Friday, October 30, 2009
Direct quote from John Holdren's book "Ecoscience" pg 837:
To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.
Note also that the "usual suspects" are utilized by leftists here. The general welfare and interstate commerce clauses are cited, as well as the 14th Amendment. They're often used as end-runs around the Constitution.
The general welfare clause is limited by the enumerated powers that follow - otherwise the Constitution would just say "govt. can do whatever means well".
The interstate commerce clause, was intended to allow the federal govt. to prevent individual states from interfering with commerce. For example, if a good was being sold and shipped from Georgia to North Carolina and South Carolina chose to tax it along the way, the federal govt. could step in to ensure that commerce was protected.
I fail to see how "equal protection" includes forced abortions and sterilization, but I'm not a liberal advocating what amounts to genocide to "save the planet".
From page 838:
Individual rights. Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the "right responsibly to choose" the number and spacing of children (our emphasis).
"Our emphasis" is Holdren & Ehrlich's.
Consider that first sentence: "Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction." Really?
The argument for abortion is that it's a woman's right to her own body. The argument against is that the fetus is a human life, and therefore deserving of equal protection under the law.
The argument here is that the woman has no right to her own body against the govt's power to murder its citizens, and the fetus has no right to exist against the power of the govt.
For once, pro-choicers and pro-lifers should have something to fundamentally agree on.
More from 838:
It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
There's quite a bit more at Zombie's blog. I direct you readers to read it there - as s/he went to the trouble of scanning pages of the book to show you exactly what was written. You can look at it in context, and read full quotes.
The man spent a lot of time seriously deliberating how to get around the Constitution to start sterilizing you and me. We're an overpopulated animal on the planet to him.
Is this the kind of man you want as the advisor and regulator on science policy? Because he's the Science Czar you have.
Much like Levar Burton on Reading Rainbow would say: "Don't take my word for it."
Another collection of info on John Holdren can be found here, including a video of Holdren at an event advocating zero-growth:
Now, why is all of this terrifying? Well, according to the leftist propaganda site Media Matters, which is funded and supported by major leftist groups, this is all smear and taken out of context.
Except you can go and read it in context. All of it.
The man's written a blueprint of how he thinks - everything from advocating forced sterilization of women to releasing sterilizing chemicals in the water supply to a global regime to mandate the population.
May as well just get these ready:
If any one of us - you, me, JBH, any member of your family, your friends, your boss or your teacher - were to write a 900-page scholarly treatise on how a certain race needed to be exterminated, we'd probably have difficulty getting a government job. If your name were attached to "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment and Eskimos", we'd be done for. You couldn't advocate extermination of a race. Sure, Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright, who married he and his wife, can say vile things about "the JOOOOOS", and that's okay. But were he to actually write a 900 page book on how the Danes must be sterilized by poisoning their drinking water, he probably would've encountered some difficulty.
John Holdren escapes this by being in academia. Academia is notable for being insulated from the real world, as academics are funded by grants and free money, where all they have to do is talk to earn a living. Their ideas are tossed around, and are mostly meaningless, and they're insulated from the effects of their nonsensical ideas due to being subsidized by alumni and those seeking tax breaks on their grants; and of course by govt. grants that never have any strings attached. Also of note, when discussing something in great detail that doesn't matter one whit, folks will use the phrase "It's all academic anyway" - saying that it's a meaningless discussion with zero effect on reality or decisionmaking.
But when these eerily progressive ideas get out, they rapidly metastasize into something far worse. The "academic" ideas of phrenology and eugenics back in the 1800s and 1900s led to the conclusion that there were "superior races" and led to continued injustice against blacks in the US, who were considered subhuman by "scientists" like John Holdren. These crackpot theories dreamed up by men of letters led to entire schools of racial purity in Europe, and beyond the murder of 6-12 million and a war that killed millions more, there were also the forced abortions and sterilizations of "undesirables."
John Holdren, like many leftist tyrants, believes in equality. All races are equally worthless to him - and he believes in egalitarian misery.
His statements of a shrinking world and Malthusian overpopulation are from the world of a zero-sum mindset. There are only so many resources and they must be divided equally, so says he - to the point that growth cannot be sustained and populations must be culled to manage resources.
Mankind are not deer on a hunting ranch or cows on a feed lot. This ignores the free market, where the individual has limitless capacity to produce and benefit everyone else in the system as well. The only limits on resources available for production (or consumption) are those placed by government.
Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens. The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?
Go and read it all.
A while back I got into a discussion with someone over government health care. I was in the midst of reading a lot about government control of people's lives, and rather than bring up how rationing of resources results in poorer care, I mentioned the power aspect of it. You can have "know what's best for you" monsters in charge with government-run health care, and that of itself is terrifying.
We now have one such monster as science czar.
The main problem is one that is endemic on the left - it's a worldview that sees life as a zero-sum game. It sees overpopulation as a problem and children as a punishment -
- and the world as "lifeboat" with fixed resources.
This cynical, cold worldview is one that allows leftist/statist/collectivists to believe that they are best to be in charge because they should distribute the resources. The cynic among them is watching out for himself and putting himself in a position of power, and the do-gooder believes himself above the masses and in need of the indulgences he takes by being in power as necessary for the "greater good". Both of them concur that they are more important than "the masses" and thus they should dictate how the world will run.
But murdering millions is of course, for the greater good - according to such masters of men.
Reality check, folks: this shit is real. We have a man who's entirely similar to the mass-murdering supervillains in both Tom Clancy's novel "Rainbow Six", who seek to obliterate humanity (except for themselves) for the good of the planet, and the water-poisoning semi-spoof supervillains of "The Tuxedo".
The difference is that John Holdren is a real person in a real position of power to really impact your life (or the termination thereof) through his mandates. He's already looked for end runs around the rule of law to get away with it so that he can't be punished.
Everyone everywhere who's ever been the victim of this kind of madman has said "it can't happen here". Then when it happens, "there's nothing we can do about it."
Spread the word. Raise your voice. Get this man and all his enablers, supporters, and his appointers removed from any office of power.
I don't want to be saying "I told you so" and wandering the wasteland looking for gasoline for my Pursuit Special.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Anita Dunn's proclamation came in a speech to a group of high school seniors, "...two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa. See for yourself below:
She goes on to say that he is one of the two people she turns to most. She uses both Mao and Mother Teresea both being advocates of being able to make choices for one's self. Mao Zedong was a demagogue who enforced his views at the barrel of a gun (more on that later) and didn't give a whole lot of choice to his opponents politically. So, to use him as a proponent of having individual choice doesn't make a lot of sense.
It gets better....
Ron Bloom, the "Manufacturing Czar" is on the record for saying things like:
"Generally speaking we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense."
and things like:
"We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults only, no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend, you should get a dog."
So, for our beloved manufacturing czar (where's the jobs by the way) political power is enforced by the barrel of a gun, just like Chairman Mao used to do. If you think you can't believe what your seeing watch here:
It would see to me and to most others that there is a "Mao" infatuation at the White House. Well what have they shown us so far? They have shown us it is alright to get involved in the private sector by nationalizing banks, General Motors, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, by attacking dissent by attempting to alienate Fox news. Here is what makes it OK to do all of these things, its their choice, just like it was Mao's choice. Its their choice to politically strong arm corporations, news services and the citizens of the United States, and if necessary, according to the manufacturing czar they will use the barrel of a gun to do it just like their hero, Mao Zedong did. They don't believe in the individualism and personal freedom that was set into the Constitution written by Founding Fathers, they believe it is the supremacy and power of the federal government to regulate and provide for the citizenry that matters. To them government "choice" is the imperative, not your individual freedoms.
If the thought, "What would Mao do?" is the mindset at the White House it is going to be a rough 3 more years. Mao style politics have the FCC working on regulating the Internet and reimposing a newer, stricter version of the fairness doctrine or even raising the possibility of bringing the news media under federal control (see Czar Wars Episode 2, they sure wish that would happen).
Mao style politics have Fox News under the gun politically because they air news stories that are not commensurate with the agenda of the Maoist-in-Chief. Mao style politics have tremendous amounts of political pressure falling on other news services to not disseminate news stories that originate with Fox News. Mao style politics are responsible for grass roots, pro-constitution organizations being labeled as racist, astorturf, birthers, and tenthers.
As a nation and free people we need to ask, "What would the Founding Fathers do?" We need to do those things, we need to get back to the basics of the constitution, return the federal government back to its constitutional limits, elect people of integrity and honor to office, and rediscover our moral compass. Only then can we can America back on its feet and reestablish ourselves and the leader of the world.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Image via WikipediaOur most daunting task to date is going to be giving you all the information when it comes to Mr. Cass Sunstein, one of the few "Czars" who has been confirmed by the senate. From proposing a 2nd bill of rights to advocating that our pets are entitled to representation, Mr. Sunstein offers us a look of what it means to truly be out of touch with reality.
Mr. Sunstein is a "constitutional" (I use the term loosely) lawyer. He is on record for the following statements made either in print or in the media:
On terminal patients: "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission.... Though it may sound grotesque, routine removal is not impossible to defend.... In theory, it would save lives, and it would do so without intruding on anyone who has any prospect for life."
My question is since when does anything having to do with my body belong to the state? If I want to be a donor that is all fine and good, after I am dead take what you need. If I am still breathing hands off the scalpel and keep trying to save my life.
Sunstein is also on record for saying things like:
"(the) socialist movement (never took hold because of the)...."smaller and weaker political left or lack of enthusiasm for redistributive programs."
No kidding this is America.
"If the United States agrees to participate in a climate change agreement on terms that are not in the nation's interest, but that help the world as a whole, there would be no reason for complaint, certainly if such participation is more helpful to poor nations than conventional foreign-aid alternatives."
Again this is America we don't believe in this type of thinking. Any charity we give comes from donations to non-profits or volunteering our time.
Sunstein also believes:
"The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics)...."
So every white man or woman out there is a racist and that is why we do not want socialism? Are you serious? He also lends support to communism by stating:
"During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care, and a social minimum.... I think this debate was unhelpful; it is most plausible to see the two sets of rights as mutually reinforcing, not antagonistic."
Really, so how do we pay enough taxes to ensure everyone has a home, a job, health care, a decent wage? Also the Soviets weren't big on free speech nor religion because they wanted to replace religion that involves the soul with a religion that involves the state, and to accomplish that they could not afford to have people professing their beliefs freely so they also heavily suppressed freedom of speech.
Sunstein has also proposed a 2nd Bill of rights which entitles the following:
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation" -- Ok. What if I don't have the proper skill set or intelligence to be of use?
"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation." -- Define adequate are we talking Latrell Sprewell ( the Minnesota Timberwolves offered Sprewell a 3-year, $21 million contract extension, substantially less than what his then-current contract paid him. Insulted, he publicly vented his outrage, declaring, "I have a family to feed.") adequate? Or are we talking Jed Clampett before he discovered oil?
"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living." -- Again please define "decent living" are we talking barely surviving or living in style? Who do we fund it?
"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad." -- In the free market business rise and fall based on the decisions of that leadership. We have no business leveling the playing field. If a person can corner the market by supplying a better product at a cheaper price, more power to him.
"The right of every family to a decent home." -- Aren't we in trouble from this right now? Isn't the federal government in charge of making loans through Freddie and Fannie? --Wasn't that part of Barney Frank's progressive agenda?
"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health." -- Heath care is a service, it is not a right. If you can't afford it, consider changing your life style or by getting a better job.
"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment." -- What does this entail? Don't we already have Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? Does it mean that I have the right to protection from defecating on myself when I am 100 years old?
"The right to a good education." -- This one is a tough one to argue but in this day and age there are already several programs that help people go to university and get a degree. Does it really need to be legislated?
So after taking all of that in it is fairly clear that government is supposed to control and decide all the issues of your life. Do you trust them to do a good job if the 2nd Bill of Rights gets implemented? I don't.
Cass also has interesting views on abortion like:
"I have argued that the Constitution ... forbids government from refusing to pay the expenses of abortion in cases of rape or incest, at least if government pays for childbirth in such cases.... There would be no tension with the establishment clause if people with religious or other objections were forced to pay for that procedure (abortion). Indeed, taxpayers are often forced to pay for things – national defense, welfare, certain forms of art, and others – to which they have powerful moral and even religious objections."
So, not only does he espouse federal funding of murdering unborn children but he expects the average citizen to be forced to help pay for it.
He is also a fan of dismantling free speech:
"purely commercial (television) stations (should) provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming.... worthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well."
"compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view.... It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the 'freedom of speech,'
Really, so Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and other would be forced to present "both" sides of the issue or be forced off the air. If they chose to comply and couldn't find an "opposing" viewpoint then they would be unable to air the story or segment. How do you like that for freedom of speech?
Last and possibly the most interesting is his views on animals and their "interest:"
"If we focus on suffering, as I believe that we should, it is not necessarily impermissible to kill animals and use them for food; but it is entirely impermissible to be indifferent to their interests while they are alive. So too for other animals in farms, even or perhaps especially if they are being used for the benefit of human beings."
While I have never advocated the mistreatment of animals do they deserve legal representation? Sunstein thinks so:
“We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are
persons, or that they are not property. A state could certainly confer rights on a pristine area, or a painting, and allow people to bring suit on its behalf, without therefore saying that that area and that painting may not be owned. It might, in these circumstances, seem puzzling that so many people are focusing on the question of whether animals are property. We could retain the idea of property but also give animals far more protection against injury or neglect of their interests.”
Wow, I mean wow, really? So how would my dog, if she became distraught because I only give her a cup of dry dog food instead of a can of "wet" dog food retain that lawyer?
If your interested in finding out more on Cass Sunstein here is a PDF file full of quotes.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
So we have a "diversity" Czar who thinks Hugo Chavez is a great guy, and thinks that it is great that Chavez has a strangle hold on the news media within Venezuela. Mr. Lloyd makes it clear that he supports an avowed communist's policies towards the news media.
Mr. Lloyd also has several connections throughout the United States in the academia and through the organization The Free Press. One of which is Robert McChesney, a self avowed Marxist, according to the Glenn Beck Program. Mr. McChesney's website summary says:
" From 2000 to 2004 he served as co-editor of Monthly Review — www.monthlyreview.org — the independent socialist magazine (my emphasis) founded by Paul Sweezy and Leo Huberman in 1949."
Mr. McChesney also is a co-founder of Freepress, a organization dedicated to:
"...working to foster public policies that promote media diversity, strengthen laws and regulations to support minority ownership, eliminate institutional biases in media content, and ensure fair and accurate representation for all communities."
Last I checked anyone with enough capital can start their own news service. I haven't spend any money on the Patriot Perspective and I have close to 160 followers now as a result of expanding this blog to free community services such as Twitter and Facebook. One of these days, if I and my contributors feel as if it would be worth it we may try to put some capital into this project of ours. The point is opportunities are out there and media tycoons aren't made overnight.
On the Glenn Beck Program, guest Seton Motley has the following to say about Robert McChesney and Mark Lloyd:
"Robert McChesney is an avowed Marxist. So when he founded an organization (The Free Press) predicated on tenets regarding Marxism and then they start having large influence and holding great sway in the development of policy for the Obama administration, I believe one should care about what McChesney has to say."
He goes on to say:
"McChesney has a very distorted view of the first amendment. He views the media marketplace in the same way that Mark Lloyd, the chief diversity officer... at the FCC views the media marketplace, meaning he doesn't like any private ownership of media. His quote with regard to the First Amendment is a little disturbing. To the extent commercial activities are given First Amendment protection, it makes the rule of capitalism look increasingly off in the political debate and government regulation. In my view progressives need to stake out a "Democratic," remember how Lloyd used "Democratic" to describe Chavez's revolution interpretation of the First Amendment and do direct battle with the Orwellian implications of the ACLU's commercialized First Amendment. So when you are to the left of the ACLU, how far from the path have you strayed?
Good question I think. Motley goes on to explain that:
"Every time they say Democratic, think Marxist because that's what they mean.... don't forget, at the FCC when Commissioner Michael Copps was acting chairman awaiting the confirmation of Genachowski, he started a notice of inquiry which is the first step in a notice of rule making at the FCC.... They want to look at top to bottom the business of radio and television and print journalism and how the government can probably play a greater role in making it into our "Democratic" process.
So the process has started it seems. Beck then makes a comment that the FCC is now looking into making regulations to protect people from "unscrupulous bloggers" Motley replies:
"Yes, that's the view that McChesney has, that Mark Lloyd has, that all of these people have, that you can't decide for yourself. You can't look at the landscape and pick and choose what you believe, what you think, what you see as true. They're going to do the choosing for you. And that's where when you start regulating bloggers, your next step is net neutrality then your next step is regulate the entire Internet...."
So we have Mark Lloyd (Diversity Czar, Hugo Chavez sympathizer), Robert McChesney (Free Press co-founder and former Marxist nmagazine editor) and Mark Lloyd's boss, Julius Genachowski (employs former free press Jen Howard as his press secretary and also a Hugo Chavez sympathizer) favor shutting down and breaking up several news agencies, independent journalist and bloggers in the name of diversity.
Never before in the history of the world has news been more plentiful. Thanks to the Internet, television, radio and printed publications a person can virtually have whatever information they are looking for at a moments notice. The current administration wants to put a strangle hold on information by nationalizing the news media outlets of the country by making them more diverse, and by diverse they mean anything that does not agree with their agenda.
As Americans, it is our duty to write, email, and visit your congressional representatives and all of your elected officials. The type of people exposed above have no business trying, "to fundamentally change America." Yet that is exactly what we are allowing them to do.
For more on Mark Lloyd use our custom google search engine.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Many times one is asked to take historical literature and put it in a modern context in how it applies today. One could argue that, if alive today, Frederick Douglass would be a conservative, leaning toward more liberties and less government tyrannies. The fighting spirit and frustration that Frederick Douglass felt lives on today and is probably best summed up in his words:
“I saw nothing without seeing it, I heard nothing without hearing it, and felt nothing without feeling it. It looked from every star, it smiled in every calm, breathed in every wind, and moved in every storm (Douglass).”
There are many passionate American citizens who feel this way. They watch, read, and discuss politics with such passion and search for resolve in what they stand against.
When Douglass wrote Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, he was “between twenty-seven and twenty-eight years old.” This was an estimate because he was never given the luxury that one might take for granted - knowing his birth date. It is interesting because his age is similar to many young Americans now who are making their names heard in society and the work force. Given the circumstances Douglass was dealt, he was still able to get on the path of productiveness at a similar age to other young adults in America back then.
An imposing question one could ask is: if Frederick Douglass was alive today he would resent the class-warfare that has spurred debates? In his narrative, he wrote about being a mulatto child of a slave owner and that “the master is frequently compelled to sell this class of his slaves out of deference to the feelings of his white wife.” Now clearly this is in the context of selling children for slaves; but is there any validity that our current administration resents a certain class of people based on their family and social connections? President Obama’s preacher and mentor have made tirades towards America and white people in his sermons (Wright). Also, in President Obama’s book he stated “I knew as well that traveling down the road to self-respect my own white blood would never recede… (Obama)”
Another modern correlation, and the only real way one could relate, may be with the paradox of having an unfit master. Where as one would not want to have a master at all but a master who is incompetent could be even worse. Frederick Douglass encountered a slave holder that he described as;
“His airs, words, and actions, were the airs, words, and actions of born slave-holders, and, being assumed, were awkward enough. He was not even a good imitator. He possessed all the disposition to deceive, but wanted the power. Having no resources within himself, he was compelled to be the copyist of many, and being such, he was forever the victim of inconsistency; and of consequence he was an object of contempt (Douglass).”
Many people feel this way about the current politicians and administration that has been inconsistent and poor imitators of a leader. The owner of Douglass marrying into the situation of owning slaves had similar inexperience to a senator who served barely a year in office becoming president.
Another source of Frederick Douglass’s contempt was the hypocrisy of the Southern slaveholders. They used religion as a platform and justification for many of the horrible things they did. Assuming that Frederick Douglass was true to his creed one would be hard impressed to imagine him approving of “In God We Trust” removed from silver dollar coins. Yes, people who lean to the left are religious, but conservation of religion is usually more of a right-wing stance.
Many Americans hoped that the President’s stance on being a Christian would make him more morally sensitive to religious issues. This is just like Frederick Douglass, who “hope(d) that his conversion would lead him to emancipate his slaves, and that, if he did not do this, it would, at any rate, make him more kind and humane (Douglass).” In both cases one could argue that there is not enough Christian conservatism to meet the liking of Frederick Douglass.
Many people feel that politicians marginalize minorities into categories and usually get frustrated when minorities step outside those lines. Recently the leader of the Black Chamber of Commerce spoke out against Senator Barbara Boxer and said “She loves poor black people in their place (Alford).” In comparison, Frederick Douglass spoke of his master’s ideology towards slaves when he said,
"If you teach that nigger [speaking of myself (Douglas)] how to read, there would be no keeping him. It would forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master. As to himself, it could do him no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and unhappy (Douglass)."
One could say this is a prime example of some politicians’ mindsets when they assume they know what is best for the people they represent. The marginalizing lies in that when a black person or Hispanic has more conservative ideals, they are often chastised and challenged by other minorities in their communities. In comparison, Alford was commenting on Senator Barbara Boxer’s attempt to pit NCAAP against the Black Chamber of Commerce and how it was like in the south white plantation owners would pit one black preacher against the other (Alford).
The comparisons go on and on because under a socialist country, which is where many believe the United States is headed, it needs its citizens to be reliant on the government to work properly, much as a slave owner needs the slaves to rely on him or her. There are many people that resist the tyranny that can take away certain liberties and freedoms. The quote from Douglass that says, “ In learning to read, I owe almost as much to the bitter opposition of my master, as to the kindly aid of my mistress (Douglass),” Could be a metaphor for Americans who resist ruling powers, but use it’s loopholes of law as its “mistress of aid.”
Douglass envied other slaves who did not have the knowledge of the persecution of which the establishment of slavery was made. He wished at times that he did not know all that he knew because it consumed him. In this envy he still felt it upon himself to spread the knowledge of the truth because it was important that other slaves knew of the tyranny involved.
Many people under the George W. Bush administration felt purpose against the administration and used their voice and stood together to make a change. Americans voted on a new ruler but discovered that there was not more freedom - and some think less freedom. The bickering between Republicans and Democrats is similar to two slaves debating which slave master is better. Douglass realized that the real issue was the establishment of slavery as some Americans believe that government is becoming an establishment of tyranny.
The spirit and emotion that Douglass portrayed is truly inspiring to read. Douglass was a proud man, he knew the best master is being ones “own master (Douglass).” It is hard to fathom that Douglass would tolerate being overly taxed when he showed outrage in this passage from his book:
“I was compelled to deliver every cent of that money to Master Hugh. And why? Not because he earned it,--not because he had any hand in earning it,--not because I owed it to him,--nor because he possessed the slightest shadow of a right to it; but solely because he had the power to compel me to give it up (Douglass).”
Ultimately, perhaps all Americans will, sooner or later, value hard work and the liberty and freedom that is bestowed upon the individual. Probably no one put it better than Frederick Douglas himself:
“Hard work for me; but I went at it with a glad heart and a willing hand. I was now my own master. It was a happy moment, the rapture of which can be understood only by those who have been slaves. It was the first work, the reward of which was to be entirely my own. There was no Master Hugh standing ready, the moment I earned the money, to rob me of it. I worked that day with a pleasure I had never before experienced.”
Alford, Harry. The Factor with Bill O'Reily Bill O'reily. 20 July 2009.
Douglass, Fredrick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. NY: The Anti-Slavery Office, 1845.
Obama, Barack. Dreams from My Father. New York: Random House, 2004.
Wright, Reverend. Chicago, 5 January 2006.