Attack on the Civil Rights Movement

ATTACK ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT
www.keepingitright.blogspot.com


When one thinks of a civil rights movement, one usually thinks of Martin Luther King, Jr, Malcom X and other prominent "effective" civil rights leaders. The struggle to have a country recognize one's race and to treat them as equals and to afford them equal protection of the law. To me, without the civil rights movements, I would be going through the same struggles as my grandfather and my father. I thank God, that today, the same struggles they had to endure, is not as prominent as it was back then. The civil rights leader of the past, should be honored and never forgotten, and having said that, the civil rights, my parents and my grandparents afforded to me, should not be given up and used for illegal and immorale purposes.

Today, when we turn on the news or read a local newspaper, you are most likely to see someone compare their plight to the plight of blacks in the 60's. During the 2004 elections, gays used their plight to justify their "want" to be recognized a married couples. They claim that just because they are gay, they are discriminated against. So when individual states voted on defining marriage, out came the most second powerful card in the deck, the "Civil Rights Movement" card. This card is catching up in use with the "race card." When in doubt and can't back up your arguement, this card comes in handy.

Now folks who use that card, have to be careful. If you don't believe, ask gays and PETA. These groups tried to use that card only to be rebutted by black civil rights groups opposite of the sold out civil rights groups, who have been rendered impotent and ineffective. The new black civil rights group quickly with the pen served them with a "it's not the same thing, it's not even in the same ball park" columns in newspapers and news talkshows.

Then there are illegal aliens, these people are comparing their plight to that of the civil rights movement of blacks. Lets analyze, there are two groups of people who are not immigrants..one is the Native American and the other was brought here against their will...They would be called, slaves. These slaves consisted of Africans sold into slavery by their own tribes. As a matter of fact, this act is still going on in Africa. Blacks who were enslaved and their ancestors are not immigrants. I don't think if they were offered a cruise on a wooden ship, with the promise of being shackled side by side, butt, stark naked on the bottom of said wooden ship for days on out, only for the privilege of being a slave. I don't think the most ignorant in the jungles of Africa would take that deal.

Somehow illegal aliens feel that since they illegally crossed our borders, took low skilled wage earners jobs, obtain welfare,free education without being caught or questioned. They feel they should be rewarded with outright citizenship or the ability of keeping their citizenship of their country of origin. Oh! by the way, if Americans don't like it..they're racist! (the all powerful race card).

This is a simple assault on the real legacy of the civil rights movement. Being gay, a non-meat eater or illegal alien does not equate or even come close to the struggles of Black Americans in the past. As a matter of fact the attack by these people should qualify as an alarm that once again blacks are about to get the bowzack again.

The problem is that our elected and self elected black leaders have been given a date rape drug and too busy gettin' did to realize that there is an attack on the civil rights movement.

Black Men: Plights

Hey you guys, I am going to post two articles from the same writer. It is in regard to the "plight" of the black man. As most of you know, I dab into politics and social issues, with the goals of breaking into the political field. And, all of you know, I do support lower taxes, less government involvement in our personal lives, education accountability with the use vouchers, military, and lessening the welfare state.

The articles are interesting because the writer is asking, "Hey, where the black men at?" The funny thing is that he answers his own question and really didn't need to ask "where" but "why." If you ask anyone on the street, Where are the black men? I'm pretty sure the answer you'll get and probably the answer you'll give is: prison or in the cemetary. The one thing that stood out was that black men are in the military, as if that was a bad thing, "prison, cemetary or military?" If a man is voluntarily serving in the military, doesn't that mean he IS doing something for himself and if he has a family SOMETHING for his family. But this is not what I wanted to show. I wanted you all to see where "racism" is listed on the possibility of why black men are joining the whales and the California condor as an endangered species.

First Article:

Black Men: Missing
By Salim Muwakkil
As we limp into the 21st century, a gender gap is rending the fabric of the entire African-American community.
The overwhelming absence of Black men has always been one of the most distressing facts about life in America’s public housing developments. In Chicago, for example, black women are the vast majority of lease holders in the Chicago Housing Authority; men are like ghosts in the projects.
Besieged by poverty, disease, violence and mass incarceration, African-American men are conspicuously missing in action. At one time, this gender imbalance afflicted mostly lower-income neighborhoods. But as we limp into the 21st century, that gender gap is rending the fabric of the entire African-American community.
“Where have all the Black men gone?” asked the headline on a story by Jonathan Tilove for The Star Ledger in Newark, N.J. The article examined the New Jersey city of East Orange, where there are 37 percent more adult women than men. Tilove wrote that most of the missing men are dead, and many others are locked up or in the military.
“Worst yet,” he wrote, “the gender imbalance in East Orange is not some grotesque anomaly. It’s a vivid snapshot of a very troubling reality in black America.” Tilove noted that nationwide adult black women outnumber black men by 2 million. With nearly another million black men in prison or the military, the reality in most black communities across the country is an even greater imbalance—a gap of 2.8 million, or 26 percent, according to Census Bureau figures for 2002. The comparable disparity for whites was 8 percent.
In some cities the gap is even higher. There are more than 30 percent more black women than men in Baltimore, New Orleans, Chicago and Cleveland. In New York City the number is 36 percent and in Philadelphia, 37 percent. As the black population ages, the gap widens. “By the time people reach their 60s in East Orange, there are 47 percent more black women than men,” Tilove wrote.
This growing gender gap has enormously negative implications for the future of black America. And there are nuances in the statistics that make the prognosis even bleaker. For example, among well-educated, professional black women—a group that is growing rapidly—the gap is a chasm. Surely, that progress for black women is good news that shouldn’t be overlooked. However, as black women advance, black men are falling even further behind.
In fact, the more successful a black woman becomes, the more likely she will end up alone, Walter Farrell, a University of North Carolina professor, said in a March 2002 Washington Monthly article. As a result, professional black women are having fewer children, meaning that a growing percentage of black children are being born into less educated, less affluent families.
The recent edition of the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education warns that “a large and growing gender gap in African-American higher education has become a troublesome trend casting a shadow on overall black education progress.” The Journal reports that in 2001, there were 1,095,000 black women enrolled in institutions of higher education and only 604,000 black men. The gap, which is even wider at professional schools, has increased since 2001.
It’s also important to note that despite unprecedented gains, black women are the fastest growing group of inmates in the nation’s prisons. And they still bear the brunt of urban poverty as single parents in the commercial wastelands that too often are their neighborhoods.
Unless we make some dramatic changes in the way our society tracks black men, all of these conditions will worsen, with increasingly nightmarish consequences. The primary culprit is the tracking of black men into a criminal justice system that a growing number of critics have dubbed the “prison-industrial complex.” Many are there because of the so-called war on drugs and its accompanying mandatory minimum sentences.
The tracking process begins in elementary school, where African-American males routinely are assumed to be academically deficient and then demonized for their angry reactions to those biased assumptions. Resentful of a system that blithely dismisses their potential, many black boys eventually become alienated from scholastic activity. A recent study found that only 38 percent of Chicago’s black males have graduated from high school since 1995.
These uneducated youth are the raw material of the prison-industrial complex. Lacking marketable skills, they flock to the ruthless underground economy of drug commerce where they are easily siphoned into the “injustice” system—victims of the drug war. Some also become victims of lethal gun violence—homicide remains the leading cause of death for young black men.
Unless we strenuously intervene to better the prospects of African-American men, who incidentally comprise about one-eighth of the earth’s entire population of prison inmates, we may just be accomplices to a process of genocide in our own country.

Second Article by same writer:
Black Men: The Crisis Continues
By Salim Muwakkil
A confluence of ills has long conspired to marginalize black men and track them into a trajectory of failure.
According to the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh, the Bush administration seems poised to bomb Iran and drag us further into the pit of international infamy. Bush has admitted he declassified data to damn critics and that he’s wiretapping Americans at his own discretion.
Thousands, perhaps millions, of Latinos demonstrated in the streets of America this spring, forcing this nation to take note of an awakening giant. Even as war drums rumble in the oil-rich Middle East, oil-rich Nigeria is rising as the new focus of U.S. belligerence. My mouth waters at the prospect of tackling some of those issues. But that will have to wait.
Instead, I must return to a subject that is depressingly familiar: African Americans are in the midst of a social crisis that threatens the very viability of the black community. The core of this crisis is the deepening plight of black men.
Although black men are conspicuously successful in many arenas of American life, they are facing a social emergency. Throughout America, but especially in the inner cities, African-American men are disproportionately surrounded by poverty, violence, mass incarceration and disease. A confluence of ills has long conspired to marginalize black men and track them into a trajectory of failure.
But a flurry of recent studies reveal that their decline in socio-economic status is more rapid than previously thought, and prompted the New York Times to publish a front page story in late March on their deepening plight. “Black men in the United States face a far more dire situation than is portrayed by common employment and education statistics,” reads the lead sentence.
The problems afflicting black men have been well-charted both in academia and in the streets, so this information is not exactly new. In fact, African-American activists have long quipped that black men were an endangered species. As these new studies reveal, we still have failed to summon adequate concern for the wide scope of these problems, which I believe have now reached emergency status.
The Times quoted Ronald B. Mincy, professor of social work at Columbia University, who said, “There’s something very different happening with young black men, and it’s something we can no longer ignore.” Mincy is also the editor of Black Males Left Behind, a 2006 book that attempts to quantify the extent of their decline. “Over the last two decades, the economy did great,” he told the Times, “and low-skilled women, helped by public policy, latched onto it. But young black men were falling farther back.”
Mincy favors increased public investment into the education of black men as the most promising strategy. But because of the current political climate, he has few hopes the government will implement such a policy.
The various studies outlined in the Times piece reached sobering conclusions about how we’ve previously understated the extent of black men’s problems. Among other things, the new studies found:
More than half of all black men in the nation’s inner cities drop out of high school.
More than 70 percent of black male high school dropouts in their 20s were out of work in 2004.
By their mid-30s, 60 percent of high school dropouts have served time in jail.
The scholars cite many reasons for this deterioration. Primary among them are bad schools, absent parents, racism, structural changes in the economy and a subculture that glorifies gangsterism.
The Times piece is just the latest in several articles that have brought attention to this growing crisis and its many implications. Perhaps the most distressing implication is the growing gender imbalance between black men and black women.
The toll of inner-city life is serving to de-populate many black communities of its men. I wrote about this problem last year in a column, “Black Men: Missing,” that examined these gender imbalances. Homicidal violence, life-style morbidity, environmental hazards and mass incarceration are depleting the ranks of African-American males at an alarming rate, I wrote. This gap threatens to destabilize the black community in ways no outside force has managed to in the entire history of African Americans, most of whom are the progeny of enslaved Africans.
In most of America’s cities, black women outnumber black men by large margins and the gap grows wider as women become more educated. But even as they prosper, black women still withstand the worst of urban poverty as single parents in their disinvested neighborhoods.
I’d like to focus on other subjects, but the ramifications of the current crisis are too broad and deep, with ominous implications for the nation at large.

One of Dem Daze

You know the good thing about getting information today, is that the internet and cable television allows us to hear and see interviews, we would not have seen back in the day. For instance, I was listening to the "sage" of South Central the other day and he was talking about an interview Sen. Ted "Otis" Kennedy did with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press." Russert asked Kennedy if the democrats were going to win the mid term elections. And this is what Kennedy said:

MR. RUSSERT: What’s going to happen in the midterm elections?
SEN. KENNEDY: Democrats are going to be successful. I think we’re going to make progress. I think we’ll carry the Senate and also the House.
MR. RUSSERT: Both houses?
SEN. KENNEDY: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: What will be the big issues?
SEN. KENNEDY: The big—the overarching issue is the gross incompetency of this administration in every aspect, whether it’s in the Medicare prescription drug bill--45 different programs in my state of Massachusetts—rather than the simple kind of a program that would have been the Medicare system on that thing, the incompetence that we had down in Katrina, the cronyism that we have had in terms of the individuals that have taken government jobs, the refusal of accountability in terms of the—of Iraq. I think it’s all, it’s all out there.

MR. RUSSERT: So you think the Republicans will be blamed for corruption?

SEN. KENNEDY: I think there’s certainly a big—there’ll be a heavy burden for them to try and defend what’s been happening here. The sweetheart contracts, the Halliburton sweetheart contracts that have been out there, I think they’ll have a heavy burden to do so.

MR. RUSSERT: Your very first appearance on MEET THE PRESS in 1962, there was a lot of corruption in Massachusetts, and you were asked, “What would be the political effect of those Democrats who were guilty of corruption?” Let’s watch.

(Videotape, March 11, 1962):

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Will the Democratic Party be harmed this year by these scandals?

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, I think the question of whether individuals who have come up, who’ve been indicted, have been Democrats, I think are irrelevant, really, any more than you can say that because certain of these people belong to a certain racial group, a religious group, a racial group, or from a certain city and town are necessarily all evil.
(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: When it’s Democrats, it’s irrelevant.

SEN. KENNEDY: That’s, that’s really not the issue, is it? I mean, is it just the individuals or is it the whole culture? And I think what most Americans understand is that there is the whole permeation, sort of the stench of money and corruption and cronyism and fixed deals and special interests, that the special interests get special consideration when they make the contribution, all of that sort of wrapped on in...(unintelligible).

MR. RUSSERT: Democrats as well as Republicans?

SEN. KENNEDY: There are some, and there ought to be the accountability. But this is—this really is something that is just waiting on the administration and upon the leadership. The leadership has an opportunity to clear—have done something, and it should have.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Ted Kennedy, thank you for joining us. The book, “America: Back on Track.”

SEN. KENNEDY: “Track.”


Now if you read the whole thing correctly. Kennedy just said that the corruption going on in his party in his own state is irrevelant. But it's different for republicans. As a matter of fact mid term elections different. I wonder if Kennedy was pissed at Russert for that last exchange. My guess he had too, it's equivalent to inquiring about his opinion on drunk driving.

Don't ask....


Another thing in the transcript is that Kennedy said we are in Iraq longer than the Korean War and WWII. Someone needs to remind the dazed senator that we are still in Korea and still in Europe from both wars respectively. As a matter of fact, the Korean War is simmering, it was never over...

Where You At?

Every since a Los Angeles jury found Jesse Jackson not liable for an alleged assault of Jesse Lee Peterson. Peterson, I thought had been scarce. It kinda reminded me when Armstrong Williams made himself scarce in opinion columns, after his scandal of receiving funds to support the "No Child Left Behind." You couldn't find Williams and when he did make appearances, his columns appeared leftward. And now the same can be said about Peterson. After Peterson losted his civil case against Jackson, he kinda disappeared, didn't hear a peep or rumors of his saying he would not hire a black person with a black sounding name. So where did Jesse P. go? Did we have to place his face on a milk carton? Did we need to call a press conference and start a series of "Where Are They Now?"

The one thing that really differentiates liberal blacks to conservative blacks is that liberal blacks, no matter the scandal, no matter the embarrasment will always show up in public. Al Sharpton and Tawana Brawley matter, we have seen Al lose weight, gain weight and lets not mention the hair. Jesse Jackson and the hymie remarks, the Illinois high school boys, playin' on his wife and more embarrasing moments including the Tookie Williams execution has made us see the man who so eloquently spoke during his presidential run, now slur his words and unable to rhyme the word "cat." Yet, like other liberal blacks, they tend to find the television camera and with no problem or slur say "cheese!!!" or if you're Jackson, "chuuse!."

Unfortunatle the same can't be said about Peterson. Peterson has quietly went away and picking his platforms. If you visit his site www.bondfinfo.org you'll see that he has taken a stand on illegal immigration and now speaking at colleges about the failure of black leadership. Which is good, except for one thing. He is speaking. Take a look at his latest speaking engagement and the comments made:

Professor Disrupts Rev. Peterson’s Speech at University of Texas at San Antonio

BOND Founder and President Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson entered a hornet’s nest when he came to the University of San Texas at San Antonio to address the students.
A black professor of African-American studies named Frederick Williams had been attempting to fire up his students for two weeks in the classroom prior to Rev. Peterson’s address, and reportedly had even offered extra credit to students who would come and protest the speech!

As Rev. Peterson entered the university’s main auditorium, he saw an armed security guard in each corner. (we got play by play reportin' here)

After being introduced by an event organizer, Rev. Peterson began to speak. Much of the audience was enraptured with Rev. Peterson’s touching story of personal transformation.
The title of Rev. Peterson’s address was “How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America”, and he explained how that exploitation comes about. He urged black Americans to turn away from corrupt leaders such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, and the Black Caucus.
Hearing Rev. Peterson speak honestly about their leaders angered many in the crowd, and hands began to shoot up, before the question and answer session even began.

Professor Williams was there with his troops, and brought some printed buttons with the words, “We support legitimate black leadership”. Someone pinned one of these buttons to Rev. Peterson’s lapel, and on observing the button on Rev. Peterson, Professor Williams angrily demanded that he remove it. Rev. Peterson replied that he too supports legitimate black leadership!
Rev. Peterson explained that the fall of the black community started years ago, when government regulations mandated that women could not receive federal assistance (welfare) as long as there was a man in the home. So black men left the homes, and the government became the daddy of the family. Rev. Peterson said, “The government (bureaucracy) is anti-God and anti-family.”

Professor Williams asked that since Rev. Peterson had stated that the government was anti-God, then what about President Bush? After all, isn’t he the government?
Rev. Peterson told Williams that as a professor, he should know that the government is a bureaucracy, not a person, and suggested that students get out of Professor Williams class (due to his ignorance).
At this point many in the audience began to erupt. One black man called Rev. Peterson a “Sambo”—a tool for the white man. There were several times during the presentation when angry black students jumped up and acted as if they were going to come up to the stage and attack Rev. Peterson. (this is where, some folk pin the victim card on black conservatives)
One young woman stood up and started raving, in total disagreement with Rev. Peterson. After failing to engage her in dialogue, Rev. Peterson good-naturedly asked, “How’d you like to married to her?” (An insult by Peterson)

Two young women got up and said that Rev. Peterson shouldn’t say the things he was saying. Jesse asked them, “Name one thing I’ve said that’s wrong.” Of course they couldn’t.
In an attempt to find a rational person to converse with, Rev. Peterson finally said, “Are there any normal people here, cuz these folks are crazy.” Professor Williams jumped to his feet and said, “Don’t talk to these kids like that!”
Amongst the liberal overreaction, a Hispanic man stood up and told Jesse, “I agree with everything you said, it’s all true.” The man suggested that Rev. Peterson run for President. Then apparently feeling the hostility of an angry liberal pack around him, the man promptly got up and headed for the exit!
At last the meeting was over. Wary of potential trouble, guards hovered around Jesse. A black student approached him asking, “Why do you say you hate black people? (Of course he never said that). Another asked, “Why do you say you’re not black?” (Rev. Peterson never said he’s not black, he said he’s not an African American).
Other crowd members approached Rev. Peterson to thank him for the speech, and to let him know how much it helped them.
During the event, a number of event organizers had been threatened by black audience members. One black male threatened to “bitch slap” a young female organizer, after she had asked him to quiet down.
Because of the danger, Rev. Peterson had to be escorted all the way to his car.
Rev. Peterson later commented that he was encouraged by the open and honest dialogue. And that all that happened was good, even the outbursts, because it can get those who overreacted to take an honest look at themselves. He was also encouraged by the energy and courage of the organizers.

If you are interested in booking Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson to speak at your university, church, or conference, call Patrick Rooney at (323) 782-1980

Stephen A. Smith - Jesse Jackson Needs To Butt Of Duke Situation

Stephen A. Smith Jesse Jackson needs to butt out of Duke situation
By Stephen A. Smith
Inquirer Columnist

Some people just need to go away. If not forever, then at least for a little while.
I'm talking about the kind of people who have had their time. The kind of people whose substance has dwindled. The kind of people who have contaminated their own good deeds with bullying tactics and manipulation - all in the desperate pursuit of nothing but airtime.

I'm talking about the one and only, the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

In Durham, N.C, a 27-year-old black female, a stripper-for-hire, alleges she was attacked on March 13. The alleged incident occurred at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., a home leased by three members of Duke University's lacrosse team.

After the allegations, 46 players rendered DNA samples. None of the samples connected any of the players to an attack on the woman, who is a student at North Carolina Central University.
The case for District Attorney Mike Nifong reportedly has been augmented by the woman's identification of two of the alleged assailants, while being 90 percent positive about a third.

Eventually, the hope is that the truth will come out.
But what difference will it make, ultimately? Especially with the presence of Jesse Jackson?
You can tell Jesse Jackson is coming from a mile away. All you have to do is follow the noise and rest assured that the Baptist preacher's fire-and-brimstone rhetoric won't be far behind. So forgive me if I'm annoyed as Jackson pushes his way into this situation, potentially polarizing communities nationwide in all the wrong ways, possibly jeopardizing our interest in the truth - purely because I'm disgusted by his version of things.
As well as his participation.
Now, don't get me wrong. A black woman allegedly being victimized by white male college students definitely conjures up racial implications. And if racial slurs indeed were uttered, this certainly provides the grounds for it being a civil-rights issue.
But if local ministers and officials of the NAACP are handling matters, and individuals such as the Rev. Al Sharpton have the good sense to offer counsel without becoming directly involved publicly, why is Jackson grasping for TV time with everyone from ESPN to CNN?
Why is Jackson inserting himself into a situation that requires neither his presence nor input? Why publicize that his Rainbow/PUSH Coalition in Chicago will pay for the accuser to finish her education?
With Jackson, we know why.
We know that he loves attention. We know that attention leads to a perception of power. We know that perceived power is easily translated into riches. And with Jackson - judging by accusations levied against him from black conservatives and other watchdog groups - we also know that's how he works.
Before anyone jumps to Jackson's defense, wondering why on earth anyone would feel this way about his involvement, a look at his recent history should explain it all.
Terrell Owens systematically went about the business of alienating Donovan McNabb, his teammates and the Eagles organization in a quest to get more money. Yet Jackson felt the need to interfere. Even others such as Sharpton proclaimed at the time that Jackson should not be involved because the Owens case was not a civil-rights issue.
Months later, after some idiot decided to throw a syringe into the outfield near Barry Bonds in San Diego, Jackson stuck his nose into matters, accusing Major League Baseball and the local police of failing to protect Bonds.
So in one instance, Jackson is defending the indefensible Owens.
In the other, he's defending someone in Bonds who, basically, refuses to defend himself.
What a joke. If only it were funny.
When you think of this woman who allegedly has been raped, think about the pursuit of truth and the need for cooperation in the Durham community. Think about the local officials, law-enforcement and otherwise, doing their due diligence in pursuit of the truth.
Think about what it would be like if it were your daughter who had been raped. Or if it were your son who was accused of rape.
Then ask yourself one more thing: Would you like it being politicized? Especially by someone like Jackson, whose agenda lately has a camera nearby?
If Jackson was really sincere, matters would be dealt with behind the scenes. Away from the glitz and glare. That is where he could wield his considerable clout.

The problem? Doing so would require Jackson to care about someone else more than himself.

We pray that he will in this case.

Deep down, though, we know better.

Stephen A. Smith

Contact columnist Stephen A. Smith at 215-854-5846 or ssmith@phillynews.com. Read his recent work at http://go.philly.com/stephensmith.

Exotic City?

Over the weekend our self elected leader and president of the Black People's Union, Jesse Jackson, chimed in on the Duke Lacrosse team rape allegations. Jackson said that he is going to pay for the alleged victim's education because he feels noone should have to strip for a living...Now before all you strippers out there, don't think you got reparations for the Black Peoples Union. This is Jackson's way of slurring and stuttering himself in this incident.

It's his way of needing to be needed, forget about the litany of other problems illing the Black Peoples Union and calls for impeachment for self elected BPU leader, Jesse Lee Peterson. His self electness is concerned and wants to do something about an alleged victim, who strips to support herself and her children. You know what, I'm wrong, let me rephrase that. His self electness is concerned and wants to do something for this soooo poor...nope, okay, how about this one? His self electness is concerned and wants do something for this struggling single-mother of two, who is gaining an education but has to strip in order to keep her head above water. Now that's better, I mean we have to be sensitive to folk who "have" to strip and mount poles for a livin'. It has to be degrading while counting the hundreds of one's or fives shooved down the g-string. And what about the other strippers, preferably black, single mother, going to school for that better future and now we can add alleged rape or sexual assault victim in the mix. Are they eligible for Jackson's new adult entertainment concern? and if so, how do they get the funds?

lap dance or will Jesse place it on the stage, stuttering and slurring these famous words

"shakin da azz, shakin da azz!"

I Like Reid's 1993 Immigration Plan.

Whats Changed Sen. Reid?

August 5, 1993 The Office of Sen. Harry Reid issued the following:In response to increased terrorism and abuse of social programs by aliens, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) today introduced the first and only comprehensive immigration reform bill in Congress.Currently, an alien living illegally in the United States often pays no taxes but receives unemployment, welfare, free medical care and other federal benefits. Recent terrorist acts, including the World Trade Center bombing, have underscored the need to keep violent criminals out of the country.Reid's bill, the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993, overhauls the nation's immigration laws and calls for a massive scale-down of immigrants allowed into the country from approximately 800,000 to 300,000. The bill also changes asylum laws to prevent phony asylum seekers. Reid said the U.S. open door policy is being abused at the expense of honest, working citizens."We are a country founded upon fairness and justice," Reid said. "An individual in real threat of torture or long-term incarceration because of his or her political beliefs can still seek asylum. But this bill closes the door to those who want to abuse America's inherent generosity and legal system."Reid's bill also cracks down on illegal immigration. The 1990 census reported 3.3 million illegal aliens in America. Recent estimates indicate about 2.5 million immigrants illegally entered the United States last year."Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs," Reid said. "The Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the ability to step up enforcement."Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits often without paying any taxes."Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance. These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world. "Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally," Reid said.Specific provisions of Reid's Immigration Stabilization Act include the following:-- Reduces annual legal immigration levels from approximately 800,000 admissions per year to about 300,000. Relatives other than spouse or minor children will be admitted only if already on immigration waiting lists and their admission does not raise annual immigration levels above 300,000.-- Reforms asylum rules to prevent aliens from entering the United States illegally under phony "asylum" claims.-- Expands list of felonies considered "aggravated" felonies requiring exclusion and deportation of criminal aliens. Allows courts to order deportation at time of sentencing.-- Increases penalties for failing to depart or re-entering the United States after a final order of deportation order. Increases maximum penalties for visa fraud from five years to 10 years.-- Curtails alien smuggling by authorizing interdiction and repatriation of aliens seeking to enter the United States unlawfully by sea. Increases penalties for alien smuggling.-- Adds "alien smuggling" to the list of crimes subject to sanctions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Expands the categories of property that are forfeited when used to facilitate the smuggling or harboring of illegal aliens.-- Clarifies that a person born in the United States to an alien mother who is not a lawful resident is not a U.S. citizen. This will eliminate incentive for pregnant alien women to enter the United States illegally, often at risk to mother and child, for the purpose of acquiring citizenship for the child and accompanying federal financial benefits.-- Mandates that aliens who cannot demonstrably support themselves without public or private assistance are excludable. This will prevent admission of aliens likely to be dependent on public financial support. This requirement extends to the sponsor of any family sponsored immigrant.-- Increases border security and patrol officers to 9,900 full-time positions.END

Money For War and Not The Poor

When Kanye West said on national television that George Bush doesn't care about black people, on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. A lot of folks nodded their heads and waved their hands like they just didn't care and said "oh yeah!" and West isn't the only one. Here in California Mike Reiner aka Meathead on "All in the family" is proposing that folks who make over $500,000.00 a year pay for pre-school for the states illegals errr!!! poor. These type of actions and statements imply that this administration and in particular this president only cares about three people...He, Himself and His-self. Implications ranging for lack of funds for education, defense and everyone's favorite...welfare.

It's the battlecry, wait a minute, I can't use battle and democrat in the same sentence, let alone subject. Okay, let me try this, its the bitchin' of the democratic party, that the guys on the other side of the aisle, or if your Hillary Clinton, the plantation owners who don't want nobody to have nothin." They blame the republicans for always cutting programs here and there, the best example is blaming Reagan's republican administration of cutting mental health programs, causing a majority of this country's mentally ill patients to be on the streets. It's curious to me that no one ever brings up the ACLU and their lawsuit to stop mental institutions from giving these patients their meds. But if its bad, blame the republicans and in contrast, with exception of Bill Clinton, and trust me after you read the attached article, some democrats are going to say, you see, I told you Clinton was good as gold.

The article is from the April 3, 2006, USA Today, and it can be placed as a non-friendly to conservative newsreaders, but sometimes these papers slip and print something that makes people like Kanye West, look well, ill-informed. I'm pretty sure other editors on their way to work walked by a newsstand to see on the front page, "Government Spending Grows." I'm sure that some were ordering latte from one of the gazillion StarBucks, almost choked on the foam when they saw it. And I'm pretty sure our misinformed celebrities had someone read it to them, while they listened in disqust. What the USA Today did was say what all conservatives had been saying in debates and trying to correct, well the misinformed.
Government spending or big government kinda negates the statement by Rev. Lowry at Coretta Scott King's Funeral service, when he said, "we got money for war but not for the poor." The USA Today, kinda made him and everyone else who has either said or wrote it on cardboard look like liars. Because according to this newspaper, and pursuant to all other arguements that the news presented by Fox or written in conservative newspapers, the USA Today backs up the claim that this administration has spent more on programs than the Lyndon "War on Poverty" Johnson and the last time this kind of spending went on, was on another democratic favorite Franklin Delano Roosevelt. A republican president, with democratic tendancies to spend, spend and spend has been doing so, with tax cuts, three wars (Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo), with unemployment down to 4.8 to 4.9%, Hurricanes and 9/11! and yet he is the most criticized president since Richard Nixon and hell all Nixon did was sign into law another democratic favorite program...affirmative action.
So now what left wing liberals? what do you say, here it is from one of your newsrags...trust me, this news doesn't sit well for republicans who feel that this administration has lost its freakin' mind in regard to spending and damn sure doesn't fit well for democrats who now have to say something different in regard to this administration in its cutting of programs...oh!!! there wasn't a program this administration didn't touch...which continues to make Kerry and Kennedy liars.


Article:
Growth in federal spending unchecked Updated 4/3/2006 7:51 AM

BUDGET CHANGES Average annual budget change as a percentage of U.S. gross domestic product during these administrations: Roosevelt 14.8% Truman -8.6% Eisenhower -1.3% Kennedy 0.2% Johnson 1% Nixon 1.6% Ford -1.4% Carter 1.8% Reagan -0.6% G. Bush 0.2% Clinton -1.8% G.W. Bush 2.4%
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAYWASHINGTON — Federal spending is outstripping economic growth at a rate unseen in more than half a century, provoking some conservatives to complain that government under Republican control has gotten too big.The federal government is currently spending 20.8 cents of every $1 the economy generates, up from 18.5 cents in 2001, White House budget documents show. That's the most rapid growth during one administration since Franklin Roosevelt.
RELATED: How federal spending has climbed since 2001
There are no signs that the trend is about to turn around. The House Budget Committee last week rejected a proposal that would require spending hikes to be offset by cuts in other spending or by tax increases.
This week, the House is scheduled to debate the $2.8 trillion budget for 2007, which projects an additional $3 trillion of debt in the next five years.
The Sept. 11 attacks, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Gulf Coast hurricanes account for only part of the increased spending.
Other factors: the biggest military buildup in decades, domestic spending, and the rise of benefits for the elderly, poor and disabled.
"You take anything, and we've grown it big," says Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a leading critic of the spending spurt. "When you're in control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, there's just no stop on it. There's no brake."
Examples:
• Spending for President Bush's military buildup, which began before 9/11, has risen nearly 50% above inflation in five years.
• Medicare's new prescription-drug coverage is projected to cost an average of $80 billion a year over the next decade, adding nearly 20% to the health care program's annual price tag.
• Spending on social programs, from education to veterans health care, has risen faster than at any time since the 1960s.
"Budgeting is about making choices, and this period is one that shows a complete absence of that," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican who stepped down last year as director of the Congressional Budget Office.
The White House points to recent domestic cuts and the elimination of scores of small programs. It says Bush has led efforts to trim Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
"By far the bulk of new funding — 75% of it — has been to restore the hollowed-out military the president inherited, strengthen homeland defenses after 9/11, and fight the war on terror," says Scott Milburn, spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget. "These are essential investments that were required ... to protect our nation."
The spending spike contrasts with the mid-1990s, when Republicans gained control of Congress and compromised with President Clinton on spending cuts that led to a $236 billion budget surplus in 2000.
"Republicans have gotten the sense that they're going to get elected by passing out money to people," says former Republican House Budget Committee chairman John Kasich.