Jury Acquits Zimmerman on the Facts, Society?

Late last night the jury in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin 2nd Degree murder trial announced that they found George Zimmerman not guilty based on the facts of the case. In listening to the morning shows, the narrative is not about the facts rather about the social aspect of this tragic event. While the Justice system worked, many are pushing for the Department of Justice to levy criminal charges against George Zimmerman on violating Trayvon Martin's Civil Rights.

The NAACP wrote to the Department of Justice(http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/13/naacp-calls-on-obama-admin-to-pursue-civil-rights-charges-against-zimmerman/), "The most fundamental of civil rights - the right to life - was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Maritn. We ask that the Department of Justice file civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman for this egregious violation."

Rev. Al Sharpton said on NBC's "Meet the Press"(http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/07/breaking_news_sun_rises_in_the_east_and_al_sharpton_comments_on_zimmerman_trial.html)," The trial happened. The verdict came in. It does not exhaust the legal options of this family and the bigger community of civil rights. We now have a position on the books in the state of Florida where an unarmed teenager who committed no crime can be killed and the killer can say self defense." Rev. Sharpton is accurate that an unarmed teenager was killed in Florida but Rev. Sharpton ignores the fact that Martin was seen by an eye witness of Martin atop Zimmerman throwing punches prior to the fatal shot from Zimmerman's gun. No one is denying that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. The jury took the facts presented and made a decision based on that while part of society is not.

If the Department of Justice moves forward with Civil Right violations in this case it will be a political solution and not one based on the facts of the case.

Ben Carson illustrates the fallacy of marriage debate perfectly

Recently Andrea Mitchel hosted Dr. Ben Carson on her show Andrea Mitchel Reports. Andrea Mitchel quizzed Dr. Carson on his view of marriage. Unfortunately for Andrea Mitchel and MSNBC the line of questioning did little to rattle Dr. Carson's conviction on the definition of marriage. It was actually Andrea Mitchel that appeared to be flustered as her follow up questions were terrible. I bring this up as Dr. Carson lays out a great argument on the definition of marriage. Dr. Carson even hints to the abuse by the Federal government in restricting people the freedom of assembly via utilizing marriage as a vessel to transfer assets and death benefits among other aspects. In fact the Federal government has 1,100 laws on the books that abuse marriage in similar fashion. As an aside, this exchange illustrates the fallacy in the thought process of Progressives have in regards to marriage equality as marriage is not a Civil Right. Marriage, as Dr. Carson puts it, is rooted in God and the Bible not society. Take a look for yourself at the interview.

 http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/29/ben-carson-takes-on-msnbcs-andrea-mitchell-on-the-definition-of-marriage/

 Hopefully people will start to realize that marriage should be left to God, and other Dogma, and demand that Government remove itself from this sacred rite.

Gay Marriage: Civil Rights Issue?

This past Sunday on Meet the Press, Vice President Joe Biden stated, "I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I  don't see much of a distinction beyond that." The statement lead to a series of walk backs by the White House and a few steps forward by other's in the administration over the past few days. Monday morning on Morning Joe, Education Secretary Arne Duncan in response to a question of supporting gay marriage said, "Yes, I do."

Today, North Carolina will be voting to define marriage as being between a man and a woman while later this year Minnesota will be doing the same. Many argue that creating this definition violates the GLBT communities civil rights. Civil Rights, as I understand it, pertains to the fact that no one may be discriminated based on race,creed or gender. That being said, being gay is a lifestyle and doesn't fall under that protection. Some will argue that the advent of Hate Crime legislation has added lifestyle to the Civil Rights list of protective areas.

What is being missed here is a larger argument and one I am a bit shocked that our Constitutional scholars have not explored further. Our Constitution is pretty clear on the separation of Church and State and Congress shall not pass any laws abridging the freedom to worship at the altar of any God. Those that seek to define marriage as being between one man and one woman do so under the shroud of religion.

If marriage is steeped in religious inception then to define it violates the separation of Church and State clause of the United States Constitution does it not? Instead of trying to use government to force a belief onto others why are we not working to strip away the layers of marriage embedded in our laws, regulations and all aspects of government intervention? Marriage is a choice that people make in the privacy of their dogma and that is where it should remain. I don't need an amendment to believe what marriage is nor do I need my public schools telling my children what marriage is.

Why is there not more discussion surrounding the removal of government from the equation of marriage and leaving marriage to the dogma's of the world?

“He was trying to get elected”

Sen. Byrd was laid to rest last Thursday after a long service to his country in the Senate. Many notable politicians, including Obama, Biden, and former President Clinton, came out to show their gratitude and honor the late Sen. Byrd. Now, we have been discussing the KKK, NOI and NAACP mission and push for their own agenda's based on race. In the latest update to the KKK website, which I posted previously, displayed their understanding that violence will not get their agenda push forward. Former President Clinton said in his eulogy for Sen. Byrd, "He once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, what does that mean? I'll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollows from West Virginia. He was trying to get elected. And maybe he did something he shouldn't have done come and he spent the rest of his life making up. And that's what a good person does. There are no perfect people. There are certainly no perfect politicians."

President Clinton is correct that Sen. Byrd, who led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act, ties to the KKK was foolish but I am not so sure he spent the rest of his life trying atone for it. Sen. Byrd voted against and attempted to block the confirmations of Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall. While no one will deny Sen. Byrd's fondness and knowledge of the U.S. Constitution but let's be honest about the man. For President Clinton and President Obama to overlook Sen. Byrd's connection to the KKK because of his long service to the nation is a slap in the face to everyone that fought for Civil Rights. To say it was okay for Sen. Byrd to have ties, and they were very strong ties, to the KKK in order to get elected displays an attitude of our current political state of mind.

How many minorities out there believe that it would be okay for a man or woman to run for office on the sole basis of saying anything to get elected? I know this is America and we all have the right to hold our own views and say our own opinions but for two Presidents of the United States – one anointed the First Black President and the other actually being the First Black President – to wash away the sins of a man because "he was trying to get elected" is ludicrous. Thomas and Marshall were not the only non-white confirmations he voted against. He also voted against Condoleezza Rice. To say he made strides that overshadowed his racist start in politics is intriguing since this is the same man that used the term "white nigger" in a 2001 interview with Tony Snow. While his run in the Senate and the good he did for West Virginia is remarkable, I struggle with the notion for two presidents to forgive a man of his sins because "he was trying to get elected." Does no one else see the hypocrisy here?

Reparations

Earlier this week on Facebook a friend of mine, Von Jackson, posted an article titled "Malcolm X's legacy ignored 45 years after his murder" spurred some interesting conversation. The conversation started about the role that Malcolm X played during the struggle for Civil Rights but it quickly morphed into generation wealth and reparations due the black community for the slave trade. I had asserted that Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam used violence, at times, to make their point. To which I was told, "Chris, please LEARN and STUDY Malcolm X before you comment. Its obvious from you statement you know little to nothing about him except what you've seen on tv or read in white slanted literature." Now I respect the person that wrote this comment a lot and he and I have had several intense conversations on race. I asked him to "enlighten me" to what I should read as I admit I do not know Malcolm X like I do other historical figures.

To which my very good friend pointed out a biography and the Spike Lee movie. Well I have already seen the movie and have added The Autobiography of Malcolm X authored by Malcolm X and Alex Haley. We then went on to discuss the last time the Nation of Islam used violence. To which I pointed out that D.C. Sniper John Muhammad was a member when the rampage took place. While no direct line has ever been established between Muhammad and the Nation of Islam (NOI), neither has the leaders of the NOI distance themselves from the actions taken my Muhammad. But I did agree with my friend that we were digressing from the original intent of his article.

At this point in our conversation another friend of Von's chimed in with "Wow Chris, slavery is what made this country so rich, and is what keeps this country strong, by enslaving people all over the world, and stealing their natural resources…" and ended with "I would like you to explain to me how capitalism ended slavery..this should be interesting…(Please note I call bullshyt an awful lot, I debate on Fox News all the time, and shut them up, never losing an argument…so please make sure you have your facts straight when talk to me..)" As many of you already know I love a good challenge. Before I could retort, it was pointed out by my friend that "it was because of CAPITALISM that slavery was introduced to and flourished in this country for over 400 years…" I pointed out, "In short capitalism allows anyone to change their status in life. Capitalism is a two way street as the rich can become poor and the poor can become rich. That is how capitalism is not enslavement. Now mercantilism is what built this country at the start. The freedoms of our Constitution launched us into class movement that greases the wheels of capitalism. Thus no longer enslaving us. Now government intrusion to limit free market forces has lead to enslavement and add in entitlements."

I was told my assessment was wrong and "we are living under a system that is more akin to a Plutocracy, you are allowed to get rich in this country, as long as the already rich see that your wealth in no way henders their cause…" After which further conversation took place on conspiracy theories of 13 families controlling the world. After which the slavery angle reappeared and that it was on the backs of evil slave owners that worked their slaves to build this country. After discussing Aetna(http://www.aetna.com/news/2002/slavery_reparations_issue.html) and Wachovia Banks (http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/02/news/fortune500/wachovia_slavery/ ) role in building their business through slavery to which we found out that Aetna wrote policies on slaves and Wachovia's ties to slavery is through two acquisitions made after slave ownership took place and did not exist at time of acquisition. From that point we moved on to reparations.

I asked Corey, one of the other men participating, "Why is your anger focused on those just in America and not toward those that sold your ancestors into slavery?" I never did get a direct answer to this question; rather I got more deflection. Finally I asked, "We can either live in the past or look to a brighter future. Which one do you want to live in Corey?" Finally Corey gave a laundry list for reparations. Corey's list was:

1. 1 trillion dollars in gold, and precious metals
   
2. Whites relinquish all powers they have on Africa
   
3. At least half of the nuclear weapons in the USA
   
4. The release of all nonviolent blacks from jail
   
5. 100 billion dollars for machinery to fix the lands of Africa
   
6. Free transportation, back to Africa, for those that want to go
   
7. An apology for slavery, and to change the history books to reflect the truth
   
8. No sanctions on any nations of color
   
9. Just basically stay out of our way, once we get what is owed to us
   

Is Corey asking for anything outrageous? Should America agree to the terms above for the sins of slavery? Does the list of reparations above move us to a post-racial America?

What I missed today on Haiti discussion on Facebook while passing my series 66 today!!!

What a day today. I had a number of personal things to take care of and that is why my entry is tardy. The big news of the day is that I passed my Series 66 and will be heading off to the sunny skies of Arizona shortly for a week of learning with my new employer. While I was running about today, a great discussion was taking place on the blog entry about Haiti on Facebook. I warned the group there that I was going to life the conversation for my blog entry today. I am eager to see what readers of the blog think of the conversation from Facebook. Hopefully we will get some crossover as well. Well here we go: (***small disclaimer: Some responses contain explicatives****)

TP said:

 

I find your article incredibly troubling.

 

I said:

What are you finding troubling? The Tea Party movement, while a few carried questionable placards, the overriding theme, at least what I saw and heard, was one of frustration with out of control spending, taxes, and the growing of government. The speakers at Minneapolis were not all bashing Obama, Progressives or Democrats. In fact many acknowledged that the Republican Party and Bush had lost their way by casting aside conservative values for reckless and progressive spending ideals.

So I ask you what do you find troubling about my blog entry?

TP said:

I don't give a damn what they were upset about. They never protested Bush spending did they? Sorry your supporting racists with a wink and an "oh well". For you to ask what I find troubling amazes me & shows an insensitivity which I don't tolerate. You blog about Reid then support this shit. BTW do you even know constitutional history & what the constitutional convention goals were or the context in which the convention was called? The White supremeists were there just like at that rally of deception.

 

TP continued:

 

What progressive spending ideals Education? Welfare? Health care for all (which I assume you're against). Don't believe in community do U? To call Bush policies progressives I'm afraid makes you lose credibility to me. You're using BS as an undercurrent to link Bush to Progressives & not fascism? You may not do well w/ the Buddhist w/ your take on "... See more conventional wisdom". If my Grandparents woulda seen that Tea Bagger shit Grandpa would've shot em just like he did the KKK. Do you really believe Black folk wouldn't be outraged?

 

To which I asked:

 

Did you read my blog entry from April on what I saw in Minneapolis?

 

And I added:

 

Plus I am not a socialist. I do believe in the importance of community as well as the limitations of it as well.

 

KH said:

 

Chris, I think Tony does have a point about the racist undertones of the "Tea bagger" party movement.

 

I see clear undercurrents of hypocrisy, false indignation and in my honest opinion racism in the tea bagger movement based upon their behavior and "Johnny come lately" movement towards "fiscal discipline" and belief in upholding the constitution.

 

Please where were they for the last 8 years when Patriot act was passed stripping American's of their constitutional rights? Where were they when the prescription drug plan was passed without even an attempt at paying for it within the bill?... See More

 

What has changed since those things happened? Oh that's right; the tea baggers party (republicans) lost the house, senate and presidency to a black man and his ilk. I don't like Obama or the Democrats any more than the Republicans but when something stinks in Denmark, it should be called for the pile of shit that it is. And the tea baggers aren't angry over government spending, that's just an excuse. They angry that they are feeling disenfranchised and inconsequential for the first time in their privileged white skinned, middle class lives.

 

Personally, I find them all hypocrites, fear mongers, racists and demagogues. But if the party they represent isn't careful and find a way to be inclusive of minorities it will find itself more and more marginalized in the future.

 

The days of white America dominating social and political culture in this nation are fast coming to an end. Don't believe me? Just ask the people of Atlanta when they last had a white mayor? The 2010 census will shock whites.....and probably drive quite a few to racist groups out of fear. I'm sure the tea party will be standing there with open arms to greet them.

 

KH added:

 

To your articles point though, I really do like that the president took a stand quickly and tried to show America as a leader and show the true American spirit to the world.

 

What won us so many friends through our existence was the fact that we, the American people, always tried to be there for others in the world when they were in need. The goodwill this generated benefited us for decades after the acts occurred.

 

We are the richest and most powerful nation on earth. If we stood by and did nothing when another nation, especially a neighbor so close to us, suffers - what does that say about us? ... See More

 

And the people trying to score political points off of this tragedy are the worst of us. They bring us all down from the heights we are capable of and diminish our acts of kindness and generosity.

 

To which I responded:

 

I do acknowledge that the conservative voice lost its bite and blindly followed bush. And that is why I think the tea party movement started. Perhaps I am naïve but I attempt to look at the movement as a group of people fed up with out of control government regardless if a democrat or republican is in office.

 

KH responded:

 

Chris, the government was out of control for years. NEVER during that 8 years did these same people speak up and cry foul. So that begs the question what changed? As I said above, it's a black man and his ilk sitting in "THEIR" seat of power. Remember that the tea party movement is nearly 100% white, middle class and Republican.

 

Their sudden discovery of small government, fiscal discipline and defense of the constitution stinks of the shit that is political opportunism, not truly deep seated beliefs in these ideals.

 

I say this rather confidently because the talking heads that appear on TV supporting this movement are clearly visible during the Bush years supporting the very ideals that they now cry foul over.... See More

 

So, I'm sorry to say but, I believe you are being naive. There may be some people like yourself who truly believe these things in the movement - but your leadership does not. They will use you for the pack mules that they see you to be moving their political baggage to the next convenient party message and dump you when you become inconvenient.

 

TP responded:

 

Do you even know what a socialist is? Answer my questions about constitutional history? Do you know it or do u just do one line disclaimers to obfuscate your right-wing manipulative over simplifications? The Mpls Tea Party was put together by the friggin PATRIOT CHANNEL SCUM!! The other TParties were organized by the same people who rented the ... See More busses for the invasion of Florida so that the recount of 2000 would be disrupted long enough for the Supreme Court to steal the election. And in doing so cover up the violations against Blacks in ref to the Voting Rights Act & the Civil Rights Act. Do you know the history behind the reason for the founding of the court? Kevin what the USA is giving for Haiti is a fraction of what we owe them, Cubans, Mexico & all of Latin America for the EXTREME human rights violations,& pilferage committed by us against them over the past 2 centuries plus(read "THy Will Be Done").How about honoring Treaty Rights right here in the good ole boy USA? I do not see the largesse u do. BTW we give less to the needy of the world (who we continue to rape) per GNP than any other country in the world. Chris: When the all White T bggrs close their eyes & sing about taking their country back they are telling me FUCK YOU & u know what all I got to say is FUCK YOU BACK!!!

 

TP added:

 

BTW the only limitations of Community are that capitalized sociopaths cannot act in their own eschatologically fatalistic individual self interest at the expense of human freedom. Like destroying our natural right to free & equal access to clean Land, clean Air & clean Water. These bastards oppress the many for the profit of the few in order to produce more capital, which in the end is artificial POWER and a license to enslave, rape, napalm, torture & kill to protect "their property"

 

KH responded with:

 

Ok, for the record, the election in 2000 was not stolen. That implies that it was Al Gore's win based upon facts not in record and the Supreme Court overturned those facts in favor of a politically expedient resolution. Since we do not know for a fact that Florida was won by Al Gore, thus giving him the Electoral College votes to be president (in part because the Supreme Court stopped the counts mind you) it's impossible to say that the election was stolen. It was however settled through less than constitutional means via the Supreme Court which IMO overstepped their authority in electoral issues.

 

But the past is the past. Dwelling on a result you disliked doesn't change that result.

 

Tony, I have no problem giving Haiti anything, but remember it was France that "raped" that country not the US. Also, to claim reparations one must have a valid claim of harm being done to you personally not via some historical grievance of generations gone by. I'm all for fixing the social injustices of the past, but wealth re-distribution is not the solution because it's analogous to giving a homeless person a winning lottery ticket without the skills to manage those newly won resources. Without those skills the winnings are squandered and they are soon back where they started. Enabling those who were wronged to earn their own wealth through improvements in their economy, society, culture and political systems are the true gifts we can give them and they will generate returns on investment for centuries to come.... See More

 

But to say that we owe them for wrongs of a generation or more ago is where I say "I personally did you no wrong, therefore I owe you nothing". But I am still generous enough in spirit to give of my own free will because I would hope they'd do the same in my shoes. But I don't owe that to them - it's called being altruistic and charitable.

 

TP responded with:

 

Read Greg Pallast and others. They Robbed the election the good ole fashioned plausibly deniable Southern way, they nullified the Black vote in the state that the redneck Texan has a redneck brother. Oh gee do you want to buy some swamp land in the Arctic? The Supreme Court ordered the state of Florida to stop the recount. That was unprecedented ... See More but the real story that the Corporate media never told was the computer voter fraud or the coercive forces unleashed to turn Blacks away from the polls. So sorry thats a GD theft!!& No one said a word. The Cong Black Caucus walked out on Bush being declared winner for that reason.

 

KH responded with:

 

Again theft implies that Al Gore was president legally and that it was taken from him illegally. At no time was he declared victor via the Electoral College and at no time did he hold the votes necessary to make that claim prior to it being declared either. Therefore it was merely a judgment that you disagree with because of your political leanings - not theft which implies something criminal.

 

I've read plenty from all sides regarding this issue and the point I make is completely valid still. The assertions you are making are suppositions, innuendo and inferences, not facts. Facts are things we can prove, not things we believe to be true. The fact is that the Supreme Court likely overstepped its authority in stopping the election recounts in Florida. That is likely a fact. The fact is that when this occurred, it implicitly awarded the election to GWB because he held more Electoral College votes than Gore.

 

All the rest has yet to be proven as fact and is merely assumed, surmised, implied or inferred to have happened. If its fact and you have evidence to that effect, then a class action lawsuit should be brought on behalf of the disenfranchised voters in a court of law. The fact that this hasn't happened tells me that this isn't the case so yell, scream and bluster all you want of "theft" that doesn't make it so.... See More

 

If all you have are the "facts" that cannot be verified, proven or otherwise become evidence based upon reasonable legal standard then they are not fact. They are suppositions and that's all they are.

 

By the way, screaming, using sarcasm and ad hominem statements because you feel people were somehow wronged or because you feel we're not smart enough to see your point only makes your point that much less valid in my opinion. People should be capable of discussing a subject and agreeing to disagree in an agreeable manner. If you can't do that, your point loses any value to those around you that you are trying to influence

 

TP responded with:

 

Does "less than constitutional" mean unconstitutional & if it does (it does) then it was taken illegally. "STOLEN" is an appropriate word. Read Haitian history about 19th century American involvement I don't want to hear what you believe about historical facts tell me what you know. Right now your 0 for 1.I love it when White people jack you take ... See More control then claim you aint got the experience to run anything yourself. Haiti was doing just fine in recovering her national life w/Aristide & then we over threw him not once but twice. & now they are not even allowed to grow rice because the WTO has forced Haiti to accept cheap GM rice grown cheaper than the Haitians can grow it &forced on to that market thru shere gangsterism just like in Ethiopia. Just like what NAFTA did to Mexico. I love it when white folks have someone else's shit & then refuse to even consider sharing it because your Grand Daddy took it. There is no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity. You want to support social justice "your way" we don't count because in the end we gotta take whatever bone you throw. How long do you think we as aspecies can survive with that kind of attitude? We as a species are dying & we need cooperation not the paternalistic bullshit I just heard I just get so sad hearing decent people like you talk with no clue to the real meaning to your words.

 

KH ended with:

 

How quaint that you cling to the constitution with your hands in a vain attempt to justify Gore's presidency and at the same time trample it with your feet by claiming that reparations are due to those who were not wronged and should be paid by people who did not wrong them.

 

To address your points.

 

Show me where in the constitution or in the annals of US law where the Judicial decision in 2000 was an illegal act?... See More

 

Unprecedented? Yes. But so was Roe V. Wade, is that illegal? The Supreme Court sets precedent every day with their decisions effectively enacting law through their constitutional powers. Constitutional scholars still argue over the legitimacy of the 2000 election decision and rightly so as the constitution DOES NOT ADDRESS IT DIRECTLY. Therefore their decision is based upon things they infer from the verbiage within that document.

 

Second, there is a statute of limitations on "crimes against humanity" and that limitation is the death of those responsible. Your stance begs the question; do you hold the African leaders equally responsible for the failures of their tribal ancestors who sold their people into slavery for profit? Where does it end or is this just about getting yours from the "white man" for perceived/actual wrongs of centuries past?

 

I'll leave you with a question because I see this discussion going nowhere because you continue to resort to ad hominem statements rather than reasonable discourse.

 

If you truly hate this nation the way it sounds like you do, I'd ask why you don't leave it? What keeps you here? Is it the privileges you enjoy that were guaranteed by generations of white "grand daddy's" throughout the last 250 years?

 

If that the case, then in my honest opinion, that's the reparations that you and your ilk cry so badly for. 250 years of sacrifice in defense of an ideology that you hold in contempt but still take advantage of. Perhaps you should contemplate that and think about whether a "thank you" is owed to them as much as you feel they owe you something for the mistakes they made?

 

Just some food for thought.

Increases in Westerners attraction to Taliban philosophy similar to 60’s anti-establishment movement?

I was reading headlines of the different national and international media outlets this morning and came across one on MSNBC "Taliban sees little need for foreign fighters" and it got me thinking about the recent defections of Western persons to Taliban and Al-Qaeda camps in the Middle East. Over the past six to eight months the Star Tribune has been reporting on the mysteries behind several Somali-American men that have left Minnesota only to be later to be discovered to have a hand in bombings in the Middle East. Just this past week, a story circulated that four Americans, turned in by their parents, left for the Middle East, namely Pakistan, to train with Al-Qaeda. The reason of my focus on these events is I wonder if the escalation of Americans going to the Middle East to join Al-Qaeda or the Taliban is similar to the tensions that existed in the United States during the late 60's.

During that time we had the Weatherman Underground, many protests in the United States over the Vietnam War, and the march for civil rights by Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr, and others. Are we experiencing a similar movement in regards to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or is this a bigger war being waged on Western ideals? I will admit that I was not born until 1971 so I did not experience the 60's as my elders and have to revert to their recollection of history and what can be gleaned from history books. So I pose this analogy to my elder readers: Are the events we see with the migration of Americans to the Middle East to gain terrorist training creating the ground swell of anti-establishment sentiment that engulfed the late 60's and early 70's in the United States?

Sen. Reid marginalizes Slavery

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over'. If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough'. When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). I have been watching a lot of the health care debate this summer first hand and have witnessed a lack of bi-partisan approach to health care reform.

During August we heard from the media and Democrats that public radio and Republicans were using scare tactics to sway public opinion. When average Americans showed up at the town hall debates, they were marginalized by the media as a fringe group. Now, Sen. Reid is likening the debate on health care reform to slavery. WHAT!!!! Sen. Reid needs a history lesson as it was under a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that the country went to war in an effort to end slavery. I do not see how going to war with one's own citizens is a "slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough" approach; rather it says quite the opposite. Where is the deal, how can anyone, let alone the Senate Majority Leader, assert that health care reform debate equates to emancipation, suffrage, or civil rights is pathetic at best.

The words spoke; see above, by Sen. Reid marginalizes emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights. Health care is not a right nor does the current health care system restrict the rights of others. Health care costs are skyrocketing and premiums continue to rise thus making it difficult for all in America to afford health care insurance but health care is not a right. Does it make sense for a society to succeed that a robust health care system is required; yes. Does the current form of health care reform really reform health care; no. Not only that, Sen. Reid and House Speaker Pelosi do not need the support of one Republican in Congress to pass health care reform. So it begs the question: Who is really digging in their heels?

Those digging in their heels are one-issue Democrats. Sen. Nelson (D-Neb.) amendment to deny taxpayer funds to pay for abortion was killed on the Senate floor yesterday to which the Senator warned that he will filibuster the bill if strict abortion language is not put in the final version. On the other side of the issue, many in the House of Representatives vow not to support a bill unless a public option exists. Moderate Democrats are at odds with their more Liberal brethren. Yes, Republicans are not in favor of the type of reform being proposed but their votes are not warranted to pass "reform". But I digress.

The assertion made by Sen. Reid that health care reform ranks in the annuals of history with emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights just proves the lunacy that exists in the leadership of the Democrat party. Even though I am a white male, I feel outraged by the marginalized comments by Sen. Reid as it belittles those that gave their lives to emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights. We all agree that reform is needed in health care but Sen. Reid's statement trumps any fear mongering alleged during the August research. Or am I missing something? Is health care reform on the same level of emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights?

President Obama foreign policy: Hypocrite or Savior

Today the United Nations (UN) is to start a conference on racism around the world in Europe. The goal, according to the BBC, of the UN Racism conference is to review progress “in fighting racism since a 2001 forum.” The trouble is several key players are boycotting the conference; including the United States.

The BBC reports that many “Western countries see this as a curtailment of free speech” as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to speak. For the past month and a half President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have traveled across the globe in a good will tour apologizing for the actions of United States. President Obama has cloaked the apologies as means of “strengthening our hand” by reaching out to our enemies.

To boycott the UN racism conference is a bad move for a country that fought a war over slavery, saw Civil Rights leaders slain (King), and saw a historic election when Sen. Obama became for the first black President. President Obama said, repeatedly, while running for office that he’d sit down with President Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Then why does he not, or at least send a delegation, attend the UN racism conference?

President Obama continues to make mistake after mistake on foreign policy. While meeting with leaders of Americas, many criticized the President for hand shaking with foreign leaders that have spoken out against America, but President Obama missed an opportunity to re-define Democracy and the important role the United States played during the decades that surrounded World War II.

The United States for decades after World War II has been the leader of the free world, granted the past decade our leaders have failed us, and the President Obama apology tour only weakens the position of the United States by giving hope to those that wish the demise of our great country. President Obama’s administration is missing a big opportunity by boycotting the UN Conference on Racism and is a hypocrite for the reason of not attending.

Reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8006852.stm