Inner City Minister Sues Democratic Party For Reparations
reparationscentral.com ^
http://www.reparationscentral.com/lawsuits4.html
Inner City Minister Sues Democratic Party For Reparations
[Seattle, January 3, 2005] On December 10th 2004, inner-city minister, Rev Wayne Perryman, - filed a class action Reparation lawsuit (in the United States District Court in Seattle Case No. CV04-2442), alleging “that because of their racist past practices the Democratic Party should be required to pay African Americans Reparations.” Perryman said “he based his case on the research that he gathered during the past five years while writing the three editions of his latest book:
Unfounded Loyalty
An In-depth Look Into The Love Affair Between Blacks & Democrats
In his 100-page brief, Perryman concludes that the past racist policies and practices that were initiated against African Americans by the Democratic Party - were no different than the policies and practices that were initiated by the Nazi Party against the Jews. In both situations millions of lives were destroyed (physically, mentally and economically).
In his brief, Perryman told the court:
*That in an effort to impede and or deny African Americans the same constitutional rights afforded to all American citizens, the Democratic Party established a pattern of practice by promoting, supporting, sponsoring and financing racially bias entertainment, education, legislation, litigations, and terrorist organizations from 1792 to 1962 and continued certain practices up to 2002.
*The Democrat’s 210 years of racist practices and cover ups not only negatively affected the entire Black Race; but these practices infected our entire nation with the most contagious and debilitating social disease known to mankind, racism. With landmark litigation, racist legislation and profane defamation, Democrats spent substantial amounts of money to produce racist campaign literature and to support racist entertainment (i.e. Jim Crow minstrel shows, stage plays “The Klansman,” and movies, “The Birth of a Nation”), all in an effort to prove to the world that African Americans were a racially inferior group that should be treated and classified as “property” and not as “citizens”.
*During the past 21 decades the Democrats successfully disguised and concealed their horrific acts against the African Americans by operating and committing these acts under the following aliases: “the Confederacy,” “Jim Crow,” “Black Codes,” the “Dixiecrats” and the “Ku Klux Klan.” Congressional records, historical documents, and the letters and testimonies from several brave black citizens revealed that these groups weren’t separate independent organizations, but were actual auxiliaries, divisions and/or the legislative efforts of the Democratic Party. The debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 further revealed that these auxiliaries were committed to use every means possible to carry out the Democrat’s racist agenda of “White Supremacy,” including: lynchings, murders, intimidation, mutilations, decapitations and racially bias legislation and adjudication.
.
Perryman said, “To conceal the truth of their racist past (and as part of their effort to deceive the public), the Democratic Party made a conscience decision not to mention or disclose their true and complete history. (See exhibit 1). On their official website they failed to disclose that as a Party:
· Democrats opposed the Abolitionist
· Democrats supported slavery and fought and gave their lives to expand it
· Democrats supported and passed the Fugitive Slave Laws of 1793 & 1854
· Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery
· Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery
· Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision
· Democrats supported and passed Jim Crow Laws
· Democrats supported and passed Black Codes
· Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers
· Democrats opposed the Reconstruction Act of 1867
· Democrats opposed the Freedman’s Bureau as it pertained to blacks
· Democrats opposed the Emancipation Proclamation
· Democrats opposed the 13th , 14th, and 15th Amendments to end slavery, make black citizens and give blacks the right to vote
· Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866
· Democrats opposed the Civil Right Act of 1875 and had it overturned by U.S. Supreme Court
· Various Democrats opposed the 1957 Civil Rights Acts
· Various Democrats argued against the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts
· Various Democrats argued against the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Acts
· Various Democrats voted against the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act
· Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson
· Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.
· Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration
· Democrats started and supported several terrorist organizations including the Ku Klux Klan, an organization dedicated to use any means possible to terrorize African Americans and those who supported African Americans.”
Congressional records reveal that there wouldn’t be a question of Reparations today had Democratic President Andrew Johnson signed Senate Bill 60 (in 1866) which would have given each African American family 40 acres and a mule. Instead, Johnson vetoed the Bill and continued to block other key pieces of legislation that were designed to bring about equality for African Americans.
Perryman further argues that:
During the past 200 years, our government operated under a two party system which directed, developed and determined the policies of our country. Whatever the government did or did not accomplish (particularly as it pertained to African Americans), was directly related to which political party was in power at the time.
On April 29, 1861 Democratic President Jefferson Davis told his Democratic Confederate Congress that: “Under the supervision of the superior race, their [blacks’] labor had been so directed not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South... [which made the South one of the 16th wealthiest places in the world]; and the productions in the South of cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three-fourth of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to wants of civilized man….”
Seven years later during the 1868 Presidential campaign, the Democratic Party’s campaign poster read: “This is a White Man’s Country - Let the White Men Rule.”
At the turn of the century (1913) Democratic Senator Ben Tillman said, “We reorganized the Democratic Party with one plank, and the only plank, namely, that this is a white man’s country, and white men must govern it.” From 1792 to 2002 (a period of 210 years), the Democratic Party carried out their proud tradition of white man rule by never electing a black man to the United States Senate from their party.
From 1792 to 1962 the Democratic Party was more commonly referred to as the Party of White Supremacy. This was the period when most of the damage was done to African Americans (economically, physically, socially and mentally). It was during this period that the Democrats exhausted every effort to promote slavery, destroyed Reconstruction and introduced Black Codes, Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan.
The chronicles of history reveals that the Institution of Slavery and Jim Crow Laws weren’t promoted, protected and preserved by prominent individuals or by the federal government. They were promoted, protected and preserved by one political party and that party was the Democratic Party. Without their powerful political support, the institution of slavery and segregation would have ended long before 1865 and 1965.
The big question they had during the era of slavery was, whether or not a law or a person's actions violated the Constitution. The goal of the Democrats was to never allow the Constitution to be amended to include blacks as citizens. They wanted the freedom to treat African Americans as property (not as humans), without federal interference (this was their primary reason for fighting for their so-called States Rights). This was also the reason why Democrats were opposed to adding the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution and why they praised and supported the Dred Scott Decision. Republicans rushed to have these Amendments added to the Constitution while the states that were under Democrat control were still separated from the Union. Republicans knew they would have a difficult time getting these Amendments passed if the Democrats from the Southern States came back and joined their congressional (Democrat) counterparts in the North.
During era of slavery and Reconstruction the Democrats were primarily interested in what they could do to Blacks, not what they could do for Blacks. From 1792 to 1962 the Democrats as a party, did not support or pass one law that was designed to give African Americans equality (in 170 years). With the exception of Truman’s efforts to integrate the military, every law that was introduced and passed by Democrats during this period was designed to hurt blacks, none were passed to help blacks. Perryman said, “Had the Democrats attempted to pass these same types of laws in 1864 that they claim credit for in 1964, the laws in 1964 would not have been necessary. Instead, in 1866 they passed Black Codes, in 1875 they passed Jim Crow Laws and in 1894 they passed the Repeal Act to repeal various pieces of previously passed Civil Rights legislation that were designed to give African Americans equality.
Perryman is quick to point out that the Democratic Party of today is not the same party of yesterday. However, like in the case of Michael Skakel (the Kennedy nephew who killed Martha Moxley), the Democrats like Michael Skakel must pay for their past actions. Perryman said, “The Skakels and the Moxleys were best friends and neighbors, but when the Moxleys learned that it was Skakel who murdered their daughter in 1975, they did not excuse his action because of the long term friendship. They made him pay, even though it was 25 years later. The same applies to the current relationship between the Blacks and Democrats. The Democrats should not expect Blacks to ignore the Democrat’s past racist practices, simply because of the current friendship.”
Perryman’s research and 100-page brief include the works of our nation’s top history and law professors including African American Historian, Professor John Hope Franklin, Princeton’s History Professor James McPherson, Professor Hebert Donald of Harvard, Professor Allen Trelease of North Carolina, and Professor Bernard Schwartz of New York University’s School of Law, plus congressional records and documentaries from PBS and the History Channel.
Perryman said, “since our experiences are similar to those inflicted on the Jews by the Nazi Party and since Reparations under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 affords Plaintiffs redress for past injuries; and amends for the wrong inflicted,” he asked the court for the following:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on Plaintiff own behalf and on behalf of the Class, prays for judgment as follows:
1. Declaring this action to be a proper class action and certifying Plaintiff as Class representative under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
2. Awarding compensatory damages and rescission in favor of the Plaintiff and other members of the Class against the Defendant for the damages sustain as a result of wrongdoing of the defendants, together with interest thereon;
3. And as part of the compensatory damages the Plaintiffs recommends the following:
a. That an education fund be set up equivalent to the amount of $25,000 for every African American age 25 and younger that is currently alive as of the date of this lawsuit. The fund will be used solely for private school, college and trade tuitions and related educational costs.
b. That under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which authorizes a public education fund, to educate the public of the wrongs that took place, the Plaintiffs ask for funding to fund a major motion picture and film series depicting all of the events that were highlighted in this lawsuit (and others not mentioned) and that this film and major motion picture be distributed to every public and private school in America to be viewed by students as a regular part of their history curriculum for the next 50 years. We further ask that the Lead Plaintiff and the consultants of his choice be paid a consulting fee including traveling and related expenses to help produce the motion picture and the film series. The consulting fee will be the standard consulting fee for similar types of major motion picture projects.
c. We ask that the Defendant pay each African American citizen ages 26- 35 that is currently alive as of the date of this lawsuit, a total sum of $25,000 in reparations, each adult ages 36-45, $45,000 in reparations, each adult ages 46-55, $50,000 in reparations each and each citizen ages 56 and older $100,000 in reparations.
4. Awarding Plaintiff fees and expenses incurred in this action, including reasonable allowance of fees for attorneys to administer the Class Action claim and appropriate consultant fees.
5. Granting extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law, equity and federal and state statutory provisions sued on hereunder, including attaching, impounding, imposing a constructive trust upon or otherwise restricting the proceeds of the Defendant’s investments, checking, savings or other assets so as to assure that Plaintiff has an effective remedy.
6. Ordering a formal apology to African Americans for the wrong that was committed during the duration of the Defendants’ tenure as an organization or political party.
7. Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Monday, July 18, 2005
The NAACP needs to get a clue
Star Parker (archive)
July 18, 2005 | Print | Recommend to a friend
The NAACP has just concluded its 96th annual convention, and it makes me sad.
I am sad because black America has real problems and the NAACP and its leaders either don't care about them or are so out of touch with reality that they are incapable of honestly seeing them. As result, the challenges facing blacks are far greater than they might otherwise be.
NAACP chairman Julian Bond put his finger on it, saying, "Our mission has not changed ...We are a social-justice advocacy organization dedicated to ending racial discrimination. That's what we do."
The truth that black leaders like Bond can't seem to come to terms with is that the deep problems in America's black community today are not the result of racial discrimination, and blacks do not need an organization with a $40 million budget dedicated to "social justice."
Racism does not cause an AIDS epidemic, family breakdown, 50 percent high-school dropout rates, widespread out-of-wedlock births or the destruction of millions of unborn black babies.
However, for sure, when black leaders continue to turn away from and refuse to be honest about our real problems, these problems will not be solved and black life in America will go from bad to worse.
According to Bond, "Racial discrimination is a prime reason why the gaps between black and white chances remain so wide. And we believe that to the degree we are able to reduce discrimination and close these race-caused gaps, we will see the lives of our people improve and their prosperity increase."
Is America free of racism? Of course not. Is racism the reason why blacks lag economically in America? Of course not.
The single most important factor in establishing economic earning power is education, and the single most important factor that drives the educational accomplishment of a child is family. Blacks lag economically because we lag educationally, and we lag educationally because the black family in America's cities barely exists.
The weights holding down the future of black children today are problems in our own community. The fact that mainstream black leaders are incapable of being honest about this is a symptom of our problems.
Of course, black reality does not exist in a vacuum. The moral chaos that is tearing apart our community reflects a moral chaos that exists in the nation as a whole.
Thirteen million unborn black babies have been destroyed since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Black women are three times more likely to abort than white women.
Of course, legal abortion does not mean that a woman has to do it. However, we should understand Roe v. Wade as a multifaceted cultural message.
First, legal abortion on demand sends a clear, and sad, message about our nation's cultural attitude to life and its value. Second, the fact that this message was federalized by the Supreme Court, pre-empting states, establishes this "right" as a transcendent national value. Third, the "right to privacy" argument under which Roe v. Wade was rationalized enshrined relativism as a central cultural and legal national reality.
This devaluing of life and the popular promotion of an attitude that objective truths do not exist disproportionately hurt communities, like the black community, that already have great social and cultural challenges.
We see that children walking away with scholastic prizes today in science, math and recently in the Scripps National Spelling Bee are disproportionately immigrant children, largely Asian-Americans. These communities are characterized by strong families and clear values. As result, they do well because they are prepared to take advantage of the great strength of America _ freedom. And they are shielded by values and family from what are becoming the weaknesses of our country _ meaninglessness, gross materialism and relativism.
This is not the case with blacks. Our communities, deeply touched since the 1960s by the culture of the welfare state, have come to be defined by this destructive relativism. This is what has torn apart our families. In this sense, blacks are victimized by the larger culture in which they live.
However, this is not racism. This is a national problem and the black community has no choice but to seize responsibility and deal with it by looking inside and working through our own churches and communities to restore the values and meaning that are vital for rebuilding our families and raising spiritually and morally healthy children.
A healthy and prosperous black future is not centered on the Voting Rights Act or on diversity programs.
Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education and author of the newly released book 'Uncle Sam's Plantation.'
©2005 Star Parker
Star Parker (archive)
July 18, 2005 | Print | Recommend to a friend
The NAACP has just concluded its 96th annual convention, and it makes me sad.
I am sad because black America has real problems and the NAACP and its leaders either don't care about them or are so out of touch with reality that they are incapable of honestly seeing them. As result, the challenges facing blacks are far greater than they might otherwise be.
NAACP chairman Julian Bond put his finger on it, saying, "Our mission has not changed ...We are a social-justice advocacy organization dedicated to ending racial discrimination. That's what we do."
The truth that black leaders like Bond can't seem to come to terms with is that the deep problems in America's black community today are not the result of racial discrimination, and blacks do not need an organization with a $40 million budget dedicated to "social justice."
Racism does not cause an AIDS epidemic, family breakdown, 50 percent high-school dropout rates, widespread out-of-wedlock births or the destruction of millions of unborn black babies.
However, for sure, when black leaders continue to turn away from and refuse to be honest about our real problems, these problems will not be solved and black life in America will go from bad to worse.
According to Bond, "Racial discrimination is a prime reason why the gaps between black and white chances remain so wide. And we believe that to the degree we are able to reduce discrimination and close these race-caused gaps, we will see the lives of our people improve and their prosperity increase."
Is America free of racism? Of course not. Is racism the reason why blacks lag economically in America? Of course not.
The single most important factor in establishing economic earning power is education, and the single most important factor that drives the educational accomplishment of a child is family. Blacks lag economically because we lag educationally, and we lag educationally because the black family in America's cities barely exists.
The weights holding down the future of black children today are problems in our own community. The fact that mainstream black leaders are incapable of being honest about this is a symptom of our problems.
Of course, black reality does not exist in a vacuum. The moral chaos that is tearing apart our community reflects a moral chaos that exists in the nation as a whole.
Thirteen million unborn black babies have been destroyed since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Black women are three times more likely to abort than white women.
Of course, legal abortion does not mean that a woman has to do it. However, we should understand Roe v. Wade as a multifaceted cultural message.
First, legal abortion on demand sends a clear, and sad, message about our nation's cultural attitude to life and its value. Second, the fact that this message was federalized by the Supreme Court, pre-empting states, establishes this "right" as a transcendent national value. Third, the "right to privacy" argument under which Roe v. Wade was rationalized enshrined relativism as a central cultural and legal national reality.
This devaluing of life and the popular promotion of an attitude that objective truths do not exist disproportionately hurt communities, like the black community, that already have great social and cultural challenges.
We see that children walking away with scholastic prizes today in science, math and recently in the Scripps National Spelling Bee are disproportionately immigrant children, largely Asian-Americans. These communities are characterized by strong families and clear values. As result, they do well because they are prepared to take advantage of the great strength of America _ freedom. And they are shielded by values and family from what are becoming the weaknesses of our country _ meaninglessness, gross materialism and relativism.
This is not the case with blacks. Our communities, deeply touched since the 1960s by the culture of the welfare state, have come to be defined by this destructive relativism. This is what has torn apart our families. In this sense, blacks are victimized by the larger culture in which they live.
However, this is not racism. This is a national problem and the black community has no choice but to seize responsibility and deal with it by looking inside and working through our own churches and communities to restore the values and meaning that are vital for rebuilding our families and raising spiritually and morally healthy children.
A healthy and prosperous black future is not centered on the Voting Rights Act or on diversity programs.
Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education and author of the newly released book 'Uncle Sam's Plantation.'
©2005 Star Parker
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Julian Bond: Puppet, Parrot, Poverty Pimp
Black and Right ^ | 7/12/2005 | Bob Parks
Posted on 07/13/2005 4:05:52 AM PDT by StoneGiant
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Julian Bond: Puppet, Parrot, Poverty Pimp
Every few months or so, we have to go through this same evolution. Some “leader” of the NAACP comes out, screams about all the social ills in the black community, fails to make one suggestion, blames every Republican in sight and outs all black conservatives as sell outs and worse.
Well, pardon me if I fire back.
According to a piece by Tom Kertscher of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “NAACP Chairman Julian Bond bashed President Bush and other conservatives Sunday, warning they have tried to seduce black clergy, created “fraudulent” civil rights organizations and backed federal judicial nominees who come from a “dim and gloomy legal netherworld where few Americans wish to dwell.”
Now just how have conservatives seduced black clergy? Bond is assuming that black preachers are just too damn stupid to differentiate an alternative position from a hustle. As I try and put a little consistency to my retort of Bond's ravings, I will ask one simple question to him and the NAACP: what have you fixed lately?
“Officially kicking off the NAACP's 96th annual convention, its first in Milwaukee, a fiery Bond told delegates they have won great accomplishments but must continue to fight widespread discrimination.”
Maybe the NAACP has won some significant battles in the past, but they haven't done much lately, as they are led by sidestepping scandal-plagued leadership, and questionable tax-exempt status, that is if you believe as they claim that the NAACP is non-partisan, thus worthy of that status.
And while continuing the fight is admirable, it would seem the present-day NAACP is fighting more for relevance since the message of “blame Republican whitey” is starting to fall on deaf ears, and it would appear the only people who will lose out are the very people who draw on an NAACP paycheck.
And as far as widespread discrimination goes, what has the NAACP fixed lately...?
“Bond explained his reference to the Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation later in the speech, saying it is among entities that fund what he called “fraudulent” civil rights organizations.
“He charged that the organizations appear to back civil rights but push school vouchers, use legal means to assault affirmative action and try to redraw political boundaries in hopes of preventing people of color from being elected to office.”
What exactly is a “fraudulent” civil rights organization? One that seeks to solve it's own area's issues without flying in a Julian Bond or Jesse Jackson to get the mass media involved for purpose of self-aggrandizement, and leaving the problems in that area worse? It amazes me how people like Bond and Jackson can take any unfortunate, yet manageable incident and create near race-riots through incendiary rhetoric, just to get on a plane and leave when the television cameras move on.
Now unless you receive donations and support from teacher's unions, what would anyone have against vouchers and the notion that if public schools don't get better, parents should have the choice to get their kids the hell out of them. NOT ONE member of the Congressional Black Caucus on Capitol Hill sends their own kid to a public school. Why can't everyday folk have the same option? Is Mr. Bond waiting to get permission from the union leadership?
Affirmative Action again.... I even saw a David Chappelle skit where he, a recipient of a seriously large contract and one who's called the funniest man on television (which really isn't saying much nowadays), said he's still for Affirmative Action and also wants his reparations.
I've written this into the ground. If you believe that all white people are racists (except the ones you know) and will always sabotage the careers of black people, then you're probably for Affirmative Action. If you believe that all people should be able to compete equally, and if you're black and humiliated knowing that everyone at your workplace (despite your qualifications) believes you're an Affirmative Action hire and weren't qualified to take your job in the first place, then you're probably against it.
Based on the rhetoric from people like Bond, do you blame them?
And to the winner goes the spoils. I guess Bond is trying to tell me Democrats have NEVER attempted to redraw districts to their advantage to aid more Democrats being elected. But when Republicans do so, there is always a racist component involved, right Mr. Bond?
“Such organizations have had black "hucksters" on their payrolls for 20 years, said Bond to thunderous applause.
“Like ventriloquist dummies, they speak in their puppet master's voice, but we can see his lips moving," he said.”
I guess I must be missing out because I haven't been paid one hundred thousandth the money Bond gets paid for inciting racial division. I wish I was on a payroll, but I do this because it's become something of a calling. And Bond needs to join the 21st Century. I don't know of anyone except for old men who use the word “huckster.”
The “ventriloquist dummies” thing must be referring to people like me and other outspoken black conservatives. That being the case, I'd invite you to look up previous speeches by Julian Bond and his predecessors. You'll see they say the same thing, over and over again like the very dummy he calls us.
In those speeches, look for a solution. Like the liberal master he parrots, there are only complaints, but never a solution. A solution could conceivably put hucksters like Bond out of work, and we can't have that, right?
“He gave special importance to the continuing battle over Bush's judicial nominees, especially a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, saying the high court needs another independent-minded justice like her. Too many Bush nominees to federal judgeships have made rulings that hurt the civil rights movement, he said, calling newly named federal appeals court judge Janice Rogers Brown "the female Clarence Thomas.”
Too many Bush nominees to the federal judgeships have made rulings that hurt the civil rights movement.... Like what, Mr. Bond? The University of Michigan case that upheld Affirmative Action so white students could have black students there as study aids? Read the opinion, Mr. Bond. You got what you wanted....
“Bond recalled that some people had hoped the conservative Thomas would change after being put on the Supreme Court. "He did change, he got worse," Bond said.”
He got worse.... How so, Mr. Bond? Or has only your hatred of him gotten worse?
“He also credited recent National Association for the Advancement of Colored People efforts for accomplishments such as a law reducing school class sizes in Florida and restoring in Pennsylvania voting rights for felons who have completed their sentences.”
Voting rights for felons; now that’s something to be proud of, especially when those felons overwhelmingly vote Democrat....
“The former Democratic Georgia state senator blasted the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate for failing to hold a roll call vote on a resolution apologizing for failing to enact an anti-lynching law first proposed 105 years ago. He named eight Republican senators who did not co-sponsor the resolution, saying, "If a United States senator in 2005 cannot apologize for that, what outrage is deserving of an apology?”
Now Bond calls people like myself fronts for the Republican Party. I contend he is a front for Democrats. And as far as apologies go, what would Bond say to Lawyer E. Faye Williams who said she'll not rest until the Senate's oldest office building no longer carries the name of former Senator Richard B. Russell, Georgia Democrat, who led a filibuster for six days to block one of the anti-lynching bills in 1935?
In the finest tradition of a political parrot, Bond failed to tell those black Democrats he was addressing that history blames the Democrats for blocking any attempt to outlaw lynching until the practice died out on it's own.
However....
“Bond did praise U.S. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who told the convention he would introduce legislation extending provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that are due to expire in 2007. Bond said the most important provision requires certain jurisdictions - most of them in the South - to get "pre-clearance" from the U.S. Justice Department before making changes in voting time, place or manner.
“Anybody who claims that voting rights are now secure only has to look to Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004," Bond said, referring to razor-thin margins in back-to-back presidential elections in those states.”
Remember my last column about middle fingers? Not that Sensenbrenner would ever use it, but why piss the man off now, right?
Bond is still using the script given him by the DNC about the problems in black polling places. Using logic as I try and do, who runs those polling places? Are Republicans able to just waltz in and tell people who can and can't vote? Are Republicans able to just waltz in and lose ballots and tell workers there when to open and close the doors?
The answer is no, but then again, Bond assumes that all black people are stupid and if he just recites the approved script from the DNC, he'll continue to receive the prominence he craves, and the paycheck he's grown accustomed to.
As long as black people attend the lousy public schools in the hood managed by Democrats and teacher's unions, listen to rap music created by Hollywood and New York liberals that steals the souls of their young listeners, have an overwhelming out-of-wedlock birthrate that makes a government social worker drool, there will be no solutions offered from people like Julian Bond.
That makes him the Democrats' puppet, parrot, and poverty pimp... all in one
Black and Right ^ | 7/12/2005 | Bob Parks
Posted on 07/13/2005 4:05:52 AM PDT by StoneGiant
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Julian Bond: Puppet, Parrot, Poverty Pimp
Every few months or so, we have to go through this same evolution. Some “leader” of the NAACP comes out, screams about all the social ills in the black community, fails to make one suggestion, blames every Republican in sight and outs all black conservatives as sell outs and worse.
Well, pardon me if I fire back.
According to a piece by Tom Kertscher of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “NAACP Chairman Julian Bond bashed President Bush and other conservatives Sunday, warning they have tried to seduce black clergy, created “fraudulent” civil rights organizations and backed federal judicial nominees who come from a “dim and gloomy legal netherworld where few Americans wish to dwell.”
Now just how have conservatives seduced black clergy? Bond is assuming that black preachers are just too damn stupid to differentiate an alternative position from a hustle. As I try and put a little consistency to my retort of Bond's ravings, I will ask one simple question to him and the NAACP: what have you fixed lately?
“Officially kicking off the NAACP's 96th annual convention, its first in Milwaukee, a fiery Bond told delegates they have won great accomplishments but must continue to fight widespread discrimination.”
Maybe the NAACP has won some significant battles in the past, but they haven't done much lately, as they are led by sidestepping scandal-plagued leadership, and questionable tax-exempt status, that is if you believe as they claim that the NAACP is non-partisan, thus worthy of that status.
And while continuing the fight is admirable, it would seem the present-day NAACP is fighting more for relevance since the message of “blame Republican whitey” is starting to fall on deaf ears, and it would appear the only people who will lose out are the very people who draw on an NAACP paycheck.
And as far as widespread discrimination goes, what has the NAACP fixed lately...?
“Bond explained his reference to the Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation later in the speech, saying it is among entities that fund what he called “fraudulent” civil rights organizations.
“He charged that the organizations appear to back civil rights but push school vouchers, use legal means to assault affirmative action and try to redraw political boundaries in hopes of preventing people of color from being elected to office.”
What exactly is a “fraudulent” civil rights organization? One that seeks to solve it's own area's issues without flying in a Julian Bond or Jesse Jackson to get the mass media involved for purpose of self-aggrandizement, and leaving the problems in that area worse? It amazes me how people like Bond and Jackson can take any unfortunate, yet manageable incident and create near race-riots through incendiary rhetoric, just to get on a plane and leave when the television cameras move on.
Now unless you receive donations and support from teacher's unions, what would anyone have against vouchers and the notion that if public schools don't get better, parents should have the choice to get their kids the hell out of them. NOT ONE member of the Congressional Black Caucus on Capitol Hill sends their own kid to a public school. Why can't everyday folk have the same option? Is Mr. Bond waiting to get permission from the union leadership?
Affirmative Action again.... I even saw a David Chappelle skit where he, a recipient of a seriously large contract and one who's called the funniest man on television (which really isn't saying much nowadays), said he's still for Affirmative Action and also wants his reparations.
I've written this into the ground. If you believe that all white people are racists (except the ones you know) and will always sabotage the careers of black people, then you're probably for Affirmative Action. If you believe that all people should be able to compete equally, and if you're black and humiliated knowing that everyone at your workplace (despite your qualifications) believes you're an Affirmative Action hire and weren't qualified to take your job in the first place, then you're probably against it.
Based on the rhetoric from people like Bond, do you blame them?
And to the winner goes the spoils. I guess Bond is trying to tell me Democrats have NEVER attempted to redraw districts to their advantage to aid more Democrats being elected. But when Republicans do so, there is always a racist component involved, right Mr. Bond?
“Such organizations have had black "hucksters" on their payrolls for 20 years, said Bond to thunderous applause.
“Like ventriloquist dummies, they speak in their puppet master's voice, but we can see his lips moving," he said.”
I guess I must be missing out because I haven't been paid one hundred thousandth the money Bond gets paid for inciting racial division. I wish I was on a payroll, but I do this because it's become something of a calling. And Bond needs to join the 21st Century. I don't know of anyone except for old men who use the word “huckster.”
The “ventriloquist dummies” thing must be referring to people like me and other outspoken black conservatives. That being the case, I'd invite you to look up previous speeches by Julian Bond and his predecessors. You'll see they say the same thing, over and over again like the very dummy he calls us.
In those speeches, look for a solution. Like the liberal master he parrots, there are only complaints, but never a solution. A solution could conceivably put hucksters like Bond out of work, and we can't have that, right?
“He gave special importance to the continuing battle over Bush's judicial nominees, especially a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, saying the high court needs another independent-minded justice like her. Too many Bush nominees to federal judgeships have made rulings that hurt the civil rights movement, he said, calling newly named federal appeals court judge Janice Rogers Brown "the female Clarence Thomas.”
Too many Bush nominees to the federal judgeships have made rulings that hurt the civil rights movement.... Like what, Mr. Bond? The University of Michigan case that upheld Affirmative Action so white students could have black students there as study aids? Read the opinion, Mr. Bond. You got what you wanted....
“Bond recalled that some people had hoped the conservative Thomas would change after being put on the Supreme Court. "He did change, he got worse," Bond said.”
He got worse.... How so, Mr. Bond? Or has only your hatred of him gotten worse?
“He also credited recent National Association for the Advancement of Colored People efforts for accomplishments such as a law reducing school class sizes in Florida and restoring in Pennsylvania voting rights for felons who have completed their sentences.”
Voting rights for felons; now that’s something to be proud of, especially when those felons overwhelmingly vote Democrat....
“The former Democratic Georgia state senator blasted the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate for failing to hold a roll call vote on a resolution apologizing for failing to enact an anti-lynching law first proposed 105 years ago. He named eight Republican senators who did not co-sponsor the resolution, saying, "If a United States senator in 2005 cannot apologize for that, what outrage is deserving of an apology?”
Now Bond calls people like myself fronts for the Republican Party. I contend he is a front for Democrats. And as far as apologies go, what would Bond say to Lawyer E. Faye Williams who said she'll not rest until the Senate's oldest office building no longer carries the name of former Senator Richard B. Russell, Georgia Democrat, who led a filibuster for six days to block one of the anti-lynching bills in 1935?
In the finest tradition of a political parrot, Bond failed to tell those black Democrats he was addressing that history blames the Democrats for blocking any attempt to outlaw lynching until the practice died out on it's own.
However....
“Bond did praise U.S. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who told the convention he would introduce legislation extending provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that are due to expire in 2007. Bond said the most important provision requires certain jurisdictions - most of them in the South - to get "pre-clearance" from the U.S. Justice Department before making changes in voting time, place or manner.
“Anybody who claims that voting rights are now secure only has to look to Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004," Bond said, referring to razor-thin margins in back-to-back presidential elections in those states.”
Remember my last column about middle fingers? Not that Sensenbrenner would ever use it, but why piss the man off now, right?
Bond is still using the script given him by the DNC about the problems in black polling places. Using logic as I try and do, who runs those polling places? Are Republicans able to just waltz in and tell people who can and can't vote? Are Republicans able to just waltz in and lose ballots and tell workers there when to open and close the doors?
The answer is no, but then again, Bond assumes that all black people are stupid and if he just recites the approved script from the DNC, he'll continue to receive the prominence he craves, and the paycheck he's grown accustomed to.
As long as black people attend the lousy public schools in the hood managed by Democrats and teacher's unions, listen to rap music created by Hollywood and New York liberals that steals the souls of their young listeners, have an overwhelming out-of-wedlock birthrate that makes a government social worker drool, there will be no solutions offered from people like Julian Bond.
That makes him the Democrats' puppet, parrot, and poverty pimp... all in one
Monday, July 11, 2005
Understanding Terrorism
Star Parker (archive)
July 11, 2005 | Print | Recommend to a friend
I sat in my nail shop as the news came in about the London bombings. Aside from my own immediate reaction of disgust, it was interesting to watch the reactions of the Vietnamese immigrants who run the place.
Those who have first-hand experience with any kind of violence, particularly mindless violence, understand this stuff. These Vietnamese ladies recalled sadly how their home country was torn apart by political violence. It was clear that they love the oasis of freedom that they have found in the United States and expressed their glee at the news that President Bush committed to visit Vietnam next year.
$19,842
3:00PM
Monday
You just need to look around at the crazy quilt of humanity that makes up the United States to know how false the assertion is that is often heard that some people are culturally or genetically incapable of living in freedom. We hear this often today regarding those of Islam. But look around the United States and you will find millions of Arabs and other adherents of Islam that are thriving in our free country.
Freedom is not an issue of culture, religion, race, or genetics. Freedom is an issue of maturity.
Although a lot of effort is being made trying to understand how the mind of the terrorist works, I think there are elements that are elementary to understand for anyone who knows anything about parenting. Becoming a responsible, civilized, and free adult human being does not happen naturally but requires careful supervision and education.
Children come into this world as natural egotists. They see everything in terms of themselves. In the very early years, when a child is totally dependent, this makes sense.
However, the process of growing up, of maturing into adulthood, requires developing awareness of and empathy for others. It requires becoming aware that there is a line where I end and you begin and learning to respect that line. Some children have a harder time learning about that line of demarcation than others and a physical reminder becomes necessary in the learning process.
Today's terrorists are children and they are wreaking havoc on the global stage. They come from dysfunctional families _ countries that are not free _ and therefore have not received the fundamental education about laws, empathy, and the complexities of the world that are necessary to live as an adult. Terrorists are children running around the world with adult financing and grown up weapons.
There are some that would have us believe that terrorism exists because of a lot of external circumstances. Some claim that it is caused by poverty. Some claim that it's our fault. The United States. shouldn't be doing business with governments in the Middle East that preside over regimes that are not free. Or that because the United States. has taken military action in the Middle East we will suffer at the hands of terrorists.
Some say we should be more sensitive because these children feel humiliated that their countries are backward and that they have been defeated in the marketplace and on the battlefield.
I just don't buy it.
For one thing, the people of Islam don't hate the West. They love it.
Since 1970, about 20 million Islamic immigrants left their homes and settled in Europe. As noted, there are millions of Moslems who have settled in the United States. They work, get educated, and earn money in the West, and many send much of their new wealth back to their families in their home countries.
If it wasn't for the West, there would be no oil wealth. Our companies found and developed these resources. Our prosperous free economies consume this energy and transfer wealth to oil producing countries in the Middle East.
Several of the bombings that took place in London occurred in highly populated Muslim neighborhoods. The same day of these bombings, terrorist thugs in Baghdad executed the head of the Egyptian mission in Iraq.
These pre-adolescent nut cases will kill anyone, from the West or from the East, Christian, Jew, or Moslem, who does not conform with their childish hallucinations.
In the wake of these latest incidents, there will be calls again for the United States. to withdraw from Iraq and the Middle East. However, we can no more do this than anyone can ignore their neighbor's delinquent children.
Freedom is not a luxury. It is a necessity for every living, breathing human being. However, it is impossible to be free without being an adult and this means understanding and living by those eternal rules that make it possible.
The clash today in our globalized world is not between nations, civilizations, or ethnicities. It is a clash between the mature and civilized of our planet and the adult children who refuse to grow up.
We cannot indulge them or those who assist them or rationalize their behavior in any way. Americans must understand, and hopefully those in Europe will understand more, that we have no choice but to be clear what the rules of humanity are, and to be vigilant and uncompromising in defending them.
Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education and author of the newly released book 'Uncle Sam's Plantation.'
©2005 Star Parker
Star Parker (archive)
July 11, 2005 | Print | Recommend to a friend
I sat in my nail shop as the news came in about the London bombings. Aside from my own immediate reaction of disgust, it was interesting to watch the reactions of the Vietnamese immigrants who run the place.
Those who have first-hand experience with any kind of violence, particularly mindless violence, understand this stuff. These Vietnamese ladies recalled sadly how their home country was torn apart by political violence. It was clear that they love the oasis of freedom that they have found in the United States and expressed their glee at the news that President Bush committed to visit Vietnam next year.
$19,842
3:00PM
Monday
You just need to look around at the crazy quilt of humanity that makes up the United States to know how false the assertion is that is often heard that some people are culturally or genetically incapable of living in freedom. We hear this often today regarding those of Islam. But look around the United States and you will find millions of Arabs and other adherents of Islam that are thriving in our free country.
Freedom is not an issue of culture, religion, race, or genetics. Freedom is an issue of maturity.
Although a lot of effort is being made trying to understand how the mind of the terrorist works, I think there are elements that are elementary to understand for anyone who knows anything about parenting. Becoming a responsible, civilized, and free adult human being does not happen naturally but requires careful supervision and education.
Children come into this world as natural egotists. They see everything in terms of themselves. In the very early years, when a child is totally dependent, this makes sense.
However, the process of growing up, of maturing into adulthood, requires developing awareness of and empathy for others. It requires becoming aware that there is a line where I end and you begin and learning to respect that line. Some children have a harder time learning about that line of demarcation than others and a physical reminder becomes necessary in the learning process.
Today's terrorists are children and they are wreaking havoc on the global stage. They come from dysfunctional families _ countries that are not free _ and therefore have not received the fundamental education about laws, empathy, and the complexities of the world that are necessary to live as an adult. Terrorists are children running around the world with adult financing and grown up weapons.
There are some that would have us believe that terrorism exists because of a lot of external circumstances. Some claim that it is caused by poverty. Some claim that it's our fault. The United States. shouldn't be doing business with governments in the Middle East that preside over regimes that are not free. Or that because the United States. has taken military action in the Middle East we will suffer at the hands of terrorists.
Some say we should be more sensitive because these children feel humiliated that their countries are backward and that they have been defeated in the marketplace and on the battlefield.
I just don't buy it.
For one thing, the people of Islam don't hate the West. They love it.
Since 1970, about 20 million Islamic immigrants left their homes and settled in Europe. As noted, there are millions of Moslems who have settled in the United States. They work, get educated, and earn money in the West, and many send much of their new wealth back to their families in their home countries.
If it wasn't for the West, there would be no oil wealth. Our companies found and developed these resources. Our prosperous free economies consume this energy and transfer wealth to oil producing countries in the Middle East.
Several of the bombings that took place in London occurred in highly populated Muslim neighborhoods. The same day of these bombings, terrorist thugs in Baghdad executed the head of the Egyptian mission in Iraq.
These pre-adolescent nut cases will kill anyone, from the West or from the East, Christian, Jew, or Moslem, who does not conform with their childish hallucinations.
In the wake of these latest incidents, there will be calls again for the United States. to withdraw from Iraq and the Middle East. However, we can no more do this than anyone can ignore their neighbor's delinquent children.
Freedom is not a luxury. It is a necessity for every living, breathing human being. However, it is impossible to be free without being an adult and this means understanding and living by those eternal rules that make it possible.
The clash today in our globalized world is not between nations, civilizations, or ethnicities. It is a clash between the mature and civilized of our planet and the adult children who refuse to grow up.
We cannot indulge them or those who assist them or rationalize their behavior in any way. Americans must understand, and hopefully those in Europe will understand more, that we have no choice but to be clear what the rules of humanity are, and to be vigilant and uncompromising in defending them.
Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education and author of the newly released book 'Uncle Sam's Plantation.'
©2005 Star Parker
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Battling Judicial Tyranny
Written By: John Semmens
Published In: Heartland Perspectives
Publication Date: May 24, 2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Hamilton thought the judiciary would be the weakest branch of the federal government established by the U.S. Constitution.
On paper, it looks like Hamilton was right. The executive branch commands the army. The legislature controls appropriations and taxes. Both the executive and the legislature have direct links to voters--the ultimate source of sovereignty in a republic. The judiciary, by contrast, is dependent upon the executive for appointment and the Senate for confirmation.
But in 1803, the Supreme Court declared it had the authority to strike down laws incompatible with the Constitution.
As a concept, that isn't inherently bad. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Arduous steps are required to amend it. That wouldn't make much sense if any law passed by a simple majority in Congress were allowed to stand, even if it contradicted provisions of the Constitution.
Even so, Thomas Jefferson felt that allowing the Court to exercise such authority over the laws "would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
The current battle over judicial vacancies lends credence to Jefferson's fear. Democrats have been filibustering to block the Senate from voting on some of President George W. Bush's nominees. Democrats contend this filibuster is essential for preserving Constitutional government. But the filibuster is not an established Constitutional principle. It is a tradition of the Senate, in the past used primarily by southerners to prevent votes on civil rights legislation.
Resort to the historically stained filibuster is evidence of the seriousness of the struggle. Judicial appointments are tremendously important these days--largely because judges have gone well beyond their traditional role of interpreting the law and comparing statutes to the Constitution.
For example, in a recently decided case, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy asserted, "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion." Yet nowhere in the Constitution does it state or even imply that our courts are to use international opinion as a standard for rendering decisions.
One might think lawmakers of both major political parties would be uneasy with the overturning of American laws based on such non-American standards. Today, it might be Republican-passed laws that are disrespected by the court. Tomorrow, it might be Democrat-passed laws.
But both sides of the political aisle have accepted the concept that the courts will always have the last say. That's why both Democrats and Republicans are focused on who becomes a judge. Right now, the court system is loaded with Democrat appointees. Republicans aim to change that by appointing judges sympathetic to their ideological perspective.
The shift of power to the courts is transforming our government from the republic envisioned by the nation's founders into something more akin to the Republic envisioned by Plato. Plato was antagonistic to the idea that people could rule themselves. He favored rule by a few philosopher kings. The nine-member Supreme Court looks like the fulfillment of Plato's vision.
It doesn't have to be this way. Article III of the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate the courts. HR 1070, the Constitution Restoration Act, proposes to restrict the courts' jurisdiction, bar reliance upon foreign laws in rendering decisions, and define the causes for impeachment of judges.
Whether it passes HR 1070 or chooses some other vehicle, Congress needs to reassert the primacy of elected representatives in making the laws of this country. If courts are to overrule statutes they ought to be able to point to the precise clause of the Constitution that invalidates the statute. Congress needs to scrutinize court decisions to ensure this standard is met and take action if it is not. This is our best option to try to ensure that "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written By: John Semmens
Published In: Heartland Perspectives
Publication Date: May 24, 2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Hamilton thought the judiciary would be the weakest branch of the federal government established by the U.S. Constitution.
On paper, it looks like Hamilton was right. The executive branch commands the army. The legislature controls appropriations and taxes. Both the executive and the legislature have direct links to voters--the ultimate source of sovereignty in a republic. The judiciary, by contrast, is dependent upon the executive for appointment and the Senate for confirmation.
But in 1803, the Supreme Court declared it had the authority to strike down laws incompatible with the Constitution.
As a concept, that isn't inherently bad. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Arduous steps are required to amend it. That wouldn't make much sense if any law passed by a simple majority in Congress were allowed to stand, even if it contradicted provisions of the Constitution.
Even so, Thomas Jefferson felt that allowing the Court to exercise such authority over the laws "would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
The current battle over judicial vacancies lends credence to Jefferson's fear. Democrats have been filibustering to block the Senate from voting on some of President George W. Bush's nominees. Democrats contend this filibuster is essential for preserving Constitutional government. But the filibuster is not an established Constitutional principle. It is a tradition of the Senate, in the past used primarily by southerners to prevent votes on civil rights legislation.
Resort to the historically stained filibuster is evidence of the seriousness of the struggle. Judicial appointments are tremendously important these days--largely because judges have gone well beyond their traditional role of interpreting the law and comparing statutes to the Constitution.
For example, in a recently decided case, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy asserted, "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion." Yet nowhere in the Constitution does it state or even imply that our courts are to use international opinion as a standard for rendering decisions.
One might think lawmakers of both major political parties would be uneasy with the overturning of American laws based on such non-American standards. Today, it might be Republican-passed laws that are disrespected by the court. Tomorrow, it might be Democrat-passed laws.
But both sides of the political aisle have accepted the concept that the courts will always have the last say. That's why both Democrats and Republicans are focused on who becomes a judge. Right now, the court system is loaded with Democrat appointees. Republicans aim to change that by appointing judges sympathetic to their ideological perspective.
The shift of power to the courts is transforming our government from the republic envisioned by the nation's founders into something more akin to the Republic envisioned by Plato. Plato was antagonistic to the idea that people could rule themselves. He favored rule by a few philosopher kings. The nine-member Supreme Court looks like the fulfillment of Plato's vision.
It doesn't have to be this way. Article III of the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate the courts. HR 1070, the Constitution Restoration Act, proposes to restrict the courts' jurisdiction, bar reliance upon foreign laws in rendering decisions, and define the causes for impeachment of judges.
Whether it passes HR 1070 or chooses some other vehicle, Congress needs to reassert the primacy of elected representatives in making the laws of this country. If courts are to overrule statutes they ought to be able to point to the precise clause of the Constitution that invalidates the statute. Congress needs to scrutinize court decisions to ensure this standard is met and take action if it is not. This is our best option to try to ensure that "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
You are Pope Pius XII. You're efficient and
dedicated, but not very approachable.
Which Twentieth Century Pope Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
Monday, May 23, 2005
Lies? Only When Republicans Tell them, Right?
Written by Evan Sayet
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Sandy Berger is caught cramming top-secret intelligence documents down the front of his pants. Dan Rather is caught using forged documents to try to influence a presidential election.
John Kerry slanders a million of his "band of brothers" in bogus testimony before Congress and then continues to lie for the next 30 years, claiming that in 1968 he was sent by Richard Nixon (who wasn’t president yet) to Cambodia on Christmas Eve (which never happened), hearing the Vietnamese "sing Christmas carols" (the Vietnamese are Buddhists and don't celebrate Christmas) and being fired upon by the Khmer Rouge (which didn't become a military force until a half decade later).
Howard Dean attempts to spread outrageous lies about President Bush about the events of 9/11, only admitting – after being caught in his dissembling – that he never believed the lies himself. Al Sharpton makes his name by helping to fake the rape of a young child. Ted Kennedy clings to his family name after leaving his "female companion" to drown while he swims to shore to sober up before calling the police.
And Bill Clinton – well, he “never had sex with that woman!”
Al Gore recognizes that if he is going to be of any future relevance, he must join the parade of liars. He quickly reinvents himself by morphing from a quiet, thoughtful policy wonk to a demagogue spewing the anti-American venom and propaganda that has become the coin of the realm in today's Democratic Party.
The leadership of the Democratic Party gives a standing ovation to Michael Moore’s fake documentary, which they know to be nothing more than a lie-filled, hate-filled, anti-American propaganda piece. And Ward Churchill's lies not only gain him tenured employment but elevate him to department head at the University of Colorado.
These are not odd zealots but the heart and soul of today's Democratic Party. From its most recent standard bearer to the newly-minted head of the DNC, to its leading voices in "civil rights" issues, to its top foreign policy advisors, to its House and Senate leadership and beyond, lying has become the party’s defining trait, while the few Democrats too decent to lie – the Joe Liebermans and Dick Gephardts, for example – find themselves with less support among the party faithful than did Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat.
It is dificult to take seriously charges that Republicans are "liars" when that accusation is leveled in books like Al Franken's "Lying Liars and the Lying Lies They Tell." After all, how much credence can be given Franken when he had to testify in a court of law – to save himself from a mountain of libel suits – that his book was never intended to be taken seriously? The court agreed that no reasonable person could read "Lying Liars" and think it factual and thus the book was published as a fictional joke book.
So why do Democrats lie? Well, for one thing, they have to. Democrats recognize that the vast majority of the American people reject their basic philosophy – as they did resoundingly in the last presidential and congressional elections – which says that all domestic problems can be solved with forced confiscation and redistribution of income, all social issues can be resolved by more and more government control over the citizenry, and all international questions can be answered by ceding American sovereignty to corrupt foreign powers like France and corrupt organizations like the United Nations.
Further they have to lie because their track record is one of utter failure. The Democrats had 40 years of uninterrupted social experimentation that yielded little-to-nothing that enhanced our democracy, either domestically or in terms of foreign affairs. Just like the failing regimes of socialist Europe and the failed regime of communist Russia, Democrats cannot point to a single time when leftism – including their own – hasn't brought despair.
After decades of Democrat-driven "affirmative action," "new math," and "multicultural" experiments, blacks are still disproportionately members of an underclass and our schools (unlike those of the past that created "The Greatest Generation") are now so dysfunctional that we have to outsource the simplest jobs to countries like India. Forty years of leftism has left America more divided, not less divided, as the left pursues its agenda of replacing a "melting pot" that worked with a "mosaic" of multiculturalism, multilingualism, and America bashing that clearly doesn’t.
These are the tactical reasons that make Democrats lie. Leftists are also liars for philosophical reasons and because, I believe, of psychological aberrations. In the words of former feminist leader Tammy Bruce, leftwing Democrats are "malignant narcissists." In their arrogance, modern liberals believe in nothing greater than themselves and that whatever they say – anything that advances their agenda – must be "the truth."
The flipside of this coin is that they believe that anyone who disagrees with them must be – can only be – stupid or liars or racists. In their self-serving, self-aggrandizing minds, they justify their lies in the name of doing the rest of us a favor, the better to get us to do what they believe is the "right" thing.
Believing in nothing but self doesn't just mean rejecting the obvious higher callings of God, freedom, family, and country, but even the smaller things that good people once respected and honored are rejected by today's Democrats.
In times past, a journalist might have had the same ideological bent as a Dan Rather, but his respect for his profession – what they used to call "journalistic integrity" – kept him from being an out-and-out liar. In the old days, Hollywood's love for the movies compelled them to award the best picture Oscar to what was really the best picture. Today, without regard to the quality of the film, the award is given to any movie that advances the leftists' agenda. This year it was the pro-euthanasia "Million Dollar Baby," in contention with a pro-abortion film and one that touted the work of that known pervert Alfred Kinsey.
In another age, a museum curator placed beauty ahead of personal ideology and thus filled the halls of great museums with exceptional works based on their aesthetic value. Today's "artists" do not believe in beauty and thus seeks only to advance their anti-God agenda by filling the space with crosses drenched in urine and pictures of the Virgin Mary smeared in elephant dung.
Democrats lie because, with nothing bigger than themselves to believe in – not God, not country, not democracy, not art, not facts, not history, not freedom – they believe they themselves to be gods, and thus their beliefs become their own “gospel truth." Which is no truth at all!
About the Writer: Evan Sayet is a writer, speaker and pundit in Los Angeles and former communications director for LA for President Bush. He has been a TV and movie writer with credits ranging from "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher" to the cult classic "Win Ben Stein's Money" and the Discovery Channel documentary "The 70's: When Decades Attack." He is currently working on a book: "Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals `Think.” Evan’s blog is SayetRight.Blogspot.com.
Written by Evan Sayet
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Sandy Berger is caught cramming top-secret intelligence documents down the front of his pants. Dan Rather is caught using forged documents to try to influence a presidential election.
John Kerry slanders a million of his "band of brothers" in bogus testimony before Congress and then continues to lie for the next 30 years, claiming that in 1968 he was sent by Richard Nixon (who wasn’t president yet) to Cambodia on Christmas Eve (which never happened), hearing the Vietnamese "sing Christmas carols" (the Vietnamese are Buddhists and don't celebrate Christmas) and being fired upon by the Khmer Rouge (which didn't become a military force until a half decade later).
Howard Dean attempts to spread outrageous lies about President Bush about the events of 9/11, only admitting – after being caught in his dissembling – that he never believed the lies himself. Al Sharpton makes his name by helping to fake the rape of a young child. Ted Kennedy clings to his family name after leaving his "female companion" to drown while he swims to shore to sober up before calling the police.
And Bill Clinton – well, he “never had sex with that woman!”
Al Gore recognizes that if he is going to be of any future relevance, he must join the parade of liars. He quickly reinvents himself by morphing from a quiet, thoughtful policy wonk to a demagogue spewing the anti-American venom and propaganda that has become the coin of the realm in today's Democratic Party.
The leadership of the Democratic Party gives a standing ovation to Michael Moore’s fake documentary, which they know to be nothing more than a lie-filled, hate-filled, anti-American propaganda piece. And Ward Churchill's lies not only gain him tenured employment but elevate him to department head at the University of Colorado.
These are not odd zealots but the heart and soul of today's Democratic Party. From its most recent standard bearer to the newly-minted head of the DNC, to its leading voices in "civil rights" issues, to its top foreign policy advisors, to its House and Senate leadership and beyond, lying has become the party’s defining trait, while the few Democrats too decent to lie – the Joe Liebermans and Dick Gephardts, for example – find themselves with less support among the party faithful than did Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat.
It is dificult to take seriously charges that Republicans are "liars" when that accusation is leveled in books like Al Franken's "Lying Liars and the Lying Lies They Tell." After all, how much credence can be given Franken when he had to testify in a court of law – to save himself from a mountain of libel suits – that his book was never intended to be taken seriously? The court agreed that no reasonable person could read "Lying Liars" and think it factual and thus the book was published as a fictional joke book.
So why do Democrats lie? Well, for one thing, they have to. Democrats recognize that the vast majority of the American people reject their basic philosophy – as they did resoundingly in the last presidential and congressional elections – which says that all domestic problems can be solved with forced confiscation and redistribution of income, all social issues can be resolved by more and more government control over the citizenry, and all international questions can be answered by ceding American sovereignty to corrupt foreign powers like France and corrupt organizations like the United Nations.
Further they have to lie because their track record is one of utter failure. The Democrats had 40 years of uninterrupted social experimentation that yielded little-to-nothing that enhanced our democracy, either domestically or in terms of foreign affairs. Just like the failing regimes of socialist Europe and the failed regime of communist Russia, Democrats cannot point to a single time when leftism – including their own – hasn't brought despair.
After decades of Democrat-driven "affirmative action," "new math," and "multicultural" experiments, blacks are still disproportionately members of an underclass and our schools (unlike those of the past that created "The Greatest Generation") are now so dysfunctional that we have to outsource the simplest jobs to countries like India. Forty years of leftism has left America more divided, not less divided, as the left pursues its agenda of replacing a "melting pot" that worked with a "mosaic" of multiculturalism, multilingualism, and America bashing that clearly doesn’t.
These are the tactical reasons that make Democrats lie. Leftists are also liars for philosophical reasons and because, I believe, of psychological aberrations. In the words of former feminist leader Tammy Bruce, leftwing Democrats are "malignant narcissists." In their arrogance, modern liberals believe in nothing greater than themselves and that whatever they say – anything that advances their agenda – must be "the truth."
The flipside of this coin is that they believe that anyone who disagrees with them must be – can only be – stupid or liars or racists. In their self-serving, self-aggrandizing minds, they justify their lies in the name of doing the rest of us a favor, the better to get us to do what they believe is the "right" thing.
Believing in nothing but self doesn't just mean rejecting the obvious higher callings of God, freedom, family, and country, but even the smaller things that good people once respected and honored are rejected by today's Democrats.
In times past, a journalist might have had the same ideological bent as a Dan Rather, but his respect for his profession – what they used to call "journalistic integrity" – kept him from being an out-and-out liar. In the old days, Hollywood's love for the movies compelled them to award the best picture Oscar to what was really the best picture. Today, without regard to the quality of the film, the award is given to any movie that advances the leftists' agenda. This year it was the pro-euthanasia "Million Dollar Baby," in contention with a pro-abortion film and one that touted the work of that known pervert Alfred Kinsey.
In another age, a museum curator placed beauty ahead of personal ideology and thus filled the halls of great museums with exceptional works based on their aesthetic value. Today's "artists" do not believe in beauty and thus seeks only to advance their anti-God agenda by filling the space with crosses drenched in urine and pictures of the Virgin Mary smeared in elephant dung.
Democrats lie because, with nothing bigger than themselves to believe in – not God, not country, not democracy, not art, not facts, not history, not freedom – they believe they themselves to be gods, and thus their beliefs become their own “gospel truth." Which is no truth at all!
About the Writer: Evan Sayet is a writer, speaker and pundit in Los Angeles and former communications director for LA for President Bush. He has been a TV and movie writer with credits ranging from "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher" to the cult classic "Win Ben Stein's Money" and the Discovery Channel documentary "The 70's: When Decades Attack." He is currently working on a book: "Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals `Think.” Evan’s blog is SayetRight.Blogspot.com.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
The Case for the Empire
weeklystandard.com ^ | Johnathan V. Last
Posted on 04/26/2005 8:29:53 AM PDT by Jimmyclyde
The Case for the Empire From the May 16, 2002 Daily Standard: Everything you think you know about Star Wars is wrong. by Jonathan V. Last 12/26/2002 12:00:00 AM
Jonathan V. Last, online editor
STAR WARS RETURNS today with its fifth installment, "Attack of the Clones." There will be talk of the Force and the Dark Side and the epic morality of George Lucas's series. But the truth is that from the beginning, Lucas confused the good guys with the bad. The deep lesson of Star Wars is that the Empire is good.
It's a difficult leap to make--embracing Darth Vader and the Emperor over the plucky and attractive Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia--but a careful examination of the facts, sorted apart from Lucas's off-the-shelf moral cues, makes a quite convincing case.
First, an aside: For the sake of this discussion, I've considered only the history gleaned from the actual Star Wars films, not the Expanded Universe. If you know what the Expanded Universe is and want to argue that no discussion of Star Wars can be complete without considering material outside the canon, that's fine. However, it's always been my view that the comic books and novels largely serve to clean up Lucas's narrative and philosophical messes. Therefore, discussions of intrinsic intent must necessarily revolve around the movies alone. You may disagree, but please don't e-mail me about it.
If you don't know what the Expanded Universe is, well, uh, neither do I.
I. The Problems with the Galactic Republic
At the beginning of the Star Wars saga, the known universe is governed by the Galactic Republic. The Republic is controlled by a Senate, which is, in turn, run by an elected chancellor who's in charge of procedure, but has little real power.
Scores of thousands of planets are represented in the Galactic Senate, and as we first encounter it, it is sclerotic and ineffectual. The Republic has grown over many millennia to the point where there are so many factions and disparate interests, that it is simply too big to be governable. Even the Republic's staunchest supporters recognize this failing: In "The Phantom Menace," Queen Amidala admits, "It is clear to me now that the Republic no longer functions." In "Attack of the Clones," young Anakin Skywalker observes that it simply "doesn't work."
The Senate moves so slowly that it is powerless to stop aggression between member states. In "The Phantom Menace" a supra-planetary alliance, the Trade Federation (think of it as OPEC to the Galactic Republic's United Nations), invades a planet and all the Senate can agree to do is call for an investigation.
Like the United Nations, the Republic has no armed forces of its own, but instead relies on a group of warriors, the Jedi knights, to "keep the peace." The Jedi, while autonomous, often work in tandem with the Senate, trying to smooth over quarrels and avoid conflicts. But the Jedi number only in the thousands--they cannot protect everyone.
What's more, it's not clear that they should be "protecting" anyone. The Jedi are Lucas's great heroes, full of Zen wisdom and righteous power. They encourage people to "use the Force"--the mystical energy which is the source of their power--but the truth, revealed in "The Phantom Menace," is that the Force isn't available to the rabble. The Force comes from midi-chlorians, tiny symbiotic organisms in people's blood, like mitochondria. The Force, it turns out, is an inherited, genetic trait. If you don't have the blood, you don't get the Force. Which makes the Jedi not a democratic militia, but a royalist Swiss guard.
And an arrogant royalist Swiss guard, at that. With one or two notable exceptions, the Jedi we meet in Star Wars are full of themselves. They ignore the counsel of others (often with terrible consequences), and seem honestly to believe that they are at the center of the universe. When the chief Jedi record-keeper is asked in "Attack of the Clones" about a planet she has never heard of, she replies that if it's not in the Jedi archives, it doesn't exist. (The planet in question does exist, again, with terrible consequences.)
In "Attack of the Clones," a mysterious figure, Count Dooku, leads a separatist movement of planets that want to secede from the Republic. Dooku promises these confederates smaller government, unlimited free trade, and an "absolute commitment to capitalism." Dooku's motives are suspect--it's not clear whether or not he believes in these causes. However, there's no reason to doubt the motives of the other separatists--they seem genuinely to want to make a fresh start with a government that isn't bloated and dysfunctional.
The Republic, of course, is eager to quash these separatists, but they never make a compelling case--or any case, for that matter--as to why, if they are such a freedom-loving regime, these planets should not be allowed to check out of the Republic and take control of their own destinies.
II. The Empire
We do not yet know the exact how's and why's, but we do know this: At some point between the end of Episode II and the beginning of Episode IV, the Republic is replaced by an Empire. The first hint comes in "Attack of the Clones," when the Senate's Chancellor Palpatine is granted emergency powers to deal with the separatists. It spoils very little to tell you that Palpatine eventually becomes the Emperor. For a time, he keeps the Senate in place, functioning as a rubber-stamp, much like the Roman imperial senate, but a few minutes into Episode IV, we are informed that the he has dissolved the Senate, and that "the last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."
Lucas wants the Empire to stand for evil, so he tells us that the Emperor and Darth Vader have gone over to the Dark Side and dresses them in black.
But look closer. When Palpatine is still a senator, he says, "The Republic is not what it once was. The Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good." At one point he laments that "the bureaucrats are in charge now."
Palpatine believes that the political order must be manipulated to produce peace and stability. When he mutters, "There is no civility, there is only politics," we see that at heart, he's an esoteric Straussian.
Make no mistake, as emperor, Palpatine is a dictator--but a relatively benign one, like Pinochet. It's a dictatorship people can do business with. They collect taxes and patrol the skies. They try to stop organized crime (in the form of the smuggling rings run by the Hutts). The Empire has virtually no effect on the daily life of the average, law-abiding citizen.
Also, unlike the divine-right Jedi, the Empire is a meritocracy. The Empire runs academies throughout the galaxy (Han Solo begins his career at an Imperial academy), and those who show promise are promoted, often rapidly. In "The Empire Strikes Back" Captain Piett is quickly promoted to admiral when his predecessor "falls down on the job."
And while it's a small point, the Empire's manners and decorum speak well of it. When Darth Vader is forced to employ bounty hunters to track down Han Solo, he refuses to address them by name. Even Boba Fett, the greatest of all trackers, is referred to icily as "bounty hunter." And yet Fett understands the protocol. When he captures Solo, he calls him "Captain Solo." (Whether this is in deference to Han's former rank in the Imperial starfleet, or simply because Han owns and pilots his own ship, we don't know. I suspect it's the former.)
But the most compelling evidence that the Empire isn't evil comes in "The Empire Strikes Back" when Darth Vader is battling Luke Skywalker. After an exhausting fight, Vader is poised to finish Luke off, but he stays his hand. He tries to convert Luke to the Dark Side with this simple plea: "There is no escape. Don't make me destroy you. . . . Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy." It is here we find the real controlling impulse for the Dark Side and the Empire. The Empire doesn't want slaves or destruction or "evil." It wants order.
None of which is to say that the Empire isn't sometimes brutal. In Episode IV, Imperial stormtroopers kill Luke's aunt and uncle and Grand Moff Tarkin orders the destruction of an entire planet, Alderaan. But viewed in context, these acts are less brutal than they initially appear. Poor Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen reach a grisly end, but only after they aid the rebellion by hiding Luke and harboring two fugitive droids. They aren't given due process, but they are traitors.
The destruction of Alderaan is often cited as ipso facto proof of the Empire's "evilness" because it seems like mass murder--planeticide, even. As Tarkin prepares to fire the Death Star, Princess Leia implores him to spare the planet, saying, "Alderaan is peaceful. We have no weapons." Her plea is important, if true.
But the audience has no reason to believe that Leia is telling the truth. In Episode IV, every bit of information she gives the Empire is willfully untrue. In the opening, she tells Darth Vader that she is on a diplomatic mission of mercy, when in fact she is on a spy mission, trying to deliver schematics of the Death Star to the Rebel Alliance. When asked where the Alliance is headquartered, she lies again.
Leia's lies are perfectly defensible--she thinks she's serving the greater good--but they make her wholly unreliable on the question of whether or not Alderaan really is peaceful and defenseless. If anything, since Leia is a high-ranking member of the rebellion and the princess of Alderaan, it would be reasonable to suspect that Alderaan is a front for Rebel activity or at least home to many more spies and insurgents like Leia.
Whatever the case, the important thing to recognize is that the Empire is not committing random acts of terror. It is engaged in a fight for the survival of its regime against a violent group of rebels who are committed to its destruction.
III. After the Rebellion
As we all know from the final Star Wars installment, "Return of the Jedi," the rebellion is eventually successful. The Emperor is assassinated, Darth Vader abdicates his post and dies, the central governing apparatus of the Empire is destroyed in a spectacular space battle, and the rebels rejoice with their small, annoying Ewok friends. But what happens next?
(There is a raft of literature on this point, but, as I said at the beginning, I'm going to ignore it because it doesn't speak to Lucas's original intent.)
In Episode IV, after Grand Moff Tarkin announces that the Imperial Senate has been abolished, he's asked how the Emperor can possibly hope to keep control of the galaxy. "The regional governors now have direct control over territories," he says. "Fear will keep the local systems in line."
So under Imperial rule, a large group of regional potentates, each with access to a sizable army and star destroyers, runs local affairs. These governors owe their fealty to the Emperor. And once the Emperor is dead, the galaxy will be plunged into chaos.
In all of the time we spend observing the Rebel Alliance, we never hear of their governing strategy or their plans for a post-Imperial universe. All we see are plots and fighting. Their victory over the Empire doesn't liberate the galaxy--it turns the galaxy into Somalia writ large: dominated by local warlords who are answerable to no one.
Which makes the rebels--Lucas's heroes--an unimpressive crew of anarchic royals who wreck the galaxy so that Princess Leia can have her tiara back.
I'll take the Empire.
Jonathan V. Last is online editor of The Weekly Standard.
© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: STARWARS; Click to Add Keyword
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 posted on 04/26/2005 8:29:56 AM PDT by Jimmyclyde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Logos124
An oldie but goodie...
2 posted on 04/26/2005 8:30:39 AM PDT by Jimmyclyde (Dying ain't much of a living boy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: MadIvan
Ping.
3 posted on 04/26/2005 8:35:56 AM PDT by untenured
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Free Republic
Home · Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2003 Robinson-DeFehr Consulting, LLC.
weeklystandard.com ^ | Johnathan V. Last
Posted on 04/26/2005 8:29:53 AM PDT by Jimmyclyde
The Case for the Empire From the May 16, 2002 Daily Standard: Everything you think you know about Star Wars is wrong. by Jonathan V. Last 12/26/2002 12:00:00 AM
Jonathan V. Last, online editor
STAR WARS RETURNS today with its fifth installment, "Attack of the Clones." There will be talk of the Force and the Dark Side and the epic morality of George Lucas's series. But the truth is that from the beginning, Lucas confused the good guys with the bad. The deep lesson of Star Wars is that the Empire is good.
It's a difficult leap to make--embracing Darth Vader and the Emperor over the plucky and attractive Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia--but a careful examination of the facts, sorted apart from Lucas's off-the-shelf moral cues, makes a quite convincing case.
First, an aside: For the sake of this discussion, I've considered only the history gleaned from the actual Star Wars films, not the Expanded Universe. If you know what the Expanded Universe is and want to argue that no discussion of Star Wars can be complete without considering material outside the canon, that's fine. However, it's always been my view that the comic books and novels largely serve to clean up Lucas's narrative and philosophical messes. Therefore, discussions of intrinsic intent must necessarily revolve around the movies alone. You may disagree, but please don't e-mail me about it.
If you don't know what the Expanded Universe is, well, uh, neither do I.
I. The Problems with the Galactic Republic
At the beginning of the Star Wars saga, the known universe is governed by the Galactic Republic. The Republic is controlled by a Senate, which is, in turn, run by an elected chancellor who's in charge of procedure, but has little real power.
Scores of thousands of planets are represented in the Galactic Senate, and as we first encounter it, it is sclerotic and ineffectual. The Republic has grown over many millennia to the point where there are so many factions and disparate interests, that it is simply too big to be governable. Even the Republic's staunchest supporters recognize this failing: In "The Phantom Menace," Queen Amidala admits, "It is clear to me now that the Republic no longer functions." In "Attack of the Clones," young Anakin Skywalker observes that it simply "doesn't work."
The Senate moves so slowly that it is powerless to stop aggression between member states. In "The Phantom Menace" a supra-planetary alliance, the Trade Federation (think of it as OPEC to the Galactic Republic's United Nations), invades a planet and all the Senate can agree to do is call for an investigation.
Like the United Nations, the Republic has no armed forces of its own, but instead relies on a group of warriors, the Jedi knights, to "keep the peace." The Jedi, while autonomous, often work in tandem with the Senate, trying to smooth over quarrels and avoid conflicts. But the Jedi number only in the thousands--they cannot protect everyone.
What's more, it's not clear that they should be "protecting" anyone. The Jedi are Lucas's great heroes, full of Zen wisdom and righteous power. They encourage people to "use the Force"--the mystical energy which is the source of their power--but the truth, revealed in "The Phantom Menace," is that the Force isn't available to the rabble. The Force comes from midi-chlorians, tiny symbiotic organisms in people's blood, like mitochondria. The Force, it turns out, is an inherited, genetic trait. If you don't have the blood, you don't get the Force. Which makes the Jedi not a democratic militia, but a royalist Swiss guard.
And an arrogant royalist Swiss guard, at that. With one or two notable exceptions, the Jedi we meet in Star Wars are full of themselves. They ignore the counsel of others (often with terrible consequences), and seem honestly to believe that they are at the center of the universe. When the chief Jedi record-keeper is asked in "Attack of the Clones" about a planet she has never heard of, she replies that if it's not in the Jedi archives, it doesn't exist. (The planet in question does exist, again, with terrible consequences.)
In "Attack of the Clones," a mysterious figure, Count Dooku, leads a separatist movement of planets that want to secede from the Republic. Dooku promises these confederates smaller government, unlimited free trade, and an "absolute commitment to capitalism." Dooku's motives are suspect--it's not clear whether or not he believes in these causes. However, there's no reason to doubt the motives of the other separatists--they seem genuinely to want to make a fresh start with a government that isn't bloated and dysfunctional.
The Republic, of course, is eager to quash these separatists, but they never make a compelling case--or any case, for that matter--as to why, if they are such a freedom-loving regime, these planets should not be allowed to check out of the Republic and take control of their own destinies.
II. The Empire
We do not yet know the exact how's and why's, but we do know this: At some point between the end of Episode II and the beginning of Episode IV, the Republic is replaced by an Empire. The first hint comes in "Attack of the Clones," when the Senate's Chancellor Palpatine is granted emergency powers to deal with the separatists. It spoils very little to tell you that Palpatine eventually becomes the Emperor. For a time, he keeps the Senate in place, functioning as a rubber-stamp, much like the Roman imperial senate, but a few minutes into Episode IV, we are informed that the he has dissolved the Senate, and that "the last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."
Lucas wants the Empire to stand for evil, so he tells us that the Emperor and Darth Vader have gone over to the Dark Side and dresses them in black.
But look closer. When Palpatine is still a senator, he says, "The Republic is not what it once was. The Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good." At one point he laments that "the bureaucrats are in charge now."
Palpatine believes that the political order must be manipulated to produce peace and stability. When he mutters, "There is no civility, there is only politics," we see that at heart, he's an esoteric Straussian.
Make no mistake, as emperor, Palpatine is a dictator--but a relatively benign one, like Pinochet. It's a dictatorship people can do business with. They collect taxes and patrol the skies. They try to stop organized crime (in the form of the smuggling rings run by the Hutts). The Empire has virtually no effect on the daily life of the average, law-abiding citizen.
Also, unlike the divine-right Jedi, the Empire is a meritocracy. The Empire runs academies throughout the galaxy (Han Solo begins his career at an Imperial academy), and those who show promise are promoted, often rapidly. In "The Empire Strikes Back" Captain Piett is quickly promoted to admiral when his predecessor "falls down on the job."
And while it's a small point, the Empire's manners and decorum speak well of it. When Darth Vader is forced to employ bounty hunters to track down Han Solo, he refuses to address them by name. Even Boba Fett, the greatest of all trackers, is referred to icily as "bounty hunter." And yet Fett understands the protocol. When he captures Solo, he calls him "Captain Solo." (Whether this is in deference to Han's former rank in the Imperial starfleet, or simply because Han owns and pilots his own ship, we don't know. I suspect it's the former.)
But the most compelling evidence that the Empire isn't evil comes in "The Empire Strikes Back" when Darth Vader is battling Luke Skywalker. After an exhausting fight, Vader is poised to finish Luke off, but he stays his hand. He tries to convert Luke to the Dark Side with this simple plea: "There is no escape. Don't make me destroy you. . . . Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy." It is here we find the real controlling impulse for the Dark Side and the Empire. The Empire doesn't want slaves or destruction or "evil." It wants order.
None of which is to say that the Empire isn't sometimes brutal. In Episode IV, Imperial stormtroopers kill Luke's aunt and uncle and Grand Moff Tarkin orders the destruction of an entire planet, Alderaan. But viewed in context, these acts are less brutal than they initially appear. Poor Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen reach a grisly end, but only after they aid the rebellion by hiding Luke and harboring two fugitive droids. They aren't given due process, but they are traitors.
The destruction of Alderaan is often cited as ipso facto proof of the Empire's "evilness" because it seems like mass murder--planeticide, even. As Tarkin prepares to fire the Death Star, Princess Leia implores him to spare the planet, saying, "Alderaan is peaceful. We have no weapons." Her plea is important, if true.
But the audience has no reason to believe that Leia is telling the truth. In Episode IV, every bit of information she gives the Empire is willfully untrue. In the opening, she tells Darth Vader that she is on a diplomatic mission of mercy, when in fact she is on a spy mission, trying to deliver schematics of the Death Star to the Rebel Alliance. When asked where the Alliance is headquartered, she lies again.
Leia's lies are perfectly defensible--she thinks she's serving the greater good--but they make her wholly unreliable on the question of whether or not Alderaan really is peaceful and defenseless. If anything, since Leia is a high-ranking member of the rebellion and the princess of Alderaan, it would be reasonable to suspect that Alderaan is a front for Rebel activity or at least home to many more spies and insurgents like Leia.
Whatever the case, the important thing to recognize is that the Empire is not committing random acts of terror. It is engaged in a fight for the survival of its regime against a violent group of rebels who are committed to its destruction.
III. After the Rebellion
As we all know from the final Star Wars installment, "Return of the Jedi," the rebellion is eventually successful. The Emperor is assassinated, Darth Vader abdicates his post and dies, the central governing apparatus of the Empire is destroyed in a spectacular space battle, and the rebels rejoice with their small, annoying Ewok friends. But what happens next?
(There is a raft of literature on this point, but, as I said at the beginning, I'm going to ignore it because it doesn't speak to Lucas's original intent.)
In Episode IV, after Grand Moff Tarkin announces that the Imperial Senate has been abolished, he's asked how the Emperor can possibly hope to keep control of the galaxy. "The regional governors now have direct control over territories," he says. "Fear will keep the local systems in line."
So under Imperial rule, a large group of regional potentates, each with access to a sizable army and star destroyers, runs local affairs. These governors owe their fealty to the Emperor. And once the Emperor is dead, the galaxy will be plunged into chaos.
In all of the time we spend observing the Rebel Alliance, we never hear of their governing strategy or their plans for a post-Imperial universe. All we see are plots and fighting. Their victory over the Empire doesn't liberate the galaxy--it turns the galaxy into Somalia writ large: dominated by local warlords who are answerable to no one.
Which makes the rebels--Lucas's heroes--an unimpressive crew of anarchic royals who wreck the galaxy so that Princess Leia can have her tiara back.
I'll take the Empire.
Jonathan V. Last is online editor of The Weekly Standard.
© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: STARWARS; Click to Add Keyword
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 posted on 04/26/2005 8:29:56 AM PDT by Jimmyclyde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Logos124
An oldie but goodie...
2 posted on 04/26/2005 8:30:39 AM PDT by Jimmyclyde (Dying ain't much of a living boy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: MadIvan
Ping.
3 posted on 04/26/2005 8:35:56 AM PDT by untenured
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Free Republic
Home · Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2003 Robinson-DeFehr Consulting, LLC.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1388479/posts
Free RepublicHome · Browse · Search
Bloggers & PersonalTopics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Now with B16!The Curt Jester ^ 4/21/05 Jeff Miller
Posted on 04/21/2005 1:43:23 PM PDT by Atheist2Theist
You might have been told in the past that Humanae Vitaemins were not good for you or that if your conscience decided you didn't need Humanae Vitaemins you could safely ignore them. Latest cultural medical studies have proven the link between lack of Humanae Vitaemins and the lack of children. These studies show the extreme cultural malnutrition from not getting their *RDA of required spiritual nutrition.
Now with B16, Ut Unum Sintrum, has all the required nutrients you have relied on in the past and more. B16 works well with and expands with needed intake daily intake such as VII and JP2 (Beta-Karoltene) and will not interfere in any way them. In fact the synergetic effect will only enhance your spiritual metabolism.
The B16 caplets have a special smooth coating allowing you to swallow them without any water. Yet it is true with B16 you do not have to water it down in any way. Our B16 is doctrinally pure with no heretical impurities such as those found in anti-Humanae Vitaemins.
Studies have conclusively proven that people taking B16 daily will continue to have smooth running and orthodox metabolism for years to come. B16 in trials has proven not to be harsh or difficult as had been initially reported.
We are also introducing Ut Unum Sintrum for children since your children our never too young to start off with proper spiritual growth. Parents will be pleased to know that our Humanae Vitaemins are not sugar coated, just like everything else we offer with B16 in it. Guaranteed not to cause truth decay or any form of spiritual rot. The children's tablets come in fun shapes like German Shepherds and Rottweilers.
*Ratzinger Daily Allowance
Disclaimer: B16 is not a miracle drug and will not remove any crosses you might bear. Though clinical trials have shown that a steady diet of truth supplemented with B16 will enable you better to embrace your cross and to carry it daily. For best results please use B16 with plenty of prayer and thanks be to God.
Caution: B16 has been known to cause allergies, shrill behavior, and coughing fits to some theologians, clergy, religious, and laity. Especially those who have had Spirit of Vatican Flu in the past.
Tell your health care provider if you are dissident and they can help you overcome your deficient diet and prepare you for true health with full dosages of B16. Or contact your local Orthodoxpedic surgeon for further information.
TOPICS: Humor; ReligionKEYWORDS:
1 posted on 04/21/2005 1:43:24 PM PDT by Atheist2Theist
[ Post Reply Private Reply View Replies ]
To: Atheist2Theist
Please, Mister, please - don't play B17...
2 posted on 04/21/2005 2:03:42 PM PDT by Hegemony Cricket (I have learned to deal with change. Any possibility of letting me try some currency?)
[ Post Reply Private Reply To 1 View Replies ]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Free RepublicHome · Browse · Search
Bloggers & PersonalTopics · Post Article
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2003 Robinson-DeFehr Consulting, LLC.
Free RepublicHome · Browse · Search
Bloggers & PersonalTopics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Now with B16!The Curt Jester ^ 4/21/05 Jeff Miller
Posted on 04/21/2005 1:43:23 PM PDT by Atheist2Theist
You might have been told in the past that Humanae Vitaemins were not good for you or that if your conscience decided you didn't need Humanae Vitaemins you could safely ignore them. Latest cultural medical studies have proven the link between lack of Humanae Vitaemins and the lack of children. These studies show the extreme cultural malnutrition from not getting their *RDA of required spiritual nutrition.
Now with B16, Ut Unum Sintrum, has all the required nutrients you have relied on in the past and more. B16 works well with and expands with needed intake daily intake such as VII and JP2 (Beta-Karoltene) and will not interfere in any way them. In fact the synergetic effect will only enhance your spiritual metabolism.
The B16 caplets have a special smooth coating allowing you to swallow them without any water. Yet it is true with B16 you do not have to water it down in any way. Our B16 is doctrinally pure with no heretical impurities such as those found in anti-Humanae Vitaemins.
Studies have conclusively proven that people taking B16 daily will continue to have smooth running and orthodox metabolism for years to come. B16 in trials has proven not to be harsh or difficult as had been initially reported.
We are also introducing Ut Unum Sintrum for children since your children our never too young to start off with proper spiritual growth. Parents will be pleased to know that our Humanae Vitaemins are not sugar coated, just like everything else we offer with B16 in it. Guaranteed not to cause truth decay or any form of spiritual rot. The children's tablets come in fun shapes like German Shepherds and Rottweilers.
*Ratzinger Daily Allowance
Disclaimer: B16 is not a miracle drug and will not remove any crosses you might bear. Though clinical trials have shown that a steady diet of truth supplemented with B16 will enable you better to embrace your cross and to carry it daily. For best results please use B16 with plenty of prayer and thanks be to God.
Caution: B16 has been known to cause allergies, shrill behavior, and coughing fits to some theologians, clergy, religious, and laity. Especially those who have had Spirit of Vatican Flu in the past.
Tell your health care provider if you are dissident and they can help you overcome your deficient diet and prepare you for true health with full dosages of B16. Or contact your local Orthodoxpedic surgeon for further information.
TOPICS: Humor; ReligionKEYWORDS:
1 posted on 04/21/2005 1:43:24 PM PDT by Atheist2Theist
[ Post Reply Private Reply View Replies ]
To: Atheist2Theist
Please, Mister, please - don't play B17...
2 posted on 04/21/2005 2:03:42 PM PDT by Hegemony Cricket (I have learned to deal with change. Any possibility of letting me try some currency?)
[ Post Reply Private Reply To 1 View Replies ]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Free RepublicHome · Browse · Search
Bloggers & PersonalTopics · Post Article
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2003 Robinson-DeFehr Consulting, LLC.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Monday, March 21, 2005
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)