Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
I rarely listen to Glen Beck but I love Jesse Lee Peterson. If you don't know who Mr. Peterson is, let me introduce you to the boldest, most honest black American fighting to bring change to other black Americans. In honor of Black History month, I am thankful for Jesse Lee Peterson and his work.
NOTE: Look for another interesting article in honor of Black History month on the "Curse of Canaan (a black man)" next week. Don't miss it.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
A YouTube poster using the name TheShark642 posted a few videos from the Super Bowl about the nasty police and shocking rights violations. Throughout the video, the cameraman displays the most inept, constitutional understanding imaginable. I mean this guy is gutter ignorant. All of them were like Rainman, in meltdown phase. Go to YouTube and search TheShark642 and look for the title “Occupy the Super Bowl.” Watch the whole series and just listen to the man and his friends.
The guy behind the camera can be heard uttering prophecies (on a different video) about his fellow comrade prancing in the middle of the road and his anticipated arrest. So what is his response? Fu** it! Spoken like a true anarchical fool. Instead of warning his buddy to get back on the sidewalk and stop walking in the middle of the street, he let him continue on. Their own video footage indicts him in the crime he was presumably arrested for.
No one else protests in the middle of the street. You will not find pro-life activists waving large signs as they stand or walk in the middle of the road. In fact, there is an existing federal law that applies only to obstructing traffic into and out of abortion clinics. In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Freedom of Access to Clinic Accesses (FACE) which forbids force or the use of force (both were already crimes), and physical obstruction. How is that for equal application of the law?
In regard to their claim of unequal application of law, from Black’s Law Dictionary:
"equal protection. (1866) The 14th Amendment guarantee that the government must treat a person or class of persons the same as it treats other persons or classes in like circumstances. ● In today's constitutional jurisprudence, equal protection means that legislation that discriminates must have a rational basis for doing so. And if the legislation affects a fundamental right (such as the right to vote) or involves a suspect classification (such as race), it is unconstitutional unless it can withstand strict scrutiny"
What the equal protection clause does not require is that all people be handled in the same way by the government, and the police specifically in this case (Baxtrom v. Herold). In fact, it is impossible to provide equal protection against the violation of the law (Skousen 1985) and that is exactly the position these protesters found themselves in. Their claim of disparate application of the law on the grounds that others were also walking in the street without enforcement actions does not hold water.
If ten people are committing the same crime, police DO NOT have to arrest all ten offenders for the sake of equal application of the law. They can choose to arrest just three. But, they MUST use the same procedure and processes for those that are actually arrested. They need to also articulate that the criminal enforcement was not just arbitrarily applied or enforced but that there was a compelling reason for the government agents to interfere with their fundamental right to the freedom of speech.
The video footage clearly shows that the offender was not on equal footing when it came to his actions; he was doing something no other person was doing; walking around in the road and protesting with a large wavy banner. If he had been walking in the street, drinking beer (like the video commentator was childishly yelling about) this man would not have been arrested.
I can think of a number of reasons for not permitting the offender to continue to protest as he was. In the same way that a Christian’s liberty can cross the line into sin, so to can constitutional freedoms cross the line into crime. These folks want us to accept their behaviors as a form of freedom just like the degenerate wants us to accept his incestuous relationship as an acceptable form of liberty.
This fruit looper stepped outside the limits of liberty and committed a crime (even if only minor). The governments’ actions did what they were intended to do, and with the ample video footage provided on the offenders’ behalf on YouTube, it also seems likely that no reasonable alternative was available to achieve those governmental objectives. Therefore, his arrest is just.
Did you also see in the video where he tried to go to when he realized the police were coming for him? He went exactly where he should have been all along, on the sidewalk. He knew what he was doing, and he knew he was in violation of the law. Remember, his camera buddy even acknowledged, in another video clip, that he was going to get arrested; but thought it was cool.
They obviously did not have a well reasoned purpose for doing what they did. They, like their anarchical buddies’, desire one thing and one thing only: defy the law and push their strange behavior to the limits and encroach on the tranquility of others. We the people do not matter to them. If they were not OWS protesters, they would latch onto some other cause. Why? Because their real objectives can be delivered through any social cause; this time it just happens to be…well I have forgotten what the Wall Street Occupiers are protesting.
My amnesia aside, these people are lawless in their thinking and desire unrestrained illicitness through the manipulation of the constitution and our governments’ legal processes. These people are predatory in nature and again, do not care about the rights of the rest of us citizens. Peaceable assembly does not register in their dementedly wired brains. They were disorderly, annoying and not particularly family friendly. I realize that a family could have chosen to leave the Super Bowl activities if they did not want to be bothered by this group, but, is that what the first amendment is for, to legally annoy fellow citizens (that had nothing to do with the petitioned wrong) and make them to chose another course It certainly is not! That is a perversion of the constitution, not a honoring application.
I am highly supportive of public protests, freedom of speech, and the right to peaceably assemble. I even support the very controversial protest tactics like protesting at the actual homes of abortionists. But, we protesters also have a responsibility, a commitment to our fellow citizens that we work, live, and eat along side. We must be prudent in our tactics and strategies; cautiously considering who the offender and focus of our protest is and addressing them directly, and lawfully. The OWS protesters at the Super Bowl did neither.
With the exception of a few instances, they are just babbling idiots with no direction other than “let’s be jack assess” and see if we can litigate someone for a rights violation. The OWS protesters know parts of the constitution, but do not have the morals to apply that constitution. They are anarchical, immoral, antagonists, who do not respect the constitution or the rule of law; rather they exploit, and rip it down. If you abuse the constitution enough, you can kill it. The OWS, left wing, low life's would love nothing better than to see America destroyed.
End Note: Take look at the other videos posted by TheShark642. They offer video descriptions like: “contest with the pig”, and the fashionable “Fu** the police”. They are disturbed outcasts, the whole ten of them. They kind of remind of the Westboro Baptist Dumb’uns.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Yesterday marked the beginning of Black History Month 2012. This year's Association for the Study of African American Life and History announced theme is Black Women in American Culture and History. But, since I am not much for feel good political correctness I am going to color outside of the lines on this one.
Ota Benga was a little guy at just under 5 foot. He was born into the indigenous Mbuti group of the Congo region in Africa. He was not without some strangeness for our cultural tastes no doubt. That aside, he was an old school, nature loving, wild animal hunting, tribesman. But, more than anything, he was a man. A man created in the image of God, sharing his unique oneness with his wife and children. Instead of being honored as such, he was made to submit to the forceful, survival of the fittest, doctrine of slavers.
One day, while out hunting in the wild, Benga, having left his wife and children behind in their village, learned upon his return that his entire family had been murdered along with other villagers. With little time to mourn, Benga was kidnapped and enslaved by his families murdering agents. This was the beginning of series of degrading, demoralizing, and fatal events in the life of Ota Benga.
In 1906, Ota Benga was put on display at the Bronx Zoo. Although he was permitted to move about within the zoological complex, his display area was inside the monkey house-mingling with the monkeys. People were mesmerized by the notion of a real life example of discarded human evolution trash, right in their own backyard. Tens of thousands of visitors over the course of Benga's stay all taking their turn laughing, ridiculing, and dehumanizing him as the result of blind, evolutionary development; searing emotional pain that Ota would never shake. Although he would later receive Christian influences, the constant pain and increasing despondency were too much for his mind to handle. Ota Benga killed himself with a handgun; survival of the fittest soaked in innocent blood.
Fortunately for the evolutionist, the worthless, trash that was Ota Benga was no longer needed; a higher level of primates had already evolved. But, for the ignorant people known as creationist Christians, Ota Benga was a tragic loss. Not only in his death, but his tormented soul at the hands of humanistic evolutionist who brutalized Ota because of their shared hatred of Jesus.
"The Darwinian Theory is absolutely opposed to Christianity [and] we are worthy of being considered human beings", clergyman James Gordon cried out against the propagation of evolution and the display of a human being as evidence. But, not all Christians did the same.
What is the difference between evolutionist that have advocated criminal slavery and the Christians that not only advocated it but invoked the bible to justify it? Well, let me ask you a question: which philosophy of life steered the slave abolition movement, evolution or creationism (Christianity)? Who was it that risked their lives, families, friendships, jobs, reputations, personal belongings, and freedoms to stand in the gap between slavers and the men, women, and children that lorded over them in the cruelest ways? It was not the philosophy of evolution that ended slavery; it was the philosophy of creationism- creationism that recognizes the inherent value of every single person because they are created in the image of God through His ordained natural processes. Some Christians were dreadful offenders; stripping their fellow man of his rightful status. But, Christianity never once turned on those enslaved.
The western world has followed the Christian course, not the evolutionary way when it comes to slavery. Christians, when found to be wrong, repent and adjust their ignorance. Evolution has no such justification for correction. “I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents” write C.S. Lewis. Ota Benga was no accident in a sequence of blind accidents. He was and is man.