For the next few dozen minutes, I am going to speak my mind, and you are going to listen. Then you can have at me. But you must hear me out. If you have a problem with that, I have men standing by with lip-zippers for those who request it. After I'm done, you can unzip and hoot and holler all you want.
I told you I didn't come here with kind words. You want sugar-coated huggy-kissies? Then get Kerry back up here. You want someone to promise you perpetual free money? Then get Kerry back up here.
If you can't stand what I am saying, I have a bunch of cotton you can stick in you ears. You all remember what cotton represents, don't you? Anyone with cotton in their ears of course will be in peril of remaining in bondage.
The NAACP leadership has roundly attacked me over the years; let me now return the favor. I'm my view; the NAACP has turned into the NAGDCP- National Advancement for the Government Dependence of Colored People.
From what I've seen the NAACP has a mix of ignorant, immature, greedy, racist, tunnel-visioned, and opportunistic leadership bent with a foul self-perpetuating purpose that relies on keeping blacks down on perpetual handouts as slaves to the Welfare system.
NAACP mistakes their promotion of government dependence as civil rights activity, and any black rising above that is to them 'shameful'.
The NAACP is a focus group. I can't go to them on broader issues. Example, what is the NAACP's stance on gay marriage? They have only their self interests in mind.
WAR ON TERRORISM
War on Terrorism: Iraq: Economic Sanctions vs. Use of Military: Do the Math:
First you have this:
International Herald Tribune statement March 2000
The sanctions regime imposed on the people of Iraq for over a decade is one of the great injustices of our time. It has brought starvation and disease to millions of innocent Iraqis. UNICEF has shown that economic sanctions have contributed to the death of half a million children. (author's note: this did nothing to Saddam, it only strengthened him.)
Now you have this:
www.antiwar.com last updated 7/14/04:
At least 5,000 civilians may have been killed during the invasion of Iraq, an independent research group has claimed. As more evidence is collated, it says, the figure could reach 10,000. (author's note: this action did bring down Saddam).
Now let's do the math:
(1) Liberal Economic Sanctions: 500,000 dead children alone, starvation and disease to millions of innocent Iraqis, and Saddam and Son's still in power, toying with WMD's.
(2) The offer to allow Saddam to step down, then the use of military to oust him: 5,000 to 10,000 civilian deaths, Saddam and Son's gone, one terrorist-tied tyranny down and Democracy taking root in the Middle East.
It doesn't take a degree in math to figure this one out- which course of action was more humane, AND more successful.
Let me reiterate: Economic Sanctions: starvation and disease to millions of innocents, 500,000 dead children, Saddam still in power;
Ultimatum backed up with Force: 5,000 to 10,000 innocents dead, Saddam gone.
Again: millions starving and diseased, a half-million dead children vs. 5,000-10,000.
Again: Millions starving and diseased, and 500,000 dead, objective not achieved, vs. 5,000-10,000, objective achieved. Let me draw a picture (get’s easel and marker). And a graph. Now which method killed more people? Which method is more humane? Which method achieved it’s objective? Now who’s playing games, me or the Democrats? Again: half-a-million dead children alone vs. 5,000. Who’s got the wisdom? Who’s on the right course?
NAACP "Bush murdered people for oil"
I would never have gone into Iraq if Saddam left the country, so that argument holds no water, or oil.
"Saddam did not attack the US."
It doesn't take a genius to see that Saddam was a part of the problem of tyranny that did finally spill over to the United States. Further, imagine trying to pursue terrorists around the Middle and Near East with Saddam and Sons offering a safe haven. Pakistan helps the US hunt terrorists down. Can you imagine Saddam and Sons doing the same? No. Most importantly, there were two mistakes I could have made- (1) Remove Saddam and find that he wasn't hiding any WMD's from the inspectors (who were there at great American expense, by the way), and (2) Leave Saddam alone and discover too late that he did have WMD material, discovering it only after he slipped some to his co-anti-US terrorist friends and after they used it in America. The path was and is simple and clear. To pretend not see it takes pure political will.
Democrats platform based on Bush's mishandling of Iraq.
It's easy to sit back and criticize, especially on something that is being done for the first time in human history- liberating a country without conquering it, and not intending to stay for years and years, as with Japan and Germany. Anyone can look back and see what went wrong. Where are they when its time to look ahead and say what is going to work? Where is the Democrat's crystal ball? They do not have one, and yet are armchair critics.
Liberals "Terrorism should not be fought militarily."
It would be a police action if terrorists were not State-sponsored, They are, and therefore it is a problem beyond police action. The tactic of more liberal economic sanctions is a proven failure, and is unthinkable at this point.
"No link between Saddam's former regime and Al Qaeda."
Liberals like say this with no proof. It is not my job to give a dictator who has a desire to obtain WMD's the benefit of the doubt.
"Not enough troops in Iraq."
Statement based on two erroneous assumptions: (1) that Iraqis do not want to police themselves; (2) That there is a major uprising, a liberal-media myth.
"Bush bad because he used God to justify removing Saddam by direct force."
Liberals miss the point, Bush was countering Muslim's self-centric ideology. Also the liberals only attack Bush and say nothing, NOTHING, of the Muslims doing the same thing.
"I don't understand the complexities of what I'm getting the US into."
This statement is just an excuse for cowardice. There is nothing complex about what is wrong with the Middle East, or what is right and wrong in today's world. Killing civilians in mass numbers to obtain you political aims- only a fool, an opposition Party member, or a professional cynic would refuse to admit that is wrong (note that the cynic would say it is wrong only if the US did it).
"Removing Saddam took away from war on Terrorism."
Just the opposite. It sucked terrorists in, and now the new Iraqi government is rightly exterminating them.
"Bush created more terrorists than there otherwise would have been."
Mere conjecture, since we haven't seen the "otherwise".
"Quagmire in Iraq"
Pure liberal media-wash.
“I should have attacked country x or y instead of Iraq”
Any other country would have been a sideshow, and less of a statement, and less at the heart of the Middle East problem; and all other countries were less of an immediate threat concerning WMD’s.
Did I steal the election? No. Did Gore try his best to win it? Yes. Did his supporters stoop to underhanded means? Some say yes. Filling in ballots during the recount and eating the evidence- the chads. Were the Republicans up to any tricks? Some say yes- barring felons from voting. Were the Democrats interested in making every vote count? No, they tried to block overseas military votes. Was anything the Democrats or Republicans did illegal? Some say yes on both sides. Did the NAACP seize the opportunity to get money from the State of Florida out of it all? Yes they did. Where is that huge sum of money now? Ask your leaders.
9/11 and Fighter Jets
The subsequent highjacked airliners were not shot down because (1) no plane has ever been shot down over US airspace; (2) this act had no precedence, (3) the planes were already over populated areas; (4) no one knew the plane's intent, or if it could be talked down. Blame the liberals for creating a mentality of negotiating, which stayed the hand of the military. Suppose an airliner was shot down before it's intent was apparent? What an outrage that would have been! Their intent was not apparent until it was too late.
"No Blacks or Women Presidents of the US because of social injustice."
On the contrary, anyone can step up to the plate. There have been blacks, women, and black women candidates. On the other hand, just look at the quality of the two highest profile blacks who ran for president, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton- from what I can see, two tax-dodging publicity hounds, one a thug, the other a buffoon, neither with a very high regard for American values.
Everyone is prejudiced against in some way or other somewhere. Don't think you're special. And look in the mirror if you want to see a prejudiced person. So don't stand there and lecture me about prejudice. It is a universal problem.
"Republican tax cut is self-indulgent."
On the contrary, Democrats are self-indulgent when they give away other people's money in order to make themselves feel like Gods, not knowing the damage they are doing to the economy and the family.
SOCIALIST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
Kerry is for socialistic healthcare, a proven failure in European countries. Further, the middle class again will fund this, and get nothing in return, and there will be abuses to no end.
A proven failure: Example 1: France- has socialistic prescription plan. Not only is it bankrupting the country, but also 23% of the population is hooked on prescriptions. Example 2: The Netherlands- has a socialistic disability program. Not only is that also bankrupting the country, but also 16% of their workforce is out on disability, PERMANENT disability!
Disease control I support. National pill-popping? No.
Liberal Claim: "Cheney lied about the cost of Medicare."
Typical liberal illogic- equating the inability to predict the future with lying, and misinterpreting the word "estimate" with "actual".
THE BLACK FAMILY
70% of your children are illegitimate. That's 70% bastard children. Is that a proud statistic for a black man? If you say yes you go against the wisdom of the ages. I did not say I came here with kind words. What do you have to do? Wake up and rise up! Shed the bonds of Democratic free money- it doesn't do anybody any good.
Black males, why would they want to stick around and raise kids, when the Democratic Party promises to do just that with free money? It is an inside joke among Black men that they have a kid in every state. This is what the Democratic Party has created. Do black mothers like raising their children without men around? No they don't! Do black mothers want their children to grow up to be in bondage to the Welfare system? No, they don't! Do the Democrats or the NAACP want the children of black mothers to grow up strong and independent? No, they don't!
You've received entitlements for the last 3-4 generations, now what are you going to do? Are you going to let your Democrats keep you in a stupor, or are you ready to begin contributing to humanity? Some will answer "Heck No! This boo-hooey-poor-person act is all a big con-game, you stupid, white, bleeding-heart sucker!" Others will answer they are already contributing. What about you in the middle? You're standing on a perilous fence. On the one side there are those who will pull you down into the morass of frightful government dependence. On the other, there is a path. You know where it leads, but you don't know where it goes to get there. If the government does anything to actually help you, it will be when you make the decision to get off that fence and begin the journey along that path. The government can only be the Park Ranger, keeping the hungry bears at bay. You will have to force your own feet to take those steps.
Let's pretend America was a communist state. Would you be: a 'from each according to his ability' or would you be a 'to each according to his needs'? Would you even survive? Which do you think vote Republican? Which do you think vote Democrat? Are you voting Democrat for the free money they perpetually promise you? Of course. Does this contribute to the economy? No. Does it create jobs? No. Is it a burden on the economy? Yes. Does it keep you and those who are paying for you down? Yes. Do you need leadership in breaking the cycle? Yes. Should they be black leaders? IF they aren't corrupt and can do the job without corrupting it. And don't be so prejudiced when it comes to help. Someone may finally be looking past your skin and you won't even see it.
Will you give something back to the world, or will you continue to ask for more, and be a perpetual burden on society?
Are there Niggers in this country? Yes, but a new set of people have taken the place- the White middle class. It is they who support, by the sweat of their brow, the big free-money con-game between you and the Democrats. Yes, the White middle-class are the new Niggers in town. It's why you haven't risen up after 4 generations of free money, and why you won't rise up after 4 more generations of free money. Well, there IS a new people rising up in America, and it’s not you, it’s the White Middle Class, they will free themselves, and they will do it by voting Republican now. That will force your community’s hand, and that will not be as satisfying or self-respecting as if you took the initiative yourselves.
Now what person will get off his feet without a deadline? Precious few of us, and they are the industry leaders we rely on for jobs, many who never see the light of day. Does the black community have a deadline for getting off their feet? No. Does the NAACP or the Democratic Party want a deadline for getting off your feet? No. Their unimaginative purposes are based on keeping you down and on handouts, while the rest of the world passes you by, and regardless of the perpetual whining, demanding burdens you become on society. It does not shine a bad light on them, only on you. What's it to them? They shine in their deceiving efforts of trying to 'help' you. They make themselves feel good in this deception, not knowing the damage they are doing. Heaven forbid you SHOULD succeed, they would then have to search for a new purpose.
What have you given back, after 50 years of entitlements and programs? Riots? Criminals? Pushers? Bandits? Pimps? Is this what 50 years of free Democratic money has produced? No wonder Democrats are a criminal's best friend, and are weak on law enforcement- because they know they are the cause of the problem.
You are the victims of rich kid's Robin Hood fantasies. They're robbin', all right, feeling good with themselves, while making their victims fat, stupid, and lazy. You will never be able to compete in the world as long as you cling to the Democratic ticket. Communism found this out. Socialist countries are finding this out. You will find this out, maybe today. Republicans represent business, and that can be your business. The Democrats represent sloth.
The black nation in this country has a new bondage- the Welfare system. Who wants to perpetuate that? The Democrats, for votes, and the NAACP for a lack of an alternate purpose.
You think you are free? You are still slaves, you new master is the Democratic Party, and their whip is the free money they perpetually promise you.
THE WAR ON DRUGS
You received entitlements and programs for 50 years in order to get you on your feet. When are you going to get on your feet? What is keeping you off your feet? Republican exploitation? Democratic handouts? I'll tell you the answer: Democratic handouts. This is what the NAACP has been reduced to fighting for, so they too continue to have an unimaginative purpose. Why get off your feet if you can live for free? Why get an education if you can live for free? Can you fly to the moon and back yet? Not if you're on the street corner selling drugs, a war which is being fought for you. Many blacks I talk to politically gravitate to the war on drugs- but then say it's a Republican conspiracy to wipe out blacks! The nerve of the drug culture creating such a myth! And shame on anyone who believes it after this revelation.
Concerning reparations, you owe so much to the North it would take 10 generations of reparations from you to repay them. You're lucky THEY aren't calling for payment from YOU.
I do not give either side everything they want. I do not play to the extremes. The KYOTO Treaty was an extreme head-in-the-clouds idea, and no signatory nation has been able to abide by it’s extreme conditions to this date. The US plan is better constructed and more realistic. It offers corporations tax credits for compliance in reducing their pollution levels.
NEA and Kerry
The NEA asked Kerry if he supported NEA policies, and the NEA threw in a few monopolistic, anti-middle class scenarios, like opposing vouchers and tax breaks for private school expenses (the middle class would benefit most from them). Kerry supported this anti-middle class and monopolistic request.
NEA and Kerry
NEA was soft on Kerry, merely asking him if he 'supported' NEA issues. Of course Kerry would say 'yes he supported them'. He played them like a violin. Sure he can say he supports all they ask for, and he did- fully knowing all he has to do is make an effort to support them- while knowing full well giving them everything they want is another matter, and he can just blame it all on the Republicans! How convenient. Make empty promises then blame the opposition.
No Child Left Behind
Created specifically for minorities.
"Reagan hurt a lot of people."
Reagan used global free enterprise to create a stronger, more competitive US economy.
Anti-White, anti-success, anti-work, pro-government dependence.
Politically I am against it. Personally I am on the fence here- on the one hand it goes against the wisdom of the ages. On the other hand, we have forgotten the reasons behind the wisdom of the ages, and maybe we should allow such behavior in order to rediscover them. Help me out here.
Clinton quote: "A person has to say what he has to say, regardless of whether it is true or not."
Right after poo-pooing truth, he says Democrats don't make myths, but Republicans do. Now what do you think the truth is?
Clinton Quote: "I don't think it's fair for someone to be defined by his worse moment, unless it's a crime..."
Then he hesitated, realizing the self-incrimination of what he just said, and to get his foot out of his mouth.
ANTI-US CYNICISM OF THE LEFT
"US only gets involved in international situations if there is oil involved."
Typical liberal one-eye-blind, erroneous, and just plain slanderous/libelous anti-US (and fashionable) cynicism. What about Haiti? Where’s the oil there, or the financial stake, as other one-eyed liberals have claimed? Vietnam? Bosnia? Panama? Grenada? Korea? WWII? WWI? Do you smell oil there? No. Where is the financial stakes? None. In fact the US gave dearly.
Kerry reminds us "All men are created equal". Then he promises special treatment to whichever group he is addressing at the moment…
A BALANCED BUDGET
Sure Clinton balanced the budget- but cutting everything except that which they thought would perpetuate their power-, which is perpetual free money for their most likely voters. Sly, but damaging.
GOVERNMENT JOBS OVERSEAS
There are jobs out there where you can help the world, even your own kind. Will you be appreciated or understood? Rarely. Will you be attacked for being an American? Probably. Will you be disgusted with human nature? Of course. Will you get thanks, or perpetually be asked for more? Probably the latter. Will they get what they want, then cast you aside? Of course, when hasn't that happened in human history? Will you want give up? Most likely. But you will not have been worthless. And that will be remembered.
RESPONSE TO UNANSWERABLE QUESTION
Response to policy question and what the President is going to do about it: "I don't have an answer to that. What would you do if I left it up to you? What if I said Aheeb, I want you to solve this issue. I don’t want you to make it go away, I don't want you to address it; I don't want you deal with it; I want you to SOLVE it. Does ANYBODY have any ideas on how to solve this problem? Here's my email address. Any of you want to work in Washington? I'll leave applications at the door. It's not the kind of job that will help the economy, it's a government job, steady, usually lasts 4-8 years, sometimes boring, sometimes frightening, always burdensome, with your usual office politics, backstabbing, leapfrogging, gossiping, and hanky-panky, but it has a good medical and dental plan.
There are only a few qualifications- you've got to care. You've got to care about people. You've got to mean what you say and say what you mean. If there is a menace to those you're sworn to protect, you have to go after it. You'll have the weight of the world on your shoulders, and you've got to think about everyone. Your enemies will sneak up behind you; your friends may disown you or try to corrupt you. Yet you've got to drop everything and be there when needed, and look shiny clean when you’re doing it. You've got to lead. Make decisions. Live with those decisions. Weigh criticism. Compromise. You will age 50 years, but there is a good retirement package. Think about it.
If you want to make it in the world, you must have something people want. Then, wherever you go, people around you prosper. If you want to be loved in the world, you have to have something people need. If you want to make this world a paradise, what do you have to do? Yes! Wake up and rise up! I will give out money for education. I will give out money for enterprise. I can't however give out money so you can sit on your butts with an eye toward your grave. That is not what the world needs.
Do any of you think you are worthless? Some do think so. It is not true. You are Americans. You may be black, but you are Americans. Now Americans may not be the most civilized people in the world, or the most cultured, or the most suave, or the most savvy, or the best looking, in spite of what liberals think, but when it comes to turning to someone for help, where does the world turn? To the person who has given it in the past, and who can give it now, and who holds hope for the future. That is an American. The world looks to America and says, "Someday, we'll be like Americans. We'll fly to the moon and back. We'll cure the world's diseases, feed the world's hungry, educate the world's illiterate, but we'll do it better, and still get no thanks for it." Maybe not with that cynical end, but something to the former's effect. Do what the Americans did, but with a little less pollution, a little less exploitation, a little less greed, a little less damage, and with a little more love. What country could aspire to more?
You want to be on par with Whitey? What do you have to do? Yes, that's right. Wake up and rise up! You want respect and love from the rest of the world? What do you have to do? I can't hear you? Yes! Wake up and rise up! Yes, I am asking you to get off of welfare. Not cold turkey. Those on it can live it out. But you will be raising your offspring to contribute to the world, not to live off Democratic handouts. Is that so bad? No, it is not. Will it be good for your children when they reach adulthood, assuming they survive that long in the Welfare state the Democrats have constructed around you? Yes. Is what the NAACP and Democrats want? No, they will have to change, and change takes effort. It’s easier for them to keep you down.
When you're back on the street tomorrow, or tonight, nothing will have changed. The world will still spin. But a little seed will have been planted in the back of your minds tonight. It may not sprout tomorrow, or the next day, or for as long as you live, but it will be passed on to the next generation, and the generation after that, until it one day does sprout, and it will lift you and your people off of your feet, and you will have arrived on the threshold of genuine and justified self-respect, humanity, and history.
OTHER ISSUES TO BE ADDED SHORTLY:
THE PATRIOT ACT
JOBS AND THE ECONOMY