Read this eye opening story. http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/democratic_racism/2008/02/25/75308.htmlRace has nothing to do with one's character. Judge not one by the color of his skin but by their actions. The slave owners that kept our ancestors in bondage and slavery were DEMOCRATS and the man who signed the Declaration Proclamation was Abe Lincoln a Republican and Martin Luther King who gave his life so every man, woman, and child could live in peace and harmony together was a Republican also. The republican as proved through out history has fought for the black man but what have the democrats done for you lately? Vote with your heart and not by the color of a man's skin. There is a great black man or woman out there could can lead the country to greatness and make history for us all but Barrack Obama is not him. Would MLK associate with the likes of Ayers, Wright and Fahrakhan? Lord no. MLK was for peace and justice and died bringing his message to the masses to have his dream destroyed by Obama. Obama is tearing that dream apart and using race when MLK was trying to bring the races togther. You know the saying what would Jesus do? Well what about what would Martin Luther do? They both made the greatest sacrifice for us all and people forget this when they hear Obama speak and think that there will be a black man in the White House and he'll work for you. He's doing this for himself a power trip, not for you.

What would honest Abe think of today's Republican party? Here's a letter (scroll down to #4) supposedly written by Lincoln. If you prefer, the letter is in the extended part of this post.   Read More »

From JP Fenyo:

The Answer Is Obvious

by Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo, Philosopher.

My friends and others have been asking me lately; why didn't Dodd and Biden stick around a little longer, why did they suddenly pull out of the race??

The answer to this question is obvious!

Think about it!

We Democrats need to insure a victory in this year's Presidential Elections and win back The White House, at any reasonable costs!

Otherwise America, and thus the whole wide world, will be at risk of self-destruction!

And, given a certain Senator's well-deserved but almost totally unnexpected victory, why would the two most responsible, experienced and wise elders of The Democratic Party, Dodd and Biden, risk having to turn ugly on such a nice person?? And thereby risk discouraging both swing voters and relatively committed Democrats by inadvertently being dragged into a nasty and ugly confrontation, that can be ignited and manipulated by a greedy corporate-sector-biased American mass news media monster???

Any of us who are wise enough would do the same!

But, one may then ask, what of Senator Clinton and Edwards? Are they unwise and too greedy to care for the country's and world's best interests??

In the case of Senator Clinton the answer is obvious: at the very least, as a potential first female President, she can avoid being perceived as too nasty and avoid being manipulated to that extent by the commercial mass news media monstrosity, at least to the extent that would seriously harm the image of the party itself, and she is, like it or not, a good second option, should somehow things not work for the current front-runner! One might even conclude that this whole Shebang is just a well-orchestrated Kabuki Play, and that it is meant to give either a Non-'White' person a chance, a woman a chance and a Hispanic a voice, but ultimately hopes for the first option!

In a sense the current front-runner would not be perceived as the good guy and great candidate he is were it not for at least some contrast candidates, like Senator Clinton and Edwards!

The appearance of two 'white' elder Democrats, who were not able to end up in second or even third place, seeming to attack and harm the front-runner would actually have done great harm to The Democratic Party, would certainly have put winning The White House at risk, and would thus have risked leaving the door open to those who would then totally devastate America and world civilization!

Fine, but what about Edwards?

The answer is simple: Edwards is a good contrast piece in what will now, for the most part, be a three-way competition, in that he does not have the air appearance of someone from the Old Club, he definitely would make a very good running mate to the front-runner, be that either of the two Senators!

And, last but not least, I was always right about Senator Clinton; she has the unfortunate appearance of being part of the SAMO! (SAMO? If you had been, as I was fortunate enough to be, a relatively friendly acquaintance of Jean-Michel Basquiat then you too would know what that means!).
Now, don't get me wrong; I personally think that that image problem is unfair towards Senator Clinton, even though on issues of mannerisms, style and even on some issues of substance, she certainly could use some good free advice, which I would gladly offer her, were it not for the fact that I have joined with George Soros in backing the NOT-SAMO candidate: Senator Barack "Lincoln-Roosevelt" Obama!

So, there it is!

As for my support for Biden: I still think he, with Obama as his VP, would have been the most Presidential President in a long time, as Senator Biden is truly "the most Presidential candidate of them all...by far" (Quoted as saying this to Senator Biden in person at the 2007 DNC Winter Meeting).

But he did the right thing in this situation!

Had he come first, second or even third place in Iowa; then the dynamics would have been quite different.

At this point logic dictates that it will be an Obama-Edwards-2008 success ticket! With Biden, Richardson, Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel and others being considered for significant Cabinet positions!

I also foresee a significant role for the great, one and only, Robert Bernard Reich, maybe as a repeat Labor Secretary! A very wise and important decision on the part of President Obama!

As for the so-called Republicans running: please..! A really bad joke and definitely SAMO!

Now as a disclaimer, this is not an attempt to slander any candidate. This is just something I wanted to point out because I found this trend to go against conventional wisdom.

Also, I'd like to add that I do respect all candidates, and what they've been able to accomplish for the country.   Read More »

Just a reminder that the LDTC will be meeting this Sunday at 7PM at the Senior Center in Lincoln.

Thanks, Pat

Thanks to the Hard work of Jim Jahnz and the other council people, a victory has been won for the group home on Southwich Drive! From the projo: "amilies of several adults with severe retardation won a reprieve today. The families are fighting an effort to close their Lincoln group home. The two sides in the matter emerged from a meeting in Superior Court Judge Netti C. Vogel's chambers with an agreement that the home will remain open while the families and their lawyer have a grievance heard by the state Department of Mental Health, Retardation and Hospitals. Today's developments do not yet guarantee the Lincoln home will stay open, but the lawyer for the families cast it as a win. The adults have lived together for 25 years in the same group home in Lincoln and don't want to be moved to another home in Smithfield. The judge's message was there is an appeal process, go through it and see what the process produces before closing the home." See the how story HERE

How could the Republican Party that had fought the bloodiest war in American history against southern states rights secessionists become the enemy of all they stood for? How could the solid Democratic South become the solid Republican South?

Well it began in earnest with the election of 1912. Former president Teddy Roosevelt decided to run for president again because Taft*, Roosevelt's hand picked successor, had become a stooge for the powerful big business interests** in the Republican Party. Although Roosevelt won every primary that year, a back room deal gave the Republican nomination to Taft. The U.S. Progressive Party (AKA Bull Moose Party) was formed to support Roosevelt's candidacy in 1912 and many Republicans followed Teddy. Wilson (D) won the 1912 election, Teddy Roosevelt (P) finished second and Howard Taft (R) finished a distant third.

After the 1912 election, what was left of the Republican Party was dominated from top to bottom by Big Business. The Progressive Party dissolved soon after the election and these disgruntled Republicans eventually migrated to the Democratic Party. This resulted in a Democratic Party comprised of Southern states rights (code for segregationists) conservatives and progressive ex-Republicans; strange bedfellows indeed.

The decimated Republican Party was left powerless in the 30s, 40s and early 50s. The impotent Republicans were forced to stand by while Roosevelt created the New Deal, Social Security and was elected 4 times. Truman followed and gave the Party of Lincoln another shove toward oblivion by desegregating the Armed Forces of the United States in 1947.

Outraged states rights advocates (bigots) left the Democratic Party in droves and with Strom Thurman as their leader formed the States Rights Party (AKA Dixiecrats). Thurman ran for president as the States Rights Party candidate in 1948. When this campaign ended in failure, the big business Republicans saw an opportunity and began actively recruiting these disaffected Democrats.

The big business Republicans, many of whom supported the Nazis and financed Hitler, felt much more comfortable with the southern segregationists than they ever did with the former progressive Republicans. They also knew that the lack of education among these Dixiecrats would make them much easier to manipulate. The Party of Lincoln received its final blow in 1964, with President Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Act the Solid Democratic South inevitably became staunch Republican territory.

So there you have it. That is why Republicans now talk about states rights and why so many of them are racists and/or court that vote. The big business folks love their new easily manipulated southern friends. If you have doubts about the shift in party affiliation in the south, simply ask a Southern Republican and, depending on their age, you will find that they, their daddy or granddaddy was a Democrat.   Read More »

Thanks to everyone who came out to the first annual LDTC Earth Day event. It was a great success. Below is a story that ran in today's Pawtucket Times about our efforts.   Read More »

So Councilman Kieth Macksound has introduced a resolution and an ordinance dealing with the issue of illegal immigration. Why?

I wish I knew. but I wanted to pass along this story about the Town of Hazelton, PA, that got itself involved in the issue, now to its regret...

Link

From the self promotion department, this just in...   Read More »

Ian Donnis from the Providence Phoenix has a post on his blog about an upcoming analysis of the Governor's budget proposal....

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

RI's Politics of Rich and Poor

In a short piece to be published in this week's Phoenix, Brian C. Jones takes a look at the budget math of how Governor Carcieri has proposed taking about $15 million in state child-care subsidies from thousands of low-income families -- about the same amount of state revenue eliminated with last year's upper bracket tax cut:

This is the background: The tax break approved by the Democratic General Assembly and Republican Carcieri could help 2900 taxpayers with incomes of $225,000 and more.

My math says that 1073 resident taxpayers could save an average of nearly $11,000 this year; non-residents could average about $1600. Overall, $14.5 million would be lost in state revenues.

In contrast, the governor has just proposed saving the treasury $15.2 million by eliminating about 2400 lower-income households from child-care subsidies.

These families earn roughly $25,800 to $38,600. Because of the subsidies, they pay a just a faction of the estimated $15,000 it costs for two children in day care.

But if Carcieri�s cuts go through, I figure each family would pay an average of about $8000 more for child care.

For a class warrior, the math is disturbing: take away $15 million from working families; give the wealthy $15 million worth of tax savings.

But as I checked figures with various agencies, one state government veteran suggested I skip the beat-on-the-rich part.

This Wise One is weary of Rhode Island�s historic civil wars between ethnic groups, economic classes, and political parties.

Stick to the merits of child-care, he said.

A cornerstone of the state�s farsighted approach to welfare reform, the program helps nearly 6700 families grab the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.

Without such help, work often can�t pay.

For example, the Poverty Institute at Rhode Island College says a single mom, who has two kids and earns around $31,000, can make ends meet if she gets the subsidy.

She pays about $2,200 a year -- seven percent of her income -- for child-care. Dumped from the program, the full $15,000 child care bill will devour 50 percent of her income.

Child-care itself has grown into a healthy industry: 1037 center- and home-based facilities in 1997, compared with 1831 in 2005.

Linda Katz, the Poverty Institute�s policy director, says child-care is important to the overall economy. It provides jobs and allows others to go to work.

Meanwhile, the Wise One with whom I consulted argues: �So what if the tax cut matches the budget cut?�

The theory of the tax break is that Rhode Island�s top tax bracket drives away the rich, and the state loses their big, taxable incomes, plus jobs their companies provide.

Personally, I think it�s a preposterous theory. But I�m often wrong about such things, and if the proponents are right, the state will be a big winner.

Meanwhile, the child-care program stands on its own. It deserves support, as do the heroic families making their way in the brutal economy of the 21st Century.

I lived for a long while in Illinois, and people in Illinois tend to be rather proud of Abraham Lincoln. So an old friend from Chicago sent me a link to a website that features transcripts of all the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

I read the dialogue of one debate that took place in Ottawa, Illinois. Ottawa was a small town back then, and it still is today. It's safe to say that nothing of such great national moment has happened in Ottawa since.   Read More »