Is Pete “the punk” Buttigieg serious right now? 

Wait…, Pete who…, what?

According to Leah Simpson for The DailyMail.com, “Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg [pronounced “Booty-gag,” I believe] fully supports erasing the names of Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson from titles of prestigious annual political dinners around the country, due to their slave-owning history.”

“The Indiana politician shared his view on The Hugh Hewitt Show Friday after the radio host asked if Jefferson-Jackson dinners should be renamed everywhere because both were holders of slaves.”

erase 6

‘“Yeah, we’re doing that in Indiana. I think it’s the right thing to do,’ Buttigieg said ahead of his June 15 appearance at the event that is now named the Blue Commonwealth Dinner in his state.”

“He told The Hugh Hewitt Show Friday that ‘Jefferson is more problematic’ than Jackson.”

Oh…, so Thomas Jefferson is “more problematic” in your eyes, huh, Mr. “Booty-gag?”

Please allow me to remind you about a few things regarding Thomas Jefferson?

First of all, he lived over 200 years ago (1743-1826)!

Things were a little different over 200 years ago.

I think we need to put Thomas Jefferson and his life “in context.”

Thomas Hobbes said, “Life was still nasty, brutish, and short” in 1800. The average life expectancy was only about 37 years.  A typical day was filled with hard work of every sort. People worked six days a week and went to church on Sunday. They mostly dealt with illnesses by dying. They ate meat and grains and vegetables and whatever they could grow and kill.

There was no electricity, no running water, no educational system, no “health care” and no “social security.”

There was no way to get around, on land, besides walking or with the help of a horse.

I doubt that our friend Pete would even have lasted very long.

It was during these times that Thomas Jefferson managed to become an architect, a lawyer, the principal author of The Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, one of the founding fathers of our country, a diplomat under George Washington, the second vice president of the United States from 1797 to 1801, and the third president of the United States from 1801 to 1809.

During the American Revolution, he represented Virginia in the Continental Congress that adopted the Declaration of Independence, he served as the second Governor of Virginia from 1779 to 1781, during the American Revolutionary War.  He became the United States Minister to France in May 1785, and subsequently the nation’s first secretary of state under President George Washington from 1790 to 1793.

It’s a shame that the current mayor of South Bend, Indiana, which is about 60 miles east of Chicago, with just over 100,000 residents, and ranked 301st in the country in population, has such issues with someone “like” Thomas Jefferson.

Like they say in the world of sports, Pete Buttigieg would not be qualified to carry Thomas Jefferson’s jock!

Thomas Jefferson was a product of his times, Pete.  Jefferson having slaves at the time wasn’t anything personal.  It was what it was, that’s all.

If it weren’t for men like Jefferson, who established the absolute miracle of a country called The United States, you wouldn’t be able to stand there criticizing him.  In fact, you’d probably be a slave yourself, or at the very best a peon, working your life away based on the wishes of your masters.

“Buttigieg said the disassociation of Jefferson’s name was more of a pressing matter across the United States.”

erase 2

‘“Over time, you develop and evolve on the things you choose to honor,’ he said.”

erase 1

It’s too bad we all have not “evolved” to such an elite level as yourself Mr. Buttigieg!”

Right now, America is still a free country and we all get to choose who we choose to honor.  You can choose to honor whoever you feel is worthy of your admiration, Pete…, you know…, people like Madonna, Cher, Alec Baldwin, Whoopi Goldberg…, but as for me, I’ll stick with Thomas Jefferson as someone deserving of our admiration and appreciation.

erase 3

“However he regards the move as a way to not only acknowledge the damage of the enslavement of people but to make it clear racism still thrives in America.”

I wouldn’t say “racism is thriving in America,” although the democrats sure do love to promote it.  Racism is actually a cottage industry for many liberals.

Racism obviously exists though, and it always will exist to some extent.

For most people back in Jefferson’s era, slavery wasn’t about racism, however, it was about business.

From The Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness. – Thomas Jefferson

erase 4

Buttiġieġ is a Maltese surname, derived from an Arabic word, meaning chicken owner, or in this case “chicken sh#t.”

Mayor Buttigieg has bad-mouthed Thomas Jefferson on race, but according to Wikipedia, “In 2012, Buttigieg demoted South Bend police chief Darryl Boykins (the city’s first ever African American police chief) after a federal investigation found that the police department had improperly recorded telephone calls. He also fired the police department’s communications director, who had ‘discovered the recordings but continued to record the line at Boykins’ command.’ The police communications director alleged that the recordings captured four senior police officers making racist remarks and discussing illegal acts. Boykins sued the city for racial discrimination over being demoted by the mayor [Mayor Buttigieg], arguing that the taping policy existed under previous police chiefs, who were white…, resulting in the city’s spending over $800,000 on out-of-court settlements.

Hmmm…, that sounds like a racist type issue there Mr. Mayor.  And you must have been guilty since you opted to settle for over $800,000. And not of your own money, of course, but with money from the hardworking taxpayers of your fair city.

Typical liberal hypocrisy on display…, again.

erase 5

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

 

“Should a White Man Be the Face of the Democratic Party in 2020?” – A recent headline in The New York Times.

The democrat party and liberals in general continually like to label conservatives, and President Trump specifically, as racists (anti-people of color), misogynists (anti-women), along with having phobias concerning any other type of personal delineation you can name.

It must be a heavy burden, maintaining this “enlightedness” on a daily basis.

whitemales 6

But we all have our crosses to bear.

I would argue that the liberal “enlightedness” of 2019 and 2020 is racist (anti-white) and misandrous (anti-men).

Approximately 70% of the U.S. population is “white,” which equates to roughly 225 million people, with males specifically accounting for about 110 million of those.

On the surface, that would not seem to be a very wise position for the democrats to be coming from.

But being wise, fair, and tolerant is not their current M.O. (“modus operandi,” or “method of operating”).

Why does everything have to be viewed through the spectrum of race, gender, culture and sexual orientation with the left?

Shouldn’t their goal be to just nominate the best person “to be the face of the democrat party in 2020,” regardless of race, gender, culture and sexual orientation?

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

I think Dr. King would be disappointed that democrats and liberals were the ones standing in the way of that dream.

The comical thing, however, is that even with all of this “anti-white male” talk flying around the democrat party, their leading candidates right now are all white males!

Remember, however, in liberal land, what you say is more important than what you actually do.

whitemales 1

The top four I am referring to are: “Creepy Uncle” Joe Biden, “Crazy” Bernie Sanders, Beto “O’Dork” O’Rourke and Pete “Booty-gag” Buttigieg.

Candidates of a more “preferred” race and/or gender are Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillebrand, Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker, although they currently trail the four “white devils” by a significant amount in the polls.

whitemales 2

One of these “preferred” candidates will undoubtedly be chosen as the vice-presidential candidate to balance out the regrettable white male presidential candidate.

Howard Kurtz for Fox News adds, “… isn’t it also a discriminatory impulse to say perhaps a white male candidate should be denied the nomination on the grounds of race and sex?  Doesn’t that go against what we’ve always heard about wanting a color-blind and gender-neutral society?”

whitemales 4

The New York Times article piece says that “Democrats have seen the strong diversity in their field … become somewhat overshadowed by white male candidates.”  The article then asks, “What’s the bigger gamble: to nominate a white man and risk disappointing some of the party’s base, or nominate a minority candidate or a woman who might struggle to carry predominantly white swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that both Barack Obama and President Trump won?”

Hmmm…, so Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are considered “white swing states” by the liberals?  Interesting.  So even entire states have a racial determination in their eyes.

whitemales 7

Believe me my democrat friends…, there is no “gamble” for you no matter who you nominate.  Who else are the great confused liberal masses going to vote for?

President Trump!?

And those “unicorn” voters who identify as “independents” are even more confused than the confused liberal masses.

If any of these “independents” had an IQ higher than that of a jackass, the difference between President Trump and any of these democrat candidates should be readily apparent.  How anyone could be “undecided” going into the 2020 presidential election is beyond me.

whitemales 3

There is going to be well over a billion dollars spent on this election, trying to persuade about 1,000 “independent” idiots.

Everyone else is spoken for.

That’s about $1 million a vote by the way…, and they’ll probably end up voting for the Green Party candidate anyway!  Or not bother to vote at all because they still couldn’t make up their mind!

It’s a mad, mad, mad world.

whitemales 5

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Louis Farrakhan is suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Louis Farrakhan, the “leader of The Nation of Islam,” is calling for a “separate state” for Black Americans.  He says this is, “what God wants,” while any blacks that oppose his calling he describes as “slaves.”

According to Lukas Mikelionis of Fox News, “Farrakhan, who in recent months has made numerous anti-Semitic comments, made his call for a nation-state separate from white America in response to the question whether it’s still his and the group’s goal.”

“That’s not just my goal. That’s what God wants. Most of our people don’t want it here,” Farrakhan has said. “You love your enemy. You want to stay with your enemy. You’re in love with his wealth. I understand the fascination, slaves. I understand that. But God has something else for us.”

“The preacher went on to reiterate that neither he nor his group has changed its goal of a separate state since its creation in the 1960s.”

‘“Let me tell you what’s gonna happen. Yes I’m after a separate state. A separate nation. In the 60s what was our cry? We weren’t saying we want to integrate, we were saying ‘It’s nation time!’ he said.”

‘“Black Power. Black Power to do what? To integrate a lunch counter? Black Power to build a nation for 40 million, now near 50 million, black people,’ he added.”

‘“Yes I’m after a separate state. A separate nation. In the 60s what was our cry? We weren’t saying we want to integrate, we were saying It’s nation time!’”

Well…, let’s step back a moment Mr. Farrakhan, and take a look at what exactly we have here.

There are 325.7 million people in The United States.

“Blacks” make up only 12.6% of the population.  Does that surprise you?  The way “Blacks” act you would think they make up close to 50% of the population.  The truth is they truly are a minority…, and a small minority at that.

And how many of those “Blacks” are only half “Black?”  How many of those “Blacks” are half White, or half Asian, or half Latino?  The actual percent of true “Blacks” is really under 10% probably.

You say you want to build a nation for, “40 million, now near 50 million, black people.”

The truth is that “Black” people account for about 41 million people in The United States.  Nowhere near even approaching 50 million.

Now let’s take a look your “The Nation of Islam.”

“The Nation of Islam” is estimated (and why they don’t have a more exact count is confusing to me) to have 20,000-50,000 members.

I personally question that low figure of 20,000.  I believe it is even much less than that.

But, be that as it may, using their numbers, that’s still less than 1% of African Americans, and less than .01% of the total U.S. population.

So in reality, Louis Farrakhan is in no position to think he is representing African Americans, in general, at all.

You say you want a “separate state.”  What state exactly would that be?  Montana, Idaho…, Arizona?

And how exactly would that work?

And you frame your desire as if there is someone out here who could grant your wish.

Why would anyone establish a “black state” for you?

Perhaps you should buy an island and move your measly group of followers there and see how you would do.

Lukas Mikelionis added, “In November, Farrakhan and his groupies went on a solidarity trip to Iran and led “Death to America” chants.”

“During the trip, Farrakhan told Iranian students that ‘America has never been a democracy,’ and also led a ‘Death to Israel’ chant at the end of his talk, Iranian news agencies reported.”

I know!  Perhaps Iran would give you a portion of their country to establish your “Black State?”

Or maybe some country in Africa would welcome you back and grant you some land to “homestead” on?

Somehow, I’m guessing that’s not really what you want.

In reality, I don’t think you really know what you want.  In reality, I don’t think you’ve really thought this whole thing through…, which would be par for the course in your case.

You’re all hot air and no action Mr. Farrakhan.  If you want your own state, do something about it instead of just talking about it.  Go establish a town somewhere.  15,000-20,000 people is a small town in America.

Why don’t you start there and work up to a “nation” at a later date?

Conservatives actually have no problem with anyone creating their own destiny.  It’s your friends, the liberals, who would prefer you don’t leave “the plantation,” however.

Minister Farrakhan has actually endorsed and praised President Trump in the past, but he has been critical of him as well.  Farrakhan’s message of independence and taking responsibility for your own destiny is one most conservatives would support.  It’s too bad he has to “lob those racism bombs” out there every so often.

Farrakhan is in a politically peculiar spot.  Conservatives can’t support him because of his racist tendencies, and liberals can’t disavow him because…, well…, because he’s Black, and he’s not technically a conservative.

Isn’t it a funny world that we live in?

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

farrakhan

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑