Now that the SCOTUS is going to look more like America, when is the WH going to evolve out of its racist name?
Posted: 15 Apr 2022, 16:51
In simple words, this commentary is a not Newtonian reaction to Senator Ted Cruz’s line of questioning during the recent U.S. Senate confirmation hearing of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.
I did not plan to watch the hearing. I incidentally heard the line of questioning by this Senator from the State of Texas as I was walking by a TV.
I read about judge Jackson for the first time after reading her now famous line that Presidents are not Kings. In my view, that would make her one of the George Washington mores of America of the 21st century. George Washington because he was the first American President who said he wasn’t a king. One of the George Washington mores because she isn’t a lord of slavery when she wrote Presidents are not Kings, adding that the defendant wasn’t the President.
The line of questioning by the Senator from Texas is if babies are racists. My impulsive reaction upon hearing that line was what a scumbag?
Here is why. With that line of questioning during this hearing, he came across as a defendant against racism and that the U.S. is not a racist country. So, I am taking him to his own terms here, which would be the same if I had a chance to meet him in person.
I postulate that the phrase White House is a racist name. I will continue to call this Senator from Texas the scumbag Senator until he says this postulation is true or false. I am not even expecting him to agree with this postulation but only wondering if his thinking is fallacious in and of itself.
I have heard from commentators on TV that he is a graduate of Harvard. That suggests that it shouldn’t be hard for him to say at a moment’s notice that this postulation is true or false. If he can’t do so, it only goes to show that even Harvard gives degrees to some scumbags. Yes, new ideas that even Harvard hasn’t uncovered in its entire history of existence can come from somewhere else.
In the event that he agrees with this postulation, we would be on the same page. In that case, I presume that as someone who recently appeared to rise against racism by implying that babies are not racists, he would join the call for the White House to evolve out of its racist name. I am not sure if, as a member of the legislative body of the U.S., he is in a position to introduce a Bill for this evolutionary change or if he can call on the current executive branch head to sign an executive order to effect this change.
In the event that he disagrees with this postulation, we would be on different pages. In that case, the burden would be upon me to prove my postulate true by supporting it with various theories.
I will start with the widely acknowledged America’s original sin. Its admission should necessarily lead to no omission about it in due course.
A genocidal adventure against the natives of the continent in which this racist name stands for the world to see is part of that original sin. As if the back of any being can be a preservative of that being’s ego, whites only was widely used against the abducted from another continent in a new country run from this White House.
This White House has so far seen 46 Presidents. Except one of them, all were who identify themselves as White men. Two of them who stood for civil rights were assassinated while they were serving as Presidents.
I remember that in 1996 or 1997, an American Professor of computer science said during a lecture that the binary code implemented in Computer Science was originally in use by Native Americans’ whistle pattern for remote communication among themselves. The validity of the computer science Professor’s testimony can be questioned. However, if it is substantiated, it goes without saying that the imagination to use binary code was invented by Native Americans long before Bill Gates dropped out from Harvard and founded Microsoft. That would mean that, speaking figuratively, the invention for remote communication by Native Americans in the Grand Canyon has been developed to a Grand technology revolution that is moving the world and disturbing it while maintaining its original remote sensing intact.
Sure, value has been added in using electronic current to modulate the natural sound wave that was used as a medium for whistling. By no means can that erase the imagination and foundation of the pattern recognition in the binary.
What is more? If I remember correctly, I have heard Senator Mike Lee of Utah acknowledge that America’s federalism has borrowed ideas from Native Americans. If so, it wouldn’t be surprising for it to come from the distributed settlement of Native Americans more than from the immigrants from the more densely populated Europe that went through its medieval anarchy and introduced the idea of sovereignty over occupied natural territories.
There are suggestions that Adolf Hitler was getting his hues from the practice in the U.S. before embarking on his colossal genocidal war in Europe. If so, can it be not stated that America’s original sins can be implicated for the Holocaust? If yes, even if America belatedly joined the fight against the Nazis, can it not be stated that the racist White House that projected its racist hues across the ocean is actually The Grand Nazi House? Ted Cruz can say otherwise.
Such are the original sins that should prompt any faculty to ask what it is that makes some elements among humanity entitled to rob and wear other people’s resources shamefully.
Such sense of entertainments may have emerged as a result of some genius human beings who were born in various places at different times. However, what is the ancient time Arkamani to an Egyptian than he is to the Indian born CEO of Google except that the former was born in Egypt and pioneered seeing to believe when questioning superstition was unimaginable? That was very long before Europe’s transformation brought it out of its Dark Age and gave birth to other geniuses. Then again, what is Galileo to The Vatican more than he is to a Mayan except that he was born in Italy and was wronged for discovering something that the Church questioned? What is Newton to the lady of England more than he is to an African in Namoratunga who may be interested in Astronomy no less? What is Einstein to Jerusalem than he is to a Chinese who is no less interested in studying harmony in relativity?
So, assuming Ted Cruz’s recent rise to defend against racism in the U.S. is genuine, which is yet to be confirmed in case he agrees with my postulation, can he say no omissions in due course in the face of admissions of original sins? This is the same man who ran several years ago to become another President and then fell behind the man he was competing against knowing full well that man insulted him cruelly and his wife in public. To this day, I haven’t heard him say Presidents are not Kings, like America’s Washington mores of the 21st century.
In the event that he says my postulation is neither true nor false, I can only conclude that such is a scumbag that doesn’t fit in a doll and that he doesn’t know it or doesn’t care about it.
I did not plan to watch the hearing. I incidentally heard the line of questioning by this Senator from the State of Texas as I was walking by a TV.
I read about judge Jackson for the first time after reading her now famous line that Presidents are not Kings. In my view, that would make her one of the George Washington mores of America of the 21st century. George Washington because he was the first American President who said he wasn’t a king. One of the George Washington mores because she isn’t a lord of slavery when she wrote Presidents are not Kings, adding that the defendant wasn’t the President.
The line of questioning by the Senator from Texas is if babies are racists. My impulsive reaction upon hearing that line was what a scumbag?
Here is why. With that line of questioning during this hearing, he came across as a defendant against racism and that the U.S. is not a racist country. So, I am taking him to his own terms here, which would be the same if I had a chance to meet him in person.
I postulate that the phrase White House is a racist name. I will continue to call this Senator from Texas the scumbag Senator until he says this postulation is true or false. I am not even expecting him to agree with this postulation but only wondering if his thinking is fallacious in and of itself.
I have heard from commentators on TV that he is a graduate of Harvard. That suggests that it shouldn’t be hard for him to say at a moment’s notice that this postulation is true or false. If he can’t do so, it only goes to show that even Harvard gives degrees to some scumbags. Yes, new ideas that even Harvard hasn’t uncovered in its entire history of existence can come from somewhere else.
In the event that he agrees with this postulation, we would be on the same page. In that case, I presume that as someone who recently appeared to rise against racism by implying that babies are not racists, he would join the call for the White House to evolve out of its racist name. I am not sure if, as a member of the legislative body of the U.S., he is in a position to introduce a Bill for this evolutionary change or if he can call on the current executive branch head to sign an executive order to effect this change.
In the event that he disagrees with this postulation, we would be on different pages. In that case, the burden would be upon me to prove my postulate true by supporting it with various theories.
I will start with the widely acknowledged America’s original sin. Its admission should necessarily lead to no omission about it in due course.
A genocidal adventure against the natives of the continent in which this racist name stands for the world to see is part of that original sin. As if the back of any being can be a preservative of that being’s ego, whites only was widely used against the abducted from another continent in a new country run from this White House.
This White House has so far seen 46 Presidents. Except one of them, all were who identify themselves as White men. Two of them who stood for civil rights were assassinated while they were serving as Presidents.
I remember that in 1996 or 1997, an American Professor of computer science said during a lecture that the binary code implemented in Computer Science was originally in use by Native Americans’ whistle pattern for remote communication among themselves. The validity of the computer science Professor’s testimony can be questioned. However, if it is substantiated, it goes without saying that the imagination to use binary code was invented by Native Americans long before Bill Gates dropped out from Harvard and founded Microsoft. That would mean that, speaking figuratively, the invention for remote communication by Native Americans in the Grand Canyon has been developed to a Grand technology revolution that is moving the world and disturbing it while maintaining its original remote sensing intact.
Sure, value has been added in using electronic current to modulate the natural sound wave that was used as a medium for whistling. By no means can that erase the imagination and foundation of the pattern recognition in the binary.
What is more? If I remember correctly, I have heard Senator Mike Lee of Utah acknowledge that America’s federalism has borrowed ideas from Native Americans. If so, it wouldn’t be surprising for it to come from the distributed settlement of Native Americans more than from the immigrants from the more densely populated Europe that went through its medieval anarchy and introduced the idea of sovereignty over occupied natural territories.
There are suggestions that Adolf Hitler was getting his hues from the practice in the U.S. before embarking on his colossal genocidal war in Europe. If so, can it be not stated that America’s original sins can be implicated for the Holocaust? If yes, even if America belatedly joined the fight against the Nazis, can it not be stated that the racist White House that projected its racist hues across the ocean is actually The Grand Nazi House? Ted Cruz can say otherwise.
Such are the original sins that should prompt any faculty to ask what it is that makes some elements among humanity entitled to rob and wear other people’s resources shamefully.
Such sense of entertainments may have emerged as a result of some genius human beings who were born in various places at different times. However, what is the ancient time Arkamani to an Egyptian than he is to the Indian born CEO of Google except that the former was born in Egypt and pioneered seeing to believe when questioning superstition was unimaginable? That was very long before Europe’s transformation brought it out of its Dark Age and gave birth to other geniuses. Then again, what is Galileo to The Vatican more than he is to a Mayan except that he was born in Italy and was wronged for discovering something that the Church questioned? What is Newton to the lady of England more than he is to an African in Namoratunga who may be interested in Astronomy no less? What is Einstein to Jerusalem than he is to a Chinese who is no less interested in studying harmony in relativity?
So, assuming Ted Cruz’s recent rise to defend against racism in the U.S. is genuine, which is yet to be confirmed in case he agrees with my postulation, can he say no omissions in due course in the face of admissions of original sins? This is the same man who ran several years ago to become another President and then fell behind the man he was competing against knowing full well that man insulted him cruelly and his wife in public. To this day, I haven’t heard him say Presidents are not Kings, like America’s Washington mores of the 21st century.
In the event that he says my postulation is neither true nor false, I can only conclude that such is a scumbag that doesn’t fit in a doll and that he doesn’t know it or doesn’t care about it.