The 13th Amendment Freedom Week Movement

Comment

Comment by Kariem A. Haqq on November 18, 2009 at 1:41pm

Did Europeans fight for over a 100 years against Arabs, Africans and Asians to end slavery in their own countries? Do these same Arab, African and Asian decendents of today fight for freedom and do they fight against slavery? Do they even care about freedom – nationally, individually, etc.? Is celebrating freedom even important to them? What say you?

“Ironically, the anti-slavery ideology…began to develop in eighteenth century Britain, a time when the British Empire led the world in slave trading, and when the economy of most of its overseas colonies in the Western Hemisphere depended on slaves….While slavery was common to all civilizations, as well as to peoples considered uncivilized, only one civilization developed a moral revulsion against it, very late in its history – Western civilization. But the hard fact is that, for thousands of years, slavery was simply not an issue, even among the great religious thinkers or moral philosophers of civilizations around the world.

“Themselves the leading slave traders of the eighteenth century, Europeans nevertheless became, in the nineteenth century, the destroyers of slavery around the world – not just in European societies or European offshoot societies overseas, but in non-European societies as well, over the bitter opposition of Africans, Arabs, Asians, and others. Moreover, within Western civilization, the principle impetus for the abolition of slavery came first from very conservative religious activists – people who would today be called “the religious right.” “Black Rednecks and White Liberals” by Thomas Sowell, p. 115-116

Comment by Kariem A. Haqq on October 3, 2009 at 7:15am

Big Business, “Organized Crime”, and Real Prosperity
by ChaplainTommy Davis (notes) Friday, September 25, 2009 at 4:30pm

I had a fellow state to me that Republicans are for big business and don’t care about the black community. He went on to spew forth how they (the government) should tax the rich and provide tax breaks to the people at the bottom. He seemed to blame the deficient economy and the state of the black community on capitalism and the Republicans. Thus, he voted Democrat.

When street thugs rob at gunpoint to pilfer possessions from another person it is another example of misguided hoodlums who feel that they cannot ---and will not--- compete for a share in our economy. They believe that they must deprive others of their material goods in order to gain an economic advantage. Armed robbers must continue to commit crimes because their income will only resume through swindle. Lacking the intellectual capital and patience to participate in the free market, they cheat and steal from those who possess wealth.

Time after time the media reports this kind of action and it is justified by shifting the blame to a legacy of slavery, racism, fiscal predicament, or capitalism.

Political speeches about taxing the rich and redistributing their wealth are no different than a robbery that hasn’t yet turned bad. When liberal socialists go after companies who make an honest living and attempt to redistribute their wealth (communism) they are stealing. If big business fails, there are no employees to provide with a tax break because they will lack employment.

As a Republican I understand that businesses manufacture a product that consumers purchase. Therefore, a fair exchange takes place. When those consumers turn around and accuse business owners of making too much money, this is nothing short of envy and wanting to “buy” the cake, eat it, and then want your money back. Also, such folks elect government officials who will penalize companies for being successful by taxing them severely; this is nothing short of criminal ---- professional stick-ups that results in loss of capital that translates into unemployment and higher prices.

Entrepreneurs did not become wealthy by swindling citizens out of money. Companies satisfied the consumer by providing a product or service. When Henry Ford mass produced the automobile, the Ford Model T, he provided a manufactured good that pleased the world. We bought it. The Fords got rich. In the process, the company created a middle class who put in the work. In 1913 Henry Ford paid his employees at a rate of $5.00 per day which was the highest wage in manufacturing at that time! Profits were good until competition, coupled with collective bargaining agreements, entered the picture. Vehicles were priced too high and were less efficient than the competition.

Pathetically, now the government (under Democratic control) wants to borrow money from me (the taxpayer) to “invest” into companies “too big to fail”. Rather than provide me with a dividend (at least a discount), they want to sell me the product I help build. That’s like borrowing my car to burglarize my home only to turn and sell me my stuff back.

It doesn’t matter if Obama is president. The community (especially the black community) will still suffer because the problems are self inflicted. Those black folks who voted for Obama just because he’s black are racists and no different from the Southern Democrats who initiated the poll tax to keep white candidates in office and poor blacks from voting despite the possible economic advantage.

He will not “change” the 50 percent school drop-out rate among African-Americans, or the 70 percent illegitimacy rate regarding two parent households in black communities; and he will not transform the high murder rate (over 50 percent) committed by black males in this country.

If blacks do not save, there will be check cashing centers in predominantly black neighborhoods with a five dollar fee rather than commercial banks. There will be corner stores and clothing outlets rather than grocery stores and malls. If the police are too busy, Wal-Mart will never open a store within the city limits.

The same candidates who say that they will create jobs are promoting the very policies that cause businesses to lay off employees and slow production. The same candidates who are soft on crime are the same ones who “prevent” businesses from opening in certain communities.

Governments do not create jobs. Citizens generate employment by starting businesses constructing products that benefit society. They hire the labor to bring this innovation to pass. The government’s job is to supervise fair enterprise----not socialize. The proper role of supervision is to create an atmosphere for growth. This involves cutting taxes to free up reinvestment capital for business owners; improving public safely, and prohibiting business regulatory fees implemented to raise money.

Time will tell how many government robberies will bring about the fatal wound to our financial prudence. In other words: time will tell which straw will finally break the camel’s back.

Tommy Davis, A.R.E., Th.G., Th.B., DDCS
tdavis76@rochester.rr.com

Comment by Kariem A. Haqq on August 28, 2009 at 5:58pm

This was sent to me by a friend and I would like to share it with this group.

SUBMITTED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION—by anon

"Self-government' means governing yourself, It means being ungoverned or free from the government of another person or persons. If you are not your own gover-nor, then you are governed. If you are not your own master, then you are a slave. If you elect or desire to be governed, then you elect or desire to be enslaved. He who votes himself a master votes himself a slave. You yourself enslave yourself when you abandon yourself to a master. You have sold yourself to the devil and perhaps even Daniel Webster couldn't redeem you now.
The slave who votes out an old master and votes in a new one is nonetheless a slave. That a slave votes does not prove that he is free, but only that he is a voting slave. He rids himself of his old tyrant only by electing a new one. If, however, he stops voting (electing) altogether, then he rids himself of both old and new tyrants and in-stead elects to be free. If you give someone permission to command you, then that someone becomes your "comman-der-in-chief" and has that permission, power, or right only for as long as you do not retract your permission; and If you give your servant power to command you, then he is no longer your servant (but your master), and you have given yourself over to slavery.
You may well hire a supposed knowledgeable guide to conduct you through un-familiar terrain, but are you thereby obligated to follow him? Do you not rather always retain the option to withdraw from him at any point along the way and strike out on your own path? But (on the other hand) you will assuredly be bitten for giving your dog dominion over yourself; and the citizen who cannot fire the corner cop on the spot has placed himself under arrest for neglecting to defend his own liberty (from the police, the people, and other oppressors). When you hire some-one and then cannot fire him, then who's working for who? A servant, who cannot be dismissed, terminated, dis-charged - is no servant.
Are political officials, then, really your servants? Your servant should do only and exactly as you command; to be and to remain your servants? If someone is not answerable and obedient to you, then that someone is not your servant -(employ-ee, agent, solicitor, lawyer, representative, legislator, premier, chairman, presi-dent, Commandant, commissioner, commissar, Judge, teacher, policeman, etc.), but you are his servant -if you must answer to and be obedient to him.
That political, official "servant" Is a usurper and traitor who will no longer obey orders - but instead begins to give them. He is like the creature of that celebrated medical genius, Dr. Frankenstein, who (thinking to make life more pleasant for himself) unwittingly elected to create that leviathan monster who (as you well know) had the unfathomable ingratitude to leave the good doctor's laboratory in the most profound disarray.
You can vote 'em up, but you can't take 'em out (by voting) unless you vote the vote to end all votes - by ripping up the CONstitution. You will be ridding yourself of that sanctimonious legal rope around your neck, and taking the first step towards rid-ding yourself also of at least some of those bombs over your head. For your "duly elect-ed", "legal" and "official" "servants" will not obey your command to diffuse and dismantle them. So, if you really want it done; you will have to dismiss your disobedient, unfaithful and treacherous servants altogether and diff-use the bombs yourself. Indeed, "if you want anything done right (i.e. your own way), then you've got to do It yourself".
However, it is doubtful that these political terrorists (misnamed "public servants") would grant you permission to neutralize the bombs. No matter how humbly you beg, because it's these very weapons that make them such big shots (something they longed to be and crave to remain)- since it's their threatening fingers on the nuclear trig-gers (something they might rather pull than surrender).
A free man requires no permission; this alone makes him free; that's what freedom means. He who accepts per-mission is not free. The freeman becomes unfree the moment he accepts permission, permits, rights, etc. He who accepts permits or rights is subject to a permitter, and thus is not free (enslaved). The free man, on the other hand, permits himself and is the sole source of all of his "rights". He may ac-cept suggestions or advice (If he finds It profitable), but never duties, commands, permits or rights (i.e. subjection). He who keeps the commandments of another is necessarily the servant of that other.
If you voluntarily grant your "right" of self-ownership to a master, he retains it only unfit you take it back. A slave is coercively obedient to a master only so long as he can be coerced into obedience. The slave gives himself the "right" of freedom only when he overpowers or escapes from his master. He keeps his "right" of freedom only so long as he keeps his freedom - only so long as he can maintain it by fight-ing off would-be masters. The mom-ent he is overpowered he loses (forfeits) his "right" of freedom for lacking the power to keep it. Moral: No power-no "right"; be-cause "right" is power. No one can give you your "rights"; you have to take them -- you have to give them to yourself...or you won't have any. Others will always try to curtail your prerogatives -- i.e. to expand their own. Your power is your freedom's limit; you are as free as you are powerful. Increase your power (energy, capability, knowledge, etc.) and you are precisely that much more free...."

Comment by Kariem A. Haqq on August 2, 2009 at 3:34pm

Let's Celebrate the 13th Amendment!


"The 13th Amendment ended slavery and involuntary servitude in the U.S. and all its territories, except as punishment for duly convicted criminal acts. It made all blacks free. It also voided out Article 1V, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution referring to runaway slaves that stated 'No person held to ervice or labor in one state, under the law thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service
or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due'. It did not have to void out Article 1, section 9, which stated that “importation of certain persons” (pertaining to the slave trade) could be stopped after 1808; this Article was already voided with the abolition of the slave trade in 1807, effective in 1808. The 13th Amendment
was passed by the U.S. Senate April 8, 1864 by a 38 to 6 vote and by the U.S. House of Representatives January 31, 1865 by a 119 to 56 vote. President Abraham Lincoln signed a Joint Resolution February 1, 1865 submitting the proposed 13th Amendment to the states for ratification. One hundred percent of the Republican Congressmen voted for the Thirteenth Amendment, while only 23 percent of the Democrats voted for it. Despite the lack of Democratic Party support, the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865. The 13th Amendment was recommended by Lincoln to be apart of the 1864 Republican Party Platform. The 13th Amendment actually freed the slaves in Kentucky and Delaware since all the other slaves had been freed prior to it by state legislatures or the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War." "The 13th Amendment Freedom Week Manual" by Kariem A. Haqq

Anyone interested in celebrating this historic event can purchase a copy of the book whicy outlines the Freedom Week or call 314-537-4169

Comment by Kariem A. Haqq on July 5, 2009 at 1:56pm

"Some people are able to do a thing when they are directed to do it, but people of that kind are not worth very much. There are people in the world who never think, who never map out anything for themselves, who have to wait to be told what to do. People of that kind are not worth anything. They really ought to pay rent for the air they breathe, for they only vitiate it." Booker T. Washington

Comment by Kariem A. Haqq on July 4, 2009 at 1:43pm

"As a race we have suffered from two very opposite causes, disparagement on the one hand and undue praise on the other." Frederick Douglass

Comment by Kariem A. Haqq on June 29, 2009 at 6:04am

"Imitation is not discipleship....A disciple, when freed from leading-strings, may become a producer; an imitator never rises above a mere copyist. With the disciple progress is from within; the imitator grows by accretion from without." Edward W. Blyden

Comment by Kariem A. Haqq on June 23, 2009 at 12:19pm

I think Republicans can improve every issuse that affects urban America by hosting the 13th Amendment Freedom Week celebration. It is a way to celebrate black America's freedom that was fought for, won and established by the Republican Party and EDUCATE the people in general about some vital history that is deliberately being suppressed. The celebration will touch on nearly every issue involving freedom - abolitionist, good limited government, free market economics, personal responsiblity, historical documents that impacted freedom, etc. If you were to read the book, "The 13th Amendment Freedom Week Manual", you will find it historical accurate and easy to implement.

13thamendmentfreedomweek.com

Comment by Kariem A. Haqq on June 20, 2009 at 11:24am

"...an inch of achievement is worth a yard of complaint." Booker T. Washington

Comment by Kariem A. Haqq on May 30, 2009 at 11:04pm

By Barbara Howard

The whole issue about whether Republicans should protest Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court is that she is Hispanic and anyone who tries to stop her will be defined and dismissed as a racist.

In fact, Democrats are practically begging Republicans to come at her. Congressman Chuck Schumer of New York issued a loud and unequivocal dare. “Given her track record of excellence and moderation, and her life story, it’s going to be very hard for any senator, Republican or Democrat, to vote against her.”

My response is, how dare you!

When President George H. Bush (POTUS 41) appointed Clarence Thomas to replace the first black to serve on the court, retiring Justice Thurgood Marshall, Democrats went after him with a vengeance. Vice President Joe Biden, (then Senator) and Democrats tried to tear him to shreds during his confirmation hearings to the point that Thomas declared it felt like a “high tech lynching”.

In fact, Joe Biden characterized Thomas’ appointment this way. “I think that the only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black. I don’t believe he could have won had he been white. And the reason is, I think it was a cynical ploy by President Bush.”

What most people don’t know or care to remember is that Anita Hill did not willingly testify against Thomas during those hearings. Democrats sent the FBI out to find her and forced her to testify. That’s how much they cared about Thomas being a black man with a “compelling story”.

The double standard didn’t just stop with Thomas, but continued when Hispanic Miguel Estrada was nominated by President George W. Bush (POTUS 43) in 2003. Estrada would have been the first Hispanic on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals had it not been for the harsh, all-out ugly war against him by Democrats.

Liberal organization, People for the American Way, tried to insult him by calling him the “Latino Clarence Thomas”, according to Tim Graham in NewsBusters.org. Graham also writes that Estrada was ” Dismissed as Bush ‘Affirmative Action Candidate’ “.

It got so nasty that Estrada finally just withdrew his name in frustration.

His compelling story was that, in a country dominated by Mexican and Cuban Americans, he came from the Honduras before going to Columbia and Harvard.

So when I hear Obama and his Democrats tout that Sotomayor has a “compelling story”, I want to say yeah, yeah, yeah.

Newsflash! Almost all successful minorities in this country have a “compelling story”. Even some Anglo Americans have “compelling stories” too.

But the worst part is that Democrats want the world to believe that only “their” minorities have a “compelling story” and only they get to decide which minorities get what. I have another newsflash for you.

Democrats don’t get to write the rules on who is racist and who is not. They don’t get to write the rules on which minorities get elevated to a higher calling and who does not. And they really don’t get to write the rules on who is “black enough” or “Hispanic enough” to get to play in their back yard. And we, as blacks and Hispanics, need to stop allowing them to act as if they do.

Collin Powell was touted as a hero when he served as the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he served under President Bill Clinton. He didn’t get called an “Uncle Tom” until he was appointed to President George W. Bush’s cabinet. Then when he endorsed Barack Obama, he earned his “black card” back and his respect from the black community.

Black Republicans don’t get respect from the black community for no other reason than they registered with the Republican Party. And because the black community doesn’t respect them, the white community can treat them like dogs.

This has got to stop.

Republicans get labeled racists and any black person that gets appointed by a Republican gets treated with disdain by both black and white Democrats.

I wonder how many black Democrats have stopped to ask themselves why they allow this hideous double standard to exist. It’s bad enough that they sit quietly by when gangsta rappers used the “N” word a hundred times on one CD, then want to hang a white person by his fingernails if he says it just one time.

But to continue to marginalize black folk and other minorities because they don’t register and vote Democratic is absurd. The difference is very clear.

Black Republicans believe in God first - in the home, in school and in church. They believe that marriage, as defined in the bible - is between a man and a woman. They believe in less intrusive government in people’s personal lives, in the ability to own their own businesses in a capitalistic society, and all the freedoms and rights given to us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Black Democrats believe the same things - they just vote as if they don’t. And they seek the demise of everybody who isn’t as schizophrenic as they are about it. So they sit back and allow Democrats, black and white, to play the race card whenever they want to.

So to my fellow Republicans - go after Sotomayor with all guns blazing. She doesn’t get a pass.

If Democrats can try to literally destroy any black or Hispanic person nominated by Republicans, then they have no right to scream racism when Republicans go after their minority nominees.

They don’t get to make the rules by themselves and we need to remind them of that fact.The double standard stops here. Enough is enough. I’m tired of it and you ought to be tired too.


Barbara Howard is the former Trade and Travel Goodwill Ambassador to Kenya, Florida State Chair of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), and a former Commissioner with the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Nominating Commission.

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last