Friday, February 26, 2010

Leave it to a Marine to Stand on Principle and Common Sense.

General James Conway,
Commandant, USMC

The head of the US Marines said on Thursday he opposed ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the first top officer to break openly with President Barack Obama over the issue.

General James Conway told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he disagreed with Obama’s plan to repeal the ban.

“My best military advice to this committee, to the (defense) secretary, and to the president would be to keep the law such as it is.”

Conway said the current policy worked and any bid to lift the ban should answer the question: “do we somehow enhance the war fighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps by allowing homosexuals to openly serve?”

Conway’s public rejection of his commander-in-chief’s stance is sure to fuel debate in Congress on the issue and reflects apprehension among some senior military officers about changing the 1993law.

The chiefs of the US Army and Air Force also expressed doubts about lifting the ban at congressional hearings this week, saying they were concerned about putting the military under further strain in the midst of two wars.

But Conway went further, making it clear he opposed lifting the ban that requires gay service members to keep quiet about their sexual orientation or face expulsion from the military.

His comments contrasted sharply with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, who has spoken forcefully in favor of ending the ban.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called for a review of the issue to survey service members and examine the possible effect of changing the law, known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Senator Joe Lieberman disagreed with Conway, saying he believed the review would show that allowing gays to serve openly would bolster the military’s battle readiness.

“This has to pass the test of military readiness. I believe it will based on my knowledge of what’s happened in other militaries,” he said, citing British and Canadian forces who serve alongside American troops in Afghanistan.

My Comments: I, along with a vast majority of military veterans, active duty members and concerned citizens, applaud General Conway for having the 'stones' to stand his ground and provide some common sense on this subject. After all, what do homosexuals hope to gain by serving 'openly' in our Armed Forces? That's the crux of the issue. Contrary to popular belief, those serving in the military are a diverse group, holding different beliefs, religions, political affiliations, and yes, 'sexual orientations.' But what the left fails to see or understand (generally due to not having served themselves), is that the US Military is necessarily steeped in a tradition of discipline and dedication to Country and Mission OVER SELF. Those predisposed to a focus of 'self' over the 'group' or more specifically, 'the mission,' should go into the military because they will not fit into the mindset necessary to be part of a cohesive fighting force.

Here's the key thing to realize, 'Don't Ask/Don't Tell' doesn't JUST apply to homosexuals currently in uniform, it applies to ALL service members in that none are allowed to put their 'personal issues' ahead of their duty. For example, when I was active duty in the Air Force, I was an AIRMAN, I wasn't an 'Openly Conservative Airman,' or a 'Christian Airman,' or a 'hetero-sexual Airman', etc., I was simply an AIRMAN, just as were my brother and sister Airman-in-Arms. We all had various beliefs, thoughts, opinions, etc. and were radially allowed to have them, HOWEVER, when it came to our responsibilities and job, we were to be UNIFORM, eg, 'the same.'

What the left and many homosexuals want (as is generally their case), is to be afforded 'special treatment' whereby they can be demonstrative about their sexual-orientation while serving. That simply would NOT be in keeping with good order and discipline which is absolutely necessary in maintaining military unity, readiness and uniformity. The military has a strong stand against what it refers to as PDA, or Public Display of Affection, which was understood and well accepted by us hetro-sexual members, as necessary in keeping with decorum and military bearing. What the left and homosexuals want is ultimately, allow homosexual troops to 'Openly Display' their lifestyle in uniform; that aspect in itself destroys the whole foundation of 'Uniformity.'

We need to remember that when 'Don't Ask/Don't Tell' was originally introduced by the Clinton Administration, many felt that it would simply serve as the left's tool to 'get a foot in the door' to eventually pushing for openly gay service. This push by Obama proves our concerns were correct. It will be interesting to see if this great Marine Leader is removed from command for not being 'stylish' or politically correct? Maybe Obama would prefer Barney Frank or Richard Simmons as Marine Corps' Commandant?

The most ironic aspect (but yet a great lesson in action) of this is that General Conway's Marine Corps is the most conservative branch of our military, followed by the Air Force and Army, but our USMC falls under the Navy, which is by far the most traditionally liberal branch of our services. Adm. Michael Mullen, who as current Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the one pushing this. He was a 1968 graduate of Annapolas and is the son of a Hollywood Press Agent; as it's been said before, 'the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree...'

I think this is inspiring me to write a piece on the dangers of having 'politicians in uniform' in the future. While a vast majority of flag-rank officers -such as Douglas MacArthur, Curtis LeMay, George Patton, Lewis B. 'Chesty' Puller, have been great, loyal patriotic leaders, there have been numerous examples of those who weren't, such as Benedict Arnold, but more recently, William Crowe, Erik Shinseki, Lee Butler and Merrill McPeak. who instead were crass self-serving political opertunitists who did terrible damage to their service branches. It's also interesting how these type generally 'make their moves' under Democrat Administrations.

I don't expect Navy Chief of Staff, Adm. Gary Roughead, to stand against his boss Mullin on this for two principal reasons: 1. He wants to have a shot at the JCS Chairmanship himself, and 2. He's currently allowing three of our own Navy Seals -Petty Officers, Matthew McCabe, Jonathan Keefe, and Julio Huertas- to be thrown under the bus of political correctness to be made examples of. Their crime? They supposedly 'roughed-up' Ahmed Hashim Abed, a 'Most Wanted' Terrorist and suspected ringleader of the group that back in 2004, ambushed and murdered four Blackwater Security Guards and later hung their mutilated bodies off a bridge in Fallujah. Having been singled-out by the liberal Navy high-command to be made examples-of, these three brave SEALS refused traditional non-judicial punishment — called a captain's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial because of their refusal to bow-down to a Kangaroo Court proceeding when they simply did the job they were trained to do. See related link here:,2933,576646,00.html

Links on General Conway and related issues:,2933,576646,00.html

Press On,

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Mike Bouchard Outlines Real Ideas for Job Creation in Michigan

From Lansing State Journal, February 25th

Lansing – Michigan can once again be a state with a thriving economy and abundant jobs, Republican candidate for governor Mike Bouchard said today, but steps must be taken to reverse current policies that undermine the state’s competitiveness.

Bouchard announced his “Stop Wasting Time, Start Creating Jobs” plan, which would institute critical reforms to cut government red tape and break down other barriers that stifle job creation. The changes would establish a new regulatory environment that is more reasonable and predictable for businesses and would streamline Michigan’s economic development system to make it more effective.

“There is no time to waste,” Bouchard said. “We need to get the old way that Michigan does business out of the way. Government should be working with, rather than against, job creators and making it easier for them to grow and invest here.”

Bouchard’s plan calls for a freeze of all pending regulatory rules until a review of existing regulations is completed. As governor, Bouchard would not sign any regulatory bills into law until a detailed cost-benefit analysis is done on behalf of the citizens and job providers it would affect. He would also require environmental and regulatory standards to be based on sound science and reasoning.

The state’s permitting process would be reformed, with some permit mandates eliminated and the rest simplified. The review process would be expedited and timelines set in stone, so businesses looking to locate or expand in Michigan can depend on specific dates when planning.

“With Michigan’s current regulatory burdens and tax structure, we cannot compete with other states in the Union – let alone the world,” Bouchard said. “We can and must take the steps needed to make our state an economic contender again.”

His plan would overhaul the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and consolidate the current 300 pages of economic development laws into a single, coherent Michigan Economic Development Code.

“We will also end the practice of helping favored businesses and industries rather than the economy as a whole,” Bouchard said. “Programs that pick winners and losers must go.”

To help job providers satisfy Michigan’s regulatory requirements in a timely manner, Bouchard would assemble a team of “economic development account executives” who would be charged with helping businesses cut through government red tape, secure necessary permits and navigate their way through government requirements successfully.

Bouchard recognizes that the top two creators of jobs are business startups and businesses that expand. Therefore, he would focus government efforts and incentives more on growing businesses in Michigan.

“An environment that improves the health of our ‘home-grown’ businesses will have a much greater impact on Michigan’s economy than policies that are designed to get companies to relocate,” Bouchard said.

Citing the current administration’s use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds (ARRA) to balance the state’s budget rather than making significant structural reforms to state government, Bouchard vowed to use any available ARRA funds to “foster job creation not government preservation.”

The “Stop Wasting Time, Start Creating Jobs” plan is part of Bouchard’s blueprint to fix Lansing and get Michigan back to work. It draws on his experience as a small-business owner and as a former state senator who helped bring Michigan to better economic times in the 1990s.

Visit, for more information on Bouchard’s plan to fix Lansing and get Michigan back to work.

Mark's Notes: This my friends is LEADERSHIP. Mike Bouchard offers concrete solutions while Mike Cox doesn't. I hope my fellow Michigander's are seeing the difference?

Also, in the last few days, we've learned that Jenny Granholm is looking to raid the coffers of the Michigan Sheriff's Departments to further prop-up the MSP. While I back all Law Enforcement agencies, we need to be aware that all Law Enforcement Agencies ARE NOT created equal. OUR Sheriff's are the most vital to us for they were designed and established by our Founding Fathers as our ELECTED, Constitutional Liberty Defenders. Granholm knows this which is why she has no problem gutting them.

ALWAYS 'follow the money' to uncover the truth...

Help support our Michigan Sheriff's by joining the Michigan Sheriff's Association:

Press On,

Post Script: Having a Democrat as a Sheriff, is like putting a pedofile in charge of a Daycare Center.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Constitutionalist Spotlight: Gene Taliercio

Gene Taliercio for Michigan's 12th District Senate Seat

I recently announced my campaign for the Michigan State Senate seat as a Republican in the 12th District. Michigan’s economy has been irrevocably altered in fundamental ways over the last decade. Some characterize our state as an economic, social and political landscape in crisis just short of an industrial graveyard. In truth Michigan is a vast canvas of opportunity on which a new economy will recapture the productivity, prosperity and prestige of Michigan as the economic engine that powered the world over the last century.

A catch phrase that has caught on recently is “Fix Michigan.” My campaign focus is – Michigan isn’t broken! Have its resources and assets been mismanaged and marginalized? – Yes. Is it suffering from the excesses of big government fiscal abuse? – Yes. But Michigan isn’t broken. It has been denied visionary and energetic Leadership. Leadership committed to guaranteeing every business sector and every community the tools and support required to do what they do best – commanding the market place by creating jobs, providing goods, services and products.

Being a family member of a three generation small independent business, I have built and sustained our company, celebrating our successes and overcoming difficult times by finding workable solutions. Today, not unlike many of my business associates and competitors alike we are managing our operations for survival – not growth. Each of us throughout the business community know what works and the issues facing Michigan will not be resolved by more legislation of questionable value, intrusive policy initiatives, regulatory mandates or confiscatory tax structures.

In coming weeks, I will be meeting with business and industry leadership in District 12 and elsewhere as well as other conservative candidates across the state to form a coalition dedicated to the common principals and values we know to be successful in the private sector. Our purpose is that as in business and industry throughout the state, the business of governance and governing the State of Michigan has to be First Class Business conducted in a First Class Way. I will also be presenting a comprehensive plan for stabilizing existing businesses, stimulating existing businesses in need and promoting sustainability in our economy recapturing the prosperity of Michigan.

In recent weeks, Michigan legislators have proposed a variety of budget cuts for the fiscal year 2011. However, the benefit packages with which legislators continue to provide themselves remain detrimental to our state budget.

Recently, the Detroit Free Press reported, “Lawmakers agree they should eliminate generous state health insurance for legislators who have served as few as six years, but they disagree whether the ban should apply to them or only future lawmakers.” Simply put, they don’t mind cutting future legislators’ benefits, as long as the cuts don’t affect their own pocketbooks.

During the short period in which I have been campaigning to be your next State Senator, I have discovered a number of shocking, yet little known, facts about our public servants. For example:

Did you know: State legislators receive compensation of $80,000 per year in addition to a $1,000 monthly expense allowance. Michigan legislators are amongst the highest paid in the nation.

Did you know: State legislators work merely three days a week (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday).

Did you know: After serving only six years in the state legislature, legislators are entitled to receive a lifetime healthcare and pension plan.

Fellow Michiganders, I will put it bluntly: Lansing is financially broke. If our state government was a business, it would be in receivership. The Capitol Building’s furniture would be on the front lawn waiting to be auctioned off.

As a candidate for the Michigan State Senate, I pledge to voluntarily give up my lifetime pension and healthcare benefits. I also support a 10% pay reduction for all Michigan legislators. Leadership starts with one’s own actions. Lucrative life time legislator entitlements need to go!

Meeting the goals we have set for this campaign and my service to you as your State Senator in the 12th District I will not be allowed the latitude of timid acts or the hollow grand gestures of past legislatures. My campaign is grounded on service to those whom I will represent; it is a commitment I take seriously. I look forward to meeting as many of you as possible in the near future and urge you to contact my campaign office at (248) 844-9700 with any suggestions.


Gene Taliercio
Candidate for State Senate, 12th District

Mark's Notes: This is my first in an ongoing series of 'Constitutionalist Conservative' Spotlight Posts. In talking with Mr. Taliercio, I've been very impressed with his sincere dedication to seeing a restoration of our Constitutional Republic with adherence to fiscal responsibility and smaller government.

In my opinion, Gene is one of a new breed of office-seeker, a Contrarian,' and someone who is truly 'One of Us.' A businessman, who understands what it takes to meet a payroll and make tough decisions to insure his business operates in the black. Gene displays great selfless leadership, integrity and quite frankly, guts, in being willing to expose the dirty truths about Michigan's inflated legislative pay and benefit structure. Such 'contrarianism' is quite rare today and indicative of a Statesman rather than typical Political hack.

Although I won't always make an indorsement before the Primary, I am comfortable in standing behind Gene Taliercio for 12th District Senator.

Friday, February 19, 2010

Nothing New Under the Sun: Socialist Democrats Return to 1934

by Mark Baker

1934 saw the turning point in the great depression in America with unemployment decreasing to 22% . But in other parts of the world some of the political changes occurring would cause the next world war. In Germany Adolf Hitler declared himself the fuhrer (ultimate ruler), in Russia Stalin was ramping-up for his 'Purges' of non-followers, which by the end of 1938 would see the 'elimination' of between 950,000 and 1.2 million Russians he deemed as enemies of the state. In China, Mao Tse-Tung was spreading strict communist doctrine. In the United States, ongoing drought problems in the US midwest continued from 1933, causing some 35 million acres of utterly destroyed farmland and a further 225 million acres in grave danger, causing some to claim that our weather patterns were entering a period of irreversible change that would forever ruin large swaths of crop-producing lands. With these issues as a backdrop, FDR established a plethora of government-run public works agencies around the country that built bridges, roads, post offices and a slew of other government buildings as well as flood control Dams, all under the call of 'putting America back on her feet.'

A careful examination of FDR's first two terms revel frightening facts that we weren't taught in school, which furthermore have been been substantiated over time. In his 1991 writings concerning the results of FDR's socialist programs, Joesph G. Hornberger, President of 'The Future of Freedom Foundation,' wrote:

'The watershed years were 1932-1937 — the first two presidential terms of Franklin D. Roosevelt. This was the crucial period in American history — the period in which Americans abandoned the principles of economic liberty on which our nation was founded. For it was during this time that the welfare-state, planned-economy way of life replaced the private-property, market-economy way of life which had existed up to that time.

Of course, this is not what Americans have been taught. From the first grade in their government-approved schools, the American people have been indoctrinated into believing that the Great Depression was the failure of America's free-enterprise system, that FDR's New Deal saved free enterprise, and that the economic system which characterizes the United States today is one of free enterprise. And the indoctrination is so effective that adults continue to believe the myths with falsehoods despite truth and reality and, even worse, continue to force their children to undergo the same political indoctrination in today's government-approved schools.

With exceptions (slavery being the worst), during the first 150 years of America's history, people were free to live their lives in any way they chose as long as their actions did not entail violence or fraud against others. Americans could engage in any economic enterprise without permission or regulation ... accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth without political interference ... do whatever they wanted with their money ... and travel anywhere in the world without a passport or other evidence of governmental consent.

This unique way of life was what distinguished the United States from all other nations in history. It was this way of life that became known as one of "free enterprise."

And our American ancestors believed that charity — the caring of human beings for each other — meant nothing unless it came from the willing hearts of individuals. And so our ancestors provided a way of life in which people could not be forced to help or serve others. The result was the most charitable nation in the history of man.

In 1913, the abandonment began. For it was during that year that the 16th Amendment — the income tax — was enacted. Appealing to the sins of envy and covetousness, the American politicians and bureaucrats promised that the tax would be levied only on the rich and that it would never exceed a very minute percentage. Ignoring the warnings of their ancestors, the American people rendered unto Caesar the omnipotent power to control the fruits of their earnings.

But that wasn't all. Also in 1913, the American people permitted the passage of the Federal Reserve Act which created a central bank, enabling governmental officials to control the amount of credit and currency in the economy. It was an action which ultimately would match — if not exceed — the destructive power of the income tax.

As documented so well by free-market economists Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Murray Rothbard, during the 1920s, the Federal Reserve Board, exercising its power to expand the money supply, caused an inflationary binge — an action which created a false aura of prosperity. When the political authorities — faced with this inflationary threat and restrained by the gold standard — finally ceased the monetary expansion near the end of the decade, the inevitable economic hangover was reflected in the 1929 stock market crash and in generally depressed economic conditions. In other words, contrary to the indoctrination which the American people have received from their political authorities, the Great Depression was not the failure of America's free-enterprise system — it was the failure of political manipulation of money and credit.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected President in 1932. Faced with the Great Depression — a depression which had been caused by government itself — Roosevelt's "solution" was to implement the socialist-fascist economic system under which Americans now suffer. Under the banner of "saving America's free-enterprise system," FDR was directly responsible for the abandonment of America's 150-year history of free enterprise.

Arguing that the American people could no longer be trusted to be charitable to others, FDR claimed that government — the organized means of coercion and compulsion — was needed to help those in need. And to effect this claim, he secured the passage of his New Deal for Americans. Roosevelt used the disastrous results of one governmental intervention — political manipulation of money — to justify another — the socialist ideal of using government to steal from those who have in order to give the loot to those who need.

And what the American people had permitted to be done to them in 1913 came back to haunt them in a terribly disastrous way, for it was through the income tax and the power to expand money and credit that Roosevelt was able to accomplish effectively his political plundering and looting, not only from the rich but from everyone in all walks of life.

But Roosevelt did more than just enshrine into the American political and economic system the ideas of Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin (the mass murderer FDR affectionately referred to as "Uncle Joe"). Greatly admiring Benito Mussolini's fascist system in Italy, Roosevelt proceeded to implement the same type of economic system in the U.S. For example, his National Recovery Act gave him virtually unlimited dictatorial powers over American business and industry. And any American citizen who did not do his "patriotic" duty by supporting the NRA and its "Blue Eagle" soon found himself at the receiving end of FDR's vengeance and retaliation.

And it was during this period of time that such alien schemes as the Social Security Act, the FDIC, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Emergency Banking Relief Act the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Federal Securities Act, and the National Labor Relations Act came into existence — all with the aim of taking control of people's lives as well as absolving them from responsibility for errors and foolhardiness by giving them the political loot that had been stolen from others.

But all of this was not sufficient for FDR. He persuaded Congress to provide him a power which Stalin and Mussolini proudly possessed: the power to nationalize people's gold. And his confiscation of gold was accompanied by one of the most shameful acts in American history: the repudiation of government debts payable in gold — the noteholders, most of whom were Americans who had in good faith trusted their government, were instead paid in devalued paper money.

And what was the reaction of the American people to the evil, immoral, and tyrannical acts of FDR? Like people in other parts of the world who were suffering under dictatorial rule — Russians, Germans, and Italians — most of them reacted like sheep — meekly going along with their own slaughter and, in many instances, ardently supporting it. Having lost the sense of self-reliance which had characterized their ancestors — having lost their faith in freedom and themselves — having lost their faith in God Himself — the American people proceeded to relinquish to Caesar the power to direct their lives and plunder their fortunes, just as people throughout history had done.

But there were great patriots who stood fast and fought hard against the evil and immoral machinations of FDR. Some were well-known — men like John T. Flynn, Albert J. Nock, Garet Garrett, and Hamilton Fish. Others were less well-known — and now long forgotten — but who were equally devoted to the principles of America's Founding Fathers — men like Benjamin Wallace Douglass, a farmer from Brown County, Indiana; William S. Mudd, a newspaperman from Tuscaloosa, Alabama; and J. Edward Jones, an oil man from Kansas. Knowing that FDR was one of the most ruthless men who have ever held political office, these individuals nonetheless pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in the defense of what they knew to be right.

For several years, the U.S. Supreme Court, led by four justices — Sutherland, Butter, Van Devanter, and McReynolds — declared FDR's socialist and fascist New Deal policies in violation of the United States Constitution — in violation of every principle of individual liberty and limited government on which this nation was founded.

But the end came in 1937. In what many judicial scholars say was a result of Roosevelt's disgraceful and pathetic attempt to pack the court with some of his cronies, a fifth justice — Owen J. Roberts, whose vote had helped to invalidate much of the New Deal — shifted his vote in favor of Roosevelt's policies. And with Roosevelt thereafter being able to replace dying and retiring justices with ones who would do his bidding, the era of American economic liberty came to a sad and tragic end.

Is it possible to recapture the principles of freedom on which America was founded — to end the welfare-state, planned-economy way of life — to return to a true free-enterprise system — to regain the moral principles associated with individual liberty and limited government? You bet it is! But it will take a willingness to confront reality and to free our minds — and those of our children — from years of political indoctrination ... a readiness to fight for what we know to be right and true ... a faith in freedom and the caring nature of others ... and a conviction that man, not government, should ultimately control his own destiny.'

Fast forward to 2010. We have Barrack Obama as President. Obama, who, like all political animals, states a lot of things for the sake of 'expediency,' as well as, let's face it, because the masses are generally quite gullible, so on average, political-hacks generally feel that they can get away with it. While a few of these things they state turn out to be bold-faced lies, eg. his numerous statements of 'I'm going to run the most TRANSPARENT administration in history and will televise all Health care Reform negotiations on CSPAN for all to see.'

Most of their statements are simply just gross manipulations of of facts and figures to fit their current needs and desires, but the end results are the same -increased power, size and outreach of the Federal Government, while reducing the the freedoms of The People. The methods, goals and outcomes of these 'programs' are not only un-Constitutional, but endanger the Republic.

I encourage everybody who loves and appreciates our Constitution and wishes to help defend our Constitutional Republic to GET INVOLVED! For my fellow Michiganders, a good place to 'Plug-In' with, is 'Common Sense In Government:

Press On,

Monday, February 15, 2010

:Barack Hussein Obama: 1st Year Review.

by Mark Baker

One down and three to go. Barack Hussein Obama, the current POTUS via 'Community Organizer, via 142-day US Senator, has given us... just about one would expect from an inexperienced individual. But for the sake of reflection, let's review the 'highlights' of the first year of the Obama Presidency:

1. The American people inaugurate a President with a total of 142 days experience as a US Senator from the most politically corrupt city/state in America.

2. The U.S. Congress rushes to confirm , Eric Holder, whose law firm we later find out represents seventeen Gitmo Terrorists.

3. The CIA Boss appointee, Leon Panetta, has absolutely no experience or background in the intelligence community.

4. We got the second most corrupt American woman (Pelosi is #1) as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

5. We got a Tax Cheat for Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, who did not properly file his own taxes to the tune of $34,000 ("An honest mistake," says the White House's top flack. Oh? ).

6. A Commerce Secretary nominee who withdrew due to corruption charges.

7. A Tax cheat nominee for Chief Performance Officer who withdrew under charges (Hmmm, notice a pattern?).

8. Labor Secretary nominee, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, withdrew as a Grand Jury Investigation ramped-up to look into charges he awarded no-bid state contracts to friends and large financial contributors.

9. A Secretary HHS nominee (Tom Daschle) who withdrew under charges of cheating on his taxes to the tune of over $128,000, and also 'forgot' to report all his Speaking Fees (Taxes are for the 'little people' to pay apparently).

10. Multiple appointments of former lobbyists after numerous campaign promises that no lobbyists would be appointed under an Obama Administration.

All this occurred just during the first three weeks, but who's counting? There's many more shameful items and lies (eg., what about all the "CSPAN Transparency" promises Obama waxed-on about everywhere he spoke as a candidate?), but 10 is sufficient to establish that he's just another dirty liar with an agenda.

America is being run by the modern-day Three Stooges; Barry, Nancy and Harry and they are still trying to define stimulus and how it supposed to have 'saved us?' The congress passes the $800,000,000,000 (that's $800 billion)pork-loaded spending bill where the government gives you a smidgen of your tax dollars ($13 per week), making you feel so good about yourself [stimulated], that you want to run out to Wal-Mart and buy a new Chinese-made HDTV!

Here's the good news though:

1. Obama flew to Copenhagen and went before the International Olympic Committee to 'leverage his Presidential Influence' with the Selection Committee to choose Chicago for a host city. Chicago didn't even make the finals, getting eliminated in the first round.

2. Obama flew to New Jersey to promote the sitting Democrat Governor, John Corzine for re-election; Corzine loses to Chris Christie. Corzine became first New Jersey governor to lose a re-election bid since 1993, when then-Gov. Jim Florio, a Democrat, lost to GOP challenger Christine Todd Whitman.

3. Obama flew to Virginia to promote Democrat Creigh Deeds for Governor. Republican, Bob McDonnell won the race easily by a vote of 59%-41%. In his win, McDonnell received the highest percentage of the vote for Governor of any candidate since 1961.

4. In early January last month, Obama flew to Massachusetts to promote Democrat Martha Coakly in the special election to replace a dead Ted Kennedy for the Senate Seat. Coakly looses to Scott Brown. This seat had been held by Kennedy since 1962, who was himself elected in a special election in 1962 to fill the vacancy created when his brother, John F. Kennedy, was elected President in 1960.

These examples don't bid well for a President who has had more then three times as many TV appearances as either of the two previous presidents had at the same points in their first year. Apparently Obama doesn't carry anywhere near the same degree of clout that the Office typically wields.

Could it be that the American people aren't quite as stupid and naive as Obama and his legion of smug socialists think we are? Even though Air Force One is expensive to operate, in light of the proven results of BO's 'Support Visits,' I hope he flys here to Michigan to 'support' the likes of Debbie Stabenow, the Levin brothers and John Conyers. Obama's become the political equivelent to the eboli virus and many in his own party are looking to distance themselves from him.

Here are a few other things 'unique' about the Obama Presidency:

* Though claiming to be Christian, the Obama's have not attended church since the inauguration.

* Obama is the 1st President in history who did not hold a traditional Christmas with his family.

* And finally, he is the 1st president to remain on vacation after a terrorist attack (albeit a failed one). Given that 'Panty-Bomber,' Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's crotch-bomb (80 grams of pentaerythritol tetranitrate {PETN}) was interupted by Dutch passenger, Jasper Schuringa, Obama received a Christmas present while his daughters didn't.

Mark's Notes: For those of you who want to track this 'unique' presidency up close, check out the 'Idiots for Obama Blog' in my Blogs-Followed List in the right margin.

Press On, Mark.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Party Elites Fickle: Either Attempt to Dismiss or Hijack Tea Party Movement

By JB Williams

The real grass-roots patriot movement has a clear message for Washington DC…

In 2010 and 2012, it’s going to be the patriot way or the highway for DC elitists in both political parties and there is nothing the DC establishment can do to stop it or hijack it!

Sure, if the movement really was about six hundred Palin fans in Nashville, it would be easily hijacked and frankly, if that was the case, why bother to hijack it?

Contrary to media efforts to paint the patriot movement as a fractured “leaderless movement” headed for the ash heap or the anti-establishment political bone yard, the patriot movement is far from leaderless. In fact, unlike the political left always in search of a messiah, the right is full of leaders, all over the country.

It is however, without any particular political messiah… and that’s what makes politicos nervous. Political messiahs are for the political left, not the right.

While some new patriots are enamored with the star power of a Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck, the patriots of old are under no illusions about the status quo politics that aims to misdirect attention away from a true grass-roots reclaiming of the country, onto the latest media darling of the moment.

Politicos can’t fathom that average American patriots can muster the power to reclaim their country without a political messiah to lead the way. They can’t begin to imagine the true power of a real grass-roots movement committed to real patriotic change, or maybe they simply dare not imagine such an insurmountable force.

In the old political paradigm, one could always follow the money trail to find the power behind a political movement. But there is no real money trail to follow behind the patriot movement, and that’s driving political analysts stark raving mad.

In fact, if there is a money trail to follow, it probably isn’t a grass-roots movement. That might be the easiest way to separate the real movement from the profit or power driven poseurs trying to ride the wave of millions of patriots currently fed up with all of the poseurs.

The American people do not need a political messiah, nor do they need a billionaire George Soros in order to take their country back from the international socialists now in control.

All they need is millions of average American patriots, unified in a tangible strategy, who share a common take-no-prisoners commitment to protecting and preserving individual freedom and liberty.

Leaderless? Not exactly…
The patriot movement is made up of millions of American citizens from all fifty states, not six hundred Palin groupies televised from Nashville last weekend. Nothing against Sarah - I’m sure she makes a mean moose stew. But defacto messiah of the Tea Party she ain’t… and believe me, if you’re willing to pay $500 to $1000 each to listen to Sarah read from the palm of her hand at a rate of $2500 per minute - you’re a Sarah groupie…

There are local leaders, county leaders, state leaders, regional leaders and national leaders. They are in Tea Party, 912, Town Hall and We the People groups. Leadership is easy to find in the political right, and that in part, is what makes unifying the right somewhat of a challenge, like herding cats, so to speak.

The Unifying Convention
What aimed to be nothing more than a profit venture in Nashville has indeed turned out to be a unifying event. The millions who declined to attend the event in Nashville are more unified than ever, to some degree, as a direct result of the media circus in Nashville.

Palin’s effort to create an impression of RNC Tea Party unity before heading off to campaign for Tea Party archenemy John McCain, backfired. It has instead, been reported as a failed palm cluttered crib note attempt to hijack the movement, or more accurately, create that impression for the press.

The applause lines were all in place, but the obvious lack of substance was overwhelming. Sarah had to remind herself to “be uplifting.” No, seriously…

Patriots vs. Poseurs
A January 26, 2010 Politico article reports – “Newt Gingrich wants a new Contract for America. - Dick Armey and his tea party allies want a Contract from America. - House Minority Leader John Boehner has his own ideas along these lines, and he just hired the guy who was in charge of the original Contract for America to help out.”

But the American patriots already have a “contract with and for America….” It’s called the US Constitution. It provides certain unalienable rights to states and individuals, along with very specific limited enumerated powers to the federal government, which is to exist and perform at the pleasure of the people and the states.

The Tenth Amendment was added for those with poor comprehension skills. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The patriot movement exists because neither political party recognizes the terms and conditions of that contract as of today, and if any DC politicians want to keep their job, that is going to have to change.

The idea that Gingrich or Army can come up with a better Contract for America than the US Constitution overestimates the talents of two well-known inside the beltway politicos, and underestimates the brilliance of our Founding Fathers. Honestly, the effort looks more like a campaign launching pad for Gingrich-Army 2012, than any grass-roots organization.

The patriot movement is not about Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Gingrich, Army, Palin or Beck. It’s about the US Constitution, our free-market economy and the future of freedom, liberty and prosperity in America.

It’s not about Republicans and Democrats - it’s about patriots and poseurs.

Elitists Had Better Prepare for the Worst
The unwashed masses are awake, they are aware, they are engaged, and that’s what has everyone talking, and some retiring before they can lose their re-election bid.

But it’s about to get much worse for the elitist poseurs in DC and the lame stream press…

If you think they are worried about the patriot movement today, just wait until they see all of those patriot groups unified in purpose, moving together as one, headed in the same direction, at the same time, by the millions, with one goal in mind…. Taking their nation back from the poseurs!

They say it can’t happen, because they hope it won’t happen and they will say or do anything to keep it from happening. But in the end, they can’t stop it and they can’t hijack it.

This day is near… First they woke up, then they became aware, then they engaged and then, they united…

The left fears nothing more than a unified right. But this day is coming, and it is coming very soon. The poseurs will fall by the wayside and the patriots will coalesce. Early signs are visible, and the urgency is growing. The more the left tries to divide the right, the more united the right will become. The more the RNC tries to harness the movement, the more the movement will seize control of the RNC.

The time is near, the moment is right. The United States of America does not belong to a handful of career politicos or international thugs. This country belongs to American patriots and some DC elites have mistaken tolerance for acceptance.

Marxism (aka progressivism) will never be acceptable in America, and the people’s tolerance is at end.

It’s not a revolution, it’s a restoration, and it just can’t end well for those foolish enough to back a rattlesnake or an American patriot into a corner.

Mark's Notes: Mr. JB Williams is a persuasive conservative writer indeed. Mr. Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. JB Williams’ website is:
JB Williams can be reached at:

This article was originally posted at Canada Free Press here:

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Laffer: Obama Budget Is Plan for Catastrophe

By: Julie Crawshaw, February 10, 2010

Economist Arthur B. Laffer, head of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan and founder and chairman of economic research and consulting firm Laffer Associates, says President Barack Obama’s proposed budget “is the perfect plan for catastrophe.”

“It shows no spending restraint and is raising tax rates,” Laffer told Newsmax.TV’s Kathleen Walter.

He said the budget blueprint puts a greater burden on people who work and gives more money to people who don’t.

Video — Laffer: Obama Budget Is Plan for Catastrophe

“If you tax people who work and pay people who don’t, do not be surprised if you find a lot of people not working,” Laffer says.

“If you tax rich people and give the money to poor people, you’re going to have lots and lots of poor people and no rich people,” he says.

Get "Return to Prosperity" by Arthur Laffer from Amazon at a Great Price — Click Here!

“The dream in America has always been to make the poor rich, not to make the rich poor. Obama’s budget literally tries to make the rich poor and does not try to make the poor rich,” he says.

If you have two locations with different tax rates, producers and manufacturers will move to the locale with lower rates, he says.

Obama takes no account whatsoever on the effect this will have on global competitiveness and the creation of jobs in the United States, he says.

Obama, Laffer says, is wrong on every single issue, is unrealistic, lacks experience and is causing a lot of damage to the economy.

“It’s just incredible how systematic he is in making errors,” Laffer observes.

“It’s a classic professorial response: In the classroom, you never have skin in the game, you’re never held accountable for your pronouncement, and that’s exactly what’s going on here,” he says.

Laffer would like to return to the tactics Paul Volcker used when he took over the Fed, which include intervening in the money markets to maintain purchasing power and parity of the dollar.

“The results were incredible,” Laffer says. “The dollar soared, interest rates tumbled and inflation literally disappeared from the U.S.”

Laffer also suggests eliminating the alternative minimum tax and reinstating the Bush tax cuts that are currently scheduled to expire this year.

Not reinstating the cuts will make 2010 look very good on paper and cause a major recession in 2011.

“If you know that tax rates are going to go up on January 1, 2011, you try to accelerate all the income you possibly can into 2010, which will make 2010 look a lot better than it should,” he points out. “Then, on January 1, 2011, the train goes off the track.”

The sheer size of unfunded liabilities is “awesome, just amazing,” Laffer says.

Civil service and military retirement and medical benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and that’s not even taking into account things like California and unfunded pensions.

The Obama administration needs to go through each of these and literally change the rules.

“You’ve got to go through all these programs meticulously and make sure you eliminate things that increase unfunded liabilities, which now exceed $100 trillion,” Laffer says. “Our GDP is only worth $14 trillion.”

Laffer wants to see unspent bailout funds returned.

“Not only have those programs not done any good, they’ve actually hurt the economy, and they’ve hurt it a lot,” he says.

“You can’t bail someone out of trouble without putting someone else into trouble. For every stimulus check written, there is a liability to someone else," he says. "The sooner we stop the stimulus packages, the better off we’ll be.”

Laffer expects the U.S. economy will look very strong for 2010, but none of the things that will make it appear strong will be present in 2011.

The government has printed huge amounts of new money, he points out, which has stimulated stock and bond prices and commodity prices, but the effects of that will be short-lived.

However, we should not lose hope that the United States will once again become the land of opportunity, says Laffer.

“All we have to do is go back to common sense economics. If we had a low flat-rate tax … can you imagine how this economy would boom with that? It would be beautiful,” he says.

“And if you make the dollar solid … people won’t have to go into gold and silver. We can do that just the way Paul Volcker did.”

Mark's Notes: To those of you who haven't already done so, I would advise you to strongly consider finding a small local, or regional bank to do your banking. If you currently bank with any of the large national banks (especially any who received TARP Bailout cash), I'd pull your deposits and put them in a local independent bank. For those of you who live in the greater Lansing, Michigan area, I would recommend Dart Bank, which is a VERY solid, conservative, fiercely independent, family-based bank:

Also consider joining a local Credit Union that you may qualify for. Use this link to find a Credit Union near you:

Press On, Mark

Frederick Douglass Series/Unmasking the Black Conservative, Part III: 1865 'Equality of All men' Speech

by Mark Baker

The occasion for this speech was the Annual Meeting of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society in Boston, April, 1865. The crux of Douglass' speech was on the Equality of all men before the law. It needs to be noted that this speech by Douglass, was delivered just days before the end of the Civil War and the assassination of President Lincoln.

"I came here, as I come always to the meetings in New England, as a listener, and not as a speaker; and one of the reasons why I have not been more frequently to the meetings of this society, has been because of the disposition on the part of some of my friends to call me out upon the platform, even when they knew that there was some difference of opinion and of feeling between those who rightfully belong to this platform and myself; and for fear of being misconstrued, as desiring to interrupt or disturb the proceedings of these meetings, I have usually kept away, and have thus been deprived of that educating influence, which I am always free to confess is of the highest order, descending from this platform. I have felt, since I have lived out West [Douglass means west of Boston, in Rochester, NY], that in going there I parted from a great deal that was valuable; and I feel, every time I come to these meetings, that I have lost a great deal by making my home west of Boston, west of Massachusetts; for, if anywhere in the country there is to be found the highest sense of justice, or the truest demands for my race, I look for it in the East, I look for it here. The ablest discussions of the whole question of our rights occur here, and to be deprived of the privilege of listening to those discussions is a great deprivation.

I do not know, from what has been said, that there is any difference of opinion as to the duty of abolitionists, at the present moment. How can we get up any difference at this point, or any point, where we are so united, so agreed? I went especially, however, with that word of Mr. Phillips, which is the criticism of Gen. Banks and Gen. Banks' policy. [Gen. Banks instituted a labor policy in Louisiana that was discriminatory of blacks, claiming that it was to help prepare them to better handle freedom. Wendell Phillips countered by saying, "If there is anything patent in the whole history of our thirty years' struggle, it is that the Negro no more needs to be prepared for liberty than the white man."] I hold that that policy is our chief danger at the present moment; that it practically enslaves the Negro, and makes the Proclamation [the Emancipation Proclamation] of 1863 a mockery and delusion. What is freedom? It is the right to choose one's own employment. Certainly it means that, if it means anything; and when any individual or combination of individuals undertakes to decide for any man when he shall work, where he shall work, at what he shall work, and for what he shall work, he or they practically reduce him to slavery. [Applause.] He is a slave. That I understand Gen. Banks to do--to determine for the so-called freedman, when, and where, and at what, and for how much he shall work, when he shall be punished, and by whom punished. It is absolute slavery. It defeats the beneficent intention of the Government, if it has beneficent intentions, in regards to the freedom of our people.

I have had but one idea for the last three years to present to the American people, and the phraseology in which I clothe it is the old abolition phraseology. I am for the "immediate, unconditional, and universal" enfranchisement of the black man, in every State in the Union. [Loud applause.] Without this, his liberty is a mockery; without this, you might as well almost retain the old name of slavery for his condition; for in fact, if he is not the slave of the individual master, he is the slave of society, and holds his liberty as a privilege, not as a right. He is at the mercy of the mob, and has no means of protecting himself.

It may be objected, however, that this pressing of the Negro's right to suffrage is premature. Let us have slavery abolished, it may be said, let us have labor organized, and then, in the natural course of events, the right of suffrage will be extended to the Negro. I do not agree with this. The constitution of the human mind is such, that if it once disregards the conviction forced upon it by a revelation of truth, it requires the exercise of a higher power to produce the same conviction afterwards. The American people are now in tears. The Shenandoah has run blood--the best blood of the North. All around Richmond, the blood of New England and of the North has been shed--of your sons, your brothers and your fathers. We all feel, in the existence of this Rebellion, that judgments terrible, wide-spread, far-reaching, overwhelming, are abroad in the land; and we feel, in view of these judgments, just now, a disposition to learn righteousness. This is the hour. Our streets are in mourning, tears are falling at every fireside, and under the chastisement of this Rebellion we have almost come up to the point of conceding this great, this all-important right of suffrage. I fear that if we fail to do it now, if abolitionists fail to press it now, we may not see, for centuries to come, the same disposition that exists at this moment. [Applause.] Hence, I say, now is the time to press this right.

It may be asked, "Why do you want it? Some men have got along very well without it. Women have not this right." Shall we justify one wrong by another? This is the sufficient answer. Shall we at this moment justify the deprivation of the Negro of the right to vote, because some one else is deprived of that privilege? I hold that women, as well as men, have the right to vote [applause], and my heart and voice go with the movement to extend suffrage to woman; but that question rests upon another basis than which our right rests. We may be asked, I say, why we want it. I will tell you why we want it. We want it because it is our right, first of all. No class of men can, without insulting their own nature, be content with any deprivation of their rights. We want it again, as a means for educating our race. Men are so constituted that they derive their conviction of their own possibilities largely by the estimate formed of them by others. If nothing is expected of a people, that people will find it difficult to contradict that expectation. By depriving us of suffrage, you affirm our incapacity to form an intelligent judgment respecting public men and public measures; you declare before the world that we are unfit to exercise the elective franchise, and by this means lead us to undervalue ourselves, to put a low estimate upon ourselves, and to feel that we have no possibilities like other men. Again, I want the elective franchise, for one, as a colored man, because ours is a peculiar government, based upon a peculiar idea, and that idea is universal suffrage. If I were in a monarchial government, or an autocratic or aristocratic government, where the few bore rule and the many were subject, there would be no special stigma resting upon me, because I did not exercise the elective franchise. It would do me no great violence. Mingling with the mass I should partake of the strength of the mass; I should be supported by the mass, and I should have the same incentives to endeavor with the mass of my fellow-men; it would be no particular burden, no particular deprivation; but here where universal suffrage is the rule, where that is the fundamental idea of the Government, to rule us out is to make us an exception, to brand us with the stigma of inferiority, and to invite to our heads the missiles of those about us; therefore, I want the franchise for the black man.

There are, however, other reasons, not derived from any consideration merely of our rights, but arising out of the conditions of the South, and of the country--considerations which have already been referred to by Mr. Phillips--considerations which must arrest the attention of statesmen. I believe that when the tall heads of this Rebellion shall have been swept down, as they will be swept down, when the Davises and Toombses and Stephenses, and others who are leading this Rebellion shall have been blotted out, there will be this rank undergrowth of treason, to which reference has been made, growing up there, and interfering with, and thwarting the quiet operation of the Federal Government in those states. You will se those traitors, handing down, from sire to son, the same malignant spirit which they have manifested and which they are now exhibiting, with malicious hearts, broad blades, and bloody hands in the field, against our sons and brothers. That spirit will still remain; and whoever sees the Federal Government extended over those Southern States will see that Government in a strange land, and not only in a strange land, but in an enemy's land. A post-master of the United States in the South will find himself surrounded by a hostile spirit; a collector in a Southern port will find himself surrounded by a hostile spirit; a United States marshal or United States judge will be surrounded there by a hostile element. That enmity will not die out in a year, will not die out in an age. The Federal Government will be looked upon in those States precisely as the Governments of Austria and France are looked upon in Italy at the present moment. They will endeavor to circumvent, they will endeavor to destroy, the peaceful operation of this Government. Now, where will you find the strength to counterbalance this spirit, if you do not find it in the Negroes of the South? They are your friends, and have always been your friends. They were your friends even when the Government did not regard them as such. They comprehended the genius of this war before you did. It is a significant fact, it is a marvellous fact, it seems almost to imply a direct interposition of Providence, that this war, which began in the interest of slavery on both sides, bids fair to end in the interest of liberty on both sides. [Applause.]

It was begun, I say, in the interest of slavery on both sides. The South was fighting to take slavery out of the Union, and the North was fighting to keep it in the Union; the South fighting to get it beyond the limits of the United States Constitution, and the North fighting to retain it within those limits; the South fighting for new guarantees, and the North fighting for the old guarantees;--both despising the Negro, both insulting the Negro. Yet, the Negro, apparently endowed with wisdom from on high, saw more clearly the end from the beginning than we did. When Seward said the status of no man in the country would be changed by the war, the Negro did not believe him. [Applause.]

When our generals sent their underlings in shoulder-straps to hunt the flying Negro back from our lines into the jaws of slavery, from which he had escaped, the Negroes thought that a mistake had been made, and that the intentions of the Government had not been rightly understood by our officers in shoulder-straps, and they continued to come into our lines, threading their way through bogs and fens, over briers and thorns, fording streams, swimming rivers, bringing us tidings as to the safe path to march, and pointing out the dangers that threatened us. They are our only friends in the South, and we should be true to them in this their trial hour, and see to it that they have the elective franchise.

I know that we are inferior to you in some things--virtually inferior. We walk about you like dwarfs among giants. Our heads are scarcely seen above the great sea of humanity. The Germans are superior to us; the Irish are superior to us; the Yankees are superior to us [Laughter]; they can do what we cannot, that is, what we have not hitherto been allowed to do. But while I make this admission, I utterly deny, that we are originally, or naturally, or practically, or in any way, or in any important sense, inferior to anybody on this globe. [Loud applause.]

This charge of inferiority is an old dodge. It has been made available for oppression on many occasions. It is only about six centuries since the blue-eyed and fair-haired Anglo-Saxons were considered inferior by the haughty Normans, who once trampled upon them. If you read the history of the Norman Conquest, you will find that this proud Anglo-Saxon was once looked upon as of coarser clay than his Norman master, and might be found in the highways and byways of Old England laboring with a brass collar on his neck, and the name of his master marked upon it. You were down then! [Laughter and applause.] You are up now. I am glad you are up, and I want you to be glad to help us up also. [Applause.]

The story of our inferiority is an old dodge, as I have said; for wherever men oppress their fellows, wherever they enslave them, they will endeavor to find the needed apology for such enslavement and oppression in the character of the people oppressed and enslaved. When we wanted, a few years ago, a slice of Mexico, it was hinted that the Mexicans were an inferior race, that the old Castilian blood had become so weak that it would scarcely run down hill, and that Mexico needed the long, strong and beneficent arm of the Anglo-Saxon care extended over it. We said that it was necessary to its salvation, and a part of the "manifest destiny" of this Republic, to extend our arm over that dilapidated government. So, too, when Russia wanted to take possession of a part of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks were an "inferior race." So, too, when England wants to set the heel of her power more firmly in the quivering heart of old Ireland, the Celts are an "inferior race." So, too, the Negro, when he is to be robbed of any right which is justly his, is an "inferior man." It is said that we are ignorant; I admit it. But if we know enough to be hung, we know enough to vote. If the Negro knows enough to pay taxes to support the government, he knows enough to vote; taxation and representation should go together. If he knows enough to shoulder a musket and fight for the flag, fight for the government, he knows enough to vote. If he knows as much when he is sober as an Irishman knows when drunk, he knows enough to vote, on good American principles. [Laughter and applause.]

But I was saying that you needed a counterpoise in the persons of the slaves to the enmity that would exist at the South after the Rebellion is put down. I hold that the American people are bound, not only in self-defence, to extend this right to the freedmen of the South, but they are bound by their love of country, and by all their regard for the future safety of those Southern States, to do this--to do it as a measure essential to the preservation of peace there. But I will not dwell upon this. I put it to the American sense of honor. The honor of a nation is an important thing. It is said in the Scriptures, "What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" It may be said, also, What doth it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, but lose its honor? I hold that the American government has taken upon itself a solemn obligation of honor, to see that this war--let it be long or short, let it cost much or let it cost little--that this war shall not cease until every freedman at the South has the right to vote. [Applause.]

It has bound itself to it. What have you asked the black men of the South, the black men of the whole country to do? Why, you have asked them to incure the enmity of their masters, in order to befriend you and to befriend this Government. You have asked us to call down, not only upon ourselves, but upon our children's children, the deadly hate of the entire Southern people. You have called upon us to turn our backs upon our masters, to abandon their cause and espouse yours; to turn against the South and in favor of the North; to shoot down the Confederacy and uphold the flag-- the American flag. You have called upon us to expose ourselves to all the subtle machinations of their malignity for all time. And now, what do you propose to do when you come to make peace? To reward your enemies, and trample in the dust your friends? Do you intend to sacrifice the very men who have come to the rescue of your banner in the South, and incurred the lasting displeasure of their masters thereby? Do you intend to sacrifice them and reward your enemies? Do you mean to give your enemies the right to vote, and take it away from your friends? Is that wise policy? Is that honorable? Could American honor withstand such a blow? I do not believe you will do it. I think you will see to it that we have the right to vote. There is something too mean in looking upon the Negro, when you are in trouble, as a citizen, and when you are free from trouble, as an alien. When this nation was in trouble, in its early struggles, it looked upon the Negro as a citizen. In 1776 he was a citizen. At the time of the formation of the Consitution the Negro had the right to vote in eleven States out of the old thirteen. In your trouble you have made us citizens. In 1812 Gen. Jackson addressed us as citizens--"fellow-citizens." He wanted us to fight. We were citizens then! And now, when you come to frame a conscription bill, the Negro is a citizen again. He has been a citizen just three times in the history of this government, and it has always been in time of trouble. In time of trouble we are citizens. Shall we be citizens in war, and aliens in peace? Would that be just?

I ask my friends who are apologizing for not insisting upon this right, where can the black man look, in this country, for the assertion of his right, if he may not look to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society? Where under the whole heavens can he look for sympathy, in asserting this right, if he may not look to this platform? Have you lifted us up to a certain height to see that we are men, and then are any disposed to leave us there, without seeing that we are put in possession of all our rights? We look naturally to this platform for the assertion of all our rights, and for this one especially. I understand the anti-slavery societies of this country to be based on two principles,--first, the freedom of the blacks of this country; and, second, the elevation of them. Let me not be misunderstood here. I am not asking for sympathy at the hands of abolitionists, sympathy at the hands of any. I think the American people are disposed often to be generous rather than just. I look over this country at the present time, and I see Educational Societies, Sanitary Commissions, Freedmen's Associations, and the like,--all very good: but in regard to the colored people there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. [Applause.]

The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. Gen. Banks was distressed with solicitude as to what he should do with the Negro. Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, "What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don't disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot- box, let him alone, don't disturb him! [Applause.]

If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone,--your interference is doing him a positive injury. Gen. Banks' "preparation" is of a piece with this attempt to prop up the Negro. Let him fall if he cannot stand alone! If the Negro cannot live by the line of eternal justice, so beautifully pictured to you in the illustration used by Mr. Phillips, the fault will not be yours, it will be his who made the Negro, and established that line for his government. [Applause.] Let him live or die by that. If you will only untie his hands, and give him a chance, I think he will live. He will work as readily for himself as the white man.

A great many delusions have been swept away by this war. One was, that the Negro would not work; he has proved his ability to work. Another was, that the Negro would not fight; that he possessed only the most sheepish attributes of humanity; was a perfect lamb, or an "Uncle Tom;" disposed to take off his coat whenever required, fold his hands, and be whipped by anybody who wanted to whip him. But the war has proved that there is a great deal of human nature in the Negro, and that "he will fight," as Mr. Quincy, our President, said, in earlier days than these, "when there is reasonable probability of his whipping anybody." [Laughter and applause.]

Mark's Notes:

Frederick Douglass Series/Unmasking the Black Conservative, Part II:' The July 4th, 1852 Rochester Speech

by Mark Baker

Frederick Douglass (1817-1895) was the best known and most influential African American leader of the 1800s. He was born a slave in Maryland but managed to escape to the North in 1838.

He traveled to Massachusetts and settled in New Bedford, working as a laborer to support himself. In 1841, he attended a convention of the Massachusetts Antislavery Society and quickly came to the attention of its members, eventually becoming a leading figure in the New England antislavery movement.

In 1845, Douglass published his autobiography, "The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: an American Slave" (one of my all time favorite books and one all conservatives should read for inspiration and to fully understand the true meaning of Freedom). The book was a bold and unprecedented work, and its revelation that he was an escaped slave, created a buzz that caused Douglass to became fearful of possible abduction and re-enslavement by slave agents who roamed throughout the northern 'Free States'searching for escaped slaves. Thus, Frederick fled to Great Britain and stayed there for two years, giving lectures in support of the antislavery movement in America. With the assistance of English Quakers, Douglass raised enough money to buy his own his freedom and in 1847 he returned to America as a free man.

He settled in Rochester, New York, where he published The North Star, an abolitionist newspaper. He directed the local underground railroad which smuggled escaped slaves into Canada and also worked to end racial segregation in Rochester's public schools.

In 1852, the leading citizens of Rochester asked Douglass to give a speech as part of their Fourth of July celebrations. Douglass accepted their invitation.

In his speech, however, Douglass delivered a scathing attack on the hypocrisy of a nation celebrating freedom and independence with speeches, parades and platitudes, while, within its borders, nearly four million humans were being kept as slaves. Here is that powerful speech:

"Fellow citizens, pardon me, and allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I or those I represent to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? And am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits, and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions. Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold that a nation's sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation's jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the "lame man leap as an hart."

But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you this day rejoice are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity, and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak today? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you, that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation (Babylon) whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin.

Fellow citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions, whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are today rendered more intolerable by the jubilant shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, "may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!"

To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs and to chime in with the popular theme would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world.

My subject, then, fellow citizens, is "American Slavery." I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing here, identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July.

Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity, which is outraged, in the name of liberty, which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery -- the great sin and shame of America! "I will not equivocate - I will not excuse." I will use the severest language I can command, and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slave-holder, shall not confess to be right and just.

But I fancy I hear some of my audience say it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother Abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more and denounce less, would you persuade more and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed. But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slave-holders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of these same crimes will subject a white man to like punishment.

What is this but the acknowledgment that the slave is a moral, intellectual, and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments, forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read and write. When you can point to any such laws in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then I will argue with you that the slave is a man!

For the present it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are plowing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver, and gold; that while we are reading, writing, and ciphering, acting as clerks, merchants, and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators, and teachers; that we are engaged in all the enterprises common to other men -- digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hillside, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives, and children, and above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave -- we are called upon to prove that we are men?

Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? That he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to understand? How should I look today in the presence of Americans, dividing and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom, speaking of it relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively? To do so would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven who does not know that slavery is wrong for him.

What! Am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood and stained with pollution is wrong? No - I will not. I have better employment for my time and strength than such arguments would imply.

What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman cannot be divine. Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can, may - I cannot. The time for such argument is past.

At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. Oh! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation's ear, I would today pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be denounced.

What to the American slave is your Fourth of July? I answer, a day that reveals to him more than all other days of the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mock; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy - a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation of the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour.

Go search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival."

Frederick Douglass - July 4, 1852

Mark's Notes: As you can imagine, Douglass' passionate speech didn't offer any quarter to the complacency and hypocrisy that existed at the time. Many felt that while his speech was accurate, he shouldn't have issued it on such an occasions as during 4th of July Celebrations. I feel that Frederick more then likely felt that he had no choice to do so as he was more then aware of the fact that most eastern elites viewed him -an articulate, intelligent, self-educated, escaped slave- as more of a commodity or prize to show-off, then as a man equal to them.

In light of recent revelations of racially odious 'slip-ups' by political and media elitists Harry Reid and Chris Matthews, not to mention numerous additional revelations by leading liberal leftists over the years (see my 1st post in this series on Douglass) as well as the very condescending, paternalistic nature at the core of so many of Democratic 'Programs' that in my opinion serve as the 'New Plantation' for keeping black Americans down. In essence, the left, through these programs, replaced outright slavery with a insidious form of permanent indentured servitude wherein a whole people are help captive by an elite group who provide basic life-needs in exchange for the captive groups allegiance and votes; selling ones soul and freedom for a 'Bridge Card' and ADC payments.

My favorite Douglass quote is the following, that I feel speaks to ALL of us today as we recoil at what's becoming of our great nation:

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." -Frederick Douglass

I hope you're enjoying the Frederick Douglas Series and invite you to look for the third installment, Frederick's 'What the Black Man Wants,' speech given in April 1865 within days of the close of the Civil War and Lincoln's assassination.

Monday, February 8, 2010

Frederick Douglass/Unmasking the Black Conservative Series, Part I: 'The Church & Prejudice' Speech

by Mark Baker

This last month has been one of deep reflection for me. On January 30th, I posted a review of my thoughts on Denzel Washington's latest film, 'The Book of Eli.' As I shared in that post, beyond finding the film, and Washington's performance both inspirational and poignant, it caused me to deeply ponder what so drove Mr. Washington's passion to make (star and produce) such a bold, politically 'in-correct' film in a time which increasing numbers of individuals refer to as 'Post Christian?' That thought-seed caused me to research Denzel's life, from childhood as a pastors son, to present-day, as a devout, loving husband and father, and a contrarian man who rejects the Hollywood lifestyle for one of real substance based on the foundations of God, Family and Hard Work. Nobody 'gave' Denzel Washington anything, yet he today stands as one of the Film Industries' most respected and sought after actors.

It finally struck me a couple days later; what I liked most about 'The Book of Eli' was that it was racially neutral. Here was a man whose heart was strong and pure enough to be worthy of Gods greatest trust, to protect and deliver the last copy of His Word, the Bible to a safe place where it could again be duplicated for all men. He was pure and devout, but could be brutal with those who stood between he and his calling. Contrast this to the ignorant, racially-charged statements of those on the left who can't seem to see anything other then the color of a man's skin (or tone thereof).

Let us not forget (as Barack has shown a propensity to do)the comments of Joe Biden regarding Obama when he was running again he was himself seeking the Presidency: Told the New York Observer on January 31, 2007, that Barack Obama is "the first mainstream African-American [presidential candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." Then we had Harry Reid's self-expose wherein he shared his belief that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned African American with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

The fallout from this revelation was barely settled, when a day after Obama's first SOTU speech, Chris Matthews, appearing on his own network, offered his portion of what Psychologists refer to as 'Projection,' with:

"I was trying to think about who he was tonight..... It's interesting. He is post-racial, by all appearances... I forgot he was black tonight for an hour." "He's gone a long way to become a leader of this country and past so much history in just a year or two," Matthews said of the first African American president. "I was watching him... he's an African American guy in front of a bunch of other white people, and there he is, the president of the United States, and we've completely forgotten that tonight. "I think it was in the scope of his discussion, it was so broad-ranging, so in tune with so many problems and aspects of American life, that you don't think in terms of the old tribalism, the old ethnicity... it was astounding in that regard. "It's so hard to talk about, maybe I shouldn't talk about it.'' Yeah, maybe not Chris, but we actually appreciate white liberals racial slip-ups, because although Senator Robert Byrd was the last white liberal Democrat who actually wore a Klan Hood in public:

"I am a former Kleagle [recruiter] of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County. . . . The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the union."

--Robert C. Byrd, 1946
Democratic Senator from West Virginia, 1959-present
Senate Majority Leader, 1977-80 and 1987-88
Senate President Pro Tempore, 1989-95, 2001-03, 2007-present
His portrait stands in the U.S. Capitol.

So imagine my outrage, when I went to Michigan's State Capitol last Wednesday night to attend my first Tea Party sponsored by Wendy Day and Melanie Hall's 'Common Sense in Government' Movement (See my February 4th Post herein). As soon as the invited speakers began giving their speeches, a group of militant radicals including what appeared to be white hippy re-treds and several young 'students' both black and white, but all loud, rude and in some cases physically aggressive, shouted chants at the top of their lungs. After several minutes of this behavior, I approached one holding a bull-horn and politely asked who they represented. My cordiality was met with profanity questioning my linage and accusations of racism on my part though I'd said nothing of a racial nature. At this same time I realized that I was now surrounded by four large young black 'students,' two of whom were pushing me and attempting to get me to physically engage them. State Police Troopers intervened at this point and minutes later began moving the whole group back as they continued to taunt other Tea Party attendees.

While I was relieved to have not have been assaulted, I was struck with the fact that this group wasn't there to engage in rational debate of any sort, but rather to simply obstruct the free speech of others and attempt to 'frighten away' attendees through intimidation.

A black women who like me had come to hear the 'Common Sense in Government' speakers, introduced herself and offered an apology for the rude behavior of the thugs I'd encountered. I told her that she had nothing at all to apologize for as she wasn't part of that group. The other thing that bothered me about the obstructors was that a few of them carried Martin Luther King signs referring to his Dream Speech. I couldn't help but wonder what words Dr. King would have 'shared' with these idiots if he could be there? I began to wish that great men like Dr. King and Frederick Douglas (one of my all-time hero's) could return to us to speak to this generation; I wonder what they'd have to say to those who falsly claim to 'Care-for' and speak for Black Americans such as the Democrat Party and racist idiots such as Reid and Matthews?

That evening caused me to do a little research on the default champions of these leftest wonks, Democrats. What I uncovered is a documented poor history on the subject of race as evidenced in these quotes:

"Blacks are "a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race."

-Chief Justice Roger Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1856
Appointed Attorney General by Andrew Jackson in 1831
Appointed Secretary of the Treasury by Andrew Jackson in 1833
Appointed to the Supreme Court by Andrew Jackson in 1836

"I hold that a Negro is not and never ought to be a citizen of the United States. I hold that this government was made on the white basis; made by the white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men and none others."

--Sen. Stephen A. Douglas (D., Ill.), 1858

Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, 1860
"Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect."

--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1860

"The Almighty has fixed the distinction of the races; the Almighty has made the black man inferior, and, sir, by no legislation, by no military power, can you wipe out this distinction."

--Rep. Fernando Wood (D., N.Y.), 1865
Mayor of New York City, 1855-58, 1860-62

"My fellow citizens, I have said that the contest before us was one for the restoration of our government; it is also one for the restoration of our race. It is to prevent the people of our race from being exiled from their homes--exiled from the government which they formed and created for themselves and for their children, and to prevent them from being driven out of the country or trodden under foot by an inferior and barbarous race."

--Francis P. Blair Jr., accepting the Democratic nomination for Vice President, 1868
Democratic Senator from Missouri, 1869-72
His statue stands in the U.S. Capitol.

"Instead of restoring the Union, it [the Republican Party] has, so far as in its power, dissolved it, and subjected ten states, in time of profound peace, to military despotism and Negro supremacy."

--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1868

"While the tendency of the white race is upward, the tendency of the colored race is downward."

--Sen. Thomas Hendricks (D., Ind.), 1869
Democratic nominee for Vice President, 1876
Vice President, 1885

"We, the delegates of the Democratic party of the United States . . . demand such modification of the treaty with the Chinese Empire, or such legislation within constitutional limitations, as shall prevent further importation or immigration of the Mongolian race."

--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1876

"Republicanism means Negro equality, while the Democratic Party means that the white man is supreme. That is why we Southerners are all Democrats."

--Sen. Ben Tillman (D., S.C.), 1906
Chairman, Committee on Naval Affairs, 1913-19

"This is a white man's country, and will always remain a white man's country."

--Rep. James F. Byrnes (D., S.C.), 1919
Appointed to the Supreme Court by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941
Appointed Secretary of State by Harry S. Truman in 1945

"Slavery among the whites was an improvement over independence in Africa. The very progress that the blacks have made, when--and only when--brought into contact with the whites, ought to be a sufficient argument in support of white supremacy--it ought to be sufficient to convince even the blacks themselves."

--William Jennings Bryan, 1923
Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, 1896, 1900 and 1908
Appointed Secretary of State by Woodrow Wilson in 1913
His statue stands in the U.S. Capitol.

"Anyone who has traveled to the Far East knows that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results. . . . The argument works both ways. I know a great many cultivated, highly educated and delightful Japanese. They have all told me that they would feel the same repugnance and objection to have thousands of Americans settle in Japan and intermarry with the Japanese as I would feel in having large numbers of Japanese coming over here and intermarry with the American population. In this question, then, of Japanese exclusion from the United States it is necessary only to advance the true reason--the undesirability of mixing the blood of the two peoples. . . . The Japanese people and the American people are both opposed to intermarriage of the two races--there can be no quarrel there."

--Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1925
President, 1933-45

"Mr. President, the crime of lynching . . . is not of sufficient importance to justify this legislation."

--Sen. Claude Pepper (D., Fla.), 1938
Spoken while engaged in a six-hour speech against the antilynching bill

"President Truman's civil rights program "is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill. . .. I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill."

--Rep. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1948
U.S. Senator, 1949-61
Senate Majority Leader, 1955-61
President, 1963-69

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

--Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957

"I have never seen very many white people who felt they were being imposed upon or being subjected to any second-class citizenship if they were directed to a waiting room or to any other public facility to wait or to eat with other white people. Only the Negroes, of all the races which are in this land, publicly proclaim they are being mistreated, imposed upon, and declared second-class citizens because they must go to public facilities with members of their own race."

--Sen. Richard B. Russell Jr. (D., Ga.), 1961
The Russell Senate Office Building is named for him.
(Speech delivered at the Plymouth County Anti-Slavery Society, November 4, 1841)

"I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes."

--Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, 1961
Kennedy later authorized wiretapping the phones and bugging the hotel rooms of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"Everybody likes to go to Geneva. I used to do it for the Law of the Sea conferences and you'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva."

--Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D., S.C.) 1993
Chairman, Commerce Committee, 1987-95 and 2001-03
Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 1984

"I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation."

--Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), 2004
Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 2008

Now, I'd like to share the first of three speeches given by the great Frederick Douglas, the ex-slave, abolishionist, statesmen whose wisdom speaks not just to those of his own race, but rather, all men.

THE CHURCH AND PREJUDICE (Speech delivered at the Plymouth County Anti-Slavery Society, November 4, 1841):

"At the South I was a member of the Methodist Church. When I came north, I thought one Sunday I would attend communion, at one of the churches of my denomination, in the town I was staying. The white people gathered round the altar, the blacks clustered by the door. After the good minister had served out the bread and wine to one portion of those near him, he said, "These may withdraw, and others come forward;" thus he proceeded till all the white members had been served. Then he took a long breath, and looking out towards the door, exclaimed, "Come up, colored friends, come up! for you know God is no respecter of persons!" I haven't been there to see the sacraments taken since.

At New Bedford, where I live, there was a great revival of religion not long ago--many were converted and "received" as they said, "into the kingdom of heaven." But it seems, the kingdom of heaven is like a net; at least so it was according to the practice of these pious Christians; and when the net was drawn ashore, they had to set down and cull out the fish. Well, it happened now that some of the fish had rather black scales; so these were sorted out and packed by themselves. But among those who experienced religion at this time was a colored girl; she was baptized in the same water as the rest; so she thought she might sit at the Lord's table and partake of the same sacramental elements with the others.

The deacon handed round the cup, and when he came to the black girl, he could not pass her, for there was the minister looking right at him, and as he was a kind of abolitionist, the deacon was rather afraid of giving him offense; so he handed the girl the cup, and she tasted. Now it so happened that next to her sat a young lady who had been converted at the same time, baptized in the same water, and put her trust in the same blessed Saviour; yet when the cup containing the precious blood which had been shed for all, came to her, she rose in disdain, and walked out of the church. Such was the religion she had experienced!

Another young lady fell into a trance. When she awoke, she declared she had been to heaven. Her friends were all anxious to know what and whom she had seen there; so she told the whole story. But there was one good old lady whose curiosity went beyond that of all the others--and she inquired of the girl that had the vision, if she saw any black folks in heaven? After some hesitation, the reply was, "Oh! I didn't go into the kitchen!"

Thus you see, my hearers, this prejudice goes even into the church of God. And there are those who carry it so far that it is disagreeable to them even to think of going to heaven, if colored people are going there too. And whence comes it? The grand cause is slavery; but there are others less prominent; one of them is the way in which children in this part of the country are instructed to regard the blacks.

"Yes!" exclaimed an old gentleman, interrupting him--"when they behave wrong, they are told, 'black man come catch you.'" Yet people in general will say they like colored men as well as any other, but in their proper place! They assign us that place; they don't let us do it for ourselves, nor will they allow us a voice in the decision. They will not allow that we have a head to think, and a heart to feel, and a soul to aspire. They treat us not as men, but as dogs--they cry "Stu-boy!" and expect us to run and do their bidding. That's the way we are liked. You degrade us, and then ask why we are degraded--you shut our mouths, and then ask why we don't speak--you close our colleges and seminaries against us, and then ask why we don't know more.

But all this prejudice sinks into insignificance in my mind, when compared with the enormous iniquity of the system which is its cause--the system that sold my four sisters and my brothers into bondage--and which calls in its priests to defend it even from the Bible! The slaveholding ministers preach up the divine right of the slaveholders to property in their fellow- men. The southern preachers say to the poor slave, "Oh! if you wish to be happy in time, happy in eternity, you must be obedient to your masters; their interest is yours. God made one portion of men to do the working, and another to do the thinking; how good God is! Now, you have no trouble or anxiety; but ah! you can't imagine how perplexing it is to your masters and mistresses to have so much thinking to do in your behalf! You cannot appreciate your blessings; you know not how happy a thing it is for you, that you were born of that portion of the human family which has the working, instead of the thinking to do! Oh! how grateful and obedient you ought to be to your masters! How beautiful are the arrangements of Providence!

Look at your hard, horny hands--see how nicely they are adapted to the labor you have to perform! Look at our delicate fingers, so exactly fitted for our station, and see how manifest it is that God designed us to be His thinkers, and you the workers--Oh! the wisdom of God!"--I used to attend a Methodist church, in which my master was a class leader; he would talk most sanctimoniously about the dear Redeemer, who was sent "to preach deliverance to the captives, and set at liberty them that are bruised"--he could pray at morning, pray at noon, and pray at night; yet he could lash up my poor cousin by his two thumbs, and inflict stripes and blows upon his bare back, till the blood streamed to the ground! all the time quoting scripture, for his authority, and appealing to that passage of the Holy Bible which says, "He that knoweth his master's will, and doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes!"

Such was the amount of this good Methodist's piety.

Mark's Notes: Please stay tuned for two additional segments on Douglas' Speeches. The next Douglas Segment will feature Frederick's speech from July 4th, 1852 to the elites of Rochester, NY, who had invited him to speak as part of their Independence Celebrations. Rather than offer a shallow 'rah, rah' speech, Frederick spoke from the heart and offered a searing speech that spoke to the hypocracy of celebrating Freedom in a country where millions were currently still held as slaves. The third and last installment will highlight Douglass' April, 1865 speech to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society in Boston on the topic of The Equality of all men before the law; Note that this was given within days of the close of the Civil War and the assassination of President Lincoln.