Black Lives Matter says”Fathers don’t Matter”

June 7th- 2020

Father teaching his son to be a strong man

Just when you thought Black Lives Matter couldn’t get any more left winged by calling for defunding and disbanding all police departments across America, they are now advocating for fatherless homes, or atleast stating that fathers are “optional.”

According to their official website at https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

They claim to want to destroy male centered “patriarchy” (The belief that men hold all of the advantages in society), and to remove the western held belief of a “Nuclear family” (i.e. a home containing both a mother and father). They are also against “heteronormative thinking”, according to their statement. .

In their mission statement, they make several promises to support trans women, women of color, black people in general, LBGTQ, mothers….and “parents”. A deliberate avoidance of the word “fathers” and men.

From Blacklivesmatter.com-

As we can see, they have spelled out their agenda clearly. They feel shame and disgust towards anything that is heterosexual, white, male, or traditional in values such as nuclear families and marriage.

Is this the message we should be preaching to the Black community where fatherless homes make up over 70% of all households? The white community isnt fairing much better clocking in at over Half! According to “United Families International”, an organization that studies the relationship between children and parents, discovered that “boys who grow up without fathers are almost 4 times more likely to serve time in prison than those who grow up with a father.

Speaking of prison, men make up over 75% of the federal prison population whereas almost all inmates report not having a stable father figure. Studies also suggest that women receive lighter sentences for the same crime committed by men, do the “Damsel in Distress” Stereotype.

BLM frequently preaches against male privilege yet ignores that less than 12% of men win custody of their kids in divorces and more than half lose contact with this kids within two years after divorce.

Men who experience divorce are twice as likely than women to be forced into bankruptcy and 6 times more likely to be at risk for suicide. Currently over 70% of all homeless people in the US are men. Over 90% of all illegal child soldiers in the world are boys.

Boys are also at an all time low for college enrollment. Girls are outpacing boys in college enrollment at nearly 2 to 1 ratios. Societies war against masculinity has caused a generation of weak, subservient men who are still being drafted into wars in order to fight on everyone else’s behalf.

This generation is obsessed with “progress”, yet no shame or respect for anything that is traditional or Godly in any sense of the world. The days of a strong man/warrior/protector with a nurturing, loving mother are soon to be long gone.

In closing, perhaps we should all check out privilege, especially if you live in the USA, whereas half of the world is living on less than $1 a day in addition to continued slavery practices in central & East Africa, Eatern Europe, and South east Asia.

Even the lowest class citizen of USA has a higher standard of life than someone in Somalia, Uganda, Ukraine Cambodia, or Yugoslavia.

The worst part is, BLM claims to speak for black America but ignores its conservative black constituents. I’ll say this….you can protest against police brutality, seek Justice for George Floyd, call for the arrest of Derek Chauvin, and denounce racism…. you can even say ” Black Lives Matter”, but under all means, if you have any respect for conservative traditional ways of living, and you respect the men in your life, I would not recommend financially supporting this specific organization.

-Nalini-Global 2020

It’s time we stop bullying our Veterans and LEOs

 

When it comes to veterans in our nation, there appears to be one of two attitudes held towards their presence.

  1. “We love our Veterans! We support them no matter what! “
  2. “Veterans are just tools of a war machine who deserve what they get!”

While many conservatives will never criticize the military or police no matter what, other political ideologies such as liberals, libertarians, or anarchists, will sometimes spit on the service of veterans by calling them, “tools of the government”, and other derogatory terms, — The truth is somewhere in the middle, as is in most cases of “This Vs That” issues.

Yes, there have been servicemen  and police who have acted inappropriately in their service.  The Mahmudiyah rape and killings involved the gang-rape and killing of 14-year-old Iraqi girl Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and the murder of her family by United States Army soldiers on March 12, 2006.  In other cases, many Vietnam veterans have admitted that they killed Vietcong soldiers and wore pieces of their body parts as trophies.  And yes, it is true that many military conflicts are fought on bad intelligence or for malicious profit or gain.

However, there are also many accounts of soldiers who disobeyed orders that went against their conscious and/or later spoke out against things in their service they disagreed with. Soldiers are not mindless drones! They are usually very intelligent people.

A good example is Major General Smedley Butler, America’s most decorated marine in modern military history, who wrote the book, “War is A Racket”, which exposed the corrupt money-making schemes involved in overseas wars. Smedley, emphasized that soldiers should only be made to protect their country, not to police the world or fight on behalf of money hungry politicians.  Very brave and intellectual statements indeed!

Many liberal leaning people, often criticize our servicemen as being mindless robots for the US military, but this couldn’t be farthest from the truth. Every person who wants to serve our country is required to take an oath to the US constitution, a legal instruments that formed the foundation of our modern legal system to which the average American cannot even recite.  When our nation is threatened with an outside attack or an internal attack of gigantic proportions, the military is deployed to handle the crisis. These men and women spend their careers honing their combat, administrative, legal, and survival skills in order to protect those in their community.

While I agree that it is the duty of Americans to arm themselves and take part in the protection of their communities, our servicemen devote 100% of their time towards this effort, thus, they are experts in this field. Because we have a military, we can walk through the streets, fly through the air on our airplanes, and travel the world, knowing that there is a military force that is trained and ready to protect us from invaders.

People join the military for all kinds of reason. Sometimes those reasons are selfish other times they are purely out of duty and love for one’s country. Regardless of the reason, the soldier enlisted is employed to serve a primary duty of protecting his/her people. This rings true in all armies around the world. Without a military, in the event of an invasion, poorly trained citizens would have to band together with limited supplies to combat such a threat. While not totally impossible, the consequences would be disastrous, most likely leading towards the breakdown of their society.

When soldiers are sent off to fight and die in conflicts that appear to have little to do with our national security, please do not criticize the soldier. Criticize the policy maker who ordered their deployment! Criticize the commander in chief if you wish, criticize your state’s governor if you wish, criticize our lack of spirituality if you wish, but do not criticize the soldier.  Most soldiers that I know who are stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan want to come home, many agree that the wars have gone on far enough, they don’t want to participate in such actions.  Yet, when they are deployed and the bullets firing towards them from insurgents begin, they have no choice but to fight back, all because of a policy maker who decided that military action was necessary.

Servicemen can be seen as “tools of the government”, but only when “we the people” do not support them and speak out for them. In the 1960’s, many Americans were forced to deploy to Vietnam under Draft provisions. Anyone who refused to enter into the military under a draft order was sentenced to prison. These young men who were forced to kill, fight, and see their friends die, were spat on and ridiculed by the anti-war movement and were often called, “Baby killers”.  These men were forced to fight in an unpopular war under threat of law, yet were ridiculed for attempting to survive such a desperate situation.  These events were totally unfair towards our veterans.  This is why Vietnam Veteran Era soldiers have some of the highest incidents of PTSD.

Contrarily, because of strong opposition from the American public with displays of nearly constant protests regarding the Vietnam war, politicians felt the pressure and eventually brought home our troops after being in the area for 20 years.  Our troops now face a similar situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops have been there for 17 years . Despite early protests from the modern anti-war movement, in recent years, these wars have been mostly forgotten about by the public.

President Obama announced a supposed end to the Iraq war in 2011, yet to this date, there remains over 30,000 troops permanently stationed in the country whereas Afghanistan remains as active as ever in terms of conflict. These wars appear to have no end in sight.  But who is at fault? Our servicemen or our law makers?

Our servicemen have only a few things in mind when it comes to their service.

  1. I must protect my nation
  2. Protect my family
  3. survive

Politics are of little concern to soldiers. In fact, the “Uniform code of military justice”, a codified legal system governing enlisted soldier behavior, bars public criticism of the President and missions in order to protect moral during combat.  Perhaps every year, congress should take a vote from our soldiers who have boots on the ground, or make true congressional declarations of war; such reforms would be highly beneficial in my opinion. Regardless, there is still no merit in criticizing individual soldiers or police to the degree we have been.

Let’s say you work for Nike, Reebok, Toyota, Burger King, HCA, or any major corporation.  It is pretty safe to say that all of these corporations have probably committed some atrocious act at some point; Harming the environment, treating employees badly, using forced child labor, ect.  Because you work for a corporation that sells products using unethical means, does that mean that you yourself are evil? Probably not. You are probably just happy to have a job in order to feed your family or perhaps you really love the product but secretly wish that the company operated more fairly.

I think our soldiers and our law enforcement officers feel the same way. They are doing a JOB! A job that often includes things that they disagree with but must carry it out anyways. Occasionally, an employee may speak out or rebel, but he/she does so at risk of losing their job or even their life in some cases.  If we as a society want to reform a corporation, reform a military, or reform a government, being angry with the actions of the leaders of such an organization is a normal response. But to criticize those who carry out the functions of that organization are not always warranted and are often gray, murky, and situational.

If you truly support our Veterans or if you truly disapprove of the missions they are involved in, be a part of the solution instead of simply espousing hatred towards such an entity. Bring together your community, show solidarity, make it clearly known to policy makers how the public is feeling, boycott, get new laws passed or repealed and use diplomatic methods to reshape these institutions.

The best way to support our veterans, those who stand between us sleeping safely at night or being invaded by those who wish to do us harm, is to get involved in politics in order to prevent needless wars and to support those injured soldiers who return home from these wars.  Our servicemen and law enforcers, while not always behaving perfectly, are essential to preserving a free society. When these men and women who are trusted with keeping our lands relatively safe act out under bad leadership, we should seek to reform the system, hold individuals accountable, work aggressively towards preventative measures of a repeat incident.

While I agree that it is not healthy to worship servicemen and policemen as flawless gods, it is also not healthy to put all servicemen and policemen into the category of “corrupt”. Our servicemen and policemen are also individuals with their own opinions regarding war, politics, and society. They are serving as a collective yet still deserve to be treated as individuals. Just as it is not fair to stereotype a race or religion, it is also not fair to stereotype those who are employed in a certain profession, whether it be the lowly cashier or the badge wielding police officer.

Honor and dishonor exists in all areas of employment. Some employees will take pride in their jobs, seeking to obtain a leadership position in order to improve conditions for everyone, whereas others will do just the bare minimum because they just want survive and get by.  Unless you are living off the land living like the amish and making your own clothes by scratch, odds are, we are all somewhat guilty by association in terms of the things we buy, the places we work at, and/or the things we say to each-other.

No one is innocent. 

However, when it comes to the military, less than 1% of Americans serve.  It’s a job that is totally necessary yet less than 1% of our population is willing to do it. Some say our veterans do not deserve the benefits they get, while others say they deserve more.  I say, if its a necessary job that less than 1% of our population is willing to do, then I’d vote that they get MORE benefits.

If you hate the wars, if you hate the policies, if you hate the way things are run, start your own or seek to reform them. It is that simple! Criticism is necessary for a dialogue to occur, yet, eventually some action has to come next to create a solution. Some problems are never completely cured as problems often evolve or devolve. Regardless, someone has to care enough to do something about it and i’d bet every last cent I have that most soldiers have no desire to unnecessarily harm others, and most police officers don’t want to unnecessarily ruin people’s lives.   We must stop picking on the “foot soldies” and criticize those who are calling the shots, the law makers and the CEOs who make the final stamp on an order.

Just like in all systems or ideologies, it is the “bad apples” who give the harvest a bad name.  As a person who is interested in running for office someday as a congressman or senator, instead of bashing the actions of policemen and servicemen, I am more interested in talking to them on ways we as lawmakers can improve our system, make it more fair, make their jobs easier, and less stressful.

If we as a society are comfortable with criticizing policemen and our soldiers because of bad leadership, we should be consistent and also protest the lowly cashier who works at a fast-food restaurant which serves unhealthy food to our public.  As Jesus Christ once said,

“Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.”

or as a great rapper once said,

“Don’t hate the player, hate the game.”

 

  • Randell Stroud
  • 2018
  • Nalini-Global

Is hate-speech considered Free-Speech?

 

On October 28th, 2017, a rally will be held in Shelbyville,Tn. The rally is called, “White Lives Matter” lead by a group of White Nationalists. An event that I want no part of. Being a Tennessean myself, I know the history of my state very well. Tennessee,Georgia, and Alabama are cradles for The Ku Klux Klan, a group that has very much weakened in the last 50 years, yet, some racial sentiments from their heyday still live on in rural areas.

While the south has progressed quite a bit over the last few decades, there are still remnant of racial tensions.  After several incidents involving white police officers killing unarmed black citizens, a group known as “Black Lives Matter”, has began to emerge. The decentralized group plans to counter protest the rally in Shelbyville. The rise of white nationalism has grown since the election of Donald Trump who espouses populist ideals.  Black Lives Matter groups want to bring awareness around minorities who are targeted by police, treated unfairly in the justice system, and other problems that go ignored in their communities.

The “White Lives Matter” activists claim that police officers killing white citizens are being ignored in the media, and the constant accusations of racism against them (i.e. playing the race card), and their disdain for “Political Correctness”, is why they are speaking out. White Lives Matter claim that they are tired of being “scapegoats” for media induced race wars.

These statements do not sound extremely controversial. However, among these groups exists a more sinister wing.  The same can be said of the Black Lives Matter movement. In both movements, we see disturbing trends. On the far right, we have Neo-Nazis, skinheads, and the KKK. On the far left, we have Antifa, Black Separatists, and Neo-Anarchists. On both ends of the spectrum, violence, bigotry,  and hateful comments are often dispersed.  Extreme opinions on both the left and the right are resulting in 1960s styled race-wars. It is truly sad to see.

Accusations of “hate-speech” have been numerous in recent years. With the rise of legalized gay marriage, transgender activism, and race riots, the label of “hate speech” is often seen in the media.  Many even advocate that “hate-speech” should be illegal. Protesters on the left can be seen holding signs saying, “Hate-speech is not Free-Speech”. 

Hate-Speech, as commonly defined, is any sort of slur or comment that demeans someone based on their race, religion, gender, or nationality.  But, is hate-speech considered free-speech?”

Yes and no.

Under the Constitution of the United States,  citizens are guaranteed the right to express grievances. There is no stipulations in the constitution as to what those grievances may be. In many instances, grievances are not always agreed upon. My grievance may be to support abortion, whereas another may consider it offensive, thus deeming it as “hate-speech”, since, in the mind of a pro-lifer, I would be advocating for something offensive to their religion.

The gray area of what is “hate speech” is very hazy. Free-Speech has been suppressed many times in American history. The Smith Act of 1940 , made it illegal for American citizens to openly support Communism or Socialism publicly during both World Wars, yet many people today support those policies without fear.

However, generally, as I understand how liberty and freedom works, is quite simple.

A man or woman has the right to say and/or believe whatever they want so long as their words are not encouraging criminal acts such as murder, theft, or vandalism.  From a civil standpoint, this would also include libel and slander.  Under the Civil Rights Act, this also expands into the work-place applicable to employers hiring employees without considering their race, gender, or religion.

If your words are not encouraging violence, libel, slander, or mayhem, then the Constitution supports your right to say whatever you desire, no matter how ridiculous it may be. If a man were standing on a public sidewalk holding a sign that said, “I hate White people”. Would I be offended? yes! Would I be upset? Yes. Would I organize a counter-protest? Very likely.  Would I ask that his action be made illegal? No.

In some situations, the ability to say controversial things sparks debate, communication, and growth.  The 1st amendment of the Constitution was not designed so that we may talk about the weather, it was designed so that people could say very controversial things outside of the norm of society without fear of suppression.

It is a very slippery slope. In fact, under the Patriot Act and the NDAA , free speech is suppressed. Under these laws, anyone who supports terrorism, even verbally, can be detained without a trial and/or placed on a watchlist effectively having their passports revoked.  It sounds good in theory, until you realize that it is very ambiguous. Let’s say I post on Facebook, “I hate paying taxes!”.  Under the Patriot Act, some controller from a far away office could legally monitor that comment and place me on a watchlist saying that I am advocating “anti-government” rhetoric.  It seems far fetched, but it is actually happening and has happened to many people.

Soon, our political leaders will be able to silence anyone so long as they use buzzwords like: Terrorism. Racist. Homophobic. Islamphobe. Bigot.  We see it all the time in politics. When Barack Obama was president, I was often called “racist” anytime I criticized him, even though my criticisms were always towards his policies and not his race, the accuser didn’t care, because my skin did not match theirs. On the flip side, when I criticize President Trump, the far-right accuses me of being an undercover “Antifa” member or a “liberal”.  Some could argue that such accusations could be illegal under “libel” and “slander”, since these are attacks on my personal character/reputation. General comments made towards society and public officials are absolutely protected under the 1st amendment.

I am non-partisan and I am not easily offended, so, I let those comments roll off my shoulders, however, the point is made…

Do we truly live in a society that is only able to criticize those who look exactly like us? I may catch a lot of flack for saying this, but, I believe that a man or woman should legally be allowed to utter any comment that does not command a criminal or libelous act. If they are general comments made and they do not instruct murder,theft,vandalism,libel, or slander, then the person/group should either be left alone, or, if you disagree, you should peacefully counter-protest that individual or group.

If a protester is advocating for murder or destruction, the protester should not be counter-protested, but rather, you should call the police and have them thrown in jail because they are guilty of conspiracy.  If a Neo-Nazi shouts into the streets, “I am going to kill all black people.”  This is not free-speech. He is openly expressing his intent to murder anyone who has black skin. The police should be called.  However, if that same Neo-Nazi exclaims, “We shouldn’t allow foreigners to immigrate into the US”,  his words are extremely unintelligent, but they are not illegal.

The fact that the Neo-Nazi is even allowed to say this will spark a debate. Debates are very necessary for human evolution. The only way we can remove stupidity is to allow for stupidity to rear its ugly head so that we may publicly shame it.

Free-Speech is often confused with “popular speech”.  Just because a speaker isn’t saying something that is widely accepted, doesn’t automatically mean that he/she should be locked in jail, castrated, or charged with a felony.

Are racists idiots? Yes

Should we fear all Muslims? No

Should we care whether or not Gay people get married? No, that’s their business.

Should we assume that anyone who doesn’t agree with us is racist? No

These are my opinions, but many may disagree. And they should have the right to. 

In the words of a great philosopher….

 “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall

 

On October 28th, 2017,  Black Lives Matter will counter protest the “White Lives Matter” rally in shelbyville.  The Constitution says that both groups are allow to commence in their activities. Both groups are legally protected.  If violence, vandalism, libel, or slander is used during these rallies by either side, then you can expect arrests to be made. The judge will not care if you are a Liberal, Conservative, or whatever. If you do the crime you must do the time.

If the judge or jury issues what is perceived as an unfair verdict, the public has every right to protest, boycott, counter-sue the state, and/or express their grievances towards that also.

It’s time we get back to the basics and read a little “Common Sense.”

I’m sure Benjamin Franklin would agree.

Nalini-Global

2017

Randell Stroud