Martin Luther King Jr’s Dream should be ours

The best way I can think of to remember the great leader Martin Luther King Jr is to listen to his own words in one of his greatest speeches, “I have a dream”.

 

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”. We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with a new meaning, “My country, ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.”

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

I pray that his message is truly heard by this generation and all those that follow. I thank God, Jesus who is the Christ, for giving us this man to learn from.

Advertisements

Why are Democrats not opposing the President on “recess” appointment?

From the HuffPost we get this story:

WASHINGTON — In a bold move sure to infuriate Republicans and possibly draw a court challenge, President Barack Obama announced Wednesday that he will use his executive power to bypass Congress and put Richard Cordray in charge at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

It is well with in the power of the President to appoint people to federal positions when the congress is not available to vote on those appointments. But this is not what President Obama has done here, even the President’s cheerleaders at the HuffPost note what he has done wrong:

Obama is making a recess appointment when the Senate isn’t technically in recess — a risky step that could spark a court challenge.

Of course it should spark a court challenge, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! But what I would like to ask is, why are Democrats not stepping up and stopping him from doing this?

Unless Democrats believe, that beyond all reasonable understanding of politics, they will be the party in the White House for ever, why are they allowing Obama to set the standard that the President can appoint people without congress’s vote no matter if they are in recess or not.

Each party has allowed the president, as long as he was in their party, to expand the powers of the executive branch. All though I believe term limits for congress is the first step to correcting the mess in Washington, rolling back the powers of the executive branch is step two. We need an executive branch that only has the powers granted to it by the constitution, and NOTHING MORE!

Democrats, stop allowing the DNC to abuse it’s authority just because you don’t want to hurt their chance to “win” an election. Demand honest politics from your party. This goes for Republicans also.

A sign of how things are changing.

For most of the last 100+ years the United States of America has been the economic “super power” that the world did all it could to be like. It is my opinion that we achieved this by two things.

First, we had true freedom. We had the freedom to succeed in America and to the dismay of many the freedom to fail. People crossed seas, crossed boarders and defected at risk of death to give themselves a chance at that freedom.

Secondly, we where a nation of producers. We produced the best products, the most innovating products and the most wanted products the world over. We made televisions, cars, clothing and entertainment better then anyone else in the world and the world came to America to shop.

Countries did all they could to make trading with America as easy as possible. Look at what the world did at the Bretton Woods conference, the world choose to tie their currency to the US dollar. You want another example? Where was the United Nations HQ? That’s right, New York City in the United States of America. So was the World Trade Center prior to 9/11.

But now things are changing and there is no bigger sign to this then the actions of the little island of Samoa. Today is Thursday December 29th in Samoa, like it is in America, but tomorrow will not be Friday December 30th. At midnight tonight in Samoa they will skip Friday and go directly to Saturday December 31st, why would they do this? To make trading with China easier.

You see, Samoa has for a long time been located in the latest time zone in the world, just one hour away from the international date line and China was a 23 hours ahead of Samoa. So to make trade easier with China the country of Samoa will sacrifice a full day from their calendar and because the new land of the rising sun as they enter the earliest possible time zone.

Now this will have little effect on your life in America, but it it is another straw on the back of the American economic power position and we don’t know which straw will brake that back. There is talk of eliminating the US Dollar as the world currency and switching to an IMF currency, just another straw. Of course there is the increased trade deficit we currently have with China and other Asian nations, another straw. How many straws can we take?

Vladimir Putin would make a good Democrat

Is it just me or is Vladimir Putin sounding more and more like Barrack Obama, or is it the other way around?

Putin said on Wednesday that “in these circumstances, the ruling party always expects the opposition to behave in a calm manner and not to rock the boat. But these are vain hopes.

“The opposition exists to make sure that the ruling party, the ruling authorities could hold on to the levers of power more strongly and prove to society the correctness of the country’s development course,” he concluded as deputies rose from their seats to applaud. (source)

Recently President Obama started to move forward with his own ideas with out letting congress debate and vote on these new policies.

“The only way we can truly attack our economic challenges is with bold, bipartisan action in Congress,” White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer told The New York Times.

“The president will continue to pressure Congressional Republicans to put country before party and pass the American Jobs Act, but he believes we cannot wait, so he will act where they won’t.” (source)

When will people realize that our leaders are not working for us any longer. We need public servants in Washington, not dictators.

Democrats? Are you nervous that your party leaders sound a lot like the communists in Russia?

History repeating itself.

Let me introduce you to a man named Herbert Hoover. As the 31st President of the United States of America he is often listed as one of the worst our country has ever had. Why would he be looked at so poorly? Two words, Great Depression. 8 months after taking Wall street handed the new President the worst economic disaster our country has ever had and it was how he handled that disaster that made President Hoover known as one of our worst presidents.

So what did he do so wrong? There were several landmark policies that Hoover championed as the best solutions to end the depression.

First he believed in public works projects and infrastructure stimulus. Ever hear of the “Hoover Damn”? Hoover asked congress for millions of dollars (because they did not think in billions back then) to build the power generating damn. Yes that damn has provided Nevada and other states with electricity but the jobs created by that projected did nothing to end the great depression.

Secondly he raised taxes on the top tax bracket from 25% to 63%. Yes the top rate was at 25% during one of the largest economic booms in American history, the roaring 20s, so Hoover thought it would be a good idea to raise the top tax rate at the beginning of the great depression. How did that one work out?

Thirdly, if taxing the evil rich didn’t work maybe his plan to increase corporate taxes should have worked. Nope.

Wait a moment, I am having a sense of deja vu here. Hasn’t this been the DNC plan to deal with the current recession? Infrastructure, tax teh rich and tax corporation has been the campaign chants of the DNC. How is that working out? About as good as it did for Hoover.

Yes, there where other policies that did not help, the most obvious was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. Oh wait, President Obama has been championing “The Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act” that will impose a tariff on China, one of the top owners of US debt.

Will President Obama be remembered as Hoover 2.0? Of course not, because Hoover didn’t have support through out academia for his policies to the level Obama does. The media of the time did not give Hoover a free pass while doing nothing but going after anyone that opposes him. President Obama will be sugar coated for history.

Don’t let the truth be ignored. The DNC is repeating all the mistakes of pass presidents, we need to get on the right direction before it is too late.

The Free Market at Work.

Even inAmerica, where the free market has not been allowed in almost a century, we see glimpses of how it works. In a free market the public decides the fate of businesses, they decide the fate of fads and they decide what the best policies for businesses to have are. How does the public do this? With their wallets.

If you do not like the way Nike treats its workers, don’t buy their shoes. Unhappy with GE shipping jobs over seas, don’t buy their appliances. Disappointed with the coverage your insurance agency offers, go to a competitor. The free market is the only way you can have freedom of choice.

In a socialist Democracy, our progressive friends think it is better to have politicians step in and tell businesses what they can and can’t do. So how has that been working in the banking industry lately?

Most people have heard of the new debit card fee Bank of America was planning on charging their customers, I say was because yesterday they announced they where canceling their plans to implement the fee.

I would like to look at two questions. First, why did they consider charging the fee and secondly, why did they cancel.

The first part of the question is up for debate but I feel there is enough evidence to suggest that the fee was introduced to cover the loss of revenue when the Dodd-Frank bill limited the amount of money banks could charge merchants for the use of the debit card charging system. So government intervenes and we get left paying the bill.

The second question is much easier to answer, the free market dictated to the banks that the policy was not going to work. Customers of Bank of America told the bank that they rejected the new fee by pulling out their money and going to other banks and/or credit unions. BoA has since see the error of their policy and have made a change to benefit their customers, WITH OUT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. Of course there are politicians saying that “we need a law that restricts what fees banks can charge for debit card use”, but this is foolish. The free market can control those fees, we the people control those fees with out relinquishing power to a politician to do it for us.

I hope the junior socialists of the Democratic party and the progressives learn from this lesson. The free market is the only system that allows the people to have freedom.

WSJ: “The about-face represents a concession to customer sensitivities over fees. Banks have been adding charges in an attempt to make up for billions of dollars in revenue that is expected to vanish as a result of new restrictions on credit cards, debit cards and overdraft policies. A provision in last year’s Dodd-Frank financial-overhaul law halved the amount that banks can charge merchants for accepting debit cards.”

Progressives use jealousy as a political tool

I am getting sick and tired of the lunatic left using jealousy as a tool to motivate voters. The “class war” being waged by the left is sad and irrelevant.

So often we hear the rant that “The growth in the income of the rich far exceeds the middle class”. First notice that they always focus on the middle class and ignore the plite of the lower class. Second, who cares how much the “rich” are making. The progressives fail to understand that the American free market economy creates wealth. Those with money have opportunity to grow their wealth by creating new wealth, they do not need to take it from some mythical lower class. If you want to see an economic system that requires the wealthy to take from the poor to increase their wealth, look at communist Russia or Socialist Germany.

Anyways,  over at Reason.org Anthony Randazzo wrote a great article address Paul Krugman’s attempt at class warfare. Enjoy: (source)

Paul Krugman must have been channeling some Sun Tzu with his Art of War inspired feign of innocence at the start of his column last week, claiming that the Presidentially popularized phrasing of the rich paying their “fair share” in society today—an idea that Mr. Krugman strongly advocates—is not class warfare. After the diplomatic argument that really, there is no war being fought by his side, he then proceed to engage in a full on mortar strike in the class war that is raging right now and that progressives have been waging for decades.

Specifically, Krugman argues:

detailed estimates from the Congressional Budget Office — which only go up to 2005, but the basic picture surely hasn’t changed — show that between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted income of families in the middle of the income distribution rose 21 percent. That’s growth, but it’s slow, especially compared with the 100 percent rise in median income over a generation after World War II.

Meanwhile, over the same period, the income of the very rich, the top 100th of 1 percent of the income distribution, rose by 480 percent. No, that isn’t a misprint. In 2005 dollars, the average annual income of that group rose from $4.2 million to $24.3 million.

A simple question in response: So what? Is the growth of the middle class so slow that they are living in squalor or with poor living standards? Why should I care if the rich made such a dramatically higher amount of money than I do? It doesn’t take away from me, who is in the top 25 percent of income earners. There is not a fixed economic pie, it is constantly expending and we can all get a slice. My rich neighbor getting a bigger slice doesn’t impact the size or taste of my slice.

Even worse though is the contention towards the end of Mr. Krugman’s column that betrays the real value position which separates progressives from libertarians:

Now, I know how the right will respond to these facts: with misleading statistics and dubious moral claims…

On the other side, we have the claim that the rich have the right to keep their money — which misses the point that all of us live in and benefit from being part of a larger society.

WHAT?!

Far be it for us to defend the rights of any and all taxpayers to keep what belongs to them. Property rights so often get in the way of a few elites trying to construct society in their own vision of it.

Backing down to earth, there is the fair point that in the midst of our national and global social contract we depend on each other for economic development. Few are the businessmen who manufacture everything necessary to run their companies. Everyone relies to some extent on others, as Leonard Read spelled out in his famous essay, “I, Pencil.”

So the businessman is dependent on suppliers and innovators of other technology to help his profit. And he is dependent on consumers to buy his product. The consumer is dependent on the businessman to provide a product in demand. And the suppliers are dependent on the businessman to buy their equipment. This is all easily observed.

What does not follow from this is the contention that, because a social contract binds all of this together, the collective have a claim on the resources of the wealthy few. By this logic, since we are all dependent on each other, why does the collective not have a claim on the resources of everyone else in society?  (If only such a system had a name.) Put another way, in Krugman’s social contract, how does one define the limits of the government’s claim on the resources of the wealthy to fund its activities?