Write Senator Eltiffe and Representative Hughes and let them know you support SB 700 and HB 1575. As a taxpayer it is in your best interest to support bills such as these.
For Texas taxpayers, SB 700 by Sen. Dan Patrick and HB 1575 by Rep. Carl Isett are probably the most important bills this legislature will consider.
Though legislators worked hard to provide billions in property tax relief, and though school property taxes were lowered, property taxpayers’ perception is that they didn’t see the relief.
Why? Local taxing entities either raised tax rates or – more often – allowed the appraisal process to provide them with additional revenue.
Local taxing entities and their lobby organizations will be opposing any legislation which provides opportunity for taxpayers to determine just how much government we want and are willing to pay for. That is unfortunate.
For the past several sessions, the Texas Municipal League and the Texas Association of Counties have clearly laid out their legislative agendas – they consistently say they don’t want any legislation which limits their ability to raise revenue.Some of the arguments you will hear from local government officials and their lobbyists:
Fiction: This should be a local issue. Voters elect their city council members and county commissioners and they are responsible for the tax rates. If taxpayers were unhappy with them, these officials would not be re-elected.
Fact: Too many local officials will run for re-election claiming they “didn’t raise taxes” when they actually didn’t raise the tax RATE but didn’t need to do so to collect more revenue. The appraisal increases allowed the local taxing entity to get more revenue from the individual taxpayer. Moreover, true local control should rest with the taxpayers, not the tax-spenders.
Fiction: Any attempt to “limit revenue” would harm local governments.
Fact: No proposal we have seen would unilaterally limit revenue. The rollback provision is a trigger which would require local officials to “make their case” to the taxpayers (i.e. - their constituents) and voters would have the opportunity to determine whether they agree with their officials that more money is needed.
Fiction: Taxpayers would not approve tax increases. (Yes, the Texas Association of Counties president actually used this argument in a Senate hearing last session.)
Fact: Taxpayers have been extremely generous when asked. Bond initiatives pass at a rate of 75-85%. Rollback elections are slightly less successful. Texas taxpayers are generous and if the local officials can justify why they need the additional spending, it will likely be approved. If not, then the local government entity should tighten their belt, and re-assess their priorities just like taxpayers are doing across the state and the nation.
Fiction: Local government growth is driven by new development.
Fact: Local government has grown four times faster than Texans’ paychecks. (Local government debt has grown five times faster!) Texas is a fast-growth state, but growth cannot account for the rapid increase in local government spending. In fact, that growth was factored into the analysis as newcomers’ income was factored into the analysis.
Fiction: Rollback elections are expensive.
Fact: We are always amazed when taxing entities use the argument that an election is expensive, so they are saving tax payers money by not asking them before digging deeper into taxpayers’ pockets. If rollback elections are expensive (and they should be held on a uniform election date to encourage greater participation), then local government should not increase the tax revenue above the rollback rate.
Fiction: Citizens should be required to petition for a roll-back election
Fact: The petition-gathering process should be eliminated. It is cumbersome and some elections don’t garner participation by 10% of the registered voters. Taxpayers deserve an automatic roll-back election. Currently, taxpayers have few tools to control local government growth; whereas, government has many tools to “educate” the public on the vote – using taxpayer dollars. Taxpayers who want to participate in the process and oppose the increase must not only pay for governments’ “education campaign” but their own education/advocacy efforts.
Fiction: 5% rollback rate is too low. That rate is generally more generous than the increase in population and inflation.
Fact: The rollback rate was 5% in the mid-1980’s and was increased to 8% when the rate of inflation was higher. It is appropriate to return to 5% now.
Fiction: The rollback election does not allow taxing entities to plan.
Fact: Taxing entities can plan to spend under the rollback rate and have a supplement budget prepared for the additional revenue, should the rollback election fail.
In addition to the changes to the effective tax rate and rollback, we support the bills’ provisions for:
• An electronic filing for a protest of an appraisal for a county that has 500,000 or more people.
• Late applications for a homestead exemption.
• Appraisals based on the current designation or use of the property and not the highest and best potential use of the property.
• Improving the notice of appraisal by requiring the chief appraiser to give an annual notice to each homeowner stating the current appraised value of the property and the difference, either positive or negative, for the previous tax year
Source: AFP - Texas
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Health and Human Services nominee Kathleen Sebelius
Kathleen Sebelius recently corrected three years of tax returns and paid more than $7,000 in back taxes after finding "unintentional errors" the latest tax troubles for an Obama administration nominee.
The guys on CNBC said maybe a thousand unintentionally, but $7,000?
One quipped, is it that Republicans have better tax advice?
Oh, and her husband's a judge. Yet they have trouble following the law. And paying the taxes they owe that they like to raise on us.I think there's a pattern here, don't you?
The guys on CNBC said maybe a thousand unintentionally, but $7,000?
One quipped, is it that Republicans have better tax advice?
Oh, and her husband's a judge. Yet they have trouble following the law. And paying the taxes they owe that they like to raise on us.I think there's a pattern here, don't you?
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Rep. Barney Frank takes on Harvard student
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/politics/local_politics/Frank_pushing_for_financial_changes_040609
The link above is Rep. Frank taking on a Harvard student in a discussion on the financial bailouts.
This piece is from the Backyard Conservative:
Uncle Barney you are a public menace. Having had to listen to this incompetent, dissembling, pontificating punk for Big Government for days, months, I agree wholeheartedly with Mark Hemingway, so I'm including his full post:
As Ed Whelan noted earlier today, Rep. Barney Frank has caused something of a kerfuffle by going on a gay website's news show and calling Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a “homophobe.” Whelan's right in noting that the context of Frank's remarks seems to betray his casual slander of the man, but before he runs around calling anyone else intolerant, let me step forward and be the one to note for posterity that I wish Frank was personally more discriminating in his own relationships.
I don't know whether Frank is just running off at the mouth or whether he's somewhat desperate to shift the attention off of himself. Frank keeps getting reelected despite gross ethical lapses in part because he's a savvy legislator and in part because he represents Moscow-on-the-Charles, and his constituents are more scandalized by Republicans in the Harvard faculty lounge than Frank paying a man for sex who runs a prostitution ring out of his apartment.
But if Frank's considerable flaws are ever going to catch up to him, it seems about as likely now as ever. Despite his protestations, Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial mess – from living with the Fannie Mae exec in charge of dreaming up new mortgage products for seven years while being the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee in charge of overseeing Fannie Mae to his fierce opposition to the Bush administration's sensible plan to move Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac oversight away from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the Treausury, where they actually have the financial expertise exercise proper oversight of runaway GSE behemoths. But Frank was in bed with Fannie Mae — literally — and was quite explicit that any close oversight of Fannie Mae was another example of how Republicans hate the poor or whatever.
The media has also been strangely silent about his relationship with OneUnited, a Boston based bank that Frank helped get federal bailout money for just before the bank was slapped with a cease-and-desist from the FDIC for among other things, paying for the CEO's Porsche and Beach House. Figuring out exactly what Frank knows about OneUnited is also of importance because Treasury officials later discovered that Congresswoman Maxine Waters also worked with Frank in arranging the bailout, despite the fact her husband once served on the bank's board of directors and may have profited off the bank receiving TARP funds. After the fact, Frank now claims he told Waters to “stay out of it.” However, the damage has already been done and forgive me if I don't trust Frank when he says he tried to get Waters to do the right thing, given his ethical track record.
Frank is about as smart as they come and is very good at dissembling, so I see why Congressional Republicans might be hesitant to go after him. Frank hardly bears sole responsibility for the current mess, but if he's going to run around demonizing others willy-nilly, it's high time Republicans make him answer some questions about his own behavior.
The link above is Rep. Frank taking on a Harvard student in a discussion on the financial bailouts.
This piece is from the Backyard Conservative:
Uncle Barney you are a public menace. Having had to listen to this incompetent, dissembling, pontificating punk for Big Government for days, months, I agree wholeheartedly with Mark Hemingway, so I'm including his full post:
As Ed Whelan noted earlier today, Rep. Barney Frank has caused something of a kerfuffle by going on a gay website's news show and calling Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a “homophobe.” Whelan's right in noting that the context of Frank's remarks seems to betray his casual slander of the man, but before he runs around calling anyone else intolerant, let me step forward and be the one to note for posterity that I wish Frank was personally more discriminating in his own relationships.
I don't know whether Frank is just running off at the mouth or whether he's somewhat desperate to shift the attention off of himself. Frank keeps getting reelected despite gross ethical lapses in part because he's a savvy legislator and in part because he represents Moscow-on-the-Charles, and his constituents are more scandalized by Republicans in the Harvard faculty lounge than Frank paying a man for sex who runs a prostitution ring out of his apartment.
But if Frank's considerable flaws are ever going to catch up to him, it seems about as likely now as ever. Despite his protestations, Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial mess – from living with the Fannie Mae exec in charge of dreaming up new mortgage products for seven years while being the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee in charge of overseeing Fannie Mae to his fierce opposition to the Bush administration's sensible plan to move Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac oversight away from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the Treausury, where they actually have the financial expertise exercise proper oversight of runaway GSE behemoths. But Frank was in bed with Fannie Mae — literally — and was quite explicit that any close oversight of Fannie Mae was another example of how Republicans hate the poor or whatever.
The media has also been strangely silent about his relationship with OneUnited, a Boston based bank that Frank helped get federal bailout money for just before the bank was slapped with a cease-and-desist from the FDIC for among other things, paying for the CEO's Porsche and Beach House. Figuring out exactly what Frank knows about OneUnited is also of importance because Treasury officials later discovered that Congresswoman Maxine Waters also worked with Frank in arranging the bailout, despite the fact her husband once served on the bank's board of directors and may have profited off the bank receiving TARP funds. After the fact, Frank now claims he told Waters to “stay out of it.” However, the damage has already been done and forgive me if I don't trust Frank when he says he tried to get Waters to do the right thing, given his ethical track record.
Frank is about as smart as they come and is very good at dissembling, so I see why Congressional Republicans might be hesitant to go after him. Frank hardly bears sole responsibility for the current mess, but if he's going to run around demonizing others willy-nilly, it's high time Republicans make him answer some questions about his own behavior.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Don't mess with the ole dogs
One day the old German Shepherd starts chasing rabbits and before long, discovers that he's lost. Wandering about, he notices a leopard heading rapidly in his direction with the intention of having lunch.
The old German Shepherd thinks, 'Oh, oh! I'm in deep trouble now!' Noticing some bones on the ground close by, he immediately settles down to chew on the bones with his back to the approaching cat. Just as the leopard is about to leap, the old German Shepherd exclaims loudly, 'Boy, that was one delicious leopard! I wonder, if there are any more around here?'
Hearing this, the young leopard halts his attack in mid-strike, a look of terror comes over him and he slinks away into the trees. 'Whew!' says the leopard, 'That was close! That old German Shepherd nearly had me!'
Meanwhile, a monkey who had been watching the whole scene from a nearby tree, figures he can put this knowledge to good use and trade it for protection from the leopard. So, off he goes, but the old German Shepherd sees him heading after the leopard with great speed, and figures
that something must be up.
The monkey soon catches up with the leopard, spills the beans and strikes a deal for himself with the leopard. The young leopard is furious at being made a fool of and says, 'Here, monkey, hop on my back and see what's going to happen to that conniving canine!
Now, the old German Shepherd sees the leopard coming with the monkey on his back and thinks, 'What am I going to do now?', but instead of running, the dog sits down with his back to his attackers, pretending he hasn't seen them yet, and just when they get close enough to hear, the old German Shepherd says...
'Where's that monkey? I sent him off an hour ago to bring me another leopard!'
Moral of this story...
Don't mess with the old dogs... Age and skill will always overcome youth and treachery! BS and brilliance only come with age and experience.
The old German Shepherd thinks, 'Oh, oh! I'm in deep trouble now!' Noticing some bones on the ground close by, he immediately settles down to chew on the bones with his back to the approaching cat. Just as the leopard is about to leap, the old German Shepherd exclaims loudly, 'Boy, that was one delicious leopard! I wonder, if there are any more around here?'
Hearing this, the young leopard halts his attack in mid-strike, a look of terror comes over him and he slinks away into the trees. 'Whew!' says the leopard, 'That was close! That old German Shepherd nearly had me!'
Meanwhile, a monkey who had been watching the whole scene from a nearby tree, figures he can put this knowledge to good use and trade it for protection from the leopard. So, off he goes, but the old German Shepherd sees him heading after the leopard with great speed, and figures
that something must be up.
The monkey soon catches up with the leopard, spills the beans and strikes a deal for himself with the leopard. The young leopard is furious at being made a fool of and says, 'Here, monkey, hop on my back and see what's going to happen to that conniving canine!
Now, the old German Shepherd sees the leopard coming with the monkey on his back and thinks, 'What am I going to do now?', but instead of running, the dog sits down with his back to his attackers, pretending he hasn't seen them yet, and just when they get close enough to hear, the old German Shepherd says...
'Where's that monkey? I sent him off an hour ago to bring me another leopard!'
Moral of this story...
Don't mess with the old dogs... Age and skill will always overcome youth and treachery! BS and brilliance only come with age and experience.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Quote fitting for the times
"The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin." -
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
Friday, April 3, 2009
Who's Going to Fix this Mess?
Don't wait for Washington.
This country wasn't built from Washington, and it sure isn't going to be saved by Washington. It's going to be the efforts, and the toil, and the work, of the real leaders of the country – people like you who can make a difference every day by making your companies and your communities stronger and better.
This country wasn't built from Washington, and it sure isn't going to be saved by Washington. It's going to be the efforts, and the toil, and the work, of the real leaders of the country – people like you who can make a difference every day by making your companies and your communities stronger and better.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Abortion is no April Fools joke
This was forwarded to me by Bill Calhoun a respected black leader from the Houston area and I just felt the need to share.
Abortion: The robbing of a heritage
By Rev. Johnny HunterLife Education and Resource Network
Abortion is racism in its ugliest form. Because of some very suave planning by abortion supporters and providers, abortionists have eliminated more African American children than the KKK ever lynched. This is one truth that is very disturbing. Think about it. From 1973 to 1992, abortionists have snuffed out the lives of over nine million African American children before their first birthday. Over nine million beautiful black children were prevented from ever having the opportunity to become artists, musicians, doctors, teachers, lawyers, judges, taxi drivers, ambulance drivers, nurses, secretaries, senators, representatives, salesmen, sales clerks, computer programmers, analysts, managers, waitresses, waiters, tellers, leaders, followers, ordinary people, extraordinary people, parents, grandparents, and ancestors. They were robbed of the most essential of all rights--the right to life. They were robbed of their opportunities, and those of us who remain are robbed of their contributions to humanity.
When liberal racists defend abortion as a way to help blacks, I challenge them to show me the bodies of the dead African American children the abortionists have helped. When a "plantation Negro" says he supports abortion because he cares about the sisters, mothers and daughters, he is a hypocrite of the lowest order. To deny the next generation of brothers and sisters the right to exist is the ultimate self-destructing mechanism in the African American community.
When two out of every three minority babies are aborted, it doesn't take a mathematical genius to understand the effect this will have on the minority race in the United States of America. I find it dangerous the way abortion is promoted today. In the July 1992 issue of Life magazine, you will read an attempt by white media to be objective. It amazes me that objectivity means printing and showing both sides of abortion, which kills babies, but avoids showing the victims the effect of violence on the abortion table.
I am glad the media are not being objective about hard drugs. If they covered it like abortion, they would have to let the drug dealers get equal time to show the good side of the business (high salaries for teens) but avoid showing victims of overdose and the effect of violence in the drug world.
In the article titled "The Great Divide," a young black woman getting an abortion is pictured twice and quoted several times. The black man, who is a pro-life leader and supports the right to life for all children, was only pictured once and never quoted. Also, two young white women are both comforting the black woman while she is getting an abortion. What the reader does not know is that the white woman holding the hand of the black woman treats black women who attempt to offer help to their sisters before they enter a clinic in a much different way. She curses and body-checks them.
I suspect that the editors of Life magazine made a calculated decision with total disregard for the racist implications of this "objective" article. Of course they almost showed Tia, who according to a pathologist was a victim of an induced abortion. However, to be objective, they did refer to the child as a fetus and mentioned a county coroner's opinion that the fetus was a stillborn. They did not mention that the reputable medical sources believed the child was a child of color. Was Life magazine supporting racism and annihilation of the black race? I believe so. Was it intentional? For some on their staff, no; for others, yes; although they will not admit it. The most liberal white (person), while supporting abortion, does not want to be exposed for encouraging abortion of black children.
The saddest crisis of all is the ignorance and indifference displayed by prominent black people and black magazines. The September 1992 issue of Ebony magazine contains a full-page advertisement favoring abortion, produced by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. The ad smacks of the racist overtones of Margaret Sanger's "Negro Project." Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, implemented the "Negro Project" in 1939 to eliminate those she called "human weeds." Her recommendation to the steering committee was, "let's attempt to let the colored run it." From her grave, this prejudiced woman is still using ignorant colored (people) to keep the "Negro Project" in operation.
The men featured in the ad, entitled "African American Men for Choice," are totally uninformed or indifferent to the fate of the millions of African American children who will be painfully destroyed because African American women respected their opinion. These are some of the dumbest smart men on earth.
Please examine a few of the lines in this ad. The title says, "African American Men for Choice," which means they have believed the great lie. The great lie being the one where Planned Parenthood changed the question to one concerning a woman's reproductive rights instead of concerning a baby safely snuggled in his/her mother's womb. The ad's first statement is "Today, we are taking a stand side by side with women to guard their most fundamental right. The right to choose."
This is the great abominable lie. The most fundamental right every human being has is life. If a child is not allowed to live, all other rights become moot. This is what bothers me most about so-called social leaders. There are leaders who fight for better health care, better housing, better job opportunities, better education and safer playgrounds. All these things, including the safe playgrounds mean nothing to dead African American babies. An aborted baby needs no health care. An aborted child needs no place to live. The dead baby will never have a career. You cannot educate an aborted child, which is sad, hearing them say, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." The African American Men for Choice believe it is O.K. to waste a mind and a body as long as the woman agrees. My eleven-year-old son called them "The African American Men for Death"!
Ebony should know better, since many who would have been readers are now dead! They died at the hands of abortionists.
The legacy and heritage we are leaving are the most important treasure we can give our children. As African Americans, it is our responsibility to leave a legacy to the next generation, one upon which they may build a better life for themselves. Many great men and women have left us a heritage, but much of our heritage was robbed by slave owners. Two hundred years ago our African American heritage was robbed by a group of elitist individuals who intentionally kept us ignorant concerning the devastating effect of slavery. Today, our heritage is being robbed by elitist individuals who have intentionally kept us ignorant concerning the devastating effect of abortion on our race. They are robbing us to profit from the deaths of our sons and daughters.
The time has come for people of all races, religions, creeds and nations to stand up on behalf of the next generation of children. It is time to reclaim what is left of a broken legacy of enduring love and strength through faith in God. It is time to no longer use excuses of poverty. Who knows whether or not this is the child who will bring his family out of poverty.
It is time to no longer use the excuse of having this child later. No man and woman can ever conceive the same child twice.
It is time to no longer use the excuse of a more convenient time, after the promotion. Many first sons who should have been the recipients of their parents' heritage and wealth were robbed by an untimely death. It is time to insist that no child ever face discrimination because of race and/or place or residence. It is time that African American men and women insist that their children and their children's neighbors no longer be denied the inalienable right to life and the opportunity to appreciate their heritage. There is an old African proverb which says, "No one knows whose womb holds the chief." Have they killed the chief? I hope not, but I do know that many of the chief's people have been destroyed in a war directed at them in their most defenseless moments.
Abortion: The robbing of a heritage
By Rev. Johnny HunterLife Education and Resource Network
Abortion is racism in its ugliest form. Because of some very suave planning by abortion supporters and providers, abortionists have eliminated more African American children than the KKK ever lynched. This is one truth that is very disturbing. Think about it. From 1973 to 1992, abortionists have snuffed out the lives of over nine million African American children before their first birthday. Over nine million beautiful black children were prevented from ever having the opportunity to become artists, musicians, doctors, teachers, lawyers, judges, taxi drivers, ambulance drivers, nurses, secretaries, senators, representatives, salesmen, sales clerks, computer programmers, analysts, managers, waitresses, waiters, tellers, leaders, followers, ordinary people, extraordinary people, parents, grandparents, and ancestors. They were robbed of the most essential of all rights--the right to life. They were robbed of their opportunities, and those of us who remain are robbed of their contributions to humanity.
When liberal racists defend abortion as a way to help blacks, I challenge them to show me the bodies of the dead African American children the abortionists have helped. When a "plantation Negro" says he supports abortion because he cares about the sisters, mothers and daughters, he is a hypocrite of the lowest order. To deny the next generation of brothers and sisters the right to exist is the ultimate self-destructing mechanism in the African American community.
When two out of every three minority babies are aborted, it doesn't take a mathematical genius to understand the effect this will have on the minority race in the United States of America. I find it dangerous the way abortion is promoted today. In the July 1992 issue of Life magazine, you will read an attempt by white media to be objective. It amazes me that objectivity means printing and showing both sides of abortion, which kills babies, but avoids showing the victims the effect of violence on the abortion table.
I am glad the media are not being objective about hard drugs. If they covered it like abortion, they would have to let the drug dealers get equal time to show the good side of the business (high salaries for teens) but avoid showing victims of overdose and the effect of violence in the drug world.
In the article titled "The Great Divide," a young black woman getting an abortion is pictured twice and quoted several times. The black man, who is a pro-life leader and supports the right to life for all children, was only pictured once and never quoted. Also, two young white women are both comforting the black woman while she is getting an abortion. What the reader does not know is that the white woman holding the hand of the black woman treats black women who attempt to offer help to their sisters before they enter a clinic in a much different way. She curses and body-checks them.
I suspect that the editors of Life magazine made a calculated decision with total disregard for the racist implications of this "objective" article. Of course they almost showed Tia, who according to a pathologist was a victim of an induced abortion. However, to be objective, they did refer to the child as a fetus and mentioned a county coroner's opinion that the fetus was a stillborn. They did not mention that the reputable medical sources believed the child was a child of color. Was Life magazine supporting racism and annihilation of the black race? I believe so. Was it intentional? For some on their staff, no; for others, yes; although they will not admit it. The most liberal white (person), while supporting abortion, does not want to be exposed for encouraging abortion of black children.
The saddest crisis of all is the ignorance and indifference displayed by prominent black people and black magazines. The September 1992 issue of Ebony magazine contains a full-page advertisement favoring abortion, produced by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. The ad smacks of the racist overtones of Margaret Sanger's "Negro Project." Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, implemented the "Negro Project" in 1939 to eliminate those she called "human weeds." Her recommendation to the steering committee was, "let's attempt to let the colored run it." From her grave, this prejudiced woman is still using ignorant colored (people) to keep the "Negro Project" in operation.
The men featured in the ad, entitled "African American Men for Choice," are totally uninformed or indifferent to the fate of the millions of African American children who will be painfully destroyed because African American women respected their opinion. These are some of the dumbest smart men on earth.
Please examine a few of the lines in this ad. The title says, "African American Men for Choice," which means they have believed the great lie. The great lie being the one where Planned Parenthood changed the question to one concerning a woman's reproductive rights instead of concerning a baby safely snuggled in his/her mother's womb. The ad's first statement is "Today, we are taking a stand side by side with women to guard their most fundamental right. The right to choose."
This is the great abominable lie. The most fundamental right every human being has is life. If a child is not allowed to live, all other rights become moot. This is what bothers me most about so-called social leaders. There are leaders who fight for better health care, better housing, better job opportunities, better education and safer playgrounds. All these things, including the safe playgrounds mean nothing to dead African American babies. An aborted baby needs no health care. An aborted child needs no place to live. The dead baby will never have a career. You cannot educate an aborted child, which is sad, hearing them say, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." The African American Men for Choice believe it is O.K. to waste a mind and a body as long as the woman agrees. My eleven-year-old son called them "The African American Men for Death"!
Ebony should know better, since many who would have been readers are now dead! They died at the hands of abortionists.
The legacy and heritage we are leaving are the most important treasure we can give our children. As African Americans, it is our responsibility to leave a legacy to the next generation, one upon which they may build a better life for themselves. Many great men and women have left us a heritage, but much of our heritage was robbed by slave owners. Two hundred years ago our African American heritage was robbed by a group of elitist individuals who intentionally kept us ignorant concerning the devastating effect of slavery. Today, our heritage is being robbed by elitist individuals who have intentionally kept us ignorant concerning the devastating effect of abortion on our race. They are robbing us to profit from the deaths of our sons and daughters.
The time has come for people of all races, religions, creeds and nations to stand up on behalf of the next generation of children. It is time to reclaim what is left of a broken legacy of enduring love and strength through faith in God. It is time to no longer use excuses of poverty. Who knows whether or not this is the child who will bring his family out of poverty.
It is time to no longer use the excuse of having this child later. No man and woman can ever conceive the same child twice.
It is time to no longer use the excuse of a more convenient time, after the promotion. Many first sons who should have been the recipients of their parents' heritage and wealth were robbed by an untimely death. It is time to insist that no child ever face discrimination because of race and/or place or residence. It is time that African American men and women insist that their children and their children's neighbors no longer be denied the inalienable right to life and the opportunity to appreciate their heritage. There is an old African proverb which says, "No one knows whose womb holds the chief." Have they killed the chief? I hope not, but I do know that many of the chief's people have been destroyed in a war directed at them in their most defenseless moments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
