Connect with us

Opinion

Critical Race Theory is Bogus and Here’s How to Refute It

In the U.S., the press works overtime to keep dividing us.

Jeff Davidson

Published

on

You’re attending some gathering, or simply having an email exchange with an old friend from school, and the topic of Critical Race Theory (CRT) arises. You know deep down that it’s not only wrong, it’s socially destructive. 

On the spot, you grapple with an effective retort to whomever is presenting you with bologna about the legitimacy of CRT, which contends that by virtue of you’re being born and of your skin color, if you are Caucasian, you are an irredeemable racist, your ancestors probably owned slaves, and you represent the nation’s biggest problem. 

Hit’em with the Facts

Here are ten items, in quick and succinct fashion, to raise with anyone who is promoting this Marxist/socialist culturally destructive propaganda known as CRT:

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

1) Slavery has existed on every continent for most of human history. Slavery in the ancient cultures was known to occur in civilizations as old as Sumer, and found in civilization including ancient Egypt, the Akkadian Empire, Assyria, Greece, Rome, other parts of the Roman Empire, and the Islamic Caliphate. The Turks, Mongols, Persians, Chinese, Huns, Goths, and countless other societies held slaves.

2) African slaves, shipped to America, were rounded up and sold by Africans. African Americans, in some instances, owned African slaves.

3) The Pilgrims and the Puritans left England to escape religious persecution. Others from Holland, Germany, France, Denmark, etc. had their reasons; owning slaves was not the objective. Nine of the original 13 colonies — VT, NH, MA, CT, NY, PA, NY, DE, MD — were not slave states. VA, NC, SC, and GA were. All men (people) are created equal; all cultures and subcultures are not. The U.S. slaves states were sordid cultures. 1930s Germany under Hitler was an ignoble culture. Georgia, say, at the time future PBS journalist Charlene Hunter Gault entered the University of Georgia, was largely a racist culture. Today, the people who discriminated against her back then,  understandably, would be ashamed of that behavior today.

4) Legions of northerners were abolitionists. Some gave their lives for the cause.

5) More than 350,000 white Union Soldiers died in the Civil War. 

6) The U.S. and Great Britain led the world in stopping the African slave trade.  

7) Since 1965, the U.S has paid more than $22,000,000,000,000 either directly to African Americans, or for countless programs designed to help them achieve parity and overcome the effects of Jim Crow and discrimination. This amount equals more than $14,000 per black person alive in each of the years from from 1965 to the present, and well more than $500,000 to any individual alive for more than 40 years during this stretch. 

8) Barack Obama was elected president twice, which is impossible based on CRT doctrine.

 9) U.S. black wealth, if a separate nation, would rank among the most prosperous on Earth.

10) 28.7 million people today are victims of the world-wide slave trade, called human-trafficking, and few CRT advocates seem concerned. 

Their Response? Wait for It

It’s doubtful that purveyors of CRT they would want to address even one item above, but if they do ask them to imagine that someone introduced a theory which holds that all 45 million U.S. blacks are all… whatever. How racist would that be? Well, CRT does the same thing to whites. 

CRT is totally racist; it is stereotyping on a grand scale disguised as something supposedly high-minded. It is is not high-minded. The purpose of CRT is to indoctrinate individuals with the notion that America is an irreparably racist nation built on racist institutions, upheld by racist people. It is both a sinister and highly toxic ideology which invariably breed hostility, and keeps people apart.

A major problem with CRT is that it demonstrates no perspective on the part of the purveyor. Worldwide studies and surveys show that the U.S. is among the least racist nations on earth, with some obvious problems included. Every other country has deep divisions and unspoken hostilities; even Scandinavian countries. 

In the U.S., the press works overtime to keep dividing us. When supposed scholars haven’t looked intently beyond our borders, they derive questionable theories, and skewed interpretations. Again, suppose some ‘scholar’ declared that all U.S. blacks are xyz…  How quickly would that be bitterly refuted? In a nano-second or in a pico-second? 

 

Opinion

Biden Mandate Busted Again, This Time in Lone Star State

It was a BRUTAL smackdown at that!

Published

on

From the very moment that Joe Biden began to speak about a federal vaccine mandate, there were concerns about its constitutionality.  You see, this is a nation founded on the ethos of freedom, and there is nothing more authoritarian than forcing a population to undergo unwanted medical procedures.

And, thusly, in the weeks following the Commander in Chief’s declaration, a number of judicial bodies took up the argument, and with devastating results for the White House.

The latest smackdown comes to us from Texas.

A federal judge in Texas Friday blocked the federal government from enforcing President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, arguing that he didn’t have the authority to do so “with the stroke of a pen and without input from Congress.”

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Biden has pushed several different iterations of vaccine mandates in recent months, including one for large businesses which the Supreme Court blocked and another for healthcare workers which it allowed to go into effect.

There was no beating around the bush, either.

Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Friday ruled against the administration on a separate mandate generally applying to federal employees.

“While vaccines are undoubtedly the best way to avoid serious illness from COVID-19, there is no reason to believe that the public interest cannot be served via less restrictive measures than the mandate, such as masking, social distancing, or part- or full-time remote work,” Brown wrote. “Stopping the spread of COVID-19 will not be achieved by overbroad policies like the federal-worker mandate.”

And, given the narrowest of margins in Congress, there is little doubt that any attempt to ratify this mandate legislatively would fail.

From the very moment that Joe Biden began to speak about a federal vaccine mandate, there were concerns about its constitutionality.  You see, this is a nation founded on the ethos of freedom, and there is nothing more authoritarian than forcing a population to undergo unwanted medical procedures. And, thusly, in the weeks following the Commander in Chief’s declaration, a number of judicial bodies took up the argument, and with devastating results for the White House. The latest smackdown comes to us from Texas. A federal judge in Texas Friday blocked the federal government from enforcing President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, arguing that he didn’t have the authority to do so “with the stroke of a pen and without input from Congress.” Biden has pushed several different iterations of vaccine mandates in recent months, including one for large businesses which the Supreme Court blocked and another for healthcare workers which it allowed to go into effect. There was no beating around the bush, either. Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Friday ruled against the administration on a separate mandate generally applying to federal employees. “While vaccines are undoubtedly the best way to avoid serious illness from COVID-19, there is no reason to believe that the public interest cannot be served via less restrictive measures than the mandate, such as masking, social distancing, or part- or full-time remote work,” Brown wrote. “Stopping the spread of COVID-19 will not be achieved by overbroad policies like the federal-worker mandate.” And, given the narrowest of margins in Congress, there is little doubt that any attempt to ratify this mandate legislatively would fail.

Continue Reading

News

Fact Checkers Make Exception for Liberal-Leaning News Outfit

Perhaps one of the several other “fact checking” corporations would like to take a stab at it?

Published

on

If there was ever a reason to doubt the authority and authenticity of the mission of the so-called “fact checker” organizations it is this:  There are more than one of them.

You see, if “facts” and “truth” were binary, there wouldn’t be a glut of competing companies out there attempting to sell their services to social media corporations and other media outlets.  We wouldn’t have any disparity whatsoever.  There would be one fact-checking group because, as stated in their creeds, there should be but one set of “facts”.

The entire industry is a bit of a scam, if we’re ready to be that honest with ourselves.  And, if we’re not, there are plenty of examples out there of these companies massaging the narrative in order to maintain their lucrative contracts.

NewsGuard, the establishment “news rating” project that claims to fight untrustworthy media outlets, is cautiously defending NPR as the establishment media outlet continues to claim that U.S. Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonya Sotomayor are at odds over masks, even after a statement from both Justices and Chief Justice John Roberts debunking the story.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

On Tuesday, NPR released a story claiming that Justice Sotomayor had opted to work remotely after Justice Gorsuch refused a request from Chief Justice Roberts that all justices mask up when on the bench.

Later in the day, a Supreme Court source told Fox News that neither Justice Roberts nor Justice Sotomayor had made any such request.

But then:

Despite the total breakdown of the initial story, Newsguard refuses to make any judgments on NPR’s reporting, arguing that the situation is still unfolding.

Prior to the statement from Chief Justice Roberts, Newsguard maintained that the facts of the story were still unclear.

“There are two conflicting reports, one from NPR and one from Fox News, both citing anonymous sources,” said Matt Skibinski, general manager of Newsguard. “It’s hard to say anything definitive about either report without more information.”

But Newsguard cannot hide from this fact:

However, even after all three Justices named in the story – Gorsuch, Sotomayor, and Roberts – made public statements debunking it, while NPR refused to issue a correction, Newsguard maintained that the story was still unfolding.

Perhaps one of the several other “fact checking” corporations would like to take a stab at it?

If there was ever a reason to doubt the authority and authenticity of the mission of the so-called “fact checker” organizations it is this:  There are more than one of them. You see, if “facts” and “truth” were binary, there wouldn’t be a glut of competing companies out there attempting to sell their services to social media corporations and other media outlets.  We wouldn’t have any disparity whatsoever.  There would be one fact-checking group because, as stated in their creeds, there should be but one set of “facts”. The entire industry is a bit of a scam, if we’re ready to be that honest with ourselves.  And, if we’re not, there are plenty of examples out there of these companies massaging the narrative in order to maintain their lucrative contracts. NewsGuard, the establishment “news rating” project that claims to fight untrustworthy media outlets, is cautiously defending NPR as the establishment media outlet continues to claim that U.S. Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonya Sotomayor are at odds over masks, even after a statement from both Justices and Chief Justice John Roberts debunking the story. On Tuesday, NPR released a story claiming that Justice Sotomayor had opted to work remotely after Justice Gorsuch refused a request from Chief Justice Roberts that all justices mask up when on the bench. Later in the day, a Supreme Court source told Fox News that neither Justice Roberts nor Justice Sotomayor had made any such request. But then: Despite the total breakdown of the initial story, Newsguard refuses to make any judgments on NPR’s reporting, arguing that the situation is still unfolding. Prior to the statement from Chief Justice Roberts, Newsguard maintained that the facts of the story were still unclear. “There are two conflicting reports, one from NPR and one from Fox News, both citing…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week