This may be the most stunning video we have seen in a long time.
Apparently, Sally Boynton Brown, who is running for the DNC Chairperson position, thinks that all while people are prejudiced – even Democrats.
Instead of actually trying to engage in a debate or a discussion, Boynton Brown says her job is to shut dissenting voices down when they disagree with her.
It is hard to argue with the mindset of “we want to have a conversation which means you have to shut up and listen.”
Years ago when the Palestinians and the Israelis were really going at in battles, we were part of a faction that believed there are people who don’t want peace in the Mid-East. There are people who know the strife there gives them a power and authority they would not have if people could learn to live together.
The same is true of the Democratic Party. They have become the party of division. They seem to grasp that if Americans unite, they will lose their authority and power. Oddly, they will lose the privilege they claim others have. (more…)
Allow us to introduce you to Representative Tammy Duckworth.
Duckworth represents Illinois’s 8th congressional district to the US House of Representatives.
There is more to her as well.
[Duckworth] is the first Asian American woman elected to Congress in Illinois, the first disabled woman to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, and the first member of Congress born in Thailand.
Duckworth previously served as Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs in the United States Department of Veterans Affairs from April 24, 2009 to June 30, 2011, and as the Director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs from November 21, 2006 to February 8, 2009.
An Iraq War veteran, Duckworth served as a U.S. Army helicopter pilot and suffered severe combat wounds, losing both of her legs and damaging her right arm. She was the
first female double amputee from the war. Having received a medical waiver, she continued to serve as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Illinois Army National Guard along with her husband, Major Bryan W. Bowlsbey, a signal officer and fellow Iraq War veteran. Duckworth retired from the Army in October 2014.
What the little section from Wikipedia doesn’t tell you is that Duckworth has been disenfranchised from her vote for party leadership.
At this point in time, Duckworth is pregnant and is at home as doctors have advised her not to fly.
Because she is not able to appear in person, party rules do not allow her to vote. She cannot vote by proxy or by an absentee ballot. (more…)
At the three Baltimore Harbor crossings — the Fort McHenry Tunnel, the Harbor Tunnel and the Key Bridge — drivers as of Tuesday pay a $3 cash rate each way instead of the $2 they’ve been kicking in since 2003.
On the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway, as Interstate 95 northeast of Baltimore is known, the basic northbound toll has risen from $5 to $6. At the Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge, which crosses the Susquehanna River on U.S. 40, the same rate applies.
On the Bay Bridge, where a bargain $2.50 toll had been frozen in place since the 1970s, motorists’ luck has run out. The rate is now $4 — collected eastbound only — at least sparing drivers the ordeal of fumbling with change. In Southern Maryland, users of the Gov. Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge found they, too, had to pay $4 instead of the previous $3 to make the southbound Potomac River crossing.
And if one increase is good, two increases must be twice as good: (more…)
Require school districts to adopt a policy allowing an exception to specific course material based on a parent’s or legal guardian’s determination that the material is objectionable. Such policy shall include a provision requiring the parent or legal guardian to notify the school principal or designee in writing of the specific material to which they object and a provision requiring an alternative agreed upon by the school district and the parent, at the parent’s expense, sufficient to enable the child to meet state requirements for education in the particular subject area. The name of the parent or legal guardian and any specific reasons disclosed to school officials for the objection to the material shall not be public information and shall be excluded from access under RSA 91-A.
The bill is in response to schools teaching morals and choices that are against the wishes of the parents. For example, if a child is raised in a home with religious convictions against sex before marriage or homosexuality, the school should not be able to force differing views down the throat of the child. Parents should not have to contend with their teachings being contradicted by an educations system with different values.
This type of parental decision is the epitome of “live free or die.” It is a parent taking charge of their child’s education instead of being a bystander. (more…)
The Democrats in the state of New York have taken on a powerful foe – the First Amendment.
In response to concerns of “cyberbullying,” the Democrats have issued a report on the issue, and what they feel should be done to combat the issue.
In the report, the Democrats say:
PROPONENTS OF FREE SPEECH HAVE LONG ARGUED THAT A SOCIETY THAT PUTS PEOPLE ON TRIAL FOR THINGS THEY HAVE WRITTEN OR SAID IS NO LONGER A TRULY DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY. THE POWER OF THE WORD HAS BEEN UNDISPUTABLE; IT HAS BEEN ESSENTIAL TO PRESERVING DEMOCRACY AND, IN FACT, ITS FOUNDING PREMISE WAS TO PRESERVE THE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS: A “MARKET PLACE” WHERE CITIZENS COULD SORT THROUGH BELIEFS AND IDEAS WHICH BEST RESONATED WITH THEM AND DISCARD THOSE THAT DID NOT,74 THEREBY ALLOWING FOR THE CREATION OF AN EVER-EVOLVING, OPEN SOCIETY. MOREOVER, THEY CONTEND THAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS RECOGNIZED AS A HUMAN RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, SO IT CANNOT AND MUST NOT BE LIMITED.
AND YET, PROPONENTS OF A MORE REFINED FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUE THAT THIS FREEDOM SHOULD BE TREATED NOT AS A RIGHT BUT AS A PRIVILEGE – A SPECIAL ENTITLEMENT GRANTED BY THE STATE ON A CONDITIONAL BASIS THAT CAN BE REVOKED IF IT IS EVER ABUSED OR MALTREATED. (emphasis ours)
(We apologize for the caps, but that is the manner in which the report was released.)
The report makes the argument that as “free speech” is a “privilege,” the state can regulate speech. In this case, the “free speech” that has a bull’s eye on it is what they define as “cyberbullying” to be: (more…)
That’s the buzz word that has been going around Washington and the country.
Much of the talk has to do with the debt ceiling and budget negotiations where the Democrats are charging that Republicans are unwilling to “compromise.” It is not that compromise is not a good thing. There isn’t a successful marriage or relationship where people do not compromise. But compromises in government and in marriages pre-suppose that both parties have the same goal. In marriage, the goal is to stay together, to love one another, to be supportive, to achieve fiscal well being, etc. Generally speaking, in a marriage the goals of the wife and the husband are similar. It is the path to those goals that cause frustrations that require compromises.
In government, the goals are not always the same. Nowhere has that been more pronounced and evident than in the budget talks. When one looks at the proposals (or the talking points because the White House never put to paper any budget other than one that was voted down without a dissenting vote in May) one sees the difference in the goals of the two parties.
For the Democrats, it is more spending, more taxes on the so called “rich,” and a more centralized, less accountable Federal government.
For Republicans, the vision is one of less spending, less taxes, less regulations and a smaller Federal government.
Because of the difference in visions and goals, meaningful compromise is not possible. Republicans and Democrats have a different vision for the country. There is no way that they can compromise.
Even if the goals were the same, the word “comprimise” doesn’t mean the same thing to Republicans and Democrats. As an example, take a look at a story that coming out of South Carolina where the governor is under fire for the Confederate Battle flag flying atop the statehouse in Columbia. (more…)
We would hope that every conservative reading this blog would agree that “Jim Crow laws” were an affront to what this country was founded upon, the result of the Civil War, and the 14th Amendment. Republicans, starting before the Civil War have long fought against racial inequities.
(For a deeper look into this rich history of Republicans fighting for equal rights, we suggest that you read our friend Steve Bussey’s article “A Conversation About Race,” as well as visit one of our favorite websites, “Grand Old Partisan,” where you can read daily a different fact about Republicans and race.)
In a practical sense, Federal law has made the Jim Crow laws moot. We no longer allow “white only” water fountains, or “blacks on” bathrooms. State sponsored and state mandated segregation needed to be ended and wiped from the law books of the land.
That sentiment was what drove Republicans in the Alabama Senate to propose legislation stripping Jim Crow laws from the Alabama Constitution. Even though the laws were no longer enforceable, they were still on the books. (more…)