Google apps
Main menu

Post a Comment On: Doug Ross @ Journal

"When did the NAACP join the Klan?"

17 Comments -

1 – 17 of 17
Anonymous Bones said...

The rest of the story must include all the programs that bamboozled the American Blacks into voting 99% Dem. The same programs that have severely damaged the Black family structure and created several generations of dependence.

9:13 PM

Anonymous DB said...

What a great post - Thanks Doug

9:38 PM

Anonymous VaGal said...

Excellent post! And I agree 100% that Breitbart is the one who should receive an apology.

9:44 PM

Blogger NeoKong said...

I want to testify.
Hallelujah.

12:35 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What an incriminating and devastating timeline and report. Public Service Announcement is more like it. Awesome job, Doug!

8:41 AM

Blogger davidwwalters said...

-I was sent this link by a republican who took exception to my schooling him on Nixon's Southern Strategy" and other recent forms of covert republican racism. My how things change! And oh, republicans are so touchy about charges of Racism!

9:35 AM

Blogger directorblue said...

Hey, David ---

Aren't you supposed to be in front of a charter school somewhere, blocking little black kids from breaking the backs of the NEA?

What do you do for a living?

7:33 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, let's review the Breitbart gang's allegations:

When … she expresses a discriminatory attitude towards white people, the audience responds with applause. False.
The NAACP … is cheering on a person describing a white person as the other. False.
The NAACP audience seemed to have approved of her actions when she talked about not helping the white farmer. False.
They weren't cheering redemption; they were cheering discrimination. False.
As Ms. Sherrod recounted the first part of her parable, how she declined to do everything she could for the farmer because of his race, the audience responded in approval. False.

First Breitbart and his acolytes falsely accused Sherrod of discriminating against whites as a federal employee, despite having no evidence for this charge in the original video excerpt. Strike one.

Then they misrepresented Sherrod's story as an embrace of racism, when in fact she was repudiating racism. They later pleaded ignorance of this fact because they didn't have the full video. Strike two.

Now, with the full video in hand and posted on their Web site, they're lying about the reaction of the NAACP audience.

10:17 PM

Blogger davidwwalters said...

directorblue said...
"What do you do for a living?"
What do you think i do?
-as to blocking school kids at a charter school, why would i want to stop anyone from obtaining an education, since it could be their key to success?
Actually i am a retired surveyor, before that i spent 7 years as a grunt in the 82nd Abn Division.

10:21 PM

Anonymous Duncan Idaho said...

"-as to blocking school kids at a charter school, why would i want to stop anyone from obtaining an education, since it could be their key to success?"

Dave, my man, then why do you support a politician who'd cut the voucher program? Say, ain't the President one of those opposing the school voucher program?

12:01 AM

Blogger directorblue said...

@David, thank you for your service.

Given your oath to uphold the Constitution, how do you justify the overt power grabs by this administration of our banks, auto companies, insurance companies, drug companies, etc.?

How do you justify jamming a new entitlement program (ObamaCare) down the American peoples' throats when our existing entitlements are roughly $72 trillion in hock?

How can any reasonable person support this economic destruction?

12:19 AM

Blogger davidwwalters said...

"Given your oath to uphold the Constitution, how do you justify the overt power grabs by this administration of our banks, auto companies, insurance companies, drug companies, etc.?"-directorblue
Article 1, Section8.
"How can any reasonable person support this economic destruction?"
-As i recall, the economic destruction began with the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that broke down the firewall between Investment banking, wall street, and insurance established by the Glass-Steagall Act.

6:23 PM

Blogger directorblue said...

@David: see the whole thing:

The few and limited powers of the United States government are enumerated and defined in the people's fundamental law--the Constitution, as amended. This is the basis of Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution) in contrast to Rule-by-Man. The limited quantity of its powers means it is limited in potential threat to the people's liberties. These "just powers," being few and limited, automatically define the limits of the duties which the people assign to this government. It can have no duties, no responsibilities, other than those consistent with the limits of the powers granted to it by the people in the Constitution, as amended, It is equally as violative of the Constitution for government to assume duties--to pretend to have responsibilities--as it is to grasp powers, beyond these prescribed limits..

And I wrote an illustrated post called "Compusive Intervention Disorder", which describes the history of the housing meltdown.

Please review and comment.

6:28 PM

Blogger davidwwalters said...

"Dave, my man, then why do you support a politician who'd cut the voucher program? Say, ain't the President one of those opposing the school voucher program?"-Duncan
I have mixed feelings about school vouchers. In some cases they seem to work. However, there are valid arguments against federal funding of private schools, since many are religious schools and that would violate 1st Amendment separation of church and state. Other problems with private schools involve the quality which varies and there is little rigorous oversight.

6:35 PM

Blogger davidwwalters said...

directorblue said...
@David: see the whole thing:
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr5.html
Artical 1, section 8 is pretty clear. Congress has a wide range of powers to create law. The ""Just Powers" and "Limited government" you refer to are stated in the Declaration of Independence which is not the legal basis for federal law, it is as it says, a declaration of Independence.

6:47 PM

Blogger directorblue said...

@David - you have fallen into the same trap that so many use to make the Constitution "living and breathing".

The founders and framers could not have been more clear:

James Madison 1788 - "The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."

Thomas Jefferson 1791 - "They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider{Otherwise}, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless."

James Madison 1792 - "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

Thomas Jefferson 1815 - "I hope our courts will never countenance the sweeping pretensions which have been set up under the words 'general defence and public welfare.'

Thomas Jefferson 1817 - "Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money."

Chief Justice John Marshall 1819 - "The federal government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it....is now universally admitted."

James Madison 1831 - "With respect to the words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by it creators."

Simply put, you're wrong. Absolutely, positively wrong.

Furthermore, such federal overreaching not only obliterates the intent of the Constitution, it its patently dangerous -- as proven by the fall of every government, including the Roman Republic, that allowed its government to become corrupt, oligarchical and destructive of the civil society.

6:56 PM

Blogger davidwwalters said...

"To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by it creators."-James Madison 1831
Sounds like Madison had buyers regret. I maybe wrong or you maybe wrong. I take a more literal approach, and you have a different take. However, what we now have, for better or for worse is within the bounds set by the Constitution. The remedy for all un-Constitutional acts is the Supreme Court, and they haven't acted to end the more liberal interpretation of the Constitution, 5 conservative judges notwithstanding. So as you can see now, I can square the solemn oath I took that fateful day.
And speaking of the Founding Fathers, I wonder what they'd make of the "foreign entanglements" we are so bound to these days. Washington is rolling in his grave!
This has been a fun exchange. We'll do more:)

7:53 PM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot