What Obama really meant in his Treyvon Martin speech.

Obama made an appearance Friday the 19th of July to discuss the verdict of a case that has received a lot of attention. I am not going to be talking about the case. I will talk about certain points in his speech and what I believe to be his meaning behind them.

"You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago." Obama said this closer to the beginning of his speech and they are the two lines that get quoted on the news than any other part of his speech. It is not hard to understand what he is talking about. There is still a stigma in America that minorities are looked down upon in many ways. History has shown us that this has always been the case. Starting with slavery and indentured servitude to the Jim Crowe laws to interracial marriage laws. And to this day there is still a remnant of this treatment. This remnant, however, has shifted for the most part away from laws that put African-Americans down. It has switched to a social construct. A construct that has changed most people's feelings from disgust and hatred to fear and uneasiness. Don't get me wrong there are still plenty of people out there who hate African-Americans, but I hope they are a dying breed. Obama knows and has been part of a time where it was still ok to hate and fear African-Americans. He has been in Trayvon Martin's shoes. And this is something a vast majority of the white population can't say.

The other major point brought up by Obama is discussing race anywhere but the House and the Senate. This according to a lot of news stations is something that is almost a hushed subject like having an abortion in the early nineties; it was just something you would not talk about. And this is something I feel is very wrong with America. Sadly there are a lot of people that can not have an educated discussion about many topics but that does not mean they should not be avoided or swept under the rug. A man of Obama's power saying to America "Discuss race" is amazing to me. Everyone should feel free to discuss hot topics. And who knows some may be better for it.

"We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools." Martin Luther King Jr.

IRS Scandal Ways and Means Second Hearing Thoughts

By Tim Newton
So I've been hearing from a few critics lately about the IRS Scandal. They say  "why should we subsidize these groups that are clearly political in nature?" I have also heard the statement "shouldn't they expect to be investigated further if their group seems political in nature?"
I refer those who ask these questions to two videos, one which details this argument more fully, the second answers these questions. No representative that I have heard from has disagreed on the fact that these groups were targeted and that there was harassment that occurred, and that it was definitely inappropriate on all counts. No one is doubting that, the question remains to be answered is who directed this. From what we learned from Rep. Issa this weekend, he believes and seems to have evidence that it went deeper than just a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati.


Rep Jim Mcdermott (D-WA)




Rep Aaron Schock (R-IL)



Rep Paul Ryan (R-WI)
(his time starts a minute and a half in)



We must consider several ideas here, the first of which is this, if political groups need additional scrutiny, was it done equally? The answer is a resounding no. Out of the 300 groups singled out in Cincinnati 75 were conservative, and 3 were liberal. From what we can tell there is no evidence of any kind that liberal groups were given the same scrutiny and harassment or asked similar questions.

Next we must consider the question: Was the type of scrutiny appropriate and even handed, and were records obtained handled fairly? Again a resounding no, as evidenced during Rep. Ryan's questioning, it is evident that much of the handling was inappropriate and at times excessive, at times even illegal actions were made by the IRS. Asking for donors lists, requesting not to have them protest, detailing every speech made by a speaker, who made it and their credentials? Not only are these things excessive, but definitely overreach and out of control is what it seems. 

Now, whenever you have a group that is receiving status for educating and promoting the well being of citizens, there will be innately an ideology involved of some sort. These groups are not big money funneling groups, but groups seeking to promote what they deem is in the public benefit of the U.S. Over the course of our history our country has had a healthy and constant discussion of the rights of the people and the role of government, which is one of the most polarizing questions of our time. 

The next question we need to consider is this: What form of subsidization is occurring here, and why do we have the designation for these groups for individuals to donate their funds to them? Now when we talk of tax exemptions here it is referring to exemptions for individuals donating to these groups. This does not mean that the individual group is receiving any money from the government. Similarly if you are asking that question are you as concerned about a liberal group as you are a conservative group? 

What is to be done about the issue? The first I would say is that the truth in it's entirety needs to come forth, and be examined. Next we need to consider the proper course of action, such as additional transparency and accountability for actions of individuals within the IRS and other possible entities outside. If it does come out that it is individuals lower down then maybe their authority needs to be limited further, and greater accountability measures need to be put into place on these matters.