African-American Canadians? African-American Canadians? How, in any world, does that make sense? Black Canadians, unless they’re also citizens of an African country or America, are neither Africans nor Americans!
You are front-row witnesses to political correctness run amok. The Dumb As Dirt comedy award goes to PhysOrg.com for referring to black Canadians as “African-Americans,” an imbecilic American term used to describe blacks in America.
[Update: I hadn’t realized when I published this post that comments were open on the story. It appears I’m not alone!]
I remember using the term back in the 1980s when I was young and dumb and full of respect for Jesse Jackson. He insisted black Americans and everyone else use it so blacks could feel “proud” of their African heritage. But there was a problem. Blacks, Negroes, colored people - whatever you want to call us – are not Africans. Most of us were born in America. Our nationality is American. We are Americans of African descent.
Lunch was not so good. Still nauseated. This post is not helping.
Very early in their pregnancies, women can kill their babies by taking an abortion pill. Women further along (up to 22 weeks) can opt to have the baby sucked out or scraped out. After 24 weeks, women supposedly can’t kill their babies unless it’s for “serious health reasons.”
Students for Life of America (SFLA) has gone undercover again, this time to record a Planned Parenthood “nurse” talking about the killing procedure for an unborn baby close to 22 weeks. The woman asks whether the baby could be born alive, and the nurse says “it does happen, but it wouldn’t be able to survive on its own so eventually the baby does die.” The nurse calls the procedure “an actual delivery.”
During a so-called partial birth abortion, a baby is pulled down the birth canal and partially delivered. While the baby’s head is still inside (to avoid murder charges), the abortionist punctures the baby’s skull with scissors or a probe, killing him.
There is salvation even for people who do this and for the women who allow it to happen. I’ve got a million “There, but for the grace of God…” stories of my own.
Checking my Facebook e-mail today, I saw a “vote no on Prop 8″ ad. The measure, which appears on the California state ballot, would define marriage as between only a man and a woman. The irritants who created this ad used a picture of a black man at a “colored” water fountain from the 1950s or 1960s, similar to the one on the right.
Nothing gets me riled up quite like a homosexual, especially a white male, whining about his inability to legally “marry” another male and comparing himself to blacks who were forbidden to sip from “Whites Only” water fountains or made to go through back doors of business establishments like restaurants.
It makes me want to vomit, too. 
Imagine traveling back in time and telling some of those church-going folks getting beat upside the head, sprayed with firehoses, attacked by dogs, drenched with soda and food at Woolworth’s during a sit-in demonstration, and called “Niggers” that they’re enduring all this nonsense so that one day, two men could make a mockery of marriage.
Give me a freakin’ break! Two people, three people, four or more people of any sex can do whatever they want to do to each other. I don’t care! And no one is stopping you from marrying. You just can’t marry a person of the same sex. You also can’t marry your sister or your father or a minor or more than one person at a time. You have the same civil rights as the rest of us, but marriage is not a civil right. The civil rights movement was about giving blacks what had been withheld from them for a long time: the right to the same constitutional protections enjoyed by everyone else. Homosexuals, heterosexuals, asexuals, or whatever, are under those same protections. But what homosexuals want are special rights, one of which involves overhauling the institution of marriage. You have no civil right to do that.
It’s maddening, not to mention insulting, when homosexuals co-opt the language and imagery from that turbulent era to push such an agenda. (I’m choosing my words carefully here.)
Lunch.
***Scroll down for updates***
There are only a few topics I blog about that interest the largest number of readers. Posts about race and Sarah Palin tend to stir things up. Immigration, not so much, surprisingly. Regular readers didn’t like the music blogging, although female readers seemed to like the Hanson posts. And the 64-comment post on synesthesia was a fluke.
That’s the way it is. When a blogger builds a reputation covering certain topics, those are what people expect to read when they come to his/her blog. Today, I have the pleasure of combining music and politics. A couple of months ago, it seems like I was reading a story every day about some rocker “offended” that John McCain played one of his songs during the campaign. Big babies. Clearly, they were not McCain supporters, and clearly, they were raging liberals.
So, when I hear about an artist type – musician, actor, or whatever – supporting McCain, I simply must blog about it.
Aerosmith guitarist Joe Perry, Dave Wedge of the Boston Herald tells us, is a McCain supporter. Lead singer Steve Tyler (he of the generous lips) gets all the attention, even as he approaches senior citizenship. But for a while, I had a crush on Joe Perry.
A “lifelong Republican,” Perry says he decided to go public for McCain after “seeing so many people come out for Obama.” He has his parents to thank for instilling a “work hard” ethic and encouraging him to be positive. Not that it matters in the scheme of things, but I’m glad Perry went on record that he’s a Republican. He’s a rarity among rockers.
Related post:
Update: Maybe Perry’s endorsement will result in more Guitar Hero sales. I’ll bet it won’t hurt. 
I’d really like to know details about Perry’s right leanings. Is he anti-race preferences? Pro-life?
Update II: Reader Ricky W. e-mails to say Aerosmith lead singer Steve Tyler is right-leaning, too. A Christian, also? Listen to him sing “Amazing Grace.”
Californians, vote YES on Proposal 8 to protect traditional marriage.
In 2000, 61.4 percent of voters chose to ban homosexual “marriage.” Last June, the California Supreme Court overturned that law 4-3. After the decision, over a million Californians signed a petition to put Proposition 8 on the ballot. The measure would amend the state constitution to define marriage as between only a man and a woman.
“Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father.”
Actor Chuck Norris, Christian and Republican, reminds us in “I’m Voting for Those Not Yet Born” of Barack Obama’s record on the protection of unborn life.
If Obama wins, we’ll have a man in the White House who voted multiple times against a bill that would protect babies born alive during abortions. We’ll have a man in the White House who supports infanticide. We’ll have a man in the White House who voted against a bill that would require a doctor to notify a parent or guardian before killing a minor’s unborn child in another state. If elected president, Obama said he’d make it his “first priority” to legalize child killing.
I’ve heard from people who say that being pro-choice isn’t the same as being pro-death. They believe, for whatever misguided reason, that women have the freedom to snuff out the life growing inside them. They take offense at being called “pro-death” or “anti-life.” But that’s exactly what they are. There’s no wiggle room. If you believe women have a right to kill their unborn babies, you are pro-death.
In contrast, I don’t recoil when someone calls me “anti-abortion” or “anti-choice.” Darn right. I am not ashamed to wear both labels anytime, anywhere, in the stark light of day.
As Norris says, abortion isn’t about a woman’s so-called right to choose:
“[I]t is about a more fundamental ‘right to life,’ which is one of three specifically identified unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence (and the Constitution, through Article VII and the Bill of Rights). And it is a violation of government’s primary purpose: to protect innocent life.”
It’s important to note the “innocent” part. This is what distinguishes killing an unborn child from executing murderer.
Around 11:15 a.m. ET, I’m appearing on Doug Giles’s radio show to talk about why people who call themselves evangelical Christians plan to vote for the infanticide-supporting Obama. I’m no expert, but that’s never stopped me before!
Addendum: I’m not crazy about John McCain. In fact, I couldn’t be more disappointed with the Republican party’s choice of nominee. But that’s spilled milk under the bridge. Vote for him…unless you want a man in the White House who intends to re-write the Constitution. It’s not hyperbole.
Related post:
Just like Susan Smith. Except without children or a carjacking story. Or murder. Or…oh, you get the point.
In 1994, Susan Smith of Union, South Carolina, claimed a black man forced her out of her car, refused to let her retrieve her two sons in the back seat, and drove off. On many levels it didn’t ring true, especially the part about the man refusing to let her get the children. (For reasons obvious to “insiders.”)
We (family and friends) thought she and a boyfriend hid the kids from her ex-husband for revenge and made up a carjacking story. We were half right. She made up the carjacking story, and she hid those precious kids, alright: at the bottom of John D. Long Lake. Smith is serving a life sentence. The jury didn’t have the guts to send her to Old Sparky.
(There was something sketchy about that sketch, too. My brother saw it before I did, and he said it reminded him of a caricature from the minstrel show-era. Once I saw it, I agreed.)
