Sunday, March 08, 2015

Disgracing 'The Spirit Of Selma'

Yesterday was the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the famous march across the Edmund Pettus bridge in Selma, Alabama back in 1965. The events celebrating this occasion merit a look.

President Barack Hussein Obama was present of course, leading the charge on what could aptly be called 'white guilt day.' Or even more aptly, Democrat Party approved white guilt day, since this was structured to essentially be a campaign event.

None other than the New York Times acknowledged this by deliberately cropping former Republican George W. Bush and his wife out of the picture. And of course, there were a number if stories in the complicit media about no Republicans attending, when in fact quite a number of GOP politicians did, braving a hostile audience..after all,that was largely a Republican triumph. If it had been left to Democrats, the Voting Rights Act that followed would never have passed:
Above is Pravda-on-the-Hudson's actual front page
President George W. and Laura Bush can be seen 3rd and 4th from your right in the front row of the actual photo. Since only one man stands between the Bushes and the part the Times printed, it's obvious the cropping was deliberate.

In a speech that made headlines and accompanying interviews,President Obama announced that "We are the slaves that built the White House."

In a followup interview, the president made sure to include illegal migrants in the 'spirit of Selma' :

“The notion that some kid that was brought here when he was two or three years old might somehow be deported at the age of 20 or 25 even though they’ve grown up as American, that’s not who we are,” he reportedly said in an interview with Sirius XM’s Joe Madison, according to The Hill. “That’s not true to the spirit of what the march on Selma was about.”

How that applies to the surges of illegal aliens the president is currently letting cross our borders is an open question,let alone the effect of illegal migration on black unemployment and things like housing costs. But then again, what difference does it make? This is 'white guilt Day and a Democrat Party event. And President Obama's little inflammatory rhetoric to the blacks in attendance fits right in with the president's theme for his entire administration, the crimes of America. Which of course demand payback. I mean, he's right, isn't he?

But you know, I had to wonder. After all, if a man with a Harvard education could be wrong about how many states there were in the Union, whom liberated Auschwitz and what language Austrians speak as as well as a number of other things, could he be be wrong about it being slaves whom built the White House?

Well, as it turns out, since the White House was built on land ceded by Virginia and Maryland, where slavery was common, there definitely were some slaves involved, but half or more of the workers were free blacks, whites or Europeans. The sandstone walls were erected by Scottish immigrants, employed by Irish-American architect James Hoban. So while there were slaves that participated, the White House was a joint project constructed by all Americans. The superb biography of George Washington by Joseph Ellis mentions this as well.

Wait, it gets better.

The original White House was burned by the British in 1812, but once again, it was reconstructed by a broad mixture of Americans. One source says that there were illegal aliens among them, but since the only qualification at that time to be considered a citizen was claiming two years' residency, something no one paid much attention to back then, in effect there were no illegal that bit of attempted political correctness is bogus as well.

The White House was essentially reconstructed from the ground up in 1873 and again during Truman's term in 1946. And whaddya know? No slaves were involved because America fought a bloody and brutal war to abolish slavery and to free them.

So making a talking point misrepresenting that the White House was entirely constructed by slave labor is factually wrong.And it is more than that.

Of course, this isn't the first time this president has lied about Selma for his own aggrandizement, claiming the march in Selma led to his conception...even though he was 3 years old when it occurred, at least according to the birth certificate he finally presented to the nation.

It would be one thing if this president merely made a factual error about the White House. But his entire speech was a deliberate attempt to fan racial hatred for political purposes, something this president has done a number of times already.

Even if he'd been technically correct, it was a despicable thing to say, especially coming from a man who claims to promote 'the spirit of Selma.'

The last time I checked, the Dr. King I learned about had nothing but a cold shoulder for men, white or black who used any excuse to fan up hatred for their own twisted agendas and promote discord.

This president not only misrepresents the spirit of Selma, he is a disgrace to it.

The entire theme of Dr, King and the Civil Rights movement was fairly simple. They stood for equality under the law, and for people to be treated based on their character, not their skin color. Dr. King persuaded Americans based on this moral argument. He worked to bring people together, not to widen the breach and what he struggled to achieve was to make his vision of white and black America healing the wounds and living together as brothers reality.Ultimately, it cost him his life.

President Obama and his cohorts abandoned that vision a long time ago, and his speech is all the evidence we need to see how far away we have gotten from the ideas of the man they are supposedly honoring.

Instead of equality, what we see is calls for racial payback, for artificial quotas based on 'diversity' for race based shakedowns, for division rather than unity. We see the promotion of illegal immigration promoted as a 'civil right' regardless of what it does to the rights of others, and laws designed to stop non-citizens from voting and diluting the voting rights of all Americans whatever their race identified as 'racism.'

In short, we see race used as a tool for political ends. And isn't that what the segregationists and the Klan were all about?

Res ipsa Loquiter

No comments: