So we stole Mexico?”

So lots of people seem inclined to insist that all the ILLEGAL ALIENS, coming from Mexico, have some sort of right to do so because the United States stole that land from Mexico.

 Well, I can understand the ignorance but let’s address the stupidity first shall we? So, all you all you folks think that a citizen from another nation is somehow imbued with the right to just cross the boarder from the nation they are a citizen of, into a nation where they are not a citizen of and set up house. In law that practice is called ‘squatting’ and in the past it was dealt with by the land owner and a length of rope. Now days there is a reemergence of this practice amongst the anarchist and punk culture and while they have established a certain following even here amongst some like Randy Quaid, it didn’t end well for him.

 So let’s address the ignorance now: Regardless of the vast history and culture of the original inhabitants of Mexico and Central America from 1492 to 1502 they fell under conquest and rule of Spain. You know the country that decimated the native tongues and Faiths and replaced them with the Spanish equivalents. That is why the language of Mexico is primarily Castellan Spanish, not Mexican, French or English. Are we clear on that point?

 There was the “Period of Conquest” from 1521 to 1600;The “Colonial Period” from 1650 to 1810;And last but not least “The Struggle for Independence” from 1807 to 1910. It truly began in 1808 Spain was overwhelmed by war so King Ferdinand VII abdicated to King Charles IV of France, also known as ‘Charles the Imbecile’. The reality is Napoleon’s military might was who Ferdinand abdicated to and there is a complete history of this in “Affair of Escurial”, for the literate to become more familiar with the changing world then and not really relevant to Mexico’s bid for independence save for the fact, Spain was a dying ‘Super Power’.

When Super Powers are at war that is the time when ‘colonist’ will choose to revolt and Mexico was no exception to this phenomenon.

 So an insurgency of idealist peasants and miners started a rebellion (Just like us terrorist Americans did in 1776) under the leadership of a Jesuit Priest by the name of Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla (No, this isn’t about the horse movie.). “The Cry of Delores” issued on September 16th, 1810 is the celebrated as Independence Day. So if you some how though the Cinco de Mayo or the “Fifth of May” is about Mexican Independence Day, you are both ignorant and dead wrong. Embarrassed yet and you think you want to claim you understand the Mexican people enough to think they have claim to come here? Right!

 Cinco de Mayo is just the celebration of an unlikely victory of the Mexican Army (Not Spanish, Mexican) in 1862.

 Mexican Independence Day is still celebrated on September 16th and is still a major celebration of Mexican pride and independence. Not unlike our own Fourth of July here in the United States of America but we aren’t supposed to have any pride because we ‘stole’ this country, right? (Sarcasm light is now off.)

 Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla was an interesting figure in history and I highly recommend everyone delve deeper than I will do here about him. Apart from being a Jesuit trained priest, he was a ‘criollo’ or ‘creole’ meaning he was born in Mexico but born to parents of pure Spanish ancestry. So while he didn’t have the status of the ‘Iberian Pennsulares’ or permanent resident colonist in Mexico the originally hail from Spain, he has higher status than the ‘mestizo’ or people of Spanish and Amerindian decent. The pure Amerindian or ‘Mexicans’ had even less status, rights and dignity than even them. Also it should be noted that every class I’ve mentioned thus far is ‘commoner’ or not of Spanish Nobility, let alone Royalty which is a how other social division in Spain; however much of this same division of class is still practiced in Mexico today, with subtle and even violent differences based on the state or region your in. (This will be referenced again so make a mental note.)

 So in reality you had what amounted to a bunch of ‘uppity colonist’ wanting to keep the efforts of their ‘slaves’ labor to themselves is what this revolution against Spain was all about. Why does that sound familiar?

 That struggle for independence, even though it is celebrated on September 16th was a continuing struggle but in 1821 the Empire of Mexico was declared and ruled by the dictator Augustin de Iturbide. Funny that name does not sound Mayan or even Amerindian in the least. Probably because it wasn’t, rather it was the name of a Basque gentry’s family or class called the Valladolid.

 You may not like the idea of ‘class’ or ‘status’ and in America your free not to accept such notions but America is not the rest of the world. If you have never travelled outside of America or even in Mexico, Central/ South America, you are clueless and any opinions you have regarding this practice are irrelevant. You are free to go down there and try and change this, I’ll send you a deck of cards so you will have something to do in your prison cell, after you try.

 As it is with most dictatorships, Iturbide put the penis into the word dictator and after several failures to include an inability to pay his army (A reoccurring theme in Mexican governance.) in 1822 several leaders to include Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (Yeah, right, the guy they named the California wind after, sure.) called for him to step down.

 Granted there is a huge amount of details that I’m skipping here but my goal is to educate all those simpering morons that somehow have got it into their heads that Mexican, Central or South American Nationals somehow have a right to enter our boarders.

 Oh, wait did you catch that; Central America is no longer a part of the Mexican Empire! That’s right, because in 1823 with the accession of Mexico’s new Emperor, Agustin I, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Honduras declared independence from Mexico even though they had changed their name to the United Mexican States instead of the Mexican Empire in October of 1824. I’m guessing Emperor Agustin I; never got the memo but those other four states sure did and wanted none of it.

 This now begs an important question with great relevance to today; if those states are not a part of the United States of Mexico, then that would mean that people, from Central America, that illegally crossed the boarder here; also illegally crossed the boarder into Mexico to get to here. (Epic sentence wasn’t it but I digress.) Bottom line on that is Mexico is not enforcing there boarder policies nor are they rendering humanitarian aid but rather they are exploiting the Central Americans as they enter into Mexico and/or facilitating their passage up into the US. (This is not a conspiracy theory but a matter of known fact if you have ever been to Central America.)

 So as well as adopting the name of United States of Mexico, ‘defining’ that nation as a representative ‘republic’ with a new constitution penned by the wealthy land owners no less and adopting Catholicism as the official National religion, Mexico went through a series of coups and counter coups because the elections down there just really don’t matter. This is a fact of life even to this day as is Mexico’s continuing struggle for independence.

 The accuracy of their nomenclature aside, the ‘Mexican Republic’ gave way to a period that blew through in Mexican History, often called the ‘Age of Santa Anna’. (Like the wind pun and no the wind was not named for him.)

 More aptly called ‘The Age of Caudillismo”, derived from the old Spanish word cabdillo, its origins in Latin from capitellum or caput-‘head’ usually defines a political-military leadership or simply ‘war-lords’. (Hey, I’m not making this up, its history baby and if you don’t like it complain to the dead, but they won’t care.)

 In this era we find the Santa Anna overthrew President Bustamante for Manuel Pedraza to become President in 1828. In 1832 Santa Anna took that office by election instead of overthrow and served as President 11 more times after that. Much like our current President of the United States of America, Santa Anna abrogated (did away with) the federal constitution of Mexico. That probably made it easier to be elected 11 more times, I’m sure. However by 1834 this abrogation aggravated some folks in the Mexican states of Yucatan and the northern state of Choahuila y Tejas.

 You may know Choahuila y Tejas by better by its present name of the Great Lone Star state of Texas. Yep, it would seem a bunch of uppity English speaking settlers and Mexican Nationals decided they weren’t too thrilled with Santa Anna’s rule and on 2nd, 1836; they declared independence from Mexico at Washington on the Brazos. This was the birth of the Texas Republic; you remember, the Alamo? While that was a defeat it gave Sam Houston time to gather militia and at the Battle of San Jacinto on April 21st, 1836, they defeated and captured President/General Santa Anna.

 So Texas was not the United States, Texas was its own republic and didn’t ‘steal the land but rather won its independence from Mexico. No illegal has any rights, claim or authority to cross over that boarder so La Raza can just suck it! By 1845, Congress ratified Texas as a state within the United States but that case is locked solid and closed; illegal’s have no right to cross into Texas based on the land theft claim or any ancestral claim there as that was Comanche territory previous to then.

 You know it really chaps my hide to think that someone is out there teaching some lame duck history that America stole Texas from the Mexicans when the facts above confirm much the contrary. If there were any dirty tricks being played at the time though it needs to be mentioned they were being played against the Comanche by Santa Anna. You see he allowed American settlers into Comanche territory with the sole goal of having them fight the Comanche and thus defend his northern boarders for free. It wasn’t until the folks tired of paying tribute to a non-constitutional republic, decided to take matters into their own hands and that suddenly required the attention of Santa Anna.

 Hämäläinen, Pekka (2008). The Comanche Empire. Yale University Press. pp. 357–358

“A key factor in the decision to allow Americans in was the belief that they would (a) protect the northern Mexico from Comanche attacks and (b) buffer the northern states against U.S. westward expansion. The policy failed on both counts: the Americans tended to settle far from Comanche raiding zones and used the Mexican government’s failure to suppress the raids as a pretext for declaring independence.”

This was written by a REAL historian not a pseudo, La Raza historian but since those same Comanche raids also were happening in ‘New Mexico’ territory lets address the rest of the claim that the United States stole the land, apart from Tejas.

 This is concerning the post Annexation of Texas Period and the territory known as ‘Alta California and the Northern parts of the current Mexican states of Sonora and Chihuahua (Yes, it’s a Mexican state and not just a little dog.).

 Before I take this any further I would just like to mention that I’m a half-breed Cherokee, I know what the history of westward expansionism did to my culture but plain and simple; none of the folks that suffered or stole those lands is alive today. I have no claim on the land nor do I have any right to ask any on that land today, to pack up and move. I saw the mistakes of the English, French, Spanish and early Americans here and their treatment of the native cultures. I don’t think repeating such mistakes in the name of vengeance are any justification nor any way to honor the blood of those who died on both sides of all those conflicts. There is no one alive today that holds guilt for this or is there any alive today that can claim any suffrage. I mention in passing that this holds true to other claims such as slavery as well as illegal immigration.

 You cannot hold the sons and daughters accountable for the sins that they were not here to commit; nor can one who was not present for the commission of said sins hold any grudge for that past.

 So despite Santa Anna’s defeat during the Texas Revolution in 1836, the Second Federal Republic of Mexico (Also known as the Centralist Republic of Mexico) wasn’t doing so well in the land department and was losing territory faster than hatter loses their mind.

 The independent Republic of Texas was recognized by Britain, France and the United States (Essentially the United Nations at the time period being the major ‘super powers of the era.) and all advised Mexico not to attempt to re-conquer the new nation. (Now, ain’t that real sweet; all those folks sticking up for the Texas Republic like that; not that they needed any help.)

 Mexico however threatened war against the United States if they annexed the new nation, indicating that they had designs on retaking the newly independent nation. Just lie Mexico’s constitution, Santa Anna didn’t have much use for the treaties he signed either as he did sign one recognizing Texas’ independence, the Treaties of Velasco.

 Historians will probably never agree completely as to the origins of what set off the Mexican-American War; really very few wars can be defined down to one detail as not every moment in history is recorded without bias or even recorded. Yes, while the old adage: “The victor writes the history” is relevant, just as relevant is a thing I like to call: “Whiny sore loser syndrome”.

You really have to look in the middle to gain a reasonable overview.

 I cite the debated territorial boarder of Texas and Mexico which in the Treaties of Velasco claims the territory to the Rio Grande as independent Texas. Mexico didn’t like that and claimed the boarder at the Nueces River. So when Texas was finally annexed against the wishes of Mexico, this matter of a boarder dispute was conveniently omitted in the resolution to Congress. Much like the Affordable Healthcare Act, Congress failed to read but verify precisely what they were voting for. Nothing has really changed, has it?

 The US President at the time, James K. Polk and Democrat no less, was a big proponent and supporter of American territorial expansion to the Pacific coastline. He reissued that favorite Democratic concept of ‘Manifest Destiny’ to justify the war with Mexico. The ‘Whigs’ (Eventually who morphed into the Republican Party) rejected such a concept saying: “American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within national policies.”

Funny how it’s the Democrats always wanting to share their guilt with everyone else for there piss poor policies. Truly there is more than enough guilt to go around but none of this guilt belongs to any alive today, so stop trying to lay it on anyone.

 Regardless of the claims of ‘land theft’ from Mexico, after Texas declared independence other nations were like sharks smelling blood in the water and France and Britain had designs on the territory of Alta California.

 In 1946 alone Mexico changed Presidents four times, war ministry six times and finance ministry sixteen times. One can speculate in all that turmoil they were incapable of negotiating with John Slidell whom Polk had authorized to offer $25 million for the Rio Grande Boarder on Texas and the provinces of Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo de Mexico with a negotiation cap of $30 million and a forgiveness of a $3 million dollar debt owed to US citizens for damages caused by the Mexican War of Independence.

 While President Joaquin de Herrera was inclined to negotiate with Slidell, the military opponents accused that Mexican President of treason and deposed him replacing him with General Paredes y Arrillaga who immediately wanted to reclaim Texas.

 The US cited the Treaties of Velasco claiming the boarder of the Rio Grande and Polk sent a small 70-man detachment under General Taylor. Ignoring the Mexican demands to withdraw to the Nueces River, Taylor erected an outpost on the banks of the Rio Grande across from the city of Matamoros, Tamaulipas. On April 25th, 1846, a force of 2000 Mexican calvary, under General Mariano Arista, attacked a patrol from the outpost under command of Captain Seth B. Thorton, killing 16 US solders. Referred to as the Thorton Affair, it was this more than anything that caused the US to declare war upon Mexico.

 So while one can speculate all they wish about the war and if it was it justified; I prefer to ask is any war ‘justified’ as I always say: “Rationalizations are lies you tell yourself; justifications are when you share those lies with others”.

A moot point really as the US kick Mexico’s butt and even took over Mexico City in the course of the war. In the end the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (No, not the horse movie) spelled out the consequences of the war for Mexico. (This is how the real world works; there are consequences for actions, especially when you lose at war.) There was the forced Mexican Cession of the territories of Alta California and New Mexico to the US in exchange for $15 million dollars and forgiveness of the $3 million dollar debt and the acceptance of the Reo Grande as the national boarder in Texas.

 So La Raza, your claims are unfounded, false and all lies. If you have issues with that land being lost, take it up with your government in Mexico not here and not with US citizens. You have no claim based in this very accurate and complete history. Right or wrong it is a done deal and the more you whine about it the less sense it makes. Perhaps any citizens complaining about this history and any supporting illegal immigration based on slander they are spinning about the history, should be deported right along with all the illegal aliens. That way you can be closer to the government that actually is the root of all your issues. Try bullying them as we the citizen’s of America, have had enough of your crap and the Liberal guilt crap.

 Take your hatred of this nation and get the hell out!

As the old saying goes, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” When it comes out collective Internet freedom as it relates to our First Amendment rights, truer words have never been spoken.

 Why We Have “Old Sayings”
A culture develops old sayings about life, because over time, they old sayings are generally true and have withstood the test of time. When it comes to Internet freedom, there are two more old sayings that apply: (1) “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it; and, (2) “Inch by inch it is a cinch”.
“If It Ain’t Broken, Don’t Fix It”

There is no need for the government to change access and content rules on the Internet. Therefore, the government must invent reasons to gain control over our free speech on the Internet, and when they engage in this type of intrusiveness, they usually do this “in the name of protecting the children”. Thus, the Federal government will invent reasons why the Internet is broken and must be fixed. These new arguments to intrude on Internet freedom and free speech, are, and will continue to center on child pornography. The problem with this argument is that all States already have very strict pornography laws. For example, in Arizona, if a person views online child pornography, the criminal penalty is10 years in prison for each separate image that is viewed by the accused. Arizona residents do not need the intrusiveness of the Federal government to come into play in order to protects its citizens from Internet pornography. In short, the Internet “ain’t broken and it does not need fixin’.”
“Inch by Inch, It Is a Cinch”

Through the power of incrementalism, the Federal government is well on its way to seizing total control over the Internet. It is abundantly clear, that the Federal government’s goal is total control over the content on the Internet as well as regulating who has access to this expansive medium of communication.
The Great Firewall of China
China’s Internet police censors are very well-trained and very quick to respond to any content that could potentially pose a potential challenge to the Chinese Communist Party’s political, social and ideological control. China’s Internet police have made China’s Internet the envy of political pro-state propaganda, censorship and government control over commercial activity.
On December 2, 2014, the 7th China-U.S. Internet Industry Forum attracted 150 participants, including Lu Wei, Minister of the State Internet Information Office in China. Wei manages (i.e. rigidly controls) Internet information in China. Also attending the conference was the United States Under Secretary for economic growth, energy and the environment, Catherine Novelli.
In the keynote speech of the conference, Minister Lu made several suggestions, including that China and the U.S. could and should jointly manage the Internet. I will pause for a moment as you rub your eyes in disbelief and reread the previous passage.

 Yes, the Chinese and the Americans are actively planning to jointly control the Internet.
President Obama may not be able, or willing, to protect our Southern border from illegal intrusion, but he is certainly on his way to sealing off the borders of Internet freedom.
The two countries vowed to strengthen cooperation (i.e. extreme censorship) on fighting terrorism in cyber space in the latest excuse for Federal government intrusion into our Internet freedoms.
When In Rome, Do As the Romans Do

 In classic Orwellian Doublespeak, Under-Secretary Novelli stated that the two countries share a mutual responsibility to build up more broadband access, particularly in the developing world. As the reader will see in later paragraphs, this will be the excuse to tax the Internet. She described this process as being inextricably linked to GDP growth. This twisted logic suggests that economic growth is contingent upon controlling the Internet and its content as well as who has access to the Internet. In China, one increasingly needs an ID to log on to the Internet and the content rules are actually more strictly enforced than Facebook protecting its turf.

When We All Had a Dream

By Wm. Dorich

In the 1940s and my youth, the American lexicon included such repugnant words as “Japs, Kikes, Niggers and Pollocks.” I remember those days—my father was an immigrant coal miner from Serbia, and I was automatically addressed by the bigoted word—“Hunky.”  My father was a refugee from former Yugoslavia in 1918 at the end of World War One and his people freed themselves from 400 years of Ottoman Muslim slavery.

 

Today, in more subtle ways, name calling still haunts modern society. In the contemporary context it has been easy for Americans to deny knowledge of the Holocaust as though Auschwitz which commemorates its 70th anniversary this month was a mere anomaly of history where tens of thousands were put to death—but they are naive, 278 million have been liquidated since Nuremberg.

 

Today, it is politically incorrect to attack Blacks, Asians, Arabs and homosexuals—but perfectly acceptable to attack a Serb—a name that has become synonymous with evil. Fifteen years after the dismemberment Civil Wars in the Balkans, terminology that demonizes Serbs with collective guilt still thrives in the media and by political leaders in Washington.  During those Civil Wars in the Balkans Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleberger said: “Serbs are not too smart,” and Richard Holbrooke unashamedly called Serbs “murderous assholes.” Morton Kondracke called Serbs “Bastards” on national television, while Senator Biden used a five minute interview on CNN to inform the world that Serbs were: “illiterates, degenerates, baby killers, rapists, butchers, cowards and Nazis.”  Imagine what he would have added with ten minutes. Like Al Sharpton today who resorts to racists terminology to divide people into categories of race, religion and color, the American dream is being trampled in a drive to get even or worse, to resort to reverse discrimination that flies in the face of major sports figures who earn tens of millions for their talent, black officials in Washington including the Supreme Court and blacks who are visible in the high ranks of the military, the police, the media and in films in spite of the movie Selma not including a nominated black actor or director while insultingly giving the film a “Best Picture nomination.” Will this level of “racism,” “discrimination,” and “exclusion” ever ends?

 

While I find this racial outrage a bit of a stretch I clearly remember growing up in the coalfields of West Virginia where my neighbors were not just black, but Greeks, Russians, Italians, Polish, Jews and Serbians.  Many blacks worked in the coalmines as well as the steel mills of Pittsburgh where many were so welcomed that they learned to speak the Serbian language.  You heard me right—blacks spoke the Serbian language. We were a little United Nations of the 1930s and 40’s when being multi-ethnic, multi-religious or multi-cultural taught us the lessons of compromising and getting along … somehow we all grew up and survived without killing each other.

 

Selma was not a symptom, it was a full-blown disease of manifest hatred by bigoted white politicians including Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, the grand “Exalted Cyclops” asshole of the KKK—the longest serving Senator in our government when he died in 2010 at 92. Somehow we all learned to change that dynamic and worked to improve racial relations.

 

As a double victim of Balkan genocide in which 17 of my relatives were burned to death in a Christian Serbian church in Vojnic, Croatia in 1942, I also lost the last 5 relatives of my name in 1995 who were too old and too sick to flee during “Operation Storm” in which 230,000 Serbians were ethnically cleansed from Croatia. I, Too, Have a Dream that my people will regain international respect in Serbia where for a thousand years they built 1,500 Orthodox Christian churches in an area the size of Los Angeles and where they fought in two World Wars as American allies, believing in freedom and democracy and that no man has the right rule another.

 

However, it’s not about color, race, origin of birth, or sex … it’s about mutual respect and full support of the law. If we have not learned those values in 239 years we are doomed to resort to violence.

 

____________________

 

William Dorich is the author of nine books, six on Balkan history. He is the recipient of The Order of St. Sava, the highest recognition bestowed on a layperson by the Holy Synod of Serbian Orthodox Bishops and An Award of Merit from the Serbian Bar Association of America. His articles have appeared in the International Herald Tribune, The Washington Post and in the Serbian press

 

Martin Luther King and Political Correctness

                                           (and a boy living in “Hillbilly Heights”)

 

I was just a white kid at the time born in 1950 living on the Southeast side of Baltimore Maryland. The place was a project (actually old WWII military housing) called O’Donnell Heights. Most folks

knew the place as Hillbilly Heights” as most living there were from somewhere south of the state. To this day I recall running around the old warehouses on the water front and seeing colored fountains and white fountains or colored restrooms and white restrooms. I can still remember wondering why?

 

I also clearly remember asking people including Mom why it was like that. I can still hear Mom saying you just respect people no matter who they are - everyone deserves respect. Among the

people living around me most said it wasn’t right to do this. Of course there was the occasional

person who would say it’s because they’re n. Even as a little boy it didn’t sit well with me hearing

someone say it’s because they’re n. In case your wondering why I use a small n instead or caps it reminds us how small minded those people who use it to keep people under them really are.

 

The reason I point these things out is:

 1) The north was not nicer to blacks than the south.

 2) The majority of people then did not think it was right to treat black people poorly.

 

This I will contend is why when in the mid 50’s when Martin Luther King started the Bus Boycotts in

Montgomery people however slowly began to align with what he talked about. By the time he helped

Organize the 1963 “March on Washington” where he gave his “I have a Dream” Speech things begin

to change quickly as compared to the previous 100 years.

 

Now bear in mind during this time you had the Klu Klux Klan trying to bomb, maim and lynch to keep blacks in there so called place. None the less because of the approach Martin Luther King used:

non violent bible based/constitution based coupled with my earlier observation that most people did

not agree with the treatment blacks put up with – change was coming in a big way.

 

At the same time I still remember seeing black people working in the Heights selling fruit or picking

up junk using a horse and buggy. In fact the horse in buggy in Baltimore was used for these purposes unitl recently when the city banned their use. You always knew when the guys were near by if they had fruit they would bellow in a low strong tone apppplllle, nanna, watteerrmmeellon, lope or the junk

man would just say wooooooooooooo,   woooooooooooooo,  woooooooooooo. In any event you knew they were there. How dangerous I ask could the fabled Hillbilly Heights have been for blacks who sold or picked up there on a daily basis.

 

These things Martin Luther King knew and that is why it was the time for the black person to do what? Ask for special rights? No. Ask for what white people had? No. Then what did he ask for?

I wish to point to one except of the “I Have Dream” speech:

 

“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.'”

 

Of course this simple request was viewed as total nonsense by the power brokers of the day in much the same way as it was when King George the 3^rd and his brokers hear or read it. Then as during the pre revolutionary days political correctness said that the power people were your betters. You were merely a serf, servant or subject to be exploited – sound familiar. The English citizen was a better to the lowly colonist as the final indignity.

 

He asked for the same Declaration of Independence philosophy that applied to everyone else in America. That all men are created equal.' So simple a request to have to struggle for so long to achieve. Mr. King made his point and it resonated with America. Never forget that in an overwhelmingly white America unless the overwhelming majority agreed with what Martin Luther King wanted it just never would have happened. Then, he knew this and knew it was going to take

some beating and mistreatments – in some cases like his own, death would come but so would

victory for black people finally.

 

This of course was only the beginning of the victory as there was still much to overcome for the black

person to have a seat at the table. Why would it takes more years of struggle to get what the majority of people knew was right – it didn’t and doesn’t make sense. Let look at what the real problem was and had been for years. Martin Luther King was fighting against political correctness more then he was fighting racism. Political correctness said you did not mingle with blacks, have black friends, you didn’t take issue with people calling black people n and you did not dare have a boy or girl friend that was black. We’ll talk more about this later but think about my point on how then as now political correctness is the force we must overcome.

 

In any event then as now political correctness is used as the means to control thinking and maintaining the status quo – nothing new here. Within a few short years of Martin Luther King blowing a hole in the fabric of America by peaceful means came the radicals. Of course we already had the klan but now added the weather underground bombers, the black panthers, the national states right party and for a solo act H Rapp Brown.

 

Mr Brown came to my home state of Maryland calling for riots and to burn down America. Of course he found himself in jail and years later convicted of murder. The underground bombers of course liked blowing up buildings, robbing brinks trucks and killing the guards - Yet had time to find ways to blow themselves up. Of course two of them found homes in a college in Illinois but that is a story for another day. The panthers not to be outdone found occasions to get into gun fights with the police by ambush or otherwise. Of course the klan hated and killed their way out of existence.

 

Martin Luther King was a smart man and knew to make real progress required winning the war not by the bomb or the gun but by idea’s. Again I maintain the over whelming majority of people agreed with Martin Luther King but political correctness kept them silent. Let me use the national states rights party as the example. They set up a headquarters in Baltimore in my new neighborhood of Highland town on Eastern Ave. Heck when they first set up shop many times late at night I would sit on their steps out front after hours. In hindsight I guess people driving by thought I was a hater like them but I a boy of 16 didn’t have a clue what they believed.  

 

Then one day walking across Patterson Park arriving at Baltimore St I thought we were having a parade or something. There were thousands of people lined up but not for a parade but rather a states rights party rally. I can still remember watching and wondering who these people were as I believe was the case with most people present. Police were lined up between the speakers and the crowd and then I heard; the n is the lowest of the low with theses unfortunate black police standing there on duty.

It struck me even then how low these states rights people really were to talk like that especially with these poor black officers bearing the brunt. Of course political correctness said it was normal to talk and treat people in this way. Political correctness can cause much mischief and is always used by the power that be as just doing the right thing – duh!

 

You may be asking how this is showing Martin Luther King making progress and rightly so. Let me continue because over the next year the public began pushing back against political correctness or racism as the authorities started getting in line. Any way the following year the national states rights party hosted another rally and I kid you not I again was crossing the park (as I regularly did) and found myself at yet another rally. Only this time there were no police, not stage, no microphones, nothing. Just a pathetic hateful man talking almost to himself as no one was there to listen to the hate this day.

 

The wonderful part of this was Martin Luther King lived to see this swing in the publics push back against yes political correctness. He must have known black people were finally taking a seat at the table of “We Hold these Truths that all Men are Created Equal’ – Finally. Many more years of setting things right were yet to come but the table was set no doubt. Unfortunately Martin Luther Kings smile

over what he had helped make happen were short lived. The following year in April 1968 Martin Luther King a man renamed after the legendary Martin Luther leader of the protestant revolution and the Lutheran Church was assassinated by a lone gunman in Memphis Tennessee. All hell would breakout when the news went out.

 

During all this chaos I worked at Eckels Ice Cream Company on North Ave and Gay St (a predominantly black area of town) where blacks and whites got along everyday. We were friends and kidded each other, ate and worked together without a harsh word or deed ever taking place. I showed up for work and saw black arm bands on people on the street and at work. The black folks I worked with were treating me as if I had done something wrong to them. I could only think to myself I didn’t hurt Mr King or anyone else why am I now considered a problem to black people? Well because the rebel rousers were talking hate the white folks and acting on it by injuring quite a few along with 300 fires. H Rapp Brown must have been a happy camper along with the panthers watching their dreams come true. Unfortunately the klan and the national states rights party was loving every minute of it as trouble was their dream as well.

 

Yet Martin Luther King must have been crying from his grave STOP IT! I did not live and die for this to happen; STOP IT! The riots went on for days in Baltimore and many other cities. On a personal note I can still remember crowds forming along Gay St and watching out the rear window of the bus I was on going home from work and seeing flames and smoke. I thought what the heck was going on back there. I found out when the news came on and realized I took that bus just in time as I may easily have been injured by the mob. Some things we never forget and for me looking out the bus window and later learning what was happening was one such moment.

 

Now however unlike the year 1968 when Martin Luther King could be heard crying from his grave STOP IT! He now smiles watching the absolute progress America has made. In so many ways I mean just a few short years later relatively speaking we have blacks in the highest positions of power in the country. Yet among some it remains politically correct to view the destruction in 1968 as somewhat understandable. Yet I can still hear Martin Luther King crying STOP IT!

 

As for the groups that worked so hard to create chaos: weathermen, panthers, klan, states rights party and H Rapp Brown they are forgotten by almost everyone and for good reason. The things they all had in common were violence on people they didn’t even know or hating people they didn’t even know –what a legacy. Among the people that still admire any of them we find the same traits that have the groups in the dustbin of history – thank God.

 

From this day forward always remember when thinking about people like the REV. Martin Luther King that the truth will surface and defeat political correctness and evil. The thing I most want to get across is we all need to put political correctness in the same dustbin of history as the hate groups, now.

It was used then and will continue to be used for great sounding purposes depending on who’s listening. In the end nothing good can come by adhering to political correctness.

 

From this day forward always remember when thinking about people like the Rev. Martin Luther King that the truth will surface and defeat political correctness and evil. The thing I most want to get across is we all need to put political correctness in the same dustbin of history as the hate groups, now.

It was used then and will continue to be used for great sounding purposes depending on who’s listening. In the end nothing good can come by adhering to political correctness.

 

Power brokers will continue using us via political correctness to maintain their status quo. That is why it took over two hundred years and the death of a man known as Martin Luther King for blacks to get a seat at the table of “We Hold These Truths To Be Self Evident; That All Man Are Created Equal”.

 

 

 

  

 

Is Pedophilia Okay if You’re “Born That Way”?

Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality ... a deep-rooted predisposition ... that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.”
The above idea was expressed with respect to homosexuality decades ago and since has become left-wing dogma. The thinking is that if someone was “born that way,” if the behavior is “natural” for him and he didn’t choose his feelings, how could it be wrong?
Yet the opening quoted line wasn’t penned decades ago — it’s only two years old. And homosexuality wasn’t the focus.
It was about pedophilia.

Here is the complete quotation, as published by the Los Angeles Times on Jan. 14, 2013:

Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.

Should we view this as just a clinical analysis, without considering what may be implied and certainly will be inferred? After all, if the “inborn” argument is valid, then it’s silly to think it doesn’t apply to other “innate” urges and inclinations. If it’s not valid, however, then it’s equally silly to accept it with respect to any supposedly innate inclination, such as homosexuality. Let’s delve into it.
The same social scientists telling us homosexuality is innate also claim that psychopaths are born and not made. Does this make psychopathy a legitimate state of being? And what if it’s found that some people are born with homicidal instincts? Would it be okay for them to commit murder?
Some may now say that murder is different because it hurts another person. (Of course, others contend that indulging in deviant sexual behavior with another also hurts the person.) But this is a change in yardstick that renders the inborn argument irrelevant. After all, whether or not an action reflects inborn urges tells us nothing about whether or not it hurts another.
Stating the obvious, the inborn argument could be applied to anything inborn. Logically translated it says: If a feeling is innate, the actions associated with it are okay. This eliminates morality completely and replaces it with biological determinism (BD). This is why accepting the BD argument means accepting everything that can be proven to be inborn — even if it’s pedophilia, bestiality, or murder. It’s just a slightly more sophisticated way of saying “If it feels good, do it.” But biology does not determine morality.
Of course, left-wing activists also rely on “if it feels good, do it” to formulate argumentation, which is why they never do apply the BD argument consistently. While they’re perfectly content to utilize it to advance their pet behavior, they then turn around and scoff at the notion that, despite BD having been lent credibility as a guiding principle, it could be used by others to promote pedophilia or bestiality.
This emotion-based modus operandi is why left-wing activists continually contradict themselves. The theological version of the BD argument, frequently uttered by homosexual activists, is “God doesn’t make mistakes.” Yet those taking this tack don’t dispute that man’s many inborn abnormalities, such as cleft lip, Spina bifida, Down syndrome, club foot, and Tay-Sachs disease, are defects. Nor do they claim, as some believers did in ages past, that these abnormalities are divine punishment for sin.
Even more to the point, if activists say that homosexual behavior is okay because “God doesn’t make mistakes,” how do they explain their advocacy of so-called “gender-reassignment surgery”? Shouldn’t they then conclude that if God wanted a person to be a member of the opposite sex, He would have created him that way?
Then there’s this study indicating that racial bias is innate. Will the Left now move to rescind anti-discrimination law?
If leftists actually believed in God (as opposed to just using Him for a ploy), they might realize there’s much He doesn’t ordain and that our fallen nature has corrupted our minds as well as our bodies. In reality, though, what they “realize” is dictated by the political imperatives of the moment.
As another example of shape-shifting judgments, consider the reportage on NYC mayor Bolshevik Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray. She’s universally and frequently described, as ABC does here, as a “former lesbian.” But according to leftist dogma, isn’t at issue an inborn orientation that “does not change”? Shouldn’t she be characterized as a “lesbian living a lie in marriage” or a “woman denying her true feelings”?
Of course, history tells us that man’s sexuality is quite malleable and that it certainly can change. Homosexuality was institutionalized in ancient Spartan military camps, and it was common for Athenian men to chase after adolescent boys. Are we to conclude that most all ancient Greeks had a “gay gene”?
Also note that science has discovered no such genetic link. In fact, this 2001 Columbia University study found that among identical twins (who share identical genetics), the same-sex attraction experienced by one was shared by the other only 10 percent of the time.
Despite this, California and New Jersey have seen fit to ban homosexual conversion therapy for minors. Perhaps voters in those states may want to consider that, as with sexual feelings, politicians can be changed.
And since minds and hearts can as well, we should be careful what arguments we legitimize. To abide by the principle of biological determinism — the force governing animals — would beget an animalistic society. Remember that acceptance of BD implies there’s nothing better — namely morality — to govern our behavior. And a people embracing the notion “It if feels good, do it,” one day just may decide that it feels better to kill homosexuals than to tolerate them.
Feelings don’t always inform about facts. And biology never determines morality.

Voices of South Africa with Trevor Romain

Monday Feb 2 at 10:00am PST call-in(347) 826-7353

 

Trevor Romain is a best-selling author and illustrator as well as a sought-after motivational speaker. Trevor also hosts a popular television series that has been featured on a number of PBS stations.  The series has won numerous awards. Trevor’s books have sold more than a million copies worldwide and have been published in 20 different languages. For more than 25 years, Trevor has traveled to schools, hospitals, summer camps, and military bases worldwide, delivering stand-up comedy with inspirational self-help messages to hundreds of thousands of school-age children. Trevor was a featured speaker at the USO Gala and the International Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma. He has also been the keynote speaker at numerous education and mental health conferences around the world and has appeared regularly on national and international media outlets.

 

Trevor is the immediate past President of the American Childhood Cancer Organization and is well known for his work with the Make-A-Wish Foundation, The United Nations, UNICEF, USO and the Trevor Romain Foundation. He has performed on multiple USO tours, helping military kids deal with the problems they face on a daily basis, including deployment of a parent, wounded parents and coping with the loss of a loved one.  Trevor has worked with the United Nations developing educational materials for children living in armed conflict areas. He has visited and worked with former child soldiers and at refugee camps and orphanages in the Congo, Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sisterthundershow/2015/02/02/voices-of-south-africa-with-trevor-romain

 

Rand Paul Reintroduces Bill to Audit the Fed

Following up on last year’s congressional efforts to audit the Federal Reserve, Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has re-introduced a bill that would subject the Federal Reserve to a full audit. A similar bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky.
Reuters provides some background on controversy behind the audit: “The Fed is subject to various audits, including reviews by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). But since 1978, its monetary policy discussions have been legally exempt from a GAO audit. Some politicians say it is time to open up those deliberations to more public scrutiny.”

Sergio Gor, a spokesman for Senator Paul, said, “Transparency at the Federal Reserve remains a top priority for Senator Rand Paul.”
Critics of the Federal Reserve have long called for the entity to be more heavily scrutinized, while others have demanded that it be eliminated altogether.
The Federal Reserve was created in secrecy over 100 years ago. Despite its misleading name, it is an independent non-governmental organization consisting of a board of governors and 12 regional banks, and it serves as a lender to the country’s banking system. The alleged purpose of the entity is to fight inflation and promote economic growth, but critics have observed the group’s many failures in fulfilling those functions.

The 2008 financial collapse has given momentum to the movement to audit the Fed, with lawmakers now asking to look more closely at the decisions the Federal Reserve has made over the years.
Former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, Rand's father, was a leading advocate of auditing and ultimately ending the Federal Reserve. In 2011, he wrote a compelling piece for the Wall Street Journal wherein he placed the majority of the blame for the financial crisis, as well as the blame for past financial crises, squarely on the Federal Reserve:

The Federal Reserve has caused every single boom and bust that has occurred in this country since the bank's creation in 1913. It pumps new money into the financial system to lower interest rates and spur the economy. Adding new money increases the supply of money, making the price of money over time — the interest rate — lower than the market would make it. These lower interest rates affect the allocation of resources, causing capital to be malinvested throughout the economy. So certain projects and ventures that appear profitable when funded at artificially low interest rates are not in fact the best use of those resources.

 

Eventually, the economic boom created by the Fed's actions is found to be unsustainable, and the bust ensues as this malinvested capital manifests itself in a surplus of capital goods, inventory overhangs, etc. Until these misdirected resources are put to a more productive use — the uses the free market actually desires — the economy stagnates.

 

The Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing programs — money creation — have resulted in the addition of trillions of dollars to the national debt. These programs have served to devalue the dollar, eroding its purchasing power and increasing inflation.
Above all, Paul notes that the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional establishment that has ultimately stripped Congress of powers that were assigned to it by the Constitution:

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.

 

In a statement released Monday, Rand Paul stated that the Fed works “under a cloak of secrecy,” and declared that an audit is the best way to ensure transparency. “[An] audit of the Fed will finally allow the American people to know exactly how their money is being spent by Washington,” Paul said.
Paul concluded that “the American people have a right to know what the Federal Reserve is doing with our nation’s money supply.”

Similarly, Norbert Michel, a research fellow in financial regulations at the Heritage Foundation, told the Daily Signal, “There is no justification for secrecy. They should have a full policy audit and the Federal Open Market Committee’s full transcript, not just the minutes, should be released.”
The Fed defends the secrecy of its open-market operations by claiming that the disclosure of any information could cause borrowers substantial competitive harm. Reuters writes, “Fed officials have said such exposure would complicate their public communications, hurt their credibility and stoke financial market volatility.”

Paul’s legislation would not simply institute a full audit of the Federal Reserve, but also would provide Congress oversight of Federal Reserve policies, including quantitative easing.
As long as Democrats maintained control of the Senate, legislation targeting the Federal Reserve has been unsuccessful, but with Republicans now in charge of both the House and the Senate, an audit-the-Fed bill certainly has a better chance.

Paul, believed to be a potential presidential contender for 2016, has found support for the bill amongst other possible Republican contenders, including Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida. “The Fed has expanded its balance sheet fivefold, yet economic growth is still tepid, businesses are sitting on cash, and median income and household wealth are depressed,” Cruz noted in a statement.