Bravo, Bravo, Bravo!

Rep. Waters, You Are 

Sullying

 Martin Luther King’s 

Legacy

Derrick Hollie / @DJHollie / June 25, 2018 / 73 Comments

As American leaders—particularly black American leaders—we cannot praise the beliefs of Martin Luther King Jr. on one day and incite violence the next. (Photo: akg-images/Newscom)

COMMENTARY BY

Derrick Hollie@DJHollie

Derrick Hollie is president of Reaching America and host of Reaching America on Demand podcast. The organization addresses complex social issues impacting African-American communities.

Every January, our nation celebrates Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and every February, during Black History Month, we contemplate his words of nonviolent resistance and how the practice of that philosophy brought about the civil rights movement.

Leaders, both black and white, rightly venerate him, but somewhere along the way, his message has been corrupted or outright forgotten by some on the left.

Over the weekend, longtime Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., called for disrupting and “absolutely harassing” members of the Trump administration.

“If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out, and you create a crowd, and you push back on them!” she exclaimed at a rally in Los Angeles on Saturday.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

“And I want to tell you, for these members of his Cabinet who remain and try to defend [President Donald Trump], they’re not going to be able to go to a restaurant, to be able to stop at a gas station, to be able to shop at a department store,” Waters said.

“The people are going to turn on them. They’re going to protest. They’re going to absolutely harass them until they tell the president, ‘No, I can’t hang with you.’”

To hear these words coming from a black lawmaker—one who saw firsthand the trials of the civil rights movement—cuts me to the core. That’s because, as American leaders—particularly black American leaders—we cannot praise the beliefs of King on one day and incite violence the next.

We cannot preach the gospel of equality on Sunday and show hatred toward our brothers and sisters of a different political belief on Monday.

We cannot criticize the violence shown against those on one side, while at the same time delighting in attacks on the other. Is that not a double standard?

Waters’ remarks ostensibly came as a response to Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s press secretary, being asked to leave a restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, on Friday because the owner doesn’t agree with the administration politically.

Like most conservatives, I believe absolutely in that restaurant owner’s First Amendment rights. But does her tactic, and the more extreme tactics proposed by Waters, really reflect the views of tolerance and inclusivity those on the left say they espouse?

Folks on the other side of the political aisle are free to make their discontent known, but advocating physical confrontations is how mentally ill people like left-wing activist James Hodgkinson, whose June 2017 shooting spree nearly killed Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., begin justifying their plans for terrorism or even assassination.

To me, a black man who has lived in the South most of my life, this strategy sounds more like that of the segregationists than those of our civil rights heroes and heroines.

So, the question must be asked of anyone, Republican, Democrat, or independent: Where does this sort of rhetoric lead?

What do people in other countries think of us advocating violence against other Americans?

Will dehumanizing Republicans and other supporters of the president lead to constructive policies that preserve justice and the rule of law? Will it lead to a better America, or more likely, will it lead only to destruction and discord?

Waters’ words are not the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. or of the people. She should be ashamed of herself.

Sick Segregationist Black Spews HIs Hate On The Pages Of The New York Times

NYT Op-Ed: I'm Teaching My Black Child Not To Be Friends With White Kids Because Of Trump

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

ByBEN SHAPIRO

@benshapiro

November 13, 2017

On Saturday, The New York Times ran yet another execrable op-ed, this time from Professor Ekow Yankah of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. This op-ed argued that black children should not be friends with white children, and that their parents ought to warn them off of such relationships. This assuredly makes things awkward at Yeshiva University, a Jewish school.

The piece begins with Yankah’s oldest son, who is 4, talking about his friends:

My oldest son, wrestling with a 4-year-old’s happy struggles, is trying to clarify how many people can be his best friend. “My best friends are you and Mama and my brother and …” But even a child’s joy is not immune to this ominous political period. This summer’s images of violence in Charlottesville, Va., prompted an array of questions. “Some people hate others because they are different,” I offer, lamely. A childish but distinct panic enters his voice. “But I’m not different.” It is impossible to convey the mixture of heartbreak and fear I feel for him. Donald Trump’s election has made it clear that I will teach my boys the lesson generations old, one that I for the most part nearly escaped. I will teach them to be cautious, I will teach them suspicion, and I will teach them distrust. Much sooner than I thought I would, I will have to discuss with my boys whether they can truly be friends with white people.

This is insanity. Because Donald Trump was elected, all white people are suspect? Because there were 1,000 evil people marching for an evil cause in Charlottesville, some 200 million white people across America are suspect? This is racism of the highest order. And teaching your children not to be friends with people based on their race is the essence of racism.

But Yankah continues:

Meaningful friendship is not just a feeling. It is not simply being able to share a beer. Real friendship is impossible without the ability to trust others, without knowing that your well-being is important to them. The desire to create, maintain or wield power over others destroys the possibility of friendship. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous dream of black and white children holding hands was a dream precisely because he realized that in Alabama, conditions of dominance made real friendship between white and black people impossible.

Well, no. MLK’s dream was a dream because he wanted to see it fulfilled and believed that it could be. If he didn’t, he would have gone home and joined Malcolm X. But he should have, says Yankah, since “History has provided little reason for people of color to trust white people in this way, and these recent months have put in the starkest relief the contempt with which the country measures the value of racial minorities.”

The piece continues in this vein, citing differential treatment of the opioid epidemic (largely white) vs. the crack cocaine epidemic (largely black), and ignoring the income levels of those affected by the epidemics, which is a serious confound; black underemployment, which Yankah attributes to “robust evidence of continuing racism,” without showing any evidence; policing, which has not been shown to be systemically racist by statistics. Yankah’s conclusion:

As against our gauzy national hopes, I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. When they ask, I will teach my sons that their beautiful hue is a fault line. Spare me platitudes of how we are all the same on the inside. I first have to keep my boys safe, and so I will teach them before the world shows them this particular brand of rending, violent, often fatal betrayal.

So we are not all the same on the inside. Which is an idea that John C. Calhoun or Richard Spencer might be comfortable with. But Yankah couches his vitriol in the guise of safety preparations for his children:

Of course, the rise of this president has broken bonds on all sides. But for people of color the stakes are different. Imagining we can now be friends across this political line is asking us to ignore our safety and that of our children, to abandon personal regard and self-worth. Only white people can cordon off Mr. Trump’s political meaning, ignore the “unpleasantness” from a position of safety. His election and the year that has followed have fixed the awful thought in my mind too familiar to black Americans: “You can’t trust these people.”…I do not write this with liberal condescension or glee. My heart is unbearably heavy when I assure you we cannot be friends.

The condescension is real, and the glee is palpable. To teach your children not to hope for a day when black and white can be friends – in fact, to teach your children now that such a day isn’t here – is asinine. And to pretend that every Trump voter is replete with hatred is just as asinine. But racism and bigotry are fine so long as they come from the Left, apparently.

Wonder If Liberals Will Take Their Own Advice

Matt Walsh: Hey, smug millennial liberals — here are some New Year’s resolutions for you

Matt Walsh 16 mins

CLEVELAND, OH - NOVEMBER 04: Recording artist Beyonce performs during a Get Out The Vote concert Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at Wolstein Center on November 4, 2016 in Cleveland, Ohio. With less than a week to go until election day, Hillary Clinton is campaigning in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

3Follow

• SHARE
• TWEET

MTV, in an apparent effort to ensure a second term of Donald Trump, released a video this week entitled, “2017 Resolutions For White Guys.” After I got over the shock of learning that MTV still exists, I watched the clip and was greeted by the ironic, self-satisfied faces of effeminate millennial progressives as they smugly lectured white men. One of them was wearing a cat shirt and a cardigan. Another had apparently been assembled in the Feminist Stereotype Factory. When she spoke, she raised her eyebrows and grinned condescendingly, because feminists are physically incapable of speaking in any other way.

Their resolutions for the dreaded white man went as follows:

1. Realize that “America was never great for anyone who wasn’t a white guy.”

2. “Agree that black lives matter.”

3. Realize that “blue lives matter isn’t a thing” because “cops weren’t born with blue skin.”

4. “Stop saying ‘woke’.”

5. “Learn what ‘mansplaining’ is, and then stop doing it.”

6. “Don’t prioritize the well being of an Ivy League athlete over the well being of the woman he assaulted.” (This one seemed oddly specific.)

7. Realize that “we all love Beyonce” and it’s OK if she “cares about black issues.”

8. Stop saying you have black friends because “you can still be racist with black friends.”

After the trendy 20-somethings who’ve never done anything with their lives except sit in classrooms had finally finished delivering their instructions, they offered a few words of encouragement: “Nobody’s perfect, but honestly you could do a little better. Some of you do a great job. But some of you don’t.” A magnanimous concession, I must admit.

Well, as a longtime member of the villainous white man cabal, I would first like to extend my heartfelt gratitude for these generous suggestions. Unfortunately however, after careful consideration, I have decided to disregard all of them. In fact, I never even used the word “woke” or bragged about my black friends before, but now I may start doing both of those things just because I know it will upset 24-year-old liberals in cat shirts.

The good news, though, is that these resolutions have inspired me to come up with some of my own. Not for myself, mind you, but for smarmy millennial liberals. I offer these resolutions as an act of kindness, although there is a part of me that very much hopes they are not heeded. After all, liberalism is sure to continue losing as long as it keeps marching down this path, and far be it for me to interfere with that process. But it’s almost Christmas and I’m feeling more charitable than usual, so I will pass along these recommendations and let the chips fall where they may.

Here we go.

Resolution 1: Stop being bigots.

Before you make some blanket statement about white men, imagine what the statement would sound like if you replaced “white men” with any other demographic group. For example, the video begins by saying, “Hey white guys, here are a few things you could do better in 2017.” Now imagine a video that began, “Hey black women, here are a few things you could do better in 2017,” or, “Hey Mexicans, here are a few things you could do better in 2017,” or, “Hey transgendered Asians, here are a few things you could do better in 2017.”

You would need months of counseling after watching any of those, wouldn’t you? And why is that? Well, because you’re incredibly sensitive, but also because you would most certainly consider it the height of bigotry for anyone to spend two minutes telling black people, or Mexicans, or homosexuals all of the things they need to stop doing and stop saying and stop believing. And you’d probably be right.

Now here’s the thing: you don’t have a bigotry hall pass. You don’t get to heap scorn and hatred on white men and then walk away feeling like you’re any better than the average white supremacist. In fact, you’re probably worse. Or at least you represent something that’s worse. White (male) supremacy is not a mainstream ideology. It’s roundly rejected by almost everyone all across the political spectrum. But black supremacy, woman supremacy, gay supremacy — the belief that these groups are morally and intellectually superior to white men — is very much a part of the mainstream. They teach it in college, which is probably where you picked it up.

Your bigotry is worse than any other kind of bigotry in America precisely because it’s so popular and so accepted. Worst of all, it’s the only kind of bigotry that can often be mistaken for virtue. But bigotry is bigotry all the same. You are bigots. So, stop it.

Resolution 2: Stop spreading the myth that America is inherently racist and sexist.

America isn’t great for anyone who isn’t a white guy? Maybe you should tell that to our black president. Actually, he may very well agree with you, but that’s because he shares in your delusions and prejudices.

You may notice that many non-whites and non-men stream into this country from all across the globe every year. In fact, your ancestors did the same. The girl who delivered the “America isn’t great” line in the video is a minority herself. That means her parents or grandparents came here precisely because this country is far greater than the one they fled. Perhaps she can drive home from her expensive college in the car her parents bought her, walk into their nice, climate controlled home, and inform them that America isn’t great for her. Maybe she can convince them that she’d like to return to the poverty and tyranny in whichever country her family originates. Something tells me they will not be anxious to join her.

I would argue that the “greatness” of America has taken a severe hit because of its increasingly godless, progressive, decadent culture. But that’s the kind of culture you guys want and have fought to establish, so you have no reason to complain about it. As far as you’re concerned, America is very near perfect. You can wear your nice clothes, talk on your nice phones, go to college, say whatever you want, think whatever you want, do whatever you want, make racist videos, and bask in a culture that largely reflects and reinforces your flawed worldview. What in God’s name are you complaining about? If this isn’t great enough for you, I hate to think how you’ll react if things ever get legitimately bad in this country.

Resolution 3: Develop an iota of humility and gratitude.

We’ve mostly covered the gratitude piece. You have many reasons to be grateful, especially if you’re a racial minority or a woman, knowing that you have it better here than you’d have it virtually anywhere else on the globe. And as triggering as this idea may be, you also have many reason to be grateful to the white men you spend all day whining about.

It was mostly white men who founded this country. It was mostly white men who developed it. It was mostly white men who innovated our technology, medical advancements, etc. It was mostly white men who saved the entire globe from catastrophe several times in the 20th century alone. No, it wasn’t exclusively white men, but mostly. And you ought to recognize that, and be grateful for it.

This also speaks to humility. If you’re a progressive college-aged millennial, you have absolutely no standing to lecture anyone about anything. You haven’t done anything with your life. You haven’t accomplished anything. You haven’t sacrificed anything. You have no wisdom. You know very little, and far less than you think. Humble yourself and start listening for a change. And then maybe when you’ve worked a job, gotten married, had some kids, read some books that weren’t assigned to you by a college professor, had a few ups and downs, encountered life fully detached from the bosom of your parents and academia, then maybe your opinions will carry some weight. But, if you follow those steps, your opinions will also have changed drastically by then.

Resolution 4: Stop denying reality.

You live in a physical universe. It’s important to know a few things about that universe: First, it exists. Second, it has laws. Third, you can’t change those laws. Fourth, as my friend Ben Shapiro might say, it doesn’t care about your feelings.

An unborn human doesn’t lose its humanity just because you don’t want it to be human. A man doesn’t become a woman just because he’d prefer not to have a penis. The fundamental nature of something can’t be altered at all, by any force, but especially not by the force of your imagination. God Himself cannot make 2 plus 2 equal 5, because that is inherently irrational and therefore inherently impossible. Despite what you may have been told, you are not God. And if God can’t do it, your chances of success are considerably diminished.

People are people. Men are men. Women are women. These are the basic facts of life, the parameters of existence, and you will not be able to function as a normal, decent human being until you accept them. But again, this will take some humility. It really requires only the slightest hint of modesty to accept that you are not more powerful than God. It’s disturbing to think that so many of you do not possess even that much of it.

Resolution 5: Get rid of all of your buzzwords.

They’re all stupid and they make you sound stupid when you use them. None more so than “mansplaining.” If a man happens to be teaching you something or offering instruction, as I am doing here, he is not “mansplaining.” He’s simply explaining. He’s a man explaining things. His explanations are not made illegitimate by the fact that he is a man. Indeed, if that were the case, we’d have to throw out everything that was “mansplained” to us by Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Da Vinci, Aristotle, Socrates, Aquinas, and so on. In other words, if we were to scoff at and dismiss every insight or discovery given to us by some misogynistic mansplainer, we would very quickly find ourselves back in the Stone Age worshiping the Sun god and dying of diarrhea and Typhoid.

I suppose if a millennial feminist could have been there when Aristotle wrote Ethics, or when Copernicus posited heliocentricism, or when Martin Luther King Jr. delivered the “I Had a Dream” speech, she would have given a patronizing smirk and lectured about the dangers of mansplaining. I guess, then, it’s a good thing that those were more serious times populated by more serious sorts of people.

Resolution 6: Stop worshiping Beyonce.

Since you brought it up, let me state for the record that, no, not everyone loves her. I mean, I love her in the sense that I am obligated as a Christian to love all human beings. But as a singer I finder her bland and uninteresting, and the content of her songs I find illiterate, vile, and degrading. But even if she were a real musician and her songs were intelligent and substantive, I’d still warn against worshiping her or any other pop star.

Resolution 7: Stop wearing cat shirts.

This one is self-explanatory.

I think we should stop at seven. There are plenty of other areas you could work on, but I don’t want to overwhelm you. Let’s start here and get into the more complicated stuff in 2018. Deal?

Great. I’m glad you could have this talk.

PC Movement Is Anti-Liberty And Will Cause Crisis in The Future

The future costs of politically correct cultism

Posted on July 14, 2015 by Brandon Smith

I rarely touch on the subject of political correctness as a focus in my writings, partially because the entire issue is so awash in pundits on either side that the scrambling clatter of voices tends to drown out the liberty movement perspective. Also, I don’t really see PC cultism as separate from the problems I am always battling against: collectivism and the erasure of the individual in the name of pleasing society. Political correctness is nothing more than a tool that collectivists and statists exploit in order to better achieve their endgame, which is conning the masses into believing that the group mind is real and that the individual mind is fiction.

Last year, I covered the PC issue in my article “The twisted motives behind political correctness.” I believe I analyzed the bulk of the issue extensively. However, the times are changing at a pace that boggles the mind; and this is by design. So, it may be necessary to square off against this monstrosity once again.

In order to better examine the true insanity of what many people now term “social justice warriors,” I must study a few aspects separately. First, let’s take a brief look at the mindset of your average social justice circus clown so that we might better understand what makes him/her/it tick.

Rebel without a legitimate cause

I spent several years (up until 2004, when I woke up from the false paradigm madness) as a Democrat. And before anyone judges that particular decision, I would suggest they keep in mind the outright fascist brothel for the military-industrial complex the Republican Party had become at that point and remains to this day. Almost every stepping stone that Barack Obama is using today to eradicate the Constitution was set in place by the Bush dynasty, including the Authorization Of Military Force, which was the foundation for the National Defence Authorization Act and the legal precedence for indefinite detention without trial of any person (including an American citizen) accused of terrorism by the president of the U.S., as well as the use of assassination by executive order.

But, hell, these are real issues — issues that many of my fellow Democrats at the time claimed they actually cared about. Today, though, liberal concerns about unconstitutional actions by the federal government have all but vanished. Today, the left fights the good fight against flags on the hoods of cars from long-canceled television shows and battles tooth and nail for the “right” of boys wearing wigs and skirts to use the girl’s bathroom. Today, the left even fights to remove the words “boy” and “girl” from our vocabulary. Yes, such noble pursuits as these will surely be remembered as a pinnacle in the annals of societal reform.

Maybe I realize the ideological goals of the social justice machine are meaningless on a surface level; and maybe you realize this, too. But these people live in their own little universe, which doesn’t extend far beyond the borders of their college campuses, the various Web forums they have hijacked and a trendy Marxist wine-and-swinger party here and there in New York or Hollywood. They actually think that they are on some great social crusade on par with the civil rights movements of the mid-1900s. They think they are the next Martin Luther King Jr. or the next Gandhi. The underlying banality and pointlessness of their cause completely escapes them. The PC cult is, in many respects, the antithesis of the liberty movement. We fight legitimate threats against legitimate freedoms; they fight mostly imaginary threats and seek to eradicate freedoms.

Don’t get me wrong; sometimes our concerns do align. For instance, liberty proponents fight back against the militarization of police just as avidly as leftists do, if not more so. But our movements handle the problem in very different ways. Look at Ferguson, Missouri, where anyone with any sense should be able to admit that the government response to protests was absolutely a step toward tyranny, ignoring violent looters while attacking peaceful activists. Leftists and PC cultists decided to follow the Saul Alinsky/communist playbook, busing in provocateurs from Chicago to further loot and burn down businesses even if they belonged to ethnic minorities. In the meantime, the liberty movement and Oath Keepers sent armed and trained men to defend those businesses regardless of who owned them and defied police and federal agents who tried to stop them.

The left gave the police and government a rationale for being draconian, while we removed the need for police and government entirely by providing security for the neighborhood (killing two birds with one stone). Either their methods are purely ignorant and do not work, or their methods are meant to achieve the opposite of their claims. In the end, the PC movement only serves establishment goals toward a fully collectivist and centralized society.

Your average PC drone does not understand the grander plan at work, nor does he want to. All he cares about is that he has found a “purpose” — a fabricated purpose as a useful idiot for power brokers, but a purpose nonetheless.

People must be forced to bake gay cakes

I personally do not care if two people of the same gender want to be in a relationship, but I do find the issue of gay marriage (and marriage in general) a rather odd conflict that misses the whole point. Marriage has been and always will be a religious institution, not federal; and I find government involvement in this institution to be rather despicable. When the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage came down, I felt a little sorry for all the joyfully hopping homosexuals on the marbled steps of the hallowed building, primarily because they essentially were fighting for the state to provide recognition and legitimacy for their relationships. Frankly, who gives a rip what the state has to say in terms of your relationships or mine? The state is an arbitrary edifice, a facade wielding illusory power. If a relationship is based on true and enduring connection, then that is a marriage of sorts, whether the Supreme Court says so or not.

The only advantage to solidifying gay marriage in the eyes of the state is the advantage of being able to then use the state as an attack dog in order to force religious institutions to accept the status of gays in the same way the government does. And unfortunately, this is exactly what the PC cult is doing.

Should an individual, organization or business be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason? Should the state be allowed to force people into servitude to one group or another even if it is against their core values?

PC champions desperately try to make these questions a matter of “discrimination” alone. But they are more about personal rights and property and less about “hate speech.” Under natural law, as well as under the constitution, an individual has every right to refuse association with any other person for any reason. If I do not like you, the government does not have the authority to force me to be around you or to work for you. But this line has been consistently blurred over the years. As I’m sure most readers are familiar, the issue of gay cakes seems to arise over and over, as in cases in Colorado and Oregon in which religiously oriented business owners were punished for refusing to provide service for gay customers.

Punishments have included crippling fines designed to put store owners out of business and have even included gag orders restricting the freedom of businesses to continue speaking out against the orientation of customers they have refused.

In order to validate such actions, leftists will invariably bring up segregation as a backdrop for the gay cake debate. “What if the customers were black,” they ask. “Is it OK for a business to be whites only?”

My response? First, to be clear, I am talking specifically about private individuals and businesses, not public institutions as in the argument explored during Brown v. Board of Education. Private and public spaces are different issues with different nuances. I personally believe it is ignorant to judge someone solely on the color of his skin, and sexual orientation is not necessarily an issue to me. But it is equally ignorant for someone to think that the state exists to protect his feelings from being hurt. I’m sorry, but discrimination is a fact of life and always will be as long as individualism exists. The PC cultists don’t just want government recognition of their status; they want to homogenize individualism, erase it and force the rest of us to vehemently approve of that status without question. This is unacceptable.

Your feelings do not matter. They are not superior in importance to the fundamental freedom of each individual to choose his associations.

If a business refuses to serve blacks, or gays, or Tibetans, then, hey, it probably just lost a lot of potential profit. But that should absolutely be the business’s choice and not up to government to dictate. And in the case of “gay discrimination,” I think it is clear that the PC crowd is using the newfound legal victim group status of gays as a weapon to attack religiously based organizations. Make no mistake, this will not end with gay cakes. It is only a matter of time before pressure is brought to bear against churches as well for “discrimination.” And at the very least, I foresee many churches abandoning their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status.

If a group wants fair treatment in this world, that is one thing. I believe a gay person has every right to open his own bakery and bake gay marriage cakes to his little heart’s content. I believe a black person has every right to dislike white people, as some do, and refuse to associate with them or serve them if that’s what he/she wants. I also believe that under natural and constitutional law, a religious business owner is an independent and free individual with the right to choose who he will work for or accept money from. If he finds a customer’s behavior to be against his principles, he should not be forced to serve that person, their feelings be damned.

This is fair.

What is not fair is the use of government by some to gain an advantage over others based on the legal illusion of victim group status. PC cultists want us to think that choice of association is immoral and damaging to the group. I have to say I find them to be far more intolerant and dangerous than the people they claim to be fighting against, and this attitude is quickly devolving into full bore tyranny under the guise of “humanitarianism.”

Gender bending does not make you special

A man shaves his head and eyebrows, straps a plastic bottle to his face, and has his feet surgically modified to resemble flippers: Does this make him a dolphin, and should he be given victim group status as trans-species? I’m going to be brief here because I covered this issue in a previous article, but let’s lay everything on the table, as it were.

PC cultists are clamoring to redefine the fact of gender as an “undefinable” and even discriminatory social perception. No one, no matter how dedicated, will ever be able to redefine gender, unless they have the ability to change their very chromosomes. Nature defines gender, not man; and a man who undergoes numerous surgeries and body-changing steroid treatments will always have the genetics of a man even if he gives the appearance of a woman. Take away the drugs, and no amount of make-up will hide the chest hair growth and deepening voice.

This might be deemed a “narrow” view of gender, and I don’t care. Nature’s view of gender is the only one that counts. Psychological orientations are irrelevant to biological definitions. Are you a man trapped in a woman’s body? Irrelevant. A woman trapped in a man’s body? Doesn’t matter. If we are talking about legal bearings, then biological definitions are the only scale that makes sense. I realize that gender bending is very trendy right now, and Hollywood sure seems to want everyone to jump on that freaky disco bandwagon, but there is no such thing as gender-neutral people. They are not a group, let alone a victim group. There are men, and there are women; these are the only gender groups that count. Whether they would like to be the opposite does not change the inherent genetic definition. Period. To make such foolishness into an ideology is to attempt to bewilder man’s relationship to nature, and this will only lead to disaster.

There is no such thing as ‘white privilege’

A person determines his success in life by his character and his choices. Color does not define success, as there are many people of every color who are indeed successful. Do you have to work harder to gain success because you are brown, or black, or neon green? I’ve seen no concrete evidence that this is the case. I know that people who identify as “white” are still around 70 of the American population, thus there are more white people in successful positions due to sheer numbers.

I know that I personally grew up in a low-wage household and had little to no financial help as I entered the working world. Everything I have accomplished in my life to this point was done alongside people of color, some of whom had far more advantages than I did. I cannot speak for other people’s experiences, but I can say that being white was never more important in my life than being stubborn and dedicated.

I also find it a little absurd that most PC cultists who harp about so-called white privilege are often white themselves and haven’t the slightest experience or insight on what it is to be a person of color anyway. White privilege seems to be the PC cult’s answer to the argument that racism is a universal construct. Only whites can be racist, they claim, because only whites benefit from racism. I defy these jokers to show any tangible proof that an individual white person has more of a chance at success than a person of color due to predominant racism. Or are we just supposed to have blind faith in the high priests of PC academia and their morally relative roots?

The cost of social Marxism

Marxism (collectivism) uses many vehicles or Trojan horses to gain access to political and cultural spaces. Once present, it gestates like cancer. Younger generations are highly susceptible to social trends and are often easily manipulated by popular culture and academic authority, which is why we are seeing PC cultism explode with the millennials and post-millennials. In my brief participation on the left side of the false paradigm, political correctness was only beginning to take hold. A decade later, we have a bewildering manure storm on our hands. The result is a vast division within American society that cannot be mended. Those of us on the side of liberty are so different in our philosophies and solutions to social Marxists that the whole carnival can end only one way: a fight. And perhaps this is exactly what the elites want: left against right, black against white, gay against religious and straight, etc. As long as the PC movement continues to do the bidding of power brokers in their efforts toward the destruction of individual liberty, I see no other alternative but utter conflict.

–Brandon Smith

When Idiots Say They Would Rather Be Stopped By ISIS Than Ferguson Police, You Know We Have Lost It!

THE MICHAEL BROWN CULT

Exclusive: Joseph Farah targets 'mindless hysteria' continuing over shooting of teen

Published: 6 days ago

 JOSEPH FARAH About | Email | Archive

  Receive author alerts  Subscribe to feed

• 
• Text smaller
• Text bigger

     195

“All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the Lord weigheth the spirits.”

– Proverbs 16:2

The Bible talks about times in the past and in the future when every man does what is right in his own eyes.

I think that’s exactly where America is today – without a clear focus on what is right and wrong.

A perfect example of this is the moral confusion and violent rage over the police shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

None of those looting and trashing the city really know what happened when a white police officer shot the black teenager. They’re just assuming they know – that somehow because the policeman was white and the teenager black race was an issue.

That’s crazy. I don’t know how else to say it. It’s mindless hysteria.

It may even be worse than that. When the event is purposely politicized by Attorney General Eric Holder, the media, elected officials and others across the country – all very short on facts – it’s obvious justice is no longer color blind.

I think it was Holder who said: “Our society is not yet colorblind nor should it be. We must be color brave.”

Translation: “Martin Luther King Jr. was wrong. Let’s keep race-consciousness alive for our political purposes.”

Along with a willingness to make an example out of a police officer who may have behaved appropriately in a moment of provocation and stress, there is an imbecilic, cult-like inclination by some to turn Michael Brown into a martyr.

Take the Rev. Sarah Kinney Gaventa, associate rector at St. Paul’s Church in Ivy, Virginia, who compared the teenager to Jesus – the teen who only moments before he was shot was videotaped beating a convenience store clerk half his size so he could steal some cheap cigars.

“In our Gospel today, standing in a center of Roman power, a town named after Caesar, Jesus asks his disciples who people say he is,” she said in a sermon last week. “Peter gets the answer right – the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. The God we love came to disrupt the power structures of the world that tell us what we are worth. He is a living God, who loved us so much and was so grieved by our inability to love him and one another, that he was willing to become human. He became Michael Brown. He became the victim of our sin, so we wouldn’t have to sacrifice each other anymore. His sacrifice should have been the last. His sacrifice was enough for us.”

Hear Gaventa’s remarks:

Jesus did not become Michael Brown. Jesus came to be a perfect sacrifice to atone for the sins of all of us, including Michael Brown, who are willing to call upon His holy name in repentance for salvation.

Then there is this unidentified fellow in Ferguson who wears a T-shirts that says: “I rather get stopped by ISIS terrorist than Ferguson P.D.”

Oh, really? Not only are too many Americans unable to distinguish between right and wrong, some, like this gentleman, live in a world of unreality, mendacity and outrageous hyperbole.

Get a grip.

Police shootings happen frequently in America. They don’t happen often in Ferguson, Missouri. They happen far more often in Washington, D.C., under Eric Holder’s watch. Some get more attention than they warrant, as in the case of Michael Brown, while others, like the death of Miriam Carey, a young, black unarmed mother and dental hygienist who was cut down in a hail of gunfire by Capitol Police last year for making a wrong turn, are successfully covered up and forgotten by the same officials and media on the verge of hysteria over what happened in Ferguson.

Why?

Because we live in a fallen world too often governed by corrupt, self-righteous politicians quick to condemn others but slow, as Jesus said, to remove the mote from their own eye.