dr-martin-luther-king-jr « WordPress.com Tag Feed

Campaigns vs causes

Sociolebrity.com — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:00:18 +0000

How many people, charities, project managers, social marketers (and of you) embark on campaigns inst

The ultimate measure of a man is…

tos8 — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:56:11 +0000

“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy” -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

This man ‘had a dream’…he had a vision, and he knew what it would take to have it come true, not necessarily what would happen along the way, but what it would take to succeed.

One of the many inspirational quotes we can take from this visionary is how he measured success.

The above quote puts it right on the table, “where he stands at times of challenge and controversy”…where we all are now, as clearly we are all facing incredible unprecedented business and financial challenges and controversy.

Do we look at adversity, challenge and controversy and give up, throwing our hands up in despair not knowing what to do and thus doing nothing?

Each one of us is being tested and each one of us will have the opportunity to be measured as to how well we do.

Fortunately each one of us does not have to figure out the right strategies for successful navigation of this challenging time. We have done it for you many times with past clients. You situation many be unique but the fundamentals are the same.

Increasing the top-line through effective marketing strategies is a challenging adventure that will test the character of any business man.

The good news is all you have to do is have the guts to be successful, a willingness to confront this challenge and ask us for help… We will do the rest.

Dr. King has it right; we are measured by what we do when confronted by adversity and challenge.

How are you measuring up?

Obama's Nobel Speech and the Price of War

blksista — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:42:47 +0000

The text of the speech is here.

I cannot sleep, so now I am online for a short time. Believe me, there are other items on my mind that are robbing me of my sleep, but I thought I would comment on one of them.

They’re lauding him as another Theodore Roosevelt in the media, but I cannot help but shake my head at our president. He wants to make war in order to preserve peace. His own vice president once suggested that we were even in the wrong place to make war on our enemies. But now, these are Obama’s wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and I can only say, as an American citizen and as a Buddhist, that you cannot wage war in order to obtain peace. War only begets war, period. The thing is not to get sucked in by the same arguments by the same people that got you into the mess in the first place.

Obama has allowed himself to be influenced by Bush holdovers and Clintonistas. We are now in the clutches of people that favor corporate control of our government. The thing is, what may have seemingly worked nearly twenty years ago shouldn’t be applied to national and world events today. And if what Matt Taibbi says in Rolling Stone is true, we are really in for it.

But back to the black warrior. He’s not charmed the Norwegians completely. He is not staying for the full, three day ceremonials that included dining with the King of Norway, concerts and other events, and this is rankling the common Norwegians who have come distances to see him. After all, he is a world leader, and had to reschedule other responsibilities on the hop for this one-day unexpected international excursion. And Obama felt that he did not deserve such honors, as he did the first time he heard about receiving the Nobel.

It was totally different for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his wife Coretta, even down to the black tie and tails that King wore. You could say that it was a welcome respite to go on a trip, receive an award and enjoy a vacation with his wife. But then, King had the luxury of not being a world leader, simply a leader of his people in America. He did not have the power to wage war, merely the power (aided by the media) to influence large numbers of black and white (and Jewish and Asian and Latino) people to practice civil disobedience in the streets in order to obtain long overdue rights for his people. People did get killed and maimed, and it was like a war to certain people. It was the last part of the Civil War that had to be waged.

However, King’s minions and allies were for the most part, unarmed and nonviolent. They were going against people who were always armed with rope, with guns, with whips, with hoses. There are still people around who are carrying the scars of their encounters with the agents of American apartheid, and they have no medals. Some have quiet wounds; others still suffer from brain injuries and paralysis. But war, real war where both sides are armed with guns, grenades and bombs, is always disruptive of life: violent, bloody, and relentless, and stopping it is almost as hard as it is easy to start.

It’s almost like someone who becomes a mass shooter who nurses a grudge against certain people in workplaces or schools. Notice that they always manage to spray others with bullets who aren’t involved in their grudge; while the people they targeted escape injury or death time and again. That’s what war is these days. It is waged on civilian populations who are caught between protagonists. The civilians–the common people–always lose. The private contractors are still there in Iraq and Afghanistan. McCrystal who helped run the show with Abu Ghraib and torture is now commander in Afghanistan. There’s an oil pipeline involved, too. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Obama invoked Hitler, compared him with al Qaeda today, and said essentially that pacifism could not have been waged against someone like him. Excuse me, but it is a known fact that Hitler’s own generals expected the powers, Britain and France, to bring their firepower to bear on the little dictator. Had they done so, bringing their troops forward but without firing a shot, der Fuhrer would have been quelled. He would have backed off because he was not yet up to speed. Instead, the generals saw Hitler win and win again by bluff, because people were not strong enough to threaten more than what they were capable of doing. The British and the French could only remember the generation of men that they had lost in pointless battles, and would have done anything except real pacifism to avoid war. They could have confronted Hitler early on; they did not have to kill scores of people or start a war. Europe ended up having to do just that anyway, going sideways with Hitler for years until he finally sank his fangs in it. Obama calls himself a student of history; there were probably people in that audience who inwardly dissented from his view of events. Including how al Qaeda came to be our enemy.

Let me go back to Teddy Roosevelt, because the media once again allows me to point out a historical truth that they have decided not to dwell on. Teddy Roosevelt indeed carried a big stick in his international endeavors. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for helping to mediate the peace between Japan and Russia, but even this award, like Obama’s, was controversial in its time. Roosevelt was far from being a pacifist; he was exuberant about war and killing; and he also shared out the carcasses of thousands of animals he shot to prove it. But all that ended when his favorite son, Quentin, was killed in World War I.

The former president, who had strenuously encouraged Americans to join the war against Germany, became a shadow of himself, grieving the son he had essentially pressed into the abyss. He was just like another perceived weakling, the British colonial era writer Rudyard Kipling, who basically forced his own son to go to war and to win glory, and then spent his remaining years weeping over the young man’s demise until his own. War means death and loss. Men and women become killers. There is hardly anything glorious about it.

Roosevelt had already worn himself down in an earlier trip to South America on the River of Doubt, which is now named for him–the Rio Teodoro. During this expedition, which proved be to the last of his life, the very environment seemed to revolt against Roosevelt’s mass bagging of animals and insects. Roosevelt contracted malaria and a leg infection, both of which reoccurred several times even after his return to the United States on the eve of the Great War. However, the young man’s death was the coup de grace; it hastened Roosevelt’s own end six months later in 1919. All the man wanted to do was to die; there was no one else he could live for.

And so now, Obama is being lauded as a new Roosevelt figure who has his own Doctrine about defending America and going into foreign countries as it suits American interests, and who will have his own war. He’s going down into the maelstrom that modern American presidents have gone down at their peril–whether Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq–and I very much doubt that he will be as successful as they had hoped to be. Obama didn’t want his arrogance to get him in trouble with the Man Upstairs–so said that prayer he put into the Wailing Wall in Israel–but his arrogance is very much in play here.

And whether Osama bin Laden is the target is not even mentioned at all. It’s only al Qaeda. At least the enemy has a name; Bush refused to even countenance bin Laden after he got what he wanted–the subjugation of Iraq and the capture and death of Saddam Hussein, our former ally, just like bin Laden. Bin Laden was only a pretext; which is why he was allowed to escape by the Bushes to whatever fate he has encountered.

Obama’s going to have to learn the hard way. A lot more victims will fall like wheat before the scythe, and he’s going to find out that being a Clintonista is not the way to go and not where the people wanted him to go, but he’s going to learn. It’s just unfortunate that the country, weary of so many losses, is going to have to relearn the lesson along with him.

Message to President Obama: No more troops!

mtbrown75 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:29:04 +0000

30,000 troops is not going to make a difference in Afghanistan. This is a bad move on President Obama’s part. He needs to stop caving in to the Conservative Right. This war can not be won militarily. Joe Madison pointed out that 50,000 is only the troop increase. Many more civilian and American employees will be there as well.

This is not good. Many people often blame Obama supporters of being too romanticized; The President is not above criticism, and he is wrong on this one.

On April 4, 1967, exactly one year before Dr. King was assassinated, he gave a speech at Riverside church in New YorkCity called “Why I Oppose the War in Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence.” This speech is applicable to what we are gonig through in 2009

10 Things for emergent/missional United Methodists to Be thankful For...

mikeoles3 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:50:50 +0000

1. Thank you to John Wesley. We missionals/emergents like to stir things up a bit, raise some hell, speak out boldly against injustice, reach neglected communities, and open the church doors in real ways to those who wouldn’t step foot in to a church in a million years. I think the life and works of John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, grants us that permission even if the established church frowns on or is disinterested in such activities.

2. Thank you to the early church. Despite the overwhelming violence and power of the Roman empire, these earlier followers of Christ persisted and still show us 2,000 years later that love wins and that another way is possible.

3. Thank You to the prophetic church. Yeah, somewhere along the way (think Constantine but probably way before that as the church became more and more succesful) the church lost its way. But the link between mainstream religion and injustice is an age old problem ( the need for social propehtics like Micah, Amos, Isiaiah in the first place).

Instead of liberation and community, the churches began to preach and practice and protect the status quo. Whether it was St. Francis of Asissi, Dorothy Day, John Wesley, Dr. Martin Luther King, or countless others whose names history has forgotten, these communities figured out creative ways to be faithful witnesses of Jesus Christ, in spite of violent threats and raw military and economic power or just plain ole’ apathy.

4. Thank You to EmergingUMC2 and beyond. Much thanks to the 30 or so United Methodists who gathered this November to talk about the possibilities of restoring missional methodism. As a participant, it was inspiring to hear all the amazing things going on across the country as Methodists struggle to rethink church. Let’s hope this conversation keeps going.

5. Thank You to the Emergent Conversation. I first started hearing about the emergent conversation a few years ago and it saved my faith or at least my participation in a church.

6. Thank You to no More George W. Bush in public office. Yeah, this is a cheap shot, but it is a little disconcerting that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney both claimed to be United Methodists. That presidency might say more about the failures of the United Methodist church than anything else.

7. Thank You to the GBOD worship website. If you ever find yourself needing help with a worship service, check out the General Board of Discipleship’s worship webpage. Consistently updated and always helpful.

8. Thank You for some good Methodist blogs. Check this blog’s home page for them.

9. Thank You to The Future. More and more, it looks like the future of the church will be missional and emergent. Here is Phyllis Tickle’s take on it.

10. Thank You to Jesus Christ. Not in that cheezy I just won the super-bowl kid of way, but for not letting fear or the quest for prestige and power get in the way of God’s plan.

Here Is Another Voice On Glenn Beck Insulting The Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 'I Have A Dream' Speech

Sandy Gholston — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:25:20 +0000

This is from the Glenn Beck Sucks Blog in reference to Glenn Beck’s effort to disrespect Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Here is an excerpt from the blog:

And one last thing, Beck thinks he is the white Martin Luther King. At the rally and in a letter on his website, Beck said he plans to organize a series of conventions in seven regions of the country, where his supporters can go to learn about self-reliance, community organizing, the economy and how to be a political force in your own neighborhood and country. The conventions will lead to a new book by Beck called “The Plan” and he will have a march on Washington to promote it:

BECK: All of the above will culminate in “The Plan” a book that will provide specific policies, principles and, most importantly, action steps that each of us can take to play a role in this Refounding.

On August 28, 2010, I ask you, your family and neighbors to join me at the feet of Abraham Lincoln on the National Mall for the unveiling of “The Plan” and the birthday of a new national movement to restore our great country.Notice the date of Beck’s rally, it’s the same day as the anniversary of the I Have a Dream speech by Martin Luther King, Jr.

Let me give you Glenn Beck lovers a reality check. Glenn Beck is doing all this insanity to get rich, it’s all about money. Everything he does is to make him more money from his book sales, his radio show, and his tv show. He is a fraud and a con man, and a crazy one at that. And anyone who listens to one word he says it a lunatic who needs mental help.

Check out the Glenn Beck Sucks Blog to keep up with all of the craziness that Beck displays on a daily basis.

Sadly, this goes beyond humourous stuff. This is a direct insult by Glenn Beck of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

That is unforgiveable.

Light drives out Darkness Love drives out hate

chamomilemassage — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:04:26 +0000

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Have you ever been in total darkness? Years ago I visited Port Arthur in Tasmania….it was a penal settlement and the isolation cell was designed so that when you were in it there was a total absence of light….no matter how long you were in it your eyes would not adjust -there were no greys or patches of lighter dark…the dark was so intense that you could feel it.

Total darkness is terrifying and overpowering and yet the smallest amount of light drives it back. Light brings hope and absence of fear- it drives away the darkness and gladens the heart.

Hate is like that too. The only thing that can drive away hate is love. Not the selfish sort of love that seeks to tie to itself but that pure love that wants the best for the other.Love that builds up and encourages drives away hate and love like hate is contagious when spread.

‘Love has in it no element of fear; but perfect love drives away fear, because fear involves pain, and if a man gives way to fear, there is something imperfect in his love.’ 1 John 4:18

Nonviolence: 25 lessons from the history of a dangerous idea

taddelay — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:16:24 +0000

Mark Kurlansky’s magnum opus Nonviolence: Twenty-Five Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea has been on my reading list for two years now, but Barnes and Noble has continually thwarted me. In other news, I applied for my first real library card the other day. Put those two things together, and I finally got to cram my head full of information on the history of this outrageously successful idea.

The book encompasses a wide range of world histories and religious text, but the bulk of it is focused on EuroChristian and American history (highlighting the constant internal battle of violence vs. nonviolence). It is said the victors tell (or revise) the story of history, and since the victors are generally the ones with lots of guns, the outrageous success of nonviolence whenever it is tried (almost without failure) is easily put aside. If you are interested in the history of an idea that is generally labeled dangerous, unpatriotic, foolish, and unmanly, I highly recommend this book.

And if you’ve ever heard about how Christianity was 100% nonviolent and opposed to all things warfare in its early days, and you wonder how we got here from there, this book is an excellent case study.

The Twenty Five Lessons

*Kurlansky’s own words in italics

1. There is no proactive word for nonviolence. Not in any language or culture or religion. The idea is untried enough that there has not been a need for a positive word that is not the mere negation of another that is often used (-violence).

2. Nations that build military forces as deterrents will eventually use them.

3. Practitioners of nonviolence are seen as enemies of the state.

4. Once a state takes over a religion, the religion loses its nonviolent teachings.

5. A rebel can be defanged and co-opted by making him a saint after he is dead. Ghandi was a nice old idealist. Jesus was interested in saving souls. King was a good guy for a time back when America still had racism. Martin of Tours, sainted because of this soldiers unwillingness to fight anymore, is made into a patron saint for the US Army. If someone were to come along who would not compromise, a rebel who insisted on taking the only moral path, rejecting violence in all its forms, such a person would seem so menacing that he would be killed, and after his death he would be canonized or deified, because a saint is less dangerous than a rebel.

6. Somewhere behind every war there are always a few founding lies. Historically, the most typical lies have included that the war is “defensive” or for “freedom/liberty.” The enemy is enshrowded with rumors and conspiracies; he thinks of nothing but evil and will not stop without a violent intervention. The enemy leaders don’t think like civilized people do. We had no fault in the matter, of course. But whatever it is, there are always lies.

7. A propaganda machine promoting hatred always has a war waiting in the wings. When you see allusions to the past with vague and grandiose descriptors like “evil” or “madman,” you will soon be committed to war.

8. People who go to war start to resemble their enemy. It’s no secret that one wrong turn tends to justify another in our minds. No where is this truer than when your purpose in a war zone is to break and hurt.

9. A conflict between a violent and a nonviolent force is a moral argument. If the violent side can provoke the nonviolent side into violence, the violent side has won. There are lots of stories in history where a nonviolent movement became fed up and took a violent turn. They all die out remarkably fast at that point.

10. The problem lies not in the nature of man but in the nature of power. It’s been observed that all men with power want one thing more than all else: more power. And once power is gained by a person or a state, anything will be prepared for, done, and justified to defend that status.

11. The longer a war lasts, the less popular it becomes. People tire of violence and become disappointed with how different and fruitless it is compared with the promises the people buy before a war.

12. The state imagines it is impotent without a military because it cannot conceive of power without force. We are capable of some beautifully brave and powerful things, but we are so trained to think of real power as force, a strong power over people to have our way. The state is particularly prone to this impairment.

13. It is often not the largest but the best organized and most articulate group that prevails. In America’s memory has generally forgotten that nonviolent religious sects far outnumbered those calling for independence from Britain without violence. But the nonviolent sects were quite silent, hence they lost the fight for violence and were forgotten by history.

14. All debate momentarily ends with an “enforced silence” once the first shots are fired. A great violent tragedy or first skirmish effectively marginalizes any voice calling for peace without violence.

15. A shooting war is not necessary to overthrow an established power but is used to consolidate the revolution itself. If a revolution can be made to include a war, the post-revolutionary power will have no problem framing violence as necessary for peace in the minds of the general public. It is no coincidence that countries birthed without violent revolution tend to put much less emphasis on militaries.

16. Violence does not resolve. It always leads to more violence. Wars create “peace,” which is merely a veneer for an armistice lasting a few years until unresolved tensions mutate into new alliances and wars in different (usually, not always) regions.

17. Warfare produces peace activists. A group of veterans is a likely place to find peace activists.

18. People motivated by fear do not act well.

19. While it is perfectly feasible to convince a people faced with brutal repression to rise up in suicidal attack on their oppressor, it is almost impossible to convince them to meet deadly violence with nonviolent resistance. This is a significant reason why a brilliantly successful strategy of nonviolence is so rarely tried.

20. Wars do not have to be sold to the general public if they can be carried out by an all-volunteer professional military.

21. Once you start the business of killing, you just get “deeper and deeper,” without limits.

22. Violence always comes with a supposedly rational explanation- which is only dismissed as irrational if the violence fails.

23. Violence is a virus that infects and takes over. Seeing the continual failure of violence to establish peace has not lead to less violence; it has lead to more. In the past 6,000 year, there have been approximately 50 years untainted by war, and the trend is growing.

24. The miracle is that despite all of society’s promotion of warfare, most soldiers find warfare to be a wrenching departure from their own moral values.

25. The hard work of beginning a movement to end war has already been done.

On the immorality of total pacifism and the superiority of active and creative nonviolence, one unmanly, foolish activist once said:

“The kind of pacifism that does not actively combat the war preparations of the governments is powerless and will always stay powerless. Would that the conscience and common sense of the people awaken!”

-Albert Einstein

It reminds me of prophets that dreaming of a day when a just people would beat their swords into plowshares as we realized that redemptive violence becomes an illusory myth in time, that a people who lives by the sword will die by the sword, and that it is far more disarming to love enemies than it is to mirror them!

Come Home, America

Eric Lightborn — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:39:03 +0000

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. knew well of what he spoke when he addressed a meeting of Clergy and Lait

Begin with the end in mind

Christopher Logan — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:32:49 +0000

I have recently enlisted the coaching services of a friend, Susan Shyllon who is studying to become a Life Coach. Prior to our first session, Susan had me complete an initial client information gathering exercise to learn more about me. I will share my responses with you below.

Generation Y - Global thinkers

1. What accomplishments do you think must occur during your lifetime so that you will consider your life to have been satisfying and well lived – a life of few or no regrets?

I will continue to live a life of continuous learning, seeking out particular understanding of the way the human brain operates when learning new information, recalling information, and relating to other people. I will continue to learn more about psychology and enthusiastically pass on knowledge to others relating to NLP and other more recent mental technologies that can fast track achievement in people’s lives. As an internet enthusiast, I will continue to expand my presence online and connect with other entrepreneurs who also seek to leverage the web to quickly connect with, share knowledge with and market to individuals and businesses all around the globe – this is more effective and will enable me to live a mobile lifestyle without the restriction of one particular workplace, and enable me to visit more cities and meet and present to more people, in turn increasing my experience and perspective. I would like to write a book or produce and sell the online equivalent exploring the complexities of the human brain and how the human brain can be compared to the internet, in terms of utilising the collective human consciousness for a greater cause, i.e eradicating poverty, global learning, space exploration and elimination of climate change via collaboration online over the coming 20 years. I would like a black belt in a martial art, have a family with 2 children, be an a loving family member, have worked in various roles and developed various business skills throughout my lifetime. – I am Christopher Howard.

2. If there were a secret passion in your life, what would it be?

Finding a mentor or a new experience, giving it a go, learning as much as possible about the person or area, taking the knowledge and moving onto the next area to increase my awareness and skill levels. Passing on knowledge and learnings to others in a simple, fun and interactive way as I go, so that they too can benefit from my experiences and research - I am Arnold Schwarzenegger.

3. What do you consider your role to be in your local community? In your country? In the world?

At all three levels, to be a leader, a recognisable figure and researcher, someone who consistently has varied experiences and a degree of freedom others may have thought was impossible. An advocate of ‘you can do anything you put your mind to’, a global thinker, a strong and powerful person both physically and metaphorically. A technology enthusiast and knowledge sharer - I am Dr Martin Luther King Jr.

4. If you could devote your life to serving others—and still have the money and lifestyle you need—would you do it? How would it look?

Tools – Wireless laptop, iPhone, USB Camcorder, large social media presence and blog site. Attend the biggest events on global thinking (see TED Talks), connect with other global thinkers and professionals, advance the thinking of the human race as much as possible in my lifetime, develop online tools and psychological tools to assist people in poorer nations to get online, share their ideas and participate in the global consciousness – attract the resources their community needs to function better, escape poverty, eliminate climate change, unlock the mysteries of space exploration, function as one Earth in my lifetime - I am Generation Y.

Civil Rights Group Elects Bernice King President

Danielle Canada — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:03:58 +0000

The same organization that was co- founded by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is adding a member of his blood line to their ranks through their election of his daughter Rev. Bernice King as their new President.

Bernice King was announced as the new leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference early Friday morning. Administrators for the organization held a meeting Thursday to discuss candidates before formally announcing their selection.
Bernice is the first woman elected to the position in its 52-year-history.
Martin Luther King Jr. was the SCLC’s first president from 1957 until his death in 1968.

Way to follow in your daddy’s footsteps, girl!

blessed are the peacemakers

taddelay — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:35:07 +0000

Jon Stewart interviews an Israeli and a Palestinian on their efforts to bring more peace to the region. Anna Balzer and Mustafa Barghouti discuss their efforts modeled on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s doctrine of non-violent revolution. They discuss occupation, homeland insecurity, and the political and religious resistance to dialogue. And Joe Wilson interrupts…

Part 2 here

Mental Racism

Brad Meyer — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:35:07 +0000

Humans seem to have a hidden inclination to attempt to exclude others. I suspect that it has to do w

Movie Recommendation

timsmartt — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 03:37:57 +0000

Last night I went and watched the wonderful new Pixar movie Up with my wonderful girlfriend. It really is an amazing film and I unreservedly recommend it to everyone. You’ll definitely laugh, you’ll probably see your life in a new light, if only for a moment, and you may even cry.

Admittedly, I am a sucker for Pixar movies. But Up is particularly touching and hilarious. For a movie filled with silliness, it communicates a lot about the human need for companionship, the personal liberation which comes only with genuine acts of selflessness, and the adventure that it can be to befriend, empathise with, and even love, odd and different people/animals. The comparison between the life the protagonist led with his wife, and the life that the evil villan ended up living – alone in some parallel odd world with only his bones and ambition for company – is a great example of the way good film can simply communicate profound insights about the human condition.

I feel like to justify blogging about a children’s movie on my ‘philosophy’ blog I need to include some sort of philosophical reflection on the film. Well, the film involves an act of civil disobedience which would have made Henry David Thoreau and Dr. King smile from ear to ear; it raises metaphysical questions about the existence of possible worlds which David Lewis and perhaps Gottfried Leibniz would find illustrative; it raises the issue of animal ethics and the value of non-human life which would make Peter Singer sing showtunes; and suggests that the most happy life is one filled with activity, not passivity, which would rock Aristotle’s ancient socks.

p.s. This is my 50th blog post!

The Gulf Case (Part II)

bafu56 — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:50:45 +0000

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2009

Amicus Needed Desperately

THE GULF CASE (Legal Incoherence 2009 – Part II)
Amicus Needed Desparately:
CASE #3:06-cv-00095-MCR-EMT – Appeal Case # 09-12234-C

You may have heard of Nomocracy before. Simply put, it means the rule of law which limits the discretion of officials, and provides a process by which errors or abuse of discretion can be corrected. We trust officials to exercise such discretion as they have with wisdom, justice, and competence, to avoid government that is arbitrary, insolent, discriminatory, prejudiced, intrusive and corrupt. However, can judges push the envelope sometimes?

It was President Jimmy Carter who once said,
“The best way to enhance freedom in other lands is to demonstrate here that our democratic system is worthy of emulation.” -Jimmy Carter
As stated in the previous post, the GULF CASE is not fiction but it is about first and foremost the violation of property rights against an African american family and against Property rights policies upheld by the Supreme Courts and the Justice Department. It is the true story of an African-American family and their total demise on American soil due to injustice in 2009. After approximately 25 years of successful development and wonderful achievements, as a former Department of Defense Contractor, an African-American real estate developer was ravaged and devastated by a lower Government namely the walton County on the Gulf of Mexico and the plaintiffs’ case was worsened by a deadly blow from a Federal Judge who after 379 motions and attorney entries, three years of debate, an array of depositions, and a plethora of lies, deceits, misleadings, inconsistencies and falsehood, issued an incoherent order to make bad matter worse. Unchecked properly by superiors, the judge has done the unthinkable against what she stated before she would never do meaning to make the public afraid of the court. This saga entails romance, intrigues, dangers and the eventual demise of an African-American family who watched their American Dream turn to an American nightmare on American soil, after following the rules and working their tail off for approximately 25 years. Would you call this a judicial oversight, judicial discretion or plain injustice? Speak loud America and respond lest this becomes the norm under this historic administration which does not stand for injustice. We will analyze one of these incoherences among many in this blog.

INCOHERENCE # 2: On February 6, 2007 the same judge issued an apology to the plaintiffs stating that the court committed oversight because the court assumed that the matter was addressed properly. On March 31, 2009, the same judge accused the plaintiffs’ attorney of wasting the court’s scarce judicial resources. This may be well beyond incoherence to the point of contradiction or else. Who wasted the time? Evidently, it was the court. Would you call this an judicial oversight, judicial discretion or plain injustice?

This African American family needs an amicus desperately as their case stands in appellate court right now. Any Friend of the court can issue that Amicus to let the court know that other eyes are scrutinizing the unfolding of this case closely. You may contact Sony Roy at (240) 786-8637 or email him at mybafu@gmail.com. Any bipartisan efforts ill be greatly appreciated.

Please leave us your comments or your support below.

This is a bog by BAFU USA standing for Bounce Back America From Unemployment. For more information about theBAFU Presidential Registry click here.
For information about BAFU’s diligent work on behalf of the unemployed, click here.

Muammar Gaddafi Address Obama As Son

emptysuit — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:45:47 +0000

Gaddafi was introduced as the “leader of the revolution, President of the African Union and King of Kings of Africa”.

At mark 1:26 Gaddafi called Obama “Son”

Gaddafi said, “Sixty-five wars broke out after the establishment of the United Nations and after the establishment of the UN security council – enough of this”.

Gaddafi said, “it should not be called Security Council, it should be called the Terror Council”.

Gaddafi began calling for investigations into the assassinations of John F Kennedy and Martin Luther King.

Gaddafi wants investigations into the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Gaddafi said the swine flu might be a military or corporate weapon that got out of a lab.

“We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as a president of United States of America,” Gaddafi said. Does the Lockerbie bomber remind you of anything.

to serve

Bel — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:56:43 +0000

The Republicans and McCarthyism

mrmokelly — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:11:35 +0000

The Huffington Post ran this today…

“Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are paving the way for a return of McCarthyism with their hysterical and shrill denunciations of President Obama and his administration as secret Communists and Marxists and Fascists who actually hate America and are trying to destroy it from the inside. Crooks and Liars highlights this well-done video juxtaposing the conspiracy theorists on the right with the disgraced Senator Joseph McCarthy. The result is pretty revealing.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/21/the-return-of-mccarthyism_n_293451.html

Remember, Mo’Kelly said the following:

“Seriously, even Dr. King, who, save assassination could still have been alive today would not have met the Obama administration standard. King criticized the government, openly opposed the Vietnam war and was by every GOP measure a “radical extremist.” In fact, King was far more “radical” than Van Jones and also was branded a Marxist/communist.

This is NOT a comparison of Jones and King, but a comparison of the fear tactics used to discredit them both. Notice the familiar McCarthyism wallpaper.”

- (Mo’Kelly) Dr. King Couldn’t Have Served in Obama Administration 9.7.09

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/21/the-return-of-mccarthyism_n_293451.html

The Mo’Kelly Report is an entertainment journal with a political slant; published weekly at www.eurweb.com. It is meant to inform, infuse and incite meaningful discourse…as well as entertain. The Mo’Kelly Report is syndicated by Blogburst. For more Mo’Kelly, http://mokellyreport.wordpress.com. Mo’Kelly can be reached at mrmokelly@gmail.com and he welcomes all commentary.

http://twitter.com/mrmokelly

Subscribe to The Mo’Kelly Report HERE

The Race Card

emptysuit — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:25:05 +0000

There is an old joke that goes “how do you know you are winning an argument with a liberal?” The answer is “He calls you a racist.” America, we are winning this argument. When South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson shouted, “You lie!” during President Obama’s health care speech, he ignited a firestorm of controversy …. Racism. President Carter expressed his concern, stating, “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity demonstrated towards President Obama is based on the fact that he is a Black man”. Carter went on to say that there is “a belief among some White people that African Americans are not qualified to run this great country”. The next day Carter said that Representative Joe Wilson’s outburst during President Obama’s health care speech was also rooted in racism. This “race card” has become the main tool for the Democrats. When they can’t win in the arena of ideas or debate, they reach for the “race card.” For the card to have any power, the majority of people do not need not to be racist, but have to be against the thought of any individual holding these ideals. If racism were no big deal with Obama, then the card would have no power. Calling someone a racist, true or not, would not have any power if he or she and those around him or her didn’t care about it.

Democrats are now using the “race card” to get their political way? Liberal commentators began to suggest Wilson’s remarks were racially motivated. Bloggers started suggesting Wilson’s remarks were racially motivated. Some even suggested that Wilson meant, “You lie boy” some added the “n” word. Liberal/Democrats are always injecting race to their arguments, New York Rep. Charles Rangel claimed that bias and prejudice are the driving forces behind opposition to Obama’s health care reform proposals. Nancy Pelosi is calling out the opposition and suggesting that they are leading the country to violence. Knowing of course that all of the violence of the tense town hall protests has come at the hand of the left, including the ransacking of their own buildings to try to pin it on Republicans. New York Gov. David Paterson blamed race when he said in an Aug. 29 radio interview that the media have exploited racial stereotypes in covering him and other black elected officials. Judge Sonia Sotomayor commented that a “wise Latina” would be a better judge than a white man. Democrat, Congressman Hank Johnson, recently suggested that people might put on “white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside”. Hank Johnson is the guy who replaced Cynthia McKinny of Atlanta. She was the one who slapped a Capitol Security Officer and alleged racism when he wanted to see her ID that was a requirement of his Job. Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois, who defended Sen. Roland Burris asked reporters not to “hang or lynch” Burris during a press conference. Obama caused a racial firestorm when he said a white police officer “acted stupidly” when he arrested a black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. Obama stated several times he didn’t know the facts of the case. This is ok if, You Are Black or a Demcorat. It’s a different story if you White or Republican, look at Glenn Beck, a popular conservative commentator for Fox News he said this about Obama and the Gates controversy: “This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture, I don’t know what it is. I’m not saying that he doesn’t like white people. I’m saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist.”

African American needs to research the history of the Democrat Party. Many are fooled by this party’s false love. From the end of the Civil War, African Americans almost unanimously favored the Republican Party. The south had long been a Democrat stronghold, favoring a state’s right to legal slavery. In addition, the ranks of the fledgling Ku Klux Klan were comprised almost entirely of white Democrats. Do Your Research! 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960’s civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! Republicans were the major support of the civil rights movement. 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it.

The “race card” calling Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Including Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia, J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton, Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. (Yes Al Gore’s father’s opposed the Civil Rights Act), Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator, Richard Russell, Georgia senator

The complete list: Hill and Sparkman of Alabama, Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas, Holland and Smathers of Florida, Russell and Talmadge of Georgia, Ellender and Long of Louisiana, Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi, Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina, Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina, Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee, H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia, R. Byrd of West Virginia

Vote totals
The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)

The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

The original House version:Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

By party and region. The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

Democrat President John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, add Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. again. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a BLACK REPUBLICAN. Kennedy had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist, thanks to his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy. It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. A REPUBLICAN! Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited.

History

October 13, 1858 During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee.

April 16, 1862 President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no.

January 31, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition.

April 8, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition.

April 9, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law.

March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

February 3, 1870 After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race.

May 31, 1870 President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights.

June 22, 1870 Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South.

September 6, 1870 Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell.

February 28, 1871 Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters.

April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups that oppressed African-Americans.

March 1, 1875 Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition.

February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote.

January 15, 1901 Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans.

October 3, 1924 Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention.

August 17, 1937 Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation.

September 30, 1953 Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

November 25, 1955 Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel.

March 12, 1956 Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation.

June 5, 1956 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law.

November 6, 1956 African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President.

September 9, 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act.

September 24, 1957 Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools.

May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats.

May 2, 1963 Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights.

September 29, 1963 Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School.

June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate.

June 10, 1964 Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor.

September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs.

June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act.

November 21, 1991 President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation.

Why Do African Americans STILL Think The Democratic Party Is Their Party?

Hvem er de egentlige rasistene, Jimmy Carter?

Riise — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:04:19 +0000

Jeg hadde trodd at den tåpelige rasedebatten i hvert fall skulle stilne etter at Obama ble valgt til president med et rimelig klart flertall, men det ser ut til at enkelte fortsatt er interessert i å holde denne debatten gående. Og det er ikke Obamas motstandere som ønsker å fortsette denne debatten, men tvert imot prominente politikere fra hans eget parti. Sist ute er tidligere president Jimmy Carter, som nå mener at deler av motstanden mot helsereformen som Obama går inn for, bygger på rasistiske motiver. Hvem er den egentlige rasisten her?

Det finnes selvfølgelig rasister både i det republikanske og det demokratiske partiet. En del av dem finnes også blandt såkalte hooligans i enkelte landsbystrøk i sørstatene som i den senere tid tradisjonelt har stemt republikansk, men det har de også gjort mens motkandidatene het Al Gore og John Kerry; begge (særlig sistnevnte) rike, velstående, intelligente hvite menn med utdanning. Tilhørigheten til republikanerne i disse områdene handler stort sett om synet på familieverdier, og ikke om rase. Lederen i det republikanske partiet i dag er også en Afro-Amerikaner ved navn Michael Steele. Så hvis det var slik at Republikanernes motstand mot president Obama skyldes at mange de mener afro-amerikanere ikke er kvalifisert til å lede landet, ville de vel neppe valgt nettopp en afroamerikaner til å lede sitt eget parti…?

Det skal også nevnes i denne sammenhengen at sørstatene tidligere var Demokratenes territorie, og ikke Republikanernes. Demokratene har en langt mørkere fortid, hva gjelder rasisme, enn Republikanerne. Det republikanske partiet ble grunnlagt i 1854 av anti-slaveri aktivister. Republikanere kjempet MOT Demokrater for å frigjøre svarte mennesker fra slaveri, og sikre svarte konstitusjonell frihet, statsborgerskap og retten til å stemme akkurat som alle andre.

Det var Demokrater som startet Ku Klux Klan, og det var prominente demokratiske politikere som Senator Robert Byrd som fortsatte å kjempe mot sivile rettigheter for svarte mennesker i USA (stemmetallene i Senatet understøtter dette). Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr var også republikaner – noe som ikke burde være en overraskelse for de fleste som har lest litt amerikansk historie. Nesten alle var det på den tiden. Det var først valget i 1964 som snudde om på dette, men dette skyldtes andre forhold som jeg ikke har tenkt å gå inn på her. Denne posten er ikke ment som noen historieleksjon, så de som vil lese mer om dette kan bl.a. finne mer info her: The Democrats Missing History, Frances Rice Reveals The Truth About the Democratic Party, eller dere kan laste ned en lengre artikkel HER:

Jimmy Carters angrep på dem som opponerer mot den nye helsereformen er egentlig også en form for rasisme. For det er jo nettopp Carter, og ikke republikanere eller libertarianere, som fokuserer på rase i denne debatten. Rase har ikke vært et tema fra motstandernes side i det hele tatt. Jeg er helt enig i at det var tåpelig og respektløst av den republikanske kongressmannen Joe Wilson å miste besinnelsen under Obamas tale til kongressen, og rope «your lying», men når demokrater nå forsøker å fortelle at det i tillegg lå et usynlig ord i denne uttalelsen, nemlig; «your lying – boy», så er det nettopp Demokratene som desperat forsøker å gi denne debatten et raseperspektiv.

Republikanerne har tvert imot gjort sitt for at dette ikke skal bli et tema. John McCain var raskt ute etter John Wilsons uttalelse og kalte episoden respektløs, og ba Wilson beklage. Republikanerne ønsker å diskutere politikk. Motstanderne av helsereformen er skeptiske fordi de er redd prislappen vil bli skyhøy; noe den antakelig vil bli. I tillegg er det stor grunn til å tro at reformen vil gå utover kvaliteten på helsetilbudet i USA, at den vil gå ut over legers mulighet til å gi rask og effektiv hjelp, og at den vil gå ut over folks valgfrihet i helseomsorgen. Det er dét denne debatten handler om. Nå skal det riktignok sies at Obama selv har avkreftet at han tror motstanden mot helsereformen har noe med hans hudfarge å gjøre, men hvis han mener alvord bør han ta et lite oppgjør med en del folk i sitt eget parti.

Dette er ingen ny debatt. Under presidentvalget var det også mange som forsøkte seg på samme argumentasjon. De som opponerte sterkest mot Obama gjorde det av rasistiske motiver, mente mange. Har disse aldri sett en valgkamp før? Ordvekslingen mellom de ulike partiene var ikke noe mindre krass under de foregående valgene. De som lurer kan bare ta en liten kikk på kampanjevideoene fra 1958 og utover, som alle ligger på nettsiden www.livingroomcandidate.org.

Selv stemte jeg ved det amerikanske presidentvalget, og jeg stemte ikke på Obama. Jeg stemte på John McCain (TIL TROSS FOR – og ikke pga Sarah Palin, bare så det er klart!!!) fordi jeg hadde mer tro på hans politiske visjoner, og fordi jeg mener at Obama drar amerikansk politikk i feil retning. Selv møtte jeg mange reaksjoner på mitt valg – som jeg ikke gjorde så mye for å skjule. Flere mente jeg burde stemme på Obama fordi det var så flott med en svart presidentkandidat. Mange trakk også frem Obamas hudfarge som det eneste positive de klarte å sette fingeren på, når jeg ba dem begrunne hvorfor de mente at Obama burde bli president. Mange trekker fortsatt frem det historiske ved at USA fikk en svart presidentkandidat som selve høydepunktet ved valget.

Jeg tillater meg å spørre: hvem er de egentlige rasistene her?

Jeg synes også det er flott at dette valget viste at både svarte og hvite har muligheten til å nå toppen, men dette er klinkende likegyldig for meg når jeg skal stemme ved politiske valg – og ta stilling til politiske spørsmål. Jeg tar det egentlig som en selvfølge at hudfarge ikke er et tema. Jeg kunne ikke brydd meg mindre om Obama var svart eller hvit. Jeg tar stilling til hans politiske forslag akkurat slik jeg tar stilling til forslag fra enhver annen politiker, jeg bestemte meg for hva jeg skulle stemme ved det amerikanske presidentvalget basert på hvilken kandidat jeg var mest enig med – hudfarge var ikke med i vurderingen ett øyeblikk, og jeg er i likhet med mange svært skeptisk til Obamas helsereform fordi jeg ønsker en annen politikk.

Det er faktisk meget respektløst – mye mer enn John Wilsons utbrudd var – ovenfor Obama selv, å trekke frem Obamas hudfarge i debatten, i stedet for å forsøke å forsvare hans politiske ideer. Hvis det er noen som er rasister i denne debatten så er det nettopp de Demokratene som trekker frem rase hver gang det kommer et angrep på Obamas politikk!

Dr. King Could Not Have Served in Obama Administration

mrmokelly — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 21:11:41 +0000

Dr. King and President Lyndon B. Johnson

For as much ballyhoo which surrounded the election of President Obama; the approaching one-year anniversary of the historic moment has provided tremendous perspective. I would imagine only the extremely politically naïve thought that the realities of an Obama administration would live up to the previous expectations. At the risk of using any cliché “honeymoon stage” references, this relationship is rightfully like any other romantic involvement. It starts off hot, then cools when the initial infatuation ends. The habits and idiosyncrasies largely ignored during the courtship are somehow more intolerable later on during the relationship.

With that extended relationship metaphor out of the way, let’s look at the recent resignation of White House advisor Van Jones. His “controversial” past concerning 9/11 remarks, intertwined with the public Glenn Beck fiasco turned Jones into a PR liability to the administration. In 2009, PR liabilities are not to be confused with actual liabilities. They are not one-in-the-same.

Although the public story is that Jones resigned, Obama administration “habits and idiosyncrasies” suggest the opposite. This is the same campaign/administration which sprinted away from anything and anyone supposedly “controversial.” The next “controversial” person the administration stands behind will be the first. One could argue that such behavior was an effective campaign strategy but a horrible approach to governance.

You’re the president…act like it. Sometimes “executive privilege” means giving the finger to fringe detractors instead of caving in to them.

Van Jones was chosen to serve because he was a visionary champion of eco-capitalism. The acceptance of Jones’

Van Jones

supposed resignation for reasons thoroughly unrelated to his present tenure reeks of weakness in the administration.

President Obama has now exposed his own pressure point, to which the GOP will exploit time and time again until 2012 and beyond. The precedent had been set long ago during the campaign and the Obama administration is calling the same play over and over again in the huddle.

“Distance, disavow and disconnect. Student Body Left on 3…BREAK.”

In the weeks after the election, the administration offered some 20 pages of a vetting questionnaire to weed out those potential cabinet members and associates whose past might present future problems. It was extensive and arguably unrealistic in scope. Jesus Christ himself couldn’t have served in this administration. Turning water into wine probably would have been later characterized as running moonshine and curing the sick (and raising the dead) without a medical license would have used to prove Jesus was a “quack” and member of the occult.

Robert Gibbs

“Distance, disavow and disconnect. Student Body Left on 3…BREAK.”

I can hear White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs right now, thanking Jesus Christ “for his service,” but not endorse any of his comments made years earlier criticizing Pontius Pilate.

Seriously, even Dr. King, who, save assassination could still have been alive today would not have met the Obama administration standard. King criticized the government, openly opposed the Vietnam war and was by every GOP measure a “radical extremist.” In fact, King was far more “radical” than Van Jones and also was branded a Marxist/communist.

This is NOT a comparison of Jones and King, but a comparison of the fear tactics used to discredit them both. Notice the familiar McCarthyism wallpaper.

If the GOP has done anything well in recent years, it’s been redefining heretofore innocuous words. “Liberal” was changed from a political ideological description to a scandalous accusation. The word “radical” transformed from an objective description of activism into some insidious form of anti-American extremism.

Senator John McCain isn’t a “radical” by the way,…he’s a “maverick.”

OK, if you say so. Yes, the hypocrisy lies is in the application of the labels.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)

“I think Van Jones did the right thing. His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration.”

- Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)

In a vacuum, there is nothing wrong with Pence’s statement. The truth is though, we don’t live in a vacuum. We live in a world with television, history books and even youtube, elucidating the rampant Republican hypocrisy.

There is no public statement condemning the “extreme” views and rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh, the same Limbaugh that RNC Chairman Michael Steele was forced to offer apologies. The same Limbaugh who compared the Democrats and the Obama healthcare plan to Nazism. To date there has been a public acquiescence of the Republican party to Rush Limbaugh and not one instance of condemnation or repudiation of his rhetoric.

Not by Pence or any other member of the Republic Party.

There was never any condemnation by Republican leadership of then Governor Sarah Palin’s remarks accusing then Senator Obama of “pal-ing around with terrorists.”

Rumsfeld and Hussein

For whatever reason, there is nothing similarly said about former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, even though he’s shaking hands here with Saddam Hussein.

Extremist views and coarse rhetoric? Pal-ing around with terrorists? Hypocrisy.

A South Carolina State senator directly compared President Obama and Osama Bin Laden on his official website.

To which there was no rebuke from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or any Indiana congressman named Mike Pence. The GOP can’t have it both ways. If Rush Limbaugh is not the de facto leader of the Republican party, then never should the chairman of the RNC apologize for correctly categorizing Limbaugh as “just an entertainer.” It then means that Limbaugh is NOT “just an entertainer” but an influential GOP operative from which the party takes its cues, even the extremist ones doused in coarse rhetoric.

Yes, there’s no place for “extremist views and coarse rhetoric” in the Obama administration, but it’s a-ok within the Republican Party, anywhere and everywhere.

Senator Kit Bond (R-MO)

Senator Kit Bond (R-Missouri) also weighed in, saying “Can the American people trust a senior White House official that is so cavalier in his association with such radical and repugnant sentiments?”

There’s that word “radical” again. Obviously Senator Bond’s short term memory is deficient and he has conveniently forgotten President George W. Bush and sideman Dick Cheney. Ever heard of Karl Rove?

“Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.”

Karl Rove – June 23, 2005

I can’t seem to find any condemnation by Congressman Mike Pence or Senator Kit Bond then or now regarding these radical and repugnant sentiments on 9/11 and the opposition party. Maybe it’s just a coincidence…just maybe.

In fact, I did find an AP story on the “Republican response.” It read as follows…

WASHINGTON – The White House is defending presidential adviser Karl Rove against Democratic demands that he apologize or quit for implying that liberals are soft on the Sept. 11 attackers and other terrorists.

Congressional Republicans joined the White House in standing solidly behind Rove, saying he shouldn’t apologize and that he was outlining a philosophical divide between a president who sought to win the war on terrorism by taking the fight to the enemy and Democrats who questioned that approach.

Full story HERE.

Or what about Eliot Abrams?

During George W. Bush’s first term in office, Abrams was appointed Special Assistant to the President and Senior

Abrams testifies during Iran-Contra

Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs. During Bush’s second term, Abrams was named Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy. The appointments were “controversial” due to Abrams’ conviction in 1991 on two misdemeanor counts of unlawfully withholding information from Congress…during the Iran-Contra Affair investigation.

I was unable to find any similar statements from Republicans decrying the appointment or asking for Abrams’ resignation. It was another “coincidence,” to be sure.

Ultimately the blame must lie with the Obama administration for painting itself into the proverbial corner with its track record of fighting for absolutely no one deemed “controversial” by the political opposition. Instead of doing the right thing and standing behind their “Green Jobs Czar” they did the “Obama” thing…

“Distance, disavow and disconnect. Student Body Left on 3…BREAK.”

Despite the characterization of President Obama as the fulfillment of Dr. King’s “dream,” Dr. King would have no place and would be unwelcome in this present administration. By all contemporary Republican accounts, King was both “radical,” “extreme” and “controversial,” questioning the moral authority of American government. That has no place in the Obama administration. The acceptance of Jones’ resignation is the Democrats’ collective co-signature of such foolishness. Time to audible and call a different play for once President Obama.

The Mo’Kelly Report is an entertainment journal with a political slant; published weekly at www.eurweb.com. It is meant to inform, infuse and incite meaningful discourse…as well as entertain. The Mo’Kelly Report is syndicated by Blogburst. For more Mo’Kelly, http://mokellyreport.wordpress.com. Mo’Kelly can be reached at mrmokelly@gmail.com and he welcomes all commentary.

http://twitter.com/mrmokelly

Subscribe to The Mo’Kelly Report HERE

But, If Not

livethanks — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:04:43 +0000

This post doesn’t need much of an introduction. Sometimes Living Thanks is about standing up for what you believe in. Here is someone who understood what that means:

“I say to you, this morning, that if you have never found something so dear and precious to you that you will die for it, then you aren’t fit to live.

You may be 38 years old, as I happen to be, and one day, some great opportunity stands before you and calls upon you to stand for some great principle, some great issue, some great cause. And you refuse to do it because you are afraid.

You refuse to do it because you want to live longer. You’re afraid that you will lose your job, or you are afraid that you will be criticized or that you will lose your popularity, or you’re afraid that somebody will stab or shoot or bomb your house. So you refuse to take a stand.

Well, you may go on and live until you are ninety, but you are just as dead at 38 as you would be at ninety.

And the cessation of breathing in your life is but the belated announcement of an earlier death of the spirit.

You died when you refused to stand up for right.

You died when you refused to stand up for truth.

You died when you refused to stand up for justice.”

-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
From the sermon “But, If Not” delivered at Ebenezer Baptist Church on November 5, 1967.

Ballentine's Blunder

Clutch82 — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:35:18 +0000

Warren Ballentine

Warren Ballentine: lawyer, self-proclaimed “truth fighter”, advocate, and in addition, dominant radio personality. All accomplishments of which to be proud if you ask me. Especially considering the possible alternate ending to an ongoing success story. Lately I’ve been tuning in to what some might describe as his radical yet informative radio show, which I access via WAOK-AM 1380 broadcast out of Atlanta, Georgia. I admire Mr. Ballentine for his passion and dedication to any cause for which the end result is the betterment of a people. With some of the same interests as Warren; law, justice, equality, empowerment, I tend to agree with more than less of what he has to say in regards to general issues. However, there have been those occassinal times where I just couldn’t seem to follow his lead.

Just the other day, (I came in late on the discussion) from what I could gather, Mr. Ballentine was promoting the idea of sending black money to black schools along with black students. He argued that there was something [ignorant] about the idea of black parents sending their children to charter schools. His reasoning was quite simple: The initial idea behind the establishment of such schools was expressly that of keeping black students separate from white. In their essence, these schools were nothing more than yet another reminder, another symbolic display of resistance on the part of whites to the Brown v Board of Education ruling. So I take it that Mr. Ballentine’s call for African Americans to do the same is thus justified once the intentions of others have been dissected in such a way that the afore mentioned motives are unmistakably evident.

One can only imagine what Richard Greener would think of such ideas. Questions pertaining to whether or not Heman Sweatt would be proud and supportive or angry and disappointed do not elude my mind. I can’t help but wonder if I’ve been mistaken all of these years. I thought the plight of those who joined the Civil Rights Movement was united in that it centered on integration and equality, justice for all. The reason Mrs. Parks remained seated was due to what she believed to be her right to sit along side whomever she pleased. Anne Moody’s journey was not one taken with the hopes of securing segregated institutions. Is not the significance of the Arkansas 9 as we know it to be today that black children attended school with white children for the first time? Now Ballentine is suggesting that some of the very history upon which this country is built was all in vain and that blacks and whites should indeed attend separate universities>

Perhaps I’m being a bit extreme in my inferences, but as originally stated, this is what I took by his more than ecstatic request, which soon nearly came to resemble more of a demand, that black money go to black business. Ok, I believe in cultural pride, and the promotion of a race. However, I do not believe that we should have to digress into the late 20th and early 21st centuries in order to maintain or accurately express that pride, nor should one race ever be promoted in such a way as to suggest racial superiority. This is not to indicate that racial superiority is a desire of Mr. Ballentine’s, but is his idea not in direct opposition of the dream envisioned by Dr. King in 1963? Did Booker T. Washington not accomplish much more by working along side those of the same and opposite races? No, no, I’m not suggesting that anyone “cast down his bucket”. One should never settle when he is capable of more, but he should always aspire to be the best in whatever his chosen field.

W.E.B. Dubois offers one of the best ideologies for the advancement of all ethnicities. It’s up to the best of each

W.E.B. Dubois

community to provide stable and reliable examples for the rest. Whether it be the Talented Tenth or the Talented Thirty, the message is clear. More than I’ve heard mention of either Washington or Dubois when fixated on the topics presented during Warren’s 2 hour broadcast, reference has been made to one Marcus Garvey. It’s only by mere speculation that I’ve arrived at the belief that Ballentine, if asked to choose between the ideologies of Washington, Dubois, and Garvey, may very well settle on the approaches of Marcus Garvey and his UNIA. I could be wrong, but I wouldn’t be surprised if I weren’t. I can’t claim to be a student of the lives of either man, but from what I know of each, I find striking similarities. Ballentine’s near obsession with skin color as far as its promotion in an almost militaristic tone of advocacy is similar to Garvey’s call for one race to rise up in opposition of America. “Up ye mighty race” was not only Garvey’s command to a race that he believed capable of uniting for the greater good of its people, it was also indicative of his desire for blacks to return to Africa. There were no cooperative measures to be taken. The concept was Black Nationalism and the tone borderline violent. I’m not implying violence on the part of Mr. Warren, but I would venture to say that lately I feel he has allowed race to dominate conversations in which race was not the most important issue. That’s provided that race was even an issue at all.

We are falling apart as a country and I believe the primary reason is due to our lack of unity. We’ve decided that the “me” is far more valuable and important than the “we”. Simply because progress is not being made at the pace desired by Ballentine, it seems that he has abandoned all hopes of forward progression as a country in favor of progression as a race. This will inevitably prove to be to the detriment of America which was built on the backs of so many who stem from varying cultural backgrounds. It’s precisely because of the multitude of cultures found here that this country was able to thrive in its most elementary phase. Without the Native Americans, we all know what imminent fate colonists would have faced. Without African Americans we know the economy of the South would’ve produced only a fraction of its most valuable commodities, and inventions such as the traffic light and blood bank or even the gas mask may very well have never existed or at best have been delayed.

I don’t suggest that we downplay the atrocities faced by these people, nor will I ignore the continued difficulties each continue to face as a result of such tragic times in our history. At the same time it’s impossible to deny that this country has seen such success because of contributions which can be traced back to various ethnicities. Should we do away with historically black universities? Most certainly not. The thought is not only absurd but the very thought seems to somehow undermine the basic principles which converge to provide this nation’s foundaton. We instead need to make greater strides in the direction of educating the masses about our differences and why those differences are beneficial to each of us individually as well as collectively. We then need to realize that these differences do much more to unite us than they’ve ever done to separate us; most either refuse to accept the obvious or are not educated enough on the REAL history of America to successfully reach similar conclusions. United we stand, divided we fall.