INCITING HATDRED UNDER THE GUISE OF PROMOTING EQUALITY

Floyd Lee Corkins II, the suspect in Wednesday's shooting ‏at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Family Research Council, was carrying 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches in a bag when he opened fire, according to the criminal complaint filed by the Justice Department on Thursday.

The leaders of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender organizations released a joint statement condemning the shooter's actions.  "(((The motivation and circumstances behind today's tragedy are still unknown)))," the statement read, "but regardless of what emerges as the reason for this shooting, we utterly reject and condemn such violence."

“The motivation and circumstances behind today's tragedy are still unknown”…. Really… Really!!!

We don’t know what caused this openly gay man that volunteered for a gay rights organization to carry 15 Chick-fil-a sandwiches into a Christian organization (listed on the Hate lists of multiple Pro-gay organizations) , making the statement _ “I don’t like your politics” – and then proceed to open fire on those within that building.

I think Mr. Corkin’s reasons are obvious.  He had built up so much hatred in his heart due to organizations such as The Southern Poverty Law Center, Equality Matters, and Huffington Post… just to name a few… that attempt to identify any Christian organization as a hate filled groups.  They saturate the media with articles and hate lists; stirring up true hatred and animosity against all Christians as they go. 

It is obvious that the true hatred is not on the part of the mainstream Christian community, but is held deeply in the hearts of the members of the Propaganda and media organizations, that will stop at nothing in their promotion of hate to move their agenda forward.

Just for clarification, the tenets of Christianity (my religion, my faith) state that homosexuality is not acceptable, but neither is it acceptable in Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, and Buddhism… Just to name a few… all see homosexuality as unacceptable.  This does not mean the people of any of these faith traditions hate those who embrace homosexuality.  It means we can like and yes even love everyone despite our differences. Two questions… if an admittedly Christian man who volunteered for a Christian organization walked into a Gay activist organization and began shooting their members…. Would the media “not know his motivation” and would it not be labeled a hate crime immediately?  Of course and rightfully so…so why is Mr. Corkin’s actions viewed differently.  Media equality should apply despite the politics of the story. Second, should these groups and media sources (The Southern Poverty Law Center, Equality Matters, and Huffington Post )with their anti-Christian hate talk and hate lists bear any responsibility for the amplified emotions and hatred that has be stirred up against Christians because of their efforts…. And do they need to assume some responsibility for the Family Research Council shooting?

It’s time to tone down the “HATE” rhetoric….and start loving people despite of our differences. 

HATE MONGERING IS STILL HATE, EVEN IF IT IS GUISED AS PROMOTING EQUALITY!!!

Democratic Party Strategies

The Politics of

Shame, fear and intimidation

By Jim Williams

Well the health care debate is well underway. Congress has started their August break and our representatives are coming home to listen to their constituents. And listening they are; whether they want to or not. The people are speaking out about the health care bill in a loud singular voice that is seldom heard. This has stunned those on the left who see no problem with the government take over of almost 20% of our economy. The people are asking poignant questions and only want straight factual answers. The problem comes in because these questions can not be answered with substance. This seems to be a losing debate for the supporters of a national health care system.

Because the left doesn’t have facts to support their position they are now instructing the use of shame and satire to bolster their argument. This is their substitute for using facts to win the debate. Two Democratic strategists, interviewed yesterday on MSNBC, suggested these tactics to control the objectionable crowds at the town hall meetings. The theory is if they can shame the crowd by starting the meetings with heart wrenching health care stories and laugh at their concerns when formed as questions, then they can belittle and intimidate the people into accepting any and everything this administration purposes.

A third horrific tactic that the left is deploying is false accusations of racism. Because President Obama happens to be black, all objections being posed and all questions being asked about his policies and positions are being contributed to racism. This, again, is a method of intimidation. No one wants to be labeled a racist. Fortunately, most people can see through these false accusations; unfortunately, there are those who can’t.

If Martin Luther King could see how the movement he started for social equality has been hijacked to leverage political power, he would drop his head in despair. The side effect of the left using false accusations of racism as a tool of intimidation is that it desensitizes and de-legitimizes true civil rights issues when they occur.

As long as the left continues these tactics, they are not allowing President Obama to build the true political capital and clout that he is due. But when you don’t have sound philosophy and facts to stand on, then these tactics are all you have to fall back on!

National Health Care

My next post will be on the purposed National Health Care legislation. This is a huge step and a costly one.

We can't afford to get it wrong!

In anticipation of my next article please check out this powerful video and sign the national petition by clicking the link below.

Sign the: "Free Our Health Care Now" petition

*

Take a few minutes to read through some of the health care summary and fact check it against the actual health care bill...(both linked below)

Link to: Summary of Health Care Bill

Link to: Health Care Bill H.R.3200

*

Is the Obama administration trying to do away with private health care insurers?

______________________________________________

And Below, from the Catholic News Agency (CNA) we found this article about the Oregon State run health care system. One of the models our government is using to plan our National Health System. A short and enlighting read!

Oregon health plan covers assisted suicide, not drugs, for cancer patient

Eugene, Ore., Jun 6, 2008 / 01:09 am (CNA).- An Oregon woman suffering from lung cancer was notified by the state-run Oregon Health Plan that their policy would not cover her life-extending cancer drug, telling her the health plan would cover doctor-assisted suicide instead.
Barbara Wagener discovered her lung cancer had recurred last month, the Register-Guard said. Her oncologist prescribed a drug called Tarceva, which could slow the cancer growth and extend her life.
The Oregon Health Plan notified Wagner that it would not cover the drug, but it would cover palliative care, which it said included assisted suicide.
“Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan,” said the letter Wagner received from LIPA, the Eugene company that administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County.
“I think it’s messed up,” Wagner said. She said she was particularly upset because the letter said doctor-assisted suicide would be covered.
“To say to someone, we’ll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it’s cruel,” she said. “I get angry. Who do they think they are?”
A doctor appealed to Genentech, the company that markets Tarceva in the U.S., to cover Wagner’s medication. On Monday Wagner was told the company would cover the drug treatment for a year, after which she could re-apply for the drug.
“I am just so thrilled,” Wagner said. “I am so relieved and so happy.”
According to the Register-Guard, Oregon oncologists say they have seen a change in state health policy, saying their Oregon Health Plan patients with advanced cancer are no longer covered for chemotherapy if it is considered comfort care.
“It doesn’t adhere to the standards of care set out in the oncology community,” said Dr. John Caton, an oncologist at Willamette Valley Cancer Center. He said many studies have found that chemotherapy in a palliative setting decreases pain and time spent in the hospital and increases quality of life.
Officials of LIPA and the state Health Services Commission, which sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, say they have not changed their coverage of recurrent cancer patients, but have only clarified the rules.

NAFTA and the US Trucking Industry

By Jim Williams
How does NAFTA affect the U.S. trucking industry and Presidential decisions? In 2007 the Bush administration started a pilot project for Mexican truckers to run the lower 48 of the United States. This was met with great resistance from several organizations, such as the owner operator organization OOIDA; and transportation unions, such as the Teamsters. If the trucking industry itself was not happy with this move, then why was this project pursued?

The Bush Bashers say that the motivation of the Bush administration to start and push this program was to unfairly support big business. In truth, while NAFTA is an economic boost to North American trade, the administration was also trying to stay in compliance with the Clinton administration’s 1995 NAFTA agreement that allowed Mexican trucks access to the lower 48 states by May of 2000. It was this NAFTA requirement that motivated the Bush actions. It is notable to point out that no one asks how and why this administration was able to hold out until 2007 to implement this project.

In contrast, the Obama administration, in an attempt to appease the transportation unions such as the Teamsters, cancelled the Bush “Mexican trucking project”. As stated above, this project was started by the Bush administration to bring the U.S. in compliance with the NAFTA requirements . The Obama Administration’s move set off a “trade war” with Mexico. In response to the U.S. actions Mexico instated a tariff on U.S. products going south of the border. The tariffs, equaling $2.4 billion, were placed on products such as strawberries, grapes, dishwashers, pencils, cordless telephones, pet food and more than 80 other U.S. export products.

Some opinions say Obama is creating a better international face for the United States. This is only true if you are in agreement with the endless apologies he has issued on the international stage. But, if you look deeper into his actions, you will find disappointed countries that were once devoted trade partners, such as Mexico.

President Barack Obama's administration, facing its first dispute with a major trading partner and neighbor, promptly said it would work to create a new cross-border, long-distance trucking program between the two countries. In March 2009, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "The president has tasked the Department of Transportation to work with the U.S. trade representative and the Department of State, along with leaders in Congress and Mexican officials to propose legislation creating a new trucking project that will meet the legitimate concerns of Congress and our NAFTA commitments".

Protectionism always invites retaliation and leaves nations at odds and ultimately poorer. It is natural for each individual to have a protective nature over their source of livelihood, but the big picture should always be looked at when it comes to the global policies that we want our government to pursue. An example, by protecting trucking jobs we inadvertently restrict the livelihood of other industries within our U.S. borders that depend on international trade.

It boils down to this… Do we want free North American trade (and ultimately world trade) or do we want to be Isolationist? The answer to that question will dictate the policies that the individual feels the U.S. should follow. That being said, it is obvious that both of the United States major political parties (democrats and republicans) have bought into and are both moving rapidly toward full free trade. It is also obvious that this movement is not just toward continental free trade, but Free Global trade. This is not a one party one administration concern. This is a new “global” way of doing business.

So this new way of doing business is going to happen. Because of this, it is imperative upon each individual to look ahead to see how this will shape our country and our world. And then, with this new perspective, plan our personal course for the future. This will include what disciplines to study, what jobs to prepare for and what languages to learn. More importantly it will tell us how to guide our children and grandchildren. Resisting will only leave you unprepared.

Response to: The Politcs of Self-Destruction

Link below is to a CNN article, and following is my rebuttal.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/07/begala.palin.republican.party/index.html?iref=newssearch

Date: 7/9/2009

By Jim Williams

Dear CNN,

I would like to give the conservative response to your recent article “The Politics of self-destruction” by Paul Begala.

In this article Mr. Begala starts out with the normal Democratic strategy of personal attach and on one of their favorite targets, Sarah Palin. My above statement is not a return attack on Mr. Begala, but an observation. My desire in this response is to raise the level of conversation to an exchange of ideas; not an attempt to win public support by a personal tearing down of someone with differing views.

The question is posed “Can’t anybody here play this game?”, referring to Republican politicians and then goes on to list the failures of some Republican office holders past and present. In doing this the writer trivializes the purpose of our political system (the game) and infers that because we all have failures we should not stand on principles of right and wrong. What should be pointed out in these cases is that the Republican Party has held their flawed representatives to the same standards as are expected from the opposing party’s representatives, which eliminates Mr. Begala accusation of hypocrisy. Publicly identifying and attempting to live up to a certain set of standards is not sanctimonious. We are all flawed people, but this doesn’t mean we should stop identifying and trying to reach the highest of standards.

This brings us to Mr. Begala’s comments on the Bush administration’s policies on the economy. While there are many conservatives that were very unhappy with President Bush’s spending practices, this was only a small drop in the bucket when reasoning out the beginnings of the current economic down turn. As is stated by the writer “politics are cyclical”, as is the economy. There is no way that we can enjoy an economic high tide for ever. Eventually the tide will recede. In addition to the expected ebbs and flows of the economy there were contributing circumstances that caused our current economic woes. There is the mortgage banking/ banking “crisis”, which is a direct consequence of the Community Reinvestment act, which was passed in 1977 under Jimmy Carter and revised several times under the leadership of Congressman Barney Frank (D) Ma. This initial act and it subsequent changes required mortgage loan institutions to give loans to individuals with “weak” credit, thereby weakening or removing the underwriting safeguards that would normally be in place in an unregulated lending market. This law has governmental checks that are followed by penalties to the lending institution if it is found they do not have a percentage of their loans made to weak credit borrowers. To achieve this requirement the banking industry had to be creative in order to sell the weak loans. To do this these “bad” loans were bundled with “good” loans so the complete bundle would be attractive to a potential mortgage buyer. This house of cards was created and enforced by good intentioned, but poor legislation and very poor oversight; and was certain to crumble eventually. So then the question becomes…was there oversight and, if so, was this problem know. The answer to both is a resounding yes. In 2003, while the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank opposed a Bush administration proposal for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. The proposal reflected the administration's belief that Congress "neither has the tools, nor the stature" for adequate oversight. Frank stated, "These two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing”. And so it is… the Bush administration identified the problem and attempted to take action, but was stopped by the ranking Democrat of the entity charged with the oversight of this industry. These fact seem to be unknown or intentionally over looked when the attempt to place blame is made.

What about the auto industry? Are their failings a result of the Bush policies? When examining the auto industry it is important to look at the whole picture. They are a business…a very large business, but still must operate on the same sound principles of all other viable businesses. The goal is to make more than you spend. Sounds simple, but when factors such as quality of products, cost of inflated salaries and benefits for current employees, cost of benefits for retired employees, and competition in a new global market it becomes more difficult to operate with a business model that is old and outdated. This becomes even more difficult when needed changes are hindered or even halted by a union that is only looking out for one side of the business model, the employees. When a business has higher operating costs and a lesser quality product than the competition it is doomed to eventually fail. The world changed…the market place changed (became more global), but the Detroit auto industry stayed the same, because of this they are failing. Is this a Bush problem? No, this is a changing world, new global market problem. This is a lack of an industry to respond to their business environment with a viable, workable, responsive business plan. In short, this is a result of poor management on the part of the failing businesses.

Our world has never seen change happen so quickly. Gone is the inflated economy of the “Dot Com’s”, which the Clinton administration was able to benefit. Gone is the captive American auto industry, textile industries or any other product that can be produced cheater outside our boarders. And with it went our captive American Jobs. Is this a result of the Bush administration? No, this is a result of a new global way of doing business in an ever changing world. The major start of this change was during the Clinton administration when NAFTA was signed into law by our then President.

All of the above has created the perfect economic storm. So, what is the solution? In a capitalist market it would be left to each business to maintain a sound business plan. To stay viable by changing, improving, cutting, and adding as needed to be competitive and profitable. Some businesses will thrive, but some will fail. When failure occurs, and it will, if there is still a demand for that product or service it will create an opportunity for someone else to supply that demand. Outside intervention to prop up a failing company will only create dependency on the outside source and delay changes to the business model or the inevitable failure of the business. Therefore, to have a long term self-sustaining economy it must be free to succeed or fail on it’s on merit.

Mr. Begala feels led to provide the Republican Party with advice on changes needed to our platform. He sights the left leaning pollster Democracy Corps to say that 2-to-1 Americans prefer Obama’s approach to national security over Bush. He calls limited government, strong defense, and family values disgraced talking points. He goes on to recommend the Party “challenge established orthodoxies and overturn outdated dogma…”.So my question is which one of the disgraced Bush talking points is outdated and needs to be overturned? Is it family values, strong protection for our nation… or is it truly only one value that he refers to…Limited government?

Mr. Begala, we as a party stand on a solid political philosophy. Though our leaders may stumble and not live up to the family values for which we strive. We still choose to recognize and define right from wrong. The weaknesses of our flawed leaders do not make these values any less true.

We as a Party choose to defend ourselves and our country against all foes, foreign and domestic. We choose not to give up our beliefs or freedoms in order to appease an enemy that only ask for our full destruction.

We as a Party believe in the individual rights and freedoms that are bestowed upon each individual at birth by God. We believe these freedoms should not be restricted by an ever reaching, ever growing government; even when the restrictions are veiled by an untruth of “economic security for all”. We choose to have the right to succeed or fail in our pursuit of happiness.

Mr. Begala, these are not disgraced talking points… THESE ARE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!

As a Party… this is where we choose to stand!

But thanks for the advice.

Professor Arrested in Cambridge

By Jim Williams

Well the race card has been played once again. This time by Henry Louis Gates Jr., a well know Harvard professor. In addition to his Professorship at Harvard, Mr. Gates is also the Director of the W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research and is the Editor-in-Chief of the Oxford African American Studies Center. But neither of these is how I was introduced to him. Before all the media attention due to the Professor’s arrest in Cambridge, I watched the PBS special “African American Lives”, which Professor Gates hosted. This special explores the roots of some famous African Americans. The four part series was especially interesting to me due to the fact that Professor Gates self exploration found that his ancestry and mine had crossed paths. The investigation of his family revealed that they were at one time, during that terrible time of slavery, owned by the (Virginia) VanMetre Family. This is my lineage and therefore I felt an immediate connection to the professor. But as the series went on I became more and more disillusioned with him, due to repeated accusations and comments that could only be interpreted as racist. The first stunning moment is when, through DNA testing, he found that he was 50% white. His comment was that he was “horrified”. Why would anyone be horrified of their roots unless they had a predisposed dislike for a particular heritage; in this case Caucasian decent? This can only be interpreted as an anti-white comment. Secondly, the professor contributed this white heritage to, what he called, “Sneaking and Creeping” by the once slave owners of his family. His accusation was that the VanMetre’s, my family, sexually abused his family. To prove his forgone conclusion, he compared the DNA of a male VanMetre to his DNA. The results showed that he had no VanMetre lineage at all. His response was “I’m surprised”. Surprised, no doubt, because he assumed that sexual abuse was part of every slave / slave owner relationship. This evidence vindicated my family from this horrific accusation. But, Professor Gates never apologized for his slanderous comments or for his pre-judging of my family before actually knowing the facts. I say all this to show that Professor Gates has an obvious predisposition that influenced his behavior during the interaction with the Cambridge police officer. His predisposition is exactly what we as a society have been working to eliminate. The professor’s comment on the PBS special and during the time of his arrest shows a strong dislike for people of white heritage. The time has long passed when these types of comments and behavior should be tolerated. The race card should be thrown, but not by Professor Gates. It goes without saying; all facts should be gathered before passing judgment. To do otherwise would be handling the situation “Stupidly”. Are you listening Mr. President?