1 - 9
Although I certainly applaud Bishop Jackson's efforts to urge the black community to re-enter the mainstream of American society, I do not agree with him that it is the responsibility of Americans of ALL races and ethnicities to being the black community back into mainstream America. This tremendous task is something that only the black community and its organizations is capable of doing. Over the decades since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, blacks have been given more and more government assistance in an effort to "level the playing field", but rather than the black community using that assistance to "pull itself up by its own bootstraps", it has become dependent on government assistance as a form of livelihood. In addition, black society has deteriorated tremendously since 1964 to the point that now 73% of black babies are born to unwed women, and the fathers play no role whatsoever in raising those babies other than acting as the sperm donor. In addition, as Bishop Jackson pointed out, due to the horrible deterioration of the black family, young blacks, particularly black males, have taken to looking to criminal gangs as their "family", and they do so without any apparent parental supervision to keep them within legal and socially acceptable boundaries. As a result, young black males are extremely over-represented as the perpetrators of violent crime, as drug pushers and abusers, and in their percentage of the prison population. At present, young blacks are absolutely NOT going to take any advice or direction from Americans of other races, because they have been ingrained with the idea that we non-blacks are responsible for their sorry state of affairs, and that we OWE them a debt that, to them, can never be repaid. They consider themselves victims of a racist, white-majority society to the point that some of the more radical elements such as the Black Panthers have "declared war" against whites. As long as this sort of hate and thinking is being inculcated into young blacks, they will not accept guidance from anyone other than blacks whom they consider role models. Unfortunately, it seems that they select their role models from the rap performers, entertainers, and sports figures who are themselves products of the same morally depraved society.
Milt, on January 12, 1848, Rep Abraham Lincoln of Illinois made the following statement on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the inherent right of free people to secede from a voluntary union such as the United States: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” It is obvious that something very profound happened in Mr. Lincoln's opinions of the right of free men between 1848 and 1861 when he prevented the Southern States from leaving a heretofore voluntary political union of State they had helped to form in the first place, and then voluntarily joined. It should also be noted that there was no condemnation of previous threats of secession on the part of the New England States following the Louisiana Purchase and the War of 1812, or of the threat of secession following the admission of the Republic of Texas into the Union, because it was recongized that the States were sovereign entities, and had the right to form and withdraw from alliances as they and their citizens saw fit. The great political expert Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) stated in his book Democracy in America (1835): "The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disapprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right." If a voluntary political union must be held together by force of arms, as Lincoln did in "saving" the United States but destroying the sovereignty of the States, it can hardly be described as a "voluntary union". That is what Lincoln accomplished.
In response to:

Does the South Belong in the Union?

Dave12019 Wrote: Jun 28, 2013 10:36 AM
Regarding the question of the legality of literacy tests to determine who may or may not vote, if you query "Where is the 'right to vote' covered in the U.S. Constitution?", one of the links you come with is Wikipedia which states: "The United States Constitution, in Article VI, section 3, states that 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.' The Constitution, however, LEAVES THE DETERMINATION OF VOTING QUALIFICATIONS TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES." Amendment XV states only that "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by race, color , or previous condition of servitude." Amendment XXIV states only that the right to vote cannot be contingent upon payment of a poll tax. Amendment XXVI states only that voters must be at least 18 years of age to vote. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any prohibition against a State denying the right to vote to a person because of illiteracy. Therefore, any legal decisions stating such prohibition does not comport with the U.S. Constitution, and is therefore unconstitutional. Courts are supposed to "interpret" the law--not "make" law.
Actually, EducSS, I think just the opposite......I think that the more they play "the race card", the less impact it will have on everyone. What I keep hearing from my white friends is that they are sick of being called racists anytime a "protected minority" doesn't get his/her way, and all it does now is annoy them, but no longer worries them. We have the blacks and the hispanics calling people who disagree with their agendas "racist", we have the Muslims calling people who disagree with their agendas "Islamaphobes", we have the homosexuals calling people who disagree with their agenda "homophobes", we have Women's Libbers calling people who disagree with their agenda "miscogynists", we have the Jews from the ADL calling people who disagree with their agenda "anti-Semites". It just never ends.....until you get to the white folks.....especially white males, who can be targeted by anyone, at anytime, over any subject, and they have no recourse.
In response to:

A Glimmer of Hope for Conservatism

Dave12019 Wrote: May 31, 2013 9:20 AM
I have brought up many of these discussion points myself in political conversations with Liberals, but whenever I point out that such-and-such is not delegated to the Federal government under the Constitution, or that the intent of the Founders was such-and-such, I get the response that times have changed in the 200+ years since the Founders wrote the Constitution, and if our government was limited to only the powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8, we would not be able to survive in a 21st Century world with modern-day problems. That is the point at which the Liberals generally tune out any further discussion about adhering to the Constitution, shrinking the size of government, cutting Federal powers, etc. To Liberals, following the Constitution's limitations on central government is an anachronistic idea whose idea has long gone out of date. They believe it takes modern rules for a modern world, and in the absence of those rules, we have to make them up as we go along.
In response to:

Is Christianity Homophobic?

Dave12019 Wrote: Apr 16, 2013 11:02 AM
Jack, first of all, the Book of Leviticus does not come from the "Word of Christians", it comes from the "Word of God"--the Holy Bible. You also failed to mention that the Book of Leviticus is part of the Jewish holy book, so Jews likewise accept the message contained in the Book of Leviticus as God's Holy Word. I am sure I do not need to point out to you that Islam radically treats homosexuality as a sin according to its holy book and the teachings of Mohammad. Homosexuality is considered a "mortal sin", the same as adultery, fornication, etc., and a non-repentent homosexual is warned by God that the penalty is eternal separation from God and Eternal Life.
In response to:

Women in Combat

Dave12019 Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 10:14 AM
As a career Army officer (1964-1992), I was commissioned as an Infantry officer in 1968, and served as a Rifle Platoon Ldr, and Rifle Company XO for 8 of my 18 years in the Infantry. Prior to my commissioning, I served 4 years as an EM in a Rifle Company. Naturally, Rifle Companies are all-male units. In 1976, I received a branch transfer to Medical Service, and spent 5 years as a Medical Clearing Company CO. A Medical Clearing Company is co-ed. The Clearing Company I commanded was part of a Support Battalion of an Infantry Brigade. I can tell you unequivocally that I am firmly convinced that all-male units are definitely more suited to combat conditions and field operations. Social experimentation should have no part in military ops.
In response to:

America's Role in a Darkening Age

Dave12019 Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 11:30 AM
George Washington is also well-known for having said, “… Steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world." America has a bad habit of dictating to other sovereign nations how they should run their internal affairs, and nations, like people, do not appreciate "busy bodies".
In response to:

The War Between the Amendments

Dave12019 Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 12:59 PM
I read an article the other day that quoted a statistic by the Federal government that said that something on the order of 70% of firearm deaths are either due to suicides or gang-related activities. It made me wonder in whose fantasy world the outlawing of certain firearms is going to impact the number of suicides or gang-related activities. As a professional firefighter/paramedic for 25 years, I have seen all sorts of suicides, and I would say that the majority of them were due to drug overdoses, not firearms. And taking firearms away from law-abiding citizens is going to have virtually no impact on firearm-related gang warfare deaths. It is this sort of foggy, non sequitur reasoning that astounds me the most about the Leftists.
1 - 9