The Most Dangerous Post Of 2014

When I first read this post, I thought that a conservative must have written it because it states what a lot of conservatives say about black criminals and the justice system.
It is why I would suggest to read the post twice. Once does not do it justice.
Why is what I am writing and what Michael Smith* wrote is that Mr. Smith is by his own admission a liberal.
So it is very important to read Mr. Smith's perspective thoroughly.
And I will start to analyze from the end because again, this is important to understand that this is not the ranting of some right-winger race superiorist.
Read the following two paragraphs and tell me that the truth has not smacked Mr. Smith in the face:

I am a liberal. I believe that those of us who are able to produce abundance have a moral duty to provide basic food, shelter, and medical care for those who cannot care for themselves. I believe we have this duty even to those who can care for themselves but don’t. This world view requires compassion and a willingness to act on it.
My experience has taught me that we live in a nation in which a jury is more likely to convict a black defendant who has committed a crime against a white. Even the dullest of blacks know this. There would be a lot more black-on-white crime if this were not the case.

The second paragraph is true, unfortunately. Yes, a white-dominated jury will convict a black who has committed a crime against a white. And yes, it is done in reverse. Can we all say O. J. Simpson?
It appears to me what drives Mr. Smith even with the truth smacking him in the face is that he maybe able to reach one of those he represents and hopefully turn that person's life around.
The reality is that a conservative could not get away with the brute honesty Mr. Smith writes about. Whether I like it or not, it takes someone that thinks they can change the outcome to explain that in reality, they can't.
Mr. Smith is a public defender in a major Southern metropolitan area. According to Mr. Smith, 10% of the population is black. Yet they overwhelmingly make up the majority of his cases, fully 90% of his caseload are blacks. Mr. Smith has also represented whites, Hispanics and Asians. Amazingly, he says out of all the thousands of cases, only three are where he represented Asians and one of those was partially black.
Mr. Smith goes on to describe the attitudes of those groups he has represented.
Whites are respectful of his role. They come to court, dress appropriately, keep their head down and follow instructions and it is over. Ditto the Hispanics. Nothing about the Asians, but knowing their culture I am sure that they follow the whites and Hispanics.
When it comes to blacks, it is beyond a whole different story.
According to Mr. Smith, court is like a carnival to many of those he defends. To Mr. Smith it appears that whole families congregate in and around the courthouse and that they all seem to know each other. They gossip, laugh, wave at each other and congregate around the halls adding to the carnival atmosphere.
It also appears that blacks have no respect for Mr. Smith or any of those that are trying to help them. He is not given the respect of being called Mr. Smith. It's usually his first name (where do I see that on a national scale? Hmm, maybe the Dear Leader, President Obama?!) or even worse. Mr. Smith wrote that some openly refer to him, to his face, as 'dog'. For those of you not up on pop culture slang, the word dog is used as in friend. "What's up, dog?" Uh, correct me if I am wrong but referring to your lawyer with such familiarity shows absolutely no respect. Respect that he or she deserves. It also shows a familiarity that is not there. Why should Mr. Smith or any other public defender try in any way to help anyone who shows such little concern for his or her own fate?
Not only are they disrespectful but they do not understand that a public defender or any defense attorney are not Svengali. They can not snap their fingers and all the information regarding their case magically appears.
Upon their first meeting, while Mr. Smith is doing introductions and trying to explain their particular case, the blacks are totally impatient and want quick answers. In that first meeting, the public defender does not have all the case particulars. He tries to explain to them that they have to wait and get all the evidence and information before he can tell them everything and what options there are. But blacks, they live in the immediate. The here and now.
And the worst thing is that blacks, unlike any other group, do not see their public defender as there to help but part of the "man" and thus by nature against them. Ready to cut deals to their detriment. Thus they are hostile to the person that is trying to help them from the beginning.
Which leads to an interesting observation about the criminal acts he has noticed from each of the race groups Mr. Smith has represented.
Whites commit all kinds of crime from sexual to violent and everything in between. Hispanics generally are in the system due to sexual assault on children and or driving under the influence. Blacks seem to do everything but sex crimes in general. And keep in mind this is what Mr. Smith sees in his particular area of the United States. It is not meant to be a nationwide analysis.
Where I find the aspect of Mr. Smith that is actually sad and troubling is that the blacks he deals with, whether it is the suspected criminal, that family and the usual black victim and their families are essentially barely functional illiterate.
Mr. Smith asserts that if a case gets to trial, he tries to not have the black defendant take the stand in their own defense. For that is because, again in Mr. Smith's words,

Most blacks are unable to speak English well. They cannot conjugate verbs. They have a poor grasp of verb tenses. They have a limited vocabulary. They cannot speak without swearing. They often become hostile on the stand. Many, when they testify, show a complete lack of empathy and are unable to conceal a morality based on the satisfaction of immediate, base needs. This is a disaster, especially in a jury trial. Most jurors are white, and are appalled by the demeanor of uneducated, criminal blacks.

WHOA! Could you imagine if any conservative were to write this? It is true, but Mr.Smith is blunt and to the point. Who can forget the testimony of one Rachel Jeantel in the George Zimmerman trial regarding the death of Trayvon Martin. While the article that I linked was from the Puffington Post and generally sympathetic to Miss Jeantel, no doubt that even they could not avoid the obvious.
That for whatever reason, and this is not where to address that, a lot of blacks can not effectively communicate and it will invariably hurt rather than help their cause.
And this, this maybe the most horrific, yes horrific, indictment about black defendants.
That they have absolutely no empathy for others.
Mr. Smith describes a case of three robbers and he was representing one that beat up a girl while his cohorts committed the robbery. According to Mr. Smith the defendant asks what are the chances for his case and Mr. Smith told the truth. That it was not good. And while the defendant was angry with Mr. Smith and delving into conspiracy theory, Mr. Smith pointed out that there was a video of the whole event. Mr. Smith asked the defendant what he thought a jury would think. The defendant said “They don’t care.”  But it gets better. When Mr. Smith asks said defendant if he felt any remorse for what he had done, well its so precious:

“What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”

WOW! What can anyone say when faced with such a response? Except again, there is no remorse and or empathy for what they may have done in the commission of a crime.
Here are several other tidbits that I found sad and disturbing all at the same time.
Mr. Smith acknowledges that one the threads common in his clientele is the fact the black males do not have an active father in their lives. Sometimes the defendants meet their fathers for the first time in court and it is a meeting that is unemotional in every way.
An observation I want to note is Mr. Smith mentioning a 47-year old grandmother. I did some math and figured that granny probably had a child roughly between 17-20 years old. That child had a child probably at a younger age. Hence, a granny at 47. For some reason, it just blows me away.
Mr. Smith also notes that the women are having multiple babies with multiple fathers and that all are essentially wards of the state. All involved in some way get some kind of assistance from the government. And the males actually working?! Are you kidding?! They are sponging off of someone and collecting either social security disability for some kind of mental issue and or some kind of physical ailment that he sure can't figure out. When Mr. Smith asks what a defendant does all day, he gets a response that goes “You know, just chill.” That chill is courtesy of the United States taxpayer.
Oh and explaining how a defendant should dress for court appearances is amazing.
Mr. Smith tells a couple of situations involving a female and male defendant. The female is on trial for drugs and shows up wearing a baseball cap. A cap that has a embroidered marijuana leaf on it. And for the male, the defendant shows up wearing a t-shirt with this charming line: "Rules are for suckers". And the public defenders office has dress shirts, suits, neckties, and dresses for female defendants. Yet, mostly the males, want to wear the cool gang colors. And it's a group effort among Mr.Smith's co-workers to try desperately to convince a black, gang-banger defendant to wear at the very least a dress shirt and necktie.
The sadness is that this is not just Mr. Smith's metropolitan area in the South where this takes place.
This is nationwide in many an urban area. And at all levels from cities, counties, states and federal courts. Mr. Smith shares a statistic that, to me, is disturbing. Twelve percent of the United States population is black. Yet they make up 40% of the prison population. The chart below is as of 2009 but probably worse today than better.

It is staggering and disturbing all at the same time. 
How does this one group seem to have self-destructed in this nation?
Mr. Smith alludes to the breakdown of the traditional family among blacks.
And Mr. Smith does not go much further but I will.
Education is not separate but equal but abysmal for blacks in the inner city. No one seems to want to get a handle on it because it will break some sacred cows that the so-called black "leadership" has vented over the last 40 years. Money, money and more money has been poured into the predominately black inner-city schools and scores at all levels have worsened, not improved. Essentially, many teachers just show up and put in their time and hope not to get killed.
Since there is usually not a mom and dad, the gang that many of the black male youths eventually gravitate to become family. Ditto for the girls.
Yes, I am a white male and according to the PC forces, I have not only no right to note the problems but I am privileged simply by the grace of God of being born white. Yet I have grown up where I am the minority. Most of my friends have been Hispanic throughout my life. Many of them are at a much better station in life than I am. There goes my "white privilege".
But what seems to have prompted Mr. Smith to write the piece he did is he wanted to tell the truth. And it is clearly painful for him to do so. The truth is there is a serious problem in the black community. There are real solutions but it will take a concerted effort of many people, groups and forces. And some of those people, groups and forces need to end some of their rhetorical flourishes and realize there are a lot of us that want to help. That want to improve education for blacks. That want to restore as much of a traditional family structure as possible. That want blacks to stop gangs and make them unattractive for their children to ever join.
The conversation has to start somewhere and it has to start with truth.
That is why this is the most dangerous post of 2014.

Ferguson One Big Dreckstorm*

Yes indeed, this was the week, Monday to be precise, that the St. Louis County, Missouri grand jury, was to render whether or not to indict Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson, for the shooting death of Michael Brown this past October.
And sure enough this past Monday evening, the St. Louis county district attorney, Robert McCulloch, in excruciating detail explained all that he presented to the grand jury and told the world that they will not indict the White police officer in the shooting death of the Black youth on August 9 of this year.
And the reaction ended up being the dreckstorm of the 21st century.
It appears that from the start of what should have been a tragic but routine story, everything surrounding it was problematic from the start.
No question that Mr. Wilson did kill Mr. Brown. But that is the only thing that all agree about.
As Mr. McCulloch said in his statement, it was within minutes that social media caught wind of it and the information being provided was muddled at best. But the seemingly damning piece of "eyewitness" accounts came from the friend that was accompanying Mr. Brown on the fateful night, Dorian Johnson. It was Mr. Johnson who claimed that Mr. Brown was being harassed and that his friend did escape a scuffle with Mr. Wilson. According to Mr. Johnson, Mr. Brown turned around and raised his hands as if to surrender and then, Mr. Wilson played shooting gallery with Mr. Brown. An unarmed Mr. Brown.
Only, that is not quite what happened.
Let's look at Mr. McCulloch's statement regarding the so-called hands up of surrender:

The description of how Mr. Brown hands, raised his hands, or the position of his hands, is not consistent among the witnesses. Some describe his hands as being out to his sides, some said in front of him with palms up, others said his hands were raised by his head or by his shoulders. Still others describe his hands is being in a running position or in fists.

Only Mr. Johnson still insists that Mr. Brown had his hands up in the air as if he was surrendering as he went towards Mr. Wilson.
Thus, again according to the statement of Mr. McCullogh, Mr. Wilson feared for his life as he had already endured being roughed-up by Mr. Brown. That is when he started shooting for he did not know if Mr. Brown had a weapon or not.
That is the basic story.
But a lot of what happened after that was the dreckstorm on steroids.
Clearly, no one thought that it would have been a good idea to at the very least cover-up Mr. Brown's body as the immediate investigation was taking place. As people were believing that Mr. Brown was trying to surrender to Mr. Wilson, they also saw this as a sign of disrespect. And I agree.
But now this was becoming a cause celebre. The likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were beginning to sink their fangs into another case of a White cop killing a Black kid indiscriminately. The town of Ferguson itself was a town of change for only about 25 years ago it was a majority White town and now the majority was Black. Yet the police department was overwhelmingly White. Now I am never certain about whether it matters that law enforcement and or firefighters and the like have to absolutely reflect the make up of any community. But in this case, the fact is there were very few Black officers.
So, many of the people of Ferguson were beginning to think, hm, there must be something to it. Mr. Wilson was merely suspended pending an investigation per the law. There was a build up of hostility and there was days of a show of force fit for a third-world nation. The reason is that little was done and when it was done, it was too late. Eventually, the Missouri governor, Jay Nixon, appointed a member of the Missouri highway patrol, Capt. Ron Johnson, as a point man to coordinate a better response from the Ferguson police department, the St. Louis County police (there is no sheriff as in almost all other counties in the United States.) and the Missouri highway patrol. Now to many, myself included, Capt. Johnson seemed to be way to accommodating to people meaning to cause trouble. But, what he was trying to do in the best way possible is to stop the dreckstorm from an all out explosion. and he did a decent job under horrible circumstances.
In my estimation, the Ferguson police and St. Louis County police were in over their head. They had no clue that by then this was, to coin a phrase, a big f---ing deal. It was not their finest moments.
But many were complaining that the grand jury, which was convened on August 23, was taking a long time. And there was a reason for it.
No doubt that Mr. McCulloch could have avoided such a circus. He had the power himself to charge Mr. Wilson with one of four potential charges, the most serious being first degree murder all the way down to involuntary manslaughter.
So why didn't Mr. McCulloch do that?
I will state that this is pure speculation on my part, but Mr. McCulloch looked at very similar cases around the United States. Although the George Zimmerman shooting of Trayvon Martin was not a case involving a police officer, it was the most recent case of a White shooting of an unarmed Black youth. We all know what happened with that one. And what could he charge him with? It is clear that it would be all but impossible to charge with first degree murder as that means having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Wilson premeditated, or planned, to kill Mr. Brown. Involuntary manslaughter would be the minimal charge and even if convicted, also not an overwhelming possibility, Mr. Wilson probably would serve less than 10 years.
In other words, Mr. McCulloch handed it off to the county grand jury. But not in a usual way.
As Mr. McCulloch noted, there was mountains of evidence, 70 hours of testimony from 60 witnesses and the police officer facing charges, Mr. Wilson and over 4,700 pages of transcript for all to see. And the grand jury came back with the only decision that it could.
No true bill, or no indictment on any charges.
But to add insult to incompetence, Mr. McCulloch thought, gee, I'll make my statement at 8pm on Monday evening. Maybe all those wanting to stir up trouble will be tucked away in bed.
I know that everything is earlier in the Central Time Zone. All television shows in prime time is 7pm to 10pm unlike the coastal time zones, which are from 8pm to 11pm. You know for all the farmers and the like.
But the fact is that it was known that there was a decision in the early afternoon. Yet Mr. McCulloch made his announcement while the buildup of potential anger only had more time to grow.
And of course the dreckstorm blew its lid and it was on.
Businesses were looted throughout the city and cars and buildings were set ablaze. It was a full-fledged riot. Little if anything was done to stop it. In fact, Gov. Nixon had deployed the state national guard to the region. Where were they? Sure as hell not doing a damn thing to stop the conflagration.
Later that evening, St. Louis county police chief, Jon Belmar and Capt. Johnson of the highway patrol expressed, I can't believe that I am writing this, shock that the events escalated to full-scale rioting.
Are those two kidding?!
I am but a humble blogger in Pasadena, California and just doing a cursory look around the internet and they would know that trouble was going to be made by every race-huckster extremists along with far-left allies. Hell, even pro-Palestinians were gonna hijack it and link the events of Ferguson to their cause.
But Laurel and Hardy, well they just could not believe it.
And the dreckstorm went nationwide and has even disrupted the busiest shopping day of the year, Black Friday.
Now a little more background I chose to save to this point of the post.
Mr. Brown was not just harassed then killed by Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson heard a radio call of a robbery at a convinence store. As he was finishing up another call, he heard another call with a description of the suspect. And then, he saw Mr. Brown.
A video later surfaced from the convenience store showing Mr. Brown with Swisher Sweet cigars and shoving and pushing a clerk trying to stop him from stealing the cigars.
Mr. Brown after three separate autopsies and blood samples was shown to have marijuana in his system.
Going back to the robbery, Swisher Sweets are also known as blunts and used to smoke marijuana.
There is A+B=C.
Mr. Wilson never knew if Mr. Brown was armed or not until after the shooting.
A question was brought up where was there a taser gun? Mr. Wilson said that he did not have a taser gun.
Now while we are given the impression that all the elected officials involved were eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll, raaaaacist (remember, there are five a's in raaaaacist!) Republicans, that is not true. Every elected official involved, the governor, Mr. Nixon, the St. Louis county DA, Mr. McCulloch, all the county elected officials and the city council of Ferguson were all Democrats.
Darren Wilson has resigned from the Ferguson police department and I doubt he will ever be involved in law enforcement again.
Could things have been done differently? Possibly but that is requiring a great deal of hindsight. Is systemic racism involved in this case? Doubtful as I see it. A crime was committed and there is no doubt a chain of events took place that probably would have turned out the same way no matter the race of those involved.
The one thing is certain.
That Ferguson, a town few heard of before August 9, 2014, sure has caused one helluva dreckstorm.

*Dreckstorm-dreck is a Yiddish word. A kinder way of saying s*it. Thus, a kinder way of saying a S*itstorm.

How Can We Have That Race Conversation With Twits Like James Clyburn?

You know, the attorney general, Eric Holder, once that that Americans are afraid to have a serious conversation about race.
So, I bring you Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC).
Congresstool Clyburn is fourth in the Democrat party leadership in the House of Representatives.
I do not know why Congresstool Clyburn was asked about the South Carolina Senator, Tim Scott (R-SC), who is running for a full senate term. But he was asked. And here is a real starter about that race conversation:

“If you call progress electing a person with the pigmentation that he has, who votes against the interest and aspirations of 95 percent of the black people in South Carolina, then I guess that’s progress.”

Get it?
It's not that he does not vote the party line. Its that he does not vote for or promote the race line.
The implication of Congresstool Clyburn is that for the most part, about 95% of that part, Blacks think and act exactly alike.
At least in South Carolina. And keep in mind that Sen. Scott is Black.
It does seem to be the case of voting patterns at least. It is estimated that well north of 90% of Black Americans did vote twice for Democrats in general and Barack Obama in particular. And I do get the voting for the Dear Leader, President Obama, the first time. Second time, not so much. Democrats in general I do not get either. But that is not the point.
The point is that people like Congresstool Clyburn make such an absurd, and quite frankly racist statement about a fellow Black American and the way that he does or does not vote.
But in the linked article, Roger Clegg of The Center For Equal Opportunity, he does make an observation about the likes of Congresstool Clyburn and the one-sided Democrat vote of Black Americans.
It's tribalism.

“It’s tribal. … It’s a step backwards from Martin Luther King’s dream [and from] maybe a couple of millennia. He (Clyburn) is saying that not only should individual African-American politicians not be allowed to vote their consciences or for what they think is the best policy for all their constituents, he’s also saying that individual voters are shackled to their respective skin colors and can vote only after asking themselves ‘What is best for my group.”

The tribalism is not unique to Blacks. Same can be said for Hispanics, the LGBT community, Asians, women. But for these groups, it is not as uniform as Black support for the Democrat party. It would really be news if an Asian, Hispanic, LGBT, or woman Democrat were to make such an absurd statement as did Congresstool Clyburn.
But it's what is the prevailing fact of the Democrat party. That Blacks will only get more of a piece of the American dream and a seat at the table if they are Democrats and vote Democrat.
So, if we are to have a serious conversation about race as the attorney general, Eric Holder, once said, how can we if it is not only so one-sided but one-sided to the point of the ridiculous.
The fact is that Sen. Scott maybe Black, but does not see everything through the prism of a Black experience. He is a man of the New South. A South that will elect him to a full term to the United States senate. Remember, Sen. Scott is running statewide. Congresstool Clyburn is a gerrymandered district so that he can win with relative ease. I think that Sen. Scott speaks more for the progress of Blacks than Congresstool Clyburn.
And what about the Dear Leader, President Obama, himself? How did he not win one but two national elections? Was it just on the backs of Black voters? Or just on a coalition of Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, LGBT, women and labor unions? Did not some Whites vote for the Dear Leader, President Obama? Of course that is the case.
In general, Black Americans have made great advances in American life. Not just politically, but economically, in education and their general standard of living.
But there is no question that there have been horrible drawbacks.
It is a major drawback that up to seven out of ten child births among Black women are out of wedlock. And that Black women are more likely to have abortions than other groups. That Blacks are more likely than most groups to drop out of high school and thus never go to college. That Black men are more likely to spend a part of their life in jail. And yes, there is still some lingering of outright racism that reared its ugly head in the name of one Donald Sterling.
Not just electing a Black man to the presidency has even made a difference and in fact may have made the above worse.
So to have that honest conversation, especially among Blacks, why not two people like Congresstool Clyburn and Sen. Scott sitting down together and find some real common ground? Not just a photo-op session and play to their respective bases, but let it all hang out. Because I bet a dollar to a donut that they might just find out that they do agree on many things and can and should work together.
See, that is the conversation that needs to be had.
But if we have to vote our "race", then how can we expect people to talk to each other and not over each other?

The Legacy Of The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Is That ALL Americans Can Claim His Message

Today marks the 50th anniversary of the most consequential speech of the 20th century by a non-politician as we Americans celebrate what has been called the I Have A Dream speech delivered by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King.
It was no surprise that the Speech was delivered at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. The message from the Rev. Dr. King was as powerful as that of the 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, when he proclaimed the Emancipation Proclamation.
It is a message that capped an amazing struggle that the Rev. Dr. King was leading to end the degradation of Black Americans and the spectre of segregation that still gripped much of the American South. An American South that politically was in with the Democrat party. Republicans of all stripes, though disagreeing how, did not support the segregation and the keeping down of Blacks in the South. But it was not just segregation. It was keeping people of color down by the government at all levels. Economically, politically and socially, Blacks and other non-Whites were to be blunt kept in their place.
To put it another way, when the Rev. Dr. King gave the Speech, major league baseball was only desegregated a mere 16 years. And in the South, only one team and that was the Houston Astros. The Braves would not move to Atlanta and the Deep South for another two years.
I use the sports analogy because while the sport was expanding, it would not go to the Deep South in moving teams and expansion. Even major league baseball was not sure how it would be to have a team in a part of the United States that still kept Blacks from drinking water at a decent fountain or eat at a lunch counter in a restaurant.
But for me, the Speech was a call to arms for Christians to once and for all be the leaders of the movement to end the government allowing for such injustice to occur. And it was a call to those of us who value freedom to seek this freedom for those irrationally kept from reaching their full, God-given potential.
Let me share this line from the speech that expresses the freedom the Rev. Dr. King was seeking for all:

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. 

Now the Rev. Dr. King did not mean violent militancy but the kind of Rosa Parks who just was damned tired and wanted to sit down in the front of the bus in Birmingham, Alabama. The just saying no to the likes of Bull Conner and yes being violently suppressed.
But the Rev. Dr. King extolled the crowd that not all White people were bad. That many were there at the Speech and believed in the message of freedom. And here what speaks to me:

for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny.

Yes, I really believe that. Because it is our American destiny. To be one nation of people from all over the world to live the American Experience.
Read the clear Christian message the Rev. Dr. King was saying to not just those the victims of injustice but even to those who were the cause of the injustice. The Rev. Dr. King quoted the Old Testament prophet, Amos 5:24 here, "No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream." That was a powerful message to those committing injustice to free themselves from that bondage as well as a message to those that got it.
But it was not the total straight from the Holy Bible message but making clear that it was a mandate from God himself that all people had to change.
The meat of the speech was the dream itself. And that is what is needed to be read again and again:

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

As I have said, it is a message to the captives of the racism being practiced in the South openly, in other parts of the United States covertly. And a message to the real victims of real racism that someday all will be able to live together in peace and harmony.
We need that message more and more today.
And this message is sorely needed to be drilled into every single American every single day:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Yes, yes, yes!!! We need to judge (note the Rev. Dr. King does not use non-judgemental language here) all people of content of character. I sure don't care what color one is. But I care how a person handles her or him self.
For me that is the legacy of the Rev. Dr. King that I take and try to live by as best as I can.
Many conservative people have been leery of this aspect of the Rev. Dr. King and what he was trying to accomplish. Many thought that he was too close to the Communists. Yet I can say that while the Soviet reds thought that they had a fellow traveller, he was using them because he needed all the support, however questionable, he could get. Why I know this is again, because the Rev. Dr. King was a devout Christian and could not support Communism or its goals as they were just as devout atheists as he was a Believer.
In retrospect, then President Reagan made a big error when he vetoed congressional approval of the holiday in the Rev. Dr. King's honor back in the 1980s. And I admit I was wrong to support that decision. For me I just was not certain of the true legacy that the Rev. Dr. King left on his country. But as time went on and I actually did some and research, I realize that the man was a great man and I think the only one that could lead the United States away from the era of accepting separate but equal that prevailed since the War Between the States or the Civil War.
A legacy of a true leader is the fact that from throughout the political spectrum, people can take something and hold on to it or indeed use that as their way to live life.
And that is not just the legacy of a speech read, no orated, on a hot day, August 28, 1963 by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. That all Americans can and do live it every day.

If You Live Or Will Visit Phoenix, Don't Go To A Public Pool

Frightfully, it is coming to this in the great quest to seek affirmative action in every aspect of life in the United States.
Why am I frightened?
Because it appears that one American city, and a surprising one at that, is recruiting non-White lifeguards to protect swimmers in the city pools this summer.
Nothing wrong with that on the surface.
But when you read this piece over at National Public Radio, you will see why I am frightened.
It appears that an experienced swimmer need not apply for a lifeguard position if he or she is White.
Because the Asian, Black and Hispanic kids that swim in the pools really, they want someone that looks like them. And talks like them.
Read this line from one Kelly Martinez, who actually works for the city of Phoenix as she explains this effort at minority outreach and hiring:

"The kids in the pool are all either Hispanic or black or whatever, and every lifeguard is white and we don't like that. The kids don't relate; there's language issues."

Close you eyes at this point if easily offended because I am not holding back my disgust.
What the fuck?! What the hell is this nit wit talking about?!
We don't like that "every" lifeguard supposedly at the city of Phoenix public pools are White? Really?! So, let me ask you Miss Martinez, would you rather have this scenario. No lifeguard at said pools because the minorities you are trying to outreach and give employment can not meet the minimum requirement. Like basic swimming. And a person dies in a pool. Or many. Because the people did not like looking at the White kid that they do not relate to?
Well, Miss Martinez goes double-down on this theme. Miss Martinez proceeds to put this kid on the spot:

Martinez turns to a Latina student next to her. "Do you speak Spanish?" she asks. "We need more lifeguards who can speak Spanish."

I repeat my plea from above. WTF?!
So, if I understand Miss Martinez, it would be better to have a less qualified Hispanic lifeguard that spoke Spanish and could "relate" to the Hispanic kids than to have one that may not be realatable but able to potentially save a life, right? And I suppose in Miss Martinezland, we need Blacks for the Black swimmers and Asians for the Asian swimmers, right? Nevermind that once you go Asia, better make sure it is the right one. You know, a Chinese speaker. Oh, make sure fluent in both Cantonese and Mandarin.
My head is spinning.
What a racist battle axe Miss Martinez is. And remember, she works for the city of Phoenix and is an aide to one Melissa Boyle, who seems to be in charge of this "outreach" according to the NPR article.
Now to be fair, it appears that there is some effort to identify and find minorities that have the potential and bring them to basic standards to potentially become a lifeguard.
That would be the obvious suggestion. Not for the reasons that Miss Martinez spouts off. Because as the article points out many of the Whites that do become lifeguards are not part of the neighborhood. Yes they come from the affluent parts of town. And what seems to be missing is the fact that these White kids are going into neighborhoods certainly not exactly receptive to them on the surface. What is missing is what the White kids are learning going out of their comfort zone and being of service in parts of town that need their kind of service.
Now the article does not mention it but is their anything that the lifeguards can do to help more of these kids gain swimming skills? Not to take their jobs but to be able to attain an important life skill? I know that there is the $15,000 grant, but what more can be done?
There is no doubt that swimming, rightly or wrongly, in many parts of the United States is still seen as something, well something White. Or to put it this way. If a minority person mocks a White swimmer with something life surfer boy, as I said, it is not a compliment.
But living here in So Cal, that barrier is in most places non-existent. When my stepson was in high school, he was the blond, surfer-looking kid on the swim team. However, there were Asians and Hispanics and a good representation without going out of the way of the school itself.
The reality of being a lifeguard is that he or she must be a great swimmer. And one that is very strong. Strong enough to be able to bring a drowning person from underwater. One that would be able to perform basic CPR on a potential drowning victim. I don't think for a moment that there is a race component to it. But access for minorities may be different in other parts of the United States. Lowering the basics could, no will, prove very costly in the long run if a person drowns because a less qualified lifeguard was trying to save that person.
That is what this is about.
Lowering standards.
Again, if you read what Miss Martinez says, she is not really concerned about the pool patron safety. She is worried about how a young Hispanic student who does not speak English feels about having a White lifeguard. But assumption, one that does not speak Spanish. Of course I am kind of sort of thinking, hey, why does this student not speak, wait for it. . .ENGLISH!
Now that this has come to light, the program needs to be really thought out how to gain qualified potential non-White lifeguard candidates without lowering standards.
Is it too much to ask the brain trust of Phoenix to figure out how to have more minority lifeguards without lowering the bar? Is this what we have come to in the United States that we have to risk safety to feel good?

Another Race Story In The New York Times

Not just another race story, but one about the fact that for the first time, Whites in the United States accounted for less than half of all live births last year.
Of the 4,080,000 births in the United States last year, 1,988,824 were to Whites. The rest, 2,019,176 and that number includes mixed-race births.
What I find obnoxious about such stories is the seemingly negative tone about this trend.
But what I want to talk about is the mixed-race births and that is a positive trend in the United States.
The article did not discuss how many births were of mixed or multiple race children.
So I will from a personal perspective of family and friends.
My good friend, Mr. An Unmarried Man is a Mexican-American. He married a Korean-American woman and they had a son, a Korean-Mexican American.
Another good friend's sister, also a Mexican-American, married an Armenian. They also had a son. An Armenian-Mexican American.
In my own family, the numbers are very high in mixed-race marriage and children.
One of my brothers had a son with a Mexican-American woman.
My sister's oldest son is White and Mexican-American. And he is with a Mexican-American woman and has three children.
One of my nieces married a Black man and they have a son.
Two of my nephews and brothers married Asians. One married a Korean-American and they have two children. The other, married a Philippina-American and have two children.
So, what is the point of this?
That the whole paradigm of race in the United States is changing.
And for the better.
People are no longer feeling a false "race loyalty" and are getting together, well because. Religion may have a role. Trying to be different. I do not really know.
But what this does is make the dream of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King come true. That people will be judged, yes judged, not on the color of their skin but the content of their character.
How can you not define the dilution of the races as nothing more than the Americanization of our nation, once and for all?
Of course, the Race-Huckster Industrial Complex can not stand this.
If Americans on their own begin the process of deemphasizing race, then what will the fill-in-the-blank race-centered group to do?
Well, they take take off their veils and admit that the race mixing is not a good thing for their own race. They can just go about the negativity many Americans, especially us eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll White Americans, The irony. That these RHIC people will blame Whites while castigating their own for not caring about race when the meet that special someone and marry. And have children.
The more that we see of mixed-race births the less it becomes relevant the whole attitude of race relations.
Oh, I want to note that there are a fair share of White Americans do have negative views on mixed-race relationships. But I find that is less and less of that is important as more and more, particularly young Whites, just say no to all this pointless race stuff.
You know, is not good to just know people and like them, or not, for who they are as a person and nothing more?
I believe that.
And so do many Americans.
I do not know if it will happen in my lifetime, but I do know that it will in our grand children's lifetime.
What will happen?
That we will not have to check off a race box for anything. We will simply be Americans. We will have multiple heritages and a lot to look back at in genealogy.
Too bad The New York Times did not look at that and find something positive about that trend.

The Sorry State Of Race Relations In The United States

I came across this seemingly shocking poll of Republican voters in Alabama and Mississippi that indicates roughly about 30% do not like interracial marriage and also think that it should be illegal.
One thought I have is that I am not surprised. I am not surprised that many people do not like the idea of interracial marriage.
The second thought is why would anyone be that honest to suggest interracial marriage actually be banned?
But the third thought is the one I would like to ask.
Was or is this question ever asked of Democrat voters? I mean, is the party that once supported segregation and the very laws that banned interracial marriage and by extension sexual relations? Yes it is. And should Democrat voters not be asked such things?
And let me take that a step further.
How about asking these questions on racial breakdown? You know, lets see how Blacks feel about the subject. And Hispanics. Lets not forget Asians.
Let me relate that these groups are much more vocal in opposition to interracial marriage than many if not most Whites.
But why ask such things in the first place? Is it not meant to illicit a negative response? Of course it is.
After all, the only way to keep the race huckster gravy train going to point out such information as the above poll.
Again, I find it to be at best a shock poll rather than anything of reality.
In my own family, some of my nephews and nieces are in interracial marriages. My one niece lives in Florida and is married to a Black man. One nephew is married to a Korean-American and the other, his brother, is married to a Filipina-American.
As I write that, my blood boils because all I can think of is the fact that I am an American.
That is it.
An American. My heritage happens to be European, but I would have to relationship to family that might be in Edinburgh, Scotland where my maternal grandmother was from. Or where my paternal grandparents came from, Odessa, the Ukraine.
My race is American.
Yet everywhere I have to answer on many things what race best describes me.
And yet I can not write American anywhere.
Why is that? Why must we be categorized in racial groups that for many we really have no real anchor to?
Because it is to Balkinize the United States of America.
I am sure that a lot of people of all race groups feel the same as I do. But what are we doing about it?
One of the most nauseating things that was said about the Tea Party movement has been that we are a bunch of racists.
Yet the only people pushing the race issue at Tea Party rallies I was privileged to be at were Lyndon LaRouche whack jobs. Democrat Lyndon LaRouche whack jobs.
I saw many people of many heritages. Asian, Black, Hispanic, others that I do not know nor for the sake of this care. Because we are united in being Americans first and heritage second.
Even people that I know should know better ask me about why the Tea Party is racist. Of course none who asked ever participated or went to a rally. But are spoon-fed the race angle because, well, the leftywhore media has to make the Tea Party a negative.
Somehow, keeping taxes low, restoring eroding freedom and keeping the federal government at bay is a racist issue.
But to the left everything is now in the prism of race.
It is how they keep the above-mentioned groups on the Democrat plantation.
And that is why they need to demonize any opposition to their policies as race-driven.
And with the first Black American president, it seems tailor-made, right?
Yet this is probably the reason the chains are probably going to be broken.
Because Americans elected a Black to the presidency, we will not have a problem electing someone from another group. And many who have been on the plantation only because of race will say no more.
It is what has to happen.
Because if it does not, many people will take the above poll seriously rather than the shock value that it is.