I hope you have been aware of the latest shenanigans from the Obama Administration. Apparently they have decided to declare war on Fox News. Last Sunday their minions were out spreading the word that Fox News was not a legitimate news organization. Why? Could it be that Fox doesn't give the Obama Administration the coverage that Obama believes they should? It would seem that the only news the President would have us receive is positive pro-Obama coverage. Any criticism of the current administration should be outlawed. The latest threat was last night when Obama himself said that his administration would continue to monitor Fox for their compliance. Well guess what? There is an old adage that goes like this, "never pick a fight with anybody who buys ink by the gallon." When the Administration recently decided to offer a news event for reporters but to exclude Fox, fortunately for this country and our Constitution, the other news organizations declined to cover the event. This rebuff by the news media should be sufficient to let the Administration know that that is not the way it is done here in America. No elected official, not even the President, gets to choose who covers the news or the content of that coverage.
The reason for this latest attempt by Obama to try and control the news media and their access is very simple to understand. The Obama Administration is afraid. They and their proposals are in free fall and have been for some time. Obama's poll numbers are now at the lowest of any President on record at this point in their term. There are now rumblings that Obama will not survive a full term let alone win a second term. Some have said that the Democrats have the goods necessary to ask for his resignation at any time they choose to do so. If the Democrats, as expected, suffer huge losses at the mid term elections, it will not be pretty for Obama or his administration. I, however, do not believe we as a country need this type of Constitutional crisis.
Being the kind and helpful individual that I am, let me offer some thoughts to this administration. How about some study material? Number one, I recommend reading and committing to memory the first amendment to the Constitution. For edification I'll spell it out. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances." I don't know about you, but that seems pretty clear to me. Secondly, perhaps a study of the Nixon White House might be helpful. Nixon had his enemies list and it ultimately led in part to his complete down fall as President. Some, including me, thought that Nixon saw himself as something of an Emperor. That turned out to be a fatal mistake. Any good that Nixon could have done was compromised by his arrogance and his phobias. His legacy is clear and it is not very flattering. There is helpful information here for the Obama Administration. Please note there is a difference between governing and ruling.
On this final note I offer this. Our President is not our Emperor. He is elected by the people and he can be removed by the people. If Obama is to have any success, he would do well to come back down to earth and face the facts. He doesn't make law. He doesn't rule. He is not above the law. To be successful, he must have the people with him. A little humility is definitely in order. He may well have some good ideas and changes that would be good for the country, but it is not going to happen if he refuses to obey the law and tries to circumvent the Constitution.
Ron Scarbro October 23, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
WHAT ARE YOUR POLITICS???
(The following was published in the Newsleader on October 9, 2009)
Regardless of your politics, you are probably not in the majority. Does that surprise you? This is the way it breaks down. At any given time approximately forty percent of Americans consider themselves Republican or conservative types with more traditional thinking, and another forty percent deem themselves Democrat with more liberal or progressive thinking. That leaves about twenty percent of Americans who might be considered independent or even apathetic. Some may see themselves as not political at all with no concern for the way government is run or by whom. Many of these do not even know where they are on the political scale. Many are Democrat or Republican because their parents are. Some continue the tradition of their families thinking. I am convinced that many many people, who profess a particular preference politically speaking, do not truly know what that party stands for.
Why is this important? What does it all mean to us? Consider this. When an individual decides to run for a partisan political office, they assume a forty percent support from their "base". That means if they are to be elected, they must pick up approximately eleven percent of the independent or apathetic others. In the vast majority of elections, those who are voted in are elected by a bare fifty percent of the electorate or less. The so called mandate some consider having is no mandate at all. Rarely do elections generate more than a fifty percent turnout.
Here is another thing to consider. When one of our political representatives says something like, "This is what the American people want", or "This is the way America sees this issue", what they are really saying is "This is what I think and probably the less than fifty percent of people who elected me think". As you can see from the numbers, no particular individual is in the majority. There are probably very few things on which a vast majority of Americans would agree. It also follows that when a politician offers a partisan opinion, he or she should count on up to sixty percent opposition to that opinion.
Today we are seeing partisanship being practiced to the detriment of our country as a whole. One party cannot stand the other party being successful because it might give them an advantage in the next election. It becomes clear then that most politicians want what is best for them, not necessarily what is best for the country.
Throughout the history of this great Republic we have made choices at elections and for the most part have made good decisions. On those few occasions when we have made less than stellar picks, we have corrected that decision in the next election. America is not going to disappear just because one particular party or another is in power regardless of their politics. We the people are in charge even though some politicians don't like it. Time and again in our history we have seen long time so called powerful politicians defeated at the polls when it is in the best interest of the country.
What remains a constant in America is this, there will be another election soon. If you are dissatisfied with the way things are, work to elect someone who will more reflect your thinking. If you are pleased with the direction of the country, work to retain those who govern as you desire. We all should let our elected representatives know what we think. Tell them when they do well and criticize them when they mess up. Another constant is this, the majority of Americans truly love their country regardless of their politics.
Ron Scarbro September 21, 2009
Regardless of your politics, you are probably not in the majority. Does that surprise you? This is the way it breaks down. At any given time approximately forty percent of Americans consider themselves Republican or conservative types with more traditional thinking, and another forty percent deem themselves Democrat with more liberal or progressive thinking. That leaves about twenty percent of Americans who might be considered independent or even apathetic. Some may see themselves as not political at all with no concern for the way government is run or by whom. Many of these do not even know where they are on the political scale. Many are Democrat or Republican because their parents are. Some continue the tradition of their families thinking. I am convinced that many many people, who profess a particular preference politically speaking, do not truly know what that party stands for.
Why is this important? What does it all mean to us? Consider this. When an individual decides to run for a partisan political office, they assume a forty percent support from their "base". That means if they are to be elected, they must pick up approximately eleven percent of the independent or apathetic others. In the vast majority of elections, those who are voted in are elected by a bare fifty percent of the electorate or less. The so called mandate some consider having is no mandate at all. Rarely do elections generate more than a fifty percent turnout.
Here is another thing to consider. When one of our political representatives says something like, "This is what the American people want", or "This is the way America sees this issue", what they are really saying is "This is what I think and probably the less than fifty percent of people who elected me think". As you can see from the numbers, no particular individual is in the majority. There are probably very few things on which a vast majority of Americans would agree. It also follows that when a politician offers a partisan opinion, he or she should count on up to sixty percent opposition to that opinion.
Today we are seeing partisanship being practiced to the detriment of our country as a whole. One party cannot stand the other party being successful because it might give them an advantage in the next election. It becomes clear then that most politicians want what is best for them, not necessarily what is best for the country.
Throughout the history of this great Republic we have made choices at elections and for the most part have made good decisions. On those few occasions when we have made less than stellar picks, we have corrected that decision in the next election. America is not going to disappear just because one particular party or another is in power regardless of their politics. We the people are in charge even though some politicians don't like it. Time and again in our history we have seen long time so called powerful politicians defeated at the polls when it is in the best interest of the country.
What remains a constant in America is this, there will be another election soon. If you are dissatisfied with the way things are, work to elect someone who will more reflect your thinking. If you are pleased with the direction of the country, work to retain those who govern as you desire. We all should let our elected representatives know what we think. Tell them when they do well and criticize them when they mess up. Another constant is this, the majority of Americans truly love their country regardless of their politics.
Ron Scarbro September 21, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
OCTOBER MORON OF THE MONTH
From time to time I think I will stop this particular column. I have in the past received criticism for use of the word "moron", and have also suffered some criticism for being so "judgmental". I considered these issues, I thought about them, but I decided to continue the columns anyway. After all somebody has to keep the morons in line. Why not me?
Today's choice is a no brainer. The honor goes this month to that bastion of integrity, that arbiter of all things pure and proper, none other than the Nobel Committee. Now I know they have really messed up things in the past, for example, Yassar Arafat, Al Gore, or Jimmie Carter, but this time Alfred Nobel has to be turning in his grave. Selecting Barak Obama as this year's winner of the Nobel Peace Prize has even the most liberal thinkers of the world scratching their heads not to mention the recipient himself.
This column however is not a criticism of Obama. He had nothing to do with this I don't think. For all I know he may well prove to be a prime candidate for this award some day. That might occur some time in the future when he has had an opportunity to grow up, learn his job, perform his duties, and become the statesman he probably thinks he already is. For your information his name was placed in nomination for the peace prize when he had served less than two weeks as President. It is obvious to me, and should be to anyone with an ounce of intelligence, that his selection had nothing to do with peace, or achievement, or service to the community of nations, or anything one might consider necessary for this prize. This is something much more sinister.
Selecting Obama is an overt attempt by European liberals to inflict themselves on America and inject their opinions into our foreign policy. It is an attempt to direct our conduct in world affairs. Their own statement that Obama has as a goal the elimination of all nuclear weapons in the world is at best wishful thinking on their part. There has been no such statement coming from Obama. He knows better. It would surely be great if this Utopian concept of a world at peace with their neighbors, all religious differences set aside, all border disputes ignored, and all the crazies held down and not ascending to positions of leadership, were possible, but of course that is nonsense. True world peace is achieved by mutually assured total destruction. That is what we have today. That keeps the war mongers at bay and offers us the best chance of a peaceful life. All the world powers know that if they strike out with any nuclear weapon, they would be eliminated immediately. When lunatics such as Iran and North Korea have these weapons, that somewhat changes the game plan, but their total destruction is guaranteed if they strike us or any of our allies.
Norway, and for that matter most of Europe, exists today because of America's willingness to spend our treasury, send our troops and materiel, and to spill our blood for their defense. What peace we have in the world today is the result of our war making ability and our commitment to making sure that peace can occur. Neville Chamberlain proved to the world that appeasement is the road to defeat and ultimate destruction.
The current Nobel Committee has, by their recent actions, cheapened the award and insulted all who have truly earned it. Awarding this prize has become nothing more than a political act designed to influence, and in some ways control the actions of other nations and their people. What a pity. What a shame for the original purpose of Alfred Nobel. What morons the selection committee has become.
Ron Scarbro October 10, 2009
Today's choice is a no brainer. The honor goes this month to that bastion of integrity, that arbiter of all things pure and proper, none other than the Nobel Committee. Now I know they have really messed up things in the past, for example, Yassar Arafat, Al Gore, or Jimmie Carter, but this time Alfred Nobel has to be turning in his grave. Selecting Barak Obama as this year's winner of the Nobel Peace Prize has even the most liberal thinkers of the world scratching their heads not to mention the recipient himself.
This column however is not a criticism of Obama. He had nothing to do with this I don't think. For all I know he may well prove to be a prime candidate for this award some day. That might occur some time in the future when he has had an opportunity to grow up, learn his job, perform his duties, and become the statesman he probably thinks he already is. For your information his name was placed in nomination for the peace prize when he had served less than two weeks as President. It is obvious to me, and should be to anyone with an ounce of intelligence, that his selection had nothing to do with peace, or achievement, or service to the community of nations, or anything one might consider necessary for this prize. This is something much more sinister.
Selecting Obama is an overt attempt by European liberals to inflict themselves on America and inject their opinions into our foreign policy. It is an attempt to direct our conduct in world affairs. Their own statement that Obama has as a goal the elimination of all nuclear weapons in the world is at best wishful thinking on their part. There has been no such statement coming from Obama. He knows better. It would surely be great if this Utopian concept of a world at peace with their neighbors, all religious differences set aside, all border disputes ignored, and all the crazies held down and not ascending to positions of leadership, were possible, but of course that is nonsense. True world peace is achieved by mutually assured total destruction. That is what we have today. That keeps the war mongers at bay and offers us the best chance of a peaceful life. All the world powers know that if they strike out with any nuclear weapon, they would be eliminated immediately. When lunatics such as Iran and North Korea have these weapons, that somewhat changes the game plan, but their total destruction is guaranteed if they strike us or any of our allies.
Norway, and for that matter most of Europe, exists today because of America's willingness to spend our treasury, send our troops and materiel, and to spill our blood for their defense. What peace we have in the world today is the result of our war making ability and our commitment to making sure that peace can occur. Neville Chamberlain proved to the world that appeasement is the road to defeat and ultimate destruction.
The current Nobel Committee has, by their recent actions, cheapened the award and insulted all who have truly earned it. Awarding this prize has become nothing more than a political act designed to influence, and in some ways control the actions of other nations and their people. What a pity. What a shame for the original purpose of Alfred Nobel. What morons the selection committee has become.
Ron Scarbro October 10, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
THE SECOND AMENDMENT RE-VISITED, AGAIN
As you no doubt know, the Supreme Court is once again hearing a case regarding the second amendment. Chicago has a city ordinance which forbids owning handguns in the city. From the looks of things, that law doesn't seem to be working out too well for their murder rate, but I digress. Chicago, like other municipalities, has two problems. One is that their law breakers, especially those with gun offenses, are not sufficiently punished, and number two, you cannot fix your crime problem by violating the Constitutional rights of the law abiding people in your city. The National Rifle Association has sued Chicago to have that law overturned and that action has made its way to the Supreme Court.
I recently was watching a hunting show on television and saw Chuck Norris come on with what was a public service announcement concerning the second amendment. Chuck's message loosely translated said that "Freedom is not about what government can do for us. Freedom is about keeping government from doing what it wants to us." Think about that for a moment. The second amendment guarantees us the right to keep (own) and bear (carry, have in our possession) arms (guns, knives, etc.). The reason for the amendment and those rights is not necessarily to go hunting or even to protect us from home intruders. No, that right to own guns is about protecting us from our own government. The reason our government is accountable to the citizens is not only because of free elections. One of the main accountabilities is that the citizenry is armed. That is also one of the primary reasons foreign nations don't attack us. They know we are all armed and will repel any such attack.
I know there is a large group of people who are afraid of guns. They see guns as evil. The fact is that there are far more people killed or injured by automobiles than guns in this country, and yet there doesn't seem to be this inexplicable fear of automobiles. Guns, in the hands of a law abiding citizen, are no more dangerous than a hammer or a screw driver. A hammer or a screw driver in the hands of a homicidal killer are at least as dangerous as a gun. Guns, like hammers and screw drivers are just tools. When used for their proper purpose, they are completely benign. As we all know it is the killer not the tools he uses that are the problem. I believe this group of people who fear guns have bought into the propaganda of the left that wants to disarm America so that they can go about their plan to change this country into the socialist utopia that they imagine. Another thing I heard recently is that apathy is the enemy of freedom. To those among you who fear guns, do us all a favor and stay away from them. I for one do not want anyone who has this fear to have a weapon in their possession. They are already unstable enough.
In the far out event that you are not familiar with the language of the second amendment to the Constitution, it reads as follows, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As you can see there is no ambiguity here. There are no hidden messages. This is as clear as our language. If this right is inconvenient for you, then I would recommend you taking up residence in a country where no such right exists, such as China, or Iran, or maybe Venezuela.
I will leave you then with this final thought. I believe it was Ben Franklin who said, and I will paraphrase, those who sacrifice freedom in order to gain security wind up with neither.
Ron Scarbro October 5, 2009
I recently was watching a hunting show on television and saw Chuck Norris come on with what was a public service announcement concerning the second amendment. Chuck's message loosely translated said that "Freedom is not about what government can do for us. Freedom is about keeping government from doing what it wants to us." Think about that for a moment. The second amendment guarantees us the right to keep (own) and bear (carry, have in our possession) arms (guns, knives, etc.). The reason for the amendment and those rights is not necessarily to go hunting or even to protect us from home intruders. No, that right to own guns is about protecting us from our own government. The reason our government is accountable to the citizens is not only because of free elections. One of the main accountabilities is that the citizenry is armed. That is also one of the primary reasons foreign nations don't attack us. They know we are all armed and will repel any such attack.
I know there is a large group of people who are afraid of guns. They see guns as evil. The fact is that there are far more people killed or injured by automobiles than guns in this country, and yet there doesn't seem to be this inexplicable fear of automobiles. Guns, in the hands of a law abiding citizen, are no more dangerous than a hammer or a screw driver. A hammer or a screw driver in the hands of a homicidal killer are at least as dangerous as a gun. Guns, like hammers and screw drivers are just tools. When used for their proper purpose, they are completely benign. As we all know it is the killer not the tools he uses that are the problem. I believe this group of people who fear guns have bought into the propaganda of the left that wants to disarm America so that they can go about their plan to change this country into the socialist utopia that they imagine. Another thing I heard recently is that apathy is the enemy of freedom. To those among you who fear guns, do us all a favor and stay away from them. I for one do not want anyone who has this fear to have a weapon in their possession. They are already unstable enough.
In the far out event that you are not familiar with the language of the second amendment to the Constitution, it reads as follows, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As you can see there is no ambiguity here. There are no hidden messages. This is as clear as our language. If this right is inconvenient for you, then I would recommend you taking up residence in a country where no such right exists, such as China, or Iran, or maybe Venezuela.
I will leave you then with this final thought. I believe it was Ben Franklin who said, and I will paraphrase, those who sacrifice freedom in order to gain security wind up with neither.
Ron Scarbro October 5, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
ITS A DIFFERENT WORLD
(The following was published in the Newsleader on March 5, 2010)
I serve as moderator of a coffee/discussion group that meets weekly. Recently we had as our guest author Sharon Schulte who has written a new book entitled "The Children Remember". The book is a compilation of memories of Minnesota people who were children during World War II. Sharon went throughout the state interviewing and recording the thoughts and memories of people who are now in their sixties, seventies and older to make a record of how life was at that time. I recommend the book. It is available on Amazon.com as well as most normal book sellers. It is so revealing and reflective of a simpler time when our attitudes were so different. The discussion that followed her presentation was the inspiration for this essay.
I too was a child during that time. I can remember rationing stamps, war bonds, and other sacrifices. As kids we saved tin foil. We would peel the waxed paper off gum wrappers and start a big ball of tin foil to help make ammunition. Being a youngster at that time meant that I felt my life was normal. I didn't realize we were giving up anything because of the war. I do remember the fear however. We lived near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and we were told that spot was a great target for the bad guys. I was aware of friends of my parents going off to war. I was acutely aware of the fact that some never returned. Families of servicemen and women had flags which had stars for the number of family members who were serving in the military. They were flown proudly. The military was respected above anything else. It was a great treat to see anybody in their uniform.
The purpose of this writing is just to ask the question, "What happened?" What was the change that caused the American people to lose their regard for the military? How is it possible that while we have thousands of men and women in foreign lands putting their lives on the line for us, our lives here at home continue as normal? No one is sacrificing with rationing stamps. No one is buying war bonds. No Hollywood movie star is making movies about war heroes and helping the war effort by selling bonds. They are instead making nice with our enemies and committing treason. Fifty years ago they would have been arrested and tried as criminals. At the very least they would have been shamed out of existence. It truly is a different world.
I believe some of the changes have occurred because the Press has taken such a turn to the left that they no longer reflect the thinking of the majority of American people. TV networks report what they want you to hear and skew the news to their agenda. The "Educational Community" has become an apologist for all things liberal to the detriment of this country as a whole.
We all need to think about our feelings. I believe we need to return to a time when patriotism was the rule rather that the exception. We need to hold our military in higher esteem. We need to see the so-called Hollywood elite as what they truly are, for the most part, morons.
Finally, if we are to send troops into any war, we need to win it. Stop this nonsense of limited war. By any definition, war is an all out action. If it is worth the single life of an American soldier, it is worth winning. We have wasted far too many lives trying to be modern day war fighters. Let us end this now or just leave. If the idiots in these countries want to keep on killing each other over some perceived difference in their religions, let them have at it. Then, if any country harbors terrorists who attack this country, we should just take that country out swiftly and completely without a single American boot on the ground. We don't need to send troops. Then we would truly have a different world.
Ron Scarbro September 26, 2009
I serve as moderator of a coffee/discussion group that meets weekly. Recently we had as our guest author Sharon Schulte who has written a new book entitled "The Children Remember". The book is a compilation of memories of Minnesota people who were children during World War II. Sharon went throughout the state interviewing and recording the thoughts and memories of people who are now in their sixties, seventies and older to make a record of how life was at that time. I recommend the book. It is available on Amazon.com as well as most normal book sellers. It is so revealing and reflective of a simpler time when our attitudes were so different. The discussion that followed her presentation was the inspiration for this essay.
I too was a child during that time. I can remember rationing stamps, war bonds, and other sacrifices. As kids we saved tin foil. We would peel the waxed paper off gum wrappers and start a big ball of tin foil to help make ammunition. Being a youngster at that time meant that I felt my life was normal. I didn't realize we were giving up anything because of the war. I do remember the fear however. We lived near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and we were told that spot was a great target for the bad guys. I was aware of friends of my parents going off to war. I was acutely aware of the fact that some never returned. Families of servicemen and women had flags which had stars for the number of family members who were serving in the military. They were flown proudly. The military was respected above anything else. It was a great treat to see anybody in their uniform.
The purpose of this writing is just to ask the question, "What happened?" What was the change that caused the American people to lose their regard for the military? How is it possible that while we have thousands of men and women in foreign lands putting their lives on the line for us, our lives here at home continue as normal? No one is sacrificing with rationing stamps. No one is buying war bonds. No Hollywood movie star is making movies about war heroes and helping the war effort by selling bonds. They are instead making nice with our enemies and committing treason. Fifty years ago they would have been arrested and tried as criminals. At the very least they would have been shamed out of existence. It truly is a different world.
I believe some of the changes have occurred because the Press has taken such a turn to the left that they no longer reflect the thinking of the majority of American people. TV networks report what they want you to hear and skew the news to their agenda. The "Educational Community" has become an apologist for all things liberal to the detriment of this country as a whole.
We all need to think about our feelings. I believe we need to return to a time when patriotism was the rule rather that the exception. We need to hold our military in higher esteem. We need to see the so-called Hollywood elite as what they truly are, for the most part, morons.
Finally, if we are to send troops into any war, we need to win it. Stop this nonsense of limited war. By any definition, war is an all out action. If it is worth the single life of an American soldier, it is worth winning. We have wasted far too many lives trying to be modern day war fighters. Let us end this now or just leave. If the idiots in these countries want to keep on killing each other over some perceived difference in their religions, let them have at it. Then, if any country harbors terrorists who attack this country, we should just take that country out swiftly and completely without a single American boot on the ground. We don't need to send troops. Then we would truly have a different world.
Ron Scarbro September 26, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
SEPTEMBER MORON OF THE MONTH
I couldn't wait any longer after hearing this latest bit of stupidity from the mouth of one who should know better. I am talking about none other than former President Jimmie Carter, this month's "Moron of the Month". There are many reasons why he would qualify for this month's dubious honor but one statement that he recently uttered leaves all of the other ridiculous things he has said in the dust. That statement was to accuse the Congressman from South Carolina, Joe Wilson, of racism. You will remember Rep. Wilson was the one who yelled out "You Lie" during President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress earlier this month. Carter went on to say that the outburst was another example of white America's inability to accept a black man as President.
First of all Mr. Carter, white America elected a black man as President. The black vote, while it is significant, could never elect a President. To be elected to the Presidency, you must carry many segments of the population. You have to generate millions of dollars to even consider a run at the White House. Where do you think that money came from? For better or worse, all America elected Barak Obama as President. His acceptability as President will be what he does as President, not the color of his skin.
Maureen Dowd, columnist for the New York Times, is also spreading this particular bit of hate speak in her column. Maureen probably doesn't know any better and not that many people read her nonsense anyway. While that is no excuse, it at least puts her comments into perspective. Former President Carter is another story however.
In my almost seven decades on this planet I have seen tremendous strides in the overall acceptance of different peoples in America. Like Carter, I was raised in the South. I remember how it was and it was ugly. But I have seen the change and the change has been for the better. The state of the black man in America has never been more positive. His life has never been more secure, safe, and filled with potential. There is no other place in the world where black people have more opportunity or more potential for personal wealth and success. This is not the result of runaway racism. No this is the result of brotherly love, compassion, and acceptance of others who might be different from ourselves.
Are we completely out of the woods concerning racism in this country? Certainly not. Are we making tremendous advances in our ability to live together and get along? Absolutely. Is the state of Black America served in any positive way by the likes of Jimmie Carter and his stupid remarks? I think you would agree with me that Carter has set race relations back years by his outburst.
I have two words for you Mr. Carter. Go Away. You were an unsuccessful president and it took years of hard work to overcome your mismanagement of America. Don't compound your errors by continuing to inflict yourself on this country. You, Mr. Carter are insignificant and your legacy is fixed in the minds of most thinking Americans. The vast majority of our country does not care what you think about anything least of all your opinion of racism in this country. Be kind to the country which gave you so much and just fade away into your retirement. Just go away.
Ron Scarbro September 18, 2009
First of all Mr. Carter, white America elected a black man as President. The black vote, while it is significant, could never elect a President. To be elected to the Presidency, you must carry many segments of the population. You have to generate millions of dollars to even consider a run at the White House. Where do you think that money came from? For better or worse, all America elected Barak Obama as President. His acceptability as President will be what he does as President, not the color of his skin.
Maureen Dowd, columnist for the New York Times, is also spreading this particular bit of hate speak in her column. Maureen probably doesn't know any better and not that many people read her nonsense anyway. While that is no excuse, it at least puts her comments into perspective. Former President Carter is another story however.
In my almost seven decades on this planet I have seen tremendous strides in the overall acceptance of different peoples in America. Like Carter, I was raised in the South. I remember how it was and it was ugly. But I have seen the change and the change has been for the better. The state of the black man in America has never been more positive. His life has never been more secure, safe, and filled with potential. There is no other place in the world where black people have more opportunity or more potential for personal wealth and success. This is not the result of runaway racism. No this is the result of brotherly love, compassion, and acceptance of others who might be different from ourselves.
Are we completely out of the woods concerning racism in this country? Certainly not. Are we making tremendous advances in our ability to live together and get along? Absolutely. Is the state of Black America served in any positive way by the likes of Jimmie Carter and his stupid remarks? I think you would agree with me that Carter has set race relations back years by his outburst.
I have two words for you Mr. Carter. Go Away. You were an unsuccessful president and it took years of hard work to overcome your mismanagement of America. Don't compound your errors by continuing to inflict yourself on this country. You, Mr. Carter are insignificant and your legacy is fixed in the minds of most thinking Americans. The vast majority of our country does not care what you think about anything least of all your opinion of racism in this country. Be kind to the country which gave you so much and just fade away into your retirement. Just go away.
Ron Scarbro September 18, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
SOME MORE WORD FATIGUE
Recently during the reporting of Edward Kennedy's death a phrase was thrown about which I began to examine. That phrase was public service. The Senator had 47 years of public service. Now I am not going to pick on Kennedy. History, if allowed to be truthful, will deal with the Kennedys. No, this essay will deal with some more words which seem to have selective meanings. In other words, they have definitions which satisfy the agenda of the user of those words. Politicians use the term public service and I would use the phrase feeding at the public trough. As we go forward in this writing I think you will get my drift.
The next word is lobbyist. That word sounds so professional, so clean, so legitimate. What if we used the true term and called them bribers or extortionists? Another good definition might be influence peddler. After all, what do they do? They buy legislation for their clients. Groups like the AMA, the AARP, the Trial Lawyers, and too many more to count throw money around Washington to make sure that their client's turf and wealth are protected. When this practice is done by a lobbyist it appears so legal. But we should call it what it is.
This then brings us to the next phrase, campaign contribution. Humorist and philosopher Will Rogers once said many years ago, "We have the finest Congress money can buy." Nothing has changed except for the amount of money flowing into the hands of a few elected representatives of the people who become very wealthy in just a short time in Washington. Consider this. You feel very strongly about a particular candidate for office so you decide to contribute $100.00 to his or her campaign. Let's just say that a large corporation also feels very strongly that this same candidate, if elected, could be very instrumental in forwarding their agenda. So you both contribute but the corporation gives $10,000.00 to the campaign. Your candidate is elected and you want to access your new Representative for an issue that is in opposition to the corporation's agenda. Who do you think is going to be favored with both the access and the favorable legislation? The one hundred dollar contributor doesn't have a chance. In other words, money talks.
Of course the next of many words is campaign war chest. That is nothing more than the wealth amassed by the "bribe-e" contributed by the "bribe-er". This amassed money serves to insure that the particular Representative will continue to have the means to defeat any challenger in the future. A statement credited to an Assemblyman in California, Big Daddy Jesse Unruh, was that money is the mother's milk of politics. Unfortunately and sadly that seems to be very true.
I could go on about how words are changed to reflect the agenda of the user. It is not the exclusive province of politicians. Advertisers do it. Salesmen do it. What we the people must do though is not just blindly accept what Washington is selling and examine the true meaning of the words that they are using. If you are satisfied with legislation being passed by people who accept bribes, then this rant is probably not for you, but if, like me, you are fed up with this practice, then scream loudly and long until it is brought under some kind of control. We cannot compete with big labor unions, or teacher's groups or big pharmaceuticals, but we can remember on election day. Your one vote is worth more than all the money the bribers can spend. Spend your vote wisely.
My final word today is skeptic. That pretty much identifies me and I hope all who read these musings.
Ron Scarbro September 7, 2009
The next word is lobbyist. That word sounds so professional, so clean, so legitimate. What if we used the true term and called them bribers or extortionists? Another good definition might be influence peddler. After all, what do they do? They buy legislation for their clients. Groups like the AMA, the AARP, the Trial Lawyers, and too many more to count throw money around Washington to make sure that their client's turf and wealth are protected. When this practice is done by a lobbyist it appears so legal. But we should call it what it is.
This then brings us to the next phrase, campaign contribution. Humorist and philosopher Will Rogers once said many years ago, "We have the finest Congress money can buy." Nothing has changed except for the amount of money flowing into the hands of a few elected representatives of the people who become very wealthy in just a short time in Washington. Consider this. You feel very strongly about a particular candidate for office so you decide to contribute $100.00 to his or her campaign. Let's just say that a large corporation also feels very strongly that this same candidate, if elected, could be very instrumental in forwarding their agenda. So you both contribute but the corporation gives $10,000.00 to the campaign. Your candidate is elected and you want to access your new Representative for an issue that is in opposition to the corporation's agenda. Who do you think is going to be favored with both the access and the favorable legislation? The one hundred dollar contributor doesn't have a chance. In other words, money talks.
Of course the next of many words is campaign war chest. That is nothing more than the wealth amassed by the "bribe-e" contributed by the "bribe-er". This amassed money serves to insure that the particular Representative will continue to have the means to defeat any challenger in the future. A statement credited to an Assemblyman in California, Big Daddy Jesse Unruh, was that money is the mother's milk of politics. Unfortunately and sadly that seems to be very true.
I could go on about how words are changed to reflect the agenda of the user. It is not the exclusive province of politicians. Advertisers do it. Salesmen do it. What we the people must do though is not just blindly accept what Washington is selling and examine the true meaning of the words that they are using. If you are satisfied with legislation being passed by people who accept bribes, then this rant is probably not for you, but if, like me, you are fed up with this practice, then scream loudly and long until it is brought under some kind of control. We cannot compete with big labor unions, or teacher's groups or big pharmaceuticals, but we can remember on election day. Your one vote is worth more than all the money the bribers can spend. Spend your vote wisely.
My final word today is skeptic. That pretty much identifies me and I hope all who read these musings.
Ron Scarbro September 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
