Rand Paul's Non-Racism

In a move that we should all have seen coming, the Left has created a major controversy from thin air to try to sink Rand Paul's image. In what I see as an attempt to get Conservatives to denounce the libertarian Paul, as opposed to the usual paradigmatic strategy of party-line division, they have falsified, misrepresented, and literally lied not only about what Rand Paul meant but also about what he actually said.


The headline on Wolf Blitzer's CNN interview with Paul stated, "Rand Paul Defends Views on Race," subtitled, "Would he have voted for 1964 Civil Rights Act?"

There is no 'dirt' on Paul; there are no closet-dwelling skeletons, no alcohol-induced scandals, and no birth certificate/college record debate. So, the logical thing to do, as a radical, Socialist Conquistador of American media and politics, is to make something up.

Sly In The Morning Blog: Rand Paul: Repeal Civil Rights Act

... "Paul might not be a racist but he's certainly making the most bigoted members of the tea bagger movement happy. Do you think any Wisconsin Republicans who claim to be tea party members will come out against Paul's purist positions?"

They are calling for Republicans and Tea Partiers to denounce him as a racist, when all he said was that (paraphrasing) he agrees with nine-tenths of the Civil Rights Act, and the part he disagrees with concerns opening the door to meddling in private businesses' affairs, which would possibly lead to shutting down the First Amendment. Like that hasn't happened.



Every arm of the media, left- and right-leaning, immediately jumped on this non-story of his non-racist views on the Civil Rights Act, saying he needed to explain himself, that he was in trouble, that he was drawing a lot of criticism. Well, he wasn't before you said he was.

And, in the end, it all goes back to the cult of racism in America, which they will never let die. Perpetuating the focus on multiple races negates the idea of the 'melting pot' of America. Why can't we become colorblind? Why can't America be defined by its borders, rather than the skin color of its citizens? Why must the Civil Rights Act be the rallying cry of Collectivism instead of Individualism?

More on this to come, I'm sure.

The Rise of La Raza de Aztlan in America

(A quick reminder to the researchers among us that you may double-click on any word or group of words on this for an automatic reference guide. Check it out.)

La Raza is a Mexican term that means "the Race"; "Aztlan" is a Mexican term that denotes the land Mexico claimed and lost to the U.S. during the Mexican-American War in the Mexican Cession, which was an area that ranged from northern California eastward to western Kansas, and southward to the northernmost parts of present-day Mexico, the cession of which basically formed the border we have today.

It is from this cession that come the modern claims that America 'stole' the Southwest from Mexico. Actually, Mexico only claimed this area, and had but a few forts, which were, in fact, outposts of an occupying force on Indian land. If there was any 'theft' afoot, it was the Mexican theft of Native American property. If you want to open the brass tacks box, Spain, France, and the Pope all claimed the area at one time or another, and I think Vatican City has as much of a case as Mexico does.

That said...

(I think I caught brief swearing, so be forewarned.)


(I cannot post the actual trailer, as it is rather disgusting.)


This is all about to boil over into something pretty horrible, I am convinced.

I have nothing against Mexicans, but I have a problem with Mexicans who have something against me. If you want to be an American and legal, I want you here, but if you want to be a Mexican, you already have a defined territory. I'm not an invader, I was born here. Eighty percent of Mexicans are of European ancestry, but only sixty-two percent of Americans are of European ancestry. Who is the 'nation of immigrants'?

Please, we just don't need a race war. We are all of the human race, and we need to respect our individual and national sovereignty.

More to come.

Of Men and Apes

I was always amazed at George Bush's resemblance to a chimpanzee, especially during his earlier years as governor of Texas.

Even Democrats noticed and mentioned it.

Someone went so far as to make a shirt that shows the similarities.

Now, we have another President-Primate lookalike, though a little more specific this time.

I hadn't noticed before a few months ago, when it was brought to my attention by a news story of a man being labeled a "racist" for making these shirts:

There were demonstrations and protests outside the man's business, because he was selling these shirts. The creator of the shirts said, "Look at him . . . the hairline, the ears — he looks just like Curious George."

Why is it wrong to make the Obama/Curious George comparison, but not to make the Bush/Chimp comparison?

Let's put this into better perspective:

"Man 'A' looks like a monkey."

"Man 'B' looks like a monkey."

Which statement is objectionable? Neither?

Now, let's add a little more information.

"Man 'A' is a Republican, and he looks like a monkey."

"Man 'B' is a Democrat, and he looks like a monkey."

Anything objectionable yet?

Let's continue.

"Man 'A' is from Texas, and he looks like a monkey."

"Man 'B' is from Illinois, and he looks like a monkey."

Objection, anyone?

Continuing.

"Man 'A' speaks with a "Texan" accent, and he looks like a monkey."

"Man 'B' speaks with a "Northern" accent, and he looks like a monkey."

Still no complaints?

"Man 'A' has served as President, and he looks like a monkey."

"Man 'B' will serve as President, and he looks like a monkey."

The silence is deafening.

One last thing...

"Man 'A' has a light-skinned mother and a light-skinned father, and he looks like a monkey."

"Man 'B' has a light-skinned mother and a dark-skinned father, and he looks like a monkey."

"RACIST!!!"

Why? Would this have anything to do with the differing amounts of melanin in the skin of man "A" and the skin of man "B"?

Their politics, states of origin, speech patterns, and public offices had no bearing on anybody's opinion, only their skin tone. I guess we haven't gotten past our "racism" after all.

But, it isn't about "race"(as they like to call it), only those who do not understand ideology and politics worry about a person's skin color.

I don't look at Obama and think "black", I think about his ideology and politics.

I don't look at Bush and think "white", I think about his ideology and politics.

But, I still don't know what to do with this one:

Strange world.