This is going to be a post with several parts. Sit back with your favorite beverage and sip between the lines – to do otherwise could present a choking hazard.
This past week marked the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Oh, how far his dream has fallen!
While I did not watch the speeches, what I saw of the speeches was anything but uplifting. In fact, it was more of the same inflammatory speechmaking that placed blame on everything else despite the facts that the Black community is self destructing. How can I make such a statement?
Bill O’Rielly, Walter Williams, William Sowell, and Ben Carson all point out statistics that show that the Black community owns their problems external from other groups. Walter Williams had these comments:
The poverty rate among blacks is 36 percent. Most black poverty is found in female-headed households. The poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994 and is about 8 percent today. The black illegitimacy rate is 75 percent, and in some cities, it’s 90 percent. But if that’s a legacy of slavery, it must have skipped several generations, because in the 1940s, unwed births hovered around 14 percent.
Along with the decline of the black family comes anti-social behavior, manifested by high crime rates. Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Using the 94 percent figure means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, the black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it’s 22 times that of whites.
This is far from the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King where he wanted all people to stand on their own two feet. From the post Equal Diversity:
Government sponsored quotas & regulations will not change people’s attitudes toward diversity. All these will do is promote division, dissention, and resentment. I have noticed in recent years an increase of these attitudes. This is NOT what Martin Luther King had in mind.
His vision looked for the Negro people to stand side by side with the White people as equals, and to get there by self-sufficiency, not by a government mandate. He wanted his people to rise up to their potential, to stand on their own two feet, not by some law or subsidy. Patronage of the Negro was not his vision, but to join the human race as equals to any other ethnic group, to enjoy the fruits of hard labor through equal opportunity, and not through quotas. It is truly a travesty that his own people have hindered this vision instead of completing it.
One of the things that I noticed during the speeches was an undercurrent of asking for increased governmental support in resolving the Black communities problems. Government cannot solve the Black communities problems – only they can if lead by leaders like Dr. King.
I watched President Obama’s speech yesterday concerning the potential involvement of the United States into the Syria conflict. A few of his statements lit me up like a Christmas tree. Let’s take the following statement:
But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.
First off, the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, although the politicians have turned it into a Democracy. For a short essay on the difference, follow this link, and Rick Santelli had this explanation:
The difference is, in a republic, the sovereignty rests with every individual person. With a democracy, it rests with a group. And this is a big distinction. Because we elect leaders to represent us. So when they go to Washington, they are there for a reason. The president doesn’t hold all the cards. The cards are evenly split up!
Second, it is not President Obama’s decision to seek authorization, but it is his Constitutional duty to ask for authorization. Now perhaps I’m taking this statement out of context, but the way the speech was structured, he made it sound like it was his choice to ask for Congressional approval, not his duty. But his statement further down the line makes me think it’s the former, and not the latter:
Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.
The only reason for a President to take military action is if there is a clear and present danger to the United States. Syria does not present such a threat – in fact, their conflict would more likely be termed a civil war.
I’m confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors. I’m comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable. As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.
Without UN approval? Is he totally ignorant of International Law? As of this time, only France has stated that they would support Obama’s action, and that doesn’t fill me with warm fuzzy feelings. In fact, it fills me with dread.
After President Obama finished his speech, he turned around and walked away. From his body language, I would say he was angry, and I would say that he was angry because he cannot do what he wants to do – which is cover his butt for making the idiotic “red line” declaration and appearing weak to the rest of the world. I personally think that the reason he was 45 minutes late for his own speech is that someone was on the phone with him advising him not to act on his own in taking military action in Syria without Congressional approval, and a hasty rewrite of the speech he wanted to give.
The Powell Doctrine states that before military action is taken, does the action meet the following criteria:
- Is a vital national security interest threatened?
- Is there a clear attainable objective?
- Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
- Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
- Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
- Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
- Is the action supported by the American people?
- Does the United States have genuine broad international support?
The Syrian crisis meets none of the above criteria. Congress should follow the United Kingdom’s example and refuse authorization. If President Obama orders military action after said refusal, then President Obama should be impeached and removed from office.
The more time that goes by only highlights the disaster that ObamaCare is. The unintended consequences are just piling up, and the financial fallout for everyone will be horrendous.
Let’s consider the following scenario which I know will happen (my thanks to my wife for the following!):
- A person is working for a small company when the company reduces the person’s hours to under 30 to avoid paying for employee healthcare because the company cannot afford it under the ObamaCare legislation (the fine is cheaper than paying for the worker’s coverage).
- The person cannot afford paying for the coverage out of pocket because of the high cost of the coverage and the loss of income due to reduced hours.
- The person must take a second job to make ends meet, and instead of working just 40 hours a week at one job, must now work another 10 to 30 hours a week to meet the bills.
- The cost of healthcare coverage is still too high even with the second job, so the person pays the fine out of the paycheck from the second job.
- The result is that the person is working 2 jobs, doesn’t spend any time with their family, pays a fine to the government, probably still cannot make ends meet, and still doesn’t have health care coverage.
So tell me again – What is the advantage of ObamaCare?