In the Age of Fake Everything: What IS and ISN’T “Racist”

Now and then we see documentaries showing the brainwashing that takes place in politically isolated nations, and we shake our heads at the peoples’ ignorance and childlike gullibility.  But here in the U.S. much of the same thing is going on, except without the benefit of dictatorship or state control, and that makes it worse.  While it’s sometimes hard to discern whether people truly believe the lies and myths that are fed to them or whether they’re just playing along with the game for some common objective, we seem to be in the midst of an epidemic of misunderstanding what it means to be a “racist.”  So I thought this might be a good time to do a bit of UN-brainwashing and straight forward clarification.  Here it is:

What IS racist:

·         “Black Lives Matter” is racist – because they reject the inclusive label, “All Lives Matter”

·         Making assumptions about race, good or bad, that have no basis in reality, is racist

·         Restricting what truths someone is allowed speak just because they’re white is racist

·         Using skin color as the sole or primary qualification when voting for a candidate is racist

·         Assuming, as a matter of public policy, that race should be a factor when qualifying for public assistance is racist

·         For a U.S. President to suggest that it was germane to the pursuit of justice that if he had had a son, that son would have looked like Trayvon Martin (and not like George Zimmerman) is racist

·         Suggesting that an entire race of people is “privileged” based solely upon their skin color, irrespective of any and all evidence to the contrary, is racist

·         Assuming that a white cop cannot be objective when dealing with black citizens is racist

·         Painting any race – black, brown or white – with the same broad brush is racist

·         Making race a factor – positively or negatively – in selecting job or university applicants is racist

What ISN’T racist:

·         Truth: No matter how uncomfortable it is to hear it, the truth is never racist

·         Criticizing someone of a different race is not racist

·         Racial disparities in higher education, occupations or income when there are also disparities in cultural attitudes on education, aptitudes, high school graduation rates, I.Q., life choices, career choices and work history is not racist

·         Profiling for criminal behavior based upon actual criminal statistics and local experience is not racist

·         Following your natural instincts for self-protection based upon your experiences or knowledge of history and/or statistics is not racist; i.e., if a black man walking down the street sees what looks like a group of white skinheads coming his way, he would be acting wisely based upon knowledge – not racism – to quickly change his route.

·         Bank credit policies that favor credit-worthy borrowers are not racist

·         Immigration policies that favor unique and desirable work skills are not racist

·         U.S. border policies that prevent illegal entry are not racist

·         U.S. travel policies that protect U.S. citizens and U.S. interests from terrorist activities and other dangers are not racist

·         Describing a black person as “black” or a Hispanic person as “Hispanic” is not racist

·         Disagreeing with the Left on “climate change,” abortion, drug policy, foreign policy, the Second Amendment, healthcare, taxes or anything else of national concern is not racist

·         The state of being white does not make you a racist

I will not be one of those people who sits quietly by as terms like “racist” are transformed from useful components of our language to weapons for the benefit of the Left.  How about you?

~CW

To leave a comment please go see this post at The Pesky Truth.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.  Thanks!

Here’s how I Know Bowe Bergdahl is a Democrat

"At least the Taliban were honest enough to say, ‘I’m the guy who’s gonna cut your throat.’  Here, it could be the guy I pass in the corridor who’s going to sign the paper that sends me away for life.  We may as well go back to kangaroo courts and lynch mobs."

~Bowe Bergdahl, in an interview with the British paper The Sunday Times

Those three short sentences are a dead giveaway to the psychological mindset and, hence, the politics of Bowe Bergdahl.  Let’s review:

#1.  He’s a whiner.

I don’t know about you guys, but if I were the guy who’s claim to fame was as a deserter whose ill-conceived desertion led to a perilous and tragic rescue mission for my co-workers as well as the release of five enemy-combatants to get my sorry butt back, I’d shut the hell up.

#2.  A Democrat’s poop never smells.

Berdahl whines, “…it could be the guy I pass in the corridor who’s going to sign the paper that sends me away for life.”

Little did Bergdahl’s fellow troops know, when they passed him in the barracks at their station in Afghanistan, that he would be the guy whose actions would equate to signing some of their death warrants.  That little irony seems to have escaped the notice of little Bowe.

#3.  He takes no responsibility for his own actions.

Hillary lies and fails to inspire, then blames the Russians and the Republicans for her failures.  Bergdahl deserts, then blames “the guy in the corrider” for his troubles.

Neither “the guy in the corridor” nor the paper he signed is what sent you away for life, Mr. Bergdahl.  YOU sent yourself away for life.  No one else is responsible for that.  (Are you listening, Hillary?)

#4.  He plays fast and loose with the meaning of words.

Only a leftwing Democrat would have the absence of conscience to abuse the terms “kangaroo courts” and “lynch mobs” to inaptly – but grossly self-servingly – describe Bergdahl’s situation.  There are no phony charges here or pretense at following regular order.  No unauthorized persons are dragging you from your home in the dead of night to mete out some twisted form of vigilante justice.  Impressionable young minds who hear your words will form a dangerously inaccurate picture of what these terms mean, and that hurts us all.  It is the true mark of a leftist that you just don’t care.  No cost – paid by others – is too great a sacrifice if a leftist feels better in the end.

#5.  He’s the victim.

Never mind the soldiers who were injured or killed looking for a sorry deserter.  Never mind the taxpayers who are footing the bill for all of the expenses – and there will be lots – related to his ill-fated actions.  Never mind the innocents who are now at risk because five Gitmo detainees are now free.  Bowe Bergdahl is the victim here. 

This person has shown an absence of comprehension and remorse that justifies the harshest punishment, in my opinion.  I hope the judge takes Bergdahl’s attitude into account when deciding his fate, and I hope the judge chooses just the right words to help the world, and impressionable, young Americans in particular, fully understand how seriously wrong this deserter was in what he chose to do. 

~CW

To leave a comment on this post please follow the link to The Pesky Truth.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.  Thanks!

Defending Your Right to Speak for Yourself

I read with interest this morning, a report on the AOL news page stating that the NFL has announced that players won’t be barred from taking a knee during the national anthem.  When I say, “with interest,” I am referring not to the NFL’s decision with respect to kneeling, which I didn’t find particularly surprising given the way the NFL has been managed.  No, what interested me were the blurbs of rhetoric that came from the interviews with Commissioner Roger Goodell and some of the players following the league’s autumn meeting. 

“The NFL won’t stop its players from kneeling during the national anthem,” said Goodell.  “Instead, he said, the league wants to help them in their political activism….”

“We spent today talking about the issues that our players have been trying to bring attention to. About issues in our communities to make our communities better,” Goodell told reporters.

Pay attention to the sleight of hand taking place here, because the cooption of individual speech rights often takes place as if it’s part of a magic trick.  Notice how the distinction between players who took a knee in protest during the game and all of the rest of the players has been quietly erased.  Suddenly the protest belongs to all of the players in the NFL, regardless of whether they agree or not. 

I for one find it fascinating – and by “fascinating” I mean deeply disturbing – that what many (incorrectly) hailed as an issue of free speech for the kneeling players is now morphing into the cooption of free speech rights of all of the players.  All of the players are social justice warriors now, whether they like it or not.  But as I’ve argued before (see “Losing the Power of ME”), this is what liberals do, and it’s how they’ve become so powerful, so it behooves us to pay careful attention to the experts in action.

One has to wonder if, when NFL players joined the players’ association, it was with the understanding that the spokespersons for the association would presume to speak for them on issues such as “social justice.”  Do the players who stood during the national anthem with their hands over their hearts agree that we’re a racist country where black people are systematically oppressed?  Hmmmm.  Regardless of whether they agree or not, this is what’s implied when the players’ association presumes to speak with one voice on this issue.  No one wants to be the one to raise his hand and say, “I disagree” or “I don’t want to adjudicate this on the football field.”  So the squeaky wheels win once again.

But please don’t let the trees distract you from seeing the forest.  This post is NOT about the NFL.  It’s NOT about the protests.  It’s about the right of every individual to preserve the power to speak for oneself.  It’s about defending the sacred right not to have our unique, individual voices coopted by those that we either have some real or imagined association with.  That, and only that, is what this post is about.

If free speech is power, then there is great power in being able to claim that you speak for others.  This fact has not been lost on many of those who want to drive an agenda.  As I relayed in “Losing the Power of ME,” this is a tactic in which the Left excels.  Liberals are notorious for infiltrating groups and associations organized ostensibly for one purpose and taking control of both the agenda and power of that organization’s voice (and by default, the voice of its membership).  Just think of the AARP, the NAACP, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and just about every labor union that exists.  The leaders of these groups use their power as spokespeople to influence policy that reaches far and wide, and they do so by usurping the voices of the conservatives silenced within.   And though it’s a favorite tool of the Left, some on the Right are guilty as well.

Power is a zero sum game.  When your voice is coopted by others, that is power stolen from you, and your own voice is easily lost in the crowd.

This is a particularly timely subject in light of the onslaught of pundits these days who are presuming to speak for “the voters,” as if we are all of one like mind in a politically tumultuous time when we clearly are not, as evidenced by Garnet92’s enlightening post from earlier today:  “Here Are The Five Types Of Trump Voters.”  The post details a survey of 8,000 voters which found that “there is no such thing as one type of Trump voter.”  In spite of this reality, I turn on the news shows each day to see a familiar pattern wherein one pundit or another is declaring that “the voters” want this or “the voters” want that, in what I see as attempts to create the impression of support for their own versions of an agenda that’s still being tweaked.  If a pundit has evidence that he or she does indeed speak for the will of the voters, then by all means they should make their case; but the powers that be have a duty, in my humble opinion, to verify the truth of their claims, and not to assume that my inability to be heard over the pundits is a sign of my agreement.  Life is hard enough without my having to combat the claims of every shill who claims to speak for me.

The prospect of our stolen voices underscores the importance of by-laws and constitutions, and of the need for strict enforcement of them.  Such documents typically spell out the limits of the power of those in charge such that they don’t have the flexibility to be unduly influenced by those wishing to illegitimately harness the power of its members, as is occurring in the NFL and elsewhere.  Uphold the Constitution.  Isn’t this what it always comes down to in the end?

~CW

To comment on this post please go to The Pesky Truth.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.

Tales of Liberalism’s Destructiveness Hidden In WaPo Stories

I don’t typically read The Washington Post because I prefer my news without the annoying taint of liberal bias, but a while back I came across two unrelated WaPo stories by chance, and in the process of reading I found myself repeatedly struck by the glossed-over details that tell an important story of their own.  Those details demonstrate how the Left’s influence leads to destructive life choices and government policies that set the stage for needless tragedy which – just taking a wild guess here – might be the reason that the dedicated journalists at the WaPo choose to dig only so deep.

The first article, dated June 19, 2017, tells the story of a young Virginia man who, according to police, used his car to harass and attempt to run down a group of Muslim teenagers as they were on their way back from a 3 a.m. outing to MacDonald’s:

“Killing of Muslim teen near Va. mosque stemmed from road rage, police say”

From the article it is unclear what led up to the altercation between Darwin Martinez Torres, 22, and the group of teenagers who were either walking or on bicycles, but readers are told that an altercation took place and that eventually Martinez Torres got out of his car and attacked 17-year old Nabra Hassanen with a baseball bat.  He then forced her into his car and took off.  Later that afternoon her body was found in a pond near Martinez Torres’ home.  She had been beaten to death.

Per the WaPo, the girl’s distraught father “said that he feels sure his daughter was killed because of her religion.”  Police, however, seem to have information indicating that the attack was motivated by road rage.  From the article:

“Martinez Torres spoke through a Spanish translator to answer a judge’s questions. He was appointed a public defender…  U.S. immigration officials requested that a “detainer” be placed on him at the county jail, meaning they are interested in possible future deportation proceedings.  Family members said the man worked in construction. He is Salvadoran and has a 4-year-old son and a girlfriend. He attended school briefly in the United States.”

That’s the story, but here are the between-the-lines parts of the story that stuck out to me:

1.  Martinez Torres is an ILLEGAL ALIEN according to coverage  of the story in The New York Times the next day, surprise, surprise. One would think that with the fierce debate currently taking place on the relationship between crime and illegal immigration in this country, that newsworthy tidbit would warrant mention in a news article, but apparently it is too much of a leap for WaPo to assume  that a man who needs a Spanish interpreter and has an immigration office detainer attached to him is an ILLEGAL ALIEN who all but certainly strolled across our borders during the Obama administration and was immediately and conveniently forgotten by Obama’s immigration enforcement.  Even the leftwing NYT found that part of the story newsworthy, but being a liberal-run propaganda arm of the Democrat Party they naturally used the Left’s politically-cleansed term, “undocumented immigrant,” to describe this person who entered the U.S. illegally and now appears to be responsible for a girl’s abduction and brutal death (eight days after this article was posted Daily News reported that Martinez Torres had been previously accused in a sex assault case and had ties to the MS-13 gang).  Surprised?  Me neither.

2.  The double last name, Martinez Torres, suggests to me that this man is likely the product of an unmarried couple, as so many troublesome young men turn out to be thanks to the influence of liberalism on attitudes about marriage. Similar background details emerge in story after story of violent young adults, yet liberal journalists are strangely lacking in curiosity about the coincidental connection between violence and the disappearance of the traditional family.

3.  Martinez Torres has a 4-year old son “with a girlfriend.” That’s just great isn’t it?  Hope they started teaching him his letters early on, because he has quite a long name to learn, but that’s the least of this poor child’s problems.  As the product of yet another non-traditional union that liberals will tell us there’s nothing wrong with, he already had one big strike against him, and now his father may be on his way to prison.

4.  There were approximately 15 Muslim teens walking and biking to McDonald’s at 3:40 a.m. on the morning of the altercation/abduction. According to reporters Justin Jouvenal and Julie Zauzmer, this is what all teenagers do.  Apparently Jouvenal and Zauzmer grew up in very permissive households, because I wasn’t allowed to roam the streets with my friends at 3:00 a.m when I was a teen, nor did I allow my two sons to do so because it sounds like an invitation for trouble.   I understand their outing had to do with the observance of Ramadan in preparation of the coming fast that morning, but I also understand that parents anticipating hungry teens can make food available so that there’s no need for a large group of teens to wander the streets unsupervised at 3 a.m.  If that sounds a bit like blaming the victim please be aware that I am not one of these people who subscribes to the belief that all victims are to be held 100% blameless for their fate.  My heart goes out to this girl and her family and what happened was indisputably undeserved, but it does us no good to pretend that a bit of common sense and parental supervision might not have made the difference that day.

5.  Without citing specific reasons the police labeled this a road rage incident, which leads me to wonder if the teens were blocking the road or were slow or uncooperative about moving out of the road when Martinez Torres came upon them. That’s just speculation on my part, but I’m guessing that this fairly large group of 15 teens wasn’t walking single file on the sidewalk.  They may not have anticipated any cars to be on the road at that time.  Police said there was a verbal altercation that did not involve racial or religious slurs, so it’s hard to imagine what else these strangers would be arguing about if not some dispute over the road.  My thought:  don’t block the roads and whether you’re in a car or on foot, respect the right of way.

In sum, here is how I, as a conservative, wrote this story in my head:

An (most likely) unmarried girl/woman gives birth to a male child in El Salvador, because marriage is old fashioned and fathers are unnecessary.  He grows up in poverty without a male role model in the home and probably surrounded by violence, and he becomes the “angry young man” that Elvis sang about in his haunting song, “In the Ghetto,” likely to inflict violence and/or die by violence.  This young male, with all his baggage and two last names, is encouraged to make his way to the U.S. where he can simply walk across the border because liberals believe a border wall is ugly and mean-spirited, and besides they would rather spend that money nurturing the sheep’s addiction to the welfare state (Oops – did I say that out loud?).  Once inside he can disappear into the country without fear of being hassled if he keeps his nose clean, because liberals in the U.S. believe that it is better to subject American citizens to whatever violence, diseases or poverty the illegals bring with them than to commit the obscene offense of allowing police to identify illegals by – gasp – profiling.  God forbid any citizen should ever be pulled over and asked to show their drivers’ license and then sent on their way, because this would be a horrendous experience that might require years of psychological counseling.  As far as keeping his nose clean, that didn’t happen with Martinez.   Just a week prior to allegedly killing Miss Hassanen, Martinez Torres was accused of sexually assaulting another woman as well as punching and choking her in front of her child.   According to the CPS report the woman said she didn’t want to press any charges against Martinez Torres, telling authorities in the hospital that she feared her attacker, “…who was in the MS-13 gang.”

Why do you suppose police did not detain this violent, dangerous illegal alien?  Why not notify ICE and get him off the streets?  What kinds of policies and influences might have led to such flawed decisions and abdication of duty?  Instead Martinez Torres was left to continue his trespassing upon this country and to beat and murder a 17-year old girl who should have been safely tucked away in her home at 3:00 a.m. that fateful morning.  And based upon the surviving teens’ claims that Martinez Torres attempted to run them down with his car, the scope of the crime – ultimately committed by Martinez Torres but with every step of the way paved by “well-meaning” liberals – could have been far, far worse.

Reporters Jouvenal and Zauzmer never mentioned the liberal policies and influences that brought Darwin Torres and Nabra Hassanen together that fateful day.  They preferred to cover the was-it-road-rage-or-anti-Muslim-bigotry angle.   This is why some terrible crimes that are avoidable will inevitably go on to happen, nonetheless; and it’s why you don’t read the Washington Post if you want real news.

I think we’ll leave that second story for another day.

~CW

To leave a comment please follow this link to see this post at The Pesky Truth.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.

I Am an American, and When You Disrespect the American Flag You Disrespect Me

It really is that simple. 

The American flag stands for a set of ideals, and for all of the people of this nation, as imperfect as any of us may be.  The flag and the national anthem are there to remind us of those ideals and of the importance of unity and patriotism, and when we stand we do so to reaffirm our commitment to all of those things.

When did Americans stop being mature enough to understand this?  Too many Americans are crybabies and attention seekers who are incapable of looking past their own grievances.  It’s disheartening to be sure, but I’ll stand for the American flag in spite of the crybabies and in spite of those who try and tear this nation down, because honoring the flag is the only way to keep the ideals alive.

That’s all for now.

~CW

To comment on this post please follow this link to The Pesky Truth website.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.  Thanks!