"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."~KJV, 2 Cor 11:4~~
When I think of that scripture, it reminds me of Ron Paul. A white supremacist who is trying to pass him self off as a politician fighting for liberty and justice for all. Yeah right! And Mona Lisa was a man.
“The Constitution and the court said slavery was legal, too. We had to reverse that. So, I tell you. Just because a court in ’37 went very liberal on us and expanded the role of government, no, I think the original intent is not a bad idea,” ~~Ron Paul~~
If you spray perfume on doodoo, it's still doodoo no matter how much perfume you spray on it. Paul should spare us with his BS about the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it "undermine[d] the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices." ~~Ron Paul~~
Paul claims not to be racist. Yet, he is involved and associated with known racist organizations. The John Bircher Society happens to be another one of them and I'm sure anyone who was old enough that lived during the 50s remembers them, which happens to be another one of Paul's resources on his web site. Okay, so why is it that he wants to do everything he can do to help the racist and legally discriminate? He is listed as a columnist for Council of Conservative Citizens (sidebar left hand side at bottom). The CCC is the KKK in business suits. Birds of a feather flock together.
The Civil Rights Bill was created to protect and enforced the civil liberties of those groups who were being discriminated against. Basically, what Paul is saying is that we should have kept things the way they were and not allowed "Negroes" to eat in Restaurants or work or go to schools, etc., and if people want to discriminate against minorities,women, and the disabled it should be allowed.
That's not all, Paul hit list consist of safety nets for the elderly, poor, and permanently disabled—Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, and housing. Housing is under the Department of HUD and is one of the government agencies Paul wishes to abolish. Government agencies that protect consumers, public, and environmental safety are also on his hit list.
Paul is definitely not fond of you gay folks. Matter of fact, he is in favor of the "death penalty" for homosexuals. Nor does he like Spanish speaking folks who do not speak English. As for us females, Paul thinks that sexual harrassment should be allowed in the workplace and if you don't like it...quit!
I wonder would Paul feel that way if women employees pulled a Loretta Bobbit on bosses who get too frisky with their women employees or if they clobbered those frisky oversexed bosses over the head with a stapler to protect themself from those unwanted sexual overtures.
When you pull the sheet off of Ron Paul, he is not who some gullible folks think he is.
.png)
25 comments:
Once again you hit the nail squarely on the head, Granny. Paul can't claim to not be racist, because his words and actions for many years have painted a clear picture of his racism.
As a black man, i have to say that Ron Paul looks awfully good to me as our next President. You can paint him as a racist if you want. But so is Obama. Under his administration more Blacks are out of jobs and homeless. So, let's give Ron Paul a chance. As Blacks we already know what Obama will do:NOTHING, except tell us to shut up and march...Obama has got to go.
Ron Paul is right. The Civil Rights Bill is unconstitutional because it denies people their right to Freedom of Association.
Restaurants should be able to serve who they want. Schools should be able to accept who they want. If people want to discriminate against minorities,women, and the disabled it should be allowed. Few businesses would.
The government should not have the power to enforce morality, or even to require polite beavior. It should only protect peoples "natural" rights: Life, Liberty, and Property.
Segregation can be evil, and I would not deny someone anything just because of their race. But segregation also makes sense in some cases.
Anonymous:
Evidently, you must not have been born prior to the Civil Rights Bill being passed.
Btw, I don't have to paint someone what they already are. I call it as I discern it and my discernment is keen.
What part do you fail to grasp about the unemployment and homelessness mess was already here when President Obama took office. He is not the cause of it!
Did you as a child have trouble piecing together puzzles too? Smh!
The Civil Rights Bill is NOT unconstitutional! In fact, it's constitutional because ALL citizens are entitled to equal rights under it, not just whites. It enforces and protects nonwhites, women, and others' equal rights, which they as citizens of America are entitled to as well.
Ron Paul does not have the right to tell anyone that they should not be allowed to share in those rights.
What rights would those be Granny?
Is Affirmative Action equal rights under the law?
If a private school thinks black students suffer by going to classes with white students and only wants to let black kids in, why shouldn't it be allowed to do so?
If a business decides making their store store handicapped accessible isn't cost effective, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? What right do we have to make other people accomodate our disabilities? It is nice and considerate to do so, but it should not be a matter of law.
If a private school thinks black students suffer by going to classes with white students and only wants to let black kids in, why shouldn't it be allowed to do so?
If a business decides making their store store handicapped accessible isn't cost effective, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? What right do we have to make other people accomodate our disabilities? It is nice and considerate to do so, but it should not be a matter of law.
The above sounds like something an evil dictator of a communist/socialist country would say.
No, an evil dictator of a communist/socialist country would say that they get to decide who you must do business with and how and where your children are educated.
Kind of like here.
In a free country, you have your Right of Free Association.
You can do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on other people's real rights: Life, Liberty and Property.
When you make up arbitary rights like the right to healthcare provided by someone else, or the right to a certain wage level paid by someone else, or the right to redistribute someone else's property based on your idea of 'fairness', you infringe on other people's real rights.
Discrimination based soley on race is irrational and usually hurts the discriminator (loss of business, loss of good employees, loss of good will), but it should not be illegal. People who do so and cannot provide justification are scorned by society, and suffer the consequences of their bigotry.
The government has no business enforcing polite behavior, only in protecting real (natural) rights: Life, Liberty, Property. Anything else is tyranny.
Ron/Rand Paul is that you?
No, they are too busy to spend time trying to get through to intellectual lightweights such as yourself.
Where is BD? At least he has the potential to understand something besides slogans.
Be gone, Deadeye.
@ Shamalla: Individualism is a White thing. Individualism might be an admirable idea in a homogeneous society, where group conflict is non-existent and a desire to work for the common good is ingrained in the national DNA and mindset. This state as it exists currently, provides Black people with a support system and avenues to power that would be denied them in a merit-based, individualist world
Black collectivist thinking is incredibly admirable and worthy of emulation by all racial groups, especially the burgeoning Hispanic minority population, for the racial spoils system in the United States rewards groups who put collective interests ahead of individualistic attitudes.
Without Black collectivist thinking, Fortune 500 companies might still discriminate in hiring practices and worse, the entire diversity industry that employs so many Black people in enforcing the new orthodoxy that pervades every section of America life wouldn't be in place.
The Black Caucus wouldn't be in place in the United States Congress; a United Negro Fund would be but a dream for Black people desiring to get into college who lack the athletic ability to earn a scholarship; Miss Black USA would have to compete against all those white girls in Miss USA pageants, and so forth.
Why deny that collectivism and tribalism isn't the wave of the future? It's already the trend in the Black community and helps to ensure that Black people get ahead in such an evil, bigoted white nation that keeps the Black man down.
You see, the United States of America is such a racist nation, Black people are encouraged to create institutions that have the explicit goal of promoting Black interests only, at the expense of other groups. Were the United States not a bigoted nation, these institutions would lose federal funding, receive no corporate grants and worse, lose their tax-exempt status, not to mention being snubbed by the media and treated like lepers.
No, collectivism is encouraged in the Black community ( and minority community ) in America with results that maintain the viability of affirmative action programs in every sector of United States life.
Interestingly, in all activities save for crime statistics and standardized test scores do Black people find enjoyment in the notion of collectivism.
It is obvious to anyone looking at this situation honestly that Black people reject notions of individualism in favor of collectivist thinking and that this is an incredibly healthy extension of a group understanding nature, instead of rejecting it.
Heck, Black people even have their own State of the Union (State of the Black Union), where yearly, more demands of tribute to the collectivist Black people of the nation are decreed for the white taxpayer to meet.
This is healthy and in accordance with nature. It is as if a giant brain bug connects all Black people to the Unified Theory of Black Supremacy (UTBS) that puts the promotion of the collective good for Black people ahead of the wonderful words of Dr. Martin Luther King, who hoped for a society where "content of character mattered more than the color of skin".
The Black racial mind instinctively works for the collective good in the heterogeneous United States of America and they collectively fight for the UTBS. Deviating from this agenda is heresy in the Black community.
This is because Black people understand that abandoning collectivism would mean the loss of their favored status and the power that comes with it. As Ann Rand said, "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism." Black people are completely invested in maintaining racism.
How is white privelege expressed?
We live in a country where affirmative action is the law, i.e. blacks have favored status.
Our entire government exists to prop up black people through government jobs, handouts, and extortion of white businesses.
The current reality, in which the blackness of blacks is relentlessly pushed into our faces when it advances blacks' interests or blacks' collective ego, but is covered up when it does not, is also extremely odd, and yet everyone takes it for granted. No one in mainstream America questions it.
This is an unreal situation that cannot last.
How is white privelege expressed?
We live in a country where affirmative action is the law, i.e. blacks have favored status.
Our entire government exists to prop up black people through government jobs, handouts, and extortion of white businesses.
The current reality, in which the blackness of blacks is relentlessly pushed into our faces when it advances blacks' interests or blacks' collective ego, but is covered up when it does not, is also extremely odd, and yet everyone takes it for granted. No one in mainstream America questions it.
This is an unreal situation that cannot last.
Paul Kersey said..."This is because Black people understand that abandoning collectivism would mean the loss of their favored status and the power that comes with it."
Blacks have a "favored status"? Blacks derive "power" from this favored status?
This has all the earmarks of a thesis you proposed in your college political science class.
"The Black racial mind instinctively works for the collective good in the heterogeneous United States of America."
So now, blacks are square pegs trying to fit into round holes.
Is the "collective good" anything like the "general welfare"?
It appears that our constitution has already set the stage for the collectivism you seem to abhor, that, and its emphasis on United, as in the United States of America.
The United States may be many things, but the promotion of heterogeneity isn't one of them.
In a vast sea of humanity we support a variety of diverse cultures: We have China Town, Korea Town, Little Tokyo, and Little Cuba. We have barrios, and ghettos. We have Jewish communities, Irish communities, and Italian communities.
So much for your notion of disparateness, unless you're referring to the balkanization of various cultures, as well as ethnic and racial groups in our country.
"Black people even have their own State of the Union (State of the Black Union), where yearly, more demands of tribute to the collectivist Black people of the nation are decreed for the white taxpayer to meet."
It appears that you're reveling in your own inanity, and in your self-deluded logic, but let me remind you of a fact which has, obviously, and conveniently, escaped you--blacks pay taxes as well.
If you see welfare as a white-paid tribute (another silly notion, I might add), then my money goes to pay for it as well--not only to blacks but to whites, and others petitioning the government for assistance.
Because blacks were systematically denied full participating in white culture, we made up for it by establishing our own cultural institutions.
I'm sure you would have done the same, given a similar set of conditions.
"Individualism is a White thing. Individualism might be an admirable idea in a homogeneous society, where group conflict is non-existent and a desire to work for the common good is ingrained in the national DNA and mindset."
Do we not all sing the National Anthem? Do we not all pledge allegiance to the same flag?
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Did it say, "one nation" "indivisible," or one nation individual?
Two
Individualism is a conservative thing--known, also, as "rugged individualism."
When the monied class sought to perpetuate its wealth, it created a philosophy, and an ideology that would guarantee its viability, and assure--at the same time--that it could secure its accumulated wealth, if only it could sell these conservative principles to some in the populace.
They called this ideology "conservatism," as it would conserve their wealth from the poor and the envious masses, by creating proxies in the body politic that would work tirelessly to promote this ideology, while preserving the wealth of this privileged and powerful group.
Sound familiar?
I find that that individualism is in conflict with the spirit of our constitution, and perhaps with the letter of it as well, as our Constitution establishes in its Preamble the prescription for the formation of a "more perfect Union," by providing "for the common defence, [and] promot[ing] the general Welfare."
Our cultural stories around unity and togetherness abound: A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Birds of a feather flock together. United we stand, divided we fall. In union there is strength. We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.
Paul Kersey said..."We live in a country where affirmative action is the law, i.e. blacks have favored status."
Stop your whining!
Everyday is "affirmative action" for whites. I tell you what, you take my "favored status," and I'll take yours.
Let's exchange my "black privilege," for your "white privilege."
"Our entire government exists to prop up black people through government jobs, handouts, and extortion of white businesses."
In that case, you wouldn't object to wearing black face. Look at all the government benefits that accrue to it. I'll bleach my skin white, and take upon myself the white burden that has been yours for so long, and you can paint yours black, and become a recipient of all that government largess.
By the way: Affirmative action didn't just seek to correct many of the social and economic inequities for blacks, but for white women, Hispanics, Asians, American Indians, and the disabled.
How telling it is that when you think of Affirmative Action you can only think black.
Shamalla said...
"No, an evil dictator of a communist/socialist country would say that they get to decide who you must do business with and how and where your children are educated."
Any business conducted in the public square--that is, a square owned in common by all who have contributed to it, by virtue of their tax dollars, carries with it an expectation that that business will not discriminate against those who have so contributed, but will surrender service upon demand, provided other legal restrictions have been observed.
Not to do so, is tyrannical!
As it is, the state dictates many of the privileges that we take for granted, where homes and businesses will be built (zoning laws), whether you can stay in business (Do you have a business license, and adhere to hundreds of codes, business codes, construction codes, etc.)
We live in a dictatorial society, where the government regulates many aspects of our daily life--where we can drive our automobile, how fast, and whether we can drive at all (are we licensed; have proper insurance)--together with a host of penalties, including incarceration if we don't comply.
If it's your goal to escape the dictatorial hand of government, let me suggest you move to an island outside of the jurisdiction of any political entity.
"When you make up arbitary rights like the right to healthcare provided by someone else, or the right to a certain wage level paid by someone else, or the right to redistribute someone else's property based on your idea of 'fairness', you infringe on other people's real rights."
Why is it, that you get to determine what the particulars of a "real right" are. You say that generically they are: "Life, Liberty and Property." You left out one: The "Pursuit of Happiness."
How can I pursue happiness, if my earnings are solely at the discretion of the capitalist that dictates my value, and my only recourse is to take it or leave it, further plunging me into the hole of despondency?
Without the might of government, I'll live out my days living under the tyranny of the rich and powerful, without recourse, and without the hope of improving my lot.
If "Life" is a real right, then having access to that which promotes this right, such as health care, shouldn't be abridged.
Two
If property is mine, and a right that can't be usurped, then I can withhold from you the water than flows across my land, prevent the government from establishing right of ways thorough the use of eminent domain, or seizing my property, simply because the government determines that it can put my property to better use (the provisions of a recent Supreme Court ruling.)
"Discrimination based soley on race is irrational and usually hurts the discriminator (loss of business, loss of good employees, loss of good will), but it should not be illegal."
I've addressed this elsewhere. If racial "discrimination" is so "irrational," why has it persisted for so many years. Further, it survived just fine down South under Jim Crow.
If your business is conducted in the public square, which the public hold in common, since it's maintained by the tax dollars of all, I have reasonable expectation of having my needs serviced, provided I'm adhering to other provisions of the law--not disturbing the peace, not threatening, or intoxicated.
A pharmacy in the public square can't deny me medicine, nor can a grocery store deny me food.
This notion that that which is "provided by someone else" is not ours to have--is not ours by right--is a specious argument.
In a society, the collective good, the "general welfare," becomes the social contract, where things are held in common for the benefit of all.
It would be a shame, and it's coming to that, where only those who can enter a park, travel on a road, cross a bridge, take in a view, swim in a lake, river, or ocean--are those who can afford it.
Perhaps that's the kind of world you relish, but it would be one that would severely impinge on my right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
You will know when this world has actually evolved--when it has expanded its view of the self, so that all things belong to all, and not to a few, that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is not just considered the province of a few, but within the reach of all.
Until that day, there will be wars, and rumors of war.
"Why is it, that you get to determine what the particulars of a "real right" are. You say that generically they are: "Life, Liberty and Property." You left out one: The "Pursuit of Happiness."
----
The "Pursuit of Happiness" is the term the Founders used. Locke used the term "Property".
Real rights are natural rights, not determined by me but by God. They are the rights every man is born with, the right to live, the the right to decide for himself, and the right to the fruits of his labor.
Any other right that infringes on these natural rights is illegitimate; a right created by government is only legitimate when it respects and protects natural rights.
The "Pursuit of Happiness" is the term the Founders used. Locke used the term "Property".
Are we bound by the provisions of Locke, the U.S. Constitution, or, as you state, the Rights that God bestows?
You say that Life is one of those Rights which God has bestowed upon His creation. Does that include all Life, or just the Life of humans?
Does that mean that to take a Life, whether through war, or the death penalty, or on a whim, is to violate the Will of God, who gave the Life, and who, since He's the giver, the only one with the authority to take it.
How about the Life of other creatures, be it taken for sport or for food? Do we have the authority to take that Life and still find that we're living in accordance with the Will of God.
Take Freedom: Do we have the authority to deprive others of this God-given, naturally bestowed, Right, whether through incarceration, or by force, or for their own protection?
Take Property: Can I use my Property in any manner I choose, since it's mine by Divine Right, even if it means that I deprive other of a Life-sustaining need such as food or water, or restrict them of a God-given Freedom of mobility, simply because I won't permit them to traverse the length of my property?
Take the Fruits of My Labor: Are they mine to do with as I choose, although there are those around me who're hungry, and who come begging at my gate?
Am I truly Free, truly Alive, and truly in Possession of a thing, while others, who we say are equal recipients of these things (God bestowed), are deprived of these very things for which we take for granted--either at the behest of others, or because of their own negligence.
In short: Am I my brother's keeper?
The comments have been interesting, profound, and intelligently discussed. I like it when people can sit down and discuss their differences in an adult manner because knowledge is imparted.
Granny:
I totally agree with your last comment; the exchange that took place was beautiful and on point.
BD: I don't believe that anyone could have expressed the views of many African-Americans as you did with such eloquence. Thank you.
Granny; this is truly an adult site.
If only we could get FN site reflect maturity that yours and BD's presents.
You're a doody head
Post a Comment