It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I cannot help myself. It is a sickness. I do not understand this logic of bashing the MSM but not FOX...
I get such a big kick out of "everyone" else telling me what the Tea Party is about....
We live in the world's wealthiest nation. Yet 13 percent of people living in the United States live in poverty. Nearly one in four children live in households that struggle to put food on the table. That's 16.7 million children.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by jimmyx
they will simply see you as "an agent" of the left. frankly, i don't think most of them have ever listened to a true left-wing american...
OH that is SOOooo Rich!
Dude I lived in Cambridge MA in the middle of the Combat Zone no less.
My spouse and I were part time street musicians with a card carrying Communist- Atheist Orthodox Jew who was a register Republican. (He did that so there were enough republicans to work the voting polls.)
I have had Left wingers tell me "We are going to KILL people like you when we take over this country" for wearing a tee shirt they did not like. I have been working for the last several years with a very left wing College prof. to set up an Urban Community Garden and on other projects. I have written or researched articles for the Grist, OpEdNews and Change.Org
Do not tell me I have never listened to left wingers, my best friend for the past 30 years, who just died was a flaming far left winger and the two of us pal around with a far right wing Religious Conspiracy Nut. Why the heck do you think I ended up a Centralist, shear self-defense
What I don't understand about the Tea party is they seem to be so focused on hating Obama that they completely miss the other things that's taking place right under there nose..
I am an unprofessional leftist. Though on some issues I have right leaning inclinations such as on crime, gun control and the death penalty.
All we want is not to have human beings anywhere starving to death or deprived of food; you know like children in the riches country in the world here who go to bed hungry. And if the children go to bed hungry then one can bet the adults also go to bed hungry.
Farmers, however, stand in the way of land acquisitions; so they are best removed. Corporations thus join with the EU in seeing through their common goals and set about intensively lobbying national government to get the right regulatory conditions to make their kill. www.i-sis.org.uk...
Originally posted by sara123123
reply to post by tiger5
I guess you missed that little story where the democrats had Black Panther soldiers standing outside a Philadelphia voting place swinging around their billy clubs. They were being prosecuted for voter intimidation until Mr. Obama came into offices and Holder dropped all charges against them. As the Civil Right Division investigated the case, employees from the Division of voting rights testified that the lefties in the division do not think whites have voting rights nor even civil rights.
The Radical Left is absoultely into racial division, racial inequality and thuggery. The Nation of Islam suits them fine.
hey...here's an idea...lets take the extremes of both sides and ship them all to guam that way they can let the rest of us live in peace.
Then we hear no way there going to raise it. What we really need is a solution that if we don't raise it what are we going to cut I mean a detailed plan on what to do. not just cut it with no plan....
The full text of the speech is available here, and pasted below.
Note in particular Carswell’s explicit mention of the Mises Institute:
Since the credit crunch hit us, an endless succession of economists, most of whom did not see it coming, have popped up on our TV screens to explain its causes with great authority. Most have tended to see the lack of credit as the problem, rather than as a symptom.Perhaps we should instead begin to listen to those economists who saw the credit glut that preceded the crash as the problem. The Cobden Centre, the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Huerta de Soto all grasped that the overproduction of bogus candy-floss credit before the crunch gave rise to it. It is time to take seriously their ideas on honest money and sound banking.
Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Great, so 150 years ago, Republicans were against racism. Whats the track record since then? Because now, I know quite a few racist people, and not one of them is a Democrat. All are Republicans that hate "n-------".
History Of The Democrats And The KKK.
The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.
An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.
The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbuilders and published in his book "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White," which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.
"Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective," Barton said in his book. "Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings."
A lawsuit against the Democrat Party!
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.
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 wouldnt 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.
In an interview to be published in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she thought the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion was predicated on the Supreme Court majority's desire to diminish “populations that we dont want to have too many of.”
In the 90-minute interview in Ginsburg’s temporary chambers, Ginsburg gave the Times her perspective on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s first high court nomination. She also discussed her views on abortion.
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
President Obama's Bizarre "Science Czar": Dr. John R Holdren, Professional Alarmist
By Steven W. Mosher 2009 (v19, n5) September/October
President Obama’s top science advisor and I have something in common: We both have a long-term association with Paul Ehrlich, my former colleague at Stanford University. There any similarity ends, however. Holdren, who has co-authored hooks on population control with Ehrlich and his wife, is the Stanford professors ideological clone. For my part, I have long opposed the prescriptions of the infamous population bombster, and now find myself compelled to reject the almost identical views of the lesser-known but now more powerful Holdren as well.
What views? Let’s start with his 1973 book, co-authored with the Ehrlichs, called Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions. In it, he argued:
“Human values and institutions have set mankind on a collision course with the laws of nature. Human beings cling jealously to their prerogative to reproduce as they please — and they please to make each new generation larger than the last — yet endless multiplication on a finite planet is impossible. Most humans aspire to greater material prosperity, but the number of people that can be supported on Earth if everyone is rich is even smaller than if everyone is poor.”
Their solution, if you can believe it, was to make everyone poor. They argued that the West should be “de-developed,” by which they meant that countries like the U.S. should have their economies deliberately dismantled and their wealth redistributed to the poor at home and abroad.
But their big push was for population control. The publication of the book predated the Roe v. Wade decision, and the authors strongly argued for legalizing abortion as a population control measure. They suggest that abortion cannot really be considered the taking of a human life, on the grounds that neither the fetus, nor the newborn, nor the toddler, is truly human anyway: “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,”1 write the authors. Move over, Peter Singer.
The term neoconservative was used at one time as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had "moved to the right". Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the current sense of the term neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy. According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about." The term "neoconservative" was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush. with particular focus on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine. The term neocon is often used as pejorative in this context.
Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.