Win or lose, Keyes has been an encouragement to many of us in the hinterland–just like Jesse Helms was during the dark days.
|
Posted on 08/23/2004 11:39:59 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Edited on 08/23/2004 11:47:17 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I'll make this short and sweet (kinda like this is your brain, this is your brain on crack - any questions?).
a) Alan Keyes is an America loving, Constitution loving, Liberty loving, pro-life ultra conservative. We'd be ^damned lucky to have him in the Senate if we could get him there.
b) Barack Obama is an America hating, pro-abortion socialist communist. It'll be a dark day for America if he's elected.
Any questions?
Much of Johnson's Great Society programs were aimed at blacks. Welfare gives the incentive not to work. A disproportionate number of blacks have used the welfare system, as you know, as it was designed, and the effect has been to give less incentive to enter the predominantly white workforce. An incentive to break out of that socialist system would help many, many people.
But incentives aside, it seems fair to first get rid of the slave tax (income tax) for those who are descendants of slaves.
Something has to be done, don't you think, in the interest of fairness?
more like apples to broomsticks.
with 6000 volunteers, the "notax forblax" plan is well on its way to becoming a conservative cornerstone...
< / not >
How about reading Keyes own words on this subject…
"And I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn't imitate it."
-- Fox News, "Special Report with Brit Hume," March 17, 2000
And here is another one:
"I do not take it for granted that it's a good idea to parachute into a state and go into a Senate race," he said before meeting the Republican leaders. "As a matter of principle, I don't think it's a good idea." --Minnesota Christian Chronicle "In ignoring Keyes, Christian voters choose expediency over principle" Feb 22, 1996, Keyes on the Republican Party
No one said you did.
The federal government egregiously failed to protect a whole race of people from the most unconscionable wrongs, and in fact condoned those wrongs, in contradiction to its founding principle.
It would seem fair for people who suffer the effects of such injustice to receive some form of restitution. American Japanese did under Reagan. American Indians have received some in the form of tax breaks and land on reservations (far from ideal conditions, I might add).
If I do a Google search for "Gelato", am I likely to find posts supporting reparations dating back before Keyes came up with his idea, or not?
I'd never heard of a fair and feasible form of "reparations" until now. All other plans have been proposed by liberals and would never work.
Now I'm learning of Walter Williams' conservative idea. I think that is possibly a good one, too.
Since reparations is so offensive to you, does it lessen your opinion of Ronald Reagan knowing what he did?
Win or lose, Keyes has been an encouragement to many of us in the hinterland–just like Jesse Helms was during the dark days.
|
Condi, Colin, or Clarence may make a few visits. Or Frist, as he did in South Dakota, and Hastern will get involved.
Friend do not expect conservatives to have anymore feeling for black people than liberals. Do not expect conservative people to understand any part of black history and slavery as most have had enough thrown at them by self serving liberals. The history of this country has been such that the only way the black man will ever make it is on his own is without anyone's help. This would be another excuse for a white man to point at a black man and say 'you received that car or house because you are black' as opposed to hard work.
You cannot compare how the Europeans made treaties with the indigenous peoples of the United States and how they did not with many tribes in West Africa. They considered the American Indian to be a 'noble savage' and closer to being white than the black African, often practicing the doctrine of forced inclusion as opposed to forced exclusion of black Africans. Dinesh D'Souza mentions this in his books. Having said that, any black American that wants payback and reparations for what has been done to them should consider the state of many reservations in the United States. I find the black Americans most clamoring for reparations to be a lowly sort and reasonable conversation is quite difficult and would not take to heart the conditions that many indians live under in these places anyway.
I know tribes are recognized as sovereign entities, while at the same time Native Americans are also U.S. citizens, under the protection of government.
This is the only case in which such dual ship is so. Why is that? Why the "special" treatment (for lack of a better word)?
It's obviously an acknowledgement of the past, a token of what Native Americans deserve, of what they are owed. Otherwise, all Native Americans would be treated as most U.S. citizens are, without any acknowledgment of their heritage.
Tax breaks, Indian reservations (sorry if I used the wrong word earlier), and sovereignty will never be enough to make up for the past. But maybe it's better than nothing?
All I'm saying is, if these things are justifiable for one group, why can't a simple tax break be OK for another group that was held has property for hundreds of years?
Just love great choices.
How about backing off on the anti-Keyes rhetoric? He is our candidate and there won't be another Republican in the race. I can't see giving Obama a free ride or any aid and comfort from our side.
Thanks,
Jim
Great idea.
Unfortunately, they're all dead.
Very sad commentary. A lot of work needs to be done to change that.
I think the main problem is there seems to be almost a denial that slavery even existed, that it was a horror, that it has any relevance to our day and age.
No one wants to think of such things--except for liberals wanting to exploit the situation.
The history of this country has been such that the only way the black man will ever make it is on his own is without anyone's help. This would be another excuse for a white man to point at a black man and say 'you received that car or house because you are black' as opposed to hard work.
Bigots will say that no matter what. That's the sad result of what the liberal agenda has done.
Forget what they say. I think abolishing the income tax for blacks will help many, many people both economically and mentally. Eventually it should be abolished for everyone, as Alan Keyes has said, but to start with descendants of slaves would go a long way to repair some of the mental oppression that still exists.
There's a thing called justice. When a person is abused, it's not always enough to punish the perpetrator. Often restitution is in order.
Tom Sowell has two articles on Keyes' running. Have you read them. If not, go to Drudgereport and click on Tom Sowell.
We're heading into a new day. Obama is a step up from the Jesses and Keyes is 10 steps up from Obama. The Urban League is a big step up from the NAACP. Condi, Colin, Clarence, Sowell are stark contrasts to the Jesse's, Sharpton, Braun, and Waters.
The teams are on the field as we speak. All it takes is Republican resolve and Freepers cheering. If you're a crape hanger, go home, or join the team.
ANYONE WHO WANTS TO TALK ON RADIO NOW! CALL 1800 850 5043. BRING IT ON ITS ON TALKONE.COM ROGER FREDINBERG SHOW
TELL EM TOMAS SENT YA. BOTH VIEWS ARE ALLOWED ON THIS SHOW
1. There is no tax exemptions just because one is an indian. It doesn't work that way. I don't know where you get your information from, but it is very inaccurate. A check with the IRS will tell you that.
2. reservations were not "given" to us as a way of making up for a wrong - reservations are the RESULT of the wrongs. Reservations are not a payment - they are a curse. But, you wouldn't know that, as you've obviously never lived on one - that's not a criticism, so don't take it as such, tho.
Our "sovereignty" is much like the sovereignty that teh states enjoy. While constitutionally tribes are dependent nations within a nation, the reality is much different. We are "sovereign" in much the same way states are "sovereign" of the federal government... Sovereignty is grantedbecause of treaties made - treaties that are constitutionally sound. THAT is the difference - tribes were sovereign nations, defeated in war and given a special status under the constitution... The same cannot be said with regards to slavery...
Teh situations, while a convenient argument FOR reparations (or "tax breaks" and/or "tax exemptions" are actually a more valid argument AGAINST...
Please.
And don't you understand the difference between reparations paid to Japanese-Americans in the Reagan era (Germans and Italians interned received none, incidentally) and black Americans in 2004? Please tell me I don't have to explain that to you.
It would only be "fairness" is everyone was exempt from the slave tax...
I'd say that blacks got off easy - they were only enslaved. Also, they had people who actually went to war for them in order to stop the enslavement. Indians, on the other hand, were the targets of a deliberate genocide. No one went to war for US.
I'd say it's about damn time to just stop the whining and crying about past wrongs and start worrying about the wrongs of today.
But then, I've always been silly that way.
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.