Tag: Freedom

Drone Wars: The Adventures of Rand Skywalker

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

rand paulSitting at my command console yesterday, (actually, my office desk) I felt a disturbance in the force, as if thousands of Paulians screamed in unison for just one brief moment, and then, there was silence…stunned silence.

Young Skywalker (Senator Rand Paul) stated that these were the Drones he had been looking for:

I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.

A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away (actually it was right here in America, but I’ve always wanted to write that)…

Young Skywalker stood on the Senate Floor and said,

I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.

His fellow citizens of the Republic (including me) cheered his courage in taking such a heroic stand.

But, now…The Empire (of Paulians) Strikes Back!

I am stunned by Rand’s statement,” reads a blog post on the Daily Paul, one of the largest Ron Paul fan sites. “Unmanned killers in our skys O.K.??? Really? Get away from the Neocons and war mongers Rand, their arrogant and self-righteous air is rotting your brain.”

“How cute. The Politician emerges,” wrote Paladin69, a user on RonPaulForums.com.

“I disagree with shooting first and asking questions later,” added forum administrator Josh Lowry.

“The hell with arresting him I guess,” wrote user The Gold Standard sarcastically. “Just fire a missile at him and move on to the next mundane.”

Reddit’s brand of libertarian politics also repelled Paul’s hypothetical. “A missile into the storefront seems like dramatically excessive force,” wrote Reddit user Ohyeahthatsright. “Rand then seems to be supporting the militarization of police in their use of ‘tools’. I thought he was against the ‘police state.'”

Other libertarian-leaning commentators, such as the American Conservative’s Jordan Bloom, gave Paul more credit. “Paul wasn’t as clear as he should have been,” he writes. “It seems like he’s trying to describe a firefight-type situation in which the cops are forced to neutralize a thief robbing a liquor store, but the way he actually describes it sounds far more innocuous.”

Today’s flap is not the first he’s had with his father’s powerful online fan base, and it surely won’t be the last. But by all accounts, his principled filibuster greatly rejuvenated his credibility with libertarians following his heretical endorsement of Mitt Romney during the presidential election. With today’s remarks, he appears to have chipped away at that newly gained goodwill.

This is not the first time Young Skywalker has irritated the Paulians, who so faithfully followed his father, Paulian Skywalker, even after he morphed into Darth Paulnut, after serving several terms in that wretched hive of villainy  known as Washington, DC.

On the historic stardate of 6/7/2012, young Rand Skywalker threw his support behind Obi Wan MittRomney, in his quest to be the leader of the Republic, becoming a traitor in the eyes of Darth Paulnut’s loyal phalanx of followers. They spoke out in protest to the leader of the Paulian Empire:

“Rand is dead to me,” wrote, Ruffusthedog at the Daily Paul, a heavily-visited pro-Paul website. “He should have never done this.” “Rand Paul is a sell out,” user Alxnz exclaimed. “He just lost my vote in 2016.” “All he had to do was not open his mouth,” wrote user Conalmc. Others even took their anger out on Ron Paul himself. “What will it be Old Man Ron? Will you be forever remembered as the leader in the greatest liberty movement since 1776, or will you go down as Benedict Arnold incarnate,” threatened lionsuar7788. “We will never vote for Romney or your flimsy son.

“”What the heck! If Ron Paul supports/endorses Romney next I will forever lose faith in change and the belief that there are still individuals out there that think for themselves and want to strive for true Liberty,” wrote Ran at RonPaul.com.

It is widely acknowledged that young Skywalker is souping up his Millenium Falcon, in preparation for a lengthy trip to the outer most reaches of the American Galaxy, in an epic quest to become the leader of the Republic.

Perhaps the young Jedi believes that by showing the conviction to stand up to evil, in both that most wretched hive of villainy, Washington, DC, and throughout the American Galaxy, as well, then the good citizens of the Republic, will view him as a promising leader.

However, if the young Jedi wishes to be the leader of Republic, he must, at all times, remember the element that powers the Force of the Republic: Freedom.

For, without Freedom, our Republic would be just another Evil Empire.

And, as Benjamin Franklin wrote,

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

May The Force, that is the love and protection of Jesus Christ, be with you.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Gun Control: Heading Toward a National Gun Registry

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

guncontrolThe nation is buzzing with anticipatory dread, as the Senate gets ready to vote on new Gun Control Laws, which would require mandatory registration of law-abiding citizen’s firearms.

Yesterday, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) took to the Senate Floor to issue a dire warning:

Some of the proposals, like for example- universal background checks- would allow the federal government to surveil law-abiding citizens who exercise their Constitutional rights. One of the provisions we expect to see in the bill based on what we saw in the Judiciary Committee- on which I sit- would allow the Attorney General of the United States (Eric Holder) to promulgate regulations that could lead to a national registry system for guns. Something my constituents in Utah are very concerned about, and understandably so.

…You see, the federal government has no business monitoring when or how often you go to church; what books and newspapers you read; who you vote for; your health conditions; what you eat for breakfast; and the details of your private life– including your lawful exercise of your rights protected by the Second Amendment and other provisions of the Bill of Rights.

Despite what the politicians are saying, these “harmless” Gun Control Laws could, in fact, lead to a National Gun Registry, which in turn, will eventually lead to Gun Confiscation.

And, Americans are getting ready for that eventuality.

Did you know that…

During Barack Obama’s presidency there have been 32 background checks for gun purchases every minute.

Since February of 2009, the first full month of Obama’s presidency, there have been 70,291,049 background checks for gun purchases, according to data released by the FBI.

Using February 1, 2009 as our starting date, and March 31, 2013 as our end date, (the latest data from the FBI) Obama has been president for 1,520 days.

That equates to 36,480 hours, or 2,188,800 minutes.

Divide the 70,291,049 background checks by 2,188,800 minutes and you get approximately 32 checks for gun purchases every minute!

American Liberals are fond of citing the UK’s Gun Control Laws as a model for America to follow after.

Here is a brief history:

In 1946 “self defense” was no longer considered a good reason for requiring a police issued firearms certificate. The slippery slope got even steeper.

In 1953 carrying any type of weapon for self defense was made illegal, making the streets even safer for the criminal element and giving great “crime control” soundbites to the police and press.

In 1967 a chap by the name of Harry Roberts blasted three policemen to death in a London street using a 9mm Luger pistol and the British government restricted shotguns for the very first time. Try to figure out the logic… handgun used… shotguns licensed for the first time in British history. Opportunistic, or am I just being a cynical bastard?

In 1982 black powder muzzle loader shooters and handloaders were required to allow police inspection of their security arrangements to ensure “safe storage” of the powder they possessed, meaning that agents of the state could demand entry into an Englishman’s home at any time of day or night without a warrant.

In 1988 all semi-automatic rifles were banned, including pump action rifles. The personal property of law abiding people was once again outlawed and seized. All the guns were registered and easy to find, that is to say, all the legally held ones.

In 1996 all handguns were banned and they too were all registered with the agents of the state. Well, need I say more? You get the picture. Also in 1996 carrying any knife with a blade longer than 3 inches was made illegal. Presumably one cannot stab someone to death with a three inch knife. You now had to show “good reason” for carrying a knife, the presumption of innocence, until proven guilty of a crime, was gone.

In England today you cannot carry any type of weapon for self defense and you cannot use a firearm to defend your home, family, or property. The gun and weapon laws have made crime safe for criminals and the other violent thugs and miscreants who infest our country today.

In 2006 the government passed the Violent Crime Reduction Act. The VCRA restricted all “realistic” toy/replica guns. Now Britons were not to be trusted with even imitation non-firing replicas. “Violent crime reduction” was once again used as the smokescreen to enact oppressive laws and deprive the law abiding of their property. As part of the VCRA an airgun can no longer be purchased by mail order and the name and address of the purchaser must be registered with the seller.

The following report was published by Townhall in December of 2012:

New data out from the UK, where guns are banned, shows gun crime has soared by 35 percent.

The Government’s latest crime figures were condemned as “truly terrible” by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offenses, Home Office statistics revealed.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.

It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.

Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.

Unadjusted figures showed overall recorded crime in the 12 months to last September rose 9.3%, but the Home Office stressed that new procedures had skewed the figures.

Okay. So, Gun Control has not stopped the criminals from getting Guns in the UK. What makes Obama and his minions think that more regulations are going to accomplish what the UK has not?

Are they that full of themselves that they think that, since they are the “smartest people in the room”, that failed methods will actually work this time?

Are they just doing something to be doing something, in order to save face with their Far Left supporters?

Or, is it something more malevolent than just everyday politics?

Here’s a quote from an organization that backs Obama all the way with his Gun Confiscation efforts…

…the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans. It is for that reason, as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.

As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly “gin up fear” that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the hate-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights.

One of their unhinged spokesmen, Texas talk show host Alex Jones, launched a national petition drive to deport CNN commentator Piers Morgan for questioning the Second Amendment. Jones said the amendment “isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs,” and then went on to threaten insurrection “if you try to take our firearms.”

Actually, the Second Amendment wasn’t enacted with any of these things in mind. The amendment was adopted as a means to enable the new American republic, lacking a standing army or state national guards, to muster militia to put down domestic uprisings, including slave revolts, to repulse any attempted return by the British and to deal with clashes with Native Americans on the expanding frontier.

These issues vanished long ago. The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans. There is no basis for claiming this amendment was intended to permit unregulated personal acquisition of firearms, including amassing military weapons and private arsenals for “protection” from the government. No government, especially one that is new and fragile, has ever authorized citizens to arm themselves against it.

The preceding quote actually comes from peoplesworld.org, the website of Communist Party USA.

As I have chronicled, in the last several months, this Gun Confiscation Movement comes right out of the playbook of Marx and Lenin.

There is one thing that Obama did not take into account, however…

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have. – Ronald Reagan

And, that is why he will fail.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Unmanned Drones: Big Brother’s Eyes in the Sky

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

obamabigbroDo you remember the end of the third “Terminator” movie? John Connor was watching helplessly from a mountain bunker as a fully autonomous software system launched nuclear missles and devastated the planet.

Far-fetched, you say? Au contraire.

The Washington Post reports that

The United Nations, looking to modernize its peacekeeping operations, is planning for the first time to deploy a fleet of its own surveillance drones in missions in Central and West Africa.

The U.N. Department of Peacekeeping has notified Congo, Rwanda and Uganda that it intends to deploy a unit of at least three unarmed surveillance drones in the eastern region of Congo.

The action is the first step in a broader bid to integrate unmanned aerial surveillance systems, which have become a standard feature of Western military operations, into the United Nations’ far-flung peacekeeping empire.

But the effort is encountering resistance from governments, particularly those from the developing world, that fear the drones will open up a new intelligence-gathering front dominated by Western powers and potentially supplant the legions of African and Asian peacekeepers who now act as the United Nations’ eyes and ears on the ground.

“Africa must not become a laboratory for intelligence devices from overseas,” said Olivier Nduhungirehe, a Rwandan diplomat at the United Nations. “We don’t know whether these drones are going to be used to gather intelligence from Kigali, Kampala, Bujumbura or the entire region.”

Developing countries fear Western control over intelligence gathered by the drones. Some of those concerns are rooted in the 1990s, when the United States and other major powers infiltrated the U.N. weapons inspection agency to surreptitiously collect intelligence on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s military.

The growing American use of drones in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere to identify and kill suspected terrorists has only heightened anxieties about their deployment as part of multilateral peacekeeping missions.

U.N. officials have sought to allay the suspicions, saying there is no intention to arm the drones or to spy on countries that have not consented to their use.

The U.N. drones would have a range of about 150 miles and can hover for up to 12 hours at a time. They would be equipped with infrared technology that can detect troops hidden beneath forest canopy or operating at night, allowing them to track movements of armed militias, assist patrols heading into hostile territory and document atrocities.

“These are really just flying cameras,” said one U.N. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic. “Our best method of protection is early warning. We recently had a patrol ambushed in Darfur. If you had a drone ahead of the patrol, it could have seen the ambush party.”

“If you know armed groups are moving in attack or battle formation early enough, you can warn civilians,” the official added.

The United Nations, which manages a force of more than 100,000 blue helmets in 15 peacekeeping missions, views drones as a low-cost alternative to expensive helicopters for surveillance operations.

Wait a cotton-pickin’ minute. Did that report say that unmanned drones were in use in OUR country, the good ol’ U.S.A.?

You betcha, Red Ryder.

As foxnews.com reported on May 14th, 2012

Unmanned drones could soon be buzzing in the skies above many U.S. cities, as the federal government green-lights the technology for local law enforcement amid widespread privacy concerns.

The Federal Aviation Administration on Monday began to explain the rules of the sky for these newly licensed drones at potentially dozens of sites across the country. The agency, on its website, said that government “entities” will have to obtain a special certificate in order to fly the aircraft, adding that the FAA is “streamlining the process for public agencies to safely fly (drones) in the nation’s airspace.”

In doing so, the government is taking a tool that has become synonymous with U.S. counterterror warfare in countries like Pakistan and Yemen — and putting it in the hands of U.S. law enforcement.

Unlike some of the drones used overseas, these will not be equipped with missiles. They are to be used purely for surveillance. But that alone has raised serious privacy concerns on Capitol Hill and beyond.

“Our Founding Fathers had no idea that there would be remote-control drones with television monitors that can feed back live data instantaneously — but if they had, they would have made darn sure … that these things were subject to the Fourth Amendment (protecting individual privacy),” Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, told Fox News.

Drones have already been employed domestically. In what was described as the first case where an unmanned drone was used to arrest an American citizen on U.S. soil, a North Dakota SWAT team reportedly borrowed a Department of Homeland Security drone to monitor Rodney Brossart — who was involved in a 16-hour standoff at his North Dakota farm over six cattle that had wandered onto his property and which he claimed as his own. The SWAT team apparently used the drone to make sure it was safe to arrest him, though his lawyer has since claimed Brossart was subjected to guerrilla-like police tactics and had his constitutional rights violated.

Advocates, though, say the drones are a force-multiplier for local cops.

“They’re not going to be used for constant surveillance — typically they can stay in the air for about 30 minutes, so they’re only going to be used for specific missions,” said Gretchen West, executive vice president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.

She said the drones would help law enforcement have “more eyes in the sky to help … assist them when they’re going into potentially volatile situations.”

Lawmakers like Barton say there are “legitimate uses” for drones on U.S. soil, but that strict privacy standards will be needed.

“It would be okay for a drone to be used in order to make sure that all the cattle on a ranch are identified on an ongoing basis. It’s okay … to survey a forest to make sure there are no forest fires. But it would not be okay if that individual who purchased the drone then decided ‘I think I’ll go and check and see what’s going on over in my neighbor’s backyard’,” Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said. “That would be wrong and that has to be protected against.”

And, if the thought of spies in the sky is not enough to scare you, how’s this story reported by the BBC grab ya?

A laser weapons system that can shoot down two drones at a distance of over a mile has been demonstrated by Rheinmetall Defence.

The German defence firm used the high-energy laser equipment to shoot fast-moving drones at a distance.

The system, which uses two laser weapons, was also used to cut through a steel girder a kilometre away.

The company plans to make the laser weapons system mobile and to integrate automatic cannon.

The 50kW laser weapons system used radar and optical systems to detect and track two incoming drones, the company said. The nose-diving drones were flying at 50 metres per second, and were shot down when they reached a programmed fire sector.

If these lasers can shoot down unmanned drones, what, or who else can they be aimed at?

Waging war by pushing buttons. How…sanitary.

Unmanned Drones watching our every move. Will “Skynet become self aware”?

Until He Comes, 

KJ

Vote Like Your Freedom Depends On It

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

Well, here we are:  Election Day 2012. Four years in the making: President Barack Hussein Obama vs. Mitt Romney. At stake: this Sacred  Land, the Shining City on a Hill,  Land Where Our Fathers Died, Land of the Pilgrims’ Pride, the United States of America.

Yes, once again, as Ronald Wilson Reagan said in 1964, it is A Time For Choosing:

The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.

Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, “What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power.” But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.

Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we’re always “against,” never “for” anything.

We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. However, we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments….

We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material blessings with nations which share our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world.

We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward I restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him…. But we can not have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure….

Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive tax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? . . . Today in our country the tax collector’s share is 37 cents of -very dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp.

Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor’s fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can’t socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he’ll eat you last.

If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what’s at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.

They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that “the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits-not animals.” And he said, “There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.

President Ronald Reagan also said:

If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.

President Barack Hussein Obama once said, on 6/28/2006:

Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus which suggests slavery is okay? Or we can go with Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount? A passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application. Folks haven’t been reading the bible.

In April of 2008, Obama said at a fundraiser:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

President Barack Hussein Obama recently said in front of the UN, while lying about the cause of the attack and murder of four Americans on 9/11/12, at the Consulate in Benghazi, Libya:

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

Is this what you want for our country’s future? Your Freedom of Speech, your Freedom of Religion, regulated by the State, as it is in Canada, where Christian Pastors are arrested for speaking their minds from the pulpit? Do you want the Greatest Country on God’s Green Earth reduced to the status of another Greece, with rioting in the streets? Or, another Venezuela, where a dictator gets re-elected by “98 per cent”? Do you want a country where “Honor Killings” of teenage girls are covered under Sharia Law?

I don’t. I stand with America’s Pastor, Rev. Billy Graham, who recently wrote:

The legacy we leave behind for our children, grandchildren and this great nation is crucial. As I approach my 94th birthday, I realize this election could be my last. I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel. I urge you to vote for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman. Vote for biblical values this November 6, and pray with me that America will remain one nation under God.

Amen, Reverend, Amen.

Ryan Vs. Harris-Perry…Freedom Vs. Spreading the Wealth Around

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

This past weekend, Rep. Paul Ryan, the Vice-Presidential pick of the presumptive Republican Nominee, Mitt Romney, talked abut the idea of America, and where our rights come from.

Realclearpolitics.com has the quote:

“We look at one another’s success with pride, not resentment, because we know that as more Americans work hard, take risks, succeed, more people will prosper, more communities will benefit. And individual lives will be improved,” Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said today at the Romney campaign event announcing him as the VP.

“America, America is just more than a place, though. America is an idea. It’s the only country founded on an idea. Our rights come from nature and God, not from government. That’s right. That’s who we are, that’s how we built this country. That’s who we are. That’s what made us great. That’s what made us great. We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes,” Ryan said.

Of course, Liberal heads exploded. Especially, the one belonging to the weekend host on the seldom-watched, Obama boot-licking cable news channel, known as MSNBC.

Realclearpolitics.com has this quote, also:

“The thing I really have against him is actually how he and Gov. Romney have misused the Declaration of Independence,” MSNBC host Melissa Harris Perry said on Saturday in reaction to the the Paul Ryan decision. “I’m deeply irritated by their notion that the ‘pursuit of happiness’ means money for the richest and that we extricate the capacity of ordinary people to pursue happiness. When they say ‘God and nature give us our rights, not government,’ that is a lovely thing to say as a wealthy white man.”

So, who is this “little ray of sunshine and tolerance”?

Per thenation.com:

Melissa Harris-Perry is professor of political science at Tulane University, where she is founding director of the Project on Gender, Race, and Politics in the South. She is author of Sister Citizen: Shame, Stereotypes, and Black Women in America. She is also a contributor to MSNBC.

Back on Independence Day, the birthday of this blessed land, this “contributor” to the seldom-watched MSNBC, said:

“It’s ours, all of it,” she said. “The imperialism, the genocide, the slavery, also the liberation and the hope and the deeply American belief that our best days still lie ahead of us.”

“Independence Day is more aspirational than actual,” she began her monologue. “We have longed defined the American Dream with commodities, a home of ones own, better education for the kids, family vacation and a car to the vacation in. And if we measure the dream by acquisitions, we’re in trouble. National unemployment remains above 8 percent. Wages have dropped, and the median net worth of American families plummeted by almost 40 percent.”

Harris-Perry noted that “financial security is important, but it’s only an outward manifestation of the American Dream. Freedom itself is both more elusive and more complicated.” She explained that America’s founding wasn’t about profits and loss but that “our founding is an unlikely narrative of young men, so inspired by an age of ideas that they threw off the yoke of colonialism and founded a free nation — men who were embarrassingly imperfect.”

The imperfections she listed: “The land on which they formed this Union was stolen; the hands with which they built this nation were enslaved; the women who birthed the citizens of the nation are second class.”

“But all of this is our story,” she continued. “Each of us benefits from the residuals of oppression and each of us is harmed by the realities of inequality. This is the imperfect fabric of our nation, at times we’ve torn and stained it, and at other moments, we mend and repair it. But it’s ours, all of it: The imperialism, the genocide, the slavery, also the liberation and the hope and the deeply American belief that our best days still lie ahead of us.”

She continued on to explain that her favorite story for this Fourth of July is one of people who are “not technically free.” She described a group of 27 inmates who recently completed their GEDs at the jail on Rikers Island. “Despite being incarcerated, they hold fast to the optimistic belief that education, hard work and second chances are still the stuff of America. And that they have a right to take part in the dream.”

“So on the Fourth of July,” Harris-Perry concluded, “I’m going to think of the Rikers Island graduates, and I’m going to wave a flag without hesitation — not because I’ve forgotten my nation’s many wrongs, but because I remember them. And I am nonetheless proud of my country, not for its perfection, because the alternative is too grim, the alternative is to give up on the dream of the nation founded in the belief, if not yet the practice that all are created, all deserve freedom, and all have the right to pursue happiness. Now, that is a dream worth celebrating — with fireworks.”

Karl Marx, the Father of Communism said,

Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.

And, he also said

In a higher phase of communist society… only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe on its banners: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

After watching and hearing Ms. (Dr.) Harris-Perry, both quotes seemed strangely appropriate.