07/6/20

Trump Right to Honor Harriet Tubman, a Black Gun-Toting Republican Who Freed Democrats’ Slaves

By: Daniel John Sobieski

President Trump concluded his Friday night Mount Rushmore speech by announcing the signing of an executive order creating a “National Garden of American Heroes” in which the statues of those anarchists would consign to the ash heap of history would reside to remind future generations of how we became who and what we are, to remind us of the struggle against tyranny and injustice.

Trump righteously stood before the visages of the likes of Thomas Jefferson, the maligned slave-owner who helped create a nation and a process that would end slavery. He stood before the face of Abraham Lincoln, the first president of the Republican Party, the abolitionist party formed to end the Democrats’ claimed ownership of their fellow human beings. Jefferson wrote that all men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Lincoln, after the Battle of Gettysburg in a Civil War that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of so-called white-privileged Americans, spoke of a new birth of freedom and a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, that he would not allow to perish from the earth.

Trump, who some say may one day belong on Mt. Rushmore instead of just standing in front of it or flying over it, won’t allow it either, nor will we allow the cancel culture to erase the history of our continuous and ongoing struggle towards a more perfect union. So he announced the creation of the National Garden of American Heroes. The executive order reads: “The National Garden should be composed of statues, including statues of John Adams, Susan B. Anthony, Clara Barton, Daniel Boone, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Henry Clay, Davy Crockett, Frederick Douglass, Amelia Earhart, Benjamin Franklin, Billy Graham, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Douglas MacArthur, Dolley Madison, James Madison, Christa McAuliffe, Audie Murphy, George S. Patton, Jr., Ronald Reagan, Jackie Robinson, Betsy Ross, Antonin Scalia, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Harriet Tubman, Booker T. Washington, George Washington, and Orville and Wilbur Wright.”

Trump was especially right in selecting Harriet Tubman, whose life story exposes the lie that America is an irredeemably racist country enslaved by racist Republicans.  History, someone once said, is a lie agreed upon, and nowhere is that more self-evident than in accounts of America’s racial history as told by Democrats. Republicans are the party of racism and slavery when the historical record shows just the opposite to be true.

As black economist Thomas Sowell notes, Democrats value black votes but not black voters:

Democrats need black voters to be fearful, angry, resentful, and paranoid. Black votes matter. If Republicans could get 20 percent of black votes, the Democrats would be ruined.

That is what Democrats are terrified of. That can only happen if blacks are denied the truth about their past, present, and future. It is Democrats who owned the slaves, founded the KKK, and wrote the Jim Crow laws. It is Democrats who stood in the schoolhouse door and still do, opposing school choice. It is Democrats who turned on the fire hoses and unleashed the dogs. It was Democrats who blocked the bridge in Selma. A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. Trump and a free market economy is no mirage but a portent of things to come that has the Democratic Party running scared.

The Democrats’ historical amnesia omits the fact that it was Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia and former “Grand Kleagle” with the Ku Klux Klan, who holds the distinction of being the only Senator to have opposed the only two black nominees to the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, and led a 52-day filibuster against this legislation.

Sen. Al Gore, the father of the former vice president, voted against the act, as did Sen. J. William Fulbright, to whom Bill Clinton dedicated a memorial, current senior Senator from South Carolina Ernest Hollings, Sen. Richard Russell and, of course, Sen. Strom Thurmond, who was a Democrat at that time. Only six GOP Senators voted against the act, compared with 21 Democrats. The party of Abraham Lincoln and Jeff Sessions beat back the fire hoses and dogs of the party of Robert Byrd, Cory Booker, and Kamala Harris.

“Harriet,”  just released in theaters, tells the story of Harriet Tubman, an African-American slave who frees herself and then returns south to retrieve 70 others and bring them to freedom. Oh, yeah, Harriet Tubman was a gun-toting Republican and the people she liberated these slaves from were Democrats.

She was a heroine of the Underground Railroad and plans were being made under President Obama to place Tubman’s image on a new twenty-dollar bill, replacing the current version depicting former slave-owner and President Andrew Jackson. Plans stalled, however, perhaps when someone noticed that Harriet Tubman was a gun-toting Republican who believed that firearms were the best guarantor of freedom and equality ever invented.

Recently, Congressman John Katko, R-New York, has revived the idea of replacing President Andrew Jackson, one of those old white guys, on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman, an African-American woman who was a heroine in the battle against slavery:

Back in 2016, President Barack Obama’s Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announced the proposal to swap former President Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman.

Tubman would be the first African-American woman to appear on U.S. currency and the first woman in 100 years. The idea was to honor the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.

The plan has since stalled. President Donald Trump is a fan of Andrew Jackson and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said as far as he’s concerned, Jackson will remain on the $20 bill, but some in Congress think otherwise.

“We don’t have a woman of color, we don’t have any person of color on any U.S. currency,” said Congressman John Katko, R-New York….

Lisa Page, the interim Director of Africana Studies at George Washington University, says the move is not without controversy.

“I think Americans are still ashamed of the legacy of slavery and will continue to be ashamed of slavery,” Page said.

If the bill were to become a reality, according to Page, it would be a fitting tribute to a trailblazer for freedom and a patriotic American heroine.

“She was called Moses for all of her work in abolition,” Page added

Ironically, Charlton Heston, who played Moses on the big screen, was an NRA member famous for holding a musket over his head with the pledge, “From my cold dead, hands.” Gun rights are a keystone of our freedoms and the Founding Fathers knew we needed a Second Amendment to protect the other nine, Harriet Tubman knew that in the battle to end slavery, gun-rights for African Americans would be a key.

This move to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill, replacing President Andrew Jackson, replacing the slave-owning founder of the Democratic Party with a gun-toting black Republican may spark a political debate worth having and unearth historical truths worth learning.

Biographer Kate Clifford Larson notes that Harriet Tubman was no stranger to firearms, finding it a way to both protect and reassure slaves she shepherded to freedom in the north, perhaps making her a founder of the “black lives matter” movement:

Harriet Tubman carried a small pistol with her on her rescue missions, mostly for protection from slave catchers, but also to encourage weak-hearted runaways from turning back and risking the safety of the rest of the group. Tubman carried a sharp-shooters rifle during the Civil War.

An image of her carrying her gun is not likely to grace the new $20 bill, nor is any mention of her being a supporter of the anti-slavery Republican Party likely to be a regular part of the mainstream media and liberal Democratic mantra.  Harriet Tubman’s image should remind Americans that gun control was a historical method to control and subjugate blacks. UCLA constitutional law professor notes in The Atlantic:

Indisputably, for much of American history, gun-control measures, like many other laws, were used to oppress African Americans. The South had long prohibited blacks, both slave and free, from owning guns. In the North, however, at the end of the Civil War, the Union army allowed soldiers of any color to take home their rifles. Even blacks who hadn’t served could buy guns in the North, amid the glut of firearms produced for the war. President Lincoln had promised a “new birth of freedom,” but many blacks knew that white Southerners were not going to go along easily with such a vision. As one freedman in Louisiana recalled, “I would say to every colored soldier, ‘Bring your gun home.’”

Winkler also notes:

The KKK began as a gun-control organization. Before the Civil War, blacks were never allowed to own guns. During the Civil War, blacks kept guns for the first time – either they served in the Union army and they were allowed to keep their guns, or they buy guns on the open market where for the first time there’s hundreds of thousands of guns flooding the marketplace after the war ends. So they arm up because they know who they’re dealing with in the South. White racists do things like pass laws to disarm them, but that’s not really going to work. So they form these racist posses all over the South to go out at night in large groups to terrorize blacks and take those guns away. If blacks were disarmed, they couldn’t fight back.

One of the key reasons for the 14th Amendment’s guarantee that blacks were equal human beings with equal rights was to protect the gun rights of freed slaves after the Civil War. This reasoning was cited in the 2010 gun rights victory won by Otis McDonald in McDonald vs. Chicago. McDonald, a 76-year-old African-American Army veteran living in a high-crime area of Chicago who felt the Second Amendment gave him the right to protect himself and his family with a gun just as he once protected his country with a gun.

The Supreme Court agreed, with Justice Samuel Alito referencing the 14th Amendment:

Alito wrote: “Evidence from the period immediately following the ratification [in 1868] of the Fourteenth Amendment only confirms that the right to keep and bear arms was considered fundamental. … In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”….

In framing the argument that the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment should incorporate Second Amendment rights, Alito referenced post-Civil War laws that the Fourteenth Amendment intended to eliminate.

“The laws of some states formally prohibited African Americans from possessing firearms,” Alito said. “For example, a Mississippi law provided that ‘no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry firearms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife.”

Harriet Tubman supported the Republican Party because it opposed slavery. She carried a gun because it protected the liberty and freedom of herself and those she delivered to freedom via the Underground Railroad.  Just as Democrats sought to enslave and disarm blacks back then, they now seek to entrap them in high crime urban areas run by liberal Democrats who seek to deny them, and the rest of us, the right to keep and bear arms.

Harriet Tubman’s image may never appear on the $20 bill, but we should all learn and remember the image showing this African-American Republican leading slaves to freedom from slavery under Democrats with a gun in her hand.

* Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

07/6/20

America’s Taliban Wants Lennon’s Marxist “IMAGINE” As National Anthem

By: Daniel John Sobieski

We’ve seen this all before – the attempt to erase history through the destruction of statues and monuments to any historical event but today’s anarchy and any vestige of authority, real, institutional, or symbolic other than the authority imposed by the nihilists themselves.

As columnist Charles Krauthammer once pointed out, one the first acts of the Taliban in Afghanistan was to blow up centuries-old statues of Buddha carved in a mountain cliff. They did it not because they were built by the United States or Israel or represented Western colonialism. The giant Buddhas of Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban government on March 12, 2001, in Bamiyan, Afghanistan. The two enormous statues, measuring 175 feet in height, were carved into sandstone cliffs at Bamiyan by Buddhist worshippers who traveled the Silk Road from China in the third century A.D. As Krauthammer wrote:

Buddhism is hardly a representative of the West. It is hardly a cause of poverty and destitution. It is hardly a symbol of colonialism. No. The statues represented two things: an alternative faith and a great work of civilization. To the Taliban, the presence of both was intolerable…

The distinguished Indian writer and now Nobel Prize winner V.S. Naipaul, who has chronicled the Islamic world in two books (“Among the Believers” and “Beyond Belief”), recently warned (in a public talk in Melbourne before the World Trade Center attack), “We are within reach of great nihilistic forces that have undone civilization.” In places like Afghanistan, “religion has been turned by some into a kind of nihilism, where people wish to destroy themselves and destroy their past and their culture . . . to be pure. They are enraged about the world and they wish to pull it down.” This kind of fury and fanaticism is unappeasable. It knows no social, economic, or political solution. “You cannot converge with this [position] because it holds that your life is worthless and your beliefs are criminal and should be extirpated.”

This wasn’t an issue of white supremacy or privilege. They did it because they represented civilization and culture and ideas that were different than their own. Krauthammer’s analysis was in the context of Islamofascism, 9-11, and the war on terror but it bears relevance to the domestic terrorism being conducted by Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and the Democratic Party. The goal is chaos and anarchy and the institution of a collectivist gulag based on the Taliban model and the model depicted in the “Lord Of The Flies.” In the name of social justice, they seek a world without any justice, only mob rule, a world of unfathomable cruelty and injustice.

Our history and our heritage are being shoved by rioters, looters, and anarchists down the memory hole. This is year zero on their calendar. Everything that came before and every struggle for freedom and human dignity by patriots of all colors is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is now. The only thing that matters is what they tell you. How we got here and what makes us who and what we are may not be pretty or politically correct but it is important. We can’t know where we’re going if we don’t remember where we’ve been.

The canceling of American history by anarchists, encouraged by cowering Democratic governors and mayors is necessary if they intend on propagating the lie that America is and always has been irredeemably racist. The Republicans are white supremacists and that only liberal progressive Democrats can create social justice, which means the absence of resistance to groups like Black Lives Matter, which among other goodies on its website endorses the elimination of the nuclear family. Nothing can be allowed to interfere with the progressive police state they are hoping to establish on Nov. 3, 2020.

Canceling culture and history as vestiges of Western oppression, with the possible exception of the statues of Robert F. Byrd, has a new goal – replacing the “Star-Spangled Banner” with John Lennon’s homage to anarchy and Marxism, “Imagine.” This was and is an awful song calling for an end to all moral authority and decency and conversion of civilization to a global Woodstock, a world without rules and order and discipline, and no one left to make and deliver the pizza. As the New York Post notes:

Amid a national reckoning over racial tropes in culture, historian Daniel E. Walker, author Kevin Powell, and others are calling to “rethink [‘The Star-Spangled Banner’] as the national anthem, because this is about the deep-seated legacy of slavery and white supremacy in America,” Walker told Yahoo Entertainment.

The song would join a long line of cultural mainstays that are rebranding after the Black Lives Matter protests — foods such as Eskimo Pies and Aunt Jemima syrup among them.

The song was originally a poem written in September 1814, during the Battle of Baltimore, by Francis Scott Key, who owned slaves. The poem was eventually set to music and became the country’s official anthem in 1931. President Herbert Hoover authorized the song, sung often at baseball games and graduation ceremonies — notably missing the third verse, which references “the hireling and slave.”

“[It’s] the most beautiful, unifying, all-people, all-backgrounds-together kind of song you could have,” Powell says.

No, it is not. In “Imagine,” Lennon dreams of a Marxist, one-world government, famously singing of a world with “no countries,” “no religion” and “no possessions.” It is “Kumbaya” for Communists. It is an ode to the Communist hellholes that were the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cuba, and places like the killing fields of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Lennon celebrated a living nightmare that has left a least a hundred million dead As Matt Margolis notes at PJMedia:

First of all, let’s get to the root of why Powell likely recommended the song: Lennon himself described it as “virtually the Communist Manifesto.”

Despite some innocuous language about living in peace and there being no hunger, the song is full of themes that are un-American to the core: “Imagine there’s no heaven […] No hell below us… Imagine there are no countries… And no religion too… Imagine no possessions.”

No morals, no borders, no God, no private property or ownership… So, let’s just call that a “no,” and move on, please….

Regardless of whatever blemishes might be on the song’s history, the anthem is a part of America’s identity. Changing it makes no sense. In fact, some of the most iconic performances of “The Star-Spangled Banner” have been performed by African-American artists.

We would do well to remember and treasure the performances of the “Star-Spangled Banner” by Jimi Hendrix at, of all places, Woodstock, and Whitney Houston’s iconic version at Super Bowl XXV in 1991.

As I’ve written, we can’t know who we are unless we remember where we’ve been and what we’ve done.

Yes,  Francis Scott Key was a slave owner, as were many of our Founders. But they created and honored a system which could correct the most grievous of injustices and if anyone wants an apology, well, we apologized at Gettysburg. Yes, white men owned slaves but white men also freed the slaves suffering a long and horrible war to do it. As Zachary Faria notes in the Washington Examiner:

… Key, who was a slaveowner, opposed abolition but also represented slaves trying to win their freedom in court, for no charge. It turns out like many historical figures, Key was a complicated man.

The third stanza of the song also features some, at best, questionable lines. “No refuge could save the hireling and slave. From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,” could be referring to slaves literally, though Snopes pointed out that Key never specified what he meant and it could be a reference to the British Navy. Only the first stanza is ever even sung, and you’d be hard-pressed to find a handful of Americans who know any of the rest of the poem.

If you are going to replace the “Star-Spangled Banner” with anything, replace it with the “Battle Hymn Of The Republic” which not only is the ultimate anthem from the ultimate battle for social justice but acknowledges the true source of all moral authority, a God that knows no nationality or ethnicity. Cherish the words. Honor the words:

Mine eyes have seen the glory
Of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage
Where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning
Of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watchfires
Of a hundred circling camps
They have builded Him an altar
In the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence
By the dim and flaring lamps;
His day is marching on.

He has sounded forth the trumpet
That shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men
Before His judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him;
Be jubilant, my feet;
Our God is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies
Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom
That transfigures you and me;
As He died to make men holy,
Let us die to make men free;
While God is marching on.

Chorus
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

Amen.

* Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

07/6/20

We Were Soldiers

By: Garry L. Hamilton

Typical of Day One Chemo, sleeping is a losing battle. So I figured, why not a movie?

We Were Soldiers.

I watched it. Gritted my teeth. Wept.

And I wept for Joe. It hit me when he was overwhelmed by freshly showered, wide-eyed, “grown-up” emo journo clowns, stepping off the Sikorsky in a now-safe LZ with questions like “how does it feel?” and various inappropriately loaded questions. And all he could do was stare at them.

And I grasped one of the fundamentals of PTSD watching Hal Moore exhort him to tell the story and confessing his subjective guilt.

And I realized that, of all the war movies I’ve watched, two stand out as “PTSD inducing in the perceptive viewer” class of movie. Yeah, there are others, but two stand out.

The other, for me, is Saving Private Ryan.

They’re messy, shocking, unrelenting, emotionally wrenching, ultimately heroic, but with a horrific price.

The first involves people my own age. I relate way too well to them. They are the reason I did my best to sign up for something non-combat and not over there. And I understood how the active fight against communism (as a general vector, and as the actual foe in real life), while won in numbers on the ground in open combat, was lost to the embedded communists in our own society who succeeded in turning our own culture against our own soldiers, ultimately losing a war the soldiers had actually won.

It brought home my own petty “survivor’s guilt” (yes, something experienced when meeting in person those who did the fighting and the dying, realizing that I was little more than a dabbler in a life and death context) but allowed me to realize that the drive to survive is not a sin, especially when the conflict is largely a politically contrived one. Still, that’s hard to shake if you can’t bring yourself to examine it as raw fact.

The other matter is the punchline of Saving Private Ryan: “Earn this.”

Yes, it was a demand by an individual to an individual, but it can also be the exhortation of those who paid the ultimate price to those of use who would inherit the victory.

And the question one may then ask is, “have we earned it?” Followed by, “are we willing to earn it again, on our own soil if need be?”

We’re the survivors. What we have was bought by our fathers and grandfathers.

Are we willing to forfeit what they bought, accepting the sophomoric sophistry that somehow, by accepting this staggeringly expensive gift, we are de facto unworthy because [insert badly constructed Marxist argument here], and [additional Marxist slogans here] because it’s impolite to respond resolutely (and with violence if needed) against the gleeful, carefully engineered violence perpetrated against us, the heirs of those victories against the tyrannies of the moment?

Can we that easily be persuaded by specious argument that we “don’t deserve” that gift?

Is it really that easy to accept that we should just “hand it over” to the latest band of thugs simply because the thugs in question happen to have staged the battle on our own soil?

The fact that they’ve spent 60 years and billions of dollars building up to this point, infiltrating education and achieving through subterfuge what they could not through a frontal attack, does that legitimize their claim to the prosperity we built in the wake of those conflicts? Simply by slandering us all with ridiculous and entirely false accusations? By hard-selling the specious argument for “the [imaginary] sins of the father …” and therefore those of us who have committed no crime somehow owe a debt to those who have had no crime committed against them?

Against this kind of wholesale dishonesty and targeted violence, are we really ready to roll over and just give the bully what he wants?

Really?

Did we earn it?

Or didn’t our progenitors pay enough?

Yes, I know there’s a carefully constructed network of laws that, ironically, can be construed to favor the criminal in this matter, but eventually it will boil down to our cultural ethic and morality and confronting the idea that we can be fenced out of our freedoms and liberties by a tangle of lawyerly contrivances.

Have we become this soft? Are we really no longer worthy?

David Burge (Iowahawk) observed, some time back, something I call “the skin suit proposition,” to wit:

1. Target a respected institution,
2. Kill & clean it,
3. Wear it as a skin suit, while demanding respect.

And the targeted, respected institution has become the American culture as a whole.

In his observation, “kill” is metaphorical.

The metaphor is no longer the shield it was. It has morphed into a more literal proposition.

Where is the threshold? At what point do we reach the cultural equivalent of “fearing for our lives?”

Do we get there while there is still time to act, or when, finally, we are staring up at the barrel of a gun? A real one, not metaphorical?

Flip through a bit of history — the last hundred years should do — before rendering your answer.

And then contemplate, did we earn it? Are we willing to earn it again?

<< This ramble brought to you by Movies And Too Little Sleep. Enjoy. >>

07/6/20

The Source of BLM’s Super Power

By: Lloyd Marcus

Americans are not afraid of the cowardly mob of domestic terrorists known as Black Lives Matter. Thank God we hung tough in not allowing Democrats and fake news media to repeal our Second Amendment right to bear arms. Everyday Americans are scratching their heads, terrified, and livid over BLM’s extraordinary political power.

Who has gifted this anti-American racial hate group the power to destroy monuments with impunity — the power to intimidate politicians to swiftly remove monuments BLM deem offensive — the power to silence any opposition by getting people fired – the power to demand that airports, colleges and etc. be renamed – the power to demand that politicians grovel while kneeling in worship to BLM? The short answer to the source of BLM’s super-power is fake news media.

Fake news medias’ bogus reporting has corporations and politicians believing a majority of Americans are filled with white guilt and therefore support BLM and their absurd demands. Consequently, whatever BLM wants, BLM gets. Supportive and fearful corporations have given BLM $400 million to bludgeon mainstream America into surrendering to BLM’s mission to transform America into a socialist/communist nation.

Everywhere I turn, I hear extremely angry and frustrated Americans screaming for someone to begin telling BLM, “Hell No!”

I salute Mayor Ben Rozier of Bloomingdale, Georgia for kicking off the pushback by refusing the city council and BLM’s demand that he resign for his truthful post on Facebook. Mayor Rozier’s post is titled “Privilege.”

“What is privilege? … Privilege is wearing $200 sneakers when you’ve never had a job. Privilege is wearing $300 Beats headphones while living on public assistance. Privilege is having a Smartphone with a data plan which you receive no bill for.

“Privilege is living in public subsidized housing where you don’t have a water bill, where rising property taxes and rents and energy costs have absolutely no effect on the amount of food you can put on your table.

“Privilege is the ability to go march against and protest against anything that triggers you, without worry about calling out of work and the consequences that accompany such behavior.

“Privilege is having as many children as you want, regardless of your employment status, and be able to send them off to daycare or school you don’t pay for.

“Privilege is sending your kids to school early for the before school programs and breakfast, and then keeping them there for the after school program… all at no cost to you… paid for by the people who DO HAVE TO DEAL WITH RISING TAXES AND COSTS! …you know, us so-called ‘PRIVILEGED’ the ones who pay while you TAKE TAKE TAKE!”

BLM protesters’ and the Bloomingdale city council’s heads exploded over Mayor Rozier daring to state the truth. Anarchists deem speaking the truth unacceptable.

I have witnessed at first hand the truthfulness of Mayor Rozier’s post. In 1993, I resigned from my position as art department supervisor at WJZ-TV in Baltimore to pursue a career as a singer/songwriter. Shockingly, the IRS immediately hit me with a huge self-employment tax.

My cousin Tom was a lifelong drug addict and serial impregnator, causing numerous out-of-wedlock births. Tom invited me to see his new free government-funded townhouse. He also received free drugs for his addiction, along with healthcare and food stamps. I thought, “The government is actually funding this guy’s irresponsible lifestyle choices.” Tom was a black man living a privileged life. Meanwhile, the government was financially penalizing me for branching out on my own.

BLM protesters are all over the media absurdly claiming that all whites enjoy unfair white privilege and attacking them for it.

I thought about a wonderful kindly elderly white gentleman whom I will call “Pop.” With all the wicked BLM craziness going on, I will not mention his name. I learned that Pop is a beloved legend in the tiny town Mary and I moved to a few years ago.

Several months ago, when I first met ever-smiling Pop, we were outside a local store. He said, “At nine years old, I milked nine cows every morning before school and nine cows after school. My pay was $5 a week.” I thought, “I guess this guy never got the memo about his white privilege.”

Recently, I bumped into Pop at the post office. He grabbed my hand giving me a hearty handshake, “How you doin’, young man?” Pop walks in tiny baby steps. He said, “I cut four lawns this morning.” I asked, “How in the world did you find the energy to do that? Pop chuckled, “I’m only 89 years old.” This is a man who has worked hard his entire life and simply does not know any other way to live.

BLM claiming that Pop owes them and must kneel to them because of his white privilege is absurd. But most of all, BLM’s demands are evil. Everyday Americans must say, “No!” putting an end to BLM’s takeover of America immediately.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Help Lloyd Spread the Truth
https://www.trumptrainusa2020.com/ 
http://LloydMarcus.com