The Noble Gobbler

For John, BLUF:  My exit question is, can I still have Turkey for dinner?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

College library:  Thanksgiving a '#NationalDayofMourning'

From Campus Reform, by Campus Correspondent Andrew Lawrence, 20 November 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

A library at a Massachusetts college referred to Thanksgiving as a “#NationalDayOfMourning” on Sunday.

The McQuade Library at Merrimack College in North Andover, Mass. took to Facebook to promote an article entitled “Decolonizing Thanksgiving: A Toolkit for Combatting Racism in Schools.”

I wonder what a "Decolonized Thanksgiving Day would look like?  Who cares if the Pilgrims would recognize it.  Would those who lived through the Civil War have recognized it?  What about those who lived through World Wars One or Two?

Deep down inside I wonder if the perpetrators of "decolonizing" are really against any form of Thanksgiving that has any sort of Judeo-Christian patina on it.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The National Anthem

TRIGGER WARNINGS:  In which I say The Star Spangled Banner is not racist.

For John, BLUF:  We need a new National Anthem, but not for the reasons put forward by the California NAACP.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

IS THE NATIONAL ANTHEM RACIST?

From The InstaPundit we go to John Hinderaker's Blog, Powerline.  Mr Himderaker posted his thoughts on the fitness of our National Anthem on 8 November 2017.

Which leads us to this item out of Sacramento, California:

Group Calling National Anthem Lyrics Racist, Anti-Black

By Reporter Shirin Rajaee, CBS News, on 7 November 2017.

Here is their report, in part:

SACRAMENTO (CBS13) — The California NAACP is pushing to get rid of the national anthem that they’re calling racist and anti-black.

“This song is wrong; it shouldn’t have been there, we didn’t have it ’til 1931, so it won’t kill us if it goes away,” said the organization’s president Alice Huffman.

Colin Kaepernick started the NFL protests, which quickly spread to bring attention to systemic racial injustice in the country.  But Huffman says Kaepernick’s message was lost when it turned into a debate about the flag.

“The message got distorted, the real intentions got overlooked, it became something that’s dividing us, and I’m looking for something to bring us back together,” she said.

Huffman adds that the protests did lead her to look at the lyrics of the “Star Spangled Banner” especially the parts of the anthem we don’t typically sing.

“It’s racist; it doesn’t represent our community, it’s anti-black,” she said.

Huffman is referring to the third stanza which includes the lyric “no refuge could save the hireling and slave from the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave.”

Here are the words to the supposedly offending Third Stanza:

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Frankly, I have no sympathy for Mr Colin Kaepernick, and his actions with regard to the National Anthem.  He made an error in judgement and doesn't know how to back down or his ego is so big he would drag the National Football League down with him in his stubbornness.

On the other hand, I would be more than willing to replace the current National Anthem.  It is hard to sing well, it is jingoistic and it is about a war with a country which is now our best friend on the other side of the pond, Great Britain.  Time to let it go.

Replacement?  How about America the Beautiful?

So, I disagree with both Ms Sarah Hoyt and Mr John Hinderaker, because I would replace the current National Anthem, and sort of disagree with Ms Alice Huffman, because she has a wrong, bogus, reason for replacing what should be replaced.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Respecting the Presidency

For John, BLUF:  Petty.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Democrats’ dilemma:  To shake or not to shake President Trump’s hand

This is from The Wash Post, by Reporter Paul Kane, today.

President Barack Obama shook hands with lawmakers as he strode down the middle aisle of the House of Representatives before his final State of the Union, breaking into a wide smile when he saw a very familiar face.

“Eliot, you’re here,” Obama said.

“Would I be anyplace else?” Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.) replied.

For nearly three decades, Engel has been on the aisle for every presidential address to Congress.  For a fleeting moment, it’s just him and the president — two Republicans and two Democrats since he began the tradition in 1989 — shaking hands in a show of support for the leader of the free world.

Engel could be someplace else Tuesday night, when President Trump strides down the House’s center aisle to deliver his first address to a joint session of Congress.  It’s not technically called a State of the Union this early in a presidential term, but Trump’s speech will have the same bells and whistles.

Ed Driscoll, who posted this at InstaPundit, made this comment:

From 2009 until early last month, the Washington Post would have dubbed such a gesture a racist hate crime.  But didn’t Hillary urge cooperation from the losing party’s representatives back in September and October?

True enough.

However, here is the real point.  Some of our elected Representatives believe that President Trump isn't really the President, that his election was tainted and he is illegitimate.

This is just the latest example of how Trump has scrambled the most basic of traditions in Washington.  On Jan. 20, for Trump’s inauguration, a third of House Democrats publicly declared they were boycotting the swearing-in ceremony, led by civil rights icon John Lewis (D-Ga.), who declared Trump an illegitimate president because of alleged Russian meddling with the 2016 election contest.

But, is it Mr Trump who has scrambled the most basic traditions, or is it the Democrats, who cannot or will not accept Mr Trump as President?  There are those who are forthright about their views, such as Representative John Lewis (D-GA) and those who are waffling, like Senator E Warren (D-MA). Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Banning History and Tradition

For John, BLUF:  Something about enjoying others enjoying their special days.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From Pajama Media and Ms Julie Prince, we have an update on the "War on Christmas" in Brooklyn— "One Brooklyn School Finds Out That Banning Thanksgiving, Santa and the Pledge Is a Bad Idea".

Annually I am assured by my Progressive friends that there is no "War on Christmas".  And, I admit, these actions by Principal Eujin Jaela Kim are an aberration.  That said, the writer does capture something when she says about public schools:

They have gone from teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic to teaching kids how to be secular.

And there you have it, the substitution of one faith for another.

All that said, I wish everyone a Merry Christmas.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

All Others Pay Cash

For John, BLUF:  This is going nowhere.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From The Huffington Post we have an update on Dr Michael Newdow, Esq.  He just lost in US District Court, again, over his efforts to have "In God We Trust" removed by US Currency.  Surprisingly, The Huffington Post links to the Blog Patheos for part of the story.  It seems that some numismatists (collectors of forms of money) are pained by having the words "In God We Trust" on their collected treasures, their mint proof sets, their rare off-struck coins and long unused bills (since 1864 on coins and 1957 on paper money).

You may well wonder how long it would take to expunge "In God We Trust" from our currency.  Quite a while, it seems.  It is unlikely Congress would order (or the Court require) wholesale replacement of currency.  Such would be very expensive.  Here is a blurb on how quickly money wears out on average:

During the course of these transactions, money wears out, just as any paper product would.  The average life span of a $1 bill is less than 22 months, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta; $5 bills last about 16 months; $10 bills last about 18 months; and $20 bills last approximately two years. Lesser-used bills, such as $50 and $100 dollar bills, last much longer, because they don't circulate as much as the smaller denominations. Both $50 and $100 bills last several years before wearing out.  Coins last about 25 years.

So, even if Mr Newdow eventually wins in court, God will likely be with us in a big way for at least another decade or two, and in a small way for many more years.  Check the change in your pocket and see what the dates are on the coins and bills.

From the ruling by The Hon. HAROLD BAER, JR., District Judge,

The Supreme Court has repeatedly assumed the motto’s secular purpose and effect, and all circuit courts that have considered this issue—namely the Ninth, Fifth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuit—have found no constitutional violation in the motto’s inclusion on currency.  While Plaintiffs urge that this court should disregard Supreme Court dicta, the Second Circuit counsels otherwise.  See United States v. Bell, 524 F.2d 202, 206 (2d Cir. 1975) (Supreme Court dicta “must be given considerable weight and [cannot] be ignored in the resolution of the close question we have to decide.”); see also United States v. Colasuonno, 697 F.3d 164, 178-79 (2d Cir. 2012) (acknowledging that it is the “usual obligation to accord great deference to Supreme Court dicta” except in certain circumstances, such as when Congress has “removed or weakened the conceptual underpinnings” of a decision).

And yet Mr Newdow soldiers on.  I would assert that if you can't sell an idea like this to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals you are probably not going to be able to sell it at all.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff