By now, you’re probably aware that the $20 bill is getting a facelift. Apparently, our government has nothing better to do than turn our paper currency into wallet-sized political billboards, starting with replacing the image of white, male, Democrat and slaveholder President Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) with that of black, female, Republican and abolitionist Harriet Tubman (1822-1913).
Personally, I don’t have a problem with Harriet Tubman’s image appearing on our currency. I can care less that she’s black, or a woman for that matter. Those are just superficial differences that progressive bureaucrats love to exploit, even though such attributes say nothing about the value of an individual.
However, what intrigues me most about Tubman is that, despite being born into slavery on a Maryland plantation in 1822, she refused to think of herself as a victim. You might even say she was driven by a “Live Free or Die” spirit. Unfortunately, this side of Tubman is never mentioned in the history books. Therefore, I shall do the honors.
By Kimberly Bloom Jackson
Last week, near a busy outdoor shopping area, I witnessed two women break out into coughing fits while walking by a man who was just about to light a cigar. The match wasn’t even lit, but just seeing the cigar set them off. Perhaps their reaction was purely psychosomatic or maybe they just wanted to send the man a clear message of public disapproval and make him feel uncomfortable for enjoying a cigar. Either way, they sure looked silly.
Chances are you’ve seen or heard something similar. It seems to me that these kinds of Alinsky-inspired theatrics are becoming increasingly common for those who wish to draw negative attention to certain people or situations for ideological purposes. This is especially true among the anti-gun crowd. To demonstrate, I offer the following recent stories:
STORY #1: Imagine wearing an empty holster and then cited by police for “causing alarm.” This is what D.J. Parten, a student at the University of Alabama and President of Students for Concealed Carry in Alabama experienced while participating in what was billed as an empty holster protest on campus. That’s right. No guns or ammo, just an empty holster. Nevertheless, someone apparently freaked out and three campus police officers showed up. Here’s just a snippet of what happened:
Officer: “You know there’s a no-weapons policy out here, but then you want to push it.”
Parten: “Uh … this is a protest.”
Officer “Doesn’t matter. Did you get permission to wear it?”
Parten: “I don’t need permission to wear it.”
Officer: “You need permission from the university.”
Parten: “To wear a holster?”
By Kimberly Bloom Jackson
This is the perfect reply to anyone who tries to suggest that Democrats who own guns are somehow praiseworthy supporters of gun rights. The reply comes from Mark Walters, who writes a column for Concealed Carry Magazine, which I highly recommend to anyone who carries, or is thinking about carrying, a firearm. Learn more at United States Concealed Carry Association.
Hey Mark! Dems Own Guns, Too (July 2014 Issue)
To Mark Walters:
I own guns. Carry guns. Hell, I live in Kansas and we have one of the country’s best set of gun laws.
Do you think a Democrat cannot be a supporter of gun rights or that we don’t carry guns? Do you think we are all a bunch of wimps?
Can Democrats be good supporters of the 2nd Amendment? Or does just being a Democrat mean we are evil and not capable of carrying a gun?
How does Obamacare impact your gun rights? It doesn’t. The hatred of Obama seems to be more of a personal thing for people like you. A hatred not backed by logic but just anger. I assume you never read these emails, but I wish there was a gun forum or magazine that dealt with gun rights only and was not just another right-wing haven.
Gary, Via Email
–– –– –– –– ––
So you’re a Democrat who owns guns. Big deal. Woo-hoo and pass the chips!
By Kimberly Bloom Jackson
October 16 was National Dictionary Day. Can you think of anything dumber to celebrate?
While I understand why a lot of parents and teachers might promote educational dictionary activities for kids, there’s one big problem. Modern dictionaries have become a tool used by progressives to stealthily infuse their perverse ideology through deception and manipulation. Meanwhile, as we’re all being properly re-educated, they sneak around rewriting laws and subverting our Constitution. It’s kind of what the pompous pigs did in George Orwell’s classic 1945 dystopia, Animal Farm.
Over the last few years, I’ve noticed that many definitions in my dictionary, especially those with social and political connotations, have been wildly distorted or are just plain wrong. If I can’t even trust my dictionary, why in the world would I want to celebrate it?
To give you an idea of what I’m talking about, let’s take a look at a few words and their twisted definitions, compliments of my Apple computer’s built-in New Oxford American Dictionary, Version 2.2.1:
- Ku Klux Klan:
an extremist right-wing secret society in the US.
The Ku Klux Klan was originally founded in the southern states after the Civil War to oppose social change and black emancipation by using violence and terrorism. Although disbanded twice, it re-emerged in the 1950s and 1960s and continues at a local level. Members disguise themselves in white robes and hoods and often use a burning cross as a symbol of the organization.
an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group, especially one determined by race or sex; a white supremacist.
To me, the blatant disregard for historical truth is stunning. The Ku Klux Klan was not a “right-wing” secret society as my dictionary would like me to believe. It actually emerged in 1866 as a pseudo-secret political action group created by the—wait for it—Democratic Party! Want proof? Then I encourage you to check out the thirteen volume set of Congressional investigations detailing the Klan’s connection to the Party called Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States.
By Kimberly Bloom Jackson
The definition of racist has changed so much it’s hard to keep up.
Remember the days when a racist was someone who believed in the innate superiority of one race over another? Tragically, this ideology provided the basis for racists to segregate, victimize, and deny the rights of others. Nevertheless, this is precisely what defined a real racist.
America isn’t perfect, but a lot has changed for the better. Just look at all those of color who want to come here and all the white America haters who won’t leave for what they think is better grazing. To me, this speaks volumes.
Still, progressive rabble-rousers must keep their investment in race current. In 1997, for example, UC Berkeley sponsored a conference, The Making and Unmaking of Whiteness, where activists “critically” examined whiteness. Within three days, they concluded that white people are the “passive inheritors of a system of privilege and wealth.” You know it by its more fashionable name white privilege.
Such sweeping Marxist pronouncements have helped real racists forge their own definition of racism, not as acts or attitudes committed by individuals, but a racism that permanently links all white people. And since no white person wants to be associated with racism, many whites today have enthusiastically embraced feigned diversity oriented reforms and policies just to disassociate themselves from any taint of historical racism. This is called white guilt and it’s the real racist’s secret weapon.