Is it possible “Not” to offend?

In today’s business and political climate, you are going to take crap for things you take part in, much less for things you feel strongly about? In today’s world are businesses allowed to choose what clients they wish to grant service to or not?

Let the consumer be ware; and so let the consumer decide through the use of free will and choice, if necessary, to choose another service provider to their liking.

For example:

Does a restaurateur have the right to deny services to somebody for whatever reason? Do certain restaurateurs have the right to only hire women and expect these women to dress in revealing clothing as part of company policy and marketing plan? Isn’t this gender discrimination, or what some would say exploitation? Not that there is anything wrong with Hooters, but it makes a good example of that last question. Is a policy of “no shoes, no shirt, no service”, too much?

Does an advertising agency if asked to make a commercial, (for lets say) a pro-life organization, or if they are asked by a politician with a political philosophy that they don’t agree with, can they refuse service and decline the client’s patronage?

Should people who practice the religion of Islam refuse to handle alcohol or any pork products? Should the practice of allowing businesses who advertise kosher food handling and kosher foods, be forced to be more inclusive of other religion and their practices according to the customer’s religious guidelines?

Does the company that produces M&Ms have the right to refuse to print a logo, or a saying, on a client’s order for custom candy, M&Ms, or do they have the right to refuse such order on the bases according to some company policy, or philosophy, or even politics? Who sets the company policy and or philosophy, or politics, in that culture? Are company’s or corporation’s silently also in the business of changing society’s excepted popular beliefs or moral standings?

Not to exaggerate to any great level of being ridicules, but every point made has a story or a lawsuit behind the asking of these questions; except those points with regards to “Kosher foods”. But asking the hard questions sometimes requires exaggeration, it can help drive points home or develop new thought…

If you are running a business in today’s political climate, you better be aware of how your reactions could affect your business. Even how you react to the folks who “bother you”—regardless of the reason—it is just as important to your business as how you may react to your ideal customer. Both deserve courtesy and mutual respect. But this doesn’t mean that you have to leave your beliefs or how you choose to live your life at home, completely separated, because you’re in business.

Jack Phillips, 57, refused to bake a wedding cake for Denver residents David Mullins, 29, and Charlie Craig, 34 – despite it being claimed he was happy to make one for two dogs.

The couple sued him and won in a landmark case, which saw the Colorado Civil Rights Commission unanimously declare free speech and business should be separate.

Jack Phillips said “If it’s just a birthday, I have no problem with that. My issue is that I don’t want to be forced to participate in a same-sex wedding.”

He lost the Gay discrimination case brought against him and his business. The case seems to say you can’t discriminate while we use the court system to legally “discriminate” against your particular values. Because we all live in the real world of a free market system that says, you have the right to go elsewhere, to the competition if you must, to spend your money in exchange for services rendered. Why was this even a case?

Why wasn’t this case just thrown out then? Why would one individual with curtain beliefs be compelled to comply or suffer economic consequences, at the request of another group and their beliefs?

Is this a type of bullying?

Is that a type of modern-day slavery? Demanding that one person perform services against their own free-will, and to the likes of another?

There are those who would compare Gay-rights to Civil-right, but do they compare? Both claim to be born into their existence. But scientifically only one between the two has an element of personal choice. There has never been any person of color that has chosen to be some other color and by choice alone, then changed. There has been however lots of claims by people that they made a choice in being Gay or becoming straight.

Who among us has the right to empower ourselves with more power, demanding more human rights, while trampling other people’s human right, or the ability to follow their religious consciences. In following any religious convictions there should be only one rule—anything goes providing others aren’t hurt or endangered by them.

Isn’t that the essence of having freedom to worship, freedom of religion, and the separation-of-church and state?

This case isn’t really over sour grapes and wedding cake. It is the first shots fired in the war against religious beliefs, asking government to support and choose between, those who would rather install their religion of non-belief over those who claim any belief in God. Regardless what religion that seems to be for the moment. Christians seem to be fair game in going after, while no one ever questions why Gay rights activists never seem to ever go after Islam—a religion that doesn’t even recognize or has any willingness to embrace any love for Gay people.

So I will ask again. In today’s world are businesses allowed to choose what clients they wish to grant service to, or should that choice only be granted to anything but religious beliefs?

There used to be some expectations in general for everyone to be respectful of everyone they come in contact with in public. Remember when business owners had the right of refusal—“No shoes, no shirt, no service”? Back then, there were more expected freedoms, if offended in having to wear shoes or a shirt we could have just as easily gone out and created a business that catered to the shoeless and shirtless clientele. It’s all in the exercise of free choice. Because when a person is changed against their will, they’ll remain of the same opinion still.

Rather than fighting any wars in court between the religious and those who claim to be non-religious affiliated, we should all see there are economical missed opportunities here. Perhaps there is more room in the market place for a gay baker willing to bake cake for anyone or for any services, then there is for any bullying attempt to destroy people and their businesses through the power of the government, that practice a religion that you disagree with.

The best thing about a free market system is that system will all on its own allow for success and failure, by allowing individual’s to choose for themselves which business they will support, what products they will buy, what particular specialty products they which to have and desire for their money.

Government loves cases like this; it weakens everyone’s liberty, by weakening religious liberty. You may feel all safe and secure claiming no religion, having no religious beliefs, holding steadfast to a non-religious belief systems; but in the end it takes the same level of faith to believe in something, as it does to develop an non-belief in that same thing; so all liberty for everyone is affected by government involvement just the same with this issue.

Because people create businesses or corporation’s it’s only natural for those same businesses and corporation’s to be run according to individuals and their beliefs. If there is no business to provide your particular requested services, to your standards—seize the capitalist opportunity and service that market. That way competition will decide. Because if a government is powerful enough to grant you everything, it is also powerful enough to at some point take everything from you.

Unintended consequences have a way of destroying perfectly good but not particularly well thought-out dreams. When you throw the government into the mix, and when they’re perfect by batting 1000, giving a 100% guarantee that unintended consequences will multiply, liberty and common sense slowly erodes away.

Baker who lost gay discrimination case will stop making wedding cakes http://dailym.ai/1ucJHOD via @MailOnline

The Reason M&Ms Refused To Sell To A Knife Rights Group Is PC …

www.ijreview.com/…44169-mms-refuses-custom-candy…

Advertisements

Burning candles in the wind—GOP eroding faith

To those of you who believe in a government made of two parties with separate and different ideas and principles; that at their core they are supposed to also get along with each other, to compromise values and principles for the sake of getting things done? You are living in a dream. That is no government that represents different segments of society, beliefs systems, political views, or even states issues. It is akin to why we fought the revolutionary war in the first place– to rid ourselves of a KING and allow for the greatest amount of liberty for all, given to us by GOD!

“Let’s have a new first party – a Republican Party – raising a banner of bold colors, no pale pastels. A banner instantly recognizable as standing for certain values which will not be compromised.” – Ronald Reagan, 1975

“While I myself am a registered conservative, I look to the Republican Party as the closest representative of conservative values in American politics. Overtime, that appears to be fading. Sometimes I look at Washington lately and I wonder.”– Quote Shawn Hannity

It seems that there is a policy gripping the electorate of today that is inspiring the belief, “You must go along in order to get along”. This kind of policy is completely at odds with freedom and liberty. It hands over all control to few people with like-minded views. A command and control style of government, after all who will determine the “get along” part and enforce the “must go along part” if not a King like power?

To the liberal mind the use of government in their favor isn’t forced control, so it isn’t seen as some forced compliance to a power. At the same time they would use the systems of liberty and freedom, free speech and alike to gain power. Once in power though those tools are no longer useful and become too dangerous to be allowed.

Republicans at their core should be opposed to such governing. They should present bold arguments to the people so they are able to look at the contrasts, the differences between these two political standards. Instead they see short-term political successes and lust after that success. They are willing to forfeit their bold colors to duplicate that success for themselves by following the Democrats advice and models. For the GOP this demonstrates that they have lost faith in their founding principles. They see power slipping away from them and so embrace the “political life-line” made of smoke in a failed attempt to rescue themselves from losing sight and faith in liberty and GOD given rights. The GOP is willing to slit their wrists, by watered down policies they embrace and birthing version of the Democrat policies as their own. As the republican self-inflicted suicidal wounds bleed potential votes they don’t even see liberty fading away and the need to protect it by standing in the way of Democratic managed decay.

Where are the leaders of tomorrow that prize lady liberty, who would be sworn to protect her, not for personal benefits, but for future ones?? Who will boldly point towards the Democrat policies, deceptions, manipulations, and corruptions that represent virtually every antithesis of the conservative principles: Big government, lack of freedom, invasion of privacy, increased taxes, harms businesses, higher costs with worse results, more government dependency, less innovation, more regulations.

Is it possible to distinguish one party from the other. Like two bold colored candles burning together, slowly melting into one. though their rhetoric seems partisan and different it is drowned out by deceitful actions that are nearly impossible to discern one from the other. With the melting of those two candles one light is being extinguished as they melt into the same pot of power. No longer two separated ideas with their own principles willing to stand firm for what they believe in.

I call out to the Republican party first and then to the rest of you, what man or women is going to allow lady liberty to be turned into some whore of tyranny; who of you would hand to their future kids the principles of compromising national security by refusing to defend liberty politically here at home? Who of you are counting on renewed leadership between the melting pot of leaders of today and those mythical future leaders you all point to in hope of finding “them” that would lead rather than to cower in the shadows?

So what are you going to do about it?

Sugar plumbs terrorists, strawberries, and $59 per gallon green jet fuel.

I thought that “the sequester” was going to end the economy as we all know it? When the White House ended the tours, it was just proof positive of that fact. Then there were stories of hungry people, some 700,000 that would not be getting their SNAP benefits. That’s right again, do to the sequester? I suppose record numbers of people on the government dole isn’t something to take notice of until you have a little thing called the “SEQUESTER”?

Despite the sequester, a designed plan brought to everyone by the president and his democratic steeple. The manipulative presentations of the sequester is never a talking point about slowing the rate of spending? But a magnification of impending doom? A presentation of a biblical disaster to all humanity? Because the idea was hatched in the minds of men, and is presented as a disastrous calamity that will negatively affect human life, will it also qualify as a work place disaster or an economical terrorist attack? Lets not go to extremes. The sequester is not a reduction! It is a slowing of the rate of government’s spending growth. Even so, if the sequester was a reduction in government spending, what they are telling us is that they can’t find 3% worth of waste in the budget? Not even to avoid impending doom?

Come on people, look harder! What did the president say…”You in government were sent to Washington to make the difficult choices!”

How long will the people allow these sleeper cells of economical terror to exist in government, who have the intent of setting off avalanches of wasteful fantasies wrapped in one crises to the next, only solved by increasing taxes?

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel recently warned that sequestration would cause “suspension of important activities, curtailed training, and could result in furloughs of civilian personnel” but the spending cuts haven’t killed the green fuels program, as the Pentagon has continued purchasing renewable fuel at $59 per gallon.

Well the sequester didn’t kill the green energy industry? We already had a 90 billion dollar waste on green energy that could have kept the white house tours going indefinitely. Honestly green jet fuels, at a cost of $59 per gallon, is reasonable, and economical? If we could squeeze $58 per gallon jet fuel out of aborted babies would that be a good policy to pursue? Why is $59 per gallon jet fuel reasonable, no matter how it is made? How is that worth a way word thought in the minds of idiots, net alone, have a snowball’s chance in hell getting past the mighty, all-powerful, evil sequester that will starve a nation? That policy produced by evil politician to cause starvation of 700,000 people (presumed to be kids none the less) some how this is a bargain in choosing $59 jet fuel, in weighing out the consequences between the lesser of two evils?

Do you thing the negotiations when like this…we have 700,000 people we could feed, or we can buy this crazy good green energy jet fuel? Because green energy is the future–what will the vote be and who is going to break the bad news to the people of America?

I know it is an over simplification of negotiations devoid of common sense! But some times it takes recklessness in pointing out the retarded mind numb in government!

With all of the injustice caused by the sequester, how did the green energy policies escape the grim reaper of modern economy’s? Please explain to me… when our existence was transformed to the realities of the “Mad Max” movie, to justify the extreme costs of green energy? Because certainly, even in the Mad Max movie–a world that ran out of oil, would have thought of $59 per gallon as too high a price to pay for fuel?

Shouldn’t government be spending money on inventing the “Back to the future Delorean   car”, at least that ran on garbage, and think of it as just as green energy worthy in saving the planet. If you don think so, you need to spend some more time at a land fill. Just saying the Delorean is better then the Mad Max world.

But then using this movie example, look to what kind of life we all have to look forward to in the future, if green energy sponsored by the retarded idiots of government has their way? If this is the cost of green energy today, what will the cost of a ripe red strawberry be in February? Because we know they’re out of growing season and flown in from some distant land on a jet today?

It seems government choices are never in favor of doing something good for 100% of the people 100% of the time? That would require too much common sense, something that was outlawed several sequesters ago.

Despite sequester, DOD signs contract for $59/gallon green jet fuel http://bit.ly/ZC5n9L#.UYPJp9Lu9OI.twitter via @DCExaminer

Chris Matthews’ Sunday program, The Chris Matthews Show has been cancelled.

Chris Matthews’ Sunday program, The Chris Matthews Show has been cancelled.

Chris Matthews wasn’t a great talent on MSNBC, but resembled a manure-spreader of political thought.

In what other media described as the “long running show,” was little more than NBC throwing lots of crap against the wall, hoping it would stick.

Negative politics are like that. A crap happy type of person that throws crap for a living, then ducks the truth, and dodges facts in their reporting, as their personal effort in wear less crap on their suit at the end of the day seems to be the game within political theater. A theater where Chris Matthews lived, but then pigs like to wallow in the muck, and Matthews seemed happiest when he was up to his lower lip in muck making waves in the hope in dimming the light of truth.

It was bound to happen though. Finley media has come to its senses by pushing Chris aside, and hopefully replacing him with a more truthful talent or a more entertaining show at the least? Have they finely realized that the truth has no agenda? Or am I just dreaming here? Something Chris seemed to never fully understand, but then you can’t blame an animal that hasn’t evolved yet. After all he felt a tingling feeling running up his leg when Mr. Obama was elected. With closer examination, he would have realized that he was tinkling on an electric fence within the political theater he lives. Now that the animal has left the barn it is time to close the barn door.”The final episode will run on July 21 to a viewership of…Chris Matthews’ TiVo.”

Chris Matthews Show Cancelled http://theblacksphere.net/2013/05/chris-matthews-show-cancelled/ via @Theblacksphere

Too mooch, or not to mooch! (Obama-nomics; chief designer of “Pimp my pantry”)

Wrenching a world apart with failed political policies, leaving people pointing finger at each other calling names, “Well you’re a taker, and I’m a maker.” one side calls out.

The other side responds, “No you’re a greedy rich person, and we are the people in need!”

This is where the people of this once great nation have ended up after Obama-nomics?  Once people came to this nation only wanting an equal opportunity. Now they come hoping for an un-equaled amount of handouts, while taking their time to find some personal footing. Can you blame the people? I blame the politicians! After all we the America people, have come to know this America, through the eyes of the rest of the poor world, now flooding into this nation looking for charity, if not demanding it.

At least through the distorted view of the liberal government official, that also sees the world differently out of their own guilt, paints a picture of national guilt, accusing the nation of not wanting to help people in need as their guilty manipulation. A means to grab even more power for themselves by brow beating people into feeling guilty of their accomplishments, or just being guilty for having been born an American.

What is the point of having lines on paper representing boarders, If the politicians of the day (the gate keepers) selectively choose wether or not to enforce the laws, or even locking the gates?

There used to be a requirement in order to be able to enter the country as a permanent immigrant. Today to use the term “Illegal alien” is cruel, inhuman. The progressives and the proper political correctness have created terms to be used with people who break the law in coming to America. The proper term now is “Illegal immigrant”. To lessen the personal pain of the criminal immigrant for breaking the law, or to cause guilty feelings of the rest of the American people, because of their immigrant heritage? Immigrants of the past used to come here offering skills and looking to exchange those skills for equal free opportunity’s. Today a good portion of immigrants are offering little skill other than a potential democratic vote, for all of the free stuff they can haul away in those hands of opportunity.

I mean, what would you do if you came home from work and found 20 people in your living room and you didn’t know where they came from despite the law of the land? When you complained about the problem, you only discovered that those laws on the books were only selectively enforced. When you complained some more about the added costs you were experiencing, you were deemed as a greedy bastard. The political correct view, of you, Joe Blow Citizen seems to be, a hater of poor people.

Under Obama life isn’t too far from that. Speaking to power and telling them that we are broke, out of money and adding too much debt to the national balance sheet. Just goes un-heard, or worse ignored? They (The powerful in government) respond with. “What? We are the richest nation on earth, because of that  we need to help the poor!”

In fact I have never known a single so-called rich person, or a nation, past or present, that has also given away their riches faster and faster than their incomes, then borrowed even more money and they still some how remained the status of being “Rich”, nor have they no matter how well-intentioned ever reduced the needs of the poor.

Since 1963, the year the policy “The war on poverty” was conceived, American politicians have spent 16 trillion dollars on helping the poor, hoping to reduce poverty in America. Today we have a national debt of the same, with an even larger segment of the population needing help from the government. It is clear, government policies create dependency. This in a nation that celebrates on the 4th of July–“Independence”! Go figure.

What is more upsetting then poor people’s needs, legal or illegal, is the politicization of misconstrued facts. I’m trying to be nicer and kinder these days so I used “Misconstrued” instead of “flat-out liars about the facts”! Mr. Obama closed down the White house tours, and blamed the sequester, then followed up with delay’s of air traffic. Making sure that comfortable delays would be realized by the traveler as a gift of the furloughed air traffic controllers in major cities. Totally leaving the Washington DC air traffic unhampered, unaffected, controllers un-furloughed. who’d a thought? It shows that this president is willing to hurt the American people and the economy, for political points, for the sake of winning unreasonable, unpopular, manipulated political arguments.

After all it is only the rich who travel, and they can afford some pain to help the poor, right?

With all of this going around the various news agencies, where is the news on the “Food stamp recruiters” trying to give away the last bit of money left in the treasury before the American people truly realize that government is truly the enemy of the people and any of the people’s wealth? Yes that’s right, food stamp recruiters trying to get people to sign up for what is termed— as their benefits that their entitled to. So these stamp recruiters have been seen around the golf courses in Florida recruiting retired people. Honestly people who play golf don’t need food stamps!  With the sequester in place, where are these programs getting their money from, not only for the food give aways but also to pay the recruiters, when we supposedly can’t even pay air traffic controllers?

Yep! You get the picture all right. Mr. Obama couldn’t manage himself out of a wet paper bag, facts are, in truth he is the mismanage-er-in-chief. He and he alone is the chief designer of “Pimp my pantry” with all of the free food giveaway’s. Why are these well-intentioned programs also being abused by people? Why can they use their benefits at their local strip clubs/bars, casinos, or even selling their stamps on-line so they could use the money on who knows what? Why is it a cruel abuse, to denied a poor person the ability’s of seeing a nude women, when that money should have bought food and diapers for their kids? Why can they do this without prosecutions? Call it, the Obama bucks give away! Much like the Obama phones of yesterday. Now who’s guilty of being “Greedy”?

But the richest nation on earth isn’t out of money, until the redistribution of the term “rich” is complete? Of course there will still be rich people here in the good old USA, in fact more than the rest of the world? It is just re-applying the term rich to people who will have a lot less wealth after Obama is through. So what happens to the poor people of the world? Will the term “Poor” be massaged into a new term less demeaning? Will poor people go the way of the dinosaur? Will poor people still be making their demands of the socialists of the world until wealth is totally destroyed, and misery is the new equally?

It seems when the value of money is destroyed, political clout, such as food stamps, will become the new unit of exchange to be used?

When the American people realize that they can vote into office people that will benefit themselves without having to make a reasonable effort for themselves; that is when the spark of freedom will have been extinguished, and mob rule will replace rule of law.

“The fastest way to destroy your enemy in a modern world, with less cost then fighting a war, is controlling the food supply! Every nation will fall when the people demand more food then supply’s exist.” paraphrased from a speech that Henry Kissinger gave at the end of the Vietnam war. The same applies to when a government gives food away; who’s going to receive that benefits and then vote to end that policy? Do these people realize that they are selling their freedoms of tomorrow?

Moocher Nation: Paid Food Stamp Recruiters – 620 WTMJ … http://www.620wtmj.com/blogs/charliesykes/204649971

Florida, other states, hires recruiters to sign up food stamps – UPI.com http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2013/04/25/Florida-other-states-hire-recruiters-to-sign-up-food-stamps/UPI-30891366869297/

Fla. bill would ban using food stamps for stripper, casino tabs … http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/03/16/fla-bill-would-ban-using-food-stamps-for-stripper-casino-tabs-55875

Should middle schools be teaching lesbian kissing??

News report from; Red Hook N.Y.

Parents of children attending a Red Hook, N.Y., middle school are outraged after a recent anti-bullying presentation at Linden Avenue Middle School.

The workshop for 13- and 14-year-old girls focused on homosexuality and gender identity. They were also taught words such as “pansexual” and “genderqueer.”

Parents say their daughters were told to ask one another for a kiss, and they say two girls were told to stand in front of the class and pretend they were lesbians on a date.

Middle School Girls Told to Ask for Lesbian Kiss During Class http://www.charismanews.com/culture/39237-middle-school-girls-told-to-ask-for-lesbian-kiss-during-class via @sharethis

Why was this only reportedly for 13-and 14-year-old girls, why not the boys as well? Not that we support such behaviors in a public school system as part of a well-rounded education. If this is the kind of thing to support within our school systems, shouldn’t we also be supportive of gay students acting as if they were straight, telling them in a class room setting to kiss the opposite sex? Would that be over the top, or cruel? Is this what passes for a good education? What does this kind of instruction really do for these young minds?

Can someone be taught a sexual orientation, or is it just a complex interplay of genetic factors? If we were to except that there is a genetic factor to what defines a person’s sexual orientation; then this kind of class room education, as was done in the Red Hook N.Y middle school would be cruel, unusual, insulting, demeaning, to those school age girls that wouldn’t be genetically predisposed to such orientation. If there could be a factor that sexual orientation is learned, instead of being genetic, then what was this school thinking with the exercise? Is it a schools responsibility to produce more of a certain type of people sexually, or just to provide a well-rounded education to all types of people regardless of sexual orientation?

Even in that bastion of liberalism “California” They have “Ban Therapies That Try to Turn Gay People Straight”. Why any schools would then try to turn “Straight People Gay”, with lessens that resemble sexual experimentation on young impressionable minds?

California to Ban Therapies That Try to Turn Gay People Straight http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/05/08/california-to-ban-therapies-that-try-to-turn-gay-people-straight/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share%20Buttons

It simply is amazing that these days young girls can without parental guidance; get free birth control, and abortions services. But can’t bring aspirin to school, can’t sign a contract to buy a car or rent an apartment…and so on. They can’t get married without parental permission, but society supports if a mistake is made, welfare services for expectant mothers whether they are living at home or not. Schools are becoming a place where parents are forced to send their kids, to receive an orientation that undermines the family structure, religious value systems or even morals. A far cry from what was intended to be a public education, an education that would consist of reading, writing, arithmetic, and sciences…ect. To now day’s what has become, “Sexual Social Design”, through a social engineering within the liberal-mind set. Freedom of choice, individual or otherwise isn’t an option with liberal policies. Unless people start to defend their rights and demand a change, this will become the standards in the future, or worse!

Is the term (the Power of Whiteness) racist?

In a recent posting or article this person tries to make a case that racism plays a part in the Boston bombings of some kind? But when we allow ourselves to only see people as small groups, or paint people into them, we become separated from being an effective tool to enact change in our surroundings. Let’s not confuse ourselves with facts of history, that racism did exist, still exists to some extent, but society has indeed made great strides in changing it. Not to recognize this, is to be somewhat closed-minded. Changing people doesn’t happen at a snap of ones fingers. It is also just as closed-minded to want more change to take place, when everyone on all sides have allowed themselves to act in a way that could be seen by the other group as being a kind of watered down racism. Anyone who makes judgments based on colors of individuals is not making judgments based on the content of character. So to Tim Wise article, this is what he wrote…

Terrorism and Privilege:

Understanding

the Power of Whiteness

By Tim Wise

 As the nation weeps for the victims of the horrific bombing in Boston yesterday, one searches for lessons amid the carnage, and finds few. That violence is unacceptable stands out as one, sure. That hatred — for humanity, for life, or whatever else might have animated the bomber or bombers — is never the source of constructive human action seems like a reasonably close second.

But I dare say there is more; a much less obvious and far more uncomfortable lesson, which many are loathe to learn, but which an event such as this makes readily apparent, and which we must acknowledge, no matter how painful.

He goes on to say. “It is a lesson about race, about whiteness, and specifically, about white privilege.”

1)     Does this sound like a person that sees people, all people in the same way, free from the view of color and from the judgments thereof? Where is the open-mindedness to allow  self to judge the content of character when people have been per-boxed into colored groups? He goes on to point out a list of white criminals to make some point that radical white    people have done evil things in the name of some flawed ideology.

White privilege is knowing that if the bomber turns out to be white, he or she will be viewed as an exception to an otherwise non-white rule, an aberration, an anomaly, and that he or she will be able to join the ranks of Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols and Ted Kaczynski and Eric Rudolph and Joe Stack and George Metesky and Byron De La Beckwith and Bobby Frank Cherry and Thomas Blanton and Herman Frank Cash and Robert Chambliss and James von Brunn and Robert Mathews and David Lane and Michael F. Griffin and Paul Hill and John Salvi and James Kopp and Luke Helder and James David Adkisson and Scott Roeder and Shelley Shannon and Dennis Mahon and Wade Michael Page and Byron Williams and Kevin Harpham and William Krar and Judith Bruey and Edward Feltus and Raymond Kirk Dillard and Adam Lynn Cunningham and Bonnell Hughes and Randall Garrett Cole and James Ray McElroy and Michael Gorbey and Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman and Frederick Thomas and Paul Ross Evans and Matt Goldsby and Jimmy Simmons and Kathy Simmons and Kaye Wiggins and Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe and David McMenemy and Bobby Joe Rogers and Francis Grady and Demetrius Van Crocker and Floyd Raymond Looker and Derek Mathew Shrout, among the pantheon of white people who engage in (or have plotted) politically motivated violence meant to terrorize and kill, but whose actions result in the assumption of absolutely nothing about white people generally, or white Christians in particular.

2)     The writer’s own point of view must see these white people on this list as hiding among conservative, Christian political groups that have tended towards public displays of violence or terror.  But was this a jaded view, a political over sight to have left out all of the violence of people of the liberal left mind-set? Making a list of violent people doesn’t prove a theory. It proves that you have taken the time to make a colored list of violent people but nothing less. But I also see there is at least one left leaning liberal democrat of white fame. A self-professed American unapologetic bomber, a member of the weatherman underground, a person responsible of the same acts of violence to create terror in the minds of people and a killer of innocent people as well–Bill Ayers. A man who on 9-11 said, “he wasn’t sorry for his part in the bombings.” OH to mention in passing… He is also just a friend of the current president of the United States of America. Just a fact, nothing less.

He goes on to say…

And white privilege is being able to know nothing about the crimes committed by most of the terrorists listed above — indeed, never to have so much as heard most of their names — let alone to make assumptions about the role that their racial or ethnic identity may have played in their crimes.

In short, white privilege is the thing that allows you (if you’re white) — and me — to view tragic events like this as merely horrific, and from the perspective of pure and innocent victims, rather than having to wonder, and to look over one’s shoulder, and to ask even if only in hushed tones, whether those we pass on the street might think that somehow we were involved.

3)     I have never known anyone like this as he describes with these kinds of attitudes towards others. But that isn’t saying that this doesn’t exist. I stand by what I have tried to point out already. If we don’t change ourselves with the way we see people, using common sense, and critical thinking, then the whole of society continues to slowly decay farther into becoming divided by race, racism, and the division of colors. When we all can recognize evil does exist in the hearts, minds, and soils of every person no matter the color of organ; then at that time we can be better guardians of our own reputations, better teachers to our youth, have a greater sense of responsible that our personal individual actions will impact what comes after us in the world we leave behind.

The fact is we are in a war of education, not open uncontrolled actions! If the terms of blackness or whiteness can be taken as to color specific or even racist/ Why do we allow ourselves to use them publicly or privately? We all are educators or teachers to our youth.  If we continue to promote mind-sets (even behind closed doors) like the ones in this article, then the best we can expect out of society is more of a managed decay. The only question then is—who is going to manage with any success when values individually compost away, with compromise. At some point we must except that racism only stops one person at a time. The hard part is standing on principles, in the face of people with an angry mob mentality that also exists within elements of the different ethnical groups, that aren’t looking to be an equal… but superior.