We are ostensibly in a war and we are fighting to preserve our sovereignty, our republic.   Does it really matter whether Judge Susan Bolton ruled against portions of the Arizona Law known as SB1070?   No, it doesn't.   It doesn't because regardless of who was the victor in Judge Susan Bolton's court the result was going to be appealed.   This will have to go all the way to the US Supreme Court and this is only the injunction.   The actual case that Eric Holder is putting together in his attempt to deprive the State of Arizona and all other states of their natural Constitutional power to protect its citizens and to deprive Arizona of the Constitutionally mandated federal protections it deserves will all need to be adjudicated at that level making Judge Susan Bolton barely relevant in the entire process. 

A second consideration is whether anything beyond the injunction will be necessary.   There should be a high expectation that the next Congress will be dominated by more rational Americans steeped in the idea of state rights, believing in the limited powers of the federal government and thus intent on limiting this grasp for power by Eric Holder and Barack Obama.   Does anyone doubt but what this next Congress might not pull the rug right out from under Holder and deprive him of the funding he requires to pursue this case against Arizona?  

Wednesday night on the O'Reilly Factor, his guest host, Laura Ingraham interviewed a law professor who suggested we read the footnotes to Judge Bolton's ruling.   Where she struck down the requirement that officers look into the status of an individual when performing a routine detention, there is nothing in her ruling that forbids the discretion of a police officer.  The problem according to her ruling was in the requirement to perform that act.   Thus Sheriff Arpaio is able to continue his enforcement process and it has not been made illegal to verify a person's legal status.  http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/arpaio-arizona-immigration-ruling-obama-mexico-border-/2010/07/28/id/365938?s=al&promo_code=A60D-1

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) in one of those rare appearances on the Fox News Channel where he made sense on the subject of immigration indicated a desire to bring forward a Constitutional Amendment to repeal a portion of the 14th Amendment that grants persons automatic citizenship if born in this country.   He stated that it made no sense for our country to reward those persons who enter this country illegally with automatic citizenship for their baby when they are in the process of committing an illegal act.   From his remarks it would seem that his amendment would be directed at those persons who are here illegally and save for another day any potential problems of simply repealing the paragraph that states that any person born in this country is a citizen.   The 14th Amendment had as its purpose the granting of citizenship to the recently emancipated slaves and their children.  No person who was the target of that amendment is still alive.  

Sadly, Senator Graham went on to speak of the immigration problem as one that requires that we do something positive about those persons already here.   This is where the Senator separates from the company of most Tea Partiers.   It is our firm belief that when it is made a felony to knowingly hire an undocumented worker, when there is a guest worker program that is available to people in construction and agriculture, when the anchor baby magnet is withdrawn and when people are regularly deported for being in the country illegally that the majority of people will return on their own to become a part of the guest worker program.   We will not need to deport them.   Is there any better example of this than the migration of illegal aliens from Arizona to neighbor states this month?   They will go on their own. 

Does everyone understand the difference between a sales tax and a use tax?   Essentially the consumer owes the tax to his taxing authority on the purchase of eligible goods and the only difference between the sales tax and the use tax is whether the tax is collected by the retailer at the point of sale or whether the tax is paid by the consumer directly to the government.   The retailer collects the sales tax.   The consumer pays the use tax directly to the government.   The most common reason for an individual or a company to pay a use tax is that the retailer is in another state and does not collect tax for the jurisdiction of the consumer.

The best illustration may be particularly relevant to anyone who has ever purchased an automobile in another state.   That tax is due to the state where the vehicle will be licensed at the time that plates are purchased.   Further, it is illegal in all states that I know for a person to license a vehicle in a state other than the state he/she identifies as their residence.   There are exceptions surely but should exceptions include $7 million boats apparently moored in another state for the logical intent to avoid a significant sales/use tax?   http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/john-kerry-yacht-sales-tax-rhode-island/2010/07/27/id/365777?s=al&promo_code=A5D4-1

If only for the sake of logical perceptions, John Kerry's boat should be titled in Massachusetts and as a result he should owe that tax to the State of Massachusetts in the form of a Use Tax.   Massachusetts is his resident state, not Rhode Island.  If Kerry is attempting to declare Rhode Island as the residence for the boat the question would have to be whether he ever takes that boat into Boston Harbor.  

States often run dragnets to identify automobiles coming into their state in the evening rush hour or leaving their states in the morning rush hour that have license plates indicating the automobile is titled in the cheaper licensing state and not in the state where the car theoretically spent the evening.   For example, if someone is found driving an automobile that is titled in Oregon but the driver is licensed in Washington State, there are severe penalties.   At one time they amounted to treble damages if someone was attempting to circumvent the tax system and register a vehicle at an office address or the address of a relative or friend.   Boats should be no different.   I suggest that Massachusetts send Mr. Kerry a bill and that Mr. Kerry make restitution.   If this boat is actually titled in Rhode Island I would suggest that they attempt to recover treble damages if their laws allow.  

We are resolved to remove this country from the responsibility to host the United Nations.   We are willing to continue to participate as a member of a body hosted by some other country but our contributions must be no greater than that of any other member of the Security Council.  

Argument

At best the United Nations has proven itself to be a failed experiment.  At worst the United Nations has provided nations, many of whom are our enemies, with the opportunity to move freely in this country with diplomatic immunity and to paralyze the diplomatic and military options of our nation to the detriment of our National Security.  

When the United Nations was created at the end of World War II, this nation was the only nation of the world that was able to host such a venture.   Nations that today are the economic equal of this country had been ravaged by war.   The benefit our nation had of having been separated from the conflict by two great oceans enabled us to host this experiment and for a time, it appeared that the idea might work.   In the 1950's the world was voting with us.   The Communists had not yet learned how to play politics in the body and a resolution that passed the UN to send troops to Korea was boycotted by the Russians, not vetoed.  Subsequent to this every vote of significance was summarily vetoed by our Cold War enemy.   Today it is the US that must exercise veto measures that are brought against Israel declaring them to be the menace in the Middle East rather than Hamas or Hezbollah.   Oh, we got resolutions passed by the UN that condemned Iraq and we have had resolutions that have passed the group providing sanctions against Iran but a) these resolutions take too long to reach and b) these resolutions are not supported sufficiently by troops or willingness to engage those in violation.   Resolution followed resolution against Iraq, Korea and now Iran.   These were/are simply angry letters in the minds of the dictators of these regimes.  The body is impotent.  

Given this impotence, why should this country continue to host the United Nations and provide such a large share of the group's budget?   By its own rules it has made itself a mockery to every despot in the world.   The body forms councils like the one on human rights and includes countries like Cuba on that council.  In 2003, Libya was elected to chair the Human Rights Commission.   The organization that was created out of a sense of opportunity to provide a venue for nations to talk and work toward world peace has become an obstacle for world peace because its members do not share the same goals and most certainly not the same values.  

How many months did the Bush Administration wait for the UN to pass resolutions, to execute inspections and vote on sanctions against Iraq?  How many were there?  What did they accomplish?  The Oil for Food Program did not provide for the Iraqi people, it benefited Saddam Hussein and a few well placed bankers because it provided a grand opportunity for graft and corruption.   Bankers earned millions  by skimming profits from escrow accounts to be used to line personal pockets.   Skimmed profits were used to buy influence with Kofi Annan, the corrupt Secretary General.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme Tragically, in the end, much of the food sent to Iraq was unfit for human consumption.   Kickbacks were given Saddam Hussein by the French, the Russians and the Chinese.  

When will this country ever understand that all countries in the world are not like us?  We don't all possess the same Christian values.   We don't all long for peace.  Many don't concern themselves with the lives or the fortunes of their countrymen and will sell out their citizens for a personal profit.   Many have no concerns about war.   They will sacrifice anyone and everyone but themselves to hold onto their personal power.    Many possess no regrets at losing thousands or millions of lives to "outlast" their adversaries.   Many are driven by fanaticism that makes them hate their enemies more than they love themselves or even their own children.  Looking back more than 60 years later how could we have conceived that we could bring attitudes like this into a single organization and use that organization to strive for a common goal? 

Mike:

Take a look at this video....absolutely fabulous!  Notice the cars and jeeps, youth, etc.,  the guys in khaki or gray shirts and black ties are Navy officers or chiefs....the rest are Army or Marine.   How young they all were to do what they did.  

This guy really captured a moment in history!  (You can listen to Jimmy Durante singing in the background, too.)

This is a super video of a time past -- we need to remember and be THANKFUL. We have all seen the Sailor kiss on Broadway in New York, but how many have seen this? And check out the color fidelity.  It's not bad for 1945 - nothing will ever compare with Kodachrome film.

Richard:

"This is great to watch and let soak in. This was a time when American and Americans were at their best. These people, most of whom are gone now, would roll over in their graves if they could see what has happened to the country they fought and died for and so obviously loved and respected. Other than our military people, way too many Americans today won't even shut up or get up off their fat asses for the national anthem or when the flag passes by in a parade. Our President can't even see fit to put his hand over his heart for the flag or even for memorials to fallen soldiers. Pathetic, just pathetic. "

Ron:

"As you know I forwarded this on but I've also downloaded it and I find myself continuing to watch it over and over.   Perhaps I am more sensitive to this because my youth is behind me and this represents the youth of our mothers and fathers.   It certainly tells the story of how life progresses.  These young people who are so alive in this video are probably mostly dead now as you stated in your comment.    I just can't stop watching it."

Richard:

"I know what you mean. I feel a strange connection to these people that I can't quite describe. We weren't even born while this celebration occurred yet it's as if I was there. And it does indeed bring back warm feeling of my own youth. I think what we are seeing in this old film....and what we miss and yearn for..... is the optimism and exuberance of those days. An optimism and exuberance this country and its people may never see again. These young people saw a glorious and sunny future. All we see now is day after day of gloom and despair. God how I wish we could recapture that American "can do" spirit."

Sadly, the story of Shirley Sherrod is not the first time an administration has cowered as a result of racial sensitivities.   Racial sensitivities were aroused earlier in the history of the US Department of Agriculture and forced the resignation of Secretary Earl Butz.   Butz told a crude and disgusting racial joke on a flight that immediately followed the Republican Convention of 1976.  He was Secretary of Agriculture under both Nixon and Ford.   The disgusting racial joke made it into a Rolling Stone article and although he was unnamed in the article there was a reference to a cabinet officer and eventually an enterprising journalist traced the joke to Butz.  His career was ended.    He was forced to resign.  

I think it impossible to defend the comments of Secretary Butz but I would also find it difficult to defend the more recent comments of Shirley Sherrod that defined racism as the motivation behind the outcries against the Healthcare Bill.   Certainly Secretary Butz's comments were more egregious and were magnified beyond compare if only due to the fact that the off-color joke was a racial joke told by a cabinet officer.   Shirley Sherrod didn't have similar power in her organization and as such my position would be that he should have turned in his resignation.   Shirley Sherrod need not turn in hers but she should be reprimanded.

But let's take a deeper look at the careers that can be and have been destroyed even if only temporarily by unreasonable expectations regarding racial content of speeches.   There is no Constitutional right to never be offended.   Despite this we seem intent as a nation to purge all persons with impure or negative "racial" thoughts.   Is this possible?   Is this reasonable?   Should a racist have a right to serve in the government without being required to have first become pure of heart?   Must he/she also be pure of thought?   Is it not enough that we insist this person not act on that racism?  Must the person never be allowed a bad or awkward moment?   It would be my position that the individual leave his/her racism outside and not allow it to enter the workplace.  Once it has entered the workplace it has an uncompromising influence on the job that person does and the work that person performs.   But this goes for Shirley Sherrod as well.   In her position at the USDA, has Shirley Sherrod created a poor work environment by declaring opponents of Obamacare as racist or by referring to "my people" separate from "his people?"  Shouldn't her view be that we are all Americans? 

Taken to extremes you can easily see how David Howard was harmed by persons who jumped to a conclusion that he had made a racial remark when in reality, he had used a word to express a budget as being stingy or miserly.  He used the term "niggardly" in an internal comment that so infuriated a council member that a formal complaint forced David Howard to resign.   His sin?   His vocabulary was greater than that of his accuser and his accuser assumed the meaning of a word on the basis of "sounds like...."  It is high time that the charge of racism be reserved for matters of significance.  Too many use the term to discredit a political opponent as a substitute for the lack of a substantive argument.  Persons like the man who complained about the word "niggardly" deserve to be admonished.    The cry of racism needs to be reserved for those matters that are real, that can be substantiated and that truly have caused someone harm.

Perhaps we need to legislate a special kind of slander and allow the individual falsely or unreasonably accused of racism to seek redress in the courts regardless of his/her public status.   Make the accuser prove that the individual is a racist or face the penalty of slander or libel.  

Don't call anyone racist because of a single remark.   Look at the full body of their work and how they have historically conducted themselves among others.  This is your indication, not the position he/she takes on a matter of policy.       

I listened this evening to one voice on Fox News tell me that the worst thing a person can be called is a racist.   I disagree.

As a result of the overuse of the term racist and the refusal of those who constantly hurl the intended insult at one person after another I believe the term has been watered down.   When everyone that is white is accused of racism and when those persons who make this accusation tell us that it is impossible for a black man to be a racist, I turn a deaf ear.   The charge no longer has any validity to it.   If everyone is a racist then how does one weed racists from their midst?  They don't.    It is sad that persons like this Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jeremiah Wright are filled with such hatred that they cannot differentiate between what is said or done about Barack Obama that is based in ideology from what might be said that is hatred for his being a black man.  

I have followed the Tea Parties now since their inception.  I have attended rallies.   I author this and other statements on a blog that is intended to provide people a means of identifying issues of importance.   With this history in one of a multitude of different "Tea Parties" I would say that the overwhelming majority of opposition to this president has nothing to do with his skin color and everything to do with his ineptitude, his malevolence, his Marxist philosophy and his proposed legislation.   I also firmly believe that my attitude is mirrored by close to 100% of all the tea parties and that if racism exists within the hearts of those who attend rallies, it is in such a small minority that it wouldn't even register as a whole percentage. 

When we are accused of racism without evidence and when we are told to denounce those among our group that are racist by the NAACP my first question is, "Who?"   Give me a name.   Show me a picture.  Provide me some evidence.  

My return message to the NAACP has to be, listen when someone from a tea party tells you that the person who carried the racist sign was denounced and asked to leave the rally.  Listen when you are told that the reason the billboard in Iowa was taken down was because others in the tea party believed it misrepresented their organization.   Look when you see pictures of tea parties as to who is there.   Not only older white America, but young Americans as well.   We include people of all races.   We include people whose philosophy is tied to the Constitution.   When we see and hear people denounce our organizations as racist despite the fact that our arguments all surround Constitutional boundaries, Marxist philosophy, taxes, debt, spending and national security, don't assume us racists simply because the person whom we denounce is a black man.   When you do, you cheapen your charge.   When you do we will stand our ground and we will not go away and cower as a result of what we regard as a baseless charge.   We will instead ask ourselves whether there is truly anything worse than being called a racist and we will respond, "Yes, you could call us late for lunch."

How many know this name?  He is a Marine.   I won't say he is special.  To me all servicemen are special because they step forward at a time of need and do what the majority of us are/were unwilling to do, put their lives on the line on behalf of their country for a cause that at the time of their enlistment may not yet be determined.  

I'll leave it to men like  Major General James E. Livingston, USMC (Retired),  Medal of Honor Recipient to tell us he is special.   He is so special in fact that he has not left his service to his country end with the USMC.   Ilario G. Pantano is running for the United States Congress in North Carolina (NC-7).  Lt. Pantano's war record is honorable.   He was mired in controversy surrounding the killing of two Iraqi's in Fallujah in 2004 but  military court dropped all charges against the lieutenant.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilario_Pantano#April_15th_incident

If you have the means, please support the lieutenant's candidacy with a contribution.  If you live within NC-7, please support him with your vote.

There is a larger question here.   Support should not end with Lieutenant Pantano.   The larger question here is why more men and women from the US Military do not run for elective office?   There is a huge absence of men and women in the US Congress who have served in the military.   We obviously know of John McCain.   People also may know of Mike Coffman from Colorado's 6th Congressional District.  Congressman Coffman served as both soldier and as a marine.   He twice interrupted his political career to serve his nation abroad as a Marine.   He took an unpaid leave of absence from the Colorado State Legislature to see combat duty in Desert Storm and he left the Colorado State Treasurer's office to prepare Iraq for its first democratic elections in 2005.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Coffman

According to a count by Richard Aragon in January 2009, http://www.vietvet.org/senatevet.htm there are 25 men in a Congress of 435 men and women who can claim a status as a veteran.  Scott Brown should replace Ted Kennedy on this list as Brown served in the Army National Guard.   We can also add Congressman Coffman who is not on that list Thus 26 members of 535 or less than 5% of our men and women in the Congress have served their country in the military.

Military service should not be a prerequisite for service in the Congress.  This is not the message here.   What is being asked is why more men and women who distinguished themselves in uniform don't follow the lead of those 26 men and seek to serve us in public office?  

This percentage was once the polar opposite of what it is today.  Coming out of World War II most men were veterans and I am certain that the Congress in the 1950's and 1960's consisted largely of men who once wore the uniform.   It was once considered a prerequisite to be a veteran before running for Congress.   What has changed?

Are persons who are interested in public office too eager today to begin their political careers and they no longer see the necessity to have served in uniform to win an election?   More importantly, are men and women who end their military careers no longer interested in serving their nation by this means?  If not, why?   Is it not harder to run against a veteran?   Is it not harder to assail the honor or the integrity of someone who has served?  

Many of us who live in Colorado's 6th Congressional District believe it an honor to cast our votes for a veteran.  Others might think the same if they had the opportunity to do so.   Those in North Carolina's 7th District do have that opportunity in 2010.   They must be encouraged to do so.  

There is an old story about a new chief executive that enters an organization filled with enthusiasm.   On his first day he sits at his desk, opens a drawer and there are three envelopes.   There is a letter of instruction by the side.   He reads the letter and it tells him that the first time he gets into trouble he should open the first envelope.  The second time he gets in trouble he should open the second envelope.  Then finally, the third time he is in hot water he should open the third envelope.   This puzzles him but he leaves the envelopes alone and goes about his business to define strategies and secure resources to achieve the goals set out for him at his hire.   Then one day he got into a bit of trouble.   Things seemed to be crashing down around him.   He remembered those envelopes and he opened the first envelope.   It said, "Blame your predecessor."  He saw this as good advice and at the Friday Board Meeting he blamed his predecessor.  This seemed to quiet the Board and he felt he had weathered the storm.  Several months later another crisis arose in the organization.   Again he remembered those envelopes and he reached for the second envelope.  It instructed him to "Blame the Union."   He did this and again things quieted down for a period.  But eventually the bad news caught up with him again and he reached for that envelope and it said, "Prepare three envelopes."    

Now we in the Tea Party have our differences with the former president:

• He would not secure the border
• He did not veto any spending bills in the first term
• He signed McCain - Feingold into law
• He expanded the reach of Medicare with an expensive prescription drug program
• No Child Left Behind was a further incursion by the Federal Government into local schools
• He would not stand up and fight the Senate for his appointments

Despite all these faults and I believe if I gave more time to this process that I'd think of more; despite all these faults we cannot blame this economy on George W. Bush.  

When George Bush assumed control of the reins of government he had a Republican Senate and a Republican House.   Despite this the country was in a mild recession.   After taking office he proposed and pushed through the Congress a major tax cut.   This tax cut spurred the economy.  The only interruption of economic progress came when this country was attacked on 9/11/2001.  The attack only interrupted the momentum for a short period.  Eventually the country resumed its growth.   Here is what happened to the unemployment rate during President Bush's term of office and extended through 2009. 

Note that despite all of my own criticisms of George W Bush for overspending during his two terms and despite my criticism that he should have vetoed spending bills that he instead signed into law, the unemployment rate remained remarkably low during his term of office.    It didn't actually begin to show any period of weakness until 2008.

In 2007 a new Congress came to town led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.   The first budget they had to deal with was the 2008 Budget.   Everyone must remember that the federal year does not coincide with the calendar year.   The fiscal budget for 2007 began in October 2006 and ended in September 2007.   Thus the first budget that the Democrats would have full control over would be 2008. 

Historically economists have regarded 5% unemployment as full employment.   This 5% was always intended to recognize the normal churn in the labor market.   People leave their jobs to move elsewhere, high school and college graduates enter the workforce.   Some businesses sadly fail.   In 2006 and 2007 unemployment was an extraordinarily low 4.6%.   Then Democrats assumed control.  Might the Congress, specifically the House of Representatives who has the sole power in our government to initiate appropriations bills share some of this blame?

The 2009 Budget,  a budget that would typically not be in control of the president who was inaugurated in January 2009, was heavily impacted by an $800B "stimulus" bill signed into law in February, 2009 by the new president.   This act would reasonably be seen as the Obama Administration taking immediate responsibility for the 2009 Budget.   The Stimulus Package was promoted as saving jobs.   With the stimulus, it was argued, unemployment would not exceed 8 or 8.5%.  Note that in 2009 unemployment increased to 9.3%.   If everyone will recall, that rate climbed as high as 10% earlier in the year.

One other factor that needs to be discussed and that is the way markets work.  

Note that the Dow Jones Industrial Index fell in the fall of 2008, prior to the election.   Markets work in anticipation of events.  By the time history happens those of us not tuned to the expectations of the market find that we are too late to sell the ones no one wants or buy the ones that everyone wants.   This was true in 2008.   It became evident in the early fall that Barack Obama was going to win the election and the markets tumbled.  

In light of this data, how can anyone blame GW Bush for the current state of the economy?   The very most one might say is that he contributed.  He agreed to the bailout of the banking system in October 2008.  This cost the treasury $700 Billion and was in response to the subprime mortgage debacle but just who was responsible for that?  The Congress.   The Bush Administration had on multiple occasions attempted to put a halt to the subprime lending, warning the Congress of danger but Congress turned a deaf ear.   Barney Frank, ranking member of the Democrat minority for the first six years and Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee under Nancy Pelosi had a conflict of interest, a "spouse" who was an executive at Fannie Mae.   http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080924145932.aspx It was learned that Senator Christopher Dodd from Connecticut had received a sweetheart deal on his mortgage from the organization and the organization contributed heavily to the Democrat coffers.    It was also learned that Barack Hussein Obama was among the top beneficiaries of political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.   

Despite all this, when Barack Obama assesses blame to the current economy he continues to point to the Bush Administration.   This is childish, it is immature and it is definitely inaccurate.    If the current president wishes to assign blame for our current economic crisis he need look no further than his own party and recall when he does that he sat in the Senate and cast his own vote on some of these actions.  

President Obama, open the third envelope.  

At the risk of offending anyone I am going to make the following statement.   The United States of America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and is indeed a Christian nation.

This statement is not intended to imply that other religions are not welcome to worship freely in this country but when those who worship any non-Christian religion do so with

a)      the intent to attack those of other faiths or

b)      when their intent is to deprive those of other faiths their right to worship as they 
         please or

c)      when they form in communities with the express intent to not assimilate and

d)      when they demand exceptions to state or local laws that would allow them to
         deny freedoms to their own community that are contrary to our Constitutional
         protections

we must consider whether their place of worship should be allowed to remain. 

We temper the right of free speech in that we do not allow anyone license to incite mobs nor to incite panic by screaming "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium where there is none.  We don't allow slander.   We expect orderly debate in our public and private meetings.   There are limitations to freedom of speech.  They do not go so far as to require that anyone listen.  There are even limitations on freedom of the press.   Journalists are not allowed to libel people.  They are not allowed to plagiarize.  They are not allowed to demand that anyone read or subscribe to their paper.       

So should there be limitations in religious freedom when persons of a particular religion attempt to impose their beliefs on others by violence and intimidation?  Should we impose restrictions on a religion when persons attack our country and declare themselves to be practitioners of that faith declaring at the top of their lungs that they are acting upon their religious teachings?  Should there be limitations imposed upon a religion when it promotes their religion beyond the typical belief that their God is the only God to the extreme position that they provide instruction and recruitment for persons who would violently overthrow our government?  Do we have an obligation to allow the freedom to worship of a religious sect when evidence appears that money flows through their place of worship to support terrorist organizations or our sworn enemies?   I believe we have every right to restrict the activities of every mosque in this country. 

No group should be allowed to subvert our republic by using our own freedoms against us.   We have no requirement to turn the other cheek and allow persons to recruit terrorists, physically attack Christianity or any other religion.  Nor do we have any obligation to allow them the freedom to fund terrorist activities in the name of religious freedom.   There is ample evidence that these activities have taken place inside mosques.  

Perhaps the largest slap in the face of all is that we have politicians in New York who are willing to allow a mosque to be built near Ground Zero.   3,000 Americans lost their lives on 9/11 because of attacks that came from radical muslims.   To allow muslims to then build a mosque within spitting distance of this sacred ground is tantamount to allowing the Japanese to construct a shrine to their emperor at Pearl Harbor.   

I invite you to review both of the following articles.   Thanks to the Internet, these stories can be brought forward to all Americans when our main stream media either under-covered them or refused to cover them.   I knew nothing of this demonstration in June.   I am pleased to know of it now however and I am pleased to join the chorus of those who are saying "Hell No!" to the construction of this mosque in New York City. 

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2010/06/stop-the-mosque-at-ground-zero-rally-2/

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2010/06/stop-the-mosque-at-ground-zero-part-ii/

 The victims of the religious animals who perpetrated the attack on our nation need our support, not the religion that trained our enemy to destroy us on that day.  

At their recent national convention, Benjamin Jealous charged the Tea Party Movement with having exhibited racist behavior and mistreated black members of Congress to racial epithets and threats because of what was alleged to have happened on the Capitol Grounds earlier this year.  

The NAACP is like any other organization that has achieved its original goal.   The leaders must find a way to keep the organization alive, lest they be forced to find a real job.    In order to do this it is to their advantage to keep old issues alive, even if those issues are tired and no longer broadly apply in our society.  Sadly, those they pretend to represent are treated like pawns to do the bidding of those that truly do have power over them.  

The call of "racism" is such an issue.   Where would the NAACP be without someone reminding people that we have racists in this country?  What country doesn't have racists in their midst?   I will guarantee there are racists in this country and many are right there within the NAACP.

Main Entry: rac·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\

Function: noun

Date: 1933

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

— rac·ist \-sist also -shist\ noun or adjective

As noted by the above dictionary definition, racism can be white on black, black on white, white on red, yellow on black, brown on black, brown on white, etc.   There is no limit to the distrust that can be generated in the minds of individuals who have been properly prepared that would cause them to harbor racist feelings toward one another.   Add an organization whose membership lives vicariously through the harm perpetrated on their ancestors and have their leaders stoke the flames of distrust by calling anyone who disagrees with an NAACP position or this president a racist and yes, the bigotry is kept alive.   The bigotry is kept alive by the very people who state without exception that they are the ones who want it eliminated.  

Add to this an unwillingness to listen or to demand proof that a racist statement was made, that someone was spat upon or that a banner depicted the POTUS in a racially insensitive manner and there are thousands willing to believe whatever they are told.   They won't demand proof from an organization they mistakenly trust.   They accept as fact that during the April Tea Party on the steps of the Capitol that signs were raised, racial epithets were hurled and a congressman was spat upon because they heard the accusation on national television.  They ignore the bounty pledged by Andrew Breitbart to pay $100,000 for evidence from any of the hundreds of cameras and microphones that were trained on those individuals as they crossed the Capitol Grounds that day.   The lack of evidence to substantiate claims is of no consequence.  They won't be dissuaded by a lack of evidence.  They will cling to their belief that it happened whether it did or not.   They will be so convinced that they will react with hatred and distrust toward anyone trying to convince them otherwise.   Those who challenge the statement of a black man are thought to be racist.   If they are black themselves they are Uncle Toms.   No, they are not necessarily either.  Most are simply trying to be objective and they want all races to treat each other fairly.  

Many black men that I have heard interviewed in the past have stated that it is impossible for a black man to be a racist because they hold no power over the white man.   But this was all prior to the election of Barack Obama and the appointment of Eric Holder as Attorney General.   Persons in the Tea Party are accused of racism yet we in the Tea Parties possess no power over the black man.   Some participants in our Tea Parties are black themselves.  It would seem that the power is in the hands of two black men right now and by that tired old definition, today only the black man can be racist.   Perhaps this is what the NAACP is trying to demonstrate.  After all, the only racism on display is demonstrated by the behavior of Benjamin Jealous and the NAACP.