

When he (allgegedly) stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance: People said it didn't matter.

When he surrounded himself in the White house with advisors who were pro gun control, pro abortion, pro homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition: People said it didn't matter.

When he aired his views on abortion, homosexuality and a host of other issues: People said it didn't matter.

When he said he favors sex education in Kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination: People said it didn't matter.

When his background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him: People said it didn't matter.

When the place of his birth was called into question (making him not eligible to be President), and he refused to produce a birth certificate: People said it didn't matter.

When he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco, a man of questionable character, who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home: People said it didn't matter.

When it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected: People said it didn't matter.

When he started appointing czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist/Communist: People said it didn't matter.

When he stood before the nation and told us that his intentions were to "fundamentally transform this nation" into something else: People said it didn't matter.

When it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN: People said it didn't matter.

When he appointed a cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialists: People said it didn't matter.

When he appointed a science czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers: People said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar and he believes in "Explicit Consent", harvesting human organs with out family consent, and to allow animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting: People said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual, and organizer of a group called gay, lesbian, straight, Education network, as safe school czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers: People said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Mark Lloyd as diversity czar and he believed in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth and admires Hugo Chavez: People said it didn't matter.

When Valerie Jarrett was selected as Obama's senior White House advisor and she is an avowed Socialist: People said it didn't matter.

When Anita Dunn, White House Communications director said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration: People said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Carol Browner as global warming czar, and she is a well known socialist working on Cap and trade as the nations largest tax: People said it doesn't matter.

When he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as green energy czar, who since had to resign when this was made known: People said it didn't matter.

When Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for health and human services secretary could not be confirmed, because he was a tax cheat: People said it didn't matter.

When as president of the United States, he bowed to multiple world leaders: People said it didn't matter.

When he traveled around the world criticizing America, apologizing for her actions and never once talking of her greatness: People said it didn't matter.

When his actions concerning the middle-east seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel, our long time friend: People said it doesn't matter.

When he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States: People said it doesn't matter.

When he upset the Europeans by breaking a treaty promising missile defense system against the Russians: People said it doesn't matter.

When he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops the Field Commanders said we need in order to win: People said it didn't matter.

When he started printing money at a rate that will destroy our economy in months, not years: People said it didn't matter.

When he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions and individuals that got him elected: People said it didn't matter.

When he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc: People said it didn't matter.

When he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government: People said it didn't matter.

When he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control: People said it didn't matter.

When he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade, People said it didn't matter.

When he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State , people finally really realized they were wrong........ but it was too late.

Any one of these things, in and of themselves does not really matter. But.... when you add them up one by one you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that our Obama is determined to make America over into a Marxist/Socialist society. All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily. Before you disavow this, do an internet search. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph. Will it read as above or will it be a more happy ending for most of America ? Personally, I like happy endings.

If you are an Obama Supporter, please do not be angry with me because I think your president is a socialist but there are too many facts supporting this. If you seek the truth you will be richer for it. Don't just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth. I did. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalist, Libertarians and what have you, we all need to pull together. We all must pull together or watch the demise of a society that we all love and cherish. If you are a religious person, pray for our nation.

Never before in the history of America have we been confronted with problems so huge that the very existence of our country is in jeopardy. Don't rely on most television news and what you read in the newspapers or what you hear from others for the truth. Search the internet. Yes, there is a lot of bad information, lies and distortions there too but you are smart enough tospot the fallacies. Newspapers are a dying breed because they have spent years focusing on spreading lies. They are currently seeking a bailout from the government. Do you really think they are about to print the truth? Obama praises all the television news networks except Fox who he has waged war against. There must be a reason. He does not call them down on any specifics, just a general battle against them. If they lie, he should call them out on it but he doesn't.

Our biggest enemy is not China , Russia , Iran ; no, our biggest enemy is a contingent of politicians in Washington DC and those who are too stupid not to listen to them

People said....

When Obama wrote a book and said he was mentored as a youth by Frank,(Frank Marshall Davis) an avowed Communist: People said it didn't matter.

When it was discovered that his grandparents, were strong socialist, sent Obama's mother to a socialist school, introduced Frank Marshall Davis to young Obama: People said it didn't matter.

When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school and his father and step father were both Muslims: People said it didn't matter.

When he wrote in another book he authored “I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” People said it didn't matter.

When he admittedly, in his book, said he chose Marxist friends and professors in college: People said it didn't matter.

When he traveled to Pakistan after college on an unknown national passport: People said it didn't matter.

When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate: People said it doesn't matter.

When he sat in a Chicago Church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew hatred for America and preach black liberation theology: People said it didn't matter.

When an independent Washington organization, that tracks senate voting records, gave him the distinctive title as the "most liberal senator": People said it didn't matter.

When the Palestinians in Gaza set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for his election campaign: People said it didn't matter.

When his voting record supported stealing constitutional rights such as gun control: People said it didn't matter.

When he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done, People said it didn't matter.

When he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan and Mummar Kadaffi and Hugo Chavez: People said it didn't matter.

When it was pointed out that he was a total, newcomer and had absolutely no executive experience: People said it didn't matter.

When he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals: People said it didn't matter.

When his voting record in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question: People said it didn't matter.

When he refused to wear a flag, lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry: People said it didn't matter.

When people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises: People said it didn't matter.

When he (allgegedly) stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance: People said it didn't matter.

When he surrounded himself in the White house with advisors who were pro gun control, pro abortion, pro homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition: People said it didn't matter.

When he aired his views on abortion, homosexuality and a host of other issues: People said it didn't matter.

When he said he favors sex education in Kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination: People said it didn't matter.

When his background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him: People said it didn't matter.

When the place of his birth was called into question (making him not eligible to be President), and he refused to produce a birth certificate: People said it didn't matter.

When he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco, a man of questionable character, who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home: People said it didn't matter.

When it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected: People said it didn't matter.

When he started appointing czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist/Communist: People said it didn't matter.

When he stood before the nation and told us that his intentions were to "fundamentally transform this nation" into something else: People said it didn't matter.

When it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN: People said it didn't matter.

When he appointed a cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialists: People said it didn't matter.

When he appointed a science czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers: People said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar and he believes in "Explicit Consent", harvesting human organs with out family consent, and to allow animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting: People said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual, and organizer of a group called gay, lesbian, straight, Education network, as safe school czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers: People said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Mark Lloyd as diversity czar and he believed in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth and admires Hugo Chavez: People said it didn't matter.

When Valerie Jarrett was selected as Obama's senior White House advisor and she is an avowed Socialist: People said it didn't matter.

When Anita Dunn, White House Communications director said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration: People said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Carol Browner as global warming czar, and she is a well known socialist working on Cap and trade as the nations largest tax: People said it doesn't matter.

When he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as green energy czar, who since had to resign when this was made known: People said it didn't matter.

When Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for health and human services secretary could not be confirmed, because he was a tax cheat: People said it didn't matter.

When as president of the United States, he bowed to multiple world leaders: People said it didn't matter.

When he traveled around the world criticizing America, apologizing for her actions and never once talking of her greatness: People said it didn't matter.

When his actions concerning the middle-east seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel, our long time friend: People said it doesn't matter.

When he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States: People said it doesn't matter.

When he upset the Europeans by breaking a treaty promising missile defense system against the Russians: People said it doesn't matter.

When he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops the Field Commanders said we need in order to win: People said it didn't matter.

When he started printing money at a rate that will destroy our economy in months, not years: People said it didn't matter.

When he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions and individuals that got him elected: People said it didn't matter.

When he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc: People said it didn't matter.

When he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government: People said it didn't matter.

When he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control: People said it didn't matter.

When he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade, People said it didn't matter.

When he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State , people finally really realized they were wrong........ but it was too late.

Any one of these things, in and of themselves does not really matter. But.... when you add them up one by one you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that our Obama is determined to make America over into a Marxist/Socialist society. All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily. Before you disavow this, do an internet search. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph. Will it read as above or will it be a more happy ending for most of America ? Personally, I like happy endings.

If you are an Obama Supporter, please do not be angry with me because I think your president is a socialist but there are too many facts supporting this. If you seek the truth you will be richer for it. Don't just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth. I did. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalist, Libertarians and what have you, we all need to pull together. We all must pull together or watch the demise of a society that we all love and cherish. If you are a religious person, pray for our nation.

Never before in the history of America have we been confronted with problems so huge that the very existence of our country is in jeopardy. Don't rely on most television news and what you read in the newspapers or what you hear from others for the truth. Search the internet. Yes, there is a lot of bad information, lies and distortions there too but you are smart enough tospot the fallacies. Newspapers are a dying breed because they have spent years focusing on spreading lies. They are currently seeking a bailout from the government. Do you really think they are about to print the truth? Obama praises all the television news networks except Fox who he has waged war against. There must be a reason. He does not call them down on any specifics, just a general battle against them. If they lie, he should call them out on it but he doesn't.

Our biggest enemy is not China , Russia , Iran ; no, our biggest enemy is a contingent of politicians in Washington DC and those who are too stupid not to listen to them