Advertisements
Home

After Rioting for Police Body Cams, Liberals Now Say They’re Racist

1 Comment

H/T Conservative Tribune.

Comments like these from liberals proves liberalism is a mental disorder.

After rioting in the streets, demanding that police wear body cameras, liberals are now saying that body cameras are racist and can alter a police officer’s memory.

According to a new study by The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights called “The Illusion of Accuracy: How Body-Worn Camera Footage Can Distort Evidence,” officers pose a threat to civil rights when they review their body cam footage.

The report claims that many police departments allow their officers to watch their body cameras before or while writing a police report — as opposed to writing a report based on what they could recall.

As a result, the report alleges that this warps an officer’s memory and damages the authenticity of a report.

“Given that even slight changes in memory can impact how an officer ultimately describes his or her own experience within an incident report, departments must protect the integrity of these reports by requiring that officers document their untainted perception before watching any footage,” the report argues.

The report damns the efforts of police departments to give transparency in their dealings with the public.

“Unrestricted footage review places civil rights at risk and undermines the goals of transparency and accountability,” Leadership Conference CEO Vanita Gupta, head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division during the Obama administration, wrote in the report’s introduction.

This blatant disregard for law enforcement in our nation infuriates former police officers.

According to The Associated Press, former police officer and current lawyer Lance LoRusso condemned the report.

“They want to be as accurate as they can,” he said, referring to officers writing police reports based on body cameras.

“This specter that every time an officer looks at the video they’re going to lie and adapt their statement just is infuriating because we want the officers to write the most accurate report they can,” he continued.

Washington D.C. Chief of Police Peter Newsham told NPR that cameras have not changed the way his officers act or the way they write reports.

“I think a lot of people were suggesting that the body-worn cameras would change behavior,” Newsham said. “There was no indication that the cameras changed behavior at all.”

Newsham stated that his officers were doing the right thing in the first place and that people are misconstruing the purpose of the cameras.

“I think it’s really important for legitimacy for the police department,” Newsham told NPR. “When we say something to be able to back it up with a real-world view that others can see.”

Demands for police officers to wear body cameras grew out of controversial police shootings led to accusations that cops were unfairly targeting minorities in America. The shootings led to riots, where protesters demanded cops interactions with the public be recorded.

Now that many departments have them, and they’re simply showing that most police officers are doing their jobs correctly, the discontented “civil rights groups” want to restrict their use.

This is just another tactic by liberals to try and take down the police. They were hoping to uncover every officer as a racist murderer, but they’re just finding out that most people in law enforcement are upstanding people who just want to do their jobs and serve our country.

Their efforts to take down the men and women who serve our country won’t work this time.

Advertisements

Student Snowflakes Triggered by Steve Martin’s “King Tut” — The Foxhole

Leave a comment

Prepper 365

I seriously worry about the future of our nation when everything is offensive to someone.

God help them if they ever watch “The Jerk.” Via the Washington Examiner Comedian Steve Martin’s rendition of “King Tut” is triggering social justice warriors at Reed College because they see it as a form of cultural appropriation. The song, originally performed on “Saturday Night Live,” actually criticizes the commercialization and trivialization of Egyptian history […]

via Student Snowflakes Triggered by Steve Martin’s “King Tut” — The Foxhole

View original post

The Lucrative Business of Prescribing Booze During Prohibition

Leave a comment

H/T Atlas Obscura.

When I was about 10-11 I had a major kidney infection Dr.E.C.Taylor from Upland, Indiana wrote me a prescription for beer.

We took the prescription to the local drug store and they labeled the beer cans with the orders on how much beer twice a day I could have.

With that prescription and the labeled cans allowed me to legally to drink beer.

Those looking to self-medicate could score at the doctor’s office.

Official prescription pad for medicinal alcohol issued to Dr. W.W.F. Dykes, 1933. MELNICK MEDICAL MUSEUM AT YOUNGSTOWN STATE UNIVERSITY

On December 13, 1931, a car zipping along Fifth Avenue in New York City rammed into Winston Churchill. Churchill, in town to give a lecture at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, had looked to his right instead of his left while crossing the street (a habit—traffic in England came from the left). The accident cut Churchill’s nose and forehead, bruised his chest, and left him with a sprained shoulder. “I do not understand why I was not broken like an egg-shell or squashed like a gooseberry,” he later wrote.

The press described the injuries as minor, but for months following the accident, Churchill privately battled depression and pleurisy, a condition that causes sharp chest pains. And Churchill, a prodigious drinker on a lecture circuit in Prohibition-era America, couldn’t exactly guzzle the pain away. Buying alcohol was illegal—until he got a doctor’s note. His physician, Dr. Otto C. Pickhardt, wrote that “the post-accident [recovery] of Hon. Winston S. Churchill necessitates the use of alcoholic spirits especially at meal times.” Specifically, Churchill required a “naturally indefinite” quantity of booze.

Winston Churchill's infamous doctor's note.
Winston Churchill’s infamous doctor’s note. COURTESY OF CHURCHILL ARCHIVES CENTRE

While it’s unclear how Pickhardt swung Churchill’s indefinite amount of booze, he wasn’t the sole doctor to dole out alcohol during this dry era. Thousands of doctors, veterinarians, pharmacists, and dentists held permits authorizing them to prescribe select quantities of rye whiskey, scotch, and gin for a bevy of conditions including cancer, anxiety, and depression. According to Daniel Okrent, author of Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, some 15,000 doctors applied for permits during the first six months of Prohibition, which began in 1920 and lasted through 1933. Yet due to a lack of federal oversight, pharmacists and physicians easily turned what was meant as a merciful concession into a lucrative loophole. By prescribing access to pharmacies stocked like liquor stores, it allowed them to become wealthy by selling a way out of Prohibition.

Prescribing alcohol during Prohibition wasn’t pure corruption—alcohol’s alleged medicinal uses have been traced as far back as ancient China, Rome, Egypt, and Greece. One 17th century-era recipe from Great Britain advised melding two pints of wine, along with sage and rue, to concoct an “excellent drink against the plague.” Dozens of 19th century-era physicians believed that alcohol prevented infectious diseases and fever, and that it spurred internal, “vital powers” that kickstarted the healing process.

Back in the 19th century, alcohol was thought to cure cholera.
Back in the 19th century, alcohol was thought to cure cholera. PUBLIC DOMAIN

Initially, many doctors joined the coalition of preachers, former abolitionists, and suffragists pushing Prohibition. In 1916, the authors of The Pharmacopeia of the United States of America took two liquors, brandy and whiskey, off the list of scientifically approved medicines. And in 1917, the American Medical Association voted to advocatefor prohibition. In their statement, they wrote that “the use of alcohol is detrimental to the human economy and … its use in therapeutics as a tonic or stimulant or for food has no scientific value.”

In 1919, Congress passed the Eighteenth Amendment, which banned the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol. Prohibition went into full effect on January 16, 1920, and agents wasted no time in dramatically seizing alcohol. Agents in New York City poured barrels’ worth of beer down the drain, while Boston’s pedestrians walked foot-deep in smashed glass and liquid.

New York City Deputy Police Commissioner John A. Leach, right, watches over agents pouring liquor into the sewer after a raid.
New York City Deputy Police Commissioner John A. Leach, right, watches over agents pouring liquor into the sewer after a raid. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS/ LC-USZ62-123257

Still, when the nation went dry, doctors found themselves among the select few who could still legally access and distribute alcohol. The accompanying National Prohibition Act (also known as the Volstead Act) allowed clergymen to use wine for sacramental services and farmers to possess up to 200 gallons of preserved fruit. Doctors, meanwhile, could apply for licenses that gave them the ability to write scripts for medicinal booze. Patients could then ask for the drink of their choice at pharmacies—not unlike going to a marijuana dispensary with a doctor’s note today.

Congress did write safeguards into the law. It dictated that patients couldn’t obtain more than a pint of “spirituous liquor” every ten days, and that prescriptions couldn’t be filled more than once. Prohibitionists successfully pushed for even more restrictions, too. The 1921 Willis-Campbell Act (colloquially known as the Emergency Beer Bill) banned prescriptions of beer. It also lowered the cap on alcohol per prescription (from a pint to a half-pint) and limited physicians to 100 prescriptions every 90 days. Following the bill’s passage, doctors typically wrote a script every ten days for a half pint of alcohol.

A blank prescription pad that doctors would have used to write medicinal alcohol scripts.
A blank prescription pad that doctors would have used to write medicinal alcohol scripts. PUBLIC DOMAIN

Yet as The Washington Post notes, enforcement in the early years practically didn’t exist, and by 1921, dozens of physicians and pharmacists (who filled the orders) had gotten hip to the law’s money-making potential. Some watered down alcohol, while others doled out heavy-handed prescriptions. During Prohibition’s first year, doctors prescribed an estimated eight million gallons of medicinal alcohol—or, 64 million pints. Doctors got away with prescribing more than the legal limit due to loopholes and lax enforcement. The Willis-Campbell Act tightened the rules, but, by still recognizing doctors’ ability to use alcohol as medicine, left loopholes open. Doctors could issue looser prescriptions by showing (as in cases like Churchill’s) “that for some extraordinary reason a larger amount is necessary.”

From there, doctors had their work cut out for them. While physicians technically had to supply the government with their patient list, it didn’t require them to be specific about treatments. Which is why one Providence, Rhode Island, physician merely listed the catch-all term for a physical weakness, “debility,” on his ledger to justify pints of rye. And they could get away with it, partially because they vastly outnumbered the government agents who kept tabs on them. According to the Post,only one agent existed per 300 physicians in New York City. Nearly 700 new, New York City drugstores registered between 1921 and 1922, and the Board of Pharmacy didn’t have the resources to investigate if they were legit. So the 64,000 physicians given liquor-prescribing permits from 1920 to 1926 didn’t have much to worry about. A mere 170 physicians per year, on average, had their licenses revoked.

A prescription for medicinal alcohol from Whelan's Drug Store in Schenectady.
A prescription for medicinal alcohol from Whelan’s Drug Store in Schenectady. COLLECTIONS OF THE SCHENECTADY COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Given the low risk, many druggists and physicians started price-gouging patients. As Okrent writes, physicians’ prescription power during Prohibition became a way for them to line their pockets. The number of licensed pharmacists tripled in New York, and it’s not hard to see why. Obtaining a permit to fill prescriptions didn’t take much effort, and they could charge extortionately. In Bootleggers and Beer Barons of the Prohibition Era, J. Anne Funderburg writes that mere weeks after Prohibition came into effect, Brooklyn pharmacists charged $12 for a pint of whiskey—over $150 by today’s standards.

While the medical community debated alcohol’s alleged medicinal uses, many physicians all but encouraged people to drink. One anecdote in Okrent’s book recounts a Detroit physician who encouraged patient to “take three ounces every hour for stimulant until stimulated.” Physicians wrote an estimated 11 million prescriptions a year throughout the 1920s, and Prohibition Commissioner John F. Kramer even cited one doctor who wrote 475 prescriptions for whiskey in one day.

It wasn’t tough for people to write—and fill—counterfeit subscriptions at pharmacies, either. Naturally, bootleggers bought prescription forms from crooked doctors and mounted widespread scams. In 1931, 400 pharmacists and 1,000 doctors were caught in a scam where doctors sold signed prescription forms to bootleggers. Just 12 doctors and 13 pharmacists were indicted, and the ones charged faced a one-time $50 fine.

Selling alcohol through drugstores became so much of a lucrative open secret that it’s name-checked in works such as The Great Gatsby. Historians speculate that Charles R. Walgreen, of Walgreen’s fame, expanded from 20 stores to a staggering 525 during the 1920s thanks to medicinal alcohol sales. (Walgreen attributed the pharmaceutical empire’s massive expansion to the introduction of milkshakes at its stores.) According to Okrent, it’s also how distilleries in middle America, particularly in Kentucky, kept the lights on during Prohibition.

A group of Prohibition agents take crowbars to the bar.
A group of Prohibition agents take crowbars to the bar. PUBLIC DOMAIN

Medicinal alcohol wasn’t exactly affordable, meaning that the loophole was a luxury reserved for wealthier Americans. Prescriptions ran patients three dollars—the equivalent to $40 today—and another three or four dollars to fill them. Authorities curiously allowed French champagne to be imported for medicinal use, which upper-crust Americans took advantage of: Imports skyrocketed by 332 percent in 1920. Industrious Americans decided to make alcohol for themselves, too, using corn syrup to make millions of gallons of moonshine supplied to drinking clubs and speakeasies. More adventurous patrons clandestinely ducked into speakeasies, with the understood risk that the mystery booze might contain industrial alcohol used in medical supplies.

Prohibition ended with the ratification of the 21st Amendment in 1933, and so did the era when a doctor’s note could get you hooch at the pharmacy. Yet Prohibition didn’t do what it intended, which was to stop drinking. As Oxford University Press notes, alcohol enthusiasts drank more hard liquor during Prohibition than before, and spirits accounted for a staggering 75 percent of all alcoholic beverages consumed in the United States. (Ironically, alcohol consumption pre-Prohibition had been gravitating towards beer.) The era unwittingly became the foundation of contemporary American drinking culture, giving birth to libations including mixed drinks, bathtub gin, and moonshine. Some might say that’s just what the doctor ordered.

 

When Gas Masks Were an Inescapable Part of Everyday Life

Leave a comment

H/T Atlas Obscura.

I can not imagine going through life daily worrying about a poison gas attack.

“It may be a little irksome at first, but you’ll soon get used to it.”

Bookkeepers prepare for a gas attack in Odessa, Russia, 1935. STANLEY B. BURNS, MD & THE BURNS ARCHIVE

In 1940, British Pathé issued a newsreel titled “Do You Carry Your Gas Mask?” In it, an unidentified employee from the Ministry of Home Security gently, in clipped tones, lectures an audience on the importance of carrying, and wearing, gas masks. “Some of us have been inclined to forget about our gas masks,” he chides, while jaunty music plays in the background. “You all have a gas mask, and you ought to carry it in order to practice wearing it.”

The vast majority of people watching this newsreel in Britain at the time would have had a gas mask. In 1938, before war had begun in Europe, the British government issued 35 million “General Civilian Respirators.” It had been 20 years since the end of World War I, when chlorine gas—and, later, mustard gas—had first been used. The estimates of total casualties from this form of chemical warfare are staggering: 88,000 dead and 1,200,000 injured. With war once again on the horizon, Britain and continental Europe began taking early precautions.

"Everybody Can Be Fitted With Gas Masks in London Town!" 1935.
“Everybody Can Be Fitted With Gas Masks in London Town!” 1935.

People were instructed not only to carry their gas masks, but also to practice wearing them. “Put it on for 10–15 minutes, one day a week,” says the British Pathé announcer. “It may be a little irksome at first, but you’ll soon get used to it.” The film then cuts to a room of typists. The clattering of keys stops, as each one unboxes her gas mask and, chin first, pulls it over her face.

The fear of potential gas attacks wasn’t limited to Britain. In Germany, France, and Italy, masks were available, if not as widely distributed. In the Soviet Union—which had suffered the majority of gas-related casualties in the previous war—no more than 10 percent of the population had one.

The extent to which gas masks were promoted as an essential part of everyday life is evident in an extraordinary collection of images from the Burns Archive. In one photo, a ballerina dons a gas mask in front of a mirror. In another, surgeons at Moscow’s Botkin Hospital operate in gas masks. A third shows London switchboard operators working in gas masks; the original caption states that the operators “are being trained to use special gas masks so they can remain at their posts in an emergency—even if their switch room is full of gas. The masks are fitted with microphones and earphones so that operators can hear and speak to callers.”

These photographs will join more than 250 others in the new book, Masked Fear: The Psychology of Gas Warfare 1918–1941, which is currently the subject of a Kickstarter campaign. According to Stanley B. Burns, the New York ophthalmologist who amassed the collection, governments created programs, movies, and photographs “to increase citizens’ comfort using their masks at home, at work, and at play. The photographs are haunting documents of ordinary people, including children, learning to live their lives wearing these odd contraptions.”

The Kickstarter campaign runs through November 28, 2017. Atlas Obscura has a selection of images from the collection.

A ballerina tries on a gas mask, Paris, 1939.
A ballerina tries on a gas mask, Paris, 1939.
Scottish troops on parade with gas masks during World War I.
Scottish troops on parade with gas masks during World War I.
Gas mask training for switchboard operators, London, 1938.
Gas mask training for switchboard operators, London, 1938.
Police wear gas masks in defense drills, Paris, 1935.
Police wear gas masks in defense drills, Paris, 1935.
Gas masks in an operating room at Botkin Hospital, Moscow, 1936.
Gas masks in an operating room at Botkin Hospital, Moscow, 1936.
London chorus girls rehearse in their gas masks, 1939.
London chorus girls rehearse in their gas masks, 1939.
Issuing gas masks at the Munster Road School in Fulham, London, 1938.
Issuing gas masks at the Munster Road School in Fulham, London, 1938.
Descending to safety in a London air raid tunnel, 1938.
Descending to safety in a London air raid tunnel, 1938.
The cover for <em>Masked Fear: The Psychology of Gas Warfare 1918–1941</em>, depicting an entire school in Berlin equipped with gas masks, 1939.
The cover for Masked Fear: The Psychology of Gas Warfare 1918–1941, depicting an entire school in Berlin equipped with gas masks, 1939. STANLEY B. BURNS, MD & THE BURNS ARCHIVE

 

Franken Sends Accuser a Handwritten Apology

1 Comment

H/T Newser.

I guess Little Francis Franken sending a note saying he is sorry and remembers things diferently makes everything ok.

Meanwhile, calls mount for him to resign

NEWSER) – If Al Franken wanted advice on what his next steps should be in his sexual harassment scandal, there’s no shortage of it. Some in his own party say he should immediately step down or risk harming the anti-harassment movement, though one self-identified feminist floats a different option: Remain in the Senate as a supporter of women’s rights, but forego any thought of a re-election run. Meanwhile, accuser Leeann Tweeden shared a handwritten note of apology from Franken, in which he again says he remembers a rehearsal differently (she has accused him of a forcible kiss) but has “no excuse” for the now-infamous groping photo, per ABC News. He adds that he is “ashamed” he ruined her USO experience. “I am so sorry.” Details and developments:

  • He must go: In a New York Times op-ed, Michelle Goldberg writes that until this week, she wanted Franken to run for president. Now she thinks he should immediately resign. Her initial instinct was that he should stick it out through an ethics investigation. “But if that happens, the current movement toward unprecedented accountability for sexual harassers will probably start to peter out.” If he stays, that damning photo will be used again and again whenever new allegations are raised against others. “The question isn’t about what’s fair to Franken, but what’s fair to the rest of us.”
  • He should stay: Kate Harding is a feminist who has written a book on rape culture, and she writes in the Washington Post that Franken should stay in the Senate. His resignation might be temporarily satisfying to supporters of women’s rights, but she writes that, for the greater good, it makes little sense to remove a lawmaker who consistently supports women’s issues. She’d like him to remain, announce that he won’t run for re-election, go on a listening tour of women’s issues, then back a progressive woman to replace him. “One more head on a pike (will) not make American women safer or better off.”
  • Survival: Chris Cillizza at CNN writes that it’s iffy whether Franken can survive politically even now. One thing that does seem clear: If more women come forward after Tweeden, he’s done.
  • ‘Railroaded’: Franken is being defended from an unusual source. At Mediaiate, John Ziegler writes that he “loathes” Franken and disagrees with him on almost every issue. But in this case, Franken is being “railroaded,” writes Ziegler. He points out the context of the photo, taken when Franken was a comic, not a senator, and writes that there’s too much uncertainty over the allegations of the forced kiss in rehearsal. “My fellow conservatives would be screaming bloody murder if the target was a Republican they liked, rather than a Democrat they hate.”
  • Local paper: The editorial board at the Minneapolis Star-Tribune castigates Franken’s behavior and says the meant-as-a-joke explanation doesn’t cut it. The editorial stops short of calling for his resignation, but suggests that may change. “The scandal simultaneously provides cover for (others who stand accused) and damages his ability to be an effective moral voice for Minnesotans—perhaps too much for him to continue in the Senat
  • ‘Enormously sad’: Joan Walsh at the Nation is “enormously sad” but credits Franken with an “excellent apology,” referring to his second, longer statement. “We shouldn’t disown him just because Republicans want a scapegoat,” she writes. “We will have to, though, if these stories multiply, as they have with Trump and (Roy) Moore. My fingers are crossed that they will not.”
  • Roger Stone: The Trump ally seemed to know of the allegations in advance, notes CBS News. Hours before the story broke, Stone said that it was Franken’s “time in the barrel” and that he was joining “the long list of Democrats accused of grabby behavior,” per a tweet. (Trump himself also criticized Franken.)
  • That photo: Laura Miller at Slate isn’t cutting Franken slack because of the comic context of the groping photo. “All of Franken’s entertainment career was spent catering to the kind of audience who gets an extra thrill out of the idea that someone else (so often a woman!) would be outraged by whatever the comic has just said or done,” she writes. The photo depicts “a man desperate for the laughter and camaraderie of such an audience, and that desperation is one of the ugliest thing

Gabby Giffords’s Gun Control Group Releases Report Warning of Muzzleloaders, Other Firearms

Leave a comment

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

I guess Gabby Giffords and her bunch of ding bats are worried about the number of mass murders committed by muzzleloaders.

‘Cue the .50 caliber muzzleloader, which delivers a particularly lethal .50 caliber round’

 

Former congresswoman Gabby Giffords’s gun control group released a report on Wednesday warning of the dangers of muzzle loading rifles, a number of other firearms, and some firearms accessories and calling for new gun control measures targeting the devices.

The group, which recently changed its name from Americans for Responsible Solutions to Giffords, said in a release its report was intended to identify “extremely lethal firearms and devices” that it believes skirt current firearms laws. “Giffords—the gun violence organization founded by former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, combat veteran and retired NASA astronaut, Captain Mark Kelly—are calling on Congress to update federal gun laws so these accessories can’t turn a firearm into a military-style weapon,” the group said in a statement.

The report includes nine examples of firearms or firearms products the group feels are a danger to society. The list includes certain kinds of ammunition, trigger devices that increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle, what the group describes as “high capacity shotguns,” AK and AR style pistols with stabilizing braces, and muzzleloaders. The group said the gun industry is attempting to circumvent the National Firearms Act (NFA) and other federal gun laws through the manufacture of each of the products.

Muzzleloaders, the group said, are dangerous because they are specifically exempted from the NFA and it accuses the gun industry of trying to exploit that exemption.

“These laws prohibit convicted felons and other dangerous people from possessing guns, require gun retailers to be licensed, and require licensed retailers to conduct background checks on purchasers,” the report said. “There is one blanket exception to these laws, however: the exception for antique firearms, including muzzleloaders. The gun industry is determined to exploit this exception.”

Muzzleloaders, which require gunpowder and a projectile to be manually loaded down barrel of the firearm before each shot, and other antique firearms are exempt from the NFA. The antique firearm exemption applies to “any firearm not intended or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade,” according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

The group views the centuries-old firearms technology, which was rendered obsolete shortly after the Civil War due to advancements in self-contained ammunition cartridges and semi-automatic; self-loading firearms, as dangerous because a silencer can legally be attached to it without the paperwork or tax stamp associated with other firearms silencers.

“Cue the .50 caliber muzzleloader, which delivers a particularly lethal .50 caliber round,” the report said. “This weapon is designed with a built-in device to suppress its sound. If any other firearm were built with such a device, it would be subject to the NFA as a silencer. But since this device is designed to suppress the sound of something that is exempt from federal firearms laws, it is not considered a silencer and not subject to the NFA. In fact, it is not subject to any laws at all and can be bought online.”

The group called on Congress to take action and pass new laws restricting muzzleloaders and the other products outlined in the report.

“Before bump stocks were used to kill 58 people and maim hundreds of others enjoying an outdoor concert, most Americans had never heard of the device,” David Chipman, a Giffords senior policy adviser, said in a statement. Congress has the responsibility to look forward not just backward. It’s time for them to show courage and leadership by drawing a line in the sand and saying they will defend the safety of Americans over an industry trying to line its pockets.”

California Wants to Nix ‘Star-Spangled Banner’ as National Anthem!

1 Comment

H/T Joe For America.

I  say to Hell with the State Of Commiefornia and their branch of the N.A.A.L.C.P.

If Commiefornia nix’s the Star Spangled Banner I say the rest of America give them the N.F.L.treatment and boycott their state and products.

The California NAACP deems the National Anthem is “racist” and “anti-black” and now a battalion of social justice warriors is targeting the Star-Spangled Banner.

When California lawmakers return to the Capitol in January, the state chapter of the NAACP will be seeking their support for a campaign to remove “The Star-Spangled Banner” as the national anthem.

The organization last week began circulating among legislative offices two resolutions that passed at its state conference in October.

It Starts! California Wants to Nix ‘Star-Spangled Banner’ as National Anthem

One is urging Congress to rescind “one of the most racist, pro-slavery, anti-black songs in the American lexicon” as the national anthem.

Another is in support of former San Francisco 49er’s quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who launched a protest movement against police brutality among professional athletes by kneeling when “The Star-Spangled Banner” was played before games.

“We owe a lot of it to Kaepernick,” California NAACP President Alice Huffman said. “I think all this controversy about the knee will go away once the song is removed.”

The kneeling protests have drawn attention to an infrequently-sung third verse from “The Star-Spangled Banner,” which includes the passage:

Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.

No refuge could save the hireling and slave

From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave

Some interpretations of the lyrics conclude that they celebrate the deaths of black American slaves who joined British troops during the War of 1812 to gain their freedom. Francis Scott Key, who wrote the lyrics of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” was a slave owner and fierce opponent of abolition who may have sparked the first race riot in Washington, D.C.

Huffman said Congress, which adopted “The Star-Spangled Banner” as the national anthem in 1931, should find a replacement that is not “another song that disenfranchises part of the American population.”

She drafted the NAACP’s resolutions this fall after President Donald Trump suggested NFL owners should fire any “son of a bitch” who doesn’t stand for the anthem. The second resolution calls on Congress to censure Trump for his remarks, and asks NFL teams to find a spot for Kaepernick, who some believe was blacklisted over the protests.

“Trump got in the middle of it. He blew it out of proportion,” Huffman said.

The California NAACP is still looking for legislative sponsors for the resolutions. Assemblyman Chris Holden, a Pasadena Democrat who chairs the California Legislative Black Caucus, did not respond to a request to discuss the measures.

But at least one lawmaker is already opposed.

“Our flag and national anthem unite us as Americans,” Assemblyman Travis Allen, a Huntington Beach Republican who is running for governor, said in a statement. “Protesting our flag and national anthem sows division and disrespects the diverse Americans who have proudly fought and died for our country. Real social change can only happen if we work together as Americans first.”

I really wonder why this issue was never brought up during the 8 years of Barack Obama’s administration? It’s not like a different set of words were being sung between January 2009 and January 2017.

Should the state’s representatives agree to take the next step, the move would likely to increase California’s reputation as the…nuttiest and most unpopular state in the nation. We would be the Hillary Clinton of states!

The response is what you would expect, at least from those with a basic knowledge of history, civics and decency.

California NAACP is offended by the National Anthem The Star Spangled Banner. I’m offended by their stupidity, race baiting, and blind loyalty to the Demokkkrats. I love my anthem and my POTUS Donald Trump. So those NFL idiots kneeling was against the anthem after all eh?😒

Don’t like our flag, LEAVE, don’t like our national anthem, LEAVE. Don’t like our constitution LEAVE. Don’t like or laws and way of life LEAVE.

YOURE NOT A TREE, GO.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/07/california-naacp-seeks-to-remove-star-spangled-banner-as-national-anthem.html 

California NAACP seeks to remove ‘Star-Spangled Banner’ as national anthem

California’s NAACP is pushing for state lawmakers to support a campaign to remove “The Star Spangled Banner” as the country’s national anthem.

foxnews.com

While Francis Scott Key composed the words in 1814, after witnessing the massive overnight British bombardment of Fort McHenry in Maryland during the War of 1812, and the music came later.

Throughout the 19th century, the song was treated as the de facto anthem by most branches of the U.S. military. In 1916, an executive order by President Woodrow Wilson formally designated as such. In March 1931, Congress passed an act confirming Wilson’s presidential order, then President Hoover signed it into law.

The main complaints about the anthem to this point is that it is hard to sing and it is hard to memorize the words. However, in the unlikely event that Congress agrees to this California NAACP stupidity, you can be sure that the group will find something racist about the next tune offered.

Additionally. I suspect many Americans would consider giving California the NFL treatment. While the state’s tourism industry has grown in the past 7 years, there are 49 states that also have amazing sites and less social justice craziness.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: