Feeds:
Posts
Comments

An article on The Root last year accused the National Anthem of being racist based on it’s mention of slavery in the third stanza.

“…And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave…”

Key was saying that the blood of all the former slaves and “hirelings” on the battlefield will wash away the pollution of the British invaders. With Key still bitter that some black soldiers got the best of him a few weeks earlier, “The Star-Spangled Banner” is as much a patriotic song as it is a diss track to black people who had the audacity to fight for their freedom.

The article is not entirely correct. Sadly people didn’t give much account to slaves in those times, at least in the South. What Scott Key was writing about was the common British practice of using their own chattel slaves, and foreigners apprehended & pressed into service, as well as mercenaries, on their sailing ships. He was contrasting the ineffectiveness of hired and captive military forces compared to a largely free and volunteer force.

Britain didn’t free it’s slaves until a couple decades after the War. They freed their slaves a few decades sooner than most of the European powers in part because frankly as a shipping nation they were still able to trade in goods produced by slaves owned by other European nations, even though slavery was bad economically for both the slave and the master.

The reason the West was the first to end slavery in 5,000 years of recorded history was directly due to the Judeo Christian world view of individuals as having rights to life, liberty and property (which British common law scholars and the Founders directly attributed to Genesis 1:28, which requires all three).

Please watch the film Amazing Grace sometime if you haven’t already.

I’ve read the book The Internal Enemy by Alan Taylor, an example of the Howard Zinn type of thinking upon which the Root author was basing many of his conclusions. The truth is that three-quarters of the Founders opposed slavery and put into the Declaration and Constitution in seed form the principles of abolition, as the great Frederick Douglass came to realize later in life.

The much criticized “three-fifths” compromise fully recognized the personhood of the slaves, and the reason it lessened their representation by their oppressors in Congress was specifically to weaken their oppressors. The slave states wanted to consider slaves property in terms of being, but persons in terms of representation. The free state legislators countered that if that was the case they would could chairs, tables and horses, etc. The three-fifths compromise fully acknowledged the slaves humanity, while weakening their oppressor’s power legislatively.

Later our nation fought a great and bloody civil war to end slavery, the only nation to do so. And Republicans again fought and won in the Civil Rights struggles of the 50’s and 60’s before LBJ, tragically, interpreted Titles II and VII of the CRA 1964 to mean racist quotas and differential treatment based on skin color. The Democrats are still the side of racism, still the side of division based on skin color.

No, this is a great nation.  We can be proud to sing our National Anthem.

The music is incredibly hoakey but the words to the poem by Richard Riddle are 100% spot on:

There is no racism in the Star Spangled Banner

Advertisements

So Much Truth

I love this meme, I crack up every time I see it.  So much truth –

The flow of the following three questions is important because they expose the racist mindset of those who “convicted” Mr. Arpaio, and the flaw in their racist thinking.

These questions are simple yes and no, a person should answer them honestly according to what they believe.

1) Do you believe different races exit?

2) Do you believe people from Mexico are a different race?

3) Do you believe that groups you consider to be different races should be arrested and convicted of crimes based on a racial quota system, completely ignoring the actual rates of crimes within their communities?

Those who were behind Mr. Arpaio’s “conviction” firmly believe all three, and it’s precisely why they subjectively convicted him. The “profiling” charge is a smoke screen, and questions 1 and 2 firmly expose the racist mindset behind that charge as well. But the main thing the Left is concerned with in terms of “racial justice” is that there be quotas in the rates of arrest of what they consider to be “different races”, regardless of the crime rate for a given community or group.

Now, all of this said, I think Mr. Arpaio should truly be investigated for, and possibly removed from office for, poor record keeping, misappropriation of funds, mistreatment of prisoners and fraudulent clearance of cases.  These are not proven allegations but there is substantial evidence behind each of them.

To read a report issued almost 10 year ago about these problems by a conservative think-tank, please take a look at the Goldwater Institute document:

Mission Unaccomplished: The Misplaced Priorities of the Maricopa County Sheriff ’s Office

While it appears there may very will be corruption or incompetence on Arpaio’s part, these problems do not prove racism, which has been the main thrust of the Democrat move to oppose and remove him.  Indeed, the Democrat’s own racially based strategy of opening arms to immigrants such as MS-13 gang members would result it it’s own brand of miscarriage of justice and jeopardy to citizens.

But in terms of simple racism, Mr. Arpaio is not necessarily the racist, those on the Left are.

 

Real Multiculturalism

The thought occurred to me the other day that when the Left says “multicultural”, what they really mean is “monocultural”, and you’d better not try to integrate any culture with any other! This is the ~opposite~ of real multiculturalism. Real multiculturalism is a coming together, with an acceptance of non-fault aspects of all other cultures in celebration. It is “e pluribus unum”, out of many, one. But the Left’s radical monoculturalism is “e unum puribus”, out of one, many. They are against real multiculturalism.

John Wayne weighing in (sorry for the campy music, and warning, some graphic images):

I asked a friend from high school to answer three simple yes / no questions, and they flat-out refused to answer them honestly and publicly. The questions were:

Do you believe in any of the following three modern Democrat planks:

1) Different races exist

2) Skin color is an indicator of race in some instances

3) People should be treated differently based on their race / skin color (in terms of college admissions, treatment when they commit fault, etc.)

The reason the person flat-out refused to answer because the party that was the party of racism and differential treatment in 1860 and 1955, the Democrat party, is still the party of racism and differential treatment in 2017.  And the party that was the party of considering all people the same and treating them equally in 1860 and 1955, the Republican party, is still the party of considering all people the same and treating them equally in 2017.

Please feel free to ask these three questions to friends and family, and ask them to answer what they truly believe, in all honesty, simply yes or no.  If they answer yes, do not judge or attack.  Thank them and then reason, explain, and invite.

Be sensitive, these questions expose the real source of racism in our society today.

Love And Acceptance

It is so incredibly cruel and destructive for those on the Left to tell people in effect: Yes, you are defective. You were born in the wrong body. You can only ever be a caricature of what you are supposed to be.

These are some pretty gory details ahead and you need to read them. You need to understand what the Left is doing to people.

When a guy goes for an operation to pretend to make him a gal, he is not left with XX chromosomes, or the parts of the opposite gender. What the operation produces is a wound cavity surfaced with a mixture of replaced skin and scar tissue. The wound cavity produces no lubrication and doesn’t have any self cleansing properties. Anything that goes in dribbles right back out. The wound cavity smells like a wound cavity, and is so prone to infection a man who undergoes the procedure must then live within minutes of emergency care for the rest of their life. From then on when they use the restroom it’s prone to spray instead of stream, which make messes and adds to the smell, lack of cleanliness and chances for infection. They are left with a fraction of the sensitivity they had before. And for the rest of their life their male body will try to heal the wound cavity back up solid. Because of this the man will have to insert a large stretching device between his legs and leave it for 45 minutes at a time, at least three times a week, every week, for the rest of his life, or the wound will heal and close. That’s part of why it’s insanity for the military to lay out $250,000 in order to wound a soldier to the point where he 1) can’t be away from emergency care for concern of infection, and 2) has to be out of action three times a week for 45 minutes at a stretch. The man who undergoes the procedure is often crushed because it does not make them a woman as they desire. It makes them a castrated fellow. They have the same bone structure, the same voice, the same shoulders, and now they have a fraction of the feeling, other men don’t want to be with them and they have real disabilities trying to prolong the wound cavity, for as long as they try to keep it.

This is the height of cruelty. Instead people should be counseled to accept and love themselves ~as they are~. They are not a mistake. They were not born in the wrong body. They can love themselves, embrace themselves. That is the real message of love and acceptance.

The environmentalist movement has always been anti-human.  Recently TheBlaze posted an article about how the push for cheap, plentiful, clean energy is not what environmentalists really want because that allows humans to keep reproducing and multiplying.  Chilling and sobering thought, and it’s based in reality.

Every couple of years the Great One, Mark Levin, reminds us on his radio program about a seminal book review written by a National Park environmentalist, David Graber.  The review was for the book The End Of Nature by Bill McKibben.

In Graber’s review he plainly states that the planet would be much better off with fewer people, and that removing about a billion would be a good start.  He wrote in the L.A. Times on October 22, 1989:

I, for one, cannot wish upon either my children or the rest of Earth’s biota a tame planet, a human-managed planet, be it monstrous or–however unlikely–benign. McKibben is a biocentrist, and so am I. We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value–to me–than another human body, or a billion of them.

Translation:  Any other animal besides mankind, and any other natural feature such as a tree, rock or lake, is more valuable than the lives of a billion people.  I’m not reading that in to Graber’s statement, that’s what he – and many radical environmentalists – actually thinks.

Graber then continues:

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line–at about a billion years ago, maybe half that–we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.  It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

Graber, and other radical environmentalists today, are hoping for most or all of the human race to be literally destroyed from the planet.  He is waiting for, “the right virus to come along”.