I’ve Been Hearing This Since…


…that fifth grade essay I had to write for a State Standards exam. You know the type – Write a five hundred word essay on the importance of voting. It is therefore easy to imagine just one of the reasons why I cringe every time I hear something like this:

Mrs. Obama also told her audience that turnout was a large part of her husband’s victories, especially “women and minorities and young people.” Republicans, she explained, counted on “folks like us” to stay away from the polls.

And I don’t know if you remember, but people were shocked when Barack won — they’re still shocked — (laughter and applause) — because they were counting on folks like us to stay home.  See, but then we proved them wrong.  Barack won because OF record numbers of women and minorities and young people who showed up and voted.

But the Fifth Grade was way back in the past. And Adulthood is left with the basic premise that your husband, Mrs. Obama, was initially elected based not on the content of his character; Isn’t that what the vetting process used to do? No, Barack was elected because a majority of the sleepy electorate were like, dude, he’s black and that’s enough for my vote.

In grown up terms, Michelle, he was elected based on the color of his skin. And the irony is that you and the Black Caucus are spitting on MLK Jr and all the good the old Civil Rights Movement represented and accomplished.

But then again I’m white. So what do I know about any of this.


Rights of The People

1 Comment

This man is a hero:

“This is my land. I´m the victim here,” Mr. Barnett said. “When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back.”

The judge represents one more liberal using the Constitution as a spittoon:

In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury.

As much as we hate lawyers, at least Barnett’s representation has the right argument. How can illegal immigrants have any rights? How are they protected by law when they are breaking the law?

Mr. Barnett’s attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.

This is not another example where the government can’t do anything. It is another example where the government refuses to do anything. Which means it is another example where the government chooses not to do one of it’s two historical purposes of existing – to protect its citizens from foreign invasion. Is there any question left, then, as to why the Constitutional authors explicitly included in the Constitution that the citizens should have the right to bear arms?

Barnett and this entire matter also shows the historical [European and further back in antiquity] attachment and importance to ownership of land. I think the majority of the modern citizenry have lost the understanding of government, its functions, and their position in ultimately having the power they give government due to the historical trend wherein farmers have left their land and sought factory employment. We still see small vestiges of traditional society every now and then, such as Barnett’s story but it is mostly a lost art. As I’ve said in the past, if ownership of land were required for voting rights, we would see an about-face political turn towards a more traditional society and conservative government.