A Future Misplaced

People are a curious lot, especially when we resort to "herd mentality". For some reason, we seem to have this tendency to act or think in a certain way just because we perceive or we're told, that "everyone else is doing it", be it some fashion or gaming or whatever trend. Maybe we've just been conditioned by Madison Avenue marketing types to follow these made up trends. Maybe it's genetic, or perhaps it's a little of both. Lately, we've tripped into something similar to herd mentality, but potentially much more sinister, and that is "political correctness" or as it's otherwise known, being "PC".

Why do I say that? Because political correctness makes use of the our "group think" behavior by attempting to alter a person's behavior into conforming to a often manufactured set of parameters. This effort generally includes stigmatizing, bullying, and sometimes includes the use of or threat of violence. George Orwell discussed this kind of behavior in two of his most popular books, "Animal Farm" and "1984". However, Orwell was simply writing what he saw taking place in Stalinist Russia, where certain ideas were "erased" from the public conscientious. It didn't take long for this to go from ideas or words and phrases to erasing actual people and events from the accepted history (it's been said that history is nothing more than a collective agreement of assumptions).

The Catholic Church has had a very long history of rewriting (or "correcting" to use their phrase) history through its destruction of "heretical" sects, religious texts and other books. It has deleted, altered, and reinterpreted hundreds if not thousands of religious scripture in order to promote its political-religious agenda going back centuries. Of course, many other religions have done so as well. More recently in history, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy , Spain, Hungary and Romania all made great use of politically correct behavior which included not just intimidation but made use of mass book burnings (as did the Catholic Church which, as often as not, was simply stoking the flames for the religious and political dissenters tied to the stake). However, none did it better than Stalin who even had photos and film edit out the latest political enemy along with all mention of their very existence (while sometimes inserting himself to create the image of the all present and powerful leader).

Here in America, we're seeing something similar being played out. Perhaps not to the extent mentioned above; at least no one has been burned at the stake, executed, or set to a concentration camp...not yet anyway. What I'm specifically talking about is the accelerating tendency to distort and/or attempt to erase a part of American history. We've long heard the story about how George Washington could never tell a lie when in truth he was a little shady on his real estate dealings or how Abraham Lincoln "freed all the slaves", which is patently not true. However, that is where I want to go with this article, namely the removal of our portion of collective past as a nation. Let's get started with ole log splitting "Honest Abe".

First off, Abraham Lincoln was born in Kentucky, a slave state, as was the first and only President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis (as an aside, both were born in log cabins). Lincoln's family moved to Indiana and finally settled in Springfield Illinois while Jefferson Davis moved to Mississippi. Lincoln would grow up being mostly unsuccessful in everything he did and hardly "honest" even as a lawyer. Of course, in time, and after numerous false starts, Lincoln finally succeed in becoming President, but it was of a nation which was deeply divided along many lines and had been since the 1840's. Davis would be more successful in his business ventures and ultimately become one of America's greatest US Senators. When he agreed to become President of the newly created Confederacy, Davis said it was the "saddest day of my life", but felt he had no other choice. Lincoln repeatedly said he had no opposition to the issue slavery with respects to the nation and would do whatever he could to keep the nation together, including the acceptance of slavery (privately, Lincoln opposed slavery). However, slavery was not the key issue for succession. It was only one, albeit a vocal one, of the many reasons for the division of the union---the two key factors being the issue of state's rights and economic development (which was brought to a head with Worrall Act).

Jefferson Davis, on the other hand, understood the complexities of succession. He even acknowledged that the institution of slavery was unsustainable and would very likely have ended on its own within ten years if not sooner. When Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, following the bloody and indecisive Battle of Gettysburg, it was in hopes of bring the war to an end. The Proclamation pertained ONLY to the states which had seceded and not to the slave holding border states and territories. Since the South was primarily rural, Lincoln hoped to draw Southern soldiers away from the battlefields and back to the farms as slaves left and crops began to rot in the fields. Of course, Lincoln's order was illegal in that it was being issued over territory where he had no jurisdiction, but he hoped it would have the same results. Of course, the industrial might of the North ultimately won and the South was utterly laid waste.

Decades later, veterans on both sides meet; some became good friends with their counterparts on the other side. Eventually, the widows, children, and descendants of both the North and South began to form associations erect memorials and statues. Even our current "Memorial Day", originally a Southern holiday, was adopted nationally. Now, some 152 years later, a new type of Civil War seems to be arising. We have a small minority of individuals who are quite adapt at being vocal as well as making use of the "politically correct" trigger, are demanding that all traces of the Confederacy be erased. We've already seen where decades of misleading education has created the popular myth of "Lincoln the Modern Moses " or that there was a single sole cause for the war when in truth, less than 4% of the entire South owned any slaves (the average was three). Most slave owners worked shoulder to shoulder with their slaves. Only 1% were the stereotypical "Terra" plantations.

These individuals and groups are demanding that all statues pertaining to the Confederacy be removed and destroyed. Thankfully, most are being saved and removed to less prominent locations. However, these demands include the renaming of schools, roads, and the removal of any and all Confederate flags or memorabilia from public property as well as museums, cemeteries, battlefields, or even re-enactments along with prohibiting the sale of related memorabilia. Failure to comply could result in threats of violence (sometimes it's more than mere threats), protests, boycotting and labeling as a "racist". As a result, state and local leaders have tucked tail and complied with these terrorist demands in the name of political correctness.

Now, as if that isn't intimidating enough, these same individuals are demanding an end to so-called "cultural appropriation". By that they mean prohibiting non-black individuals from wearing certain types of ear rings, hair styles, or clothing. Some have tried to extend that to creating "all black" associations, social functions like school graduations, and even "white free safe spaces". Finally, there is the demand for "slave reparations", which range from a cash settlement, a free house and/or car, to a guaranteed annual income or a tuition free college education, all paid for by a special tax on non-black individuals. The worse part of this is that some publicly elected individuals or appointed institutional leaders are actually considering this while a few have actually already implemented some of these demands!

I suppose that, in some ways, I can understand their frustration (note: since I'm not a racial minority, that statement can be construed as being "racially insensitive" or not "PC"). Anyway, they rightfully claim that, per Lincoln, those who left their masters would receive "40 acres and a mule". They were to be resettled in what was then called "Indian Lands"; that is, what's now Arizona and New Mexico. The alternative was a one way trip back to Africa, which some took. They founded the country of Liberia, which is basically the anus of the world. Home to huge blocks of poverty, poor sanitation, unsafe food, inadequate housing, a seriously corrupt government, and up until recently, ground zero for the Ebola virus. However, Lincoln's assassination nullified that verbal agreement (the reason for the offer in the first place was because Lincoln felt that whites and blacks would not get along well together). These individuals also claim, again rightfully, that because of slavery, they lost their cultural inheritance and connection to their history.

However, before they try to fix the blame on the US, they need to be reminded that slavery was introduced to America by the Spanish, then the Portuguese, Dutch, French and English. Even Native Americans, who were occasionally slaves themselves, held both white and black slaves. Furthermore, do you think any of these slave traders actually traipsed through the jungles in search of some hapless victim? Nope. They were caught and sold by other African tribes; usually as a result of a conflict or war, or some chief wanted someone's wife, daughter, property, or simply to get rid of a possible rival or troublemaker. Sometimes, these poor souls were sold to European slave traders in port; sometimes they were sold to Arab slave traders who took them East to sell (this practice by Arab slave traders still continues).

The fledgling US was among the very first countries to stop the importation of slaves into the country (1794 and again in 1807). So, who should be responsible, if anyone, for so-called "reparations"? Of course, there is the fact that there were actually some free black farmers and merchants who actually owned black slaves. We also shouldn't forget the non-slave free blacks in the North and in the so-called "Indian Lands" of the West, or those who came to America post 1865. Then there is the problem of multiple compensation given that very few blacks in America today actually descended from a slave. What about non-black individuals who were held as slaves such as the Irish, Scottish, Germans, Native Americans or Asians? They should be compensated too since they were enslaved by the same people (BTW, I am not referring to indentured individuals. That was a voluntary arrangement which often ended in freedom at the end of their term of servitude).

So what do we do? Is rewriting or distorting history the best answer? Should we try to bury the past by denying mainly WASPish Americans their history the way some blacks claim they were denied? What about those demanding the statues of Andrew Jackson be removed too? What do we gain by destroying our past or even the symbols of our pasts, or more importantly, what do we lose as a nation? Is it now acceptable to prohibit individuals from displaying pride in their heritage or honoring the dead just because a small minority claims to be "offended" or because you might be called a name? Do we try to forget the past by erasing its markers and symbols the way Stalin did his enemies? Do we reward individuals for something which may or may not have happened to an ancestor 150 or 200 years ago? If so, what about others who suffered from the same fate? Should be force museums and battlefields to close or cloak the truth, yet we publicly fund other groups simply because of their race? Isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy...or cowardice? Should we allow others to censor our words? What about digging up the dead? The City Council of Memphis Tennessee voted move to remove the remains of Confederate General Nathan B. Forrest, his wife and relocating them from the city cemetery, along with his statue. Is that morally right? Should all images of the Founding Fathers who owned slaves (including Jefferson and Washington) be removed, their homes closed and their bodies disinterred too (ironically, Robert E. Lee did not own slaves and whereas neither did Lincoln, his wife's family did). What about Union Generals who owned slaves, such as U.S. Grant, who came from a slave holding family?

Claims of "cultural appropriation" too is another case of "me thinks you protest too much" to borrow a line from the Bard's pen. Civilization has always advanced thanks to "cultural appropriation" . Perhaps this should be simply chocked up to another example of extremism, no different from the divisive political morass in Washington or the theocratic-based hatefulness taking place in Europe, Middle East, Asia, and Africa except this racism being perpetrated by the same individuals who scream "racism". We would do well to seek the middle ground; to reach for a societal equilibrium and strive for a consensus which serves the greater good but leaves our values intact. As for me, I am not afraid of words; of being called a name by someone who is likely to be more guilty of its meaning than I. We should stop trying to destroy the past. To do so is like setting ourselves adrift by cutting our historical anchor or throwing our moral compass overboard. We should learn from the past, embrace the present, and keep our eyes fixed on the future.


More states seeing Confederate statues defaced.

Third Confederate statue removed in New Orleans

Bulldozing Monuments and The War on American History

A Confederate General's Final Stand Divides Memphis

Does Claims of Being "Offended" Mean a Lack of Political Will?

Louisville Mayor Greg Fisher (D) and University of Louisville President James Ramsey attempted to do the unthinkable. They attempted to remove a monument given to the citizens of Louisville in 1895 in remembrance of war dead by the Kentucky Women's Monument Society. They attempted this without input from the residents of Louisville; without consideration of the people wanted and thus an action they had no authority to do. They spoke quickly, without public discussion, and stepped aside allow the digging to begin---like thieves in the night. They claimed that "someone" was "offended" by the monument, and therefore, they would remove it with no idea or plan what to do with it or where it would be removed to. They claimed it was for "diversity" while its removal represents a suppression of diversity. They claimed it was for "tolerance", yet their actions speak of intolerance. It was there when men and women of all races marched off passed it on their way to fight the Axis Powers in World War II. It was there during the Korean and Vietnam wars as a mute witness to the horrors of war to come and which have passed. It stood during school desegregation of the 1950's in silence. It stood during the Civil Rights Movement without a murmur. It bore witness to the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King and President John Kennedy, who both viewed it. It stood during the anti-war protests of the late 1960's and early 1970's quietly. It stood during the era of forced bussing in the 1970's without notice.

This act proves that even a small city like Louisville Kentucky, just a week away from its annual two minute of fame, isn't immune to the creeping blight infecting America know as "political correctness". statue was a gift to the residents of the City of Louisville. It was not given to the government of Louisville nor to the University of Louisville, which didn't exist at that time, to do with as they please. Even the Louisville Metro Council and historical societies, local and state, lacked the backbone to step up and say anything. The memorial wasn't given in celebration of the fading glory of the "Lost Cause" or in perpetuation of the myth that the Civil War was fought to protect the economic interests of less than 4% of the South's population or for any sense of superiority. It wasn't even given to the citizens of Louisville as a reminder of the war itself, and the most terrible in our nation's history. Kentucky, a slave holding state, officially remained neutral and did not secede, Louisville remained firmly committed to the North while much of state leaned toward the Confederacy, especially after the war the resulting mistreatment of the South under Reconstruction. The monument was given in remembrance of the brave men who gave their lives for their country and their ideals. Hundreds of such monuments, honoring the dead of both sides were erected all across America, and thousands more have been erected to honor the dead of subsequent wars, some of which also being equally unpopular.

However, Louisville Kentucky isn't the only place where this disease of political correctness has spread. Efforts to erase the likenesses of Generals Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson and President Jefferson Davis from Stone Mountain in Georgia have been attempted several times. In Memphis Tennessee, some individuals have sought to dig up the remains of General Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife and them removed from a public cemetery; some have been callous enough to suggest that their bodies be thrown in the local garbage dump. Other cities have jump on the "rewrite history" bandwagon and attempt to dig up the remains of their famous Confederate war dead who happen to be buried in public cemeteries. A few have places been successful in prohibiting the small 3" x 4" Confederate flags from being placed on the graves or from flying the larger flag from a pole in the center of their section. A few naive communities have even forbidden anything doing with the "Lost Cause" from being displayed, bought or sold at flea markets, historical and military events---including gun shows (Louisville being one of them). We already have seen where some states have betrayed their history by removing elements of the Confederate flag from their state flag without asking those they were elected to represent.

True, the Confederate flag has been appropriated by certain hate groups, but that can't be helped. These same hate groups also fly the Nazi Swastika flag alongside the US flag. Some have started showing up with the Gadsden "Don't Tread on Me" flag. Black power and Hispanic groups often show up with their respective tri-color red, black and green flags and the Mexican national flag at protests (some have dared to fly it over the US flag, an open and direct insult to America and all Americans). Should all these be banned? As it is, anybody can display any flag they want. During the Vietnam War, anti-war students often flew the North Vietnamese flag during their protests. They also waved the USSR "Sickle and Hammer" flags and wore t-shirts with images of Che Guevara on them.

It's often said that those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it. It's also said that a nation which forgets its history forgets it ideals and ceases to become a nation. Political correctness is destroying this nation. Changing the emphasis from a melting pot where we absorb the best each culture has to offer, which in turn makes us stronger, the liberal mindset has promotes multiculturalism whereby individuals are encouraged to stand apart; to remain separate. It's not that anyone wants to take away their customs or traditions. It's that they should not expect---or demand--that others conform to them. It's fine that they continue to speak their own language, however, they shouldn't expect others to adopt theirs nor for taxpayer's dollar to make it easier for them not to adapt to their new home. A common language and shared customs and traditions are the threads that weave together a common heritage and make a nation strong. We have lost that. The courts have told us that separate but equal are inherently wrong, yet we've allowed this to become the norm of our society.

People today claim to be "offended" the way most order a glass of water. College (and even high school) students demand "safe places" where they won't be "offended". Well, I've got news for you. The 1st Amendment of the Constitution guarantees your right to be offended. In fact, it practically assures you that you will be offended by something at sometime during your life, but then that's life. As hard as it is for some people, or some groups, the world doesn't revolve around them. The rest of us aren't here to cater to their whims or shelter them from getting upset. Diversity, for which we strive, is about accepting every point of view, not just the one's you agree with. It doesn't mean you have to agree with it, or even like it. In fact, you can hate it all you like, but in America, we each have the right to our opinions. We don't have the right to impose those opinions on others however. That's what tolerance is all about.

Right now we're dealing with an enemy who would like to impose their religion and values on us and if possible, the rest of the world. From their perspective, you have the right to adopt the cultural and religious world view...or die. Your choice. Europe is now learning the hard way that no good deed goes unpunished by accepting millions of colonists...err...I mean "refugees"...who seem to be under the misconception that they are guests in host countries; that these host countries are not going to adopt their religion, no matter how much they protests, or accept their customs such as gang raping (and murdering) women who are "improperly dressed or unescorted by a male relative, or even that---for some unexplained reason---they are "entitled" to free furnished housing, free food---Halal naturally, free medical care, free transportation, free house cleaning (by non-Muslims of course), free education, separation of men and women in public places, demanding that all pork, tobacco and liquor sells stop "or else" and, well, you get the idea. We are dealing with a similar situation with illegal immigrates regarding taxpayer based services and a oblivious government which has completely ignored the demands of its citizens (such as their lack of fear of the ballot box).

This is what happens when a nation or society loses pride itself. When it loses it sense of identity. When a People loses their moral and cultural direction, they begin to forget who they are and what they represent. That's the sickness which begins with "political correctness" and the misplaced belief that everyone can be appeased, but in doing so, others must be persuaded or, eventually, coerced into silence. Being "offended" once meant that something presented a indirect or implied moral threat. Now, it means being a afraid and demanding someone else take your fear away. I see it as having a lack of self confidence and self conviction.

It's a Matter of Priorities isn't it?

The nine murders in Charleston South Carolina prompted a national reaction, as we should expect it to. However, it turned out to be the wrong discussion. Instead of a public debate about the mentally ill and their access to guns or the dangers of political extremism (from either side), the corporate media dictated the topic by focusing on the completely irrelevant issue of the Confederate flag, which prompted South Carolina's Governor, Nikki Haley, to be the first to grovel at the feet of the "PC" crowd and show the world just how low she would bow by immediately removing the "Southern Cross" from the grounds of the state's capitol. The corporate media's control of the "discussion" caused several other jurisdictions to jump on the brown-nose bandwagon by offering up their politically correct but culturally corrupt solution to the non-existent Confederate flag issue.

In what is perhaps the most historically profane move, the Memphis City Council voted to dig up the remains of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife and remove their remains from a public cemetery. At this point, I don't know what they intend to do with their remains or even if they have permission from their descendants. Others locales are also considering removing the remains of the their dead Confederates as well. One has to wonder if ultimately they will dig up the remains of everyone who supported the "Lost Cause". Maybe this will extend to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and every one of the Founding Fathers who owned slaves (although, as we know, the Civil War was not fought over the issue of slavery, slavery is still incorrectly taught as the popular myth as to the origins of the War between the States).

For those states not planning on exhuming the Confederate dead, there are still plans on prohibiting the flying or displaying of the various Confederate flags at burial sites, on the graves of Confederate soldiers, or on national Civil War battlefields. The discussion extends to the removal of Confederate monuments and statues as well. In Frankfort Kentucky, the State Legislature is reviewing a proposal to remove the statue of native son and President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, from the basement level of the state capitol building (it had previously been removed from the Rotunda). Exactly what they intend to do with is up in the air. Perhaps it will be used for fill just as the ancient pharaohs did to the statues of their former rivals or those out of favor with the priesthood. I guess the Kentucky State Legislature will replace ole Jeff's statue will that of a basketball goal.

Recently, the Atlanta Georgia chapter of the NAACP demanded that the likenesses of Robert E. Lee, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, and Jefferson Davis be "sandblasted" off the mountain side at the Stone Mountain State Park. The state park also houses a Confederate Hall, with historical artifacts and documents. I presume that they expect it to be closed too. In all fairness, it should be noted that the "Southern Cross" will be "permitted" to fly at the exhibit, for now at least. Meanwhile, several large retailers, in an apparent case of tush-kissing and racial catering, have decided to stop carrying any items which contains anything bearing the Confederate flag or symbols of the Confederacy. One TV network has stopped showing reruns of "The Dukes of Hazard" because the famous orange Dodge bears the name "General Lee" and has a Confederate flag on its roof; this, despite of the fact that the show has proven to be very popular with audiences over the last 30 years, has received no previous racially oriented complaints over those same 30 years, and yet they will continue to broadcast shows which are racial or gender insensitive. Other networks still show movies or air comics with reverse racial discrimination themes and think nothing of it. Frankly, none of this bothers me. I'm smart enough to know that I can always turn the channel if I find the material offensive, but I still have to wonder why it's unacceptable for one group but not the other? If you're going to do for one, then you need to do the same for the others don't you think? All that's been accomplished, in my opinion, was to further divide Americans and rattle the cages of the race baiters, which is what I believe was the intent of the corporate media while Congress and the Supreme Court enacted laws without public discussion; almost "as if" it was done intentionally behind our backs while we were purposefully distracted.

What we're experiencing is a new form of governing by sleight-of-hand by Washington as it willfully ignores the Constitution. We are witnessing the intentional "whitewashing" or rewriting if you will, our collective history. That is the stuff we hear about in places like Mao's Communist China, Kim's North Korea, Stalinist Russia, and other nations under the rule of single party dictatorships. While we aren't---technically---a single party dictatorship, we are in fact a dual party oligarchy where we have two political parties working on behalf of a corporate elite while we are given the illusion of choice to make us feel like we actually have a say in the outcome
.
Currently, as you may have noticed, the corporate media has been trying to refocus our attention from the issue of Confederate symbolism to so-called "sanctuary cities" following the murder of Kathryn Steinle by Apolinar Altamirano, an illegal immigrant. This individual had been deported to Mexico numerous times but knowing our unenforced immigration laws (thank you President Obama and Eric Holder) admitted to settling in San Francisco because of its alleged "open arms" position towards illegals. I find it a little more than ironic that states can't decide about the Confederate flag yet they can decide about upholding federal immigration laws or not. In fact, when Arizona attempted to simply enforce immigration laws already on the books, as they are legally entitled to do, President Obama ordered then US Attorney General Eric Holder to file suit against Arizona and what was a first, allowed a foreign nation (Mexico) to interplead in the lawsuit! It seems we're seeing a simple game of "pick and choose".

The US currently has some 12 million (or more) illegal immigrants living here. There are some 200 "sanctuary cities" where many of these individuals settle, knowing full well that no attempts will be made to discover their identities or have them deported. Most of these individuals are good people. They're here to make a fair living; most, if not all, know they are in full violation of US immigration laws, but simply don't care. For some, it's better to take their chances here than return home. Many are taken advantage of by criminal employers who know their victims have nowhere to turn to. Some are homeless wonderers. Yet, to make matters worse, among these individuals, there are thousands upon thousands who are engaged in criminal activities---from gangs and drugs to rape and murder, just like what happened to Ms. Steinle on Pier 14 in San Francisco; murdered with a stolen law enforcement officer's handgun by a homeless illegal immigrant who had been deported countless timeless living in a city which doesn't care.

Now, why is our attention being diverted again, this time to "sanctuary cities", I don't know. What are they trying to cover-up or sneak through is anybody's guess. Perhaps it has something to do with the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) which secretly pasted Congress and essentially gave away---allegedly---our ability to formulate our own trade policies (I say "allegedly" because the public hasn't been given the contents of the agreement. However, it does allow the President, in direct violation of the Constitution, the ability to "fast track" trade treaties. That authority--- treaties---belonged to Congress). Then again, it could be Secretary of State John Kerry's deal with Iran in which the Iranians "promise" not to develop any nukes or enrich any weapons grade uranium in exchange to a multi-billion dollar bribe paid for by the American Taxpayers and released frozen Iranian assets. It doesn't prohibit them from outsourcing of course, but then again, who is going to stop them? The United Nations? Stomp their feet and count to three? Of course, there could be---and likely is---something else altogether.

We need to be ever more watchful and outspoken than ever before. While we were watching our games and reality shows, or playing video games, or Tweeting, or taking "selfies", our democratic republic was stolen from us; in truth, we willingly gave it away. We are now---officially---an oligarchy where government serves the needs of the very rich and key trans-national, mostly financial, defense, and oil, corporations. This is not "our" government any longer folks. Certainly not the government of our Founding Fathers. True, we are still allowed the illusion of deciding between two political parties, but I assure the outcome has long before been decided. The role of mainstream media---TV, radio, print, and Internet---is controlled by just six companies by the way, is to entertain, distract, mislead, and subtly manipulate what we think in order to keep us docile. That's all. That means keeping it dumbed down and focused away from what really matters. Feed us preprocessed and regurgitated "news" in small easy to swallow sounds bites.

Schools are more about babysitting instead of educating. The curriculum has been dumbed down to produce barely functional young adults. In many cases, not even that. Don't believe me? Ask your parents or grandparents what they were taught in school. Better yet, pick up a primer from the 1930's or '40's and take a look (and remember, they didn't use computers or calculators). As Henry Ford once said (to paraphrase), he didn't want an educated work force. He wanted only those trainable enough to do a job. No advanced critical thinking skills required! The US loses out to second and even third tier nations on academic tests year after year. Most of the time we don't even make it into the top 1/3. In some areas, we're at or near the bottom. Why?

I think the answer is pretty simple. An educated populace is a dangerous populace. Our Founding Fathers even told us so. It's one which will routinely question it's leaders and expect serious answers. It will demand governmental responsibility. It would set and expect to reach certain social goals, like reducing crime, hunger, homeless, pollution, and social injustices, regardless of the obstacles. It would demand corporate accountability. An educated populace won't be satisfied with taking the easy way out or accepting Pablum for news. It certainly wouldn't accept sleight-of-hand governing or diversionary issues like the Confederate flag, and there would be no "kicking the can down the road". An educated population would have never let our democratic republic slip away.

So, I put it to you again, what are you going to do? Vote for the same snake oil salesmen? Voting for an "outsider" promising "reform"? Folks, there's nothing left to "reform". Accept the same old repackaged "choices" Washington allows you to pick from? Continue to be diverted from what's really happening by watching the same corporate news outlets but expecting the truth? Or will you allow yourself, your family, your children and their children to be economic serfs; slaves without chains, but slaves nevertheless? Maybe you will even let them get chipped just like cattle. I can't wait to see your answers.


Obama's silence on Kathryn Steinle killing is deafening
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-silence-on-kathryn-steinle-killing-is-deafening/2015/07/13/06f5730e-2959-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html

S.F. 'sanctuary' policy violates common sense: Our view
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/15/immigration-sanctuary-shooting-steinle-lopez-sanchez-editorials-debates/30100967/

Nuke deals helps Qasem Soleimani
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/14/nuke-deal-helps-qasem-soleimani-the-top-iranian-general-with-american-blood-on-his-hands.html

While Sheeple Lose Their Minds The TTP Is Passed
https://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2015/06/25/while-sheeple-lose-their-minds-the-tpp-is-passed.html

When in Doubt Banish Reality and Embrace the Illusion

The Confederate flag had nothing to do with the actions of Mr. Roof. It was and remains the symbol of Southern independence, state's rights, and what they believed was the original intent of the Founding Fathers (did you know that the majority of descendents of the Founding Fathers at that time supported the position of the Confederate government and its Constitution?). The fact it has been hijacked by hate groups and wackos should not detour our respect for the flag any more than the fact the these same groups are now using the American and Gladsen flags. Should these be banned too? What about the bible? It condones slavery, ethnic bigotry, and murder. Want to ban it too? Mr. Roof was wearing a Gold's Gym t-shirt. Are they racist? Wanna ban their t-shirts? Of course not, but that's how out of hand this has become. I will do what I can to allow it to stay while fighting racist groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Nation of Islam, the New Black Panthers, and a corrupt government.

That is what I wrote in a earlier article dear readers. Well, it's gone. The "Southern Cross", which had flown over South Carolina for 154 years will now be consigned to a museum. It's also amazing at just how fast South Carolina was willing to turn its head on its past and its heritage. How is it we can't act this quickly and decisively at the really serious issues like hunger, homelessness, a collapsing infrastructure, or sputtering education system where mediocrity is now seen acceptable or a corrupted government? Are we so easily duped--be it out of fear of "offending" someone or the threat of a imposed "guilt"? Where are our leaders---the ones with backbone and a willingness to speak the truth without fear of condemnation because it's the right thing to do? It's been amazing to see just how easy it was to convince a people that their ancestry was so corrupt that it must now be hidden or destroyed, and how they so willingly---almost anxiously---complied and choose to remove their the symbols of their heritage. Sheep willingly being lead to the slaughter. A people so willing to forget their past will have no future except the one dictated to them by others. That a people should be willing to accept a guilt not of their own making; a guilt that never really existed in the sense it has been presented. Is this "white privilege" or is it "white guilt"? The two are becoming harder to distinguish between.

This nonsense over the Confederate flag, statues, monuments, and tombstones has gotten totally out of hand; another "manufactured" event to distract us. This was simply government by deception. It's part and parcel of rule by our oligarch overlords. We are not to notice those behind the financial curtain. It's amazing how quickly the American People were so easily distracted from a violent crime which killed nine individuals in their church, including the minister to pictures of a flag being held by the accused killer, Dylann Roof, on the Internet. He was wearing a Gold's-Gym t-shirt too. Shouldn't we go after them? After all, they promote good health and fitness. Surely there are enough couch potatoes out there who feel "offended" at what Gold's Gym represents and can put down the Twinkies or bag of chips long enough to mount a "couch-in" campaign!

Right now, there are groups and individuals who seriously considering digging up long dead Confederates and their families, and doing what with their bones exactly? Dumping them in a "undisclosed location" like the Russians claimed to have done with the remains of Joseph Goebbels and his family? Certainly that's the symbolism they would like for us to associate with them. I guess we should ask the Memphis City Council since they seem to be the first on the bandwagon. They voted to remove the remains of Confederate Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife from the local cemetery. I suppose next will General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, or J.E.B. Stuart. I wonder what they'll do about General Lee? Nothing says "Confederate" as much as the greatest general on either side as "The Gray Fox". Of course, there's three little bitty problems. First, the Northern Army seized Lee's estate near the end of the war and turned it into a giant gravesite. Perhaps you've heard of it. Arlington National Cemetery? And then there's the fact that Lee didn't own any slaves, or that he was a noted US officer during the war with Mexico. But what the hell, he wore a gray uniform so let's dig him up too, and while we're at, let pull up his horse, "Traveler"! There's nothing better than beating a dead horse and a dead rebel. Jefferson Davis's home in Fairfield Kentucky has already been burned down, so forget that. There's a marker about slavery, which he renounced, at the site already. Surely we can still dig his moldy old corpse up and give it a good beating; you know, just for sport.

In Frankfort, there's a old statue of this Kentucky native in the basement of the state capitol, who, before the war, was considered one of the brightest and best Senator in the nation; the intellectual heir to fellow Kentuckian Henry Clay or fellow Southerner John C. Calhoun; who opposed succession, but believed in state's rights. Now there's discussion of removing it from the building. I suppose it will used for filler just like the ancient Egyptian pharaohs did to other pharaohs who had fallen out of favor. I suppose it will be replaced by someone who is currently more "PC" as they say. Nothing says "Stalinism" like good ole revisionism. Did you know that MTV is releasing another so-called "reality TV" show called "White People" (as there doesn't appear to be any decent music being made anymore)? Apparently, based on the trailer, it's about just how evil, vile, greedy and contemptible white people are. Yelp, whites are devil's spawn. The trailer depicts young college age white folks having to confront their "whiteness" and shows some getting up and leaving the room--in tears of repressed guilt obviously. Perhaps President Obama will come to their rescue after giving them a good deserving dressing down, after which they write a suitably sized certified check (they're greedy and untrustworthy after all).

I wonder if this how nations fall? With people being pitted against each other in manufactured conflicts, either domestically or globally in order that they are distracted from the corrupt and corruption of a government that's no longer their own. I suppose if people are so busy fighting each other over issues which either don't exist or don't matter, they don't stop and notice how bad things around them are or who's really responsible. We've given them our democratic republic without so much as a putting down the remote and they gave us a fascist oligarchy (rule by the corporations for the interests of the 1%) and the onset of a police state---for our own protection of course--- against a never ending "war on terror" for fun and profit (especially profit). Besides, it artificially boosts the economy, while "bleeding" off an excess population and magically lowers unemployment numbers while it helps the government rid itself of troublemakers and that pesky Constitution.

So friends, just follow the shiny objects put before you; watch your so-called "reality TV"; play your video games; watch your sports

and the pabulum they call "news"; embrace a dumbed down education system and excuses for failure, laziness, and mediocrity as the standard to aim for, after all, someone else is always to blame; accept the choices they allow you and the "guilt" they hoist on your shoulders; don't think and never ever ask questions. Remember, they know what's in your best interests. To paraphrase George Orwell, in a time where lies are accepted as the truth, those who speak the truth will be seen as liars. So just move along.

False Flags on the Fourth of July

I have had it up to here (visualize me with my hand held at the top of my forehead). What am I talking about? I'm talking about all this idiocy about the Confederate battle flag of course. As most Americans are now aware, the whole discussion regarding the flag arose from a couple of picture of accused mass murderer Dylann Roof which appeared online holding a small cheap "Rebel" flag over his shoulder. Shouldn't the focus here be on the fact that Mr. Roof is (allegedly) responsible for shooting to death nine individuals? If we're going to focus, instead on a flag rather than the crime or what motivated him to commit the crime, why aren't we looking to ban the Gold's Gym t-shirt he was wearing? Now I happen to like Gold's Gym. I think they are an outstanding organization which promotes good health. However, here is an accused murderer wearing one of their shirts. So, what are we going to do about it? I'll tell---nothing; which is what this fuss about the Confederate flag amounts to.

Once again, as most Americans are now aware, the whole flap regarding the flag has been nothing short of a diversion from what actually happened and should have galvanized our attention. I am, of course, referring to the Trans Pacific Partnership---aka "TPP"---which essentially violated the Constitution and removed Congressional debate over treaties and handed "fast track" authority over to the President. It also gave corporations almost unilateral power to usurp governments of their ability to decide on and enforce their own foreign trade policies. It allows corporations to sidestep trade laws which negatively impact their profit. This alone should have had citizens en-masse in the streets protesting, but the fact it was rushed through in secret made that an impossibility. Besides, we were more concerned about a 150 year old flag. We can't forget that President Obama also pushed through an executive order against holding and deportation of illegal aliens. Nope, we were focused on what to do about all the Confederate statues, monuments and headstones, or cancelling popular TV shows, which were obviously so much more important than our silly economic sovereignty.

While the President and Congress was busy selling us down the river---presumably the" Ole Suwannee River"---the un-supreme Supreme Court was busily upholding the questionably Affordable Care Act and gay marriage. Now, I'm not naive or foolish enough to think the Obamacare would be overturned. After all, it was the Supreme Court which rewrote it as a tax law (in full violation of the Constitution by the way), so why would they overrule themselves? Besides, Obamacare has been implemented throughout the United States in one form or another. Too much money has exchanged hands for it to go away. Is it financially sustainable? Nope. Not at all, but they don't see that as their problem anymore than they see the debt crisis as their problem. If we were to have national health coverage like almost every other industrialized nation, I think it should have been a single payer form with the President and Congress having to participate in it just like we would.

As for gay marriage, I really can't see any reason why it shouldn't be upheld. Now, I know that may make some of my more conservative readers (especially those on the religious right) a little miffed, but hear me out on this. I am a straight guy. Always been and always will be. I've always thought "marriage" should be between a man and woman. Marriage in that form has been the foundation of civilization since the beginning. Yes, many ancient civilizations from Sumer to Classical Greece to Imperial Rome and so forth permitted (or at least tolerated) gay relationships. However, none allowed gay marriages. Many fundamentalist Christians cite gay relationships as "against God's laws". Well, bear in mind that not everyone believes in Christianity, at least in that form, and if we're going to enforce one interpretation of one law--written for a specific culture, time, place, and people a very long time ago---then shouldn't we also enforce other laws like stoning to death your neighbors who fail to honor the Sabbath (and I mean Jewish Sabbath) or stone anyone who mixes fabrics (perhaps plaids and stripes) or eats lobster, clams, shrimp or bacon? Did you know even eating veal and drinking milk together was a stoning offense? What about denying women an education or requiring their complete submission? What about the Bible's condoning of slavery or ethnic murder? I could easily go on and on as I'm sure you know. Remember, we're currently fighting a group like that who have this nasty habit of beheading people who don't support their version of Islam. The point is don't cherry pick which Bible laws you want to push.

Secondly, and this is my personal opinion, if two individuals are in love, regardless of the gender, who am I (or you) to say they can't get married? Just a few decades ago, a heterosexual couple weren't even allowed to live together in most jurisdictions or even share a room together. Love is a rare commodity these days; perhaps the rarest of them all. If that's how two adults want to spend their lives---with someone they love who happens to be of the same sex---so what? What right do I or anyone else have to stand in the way? If there's anything this world needs, it's more love and compassion. As far as God goes, I just can't see how s/he would oppose that. And lastly, what business is it of mine? To be honest, none whatsoever. Now, if a church or other religious institution declines, on religious grounds, to participate, that is their choice. They have the right; the religious duty of their dogma to uphold and follow their beliefs. Neither the government or the courts have any legal authority to demand that they do otherwise. This would be a clear and obvious violation of the tradition of separation of church and state which we have in this country.
Now, having said that, I want to add that I really don't need to know if someone is straight, bi, gay, or transgendered. Whatever you are, I say "great", but don't wave it in my face. Go and enjoy your life because I frankly don't care. I tend to like people based on who they are as individuals. If they're friendly to me and mine, we'll get along just great. If they are jerks, well then, we're going to have a problem. What your sexual orientation or marital status is, your religion, your race, your national heritage, political leanings, or whatever are of no special importance to me. Celebrate it if you want. Embrace it. But allow me to do the same thing with the same respect I give you. At the end of the day, no matter what you entitle yourself, you are still a human being just like everyone else. Be nice to people. Treat them with the same amount of respect you would want, and this will be a much happier world.

As for those caught up in this flag nonsense, it's time to focus on more important issues than on a war which ended 150 years. Regardless of your opinion of the Confederacy, you should still respect the dead and the monuments erected in their honor whether you agree with them or their "Lost Cause" or not. Personally, as most will agree, this flag issue was not about "racial hatred". Any educated person knows the Confederacy or Civil War was not based on slavery. This was intended as a diversion to occupy the American People of all colors while our Constitution was being usurped by a government which is no longer ours. I think it was also to foster racial hatred in order to redirect our attention away from what was happening in Washington. However, I do think that regardless of whatever else you may or may not believe the Confederate flag represents, it above all represents the right of succession. Over the past few years, Obama has been repeatedly embarrassed by the increase of groups throughout the US calling for succession and by number of petitions submitted to state legislatures as well as the White House calling for succession from an increasingly unconstitutional government. I think this flag issue was meant to send a subtle message that any discussion of succession or the memory of succession will not be tolerated.

The last thing these corporate fascists running our lives want is for, not just the American People, but people throughout the world, to stop and realize who it is trying to keep us divided and at each other's throats while they turn us into economic serfs; feeding their hunger for global power and wealth. Their greatest fear is that the people of the world, either nationally or globally, united. "You are not my enemy anymore than I'm yours" is an antitheism to them. We must stop allowing ourselves to be misdirected by manufactured conflicts---racial, religious, economic, nationalistic, or racial; lulled into a daze by video games, so-called "reality" shows and so forth. Not even flags should be allowed to redirect our focus from those who seek to enslave us economically and strip us of our political power.

We must not allow ourselves from coming together as one people and taking this nation in the direction that We the American People want. That same ideal also applies to those in other nation. We must stop accepting the "solutions" offered to us by Washington. Those "solutions" are not in our best interests. They are meant only to appease us while the corporate powers and their pawns continue to consolidate their control over us. We are merely given the illusion of choice. We are far beyond the hope of reform. None of the candidates from either party is actually willing to commit political suicide for the American People, nor are they even capable of realistic political change if they really wanted to. It is time for us to decide what direction we what this country to go in with or without Washington's acquiesce and make it happen.

While we enjoy our cookouts, hotdogs, hamburgers, a cold brew or whatever with our family and friends of our nation's birthday, let's openly and honestly discuss this with those we care about. Real change will have to start at the grassroots and that means each of us. If we fail, the Fourth of July will become just another meaningless Summer holiday and the lives given by of all those from Lexington to now, will mean nothing. It's up to you.

Stars, Bars, and High Crimes

An apology should be my first order of business dear readers. You see, normally I try to write my articles on a regular basis, about twice a week, however, I'm slightly late. The reason you see, is that like many of you, I was mesmerized by the recent happenings in the news. Maybe "mesmerized" might not quite be the right word. It was more like that combination of terror and being awestruck. I guess the closest description I can give is what it must feel like for some field mouse watching a hawk swooping down on it with wings spread, talons outstretched, and having nowhere to run; its fascination and fear rolled into one.

To what I am speaking is, of course, this mass hysteria over the Confederate flag, which has now expanded to Confederate statues in state capitols, parks, and even cemeteries. There was almost an influx of air as individuals elected to represent the people rushed to remove the Southern Cross, as it's properly called, from every flag pole they could find. This was followed by retailers promising to remove anything which bore the vile image or any of the great leaders of the "Lost Cause" from their shelves. Hell, even Warner Brothers removed the Confederate flag from "The Dukes of Hazard's" bright orange "General Robert E. Lee", which, by the way, is no longer going to known as the "General Robert E. Lee". Now, there's talk about removing the remains of some of the greatest military and political leaders in American History---Nathan Bedford Forrest, Jefferson Davis, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson and others---simply because they defended a cause they believed in, which ended 150 years ago (and this desecration includes their wife's graves too if they are buried in the same plot together). There is even some wanting to remove street signs and names of schools which bear the name of some long dead Confederate. Meanwhile, apparently a few "white haters" have started vandalizing Confederate statues and tombstones of fallen Confederate soldiers (I won't used the politically correct phrase, "tagging" since it implies some harmless fun, which this isn't).

Why I wondered? Why would there be so "much to ado about nothing"; this "tempest in a teapot" to borrow from Bill Shakespeare. It seems it all got started when some photographs appeared online of our most recent mass murder celebrity, Mr. Roof. It seems that there are two or three pictures of Mr. Dylann Roof, alone, holding a small Confederate battle flag. One picture, as I recall, taken on a beach, shows where he had written "88" in the sand---a referenced to the Hitler and Nazis used by white hate groups. Well, ok then. If this individual wants to be identified as Neo-Nazis or whatever, that's fine. I don't think there's any doubt that this was a hate crime to begin with and should be treated accordingly.

The Confederate flag---the "Southern Cross" if you will---is a part of American and Southern heritage, whether some like it or not. Yes, it has been used by hate groups and individuals, but so has the original 13 Star American and Gadsden flags, not to mention our current national flag. Should be ban them? If not, please tell me why. The American flag has flown over many acts of hated such as they attempt by the US Government to extinguish an entire population. I am, of course, referring to Native Americans. The government in Washington spent decades coming up with schemes to deprived Native Americans of their resources, then the lands, and finally, their lives. When those failed, they put them on reservations, and systematically stripped them of their traditions, their culture, and their languages. The fact that any still exist, let alone practice their religion or speak their original language is a testament to their tenacity as a Great People. What about the conquest of the Southwest and war with Mexico? What about the imprisonment of the Japanese and Germans in concentration camps during and after World War II? Care to talk about our treatment of Pacific Islanders after the war and the use of their native islands for nuclear bombing practice? I don't care how much you try, no group will be successful in whitewashing American history no matter how hard they try. There are still too many witnesses and descendents of witnesses.

Yes, some have been successful in convincing people that the War between the States was fought solely over the issue of slavery, but

no matter how hard people try, they will never be able to bury the truth. But because of hate groups, some have come to see the Confederate flag as a symbol of black hatred, but it's not. Nevertheless, let's talk about that for a moment. The war itself was fought over several issues, of which the two most important was the right of the state over that of the federal government in determining laws and over economics, where the industrial North sought to dominate the mostly agricultural South, which had depended on slavery and manual labor to compensate for its lack of industry. Slavery, however, was only a tiny fraction of the South's actual workforce. Less than 4% of the entire Southern population owned any slaves at all. Of that, around 1% was the stereotypical "Tara" plantation. Most slave owners worked side by side with their slaves (the average of which was three), and ate the same food. Living conditions were usually not that different between slave and master. Many Northerners, especially manufacturers, supported slavery because they had a business interest in it. As an aside, did you know that Confederate generals Robert E. Lee, Joseph Johnson, A.P. Hill, Fitzhugh Lee, and J.E.B. Stuart were not slaveholders? Or that approximately 80% of Confederate soldiers and sailors were not slave owners Or that Confederate President Davis said, after the war, that everyone knew slavery, as an institution, was doomed? Most thought it would be gone within 10 to 12 years.

Maybe you didn't know too that Lincoln originally did not oppose slavery as long as it held the Union together, or that he thought the races would never get along together and intended to propose returning freed slaves to Africa or to relocate them out West. The famous "Emancipation Proclamation, issued by Lincoln following the bloody battle of Gettysburg applied to states which had succeed from the Union and not to the slave states which remained. Why? Simple military strategy. Stalemate. Freeing the slaves meant there was no one to bring in the crops. Therefore, Southern soldiers were forced to leave to tend the fields to keep their families from starving. This improved the odds for the North of winning. So, with only 4% or less of the population owning slaves, do you really think that 96% of the, mostly poor, farmers and merchants, left everything to fight for the 4%? No, I don't either.

Speaking of symbols, in those pictures I mentioned, Mr. Roof was wearing a Gold's Gym t-shirt. Are you prepared to call Gold's Gym

"racist"? Should we ban it too? I oppose all hate groups of all types---KKK, Neo-Nazis, La Raza, Nation of Islam and the New Black Panthers. I'm offended by what they do, what say preach, and, yes, by some of the items they wear. Shall we ban their flags and symbols too? After all, some of these groups openly admit to hating one race or another. The head of the New Black Panthers reportedly said that everyone whose ancestors owned slaves should be killed, while others think descendents of former slaves should receive compensation. Personally, I find this intriguing. Since slavery was introduced in America by the Spanish, Portuguese, English, and Dutch, are these included? What about Native Americans? Some owned slaves while others became slaves. Then there are the Irish, Scots, and Germans, who were kept as slaves (not serfs mind you) by the English. Of course, there the numerous free blacks who owned slaves. Should those who fought to free slaves get some sort of credit? By the way, how would account for those blacks who were never slaves or came here later? What about those who can prove multiple slave ancestry or those for whom there are no descendents? What about people of mixed race (70% of all US blacks have some white ancestry by the way)?

Maybe we should start at the beginning and go after those African tribes who captured and sold their fellow Africans to the white slave traders? Of course, we'll need to include the Arabs (who, along some African tribes, still carry on the practices today). If we really want to be back to basics, what about the Bible and Koran? Both condone slavery, not to mention, gender discrimination, mutilation, and enslavement, as well as ethnic and religious genocide. That ought to solve the problem don't you think?

By now, I think you'll agree to the absurdity to this flag matter. The issue was the cold blooded murder of nine individuals. Not a flag. Not a statue or headstone. Not even a t-shirt. So what happened? Who would benefit from all those racial distraction? Well, Obama and a bipartisan Congress passed the mostly super secret Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which, it appears, essentially surrenders US foreign trade policy to global corporate scrutiny and would allow corporations to sue nations over trade policies in international court if those policies negatively affect corporate profits or are too restrictive. Obama was also able to issue an new executive order in make it easier for illegal immigrates to enter and remain in the US. Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act), was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, thus ensuring that it isn't going anywhere (with little resistance by the GOP). Oh yeah, and the Supreme Court made gay marriage the new land of the land (again with little reaction by the Republican Party). Hmm.

Now, you don't think this flag hubbub was actually to distract and misdirect the American People do you? Well, if you are, you'd be right. This is what Washington is good at, especially when it's trying to avoid any public outrage until after the fact and has an opportunity to prepare a cover story. Right on cue, all the Right and Left wing groups have come all out in force about how the fight was won but there's more to do, especially as the other side is trying to undo this recent victory or how the fight was lost due to unconstitutional low blows and with you on their side (along with a modest donation), the struggle can go on. How convenient. I wonder dear friends, how long the American People are going to continue to buy into these deceptions; this sleight-of-hand legislation? How much longer we will allow ourselves to pick from pre-determined "choices" handed down to us by Washington? When will realize that these divisions of the American People are both mostly artificial and intentional in order to keep us from uniting and focusing on the real "enemy"? When will we come together and make our own choices and take our own actions? I wonder.

A Shattering of Innocence in Charleston

I am having some serious difficulty wrapping my head around this latest round of violence. I am, of course, talking about the murder of nine individuals of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, North Carolina, including the minister on June 17, 2015. As I'm sure everyone knows by now, a white 21 year old by the name of Dylann Storm Roof, walked in and asked to participate in a small bible study group, where we was warmly welcomed. As the bible study was wrapping, Roof, allegedly, calmly pulled out a 45 automatic pistol and gunned down these nine individuals in cold blood. Not that their ages especially matter, they ranged from early 20's to late eighty's. The reason, according to Mr. Roof, was that he saw blacks as "taking over" and it was his desire to instigate a race war. The police had no difficulty capturing Mr. Roof, who had parked by a surveillance camera in the Church parking lot and left the Church in no apparent hurry. It was after he stopped at a convenient store (and again photographed by the surveillance camera) and used a credit card, that he was stopped a few miles away and surrendered without any resistance. He makes no effort at any point to conceal his identity, Later, when being arranged, he freely admitted to the crime and declined an attorney (though the court will most like appoint one anyway).

I have to say that I've been pleased and more than a little relieved that there hasn't been the usual violence by members of the black community or any attempt by the usual race baiters to get something started...thus far. However, individuals like Obama have already started in about not just increasing gun control, but requiring individuals to turn in all firearms. Naturally, the corporate media is doing its best to push Obama's proposal, but they are trying to make much ado about nothing regarding the fact that North Carolina still flies the Southern Cross and that the fact the Mr. Roof is shown in self posed pictures with a Confederate Flag, which they are quick to jump on, not to mention its use by the KKK and Neo-Nazi's, that it should go. Perhaps they believe they can accomplish two goals at the same time.

First, to Mr. Obama--there will be no confiscating of our guns. No event---real or manufactured---or even "court ordered" is going to result in the American People surrendering their guns. The reasons have been discussed and debated ad nausem going back to at least Bill Clinton's Presidency (and I'm sure would be a part of Hillary Clinton Presidency as well). It has been the subject of fictional presidents in popular movies and TV shows such as "The American President" and "West Wing" as a way assure the People that the forfeiture of their Second Amendment will be painless. Efforts to demonize gun owners as some kind of genetic throwback or as mentally deranged potential psychopaths (especially former military personnel) isn't going fly. The American Public will reserve the right, duty, and obligation to maintain weapons to defend not just this nation from tyrants foreign and domestic, but ourselves, our family, and our possessions from all those with bad intentions as long as this nation exist, and especially after it ceases to exist when it will be needed the most.

As they say, guns don't kill, people do. And societies do. We've become desensitized to death. It's become almost as gratuitous in movies, video games and television shows as nudity and vulgarity. We used to joke about "bloodless" bullets, or phony way actors who feign being shot in the old black and white movies. Today's acts of violence leaves nothing to the imagination; the more gory the better. Video games let players "practice" killing in all it grizzly life like details to their glazed over delight; relieved from the consequences of their actions thanks to the reset button. And then parents---yes, parents---fail to take any control over what their children do, watch, and listen to---especially so-called "gangsta rap" which glorifies brutality, including rape and abuse of women, drugs, murder, and criminal lifestyle, and more to the point of this article, it reinforces a hostile attitude toward authority.

Now please don't misunderstand me. I've never been exactly known for by love of authority, but I know better than to attack, argue with, yell at, attack, or attempt to kill cops. I know it's really not in my best interests to attack other first responders, like firefighters or ambulances since the next time I'm in need of one and they don't show up. I think this goes back to a societal function where basic values are not being taught or reinforced. Threatening behavior toward the police is not likely to end well for you. Remember, the police are rolling up on a situation which they know very little about. They don't know the good guys or bad guys. They don't know the history of why someone is mad at someone else. Aggressive behavior or ignoring a cop's instructions is going to have repercussions. You don't know what scene they just came from (and you have to accept the fact that they are human and no different emotionally that you are). Mistakes can and will happen. Tensions are almost always running high. There's no two ways about it. Listening to "gangsta rap" or watching some movie about tricking a cop or outrunning them most likely put you in a mahogany box and six feet in the ground. Nothing more. Do what you're told and you can be on your way. Don't and you may become just another white cross on the side of a road.

Parents are afraid or simply unwilling to take charge of their children. Naturally, we hear about how "busy"

they are or how "tired" they are. Well, it's called responsibility and it seems to be behavior which is becoming increasingly in short supply as we try to shift it, and any blame, on to someone else or allow the government to take charge. If something went wrong, it always someone else's fault. If we order hot coffee and we drop it in our lap, it's their fault because we didn't realize the coffee was hot; the cheese on the pizza was to hot and burnt the roof of our mouth and so on. People seem to act as if they are "entitled" to this or that or somehow has special "rights" simply because they exist (or, to hear them tell it, because of what may or may not have happened to their distant ancestors or their sexual preferences and so forth). I hate to be the one to break to you, but you're not entitled to diddly squat. All you get is an opportunity to succeed. Yes, there are a few natural rights or Constitutional rights, not many, but basically what you get out of life is what you put into it. However, we've managed to pervert laws and their original intents to get things we think are "free" when in reality, it's your fellow citizens footing the bill for you.

Remember the next time you get something without earning it and think "oh well, it's free. I got it from the government". Well Bozo, "WE" are the government (or at least were before becoming an oligarchy). The government doesn't earn a copper-filled dime. It gets its money by taking it from the people and uses some of it to pay for salaries and such. However, the bulk is redistributed to whom it thinks needs it. So, every time you get a welfare check, unemployment, subsidy, loan, grant, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or food stamps, you're getting a handout from strangers from your fellow Americans (which is another reason to lose that "you owe me" attitude. You're living off of handouts from your fellow citizens not "Uncle Sugar").

As for Mr. Roof's stated desire of wanting to start a race war, I have to ask: really? Is that what we need? Is that going to make this country or this world a better place to live in? Of course, I guess I have to give him points for being his honesty. Racism is a fact of life. We can pretend it doesn't exist, but it does and it's not solely a "white" issue. Racism comes in all shades not just white---black, brown, yellow, red. It's been around probably since the very beginning, though not necessarily involving skin color. I imagine the first form of racism was directed toward other humanoid species such as Neanderthals or Denisovans. Perhaps it's original purpose was to protect the integrity of the tribe or social clan. Later, it was directed toward different tribes with different cultures, gods, and languages. The Bible, Koran, and other so-called "religious" books are full of instances where some god ordered their faithful to go out and butcher some other group because they were perceived as different. Eventually, it came to be applied mainly to skin color because the color was an easily observable outward representation of the difference.

Perhaps this was, in reality, a good thing in the sense that racism doesn't appear to be a part of our genetic makeup; we're not born hating someone else simply because they're different. It appears that racism is a taught or acquired value, though obviously a negative one. Apparently, we learn a bias toward certain groups, in most cases, as young children and often in subtle and non-verbal ways such as observing a facial expression or physical reaction by a parent or other adult. Therefore, we can "unlearn" the same behavior. How? Well, ignoring it like it doesn't exist usually doesn't work and neither does forced behavior. Even trying to legislate out of existence isn't going to work. People will, by nature, gravitate to like individuals, be it in terms of values or skin color; we seek and find security in the familiar.

I think the only way to end racism is by excepting its existence, and by that I mean excepting that we, as a species, have

differences. Our deep ancestors evolved in different climates and developed specific survival skills and behaviors, however those are minute, even trivial. Teaching and encouraging our offspring to be different, usually culturally or linguistically, are the key precursors in developing racism. By overemphasizing differences through behavior, dress or refusal to accept general societal norms such as educational performance, language skills or other values in order to create an intentional sense of separateness of a group, I think, are the core to at least creating the breeding ground for racism. If you take two races and teach them the same societal values, there is less likelihood of racism developing compared with taking two individuals of different races and teaching them different societal values since this "difference" will be perceived as "not belonging", which in turn, will be viewed, even at the subconscious level, as a potential threat and after all, isn't that what racism is in the final analysis---a threat by one group to another group? Even if these two have differing values, as long as they understand there is no potential threat to the other, there is less likelihood of conflict to develop.

As for peripherals such as the Confederate flag, these really don't have anything to do with racism any more than they do with the real reasons individuals like Mr. Roof murder. The flag does not represent slavery or hatred, though that's what we're taught by individuals and groups with their own agendas. It had everything to do with the Founding Father's original intent on the relationship between the federal and State governments (as an aside, most of the descendents of the Founding Father's supported the Confederate State's reasoning for succession). Was slavery an issue? Absolutely, but it was not the central issue, nor was it confined solely to the South. Everyone understood that as an institution, slavery was outdated and failing; it was assumed at the time that it wouldn't have lasted another ten years. Ultimately, the flag came to symbolize the lost cause of independence. The fact that hate groups or those with mental problems have tried to co-opt it for their own purposes doesn't make it so anymore that neo-Nazi's adopting the old imperial German flags connects Nazism with the Kaiser or the use of the Gadsden flag by these groups makes it a symbol of bigotry (or for that matter, the use of the African symbol by black hates it so) or the original national flag with its 13 stars in a circle.

Now, is slavery an issue with individuals like Mr. Roof? No. Hatred is, so why is it even being brought up now except as another way to divide us and keep from focusing on those who are pulling our strings. As I've repeatedly pointed out, the 1% which controls this country and has turned our nation from a democratic republic into an oligarchy has and continues to do everything in their power to distract us, manipulate us, mislead us, divide us along racial, sexual, gender, socio-economic lines in order to keep the American People (and indeed, the peoples of the world) from coming together and focusing on those who control this nation and the rest of the world. The last thing they want is to face a united people who not blindly willing to accept the "change" they offer us, but are united in making the change we need. I think that's the lesson we need to take from all this; to allow the deaths of these nine individuals to serve as a bridge to bring us together instead of being allowed to divide us.