Back on Uncle Sam's plantation
 

Back on Uncle Sam's plantation
Star Parker - Syndicated Columnist - 2/9/2009 8:00:00 AM

She nails it!

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectiv...aspx?id=414214

In part....

It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?
_____

The implication is desolation for the whole world as the only effective support for human prosperity i.e. freemarket capitalism is transformed into a socialist enterprise. The whole world must sink into poverty and despotism.

I hope someone steps up to stop this train to hell.

Did you see what the media did to Star Parker and JC Watts at GHW Bush's nomination
 

.......essentially when each was introduced, for separate speeches, the networks went to 15 and 17 minute-long "commercials". Both black conservative speakers were, for all intents and purposes completely (no pun intended) BLACKED OUT!!!

This is a no-sh*tter----some of you compootah whizzes (CdC, anyone?) could probably fetch this up......

True, that did happen.

It's difficult being black and a Conservative or a Republican - discrimination in that category, big time.

Ms. Parker has it right - a leg up, not a hand out over time will bring people out of poverty. It just seems like such a no-brainer to me.

A Black Woman's View on the Election
 

A Black Woman's View on the Election




ANNE WORTHAM

Anne Wortham is Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University 's Hoover Institution. She is a member of the American Sociological Association and the American Philosophical Association.


She has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and honored as a Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education.


In fall 1988 she was one of a select group of intellectuals who were featured in Bill Moyer's television series, "A World of Ideas." The transcript of her conversation with Moyers has been published in his book, A World of Ideas.


Dr. Wortham is author of "The Other Side of Racism: A Philosophical Study of Black Race Consciousness" which analyzes how race consciousness is transformed into political strategies and policy issues.


She has published numerous articles on the implications of individual rights for civil rights policy, and is currently writing a book on theories of social and cultural marginality.


Recently, she has published articles on the significance of multiculturalism and Afrocentricism in education, the politics of victimization and the social and political impact of political correctness. Shortly after an interview in 2004, she was awarded tenure.


This article by her is worth reading.

************************************************** **************************************

Fellow Americans,

Please know: I am Black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul's name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a Black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a Black president to love the ideal of America .

I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival - all that I know about the history of the United States of America , all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician. I would have to deny the nature of the "change" that Obama asserts has come to America .


Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine de pend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million Blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that Blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him because he doesn't look like them.

I would have to wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration - political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

I would have to believe that "fairness" is equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that a man who asks me to "go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice" is speaking in my interest. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the "bottom up," and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.


Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting "Yes We Can!" Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists,20bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead - and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.


So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a Black man to the office of the president of the United States , the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over - and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Mr. Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like. The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a Black person.


So, toast yourselves: 60's countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America. Shout your glee Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a Black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to - Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine - what little there is left - for the chance to feel good.


There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.

OK I know I am going to ruffle a few feathers here, that said, after reading the article, I find it to be a bit un-inspiring, OK the gist was they found their way out of welfare, but I can tell you right now they would have never gotten out of poverty if not for those social programs, they were meant to give a leg up, not to be a life style, that came about because of abuse and a poorly written law. Had it been written into law that it was only temporary, or you were required to do some form of community service to keep getting a check, there would have been the problem?
I would venture to say that we would look more like Mexico sooner, had there not been these programs to help people, to a point we do have a socialist government, and always have, we use it for the fire department, the police department, schools, water highways it goes on and on, so yes we have to pay taxes so that we can enjoy a civilized society, one with clean drinking water and sewage, fire fighters, police, and yes even teachers, and in my opinion it should be for healthcare as well, as human beings we should have enough empathy to not want to see our neighbors suffering, we are a compassionate people and I would hope that would never change, our compassion for people is what brought about welfare, and it was a good thing, I never used it, nor anyone in my family, but I do have enough compassion to not want to see people suffer from poverty, for whatever reason weather do to a loss of a job, or a single mother I do not want to see it in my country! Nor do I want to see people suffering or loosing there house because they have a medical condition, so to a point we are and always will be a socialist government, but then even in the constitution its starts We the people for the people and by the people in order to form a more perfect union. THAT’S SOCIALIST! Now it's to what degree, you can still have a free market and have social programs.

Naturally, you would be uninspired by logic...

Did you press the button I provided to you prior to posting?

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/3488/idiotbutton.jpg

Yeah I tried, it's not working.. Though I would not use the term logic, I'm afraid you have lost a grasp of what logic is.

I reluctantly join CDC in his opinion of CspaceB. Our constitution is Socialist may be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Well I never meant in the literal sense, I meant as a collective, as in we the people. if one were to look up the literal definition of socialism, we would not even be having this argument. No one was calling it socialism when Reagan came in to office, and taxes were at 70% for the wealthiest people, but after 28 years of cutting taxes for those folks, they now want to call it socialism! and are just fine with having us bail them out of the mess they caused with pure unadulterated greed!

My head hurts.
Bill Stradtner

[quote=mdmull; CspaceB. [/QUOTE]

Thank-you.:rolleyes::LOL:

Your approval rating at CC has hit Zero, Cobra Bill. Have you ever considered a Lobodomy - have knife, will travel.

By the way, you work for the government (or a government contractor) right? That may explain some of your posts.

I'm not here for anyone's approval, my job is to drive you guys nuts Ha! is it working?
And yes I work for the government, and no not a contractor, so are you inferring that all government workers are liberals? Heck I once was a registered republican, till Ronny Raygun ruined it for me I haven't been the same since.

My guess is that most government workers (except the military) are liberal, yes. The fact that you work for the government is very telling.

And no, no one here is going nuts over your posts - you see, Cobra Bill, some time ago it occurred to most of us that liberals are not only merely wrong and incorrect, but they are absolutely and totally delusional and schizo. They are sick, sick, perverse people, instinctively and reflexively opposed to ALL that is right, good, and even commonsensical: race relations, economics, foreign policy, immigration, the efficacy of the UN, WMD's, etc. It’s Spooky, but at times can also produce laughter, therefore you appear to be sort of like that useful idiot that Lenin talked about many years ago.

Well your guess would be wrong, and by the way we seem to think along the same lines, in that we feel the exact same way about the cons. this country was founded by progressives, and we took it back and you hate us for it, well just crawl back under that rock and stew in your own misery!

[quote=cobra bill;Heck I once was a registered republican, till Ronny Raygun ruined it for me I haven't been the same since.[/QUOTE]


That's funny.The best president of the 20th Century "ruined it" for you?You better have "it" checked as Reagan "straightened" out "it" but you're looking at"it" backwards and think he ruined "it".He didn't.

Most of what people's perception of what Reagan did is pure fabrication, brought to you by the Reagan legacy project, and yes they are busy trying to fix GW mess, keep in mind he gave us the largest tax increase in American history, but everyone thinks he cut taxes, yeah for the wealthiest Americans he did, for the middle class, well let's just say we took it in the shorts. He started the war on the middle class, and the big push to break unions, have you ever wondered why wages for the middle class has been stagnate for the 28 years? yep Ronny, while the CEO at that time made 20 times what a worker made, now its 310 times guess who started it!

If we all worked together to sovle this there would be no issues and it would be easy say a flat sales tax on everthing but food clothing and housing, but then you guys would have nothing to argue about. Oh and it might shrink government by a little wouldn't need so much IRS(everybodys favorite part of government if they have to pay taxes).

Was it on this thread.....
 

....or somewhere else where Cobra-Space claimed the Founding Fathers were "progressives"? O.....M.......G.......you've got to be kiddin'. They LOATHED Big Government (Hell, they rebelled against it) and tried to allow for a slow, deliberative legislation process, to ensure the individual's rights v.a.v. The State, to corral domestic rebellion, etc. What about womens' suffrage, slavery, monetary policy, trade, etc.? Were they "progressives" there, also?

No wishy-washies amongst the Founding Fathers---the closest thing to a liberal amongst them was TJ, and he was a fan of individual gun ownership as an foil for runaway government.

There have been several books making a VERY clear, nay UNDENIABLE, case that the Founders were conservatives-----or Enlightement liberals----which is the same thing. Look how Washington, Adams (and even eventually Jefferson) viewed the Fwoggies' Revolution. BTW ours was a War for Independence----NOT a "revolution".

Carrion,