Da Legal Stuff...

All commentaries published on Web Talk are the opinions of the contributor(s) only and do not necessarily represent the position of any other individuals, groups or organizations.

Now, with that out of the way...Let's Web Talk.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Atlantica Lite - The New Solution

One of the biggest problems with Canada’s quasi-democracy is the penchant of federal parties to pander to provinces with a large number of parliamentary seats, often to the detriment of smaller jurisdictions like those in Atlantic Canada.

In provinces like Newfoundland & Labrador the result of that pandering has been felt time and time again.

As an example, when the equalization formula was restructured, it not only went back on a federal promise to exclude natural resources, the reforms involved more than just equalization restructuring.

Essentially the equalization reforms were intended to appease Quebec by ensuring they got a much larger piece of the pie, to the tune of $1 billion a year. The reforms didn’t stop there however.

In an effort to ensure that the “Quebec solution” didn’t offend voters in Ontario and Alberta the government also changed the underlying structure of the Canada Social Transfer system.

This system provides funding to provinces for everything from post-secondary education to social programs. Critical programs that help a province educate its people and ensure that they have the ability to become more self-sufficient in the long term. It’s ironic that the changes put in place actually limit the ability of smaller provinces to keep pace with larger ones when it comes to social development.

While the social transfer system had been based on a province’s fiscal capacity, the new system is now population based, which naturally favors the larger provinces. An example of the impact of this restructuring is a comparison of Alberta and Newfoundland & Labrador. Alberta, the richest province in Canada, will now receive an additional $102 per person annually while Newfoundland & Labrador, with a small but widely dispersed population, will receive $5 per person.

Try maintaining competitive social programs and education levels with numbers like that.

So, the question is how can blind political ambition and vote pandering on the federal level be neutralized so everyone is treated more fairly?

What if instead of having 7 party controlled votes in parliament Newfoundland & Labrador could find a way to leverage the votes of 32 MPs? It IS possible.

For decades the idea of Atlantica, a single province made up of the entire Atlantic region, has been floated with little acceptance. Rightfully the provinces involved don’t want to give any of the independence they currently have.

As a solution, the concept of having each province remain independent but throwing their collective support behind a single “Atlantica” party has been floated, but once again it gained little acceptance since this approach would leave Nova Scotia with the majority of seats inside the party and likely lead to a situation similar to the one we are experiencing with federally controlled parties.

There is another option however. One that would ensure provincial independence, allow provincial MPs to stand up for their province and help neutralize the federal problem.

These days Newfoundland & Labrador Premier, Danny Williams, is promoting his ABC campaign for the next federal election, “Anyone but Conservative”. Taking that thinking a step further and incorporating the Atlantica (province) and Atlantica (party) concepts the solution begins to become clearer.

All of Atlantic Canada has serious issues with the federal system. For example, New Brunswick only received $7 from the social program changes recently put in place, Nova Scotia, regardless of what Premier “Ronald” McDonald might say, is not pleased with the Atlantic Accord fiasco and PEI with the smallest number of seats is all but forgotten.

The solution is for each of the Atlantic provinces to field their own separate parties and promote the hell out of them on the federal scene.

Instead of “ABC”, why not support 4 new independent, provincially centered parties, in Atlantic Canada?

Why shouldn’t there be a New Brunswick party, Nova Scotia Party, PEI party and a Newfoundland & Labrador party that the people can get behind? Hell, even a seperate Newfoundland party and a Labrador party if that's what it takes to gain support.

Electing provincially focused parties would guarantee that the MPs elected could deliver the message of their constituents to Ottawa, not Ottawa’s message to their constituents. The addition of the new parties, strongly supported, to the federal system would make it almost impossible for any mainsteam party to win a majority government in the future. In fact, knowing the mindset of most politicians, it would probably lead to a little vote pandering down east, in the hope of stealing back some of the provincially controlled seats. That in itself could see positive change for the future of the region.

With a perpetual minority government almost guaranteed, each of the smaller provinces would potentially hold the swing votes required to pass federal legislation, giving them real bargaining power in Ottawa.

Loose coalitions between the individual Atlantic parties and even some of the larger parties would also allow them to vote as a group on issues where common ground exists. This would, under mutually beneficial circumstances, allow those province's to wield 32 parliamentary votes, or more, rather than the paltry number now elected in each Province and controlled by the national party leadership.

Currently Atlantic Canada has very little sway in Ottawa and no way of changing the federal system but by working together in this way the 4 provinces can retain their individuality and still alter the face of Canadian politics, from within the current structure, in a way that allows them to finally have a voice.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well I think the people of Saskatchewan feel the same way Patriot.Have they not voted in thier own party .Defeating the NDP that have run their province for how long.

Federalism does not work .It is nothing more then a means for those that have control to keep it.In order for them to stay in control they must either blind you by your own needs or convince you how great you have it because the overlord says so.

When canada has equality amongst its province's then the flag wavers and false prophets can sing from the hills on how great thier country is.Until then they just sound like loud ignorant americans on a bad European vacation.And with that said ,Steve really does make a bad tour guide.

Anonymous said...

right on the money Patriot!!!

It's time to forget ABC and start thinking about a positive means to bring about change. We need to support a locally run party that can sit in Ottawa and force the status quo parties to listen whether they want to or not.

It's time we became more militant and proactive in making sure we are no longer brushed aside but are an active part of the system.

We all need to send a clear message to all the federal parties, Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green, all of them. That message is, times have changed, we are fed up with being controlled and we are not going to take it anymore.

Mike said...

Well said Anons, It's time to take action and be far more aggressive than we've been in the past.

The biggest problem with our people is that they are not aggressive enough. That has to change and change quickly.

Anonymous said...

The new 10 province standard for equalization is a disaster waiting to happen. As the economies of larger provinces like Ontario or Alberta begin to fail the average becomes lower and lower meaning that the standard by which other provinces are judged fall further and further as well.

It means those who are now have provinces will remain have provinces forever while those who are have not are not likely to ever move to the have status.

I think the idea of forming provincially "managed" parties is a great idea who's time has come. As a great U.S. civil rights leader once said, when an idea's time has come, nothing can stop it. I just hope it's the right time for our people to finally stand up and take up the fight.

Anonymous said...

The angle I find amusing in all this is that it was the Liberals who initiated the O'Brien report in order to "make NL pay" for its decision to embarass the PM Paul Martin. When Harper got elected the O'Brien report was laid out at his feet and like any good politician, he looked at it and realized that this was beneficial for ON, QUE and AB and that it was good political capital, on the suface at least, to institute the program.

Since than, the Canadian dollar has increased about 30% and with the slowdown in the US, ON and Quebec's manufacturing base has taken a crap. To think that NL and/or Atlantic Canada will have any sway on the next election in the coming months is nothing but a pipe dream. Although there are no easy answers your political Atlantica idea has some merit. That would equal the same provincial seat count as the province of Alberta and thusly I am reminded of a quote from a politician who knew a thing or 2 about winning elections.

"Who needs Alberta when you have Quebec." Jean Chretien when asked why he doesn't spend time campaigning in AB.



Cheers all.
Glenn from the Valley

PS: Patriot, I am curious as to your take on Danny supporting McGuinty in his slagging of the feds. Strange bedfellows indeed!


Oh by the way, here's the new "Central Canada" group think on equalization that you will be seeing and hearing more and more of.

NEIL REYNOLDS
G&M
nreynolds@xplornet.com

E-mail Neil Reynolds | Read Bio | Latest Columns
February 20, 2008

OTTAWA -- Poor Ontario. In 2005, the province had 2.8 hospital beds per thousand people.

Manitoba had 3.82. Newfoundland had 4.35.

Ontario had 7.1 nurses per thousand people. Manitoba had 9.6. Newfoundland had 10.7.

The average class size in Ontario was 16.6 pupils. The average class size in Manitoba was 14.9. The average size in Newfoundland was 13.4.

The number of public sector workers in Ontario, per thousand people, was 81.

The comparative number in Manitoba was 117; the comparative number in Newfoundland was 105.

And, oddly enough, based on population, Ontario has the fewest judges in the country and only half as many as Newfoundland.

You could make a neat board game out of statistics of this kind - perhaps Trivial Pursuit: The Equalization Edition. Did you know that Prince Edward Island has eight hospitals, one for every 16,000 people?

Did you know that, setting aside equalization payments altogether, federal spending on the island is double the level in Ontario?

More importantly, for game pie, did you know that Ontario has the fewest resources for provision of public services (in relation to population) in the entire country? In 2005, Ontario made do with $6,992 tax revenue per capita - while Newfoundland got $7,449, Manitoba got $7,805 - and PEI got $8,764. By the way, did you know that Ontario grows in population every year by the size of PEI's population?

David MacKinnon is an acknowledged authority on Ontario's apparent willingness to do without public services even as it provides other provinces with the money that they use to provide the best-funded services in the country. He has studied the phenomenon for years. A native of PEI himself and a graduate from Dalhousie University in Halifax, he held senior positions with the Nova Scotia government, the Ontario government and Bank of Montreal.

For the better part of a decade, he ran the Ontario Hospital Association (retiring in 2003).

He now campaigns for radical reform of the country's equalization program. Two weeks ago, for example, he spoke to the Empire Club in Toronto - at which time he suggested that Ontario needs "the modern equivalent of a Boston tea party" in Toronto Harbour to arouse the complacent province from its long lethargy.

"Why is it," he asked, "that so much of the crime is in Ontario - but the judges are disproportionately in Newfoundland?

"Why is it that Manitoba can subsidize its electricity prices by $1.2-billion [a year] even as it collects $1.8-billion in equalization?

"Why is it that the old in Ontario and the very young in Ontario will experience greater challenges in accessing hospitals and teachers than in most other provinces?"

This last question is one that Mr. MacKinnon has asked for a long time. In the 1990s, he gave speeches in which he observed that Ontario's expenditures on hospitals lagged the national average by 6 per cent every year, that Ontario's expenditures on university education lagged the national average by 20 per cent every year.

Canadians love the mythology of equalization, Mr. MacKinnon says - "the myth that we are all equal, that we all have equal access [to services]." None of the mythology, he says, is true. In his Empire Club address, for example, he concluded that public services are more accessible in the provinces that get equalization payments than they are in the provinces (Ontario and Alberta) that "pay the freight."

The consequences, Mr. MacKinnon says, have been evident for years. Inexorably, Ontario grows less competitive: "Like any manufacturing jurisdiction, Ontario now has to compete with China and India. [At the same time] its per capita income has been falling [relative to the Canadian average] for 15 years. It is about to fall below the Canadian average. It would be far better for the rest of Canada if Ontario did not have to pay for government programs in six or seven of the other provinces."

"Sadly, if Ontario falls into recession today and its output declines, its citizens will still have to come up with nearly half of the annual increases guaranteed for equalization payments in coming years," he says. "Equalization is now largely decoupled from Ontario's economic performance." Equalization, in other words, requires that Ontario keeps paying - whether it is rich or poor.

Mr. MacKinnon's analysis is perceptive, his proposed reforms sensible. Let the federal government give the GST to the provinces, he says, in exchange for an end to federal transfers. Alternatively, let the federal government assume the provinces' debt in exchange for an end to these transfers. Neither of these reforms is apt to happen. Canadian mythology won't permit it.

Anonymous said...

B'ys - get Danny to hold a referendum. Separate. It's the only way. Quit being such wankers and whiners.

Ussr said...

" those that seek independance must be prepared to struggle for it rather than accept it;and having won it,be prepared stand on thier own feet without dependance and without favours "

His Most Imperial majesty EMPEROR HAILE SELLASSIE I

Jah Rastafari

NL-ExPatriate said...

O'brien also recommended including Per Capita collection through user fees but this national party rejected that because it wouldn't benefit the majority provinces.

Equalization comes out of general funds.

Why isn't the Have provinces moneys clawed back from above the equalization line?

Equalization only takes into account socia land health indicators and ommits Infrastructure, economical, and debt indicators.

If the Have not provinces are so well to do why does NL have twice as high a debt to the next province?

If federal largesse is to be handed out on a Per Capita vote Buying scheme why isn't it collected on a Per Capita scheme? Because that wouldn't be in line with the national parties line of Democratic Discrimination of stealing from the minority provinces and giving to the majority provinces to get elected.

This Neil Reynolds guy needs to be debunked in the most serious way. It is people like him and Stephen Harper with their creative statistics and jingoisms that have turned the people of ON/QU into poor mouthed beggars of more more federal largesse.

http://www.pwgsc.gc.ca/pilt/text/va-june2007-e.html#a7

It's the (National Party political) system stupid!

And lo, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians led all the rest


Cross Examination by Averill Baker
The Charter
The last line in the poem Abou Ben Adam reads, “And Lo Ben Adam’s name led all the rest.” Amen.
Figures were released three weeks ago identifying the provinces that contribute the most to the Canadian economy in exports to foreign countries and lo Newfoundlanders and Labradorians led all the rest – again. But, this time, it’s in spades, as the gamblers say, with the one-eyed-jack-of-diamonds-and-the-devil-close-behind way.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians now contribute more to the Canadian economy per capita than any other Canadians to such a remarkable degree that it makes one feel sympathy toward Canadians from other provinces.
Other Canadians who look at these recent figures must feel embarrassed that Newfoundlanders are, in economic terms, contributing so much more than they are to the Canadian economy.
Canadians in Ontario and Alberta must feel like they’re on unemployment insurance with Newfoundlanders paying the bill. Quebecers and Maritimers must feel they are on welfare with Newfoundlanders paying the bill.
In economic terms each Newfoundlander is now worth four Canadians from other provinces.
It’s becoming embarrassing.
And what is just as embarrassing is that historically, since 1949, this province, on average, on a per capita basis, has led all other Canadians in contributions to the Canadian economy.
Of course, the billion dollars of power that we export indirectly to the United States shows up as Quebec’s power on the official figures. That’s one billion dollars of exports that must be taken from the Quebec column and counted as coming from this province.
Oh yeah, says the economist, we lead every other province on a per person basis with just over a half a million people - of course Newfoundlanders and Labradorians lead the rest of Canada. Also we have always exported practically everything we produce - wood, pulp and paper, minerals, fish, and now oil. That is why we have always contributed more to the Canadian economy than any other Canadians on a per capita basis.
And that is why some people sometimes suggest that we would have been better off had we not joined Canada or if we were today to separate from Canada. On the economic yardstick this province is in a far better position to separate and print its own money – just like we did prior to joining Canada.
The Export Development Corporation in releasing its figures last month claimed that this province is now exporting about $4 billion of crude oil to the United States. It points out that Statistics Canada figures, used by the provincial government, are incorrect.
Those incorrect figures, used by provincial governments and Ottawa, show that most of our exports of crude oil are going to other Canadian provinces for refining. The Export Development Corporation claims in their end of July report that in fact most of our crude is being shipped to the United States for refining and not to Canadian refineries. I believe the Export Development Corporation.
Together with the power through Quebec, these adjustments are necessary to get to the truth about our exports to foreign nations.
Some of our offshore crude and all of Voisey’s Bay nickel are shipped within Canada for processing and cannot be counted in values of exports. Voisey’s Bay nickel and Duck Pond copper and zinc, and iron ore, will lead exports of minerals next year. Where is Duck Pond you might ask? It’s around Trout Pond, which is next to a smaller pond called Goose Pond.
The Newfoundland separatist makes a valid point in saying that if we were not a part of Canada all of our exports would be to foreign nations.
Then look at the fantastic economic position we would be in.
Maybe Major Peter Cashin and Malcolm Hollett were right in 1948.
The only thing missing today is the quality of politician we had years ago - from the records of the National Convention and Hansard, quality politicians like Peter Cashin, Malcolm Hollett, Gordon Bradley, Joey Smallwood, James Chaulker, Dr. Jim McGrath, Dr. Fred Rowe, Bill Rowe, Charlie Ballam, C. Max Lane, Ed Roberts, John Crosbie, James McGrath, Clyde Wells, Nathaniel Noel, Bill Marshall, Dr. Noel Murphy, Ambrose Peddle, Jack Pickersgill, Dr. Frecker, Tom Hickey, John Lundrigan, Jim Morgan etc. etc.
Yes, today we do have some outstanding politicians, like Danny Williams, but they are like hen’s teeth – they’re hard to find.

NDL said...

I've been in favor of an Atlantic Block in parliament. Maybe, if we work together with the other Atlantic provinces , we might the attention our issues deserve.

Ussr said...

Time to make like the crowd in Saskatchewan and vote in a Party that belongs to Newfoundland and Labrador.

History has shown us that our 2.2% doesn't mean snot to those in power.What was that remark made by "Steve" , Myles.

" I don't need Newfoundland and Labrador to win an election"

and ,besides all that why do we need to allow ourselves to depend on a political body that has no intention on making the province a better place anyway.Its not like we need them to conduct buissness.

From the Daily Observer,out of Kingston Jamaica.Febuary 15,2008.

"Canada is a country that considers itself a federation.Steven Harper has indicated to us that relations between the two countrys is not a priority to his governement.For us to have relations as we did ,we must learn to deal with each province as it's own ruling state."

I think we need to start looking outside the box and see how the world see's us.Others relise the lack of importance of the federal governement when it comes to issues regardig the province's.Why is it so hard for us to do the same .It only matters if we allow them to matter.

Like other provinces we must demand that we get back more of what we give ,or we must simply stop giving canada the upper hand on resources.Think of the jobs that will be lost if we simply stop sending the resources out.What would happen if we simply turned off the upper ChurchHill!!!

The only Newfoundlander or Labradorian that has taken this into consideration is now sitting in the premeirs chair.And,thank God he's there.!!!

Anonymous said...

It's time to end the status quo. Time to take up the charge and take a stand.

The only ones who can make a difference is us.

Pius Lasaga said...

"Why isn't the Have provinces moneys clawed back from above the equalization line?"

'cause they don't get a transfer. You can't claw back what isn't there.

"Equalization only takes into account social and health indicators and omits Infrastructure, economical, and debt indicators."

Huh? Equalization doesn't include any of those. It's figured out on the basis of income types.

"If the Have not provinces are so well to do why does NL have twice as high a debt to the next province?"

- Because the provincial government spent more money than it took in pretty much every year for 50 years.

- because the provincial government backed hare-brained schemes like growing cucumbers in Mt. Pearl.

The answers are simple and right in front of your face. You just have to be willign to accept them.

Ussr said...

February 28, 2008 3:38 PM
if this is such the case then pius ,why is each province treated acoording to the amount of seats it has in the House of commons.

Why was Newfoundland and Labraor not given the same treatment as Alberta ,when it came to what it had brought into confederation.

The debt is here because there is far to great an involvement by the federal governement and it's control over what we gave in 1949.If Newfoundland and Labrador had the same representation in Governement as Ontario ,Alberta ,or Quebec ( did I spell that right Patriot,lol ) you can bet the house that the province and its resource's would be treated with a whole differant level of respect.

No representation in Governemnt ,No tax ,and No friendly relationship.A new realization has come to light that Canada is a country built on the "Backs" of the little man.

What truly up-sets me the most about such said comments Patriot,is the fact that no one seems to care that this so called country is guilty of what I would call "Cultural Genocide."

Seeing the outport communitys this year while I was in the province really put things in perspective for me .For years people have been saying that the out-ports are dying.Well,im sorry to say that they are not dying ,they are dead.And ,we can only blame those that have control of the resources that created those commuitys in the first place.How can debt be paid back patriot when there is no one to pay the bill's.But,what really scares me in this rant is the fact that there are those that would deny what canada has done when it took control .For a country that prides itself on multiculturalism ,I find this to be disgracfull.Its all bad enough that it has happened ,but to stand back and say that they played a small role in what happened is disgracefull.As a Canadain I feel nothing but shame.As I look to Quebec ,I gain a complete understanding of why they take such views on this country.

The need for our own party has never been greater.The time to forget about Canada and its false prophets has never been greater.My only thought that has any concern to me is this .Will Premeir Danny Williams take the next step.And ,endorse publicly a poitcal party that will take the fight to Ottawa .Anything else,and we are only wasting our votes and our time .

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the%20churchill%20falls%20contract&search=Search&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&spell=1

Anonymous said...

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity.
But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the Negro. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"


I too have a dream !!!

Patriot said...

The words of the good Dr. King are very inspirational Anon. Thanks for writing them down and sending them it.

There may be those who accuse NLers of overreacting by comparing our situation to those of the civil rights movement of the 1960's and while I agree that the plight of the blacks at that time was more severe than our own on a daily basis, the fact remains that a jailer, no matter how benevolent, is still a jailer and a prison, no matter how pleasing to the eye, remains a prison still.