|
What you learning reading the fine print and the bottom line
Tuesday 08-26-2008 3:15pm ET
I think the meaning of the "fine print" has changed. Morphed, if you will. It used to be literally the "fine print". The stuff that is set at a much smaller font. It used to be put there to write a lot of stuff in a small space. You can still find it here and there in advertising disclaimers. But, the "fine print" today also means "things that you should pay attention to". Forgive the gramatical error there, but in essence the "fine print" is, for example, knowing the interest rate and terms on a mortgage. It's right there in the first four or five pages of the mortgage, no smaller than anything else, but somehow it is considered the "fine print" like someone was trying to put a fast one over on you. It is why I have no sadness for those in bad mortgages. Unless the mortgage company lied or changed the figures after you signed them, it's all on you. You should have read the "fine print". In the same way, the "bottom line" has taken on new meaning. It used to be a slang expression for the over-all point of whatever is being discussed. For example, using a recent expression used in night one of Democratic National Convention, the bottom-line is that the Bush tax cuts benefited every single tax paying American; not just the wealthy. You see when Democrats trot out their usual class-warfare crap they only tell part of the story. "The Bush tax cuts that benefited the wealthy..." they'll say trailing off into some inane babbling. But, the bottom line is that the tax cuts helped everyone. It is an undisputed, though Democratically forgotten, fact. However, like the "fine print"; the "bottom line" has taken on a literal meaning in this day and age of scrolling information bars on the bottom of the news, weather, and sports channels. This new "bottom line" contains information. From stocks to news bulletins; weather alerts to scores. On CNN during the first evening of coverage of the DNC, its "bottom line" was offering little factoids on the convention, and other conventions for that matter. I was stunned to read some of them. In fact, I was amazed not only at what I learned, but what CNN showed. Consider the following info that was broadcast on the "bottom line" that was found on the CNN web site ( emphasis mine): Frederick Douglass was the first African-American to receive a vote for president at a major party's convention. Douglass received one vote at the 1888 GOP convention. Washington minister Channing Phillips was the first African-American to receive a vote for president at a Democratic convention. Phillips received 67.5 votes at the Democrats' 1968 convention. The first African-American delegates to a Democratic national convention were seated in 1936. The first African-American delegates to a Republican national convention were seated in 1868. The first woman delegate to a Democratic national convention was seated in 1908. She was from Colorado. The first woman delegate to a Republican national convention was seated in 1900. She was from Utah.
Amazing, huh? It merely underscores what I have been trying to tell those with ears for the six plus years I have been doing The Morning Show...The Republican Party(while far from perfect) is the party that most closely mirrors the values of black Americans. And that, is the bottom-line.
- PRS (If you've read this far, perhaps you'll check out a piece a little further back from the Wall Street Journal) Playing nice
Sunday 08-24-2008 2:38pm ET
As most of you know, I have had a running fued with State Republican Chair Jim Greer. Nothing personal, I just do not like the direction of the party and as the chairman, I hold him responsible. Plus, it's a little irritating how he likes to hog camera time. Anyway, what follows is another example of why I have some problems with Mr. Greer's "Leadership".
Below is an e-mail sent to local members of the Republican party relating to the race for the state committeeman seat from our county. There are three candidates. However, Mr. Greer allegedly inserted himself into the affairs of the local party. Read and decide for yourself. What I can tell you is that on Sunday on received a call from a high ranking member of the state party who told me that Mr. Greer was being challenged in Brevard County and that "someone with his record should be very careful about tipping the apple cart". The cryptic reference was to the kind of record not many people know about. I am checking into the assertion.
For now, here's the letter from local GOP Party Chairman, Dan Abel.
Friends,
In the last few days, you may have received an automated “robo call”
from Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer, endorsing Terry
Kester in the race for Leon County Republican State Committeeman. I
was deeply disappointed to learn of this phone call for a couple
reasons. First, neither I nor any Board member of the Leon County
Republican Executive Committee was consulted or notified that the
state party planned to intervene in this local race. Second, I
believe it is highly inappropriate for the Republican Party of Florida
to take a position in races for State Committeeman, Committeewoman,
County Chairman, or any other local party office. We all sign oaths
as committee members, and it is part of both the State and the County
Republican Party Constitutions, that we will not endorse one
Republican over another in a contested partisan primary without a vote
of the Executive Committee.
We are fortunate that in the race for Leon County Republican State
Committeeman we have three very good candidates. The other two
candidates also deserve your consideration. Adam Babington is our
current Treasurer for the Local Republican Party having been elected
by you in 2004 and has worked hard for many Local Republican
Candidates. Jeff Howell was a Vice-Chairman of the Local Republican
Party from 2000 to 2002 and has also worked hard for Local Republican
Candidates.
All three candidates deserve your careful consideration, and I ask
that you do not cast your vote solely on the basis of an endorsemt by
the State Party.
You will have an opportunity to hear from each of the candidates on
"The Morning Show" with Preston Scott this coming Monday, August 25th between 7 and 9am on your radio at 100.7 FM, WFLA.
Listen, and decide for yourself. Vote for the person who you feel has
and will support the development of Our Republican Party at the local
level.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this situation. I
appreciate your time and consideration of this important issue for our
party.
Thank you,
Dan Abel
Chairman
ANWR...The Real Picture, The Real Story
Friday 08-22-2008 8:05am ET
This is one of those topics that is a bit nauseating...the libs want you to think that this spot of desolate wasteland is some idyllic paradise for creatures who like it cold. It's not and U.S. Representative Marsha Blackburn just saw it for herself. She writes: "I really thought I would come back from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with some pretty good pictures of, well, wildlife. To hear the environmentalists talk about it, ANWR is a pristine landscape filled with mountains, trees, and creatures huddled together for safety on their tiny tiny refuge. Imagine how stunned I was to discover, upon landing, that I was in a very different place. “Surface of the moon” comes to mind.
What I found was a vast coastal flat almost the size of my home state of Tennessee. This refuge was taken from the local population by the Federal Government in the 60s. At the time, residents were promised a 2,000 acre plot they could develop for energy purposes. Those 2,000 acres- 10% of the size of a suburb of Nashville – are the issue at hand.
We are talking about an area with so much potential energy that residents actually cut out slabs of oil rich sand for use in heating their homes. I suppose they could cut down trees if they wanted to, but the nearest forest is 100 miles away.
Bottom line: the environmentalists concocted a misinformation campaign about this landscape and perpetuated a fundamentally unfair policy. It is unfair to the people who live in Northern Alaska and it is unfair to an American economy in desperate need of energy solutions.
What the government has done is seize a vast tract of land in exchange for a small plot for energy development. Then, with the help of environmentalists, they bound that small plot up in so many regulations and litigation threats that exploitation there is nearly impossible.
Drilling in ANWR would mean as many as 750,000 new jobs for the region. Jobs that could, and will, go to other oil producing countries like Russia, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia if American policy does not change. In light of their rhetoric about exporting good jobs, I find Democrat intractability on ANWR to be the height of hypocrisy. They will criticize American corporations for exporting jobs to other free markets while they blithely perpetuate a policy that drives hundreds of thousands of jobs to hostile countries.
It is a policy that is hurting Americans when they can afford it least. The Democrat imposed restrictions on energy have already had an effect on the price at the pump. It is an effect each of us knows all too well.
In my home state, these policies created another real and dramatic price increase for Tennessee families. This week, the Tennessee Valley Authority, an agency designed to provide affordable power, announced that natural gas and coal prices are forcing it to raise rates by 20%. This is a country rich in both resources. That TVA is finding energy resources hard to come by is further indication that Democrat energy policy is misguided.
This country desperately needs an “all of the above” energy solution. It has to include exploitation of all of our resources; including drilling in ANWR. It must encompass clean coal and natural gas investments. It must reward conservation and efficiency where it can be achieved. My colleagues and I have put forward reasonable legislation that will achieve all of these goals. We are ready to vote today, all we need is for Speaker Pelosi to bring her colleagues back to town."
The rest of the story...
Monday 08-18-2008 5:31pm ET
With apologies to Paul Harvey what follows is, at the very least, some of the rest of the story about the Democrat Party. The article comes courtesy of the Wall Street Journal. It is eye-popping because it goes counter to what many of you have always believed and been told about the party. Read and, please, check out the veracity of the info presented. The Wall Street Journal
FEDERATION FEATURE
The Democrats' Missing History
By JEFFREY LORD
August 13, 2008
As Democrats prepare to nominate Sen. Barack Obama to be the first black president, the Democratic National Committee and its chairman, Howard Dean, have whitewashed the party's horrific and lengthy record of racism. The omission is in the section of the DNC Web site that describes the party's history. The missing history raises the obvious question of whether the Democrats, unable or simply unwilling to put their party on record as taking direct responsibility for one of the worst racial crimes of the ages, will be able to run a campaign free of the racial animosities it has regularly brought both to American presidential campaigns and American political and social life in general.
What else to make of the official party history as presented by the DNC on its Web site? It is a history so sanitized of historical reality it makes Stalin look like David McCullough.
The DNC Web site section labeled "Party History," linked here, is in fact scrubbed clean of the not-so-little dirty secret that fueled Democrats' political successes for over a century and a half and made American life a hell on earth for black Americans. Literally, the DNC official history, which begins with the creation of the party in 1800, gets to the creation of the DNC itself in 1848 and then--poof!--the next sentence says: "As the 19th Century came to a close, the American electorate changed more and more rapidly." It quickly heads into a riff on poor immigrants coming to America.
In a stroke, 52 years of Democratic history vanishes. Disappeared faster than the truth in the Clinton administration. Why would this be? Allow me to sketch in a few facts from those missing 52 years. For that matter, lets add in the facts from the party history before and after those 52 years, since they aren't mentioned by the Democrats' National Committee either.
* * * So what's missing?
• There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860.
• There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861
• There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948.
• There is no reference to "Jim Crow" as in "Jim Crow laws," nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC's missing years. These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the "whites only" front section of a bus, the "whites only" designation the direct result of Democrats.
• There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party." Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."
• There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.
• There is no reference to the fact that Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln's ticket in 1864. The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.
• There is no reference to the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.
• There is no reference to the Democrats' 1904 platform, which devotes a section to "Sectional and Racial Agitation," claiming the GOP's protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to "revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country," which in turn "means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed."
• There is no reference to four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount. By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address "Rights of the Negro" (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks "wards of the state."
• There is no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the "Klanbake." The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright. To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention. Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.
• There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.
• There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson's New Freedom and FDR's New Deal. There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965. Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.
• There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the "nay" vote in the Senate came from Democrats. Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore.
• Last but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact--yes indeed--a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.
Reading the DNC's official "Party History" of the Democrats and the race issue and civil rights is not unlike reading "In Through the Looking Glass": " 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.' "
Here's this line from the DNC: "With the election of Harry Truman, Democrats began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race . . ." Truman, of course, was elected in 1948, and to his great credit he did in fact, along with then-Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey, begin to push the Democrats towards a pro-civil-rights stance. This culminated in the passage of the 1960s civil rights laws--legislation that redid what had been done by Republicans a hundred years earlier but undone by the Democrats' support for segregation. But the notion that "Democrats began to bring down the final barriers of race" raises the obvious questions. What were these barriers doing there in the first place? And who exactly was responsible for creating them?
* * * AS IF TO CONFIRM the "Who, me?" racial psychology behind the DNC Web site, Nancy Pelosi's Democrats passed a House resolution on July 29 sponsored by Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen. The resolution, passed by voice vote, concludes this way: Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) acknowledges that slavery is incompatible with the basic founding principles recognized in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal; (2) acknowledges the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow; (3) apologizes to African Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow; and (4) expresses its commitment to rectify the lingering consequences of the misdeeds committed against African Americans under slavery and Jim Crow and to stop the occurrence of human rights violations in the future. What word is missing here?
You got it. The word "Democrat." Never mentioned anywhere. As with the DNC website, all these terrible things--somehow, apparently, it seems, so they keep hearing--happened. Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Cohen and their fellow House Democrats just can't understand how. But, you know, whatever. They are sorry. Really.
Are they? Let's take them up on this.
After all those Democratic platforms and conventions that championed slavery and segregation, what do you think the chances are they will use the occasion of Mr. Obama's nomination to have the Democratic platform formally apologize for the active, frequently violent and decidedly official support of the Democratic Party for slavery, segregation, lynching, the Ku Klux Klan and all the rest?
Better yet, do you think they'll pass a resolution promising to use the funds raised from all those Jefferson-Jackson Day fundraisers to pay reparations for slavery? (Did I mention that while the DNC discusses party co-founders Jefferson and Jackson, it neglects to mention that between them the two owned an estimated 360 slaves?)
Will the NAACP and other groups seeking reparations from nongovernment entities for their role in supporting slavery (companies like Aetna, Wachovia and Chase along with educational institutions like Brown University) finally zero in on the prime historical mover behind some of the worst chapters in American history? Will they sue the Democrats?
The Democrats are poised to nominate a black man for president of the United States. But will they apologize for slavery? Will they start paying reparations not from tax dollars but their own dollars for what they have done?
Do they have the guts to publicly admit what serious history records of their deeds? Are they capable of running a campaign without playing the race card as they have played it for the better part of two centuries? Can they even escape the race psychology that has indelibly branded them as America's Party of Race?
Or, when it comes to their own responsibility for race relations in America, will they order up more of what, under the circumstances, is a very appropriate word for the DNC website?
Whitewash.
Mr. Lord is creator, co-founder and CEO of , a conservative video site. A Reagan White House political director and author, he writes from Pennsylvania.
E-mail on the Florida PBA vs. Ed Depuy
Thursday 08-14-2008 8:34pm ET
On Thursday's show, we visited with not just Leon County Commissioner Ed Depuy, but with two representatives of the Florida Police Benevolence Association. You can go TMS page and listen to both interviews. It was fiesty.
I got forwarded to me a note from a listener that you may find interesting:
"THE POLITICAL SPIN
It is very embarrassing , to say the least, to listen to the propaganda and political spin coming from the Police Benevolent Association. Especially when they imply in their ads, flyers and commercials that they represent and are the voice of all law enforcement in Tallahassee / Leon County. I assure you that they are not. The primary responsibility of the PBA lies in the betterment of their members (all their members not just a select few) and the law enforcement and corrections profession as a whole (all law enforcement and corrections). Their means to achieve these goals, as stated on their website, is to have a "strong effective political voice" and to " represent its members through aggressive political activity". The PBA seems to forget one major function of law enforcement,corrections or any other government employee. We are public servants. This means we serve the public, all the public, not just the ones who agree with us or are on our side. To fight an issue is one thing but to personally attack people and try everything their money can buy to ruin a person is just not what our professions represent or stands for. It is just wrong. It is very contrary to the oath we take. In politics, when one attacks a person not an issue, it usually means the opposite of what they have to say and their attack can not hold credibility on the facts. The attacks against Sheriff Campbell and Commissioner Depuy are just propaganda and political spin. If the PBA were truly concerned about improvements in law enforcement and corrections and the professions as a whole, then why would they attack two people who have done so much for law enforcement and corrections.
Please do not take my word for it. Investigate for yourselves and see how Commissioner Depuy and Sheriff Campbell voted for and fought to obtain better conditions for the people in this community who are working in these professions. Before one throws stones from a glass house and talks about ethics or implies corruption and that things are being done for personal gain, maybe one should look at the relationship between the old administration at a certain local police department and the executive board of the local PBA. Then again, maybe it is normal or just a coincidence that the large majority of the promotions in the agency are handed to executive board members of the PBA and sometimes, depending on how high you sit on that executive board, multiple promotions in a very short period of time. If you are against consolidation, a decision that should be left up to the people we work for, the people of this community, then fight consolidation. continuedDo not use your money to disgrace the oath I took and uphold. There are many that believe consolidated under the right conditions we could better serve the public. Oh, and when you come after me, as you have done in the past, keep a few things in mind. I am a fellow law enforcement officer who spent 9 years as a dues paying, very active member of your local chapter before you put us in trusteeship for voicing our opinion. I have also spent 20 years fighting for the betterment of this profession, so please stick to the issues. It is not personal.
John Beeman
President, Tallahassee Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 162"
|
© 2008