Malcolm X's Birthday

I have to say that I have a little more affinity for Malcolm X than I do for Martin Luther King Jr. Having to choose, I would have liked that Malcolm X, more than Martin Luther King Jr., more than JFK, more than Robert Kennedy, had been the man that was not assassinated.

Here's some clips of Malcolm X. But first let's start with Billie Holiday's Strange Fruit



Whenever I look at Malcolm X and think of the bull**** that existed I'm surprised, astonished really, at the lack of violence.

For all you defenders of Free Markets and Free Minds listen to this speach by Malcolm X. What a defense of limited government and an excoriation of the nanny state.

And you think Republican's are Stupid?

Imagine the ridicule if Bush or Palin had said this. This is not Sanchez' only ridiculous statment in the last few months. Look at the video below: "What is 9 meters in English?"



How about Rick Sanchez' professional skill, reading from a teleprompter? He reads "ad lib" and says: "Upnext, ad lib, a tease."



Again, imagine the 24x7 ridicule if Sarah Palin or George Bush had said anything so stupid.

Are Americans becoming more involved politically?

I'm still wondering: are Americans becoming more involved politically? And are these Americans truly rooted in the arguments of limited government as espoused by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution?

And, how do we determine this?

The Cowardly Left and Islam: Take 1,000,001

Once again the Left fails another test, namely will they defend their values against an aggressor. Once again we see the story of an "army" focusing on an earlier "enemy" and ignoring a new and upcoming threat.

What does the term "controversial" mean?

Once again the media is stirring up trouble, focusing more on promoting a particular point of view than in giving their readers a greater understanding of the issues at hand, yellow journalism at its best. A law is going through the Arizona Legislature that allows: police to make a citizenship/residency check of people already detained for another unrelated offense. The media is calling this a controversial bill and fanning division by falsely saying that the bill allows police to stop people on the grounds of race or accent or accent. This is an outright lie.

What is the first thing a peace officer asks when making contact: "Do you have ID?" If you do, you're on your way (assuming you're not under arrest for the reason he stopped you). If you don't have an ID you're asked to provide your name, date of birth, and Social Security number. What are things most illegal immigrants don't have: Social Security numbers, Driver's Licenses or State IDs. At this point, and only at this point, police officers can determine if the stopped individual is a citizen or a legal immigrant.

One may or may not agree with the bill. One may see problems with this. I do. But simply calling it controvesial every time one mentions the bill is a clear example of media bias.  What exactly does it mean to be controvestial when, according to a Rasmussen Report,  70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration including over 50% of Democrats.

So what does controversial mean? It means that the writers and editors involved in publishing the article are trying to sway public opinion. They don't like the bill and are trying to delegitimize the bill by implying that it's support it limited to a fringe element.

The irony of it all: that Che supporters would find something wrong with wanting something out of the mainstream.

On Religion and the US Army

Here's a quote from Richard Dawkins.net

Actually, under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, we certainly should have a "secular goddam military" -- but we don't. Not as long as we have military preachers/priests/imams/reverends/etc., who are on the military payroll -- with all salaries coming from US tax monies. Until these military chaplains are forced to turn in their uniforms, we cannot claim a secular military.

One compromise (and I don't really whole-heartedly support compromises on religion, but -- you know -- baby steps) which may solve the Constitutionality issue would be to require that each religion with a desire to minister to (i.e., "lie to") our troops must provide its own shaman and have all expenses covered by that religion. The Southern Baptist Convention would have to pay salaries and all living expenses for preachers they want to "imbed" with our troops, the Vatican would pay all costs associated with building its chapels near (not on) Army bases, etc. Not one penny would come out of the US Treasury, and NONE of these religulous (thanks to Bill Maher for this word) people would be allowed to wear a US Military uniform.

...... just a little food for thought.

I wouldn't push this. It's not important to me. But I see where he is coming from. On the other hand if our troops want a chaplain shouldn't they be made available to them? If so then the chaplains should stay.

Are we citizens or are we subjects?

Last year Paul Begal wrote that April 15th is Patriots Day.

Begala seems to have the idea that patriotism means that the individual serves the state. How wrong he is and how far we have fallen. The purpose of the state is to protect individual rights; to protect the social contract namely: "I promise not to kill you and take your stuff if you promise not to kill me and take my stuff."

Now we have people who want to flip this ideal on its head: that the government is not here to secure your individual rights but is instead here to protect you from yourself.

Government should be as big as it needs to be to do what it has to do. If there are no limits then there are no individual rights, no individual liberty. Therefore the questions of the day are: "what is the purpose of government?" and "what are the limits placed on what government can do?"

It seems to me, Paul Begala, that these questions were answered over 200 years ago with the writting of the US Constitution. It is you, and those like you, who have forgotten this and are trying to, slowly but surely, subvert the founding ideals and the US Constitution.

This is what people are protesting.

We must all ask ourselves: are we citizens or are we subjects?