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 aliens...so 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

The 'Selma' Controversy And What It Says About Race In America

The Oscars this year are mired in controversy.

Many blacks involved in the industry (and others whom aren't)are highly upset that this years' nominees in the major categories are all white. And especially that  there weren't any Oscar nominations for director Ava DuVernay or lead actor David Oyelowo for the motion picture 'Selma'.

The new, trendy hashtag is #Oscarstoowhite, and of course, the cause has to be racism, since obviously blacks have never been nominated for Academy Awards, let alone won.

Much is also being made of the lack of diversity in the Academy and the film industry in general, even though the Academy's President is this woman,Cheryl Boone Isaacs:



She happens to be black, of course, but that doesn't matter. Never mind that she worked her way up through the ranks at Paramount to a position of Executive Vice President of a major division in the company, has a decades long career of accomplishment, has worked on a number of huge box office hits and was even inducted into the NAACP Image Awards Hall of Fame last year.

She's obviously just a token the industry put up there to cover for its racism. Because that's what serves the narrative just now.

Being that her role has a large public relations component, Ms. Boone Isaacs made the expected remarks about how Hollywood is seeking increased diversity in an attempt to call the dogs off, and it remains to be seen how well that works. But the fact that this became controversial at all shows us that as usual, a nation's popular culture reflects what's really going on.

What we're seeing here, essentially, is an attempt at special, race-based pleading. That's especially ironic in view of the who the film at the center of the controversy, 'Selma' is supposed to be lionizing.

So let's take a look at the film in question.

'Selma' is purportedly a film about the famous civil rights march in Alabama by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his allies, which included a number of whites, particularly Jews, whom also were instrumental in creating and financing the entire civil rights movement.

The actual founders of the NAACP were whites Mary White Ovington, journalist William English Walling, Henry Moskowitz, and black lecturer and author W.E.B. Dubois. Jewish leaders as Jacob Schiff, Jacob Billikopf, and Rabbi Stephen Wise served prominently on the organization's board. Kivie Kaplan, a vice-chairman of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations actually served as the national president of the NAACP from 1966 to 1975

Another Jew, Stanley Levison was one of Dr.King's closest advisers and his speechwriter. And the key funder of civil rights organizations, among many others, was Julius Rosenwald, chairman of Sears Roebuck. Aside from his major contributions to civil rights organizations, twenty black colleges (including Howard, Dillard and Fisk universities) were established in whole or in part with his money.

And the Jews were definitely on the receiving end of racial violence because of their championing of civil rights.

In just a single year, from November 1957 through October 1958, synagogues and other Jewish communal centers were bombed in Atlanta, Nashville, Jack­sonville, and Miami, and undetonated dynamite was found under synagogues in Birmingham, Charlotte, and Gastonia, North Carolina. Out of the three civil rights workers murdered in Mississippi in 1964 for registering black voters, the incident portrayed on the screen in the film ' Mississippi Burning,' two of them, Michael Schwerner and An­drew Goodman, were Jews.

Without that help, the civil rights movement would have been delayed and possibly much less successful than it ultimately was for quite some time.



There were a lot of whites in Selma for the march that day, whom put their bodies on the line and faced the same brutality.

 

 

 



For instance the bearded man on your right next to Dr. King is Rabbi Abraham Heschel, one of King's chief supporters, who was by his side during the entire march. But you would never know that from watching "Selma."

Not only is he not mentioned or even pictured in the film he is literally erased, and so are Dr. King's other white allies, particularly Jews. And so is their role in what led up to Selma and to the march itself.

The film is deliberately slanted to avoid the reality. Instead of allies, almost all whites in the film are portrayed as demonic racists or cheering on the brutalizing of blacks at worse or as very occasional window dressing or tepid fence sitters at best, noticeably then-President Lyndon Johnson.

Ava DuVernay, the film's director openly told Rolling Stone in an interview that this was deliberate. “I wasn’t interested in making a white-savior movie,” she said.

So instead, she turned it into a racialist tome, even admitting to changing the script to portray LBJ as an obstructionist rather than the ally of King and the civil rights movement he actually was. And that's basically the entire view of the film. Rather than showing how decent people of all races united to defeat evil, it features graphic scenes of white on black violence and shows black triumph over the Evil Whites in a racialist scenario.

So, did 'Selma' rate any Academy Award nominations? Maybe, maybe not. But it definitely wasn't entitled to any Oscar nominations simply on the basis of the race of its director and lead actors, which is exactly what those angry at the Academy and its 7,000 members are livid about.

What's even worse and what bothers me the most is the film's hypocritical stance. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. devoted his entire life and ultimately sacrificed it for the idea that blacks and whites could live together in peace, and that people could be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

A film like 'Selma' could have been a tool to help that dream along and bring people of all races together, something that's badly needed just now.Instead, it was deliberately crafted to push people further apart along racial lines, and perhaps even to justify in some of its audience's eyes the current epidemic of black on white violence.

I'm sure that stance on the film didn't occur to most of the Academy voters minds, at least not consciously. And certainly no mainstream film critic would dare say it in today's hyper- racialized climate.

But that was indeed the message of the film 'Selma', and I'll leave it to you to decide whether it rates any kind of award.

Res ipsa loquitur...the thing speaks for itself.