No Racism

Much of what I am about to say has been or will be said on conservative radio today. Outside of that, you likely will not hear any of it on social media, the mainstream news, or in liberal blogs.  This is primarily due to the fact that liberals, as a group, are incapable of thought and fact based argument.  You may consider that a broad based accusation.  I consider it simply, the truth.

So let’s start with the notion of racism. If liberals were capable of thought they would understand the fact that selecting people originating from specific countries is not racism.  If it is anything it would be nationalism.  The thing the affected people have in common is their nation of origin, not their race.

Next, let us consider that no one has been “banned”. A moratorium has been placed on immigration from 7 nations, which were identified by the Obama administration and voted on by Congress to be placed on a list of “Countries of Concern”.  These are all nations known to harbor terrorists and/or sponsor terrorism.  The decision to implement a system whereby immigrants and visitors from these nations are more closely scrutinized is a sound one from a security perspective.

“It’s a Muslim ban!” No snowflake…it’s not.  If it were a Muslim ban there are 40 more predominantly Muslim nations which would also be on the list.  They are not.

“It’s Unconstitutional!” This one makes me laugh.  Not because I think violations of the Constitution are funny, but because I think hearing it from people who sat silent while Obama violated the constitution is funny.  For instance, people are up in arms about Trump’s proposal to deport around 2-3 million criminal illegals.  Meanwhile Obama actually did deport 2.4 million illegals, and no one said a word.  Explain that…

What’s truly sad is to hear members of Congress say that what Trump is doing is illegal and unconstitutional. The President has the authority to set immigration policy.  Just like Obama could decide to jack up the number of refugees coming in, Trump can decide to lower it.  It’s pretty simple and clear cut.  You don’t need an advanced degree to get it.

Lastly, no one has a right to enter this country. Not even you, snowflake U.S. citizen.  Once you leave you are subject to being allowed to return.  You can be pulled aside, questioned, have your bags inspected, etc.  And you may not be sent on your way until Customs and Immigration are content with your presence.  So the notion that a non-citizen has some sort of “right” to come here is comical.

It’s sad that liberals would rather put the safety and security of their fellow citizens in jeopardy than appear mean to immigrants. But, as Europe is finding out, when you cast open the door and allow middle-eastern immigrants/refugees from war torn, terror prone, nations to enter…you get the war and the terror along with them.  This is not a knock against the people per se.  it is simply an acknowledgement of reality.  Portions of the UK, France, Germany, and others, are learning this lesson as we speak.  As rapes, other crimes, and terrorist acts, increase across Europe.  As people with one way of thinking, which has no regard for women or basic human rights, move into and occupy land historically occupied by people with a diametrically opposed set of values.

It’s very simple when you boil it down.

Many people from these nations believe it is okay, in fact ordained by God, to treat women as cattle. They believe homosexuality is a crime.  They believe that Allah is God, Mohammed his prophet, and Sharia his law.  They do not accept, and will not accept, western culture and values.  Period.  Not all of them, but many of them.  We need to know which is which.

You may agree or disagree with various policies put forward by the Trump administration. But there is no argument that we need to properly vet ANYONE coming into this country.  Especially those coming from areas known to be terrorist enclaves.

This is just plain old common sense.

Which is why liberals don’t get it.


Racism, Gun Control, and the Confederate Flag

Here we go again.

Every time more than one person is killed with a gun our “leaders” begin talking about gun control.  No one seems overly concerned when people die one at a time…

Martin O’Malley has said publicly that he is ready to do for America what he did for Maryland.  Consider that for a minute.  Baltimore…is in Md.  There have been a record number of murders in Baltimore recently.  In spite of restrictive gun laws.  So what exactly does Mr. O’malley propose to do?

That is the crux of the question, and one no one seems willing to answer.  The leaders chant gun control over and over, and then the liberal base and liberal media take up the chant, like a bunch of college students at an Obama rally.  “Yes we can!”  “Yes we can!”  Well, it turns out that no…you can’t.  But hey, it sounded good right?

When you ask a chanter a specific question, you get vague answers.  That’s because their ideology is not based on logic or reason, it’s based on emotion.  Let me illustrate.

What proposed law or amendment to a current law would have prevented the shootings in SC?  An assault weapons ban?  He didn’t use an “assault weapon”  (which is stupid in and of itself.  Name a weapon that when used does not “assault” the target).  Ammo capacity restrictions?  He shot 9 people.  You only need 9 bullets to do that. Better background checks?  From what I understand the gun was a gift.

The fact that all these recent shootings are taking place in locations where guns are prohibited should be a clear indication of what the actual problem is.  A school.  A church.  Military bases.  A theater where concealed carry was prohibited.  All have one thing in common.  They were full of unarmed, sitting ducks.  Has there ever been a mass shooting at a gun range?  How about a police department?  No?  I wonder why.

The press repeatedly states that “studies show” that armed citizens have never successfully stopped a mass shooting.  Yeah, because the shootings take place where no one is armed but the perpetrator.  However, think about that for a minute.  The police are armed citizens.  The military are armed citizens.  Of course they (supposedly) receive a lot of training.  But in NYC a couple of years ago two cops engaged an armed suspect on the street.  The cops shot 9 innocent bystanders trying to hit the criminal.  So much for the superior training the police receive.

We routinely hear that we need to find a way to control access to guns that respects the rights of hunters and sportsmen.  No one has the balls to say that it is not hunters and sportsmen whose rights need to be respected.  The Second Amendment wasn’t written for deer hunters.  It was written so that citizen militias could protect themselves and their communities against a tyrannical and overbearing government.  Don’t take my word for it.  Here is but a portion of the writings of our Founders on the topic.  Note that hunting is never mentioned.

  • “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
    — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
  • “Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
    — Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
  • “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
    — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
  • If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
  • “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
    — Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
  • “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
    –James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
  • “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
    –John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
  • “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
    –Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
  • “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
    –Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
  • “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
    –Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
  • “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
    — Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
  • “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
    — Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
  • “The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country …”

So what about racism?  Isn’t it evil, hateful, hurtful and stupid?  Why yes, it is all of these things.  In my opinion hating someone simply because of the color of their skin is asinine.  In fact, “hating” anyone is really a waste of mental energy.  In my view we should all deal with each individual as an individual and like or dislike them based on character and personality.  Not on race or ethnicity.  But that is MY VIEW.

One of the key concepts we seem to have lost in this politically correct age is the simple fact that you do not need protection for popular speech.  You need protection of UNPOPULAR speech.  Hence the First Amendment.

If we allow an affront to our senses and sensibilities to push us to the point where we as a society, in a vain attempt to silence the mouths of men without changing their hearts, lead a federal assault on the First Amendment, we are doomed as a nation.  Consider for a moment a United States where it is illegal to speak your mind if your thoughts offend someone, and where the populace has been divested of all but but a handful of essentially useless firearms (from a self-defense perspective).  What then is our defense against a police state?  How is life here different from the future portrayed in George Orwell’s book of prophecy, 1984?

Do I think it is right, or normal, or acceptable to be a racist?  No I do not.  Do I think you have the right to be a racist, and to say so publicly?  Yes I do.

The government cannot mandate the content of the minds and hearts of the citizenry.  When it tries to do so you end up with places like Stalin’s Russia or Hitler’s Germany…or Chavez’s Venezuela.  If those are places that appeal to you, then keep supporting policies which disarm the public and outlaw hate speech.

The very notion of “hate crimes” does insult to the idea of a free society.  As a white man my life is as valuable as the life of a black man.  Murder is a crime.  The law values all lives equally in the context of murder.  But when we introduce hate crimes in to the mix we change the equation.  We make the lives of some citizens more valuable than the lives of other citizens, based on the motive the murderer had in his or her mind at the time of the killing.

We also apply these laws unequally.  When 1 white guy kills 9 black people in SC because they were black, that’s a hate crime.  But when a mob of 15 to 20 black men chased down and beat a white man in Furgeson, Missouri that was simply an assault (and to my knowledge no one was ever charged).  Presumably because only white people are capable of hate??

The calls for the removal of the Confederate flag are similarly misplaced.

To be clear, I do not live in SC, and I do not care what flag or flags they fly.  But what I do care about is dealing with a problem in a way calculated to actually fix the problem.  I care about truth and honesty.  I care about integrity.  The push to take down the flag has none of these qualities.

There have been some pictures circulated of the church shooter holding the Confederate Flag.  For him it was a symbol of his racism.  But I am not a racist, and I have Confederate imagery on shirts and other nicknacks around my home.  What if the young man had been holding an I-phone?  What if he was wearing an AC/DC shirt?  Would we be calling for the removal of these images?

You may say that those things are not images that invoke racial hatred.  Okay, fair enough.  So let’s also remove all shirts and hats with a big white “X” on them.  Let’s remove the “black power” fist.  Let’s remove the flags at the U.N. of every nation that supports hate and intolerance on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation, starting with every nation in the middle east.

The simple fact is that the Confederate Flag was the symbol of a nation in which slavery was legal.  We do business with such nations to this very day.  Yes, there was a component of slavery to the civil war.  Yes, some of the armies fighting in it were fighting to preserve the practice.  But many of those men fighting on the Confederate side were fighting simply for the right of individual states to set their own path, as the Founders intended.  They were fighting against an all powerful federal government with its’ fingers in everybody’s pie, like the one we have today.  They were fighting for federalism, states rights, and autonomy.  And they are a part of the history of this nation.

For me, and people like me, that flag represents a rebel spirit.  It represents individualism and a belief in the 10th Amendment.  It represents federalism and a belief in a small central government.  And it represents a heritage of like minded people, willing to lay down their lives to defend those principles.  When I see it I do not think of hate, or even of black people at all.  I think of the things above.

Racism in this nation will not end with the removal of a flag or the passage of legislation making certain speech illegal.  It will not end with hate laws or extra punishment for “hate crimes”.  It will end when people stop teaching their kids to dislike or hate other people based on the color of their skin.  All people!  Including black people!

So the next time some liberal politician spouts off some feel good nonsense about how we need to do something to stop these crimes, think long and hard about it before you start nodding in agreement.  Passing laws restricting the freedom of speech or the freedom to own firearms will not stop people from hating each other.  It will not prevent tragic deaths or end racism.  It will not even end mass murder.  What it will do is move us one step closer to a police state where only the authorities have weapons.  Where what you think becomes a crime, and unjust laws are enforced by a government no longer concerned that the people might rise up and reject them.

If you want to live in a place like that there are many of them.  Take your pick…your plane is waiting.  But if you believe what President Obama said, that these things do not happen in other advanced nations, then you have already forgotten about the Charlie Hebdo attack, in France, where even the regular police don’t have guns.

Wake up!


Recently, in response to a comment I made on a Facebook post, I was accused of always finding something to get defensive about. As the post in question regarded insensitive comments made by white people toward black people, I thought my “defensiveness” warranted an explanation.

First let me state that I am white. The person who posted the video to which I responded, is black. She is also someone I respect greatly and have tremendous personal affection for. I consider her a mentor, a confidant and a friend. However, this issue is one that plucks a particular never with me, and so I must respond.

I was born in 1970. Two years and 16 days after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. So I knew nothing of the man, or the society he was trying to change, until many years later. But there were some things I did know.

I knew my Pop Pop trained his dogs to attack black people on sight. I knew that my father’s father had instructed my dad, upon reporting to boot camp, to inform the drill instructor that members of my family didn’t take orders from <insert N-word here>.

I was surrounded, as an adolescent, by racism. I was taught through word and action, implicit and implied, that black people were less intelligent, more violent, and as a whole lazier, than white people.

I lived in neighborhoods wholly devoid of people of color. I attended churches filled with an uninterrupted sea of lily white faces. Boy Scouts was the same. Everywhere I went and everything I did, was with white people.

There were black kids in my school. I got along well with most of them. But I did see and hear things which reinforced my preconceived notions about the violent nature of the black culture. Though, to be honest, as I look back on it those things were not restricted to any particular group or ethnicity. I was always around a rough group of people. White or black, someone was always getting beat up.

Eventually I grew up and I began working. I ran in to smart, motivated, black men and women, and I began to question the things I had been told and had simply accepted. To be clear, I also ran in to people who perfectly matched the stereotype I had been told about, and for a time I was confused. But eventually I had what could only be described at the time as an epiphany. Each individual…is an individual.

Certain groups of people tend to gravitate toward a lifestyle or manner of conducting themselves. If you gather together all the people on a given block in any inner city, odds are that the majority of them will have a large number of things in common. The environment favors certain behaviors and mannerisms. Speech patterns are mimicked. Clothing tends toward the same styles and colors. People join the herd…

But, within each person resides an individual, and those individuals can break patterns.

I am reminded of Nicky Cruz, who went from leading one of the most violent street gangs in NYC to being a Christian evangelist to those same gangs. That story is repeated every day in this nation, as people choose to break from the crowd, ignore patterns, and be who they are in spite of societal pressure to conform.

And so, as a young adult raising two daughters, I struggled against institutionalized racism in my extended family and within myself. I taught my daughters to take each person as they come to you; or as a great man once put it, to judge others not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I am in the middle years of my life now. I have friends and associates of all races, ethnicities, genders and sexual orientations. I take each person as they come to me, and I find value in relationships with all sorts of people. And this is where the comments and remarks alluded to at the start of this post get to me a little.

Because today, as a middle class white guy, I still see racism all over the place. The vast majority of it though, is coming from black people.

Gone are the days of slavery. Segregation has been over for many years. It is no longer acceptable to use “the N word” in public. Realistically, it’s not acceptable to use it in private either. We have Equal Opportunity Employment Commissions; quotas; diversity mandates; Affirmative Action; the list goes on and on. We have black Congressmen and women; Senators; and we have elected our first black president. But it’s not enough, and it never will be.

There are people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton whose lives are so invested in the existence of racism that they will not ever let it go even if the day should ever come when it was completely gone.

Just like old white men cling to old ideals and notions, so too do old black men and women. The difference is, in white families we just shake our heads at grandpa…and wait for him to die. In the black household I get the feeling that the younger generations gather at grandpa’s knee and listen to tales of police brutality and the white man’s greed; segregation and slavery; and unequal justice. I think they take up these banners, keep the flame alive, and find racism around every corner because they are actively looking for it.

Take for example the Trayvon Martin case. A light skinned Hispanic guy shoots a black kid. The issue gets blown up to the point where the President of the United States is commenting on it and members of Congress are going to the podium wearing hoodies. But some kid named Antonio kills some kid named Latrell every 10 minutes in some neighborhood in this country…and apparently no one gives a shit. Why is that?

Tupac had a number of things to say about these issues. Most notably, in the song White Man’s World, he said the following:

We ain’t never gon’ walk off this planet, unless Y’ALL choose to

Use your brain! Use your brain!

It ain’t them that’s killin us it’s US that’s killin us

It ain’t them that’s knockin us off, it’s US that’s knockin us off

I’m tellin you better watch it, or be a victim Be a victim, in this white man’s world

The simple truth is that the most hateful, racist, violent speeches I have ever heard have come from the mouths of black men. Many of whom are walking around with the title “Reverend” or “Minister”.

And the simple reality is, though there is only one black person in my entire neighborhood, any black person I know could safely walk down my street at any time of the day or night with no fear that any harm would befall them. But the same cannot be said of me, walking down the streets of virtually any predominantly black neighborhood I can think of. Yes…I may make it out alive. But that is by no means a given. And we must be willing to discuss the reasons for that if we are ever going to move past these things.

I have black friends who are concerned about coming to my house because I live in the country, in the state of VA., and rednecks and Klansmen used to burn crosses out here years ago. Meanwhile, black kids are robbing, raping and killing each other every week in the neighborhoods they, or people they know, live in. Does that make sense to anyone?

So it pisses me off a little when people post videos where some white girl tells some black girl that she has nice skin. Or some black dude takes offense at a white guy commenting on the fact that he is unusually articulate. REALLY!? THAT’S the problem!?

25% of all black males between 18-30 are either on probation or in jail. 80% of all crime committed against black people is committed by black people. Your children are gunning each other down in the street over shoes and jackets, and the color of the bandana on their heads.

The number of black women raising children alone is astronomical. The black family, and hence the black community, is being destroyed by a federal and state government which has replaced fathers with bureaucrats. You vote overwhelmingly for a group of politicians that intentionally keep you oppressed because so long as you need them they can be assured of your vote.

But the real issue; the crux of your struggle; is an ignorant comment or two made by some dumbass Caucasian from time to time??

Though I have struggled all of my life against the forces which would coerce me in to falling in to precisely the stereotype you keep alive in those gatherings at grandpa’s knee, I am, by extension, found guilty of the racism you find because you seek it. And it irritates me.

Perhaps, if we were to focus time and attention on the real issues, we might solve some of them. And perhaps if those people of color who focus so intently on the color of other’s skin would focus instead on the content of their character, we could move past this tiring, inane, “racial divide”.

I am not being “defensive”. I’m just tired of spending time on this issue. Mine or anyone else’s.

No one I know gives a crap what color you are. A little time spent in reflection might reveal to those of you who are obsessed with color that the problem is not that anyone else has an issue with you being black…but maybe that YOU do.

My two cents. Take it or leave it.