In 1960, whites made up 85% of the USA – In 2012 it’s 64%.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.msn.com …
Yes, this is the same elegant creature who screeched about “taking out” Tea Party “son-of-a-bitches” [sic] at a presidential event last year. In case you’d forgotten, both the White House and the DNC conspicuously declined to repudiate his vituperation at the time. Now Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. has taken his anger mismanagement show to CNN, seething about an incipient “civil war” in Michigan:
Jimmy Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said Tuesday he expects Michigan unions and lawmakers to break out into “civil war” after the state legislature passed right-to-work bills that would weaken unions’ power. “This is just the first round of a battle that’s going to divide this state. We’re going to have a civil war,” Hoffa said on CNN’s Newsroom.
“What they’re doing is basically betraying democracy,” he told CNN’s Brooke Baldwin. “If there’s any question here, let’s put it on the ballot and let the people of Michigan decide what’s good for Michigan.” Proponents of the legislation say it gives workers more freedom, while opponents say a less robust union presence will negatively affect workers’ rights. Hoffa also argued that those who don’t pay union dues will be considered “free riders,” as they’re getting the same benefits from union representation without the cost.
By Derrick Hollenbeck, staff writer
“What we need now is to take a good long look at slavery. We know many folks don’t want a job but that bums the rest of us out. When we bring back slavery everybody will be accounted for. Everybody will have a job and be secure in the knowledge that they are contributing to the greater good of the state. Our slaves would be well feed; have great healthcare and birth control devices. They would be off every other Sunday and one full week in the summer plus all federal holidays. Now how does that sound?”
The crowd would cheer but Obama is just revving up.
You know, the constitution that President Barack Hussein “vote buyer” Obama refuses to criticize.
You know, the constitution written by a committee of 100 selected by the now disbanded Egyptian parliament that, at the time of the creation of the Constituent Assembly, was dominated by Islamists. Fifteen committee members quit the Assembly in protest. Of the 85 members remaining, none were Christians, and only four were women. So much for “diversity,” one of the Democrats/liberals/progressives’ (DLPs) most precious ideals.
Advocates for individual liberty and freedom have rightly found several flaws with the US Constitution, on philosophical and moral grounds as well as on practical grounds. Many of these criticisms offer the open-minded some reason to at least consider the possibility that the document should be viewed in a light other than that with which is normally shed.
I would like to review some of these criticisms before I come to what I believe is the one, most fatal flaw in the document – the one defect that most directly exposes that the purpose of the document was to enable usurpation, and the one defect that renders as irrelevant the entire purpose that men might normally enter into such a pact, therefore making the document useless for this most important end.
The Usual (and Not-so-Usual) Suspects: Why the Constitution is Flawed
I Didn’t Sign It
Anyone who embarks on a study of Abraham Lincoln … must first come to terms with the Lincoln myth. The effort to penetrate the crust of legend that surrounds Lincoln … is both a formidable and intimidating task. Lincoln, it seems, requires special considerations that are denied to other figures.”
– Robert W. Johannsen, Lincoln, the South, and Slavery
Indeed, it would not seem a safe time to critique the wisdom, motivations, and character of Abraham Lincoln. Steven Spielberg’s reverential motion picture epic Lincoln fills screens across America. The public increasingly accepts him as America’s greatest leader. Academics from the Left – and Right – compete to bestow the grandest laurels on the 16th president.
…..When Ron Paul says he wants to cut military spending on foreign wars, that is all that is generally heard. The whole story, that he does not want to cut DEFENSE spending, the funds which defend the country, does not get told. The difference between defense spending and spending on nation building and policing the world is a distinction Ron Paul sees very clearly. Why is this not seen by much of the country? Is it because this cannot be explained in a 60-second debate answer or 15-second soundbite?
Apparently, according to Time Magazine, Ron Paul’s message actually is getting through to lots of people:
Time Magazine, in preparation for their 100 most influential people of 2012, had a poll. In this poll, you could vote for the person you considered most influential person in the world. Ron Paul was the highest rated 2012 presidential candidate in this poll, and in fact had tens of thousands more votes than Mitt Romney. Presidential candidate Ron Paul received more votes than President Obama.
Time Magazine took their poll and used that data to create their own list of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2012. That list is now available. The 12-term Congressman from Texas has made the list.
So why does the mainstream media, the Republican establishment, and much of the country, not consider Ron Paul a serious candidate for POTUS? Perhaps it really is the soundbites. Though Paul’s message actually can be summed up succinctly, as evidenced by is commercial set to air in Rhode Island: