Clean Old-Fashioned Hate?

I would like to first issue a warning for this article. This is a racially charged blog based on my beliefs about race relations as they pertain to government and not how I personally feel about other races. I have never been a racist and will never participate in racist activities, but I do have strong convictions pertaining to how government attempts to regulate race relations. This blog is dedicated to those convictions.



The Reparations for Slavery bill, after 143 years of freedom for black Americans, is still looming over our great country. Sherman, after obliterating the South in his march, initiated Special Field Orders, Number 15, which gave 40,000 newly freed slaves and their families 40 acress of land, notably privately owned, around the coasts of Georgia and South Carolina and a mule, notably federally owned. What Sherman attempted to do after the abolition of slavery was, on the one hand, generous to the newly aquired free people of our country, and, on the other hand, inequitable to the landowners whose property was stolen. Press the fast forward button to modern society. The campaign launched by Deadria Farmer-Paellmann to coerce private organizations with historical links to slavery started in 2000, and by 2005, corporations, including J P Morgan, Wachovia, and Aetna, had issued public apologies for their part, over 100 years prior, to propogate slavery. Dorothy Tillman, an alderman in Chicago, has stated that one idea for acceptable Reparations could be governments increased funding for restrooms, movie theatres, and restaurants that are used dominantly by the black community rather than fiscal giveaways. Some perpetuators of this idea of reparations call for government owned public land to be handed over to the black community for the possibility of increased equality. On July 29th, 2008, the American House of Representatives issued a formal apology to the descendants of slaves and those who were negatively affected by Jim Crow laws and other forms of segregation. This superfluous action was initiated by Steve Cohen, a white Representative, as a measure to perpetuate his tenure in office for his 60% black constiuency. This extra strike on the spike that already exists in the heart of race relations in order to maintain public office is thoroughly immature, irresponsible, and irrational. Our government now has issued a formal apology for something that occurred between 1619 and 1865 to which none of us is directly connected. We are currently in the fifth generation removed from slavery, which means that black people born in America who are in my age range (between 25 & 35) haven't even experienced slavery or Jim Crow laws. Racism exists and will always exist. All humans differ in many ways from race to race, and we will exploit those racial differences. We will, out of anger, frustration, and ignorance, blame race for traits or occurrences that honestly have no directly correlation to race. This fact renders the belief that we can "overcome racism" foolish because it will never truly go away. Petition government to push "hate crime" laws which increase the severity of punishment for crimes committed across races, genders, sexual preferences, or nationality. Ask for money, land, recreational equipment, restaurants, and tax breaks as a repayment for what your great great great grandparents had to endure in the fields. Deliver orations, write songs, publish poetry, and protest peacefully about the way that another race is holding you down. Go ahead and drive a campaign against those who have no power to suppress you anymore, and we who would receive the punishment as a result of the success of your campaign will shake our heads in disappointment. We will eat our popcorn and sip our soda as though at a movie while you foolishly chase your tails on this issue. Regardless of whether you obtain your jewel encrusted bauble or tumble painfully down the hill you sit atop, your endeavor is invalid. After I have dictated all of this detail on the bleeding-heart-liberal cry for help in this alleged white male bent country, I have to respond with a hearty "NO". Please quit bludgeoning a deceased equine. Just as a police officer does not give a citizen a ticket for not wearing his seat belt unless his car is in motion, do not punish a people who are not promoting, perpetuating, or calling for the reinstatement of slavery. Use the current law system, put in place over the last 143 years to protect civil rights, to defend the honor of being human with "certain inalienable rights", but do not call for exaggerated compensation for an act that the current denizens of our country had absolutely no hand in performing. Now, I would like to dissect the loosely and incorrectly used term "reverse racism". First of all, Webster's dictionary defines racism as "hatred or intolerance of another race or races", which applies to everyone, even black people. So, what could reverse racism mean if racism is a term to describe a person of any color who has intolerance for a person that does not share the same ethnicity? Reverse, in Webster's world, means "opposite or contrary in position, direction, order, or character", which lends itself to a less liberal usage as that which is abused by supporters of black Americans in politics. If one is opposite or contrary in position, direction, order, or character to hatred or intolerance of another race or races, then, by that very definition, one is not racist. When one uses the term reverse racism, he is stating that the occurence, person, law, or other target accused of this alleged act is actually not acting in a racist manner at all. To use this term is ignorant, and, if one enjoys the position of ignorant, which equates to educational neutral in the gearbox of intelligence, then he should definitely stay out of positions of power, stay away from the microphones of the media, and stay away from those who are gullible and seeking someone who will validate ignorant beliefs.

To the "N"th degree

I recently had the opportunity (afforded me by my best friend) to peruse an article about public school students in Maryland taking a lesson from a prison warden in the Baltimore area. Dan Rodricks, the article writer for The Baltimore Sun, follows a teacher, Ed Morman, who taught for only a brief time, and his perspective through this educational moment with law enforcement. I will summarize the article so that I may get straight to the point. The warden asks if any of these inner city children knew someone in prison; all hands raise. The warden then asks if any of these kids had ever visited a prison; all hands raise. In the remainder of the article the writer lauds inner city teachers while this former-teacher-now-librarian expresses his discontent with inner city schools. One specific caustic statement by Morman troubles me to the point of blogging. Morman stated that he detests politicians who say that we Americans know best how to spend our money. He adds that he believes that this statement by politicians is junk. He enforces his belief by uttering that "taxes are the price we pay for civilization" quoting something he had heard in the past. I must now end story time and move toward education time.
Allowing inner city school children, who we know are more likely to end up in prison, to be an audience for a prison warden is an excellent educational move by the Baltimore area school districts. I would like to say that I wish all school systems all over this wonderful land would give children a chance to view a prison cell, eat prison food, and watch some videos of how unruly prisoners are treated. Education is king in the land of knowledge, and, when we call upon this king to knight us with his sword of truth, all we receive is power and understanding. Hands-on in-your-face education works for a certain portion of our public educated children, so incorporating this methodology into educational vernacular is imperative. I have elaborated on my respect for the decision of the school about which this article is written so that you, the reader, don't misconstrue my true meaning when I say what I am about to say.
You and I, regardless of education, responsibility, or practical knowledge know better how to spend our money than our corrupt, overbearing, immature, irresponsible government. Morman is wrong is all respects when he agrees that tax is the price we pay for civilization. Morman errs in his diction by daring to misuse his free speech by stating that politicians, or anyone for that matter, who state that we know better how to spend our money than the government are wrong. Morman says he detests politicians who make this statement. Webster's dictionary lists detest and hate as synonyms. For those of you liberals out there, synonyms are two words that have the same, or nearly the same, definition. Morman has some inherently liberal beliefs about government and education, yet he also hates politicians. The first mistake he has made as a liberal is performing an act of intolerance, yet tolerance is the very essence of liberal politics. The second mistake that Morman makes is hating politicians, who are the backbone of liberal politics. In one statement, Morman has lauded liberal politics while cursing liberal politics. This is a clamoring and suppurate example of the stark contradiction in liberal politics. If liberals are so self contradictory in such subtle manners, what makes us think that they will not act in these manners in high offices of power. I seem to recall a recent liberal president, which is the highest office in this country, committing perjury, which is lying under oath. To lie under oath is to contradict oneself. Therefore, a liberal, holding the highest office in this country committed the greatest single act of contraction. I think the facts speak for themselves.

Ashamed of my fellow Americans

Recently, my wife and I embarked on a five day and four night cruise to the Bahamas on a popular cruise line named Carnival. The ship we sailed on was one of the smallest in the world even though many activities were available on it. I was impressed with the hospitality of even the people who mopped the floors. The food was astounding and worthy of no less than fifty dollars a plate though it was all purchased with the cruise package. The on-board casino even had their own flavor of some long standing Vegas games. Photographers were omnipresent, wanting to capture our trip in a photo-biography. We brought along my best friend and his wife in order to have a point of familiarity and some camaraderie for the trip. All events, meals, amenities, and off-board excursions combined to create a relaxed and enjoyable overall experience. Yet, something haunts me. Before I lose you, this is still very much a political article.

We rode a local form of transportation called a jitney bus across Nassau to a fine establishment who gave us white sand beach access for a small price. The trip to the hotel wasn't as impressive to me for we were joined by what seemed to be a gaggle of college-aged "spring-breakers" who, seemingly, were from affluent families. I say this not in judgement of these creatures, but as a point of contrast to the trip back to the docks. The jitney is a small bus that has seven rows of seats, a driver's seat across from the boarding door, and a passenger seat juxtapose the driver's seat. On the right side of the aisle is positioned one seat, while, on the other side of the isle sits a bench seat that holds two. Attached to this bench seat is a fold down style seat which can be implemented by folding it out into the aisle should the anchored seats fill to capacity. On the ride to the hotel, the "spring-breakers" spoke rather loudly, passed dollar bills (the fee for riding was $1) over the heads of the locals, and used common "swear words" (so to speak) without inhibition. Again, I say this only to contrast the ride back to the docks. Tired, sunburned, and ready to eat, we left the hotel and made our way to the jitney stop. What ensued was remarkable. People got on and off this bus as if this were their primary or maybe even only mode of transit. They said "good afternoon" to each other when boarding and leaving the jitney. They thanked the driver for the ride, though he happily took their legal tender as well. One gentleman stood at the door and aided passengers in getting to seats, though he didn't work for the jitney. Little to no words were exchanged during the ride, seemingly out of respect for the other passengers who seemed to be ending thier respective work days. People shuffled without complaint, eye-rolling, or irritated body language to allow new passengers to use the fold out aisle seats and find available seats until the jitney was at capacity. The sense of community moved me. I remarked about this experience several times on the trip to my fellow cruise mates. I even went so far as to share my revelation with our maitre d'hotel that night at our dining time. I now relate this to you because I must attach this experience to that which I know to be true about our society.

Liberal thought, law-making, and rhetoric contribute to a false sense of community. It teaches us to work together, yet controls all of the tools for working. It teaches us to share, yet withholds all of our resources. It teaches equality while pandering only to smaller sectors of society. Liberalism defeats community by delivering on promises that directly contradict its teachings. Our Constitution allows for ". . . life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but often our pursuit creates an insular being inside of us. We allow the sense of entitlement, our feelings of desperation, hopelessness, and frustration over our pursuit, or just the values of our mass media in America to take our focus from our great community and tarnish it with selfishness. I saw on that jitney ride from the white sand beaches of Nassau what America should be. The United States ought to be three hundred million people who shamelessly, selflessly, and complaintlessly stand up and offer a seat to someone else who is tired from a long day at work. I am ashamed of my fellow Americans when I see people using angry hand gestures at someone else on the road when he sees someone driving in a way he doesn't like. I am disappointed with citizens who are in too much of a hurry to allow someone to take their spot in line at the doctor's office, fast food restaurant, or grocery store. I am frustrated with our media who holds everyone to standards which they internally ignore. I am saddened by the "left wing" political beliefs being shoved into the heads of American children in government schools further narrowing our ability to see all sides and judge according to true right and wrong.

Left-wingers, special interest groups, and selfish mindless automatons of the state beware. A time comes of great reform for America. Lady Liberty will once again reclaim what is the people's and not the government's. We will all stand up one day and quit taking your white washing of our minds. We will become the great community again that we once were.

Naturalization or emigration

Taxation is a necessary revenue generation function of a government by which they require all citizens under their protection to fiscally aid corporate efforts. Dictionary.com defines a tax as "a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tax). This would denote that the government is, indeed, rendering support or facilities or services. Somewhere in the definition, I think that all the semantic masterminds left out the word citizen, because it is only fair to tax citizens and provide support, facilities, or services to citizens. A citizen, by definition, is "a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien)" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/citizen). Given that a citizen has an allegiance to its government and that said government requires a tax for the services provided, by definition, those who are not citizens should not receive the benefits of being a citizen because the government and these individuals have no allegiance to each other. One doesn't rush a fraternity only to say that he refuses to be initiated but still wants to receive the perks of being a brother. One doesn't say he believes that Jesus is the Christ, refuse to get baptised (which is a step of obedience), and expect everyone around him to believe that his faith has really changed his heart and his life. One does not show up to all the practices for a little league team, not pay the fee to play, and still expect to start the first game. In the same way, if one is not a citizen of a country, they have no rights to the amenities granted to citizens. To expect such would be to become the subject in the three aforementioned examples. To see immigrants protesting laws defending those who have rights protected by our Constitution and who were either born here or were naturalized disgusts me. I must turn my head and exhale so as not to regurgitate the delectable morsels my wife prepared for my dinner when I hear about aliens, who are not in the process of naturalization, who were born here by an alien who had no intention of being naturalized, or those who export the majority of the revenue they generate for themselves to their homeland, fighting for "their rights". Though you may be aiding our economy in some part by holding the crutch underneath the right arm of entrepreneurship in the small business sector, my suggestion to you would be to abide by the laws set forth in our country BEFORE YOU WERE BORN or emigrate. It really is your choice. If you'd like to settle here, naturalize yourself. Learn English. I'm not sure if you have somehow overlooked this fact, but American English is our official language. If you can't ask me where the restroom is without using "donde esta", then you don't deserve to receive welfare in any form from my government. If you can't ask me to hand you a hammer without calling it a "de hamer", you need to be working in your mother country.
The simple fact is that, if you would like to enjoy the benefits of citizenship in United State of America, you are going about being involved in our society in an unacceptable fashion. One doesn't fix a radiator by working on the air filter in an automobile, so why should one fight laws that are being passed to defend the age-old laws and native citizens who existed before you swam the Rio Grande, navigated the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, or rode down Niagra in a barrel? Learn from your ancestors. Nobody came to America to stay unless they had plans on becoming an American. If you are not naturalized, you are not an American. Theodore Roosevelt, one of the greatest presidents with whom we have been graced, said it best when he said that the immigrant ought to learn our language and our customs yet not forget whence they came. Do us a favor: move up to citizenship or move out of our country. We don't want you further diluting the society that the liberals are already attempting so hard to destroy.