Category Archives: Social Issues

TEAR THEM DOWN OR LEAVE THEM UP? – PART THREE

The first two parts of this series were very much emotionally driven by yours truly. Part 3 will conclude the series, and offer facts in support of my position that Confederate monuments and memorials should remain in place.

According to an article on townhall.com, written by Jack Kerwick, on May 24, 2017, many of his readers, including conservatives, called for the taking down of Confederate monuments. Their reasons boiled down to the following:

  1. The Confederates fought in defense of slavery.
  2. Slavery is immoral.
  3. Therefore, Confederates were immoral.
  4. Immoral behavior should never be publicly honored.
  5. Thus, by way of 3 and 4 above, Confederates should not be publicly honored.

According to Kerwick, while slavery was a major factor in the fighting of the War between the States, number 1 above is incorrect. Most Confederate soldiers, as well as prominent generals, including, most notably, Robert E. Lee, did not own slaves by the time that the war was raging. Kerwick also writes that both the laity and scholars realized that the complexity of the American Civil War defied all attempts to reduce it to such simple-minded, one-dimensional caricatures of the sort advanced by those who would attribute to Confederates, a single, nefarious motive: the love for slavery. Or the desire to do evil as I pointed out in Part 2.

Next, in his article, Kerwick gets rather analytical. The second premise that slavery is immoral is irrelevant. Without premise 1 above, you cannot reach premise 3. Thus, the immorality of the Confederates cannot be established through 1 and 2, 3 cannot be concluded, and thus, 4 and 5 cannot be adhered to.

For those folks who will have none of the above, those folks whose hatred has so overwhelmed them to the point that anyone who lived in the south at the time of the Civil War is, to an extreme, anti-American, immoral, and anti-people of color, are not going to listen to reason and will continue their barrage of hate. In fact, in some instances, I have read between the lines and have detected a hatred for the south and those of us who have lived in the south all our lives. While I can’t look into a person’s heart and interpret what’s in it, I can read their words and many of their words can be interpreted as overwhelming hate.

Kerwick asks us to assume the above, that every single Southern man and woman who took up the cause of secession was committed to perpetuating the institution of slavery, and that the Confederate symbols are monuments to “White Supremacy.”

If Confederate symbols deserve to be purged from the public, then so do virtually all the symbols of Western civilization.

The roots of what today is recognized as Western civilization are to be found in ancient Greece. Though they weren’t the first of the West’s philosophers, Plato and Aristotle enjoy the distinction of being among the greatest. Western philosophy, and even Christian theology would be inconceivable without these two. Yet even Plato’s ideal Republic included slaves, and Aristotle articulated a defense of “natural slavery,” the enslavement of those who by nature were suited to be slaves.

Since slavery is immoral, then the reasoning of the anti-Confederates demands that Plato and Aristotle be given the same treatment as Generals Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis, and every other prominent Confederates. Also, all public commemorations of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Madison, and many other Founding Fathers involved with slavery are immoral as well.

Thus, in addition to monuments and statues commemorating prominent Confederates, states, cities, schools, streets, and parks named after this nation’s Founding Fathers should also be removed or renamed.

Kerwick cites many other examples, and if those examples were followed, the United States of America would be transformed into something unrecognizable. The left, though, would probably like that because they hate this country and anyone living in this country who does not agree with them on the issues.

According to Kendall Will Sterling, in an article dated July 27, 2015, on richmond.com, the story these symbols tell is more nuanced than what we typically hear. It is said that the South seceded to perpetuate slavery, and yet six slave states sent men to die for the North, and the Southern states rejected an offer from Lincoln that would have made slavery permanent in exchange for their return to the Union. While many Northern states had ended slavery by 1860, many had also passed, “black laws,” a forerunner of Jim Crow, which placed tight restrictions on blacks and often forbade them from even living in the state. Furthermore, West Virginia was admitted to the Union as a slave state in 1863, and slaves in that and other Northern states had to wait until 1865, two years after the Emancipation Proclamation, for their freedom.

Sterling concludes that slavery was more than just a Southern problem; it was an American problem.

Instead of removing all vestiges of the Confederacy, Sterling suggests that we use these statues and memorials to start a new conversation, one that acknowledges the roles of everyone involved and offers hope for our nation and its people, both black and white.

Fat chance that any liberals are going to agree to implementing any such conversations. The left is not interested in solving problems, they just want to destroy the United States of America and all those people within it who don’t toe their line.

Most of us recognize Nathan Bedford Forest as a slave owner and the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. But are we aware that Forrest’s 45 slaves rode and fought alongside him as equals, and that their loyalty was such that they remained with him even after he gave them their freedom papers. Do people also know that the Klan’s original purpose was to serve as a volunteer police force against rampant crime in the occupied South. Also, in 1870, when the Klan morphed into a terrorist organization, Forrest resigned and ordered the group disbanded. Softened by an encounter with his God, Forrest spent his final years advocating for political and social advancement for black Americans. When he died in 1877, more than 3,000 blacks lined up to pay their respects as part of his funeral procession.

Sterling further suggests that we let the statue of Robert E. Lee, and the schools that bear his name, remind us all of a Sunday in 1865 at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, where Lee worshiped when in Richmond. That Sunday, with the wounds of the war still raw, a black man walked down the aisle of St. Paul’s and knelt to receive Communion. The whites in attendance weren’t certain if they could, or should, take Communion. For a moment, no one knew what to do. Then came a rustle, the scrape of boots on the floorboards, and the congregation looked up to see Lee walking down the aisle to kneel beside that black man, by his own example teaching those around him the way of respect.

The plight of men such as Nathan Bedford Forrest reminds me of the Apostle Paul. Paul, formerly called Saul, was a persecutor of Christians. On a journey from Jerusalem to Damascus, Saul was stuck down and blinded by God because God was calling him to do his work, the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world as it was known at that time. Saul became the Apostle Paul, revered and studied by Christians all over the world.

I’m against the taking down and/or the demolition of monuments and/or memorials erected to honor prominent Confederates. While I do acknowledge that there are two distinct sides, I don’t want this section of our history to be diminished.

The Civil War should be taught in schools and should be remembered, lest we ever again make the mistake of splitting up the great Unites States of America.

Will anyone on the left plus those conservatives who believe that these memorials should come down, read my three articles and attempt to examine both sides? Of course not. And if any liberals do take a chance and decide to read what I have written, will they acknowledge and respect my writings and my opinions? Of course not, once again. I will be subjected to the continued ridicule and hate that liberals have shown me in the past.

Why do I continue, you may ask? Because I like doing this. Simple, but true.

Note: Here are links to articles where the information outlined above was obtained.

In Defense of Honoring the Confederacy: A Response to the Cultural Cleansers.

Pro and Con, Should Confederate Monuments be Removed.

 

Facebooktwitter

TEAR THEM DOWN OR LEAVE THEM UP – PART TWO

In my introduction to what should we do with those pesky monuments commemorating heroes of the Confederacy, I laid out my feelings about the actions of a few folks with whom I’ve come in contact who have moved to the Southeastern United States (the South) from other parts of the country and the attitude that some, not all, have displayed toward southern culture and the southern people.

Since Dylann Roof entered a Charleston, S.C. church in June 2015 and opened fire, killing nine church members, all black, there has been a frenzy by the left to destroy anything relating to the United States Civil War. The reasoning: In some photo, Mr. Roof was seen holding a Confederate battle flag. The left and some members of the right immediately called for the banning of the flag because it was a symbol of hate. Everyone who owned a Confederate battle flag or something depicting the Confederate battle flag, even it was just a belt buckle, was automatically labeled a racist, a white supremacist, a hater, etc. No room for argument. Because the left said it was so, then it must be so. Conservatives from outside the south, and even from within the south were also piling on.

Did I own anything depicting the Confederate battle flag? If I did, it was packed away in some box in the back of the basement. I didn’t like the attitude of the left plus the attitude of some fellow conservatives. While it was determined that Dylann Roof was indeed a racist, white supremacist, and a hater, does that necessarily mean that everyone owning an object depicting the Confederate battle flag was also all of these things? Apparently the left and many conservatives thought so, though. Was explaining that owning a Confederate battle flag or an object depicting a Confederate battle flag, could mean the remembering of heritage, of history? According to the left and other conservatives, absolutely not. These folks wouldn’t even listen to the other side.

Of course, the left would never, ever listen to the other side, and the conservatives were too scared of being labeled a racist if they did listen to the other side and acknowledged the reasoning. In 2015, being labeled a racist by the left was one of the worst things that could happen to an individual.

In the South, there are many monuments in public places honoring Confederate heroes, plus many buildings, schools, streets, and towns are named after prominent southerners living in and around the time of the Civil War. Following the Charleston church tragedy, there has been a movement by the left, and yes, by some conservatives, to destroy everything that is a reminder of the Civil War.

The Alabama legislature has passed a statute indicating that monuments meeting certain criteria cannot be removed from their locations. Of course, this has the left and those sympathetic conservatives up in arms. But guess what, I don’t care, and I’m not the only one.

In New Orleans, a city run by Democrats, headed up by a Democrat mayor, the taking down of statutes honoring prominent Confederate military men and prominent southerners has begun. Earlier this month, a statute of Confederate Army General, Robert E. Lee, was recently brought down to the angst of many people, including me. As a frequent traveler to New Orleans, I have driven around Lee Circle many times. The statute is indeed impressive.

Robert E. Lee graduated with honors from West Point Academy. He was also a prominent general in the United States Army and was set to lead the Union Army in the Civil War. However, General Lee was from Virginia and loved his home state. Because of this, General Lee accepted the position to head up the Confederate Army. He couldn’t bring himself to fight against Virginia. Also, Robert E. Lee hated slavery and had freed his slaves years before the Civil War began.

Liberals have argued that even though Robert E. Lee may have been a “good guy,” he still chose to fight for the south and thus, he was “anti-American, anti-moral, and anti-non white people,” a quote from an individual who is in favor of taking down statutes honoring, in any way, the Confederate States of America.

I’ve also heard that the display of statutes honoring prominent members of the Confederacy is tantamount to Germany displaying statutes honoring Adolph Hitler and other notorious Nazis. But you can’t even compare the actions of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis to the actions of Adolph Hitler and other higher ups in the Third Reich. Robert E. Lee and other prominent southerners who served the Confederate States of America fought to preserve their homeland and their way of life. The president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, didn’t round up human beings who he hated and send them to concentration camps to be tortured, experimented on, and killed.

The following is a list of some of the more prominent Confederate Generals: Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, J.E.B. Stuart, Nathan Bedford Forrest, James Longstreet, Braxton Bragg, George Pickett, Bloody Bill Anderson, Albert Sidney Johnston, John Mosby, P.G.T. Beauregard, A.P. Hill, Richard Ewell, Joseph Johnston, Jubal Early, Kirby Smith, John Bell Hood, Barnard Bee, Lewis Armistead, and Porter Alexander. Also, there was Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederacy.

While it has been documented that Robert E. Lee was a good person and a fantastic general, I can’t say that I know much about the others listed above. I’m sure some of them were good and some of them weren’t. That’s true about the entire human race.

Slavery was legal, and an accepted practice in the first century of the United States of America. When you are born and raised to think something’s okay, you generally consider it okay until others may sway your thinking, or until you decide for yourself that it’s wrong based on research, observations, and ‘gut instinct.’ What I’m trying to say, and admittedly having a bit of a difficult time doing it, is that southerners or anyone else for that matter who owned slaves, and slavery was also common outside the south, and throughout the world, were not necessarily engaging in it because they wanted to do evil, whereas the desire of Hitler and the Nazis was to do evil and create a master race, thus eliminating all of those who they considered inferior. And as we have studied, many people with disabilities were executed for no other reason than that they didn’t fit the mold of the blonde haired, blue-eyed master race that was Hitler’s goal to create.

The Civil War is part of the history of the United States of America and a very important part. It represented a dark time for this country, and one that we certainly don’t want to repeat. One of the reasons that so much emphasis is placed on learning history is that history does repeat itself. In studying about the Civil War and reconstruction when I was in school, it was drilled into my head that we don’t want to ever ‘go there again.’ Secession from the Union was a terrible thing, and when I hear quips about the state of California wanting to secede from the United States, I wince.

Remember the novel, “1984,” by George Orwell? The party regularly destroyed and/or altered history. In our public schools today, and even in some of our private schools, what is taught has been altered or completely left out because it might offend some students. This is being driven by the liberals, including the teachers’ unions.

Liberals are advocating not only the destruction of statutes honoring prominent members of the Confederacy, but they are advocating changing the names of all buildings that are named after prominent Confederates. They are also advocating changing the names of schools, streets, and even towns that may have been named after anyone who had a part in the Confederacy.

Folks, that is going to be a nightmare. There’s a county in Alabama called Lee County. Will that have to be changed? Will all the towns and cities named Jackson and Jacksonville have to be changed because of General Stonewall Jackson? Will anything that has the name of Jefferson, such as Jefferson County in Alabama have to be changed? Or will anything with the common name of Davis have to be changed because it might relate back to Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederacy? Gives me a headache.

I’m hearing, though, that it might be okay to memorialize the Civil War in private museums. Well what if those museums are located where folks have to walk by them who might be offended by the contents of those museum?. Or maybe just knowing about a museum that illustrates the history of the Confederacy offends someone?

Do you really think that after directing the demolition of statutes, and changing the names of buildings, schools, streets, and even towns is going to stop the left, fueled by their overwhelming hatred for anyone who disagrees with their political philosophy, including southern white conservative Christians, from declaring war on private museums that house Confederate memorabilia? And after shutting down these private museums, do you think the left is going to stop and say, ‘job well done?’ Why stop there? Let’s force anyone who has in his or her name ‘Jackson,’ or ‘Davis,’ or ‘Lee,’ or ‘Smith’ (Kirby Smith was the name of a Confederate General), etc. to change their name because such names might be offensive to certain people.

Furthermore, I have observed from some of those who are in favor of the tearing down of the Confederate monuments, a hidden hatred for the south, even though they visit, and enjoy our food, our music, our beautiful beaches, and our weather. The hatred appears to be for the southern people who may or may not have had ancestors who owned slaves.

In other words, after accomplishing all of the above, will the left then advocate the persecution of those of us who are “southern born and southern bred?” Will they round us up and put us in internment camps?

YES! The last few paragraphs are Kabuki Theater, far-fetched, and perhaps ludicrous. But the left is currently advocating the demolition of statutes, changing street names, school names, building names where those streets, schools, and building names may relate back to the Confederacy. Making all of these changes will be a nightmare, in fact, this will be worse than a nightmare.

We have to stand up to the left now, we have to preserve our history, lest we repeat it. We have to ‘nip it in the bud.’

STOP THE LEFT AND THOSE CONSERVATIVES WHO ARE COWARDS AND ARE AFRAID OF BEING CALLED BAD NAMES! STOP THEM NOW!

And yes, I’m against the demolition of statutes and memorials honoring prominent leaders of the Confederacy.

Note: The phrase, “southern born and southern bred,” is a phrase in the Song, “My Home’s in Alabama,” performed by the country music artists, “Alabama,” and written by Teddy Gentry and Randy Owen.

 

Facebooktwitter

TEAR THEM DOWN OR LEAVE THEM UP – PART ONE

What should we do with those pesky monuments commemorating heroes of the Confederacy?

For disclosure purposes, I am “southern born and southern bred.” Except for the four years after graduating from the University of Alabama, I have lived in the state of Alabama. The four years, post-graduation, I lived in Atlanta, Georgia. Thus, I’ve lived in the south all my life. Business travels, though, have taken me to many other parts of the United States.

While I’ve never been one of those who really cared about the differences between the south and other regions of the United States (We’re all Americans, aren’t we?), I will get a little angry when folks come in here from other areas and proceed to imply negatives about the south and the people who live here.

They come here with negative attitudes toward the area and the southern people. But then they proceed to enjoy our climate, our beautiful beaches, our great food, our hospitality, our music, our values, etc. This is especially true of people who re-locate to the Birmingham area. They come with their usual attitude plus an additional layer of negative attitude because they’re coming to Birmingham. After getting here, they’re taken aback when they discover that we don’t mistreat minorities, particularly blacks. We don’t use the N-word in every other sentence, nor do we regularly turn fire-hoses and police dogs on blacks. In fact, we work together, go to school together, socialize together. In general, we get along.

Outsiders relocating to the Birmingham area usually become rather enamored with the fact that Birmingham is 2-1/2 hours from Atlanta, 2-1/2 hours from Chattanooga, 3 hours from Nashville, 4 hours from Memphis, 5 hours from New Orleans, and 4 to 5 hours from the beautiful beaches of the Alabama Gulf Coast and the Florida panhandle. Of course, full advantage is taken.

But still, they insist on poking fun at the southern people. For example, they just don’t understand our obsession with college football. Twelve of the last fourteen national championships have been won by college teams located in the south. The two exceptions were Southern California in 2004/2005 and Ohio State in 2014/2015. Fans of teams from outside the south tend to riot, destroy property, and injure people when their team wins and even when their team doesn’t win. Because we don’t act like that here in the south, other areas have been spared from destruction. Once again, many outsiders like our values, and reap the benefits of living in the south, but still insist on turning their noses up.

As indicated above, I’ve spent time in other parts of the country. If something’s a little different there, something’s just a little different there. No big deal. But if something down here is a little different to what an outsider is used to, such as the pronunciation of a common word or phrase, they insist on making a big deal of it and indicate that “it must be a southern thing.”

I had an outsider indicate to me that she had “never heard of putting coleslaw on a sandwich, it must be a southern thing.” I don’t really know if it is or not and don’t really care. But it seems like outsiders have to poke fun or turn their noses up at everything that’s deviates from what they’re accustomed to. And, of course, actually trying a sandwich with coleslaw to see if they might like it? Unthinkable!

A couple of years ago, I wanted to get a new handgun. I asked a friend who came here from outside the south and was alone a lot if she wanted to go with me to a gun shop to look at guns. This was during the Obama presidency when everything crime committed was blamed on gun owners, and movements to limit gun ownership were taking place. She replied in an emphatic tone that she wasn’t interested in such things. Because I also wanted a man to go with me, I asked if her husband, when he was in town, might be willing to go to the gun shop with me. “Well, I don’t know, you’ll just have to ask him,” she replied in a snotty tone. This person wasn’t liberal, but felt like owning guns was redneck. Has she ever thought about why she feels safe in her home, even when she’s alone? Could it be because it’s common for people down here to own guns? She takes advantage of what the south offers, particularly, feeling safe in many areas, but turns her nose up at gun ownership.

I was supposed to talk about the movement by the left to remove all statutes of generals and other prominent members of the Confederacy. Instead, I let my feelings be known about folks who move to the south from other parts of the country, take advantage of the many things we have to offer, but still insist on belittling the southern people and the southern culture.

Now that I’ve had my say, I’m ready to get to my thoughts on the actual removal of the statues and memorials in my next article. It’s coming.

Facebooktwitter

BACK TO MISOGYNY

My article for this blog, dated 4/10/2017, was entitled, “Back to Racism.” The article outlined another article written by Mehdi Hasan for theintercept.com, entitled, Top Democrats are Wrong: Trump Supporters were more Motivated by Racism than Economic issues. See my article, Back to Racism, April 10, 2017.

Dated April 11, 2017, in an article entitled, Bozell & Graham Column: Hillary Blames Self-Hating Women for her Loss, from newsbusters.org, Brent Bozell and Tim Graham (no relation, to my knowledge) review who Hillary Clinton is holding responsible for her loss in the 2016 presidential election.

According to Bozell and Graham, Hillary Clinton granted her first interview since losing the election on April 6, 2017. The interview took place at the “Women in the World” conference, organized by leftist editor Tina Brown. When the former Secretary of State was introduced by comedian, Samantha Bee, on cue, Ms. Bee genuflected, “You deserve to hear it 100 times, it should have been you.”

Bozell and Graham went on to indicated that the assignment to interview Mrs. Clinton fell to New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof. He later wrote a column on his Hillary chat, beginning in the most wrenching, humiliating way possible, Hillary Clinton has been liberated. She is now out of the woods again and speaking her mind.

In fact, the entire leftist population should be humiliated that Hillary, the anointed one, as told to us by the press, lost to Donald Trump, an unenlightened oaf. Mrs. Clinton was one of the most qualified candidates to be president as this nation has ever had.

The feminists at this conference and I would suspect that all of the conference attendees would call themselves feminists, reallywant to know why Americans hate women so deeply, and what is wrong with those self-hating white Republican women.

One of the questions Kristof lobbed at Clinton went like this: “This is a women’s empowerment conference, so I have to ask. Fundamentally, a man who bragged about sexual assault won the election, and with 53 percent of the white women’s vote. How is that, in the 21st century, what does it say about the challenges that one faces in women’s empowerment, that in effect, misogyny won with a lot of women voters?

According to the Newsbusters’ article, Hillary loved this softball question and replied, “Certainly, misogyny played a role. This just has to be admitted.” She and Kristof mulled over what he called “abundant social science research” that we admire men for being ambitious and successful, but find women “less likeable” when they are powerful.

Bozell and Graham state that it has been five months since the election, and the best analysis these people can muster sounds exactly the last weekend of the campaign when Barack Obama told the American people, “Don’t be a sexist. I want you to think about it because she is so much better qualified than the other guy. She has conducted herself so much better in public life than the other guy.”

It is certain no conversation took place between Kristof and the former presidential candidate regarding her husband, the former President of the United States, Bill Clinton’s “targeting of women.” Hillary never allows an interviewer to ask her about her role leading the “Bimbo-Bashing Patrol” to destroy the reputations of her husband’s victims.

Back to what Kristof calls, “abundant social science research.” So, ambitious and successful women are less likeable than their male counterparts? That may have been true in the mid-1970s when it was just becoming fashionable for women to seek careers in what were previously considered “male-only” or “almost male-only” fields. Women often had to take on a more “hardened” facade to get attention and convince her bosses and colleagues that she was indeed worthy of the position.

Fast-forward to the last half of the second decade of the twenty-first century. The hurdles are cleared, the mountains are reduced to rolling hills, the awkwardness has been worked through. Yes, there are still incidents of inequity, but as things have certainly improved since the mid-1970s, they will continue to improve. Nothing is ever going to be perfect, though, until Jesus returns to earth and sets up his 1000-year kingdom.

When women began making headway in the workplace, older male baby boomers, male pre-baby boomers, and World War II generation males still mostly dominated. Many of these men did have a hard time accepting women. They began their careers in male-dominated environments and then suddenly there’s an influx of women, and minorities also. They assumed they would never have to complete with anyone except white males. Many were resentful and were difficult on the women, and the minorities.

Many of those white males are now dead, and the older baby boomers are retiring. In a few years, there will be very few of these men in the workforce. The men who remain will all have begun their careers working with and competing with women. The same is true about minorities. Your forty-five-year-old middle management guy entered the workforce the early to mid-1990s. Sandra Day O’Connor was a Supreme Court Justice, Geraldine Ferraro  made an unsuccessful run for Vice President on the ticket with Walter Mondale, Madeline Albright was Secretary of State, Carol Mosely Braun, a black woman, was elected Senator from Illinois, Jeanne Kirkpatrick was the USA’s Ambassador to the United Nations, and Madeline Albright was the USA’s Ambassador to the United Nations and became Secretary of State in 1997.

I am not buying what Hillary and Kristof are pushing. I will never believe it was misogyny that resulted in Hillary Clinton, the first female nominated by a major political party for president of the United States, losing her bid. Stances on the issues played a major part. While a majority of Americans liked former President, Barack Obama, they did not like the direction in which the country was moving and were not onboard with many of his policies, plus Obama’s economy remained sluggish throughout his presidency. Also, Republican candidate, Donald Trump, a pure businessman, saw regions in traditionally Democrat states where there was substantial dissatisfaction among workers, many of which had lost their jobs after the 2008 crash and were struggling to find work. Candidate Trump went after these voters and convinced them to cast their ballots for him, and they did.

Clinton supporters and still whining about her lost and can’t come to terms with it five months after the election. They’re to be pitied.

Facebooktwitter

COLLEGE-EDUCATED WHITE WOMEN WHO VOTED FOR TRUMP

According to an article written by Jessica Chasmar in the Washington Times dated April 3, 2017, Tina Fey warns female Trump voters: His election will come back to haunt you, comedian and actress, Tina Fey, warned the college-educated white women who voted for President Trump to wake up and resist, because his presidency will eventually bring long-lasting consequences to their lives. Ms. Fey spoke about this, and the presidential election in an interview with ACLU executives during a celebrity Facebook Live fundraiser for the nonprofit this past Friday night (3/31).

Ms. Chasmar quotes the comedian/actress as saying: “A lot of this election was turned by, kind of, white college-educated women who now would maybe like to forget about this election and go back to watching HGTV. And I would want to urge them to, like, you can’t look away, because it doesn’t affect you this minute, but it’s going to affect you eventually.” Ms. Fey went on to say that it’s important for those women not to ignore “what is happening” now that the election is over.

First of all, Ms. Fey only directs her comments to white college-educated women. What about black college-educated women, Hispanic college-educated women, Asian college-educated women, etc.? Does she not feel as though these other college-educated women who may have voted for Donald Trump are not going to be “eventually affected” by his election to the presidency?

Much to my disappointment, there wasn’t much else to the article. I wanted Ms. Fey to address how the election of Donald Trump was going to negatively affect college-educated white women because I’m a college-educated white woman, who voted for Donald Trump, and I’ll also throw into the mix that I’m single.

As a single woman, regardless of education level or race, I have to support myself, which includes planning for my retirement. Donald Trump has promised us tax reform which, hopefully, will lower taxes for everyone, including the middle class, the wealthy, and businesses. It’s definitely in my best interest be allowed to keep as much of my paycheck as possible. Remember, I’m all I have. Furthermore, it’s the wealthy, the business owners who create jobs and hire people like me. Wouldn’t it be in my best interest if they got tax breaks also? I would have a better chance of getting hired. And when I do, I have a better chance of receiving improved benefits and salary increases. Squeezing the wealthy and the business owners, like Hillary wanted to do, would just make my chances of being laid off or the diminishing of my benefits greater. President Trump gets the nod on this one.

Also, as a single woman, it’s important for me to feel safe wherever I am…in my home, in my car, while I’m traveling, and while I’m in public places. The immediate past president, Barack Obama, demonized our nation’s local police forces, and Hillary Clinton was on track to continue to do so had she been elected president. During the Obama presidency, there was all sorts of discussion about limiting what the police could do and not do in their efforts to make our communities safer. Having a police force with the power to protect law-abiding citizens like me from the criminal element is essential to my well-being. President Trump and his administration, along with the GOP, are pro-law enforcement, Democrats don’t appear to be on the side of law enforcement. Another nod goes to President Trump.

While we have enough problems with domestic crime in the United States, since 9/11/2001, terrorist attacks on U.S. soil factor in as well. Plus, the Obama administration exacerbated the situation by not only allowing the rise of ISIS, the most brutal organization in the history of the planet, but by minimizing their danger, especially when it comes to attacks in the U.S. And ISIS is not the only Islamic terrorist organization out there. It goes without saying that my well-being is also affected by the state of the U.S. military. The Obama administration, along with most Democrat administrations generally enforce a weakening of our military. Another nod to President Trump.

The same logic can be applied to immigration policies. Allowing illegal aliens, many of them with criminal histories, to pour into the United States, diminishes the well-being of the single woman. Thus, the building of the Mexican border wall and improvement in vetting processes for non-U.S. citizens entering the country, are in the best interest of single-women. The nod goes to President Trump.

As a woman, not just a single college educated white woman, having access to quality health care is very important to her well-being. Obama and the Democrats certain screwed that one up for us. This single, college-educated white woman is working twelve to fourteen hours per day trying to make her small business not only profitable, but prosperous so she doesn’t have to depend on the government. In short, I want to make money. Unfathomably high health insurance premiums and deductibles forced on us by the Obama administration and the Democrats, with the same to look forward to in a Hilary Clinton administration is not helping women. In fact, it’s not helping men either.  The nod goes, once again, to guess who.

It’s a rare happening for liberals to actually take a break from hurling epithets and fraudulent accusations at those who disagree with them; and actually discuss relevant issues. When they do, they may bring up the equal work for equal pay topic regarding women allegedly being paid less than men for supposedly equal work. Legislation preventing this sort of discrimination was passed in 1963. I have written much on this topic in the past and won’t re-hash here, except to refer you to the previous paragraph where I sited that it was in a single woman’s best interest for taxes to be lower for everyone so that potential employers will prosper, resulting in better raises, benefits, etc. If a woman should find herself in an unfair situation, having a robust economy where jobs with better pay and benefits are available, certainly benefits her. Another nod to President Trump.

Even though Tina Fey was directing her comments toward white college-educated women, and I focused on single women in this piece, I don’t understand why she didn’t include other women. Why would it be any different for them? After reading this story in several other outlets, CNN and USA Magazine were the only publications that bothered to elaborate. And then, their elaborations didn’t amount to much. In fact, CNN only indicated that Ms. Fey remarked that the gains made by women over the last 100 years were under attack. And to that I say, “Exactly which of those gains are under attack?”

Ending this article feeling confused shouldn’t be a surprise to me. This college-educated white woman is a deplorable uneducated redneck. But wait…if Trump supporters are deplorable uneducated rednecks, I think Ms. Fey is the one confused.

Facebooktwitter