State's Rights have been maligned by Democrats and the Left as of late. Congressman Rand Paul made press time while discussing state's ability to nullify federal laws that are stifling to individual states.
Yet be careful, Democrats, what arguments you take up. As far back as the Constitution Convention, the Democratic-Republicans fought for a Bill of Rights on the premise of State's Rights. Andrew Jackson's vice president John C. Calhoun looked to remove South Carolina from a burdensome federal tariff. Democrats continued to staunchly support rights of the individual states throughout the 19th and 20th centuries in regard to slavery, Jim Crow and disenfranchisement.
For whatever reasons the battle over State's Rights was fought, the concept of a republic stands strong under differences between the states, unfettered in most respects from a centralized federal government. At times our rights and mechanisms of the separate levels of government work in favor of ideals we disagree with. Harken back a few decades to Skokie, Illinois. A group used the First Amendment as protection to hold a parade most found deplorable; the ACLU saw fit to protect their right to march in court.
In short, Democrats arguing State's Rights has been used as a tool of the racist is correct (yet they have primarily been Democrats using the defense), but their admonition is tantamount to claiming freedom of speech is a tool of the National Socialist Party. Because both have been held up as justifications to anger us, is that any reason to remove whole mechanisms?
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Campaign "donations"?
Yesterday The DrudgeReport linked to a pair of blog posts (here and here) reporting the 2012 Obama presidential campaign is accepting wedding and birthday gift donations in the recipient's name.
Today (6/24) Drudge linked to a Politico article (complete with video) of the emcee at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference instructing the attendees to use their utensils before a Secret Service protected speaker speaks. The Service was going to collect the forks; apparently knives had not part of the initial silverware offering.
Perhaps the Obama campaign was planning on melting down the metal for campaign lucre?
Today (6/24) Drudge linked to a Politico article (complete with video) of the emcee at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference instructing the attendees to use their utensils before a Secret Service protected speaker speaks. The Service was going to collect the forks; apparently knives had not part of the initial silverware offering.
Perhaps the Obama campaign was planning on melting down the metal for campaign lucre?
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
David Maraniss, author of Barack Obama, The Story, was heard defending President Obama's memoirs written when the young man was apparently an aspiring fiction writer. Publishing self laudatory tales in the form of two autobiographies, we are to believe the 30-year-old community activist Barry Obama had no political aspirations.
What is most telling of this light shed upon inflation, conglomeration ("composite character") and yarn spinning through race-centered perspective is that until now, we were to understand this is what shaped the man who became president. These were true stories, each one deeply impacted his psyche to shape the man he became.
Just as the "seriousness of the charges" is to be considered, the emotion of the claims are to be held above the veracity of the experience. Today Rush Limbaugh played two clips from CNN's Starting Point on his radio show, both illustrated David Maraniss's downplaying of claims from the book.
It comes as no surprise that the party who used disagreement over the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act, tacitly defending Xavier Alvarez, would poo-poo the seriousness of Obama's memoir's discrepancies. After all Barack Obama did play basketball, just not suffering the injustice he claims to have endured at the hand of a white coach.
The Occupy movement gained a lot of traction with a law student on his knees in the middle of a New York street pleading to those who could not hear to give his parents back their home. The thespian effort is what the Left feels is important, while the facts behind the petition are baseless and fantasy (The Blaze).
Put aside those "loosely" similar examples and lets examine a more pertinent notion. From the previously mentioned clip, Mr. Maraniss deflects responsibility from Obama by suggesting a certain amount of this information came from family members. Ignoring his books may be constructed on second-hand stories, this is not a problem. Except for Marco Rubio, that is. Ironically the New York Times political blog reminds the reader who conveniently believes a double-standard is not enough of a reason to discredit a Democrat, inaccurate family history is only a problem when it comes to Republicans.
You see, Senator Rubio wrote about his parents travel between America and Cuba during the Castro Revolution. Either his timeline was fuddled or his parents never "fleed" by the skin of their teeth, this negates his whole book. No other outright lies and aggrandizement have been contended that I am aware of... yet.
Oprah felt compelled to apologize for believing and thereby promoting a fraudulent memoir; not the last one about a Holocaust survivor. No, not the one I discovered while web searching for the one I was thinking of about an L.A. gangbanger, but the first one, "A Million Little Pieces". Didn't Oprah also hail "Dreams from My Father"?
What is most telling of this light shed upon inflation, conglomeration ("composite character") and yarn spinning through race-centered perspective is that until now, we were to understand this is what shaped the man who became president. These were true stories, each one deeply impacted his psyche to shape the man he became.
Just as the "seriousness of the charges" is to be considered, the emotion of the claims are to be held above the veracity of the experience. Today Rush Limbaugh played two clips from CNN's Starting Point on his radio show, both illustrated David Maraniss's downplaying of claims from the book.
It comes as no surprise that the party who used disagreement over the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act, tacitly defending Xavier Alvarez, would poo-poo the seriousness of Obama's memoir's discrepancies. After all Barack Obama did play basketball, just not suffering the injustice he claims to have endured at the hand of a white coach.
The Occupy movement gained a lot of traction with a law student on his knees in the middle of a New York street pleading to those who could not hear to give his parents back their home. The thespian effort is what the Left feels is important, while the facts behind the petition are baseless and fantasy (The Blaze).
Put aside those "loosely" similar examples and lets examine a more pertinent notion. From the previously mentioned clip, Mr. Maraniss deflects responsibility from Obama by suggesting a certain amount of this information came from family members. Ignoring his books may be constructed on second-hand stories, this is not a problem. Except for Marco Rubio, that is. Ironically the New York Times political blog reminds the reader who conveniently believes a double-standard is not enough of a reason to discredit a Democrat, inaccurate family history is only a problem when it comes to Republicans.
You see, Senator Rubio wrote about his parents travel between America and Cuba during the Castro Revolution. Either his timeline was fuddled or his parents never "fleed" by the skin of their teeth, this negates his whole book. No other outright lies and aggrandizement have been contended that I am aware of... yet.
Oprah felt compelled to apologize for believing and thereby promoting a fraudulent memoir; not the last one about a Holocaust survivor. No, not the one I discovered while web searching for the one I was thinking of about an L.A. gangbanger, but the first one, "A Million Little Pieces". Didn't Oprah also hail "Dreams from My Father"?
Friday, May 4, 2012
Superficiality
This past week, senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren defended her placement on Harvard faculty by claiming "high cheek bones" proves her Native American lineage.1
My, how the tables have turned. From the days of Democrat Andrew Jackson relocating the Cherokee people of George and American southeast, a former Democrat presidential appointment is proud of her 1/32nd Cherokee heritage; so proud she hoped to use it to be invited to luncheons!
Further signs of the times is the "one drop rule." Democrats prevented free slaves from voting and other undesirable races from participating in government. Even white people were tainted by genealogical lineage that could be traced to Africans.2
From The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture:3
On the other hand, perhaps she racially profiled herself?
2. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html
3. http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=5365
My, how the tables have turned. From the days of Democrat Andrew Jackson relocating the Cherokee people of George and American southeast, a former Democrat presidential appointment is proud of her 1/32nd Cherokee heritage; so proud she hoped to use it to be invited to luncheons!
Further signs of the times is the "one drop rule." Democrats prevented free slaves from voting and other undesirable races from participating in government. Even white people were tainted by genealogical lineage that could be traced to Africans.2
From The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture:3
In 1911, Arkansas passed Act 320 (House Bill 79), also known as the “one-drop rule.” This law had two goals: it made interracial “cohabitation” a felony, and it defined as “Negro” anyone “who has...any negro blood whatever,” thus relegating to second-class citizenship anyone accused of having any African ancestry. Although the law had features unique to Arkansas, it largely reflected nationwide trends.Progressive eugenicists sterilized those deemed disabled by "one drop."
On the other hand, perhaps she racially profiled herself?
Links:
1. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57427355-503544/warren-explains-minority-listing-talks-of-grandfathers-high-cheekbones/2. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html
3. http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=5365
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)