Category History

The “Race” to the Bottom for America

Are you tired yet of every racial grievance making its way into the political arena to try to score political points? Tired of people using race as an excuse to justify poor behavior like tearing down or defacing historical monuments? Tired of the double-standards, hypocrisy, and the dredging up of historical animosities to perpetuate racial divides?

We are in a “race” to the bottom in America, and we’re getting there fast!

Recently, during two school assemblies at Glen Allen high school in Henrico, VA, administrators played a four-minute, “racially-charged” video created by the African American Policy Forum (AAPF) portraying any non-Caucasoid American as a victim of discrimination and white privilege. The title of the video? “Structural Discrimination: The Unequal Opportunity Race

There is too much to dismantle about this blatant “error in judgement” on the part of school administrators, but let us try to at least discuss the major problems.

Reportedly, the purpose for showing the video was to educate about American history and racial discourse for Black History Month.

Now, because I am a firm believer that words still have meaning I want to take just a moment to define the word “race” in order to clarify how it ought to be used, and to illustrate how it is being completely hijacked for the purposes of the racial grievance industry.

Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines race as “The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock.”   Now, consider that the current forensic anthropological classification of the 3 races are:  Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid.

Noah Webster

Noah Webster

The “stock” (or progenitors) of the 3 races are Shem, Ham, and Japheth who were the sons of Noah.  Negroids are descended from the line of Ham, Mongoloids are descended from the line of Shem, and Caucasoids are descended from the line of Japheth.  Obviously, today the races have greatly intermingled which is why forensic anthropologists must use the size and shape of various bones structures such as the upper jaw and cheekbones in order to determine from which race a person descends.

Yes, you read that correctly– even though the grievance industry uses the word “race” to describe the color of a person’s skin, the pigmentation alone does not determine race.

By way of comparison, the word “racism” does not even exist in Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.  As you may have guessed, this word has only been used recently (since the 1930s) in its current inappropriate context.  One of the problems with creating new words that are vague in nature or lack a precise definition is that it allows anyone during the period of its earliest usage to hijack it for their own purposes.  While the reasonable person would expect that the word “racism” deals with the 3 different races, the actual application of the word by the racial grievance industry changes depending on which classification of people are attempting to extort benefits from their counterparts in the other classifications.  On one day the classification could be by ethnicity, yet on another it could be by nationality, skin color, or a geographic region their ancestors came from.

“Racism” is just a convenient word to incite fear in those who concern themselves with political correctness.

So let’s allow a gracious definition of the word “racism” so we might continue this discussion and further dismantle the motives of the school administrators and the premises behind the video itself.

Other than trying to align an individual’s identity with the pigmentation of their skin rather than their citizenship and allegiance to the Unites States, what purpose is served by acknowledging “Black History Month” in the school system? Should we then have “White History Month,” “Yellow History Month,” “Brown History Month,” and “Red History Month” as well?  Perhaps we should reorganize our calendar to allow enough months for each self-identified victim class to have their own month to air perceived grievances? After all, wouldn’t that be fair?  (More on fairness later)

Why should it matter if a person is descended from sub-Saharan Africans, Europeans, or indigenous peoples from Latin America? Isn’t it more important that the American history we learn is about America and how Americans have arrived at our current set of circumstances?

Of course, like every other nation, our history involves strife between nations, races, and ideologies (e.g. War of 1812, slavery, politics), as well as strife within a nation (e.g. the Civil War).  Every rational American literate in our nation acknowledges the political, martial, social, and moral obstacles we have overcome to get where we are today.  Yet, it is the current choices we make as individuals (guided by our principles and values) that define us–not one or more snapshots in the history of our nation, or the pigmentation in our skin.


Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” –Dr. Martin Luther King

So, if we accept that each of us should be defined by the “content of [our] character” as evidenced by our current choices, and not by mistakes we made in the past, how can our entire nation be judged differently?  Only through hypocrisy can both be accepted.  Is not the United States (as our name implies) made up of the several states, which in turn are comprised of us as individuals?  President Thomas Jefferson said it best in his letter to George Logan in 1816.

President Thomas Jefferson

President Thomas Jefferson

“It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings collected together are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately” –President Thomas Jefferson in The Works of Thomas Jefferson, pg. 43

If we are truly interested in teaching history for the sake of learning from its teachings, shouldn’t we spend some time on the former Yugoslavia and how its ethnic divides gave rise to the term “balkanization?”  Perhaps it is not a great idea to promulgate the perceived injustices of various races, ethnicities, or any other arbitrary classification of peoples living together.  As we have learned from even recent history, there are severe consequences.

So, back to the video…

The major premise of the video is clearly evident in the title “Structural Discrimination: The Unequal Opportunity Race”

I don’t think this warrants much time, but the implication is that some form of discrimination is built into the structure of America, and that somehow there is a race afoot where different classes of individuals have unequal opportunities to “win.”

Based on the content of the video, the “race” seems to be about acquiring wealth.  While I do not personally believe that this is the race we are running in life, for the sake of our discussion, let’s give the benefit of the doubt to the African American Policy Forum and assume that the wealth of which they speak is that which is necessary to support a person through his lifetime.

After watching this video, somehow we are expected to arrive at the conclusion that the pigmentation of a person’s skin may somehow cause an individual to have an unequal opportunity to acquire the wealth necessary to support himself.

Since the video is about racial discourse, let’s put our “race” glasses on and see what we can learn.

There are four actors in the video:

  • one pale-skinned male and one pale-skinned female runner
    • We will presume both are Caucasoids although we are unable to be sure without our forensic anthropology measurements
  • one slightly darker male runner who could be Latino or from the south of Asia
    • Perhaps we are to presume he is Mongoloid, but again, who can know what race he is without measurements;
  • one even darker-skinned female runner who might be of African descent
    • We are to presume she is of the Negroid race;

This is the part of the problem with the racial grievance industry…they throw around vague and nondescript terms like “race” and “racism” without informing the public of how they are using the term.  Then when you point out a flaw in the premise of their argument by saying something like, “how do you know what race these runners are?”, they will inform you that their definition of race has changed to the color of skin.  The problem with this tactic is, where do you draw the line in shades of color? Can a light-skinned Irishman call a tan Italian a racist? Can a dark-skinned Latino call a native Central American a racist?  This is why the grievance industry must constantly change the definitions of the “injured” party or allow them to self-identify in order to keep the industry alive and profitable.

booker-t-washington greivance

From My Larger Education, Being Chapters from My Experience (1911) by Booker T. Washington, pg. 118

Back to the race…

So, when the race starts, the time on the clock is 1492, which is supposed to be symbolic of the discovery of America by Europeans (Caucasoids).  The implication? That the “structural discrimination” began as soon as Columbus arrived to America.  However, no mention is made of the discrimination that took place between indigenous tribes on the continent before or since that date.  In that era, discrimination took the form of violent inter-tribal warfare, and it is only the lack of modern technology (gunpowder) initially that prevented the “discrimination” from claiming even more lives.

Certainly the AAPF is not suggesting that discrimination from within a race is acceptable are they?  That only discrimination from a separate race is frowned upon?  Because they do not mention this discrimination at all! But then again, consider the lack of outcry from the “Black Lives Matter” proponents about the significant amount of deaths caused by individuals with the same (or similar) pigmentation in their skin...

Read More

Words Still Have Meaning

Can we all agree that words have meaning and that changing them to suit those in our populace who seek to avoid responsibility for their actions only helps blur the line between good and evil?

Good. Next question: why do we allow the words like “gay” to be co-opted into a euphemism for “homosexual” or even the original word for it “sodomite”?

After all, who could argue with  Noah Webster?

What we are really talking about in light of the recent SCOTUS opinion is “marriages between sodomites”– not “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage”.

Even the whole national “conversation” has been focused on the gender of the sodomites instead of their elective predisposition to commit “crimes against nature” as Webster so eloquently put it.

It was these crimes that our Judeo-Christian society originally enacted laws against for good reason.

SOD’OMY, noun A crime against nature.

–Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828

Yes, there is a negative connotation to the word “sodomite” because they are committing crimes against “Nature and Nature’s God.” The connotation was intended by our forefathers.  It is the same with words like “illegal alien” (which is the term used for them in the United States Code 8 USC).  Somehow we have started calling them all sorts of nonsense like:

Noah Webster


  • illegal immigrant – an immigrant is someone who comes here legally with the intent to assimilate
  • undocumented immigrant – see above
  • undocumented worker – not all of them are working or want to work for that matter
  • guest worker – they are not our guests and see above
  • seasonal labor – in which season do they return home?
  • etc

We can love a sinner and still recognize and name his sin for what it is.

Do not bow to pressure because a spade doesn’t want to be called a spade!

Read More

On “General Welfare”

One of the rare, positive effects that has come out of Congress recently is the introduction into the Rules of the House of Representatives the requirement to cite “as specifically as practicable (sic) the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill…” (113th Congress, House Rules, Rule XII, paragraph 7c).

Sounds great, right?  Well, unfortunately these days, when an equally rare Constitutional challenge is leveled against legislation making its way through Congress, more often than not, the knee-jerk response is that the “general welfare” clause gives them carte blanche authority to spend our tax money on social welfare programs.

To those who have not had the opportunity to closely study our founding documents and the primary sources of information from which we discern their original intent, this may sound legitimate–overly vague–but legitimate.

So, let’s dig into these original documents, debates, and correspondence which helped frame and clarify them.

President James Madison

President James Madison

First, we should see what the Constitution has to say about the “general welfare” of the United States.

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  (Preamble to the U.S. Constitution / Emphasis added)


“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8; Emphasis added)

Aside from the definition of the word “welfare” from Webster’s Dictionary in 1828 which defines it as “ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states,” there are several primary sources to which we can turn to understand the intent of these phrases.

The first set of sources we will consider are The Federalist Papers which were written after the Convention to articulate to the public why the proposed Constitution was the right replacement to the Articles of Confederation.

The Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers

A key factor we must consider when studying the Constitution is that the document was written with the average man in mind–not for lawyers, judges, academics, etc.  James Madison, considered the primary author of the Constitution, confirmed this for us in The Federalist Papers.

“It will be of little avail to the people… if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood;” (The Federalist No. 62)

Madison (and other framers) feared that the language and volume of our laws, beginning with the Constitution, could soon spiral out of control.  To keep it in check, we would need to ensure that all of our legislators were not replaced at the same time in order to keep some institutional knowledge, and that the laws were written plainly for the common man to understand minimizing the need to re-write or amend them for clarity.  This tells us that the framers carefully crafted the wording of the Constitution to keep it free from hidden, double, vague, or ambiguous meanings.

Bearing in mind the simple language with which the framers intended to write the Constitution, we should also review the debates of the framers during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.  Fortunately for us, several of the framers (including Madison) kept notes about the proceedings at the Convention from which we can glean even further insight into the original intent of the various clauses of the document.  A terrific source for this purpose is the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (Vol. 1, Vol. 2, and Vol. 3) which chronicles from several perspectives the debates, findings, and conclusions of the various committees at the convention.  This is an invaluable treasure for those seeking the original intent of the framers.

Welfare — ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.

-Webster’s Dictionary 1828

The first we learn about the phrase “general welfare” is from Edmund Randolph of the Virginia delegation.  On May 29th, 1787, Mr. Randolph introduced what is now referred to as the Virginia Plan or Randolph Resolutions.  The very first resolution advocates that the “articles of Confederation ought to be so corrected & enlarged as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution; namely ‘common defence, security of liberty and general welfare'”.  Notice the phrase “corrected & enlarged”–keep this phrase in mind and we will revisit it shortly.

In fact Article III of the Articles of Confederation read, “the said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare.”  So as we can plainly see, the phrase was borrowed from our first attempt at constituting our nation.

Convention of 1787

Through the rest of the proceedings of the Convention, anytime the clause containing “general welfare” is brought up (August 11th and August 25th, 1787), it is in the context of paying the debts owed from the Revolutionary War that were secured to “provide for the common defense and general welfare” of the newly formed nation.  Also notice when the phrase is used in Article I, Section 8 (see above), it immediately follows the phrase “pay the debts”.

In fact, as Madison described in his letter to Andrew Stevenson on November 17, 1830 (which can be viewed in the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Vol. 3, page 483), there was no need to refer to any future debts for those were already accounted for in the powers granted to Congress in Section 8.  The only reason to include this phrase was to satisfy debts for “common defense and general welfare” prior to the new Constitution.

The final source we will look at is the correspondence of the primary author of the Constitution.  Specifically we will look at the letter James Madison wrote to Andrew Stevenson in which he conveyed his intent and understanding of the incorporation of the phrase.

In addition to the argument presented above, Madison goes on to argue that the “general welfare” phrase could not be construed as unlimited and indefinite.  If so, then how could it be “enlarged” as Edmund Randolph proposes on May 29th (remember his resolution from above?).  A corollary to that argument is that there would not have been a need to enumerate such specific powers if the intent was to allow for unlimited scope of the phrase.

Finally, in the same letter, Madison argues that “it exceeds the possibility of belief, that the known advocates in the Convention for a jealous grant & cautious definition of federal powers, should have silently permitted the introduction of words or phrases in a sense rendering fruitless the restrictions & definitions elaborated by them”

Moreover, in the dozens of proposals by way of the Convention in 1787, the subsequent debates between the colonies prior to ratification in 1789, and the many proposed amendments to limit the power of the new federal government prior to 1791, it defies logic that this phrase would have escaped notice–especially from those who were still fearful of an out-of-control centralized government similar to the one for which they sacrificed their lives and treasures to separate from in the first place!

While this is just one of many phrases of the Constitution that has been warped and twisted for political purposes in recent years, what we should also take away from this study is that all it takes is a careful examination of the original documents to help us understand, return to, and ultimately defend the values and principles laid out by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution.

Read More

Pledging Allegiance

The other day, my 9 year old son came into my office and asked me if I knew the “Pledge of Allegiance”.

Of course, he was really prompting me to ask him so he could recite it to me–and how proud I was that he did!  These are the times I love the most about being a father.  What a great opportunity to talk with my son about what the “Pledge of Allegiance” means.

This got me thinking about how many of us just recite the Pledge without really thinking about it’s meaning, and more importantly what it means to pledge our allegiance.

So, let’s first review the history of the pledge.

The original pledge was published on 8 September 1892 in a publication called “Youth’s Companion” which was largely a Christian periodical.  The author was Francis Bellamy.  In it’s first iteration, the language was generic because the pledge was intended for citizens of any nation to use.  But by 1942, Congress had formally adopted the pledge (June 22, 1942, ch. 435, §7, 56 Stat. 380) and by 1954, the pledge had been changed by Congress to it’s current form to reflect its use in the United States and to incorporate our Christian heritage in order to make a bold and public stance against the growing threat of Communism.

NOTE: This is one of the many instances where our Christian heritage is recognized by our own government.  This is not to be confused with endorsement of one denomination of the Christian faith.  Be sure to subscribe to the blog to read more about this in future posts.

ALLEGIANCE, noun – the duty of fidelity to a king, government or state

–American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828

So, as it stands, and in accordance with 4 USC, Section 4 ,the Pledge reads as follows (hopefully this is not new to anyone) :

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Let’s break it down:


FIDELITY, noun – Faithfulness; careful and exact observance of duty, or performance of obligations.

–American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828

“I pledge allegiance…”– I promise careful and exact observance of my duty and performance of my obligations as a citizen…

“…to the Flag of the Unites States of America…” – to the symbol of the United States of America…

“…, and to the Republic for which it stands…” – and more specifically, to the Republic for which that flag is a symbol.  This Republic is not an individual or faction, but is represented by the Constitution of the United States.


INDIVISIBLE, adjective – That cannot be divided, separated or broken; not separable into parts.

–American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828

“…, one Nation under God…” – This Republic is one nation under God’s authority.  NOTE: once again, we are recognizing our dependence on our God’s providence and mercy, not promoting any denomination of Christianity.


“…indivisible…” – While we are made up of the several states, we are formed into one union under our Constitution’s protection.

“…with liberty and justice for all.” – Under our Constitution, every citizen is guaranteed the liberties established therein and justice shall be applied equally to each of us.

This is what we are pledging allegiance to each time we recite these words.  So next time someone begins the Pledge, even if you are across the room, building, field, or whatever, stand at attention and render the salute with a genuine understanding of what you are saying.

We live in the greatest country on the earth and if you’re honest with yourself, you’ll recognize that if it is supported properly, we get much more out of our Constitution than we individually pledge with these words.





Read More