Yellow Journalism Attacks

Well, it takes all kinds of people and opinions, be they open-minded or closed, intelligent or ignorant, well meaning or hateful, or just plain unable to see the nose on their face. I have always felt that anyone, and I do mean anyone, is entitled to their opinion whether it agrees or disagrees with me. But once again a local letter writer and the poor excuse we have for a local newspaper (The American Press, commonly referred to as The American Mess) have once again banded together to attack not only my opinion, which is more than welcome, but to attack me personally. No decent, reputable paper would allow this and it is something I have never seen in the many papers I have read nationwide. I would answer this letter in the paper but the American Press has a proven record of never allowing me to do so. And many people have told me about letters they have written in support and defense of me that are never printed. That figures. Just once I would like to see them print something from people who agree with me. Guess I’ll just give up, as their political and racial standings are evident.

Here is the verbatim letter as it appeared in today’s newspaper (including misspellings or poor English.)

In his letter on Feb 7, Sam Schoolsky, caustic critic of the American right and champion of diversity, recounted a recent dinner spiced with too much multiculturalism for even his liberal palate, leading not only to his own indigestion, but to that of his politically incorrect dinner companions. His erstwhile friends, in the course of polite dinner conversation displayed the audacity of hope that the well advertised tolerance for which liberals are so famous, would be available even to them as they offered their personal heart-felt and well reasoned views as to the meaning of the most visible symbol of their Southern heritage, The Confederate Battle Flag.

Described in positive and virtuous terms by Schoolsky to “educated, comfortable and religious” they explained that the flag was not a symbol of hatred, but rather, when correctly understood within the politically correct hysterical complex as a symbol of pride in their heritage that an honorable defeat could not erase. Their hopes were dashed, however, as Schoolsky indignantly rejected this argument as unworthy of the serious consideration of a man of modernity. Reeling from the incredulity of their backwardness, he condescendingly informed them that they had no moral authority to define their own past because world opinion had already defined it for them.

Schoolsky then pronounced his litmus test on this question based entirely on race. He confidently asserted, in so many words, that as African-Americans would certainly feel differently, only the opinions of African-Americans could be seriously considered. Indeed! If, as he said, “Slavery, degradation, death, back breaking work and destruction of the family unit…” could be the only meaning in the folds of that flag, then what about other flags that flew over the African slave trade, including that of the United States? Interestingly the Confederate Constitution (Article 10 Section 9, Clauses 1 and 2 respectfully) outlawed the international slave trade with any country save only one. The United States.

Always armed and ready with a list of sins of our region, Schoolsky doesn’t believe that any one with a Confederate ancestor should be proud of anything from 1861-1865. His selective list of injustices also included “being counted as 2/5 of a person for census purposes.” OK, so instead, it was really 3/5 of a person, but it might also surprise Schoolsky that this carefully calculated reduction in the humanity of slaves was actually a compromise by Southern statesmen who although self serving on this issue, wanted them each counted as full individuals. “Statesman” of the North did not want them counted beyond a fraction because their addition as whole persons would have meant more Southern representation in Congress.

As to the destruction of African-American families, nothing has been done more damage to families generally than generations of well-intentioned government assistance and entitlement programs, the mixed blessings of which have discouraged individual responsibility and encouraged illegitimacy (black and white, alike.) The wide road to socialized Utopia is paved with tax dollars and littered with broken families.

Schoolsky, however, did extend some grace to his friends for being “rather basically good people,” who, after all, really and truly weren’t “out and out bigots” or “Nazi skin head” types. Speaking of Nazis, ironically, in the unabridged version of his book, “Mein Kampf” former Nazi-in-chief Adolph Hitler praised Abraham Lincoln for the destruction of the sovereignty of the states in his unconstitutional war against the South. Another ringing endorsement came from “The Father of Communism” himself Karl Marx, who supported Lincoln’s policies and sent by letter, his own congratulations for ushering in the centralized State in America and rendering as a dead letter the Constitution’s 10th Amendment reserved powers provision as interpreted by its antifederalist sponsors.

What a swell group of guys. I would think that any flag that stood as a symbol against the consolidating and centralizing power that Hitler and Marx praiseworthy might have some honor attached to it.

Speaking further inspiration for his loyal readership in how to fight the good fight against bigotry, Schoolsky turned to Hollywood, and quoted a line to be used from the 1947 movie “Gentleman’s Agreement,” at the very moment bigotry is perceived, even in its most sublte form, from the foul mouths of ignorant rednecks, bigoted brutes or anyone else have dinner with you.

Two can play this game, and I also found an appropriate line to use for someone well-meaning but uninformed, when advancing criticism for something they obviously know little about and whose penchant for tolerance and diversity morphs into unabashed intolerance, self righteousness, moralization and Yankeefield indignation. Even older (1939) it is from “Gone with the Wind.” In the worlds of Rhett Butler, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.”

Well, this is a first for me. I have now joined the ranks of Lincoln, Hitler and Marx. Sorry but this man never has understood what bigotry truly is even when he broadly displays it. Guess the old saying, even with education, “Ignorance is bliss.”

Who Really Spent Our Money and When

Dear editor:

If you listen to right wing radio and TV commentators, you keep hearing how Democrats both past and present spend, spend, spend and are putting our country into a dangerous position due to their propensity for increasing America’s national debt. In addition we keep hearing great adulation of President Ronald Reagan, who was obviously the original great fiscal conservative as well as the “great communicator,” and is the father of modern Republicanism. While some of this might be true, most of it is an absolute myth spread by the likes of House Minority Leader John Boehner, Sarah Palin, John McCain, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity.

If some of these “experts” on our nation’s economy would bother to check their facts, as published (and so easy to find online) by the United States Government, they would find out the truth. For instance:

1)National Debt, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) since the end of the Second World War, shows that all Democratic Presidents (Truman, Kennedy/Johnson, Carter and Clinton) reduced this important key number by 23.9%, 13.5%, 2.8% and 6.8% (in the same order.) With the exception of Eisenhower who also reduced this number by 18.3%, all Republican Presidents (Nixon/Ford, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush and G.W. Bush have greatly increased our debt by 6.3%, 18.5%, 12.2% and 11.9% (again in the same order.)

2)Reagan, who is worshipped for his economic accomplishments and reduction in government, not only had the biggest increase at 18.5%, with a similar increase in the size of government, but also saw the national debt rise during his term in office by over 260%.

3)At the end of George W. Bush’s eight years in office the national debt stood at $10,024,724,896,912. Of this total $7,507,466,342 happened during the terms in office of three Republicans, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. That means that 75% of our outlandish national debt happened as a direct result of these three presidents.
And they talk about Democrats being “out of control spenders?”

It’s about time people faced the facts and learned the truth in politics. This does not in any way suggest that it is OK for us to continue in our free spending ways leading to bankruptcy, but rather puts the truth in our hands and should make us demand that Republicans and their commentators try to work with the administration instead of just being blame laying “NO” people.

Blame the Victim

Dear editor:

Now I’ve seen it all. In today’s paper (Sunday, Feb. 14th) there is a letter speaking of bigotry against African-Americans with the wildest explanation for the causation of it all. It seems the writer believes that due to the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan, all of whom I see as self serving and not truly interested in their people, that out and out bigotry is understood and is nothing more than tit-for-tat reaction by whites. Isn’t that wonderful and original? Blame Blacks for the horrors that have been committed against them and the continued bigotry we see both as obvious and unspoken?

With convoluted thinking like this it makes one wonder if we should blame the Christians for their deaths when they were fed to the lions by the Romans, or the Native Americans for the continued horrors and lands stolen by American settlers, or the Africans who were kidnapped from their native countries and sold as slaves, or the 6,000,000 Jews who were slaughtered by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Blame the victim?

I’ve written before about both out and out bigotry and bigotry by allowing the former to fester. Let’s face it, the letter in today’s paper defined both types of bigotry and should be recognized for what it truly is…..an excuse to hate.

Teasippers Look Backwards

Dear editor:

At the recent meeting of the Tea Party Convention we kept hearing about the need to “take back our country” and to return to the intentions and interpretations of our Founding Fathers who wrote our nation’s Constitution. They want us to live by a strict adherence to this document based upon how it was set down in 1789 and have no “activist” judges who will change any of the original meaning. These are not new thoughts. But they are so easy to say and so impractical and unknowledgeable.

Our historic Constitution has served as a light and guide to nations throughout history and is a document all Americans should be proud of. However it, like any work of man, is imperfect changed throughout the years, improved upon and is a living growing freedom that our Founders would be proud of today. But going back to the intentions and origins of the original can only come from those who have not studied and understood it, even though they try to espouse knowledge. Sometimes I question if they have even read it, and I mean thoroughly. Would you have us go back to the following conditions laid out in the original Founding Fathers version passed in 1789?

Article One, Section 2: “Numbers (representation) shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons (white,) including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons (black slaves.”) (Changed by the Fourteenth Amendment, July 9, 1868) The Constitution also prohibited Congress from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years and a fugitive slave clause required the return of runaway slaves to their owners. Should we go back to the original intentions of the founders? Washington, Jefferson and Madison all owned slaves during their presidencies.

State Assemblies appointed U.S. Senators and Congress in turn elected the President and Vice President. There were no direct elections by the people. Would anyone want to give up that right?

Article One, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power to declare War,….and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Congress has not declared war since WWII. So I guess we should get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. tomorrow.

Article Two, Section 1: “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: ‘I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Nowhere are the words “So help me God” used. In fact the word God can not be found in the Constitution—not once.

In 1776 Abigail Adams urged her husband, John, that he and the other framers of our founding documents should “Remember the ladies.” Our second president responded, “Depend on it. We know better than to repeal our masculine systems,” and women were left out of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, guaranteed all “persons” the right to “equal protection under the law.” However, the second section of the amendment used the words “male citizens,” in describing who would be counted in determining how many representatives each state gets in Congress. This was a natural outlook for men of that time. A woman’s right to vote was not granted until August 18, 1920 with the passage of the 19th Amendment.

Notwithstanding the commonly held perception of them as the idealist leaders of a massive popular revolution, the 56 signatories to the Declaration of Independence were members of an elite group taking advantage of an extraordinary political opportunity. The Founding Fathers were, without exception, wealthy men of property who, under normal circumstances, would not have espoused radical ideas. When the Founders wrote the Nation’s Constitution, they specified that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States (Article 6, Section 3.) Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words “Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God” are never mentioned in the Constitution—not even once. This is because many of our Founders were Deists and students of the European Enlightenment. The attitude of the age was one of enlightened reason, tolerance and free thought, not religiosity. The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was “in no sense founded on the Christian religion.” This was not an idle statement, they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.

Many of our nation’s problems and dangers today have been self inflicted over a period of many years by both political parties and any number of presidents. In an effort to do what is “right” we have caused hardship and innumerable problems for our citizens and future citizens. But, looking backwards to our beginnings for solutions, instead of learning from our mistakes and planning forward for the future, is not the answer. The Tea Sippers and their denizens by suggesting actions and laws over 220 years old would do more harm to this country than one could imagine. Times have changed.