PETA Exposed (95% kill rate in VA)

EXPOSED! PETA Kills More Than 95 Percent Of Animals In Its Care

Original Post:  http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=8927


Related Links: PETAkillsanimals.com
                          about.me/gideonsword


(People Exterminating Tiny Animals)
From Daily Caller: Documents published online this month show that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an organization known for its uncompromising animal-rights positions, killed more than 95 percent of the #pets in its care in 2011.


The documents, obtained from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, were published online by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a non-profit organization that runs online campaigns targeting groups that antagonize food producers.

Fifteen years' worth of similar records show that since 1998 PETA has killed more than 27,000 animals at its headquarters in Norfolk, VA.

In a February 16 statement, the Center said PETA killed 1,911 cats and dogs last year, finding homes for only 24 pets.

"PETA hasn't slowed down its slaughterhouse operation," said Rick Berman, CCF's executive director. "It appears PETA is more concerned with funding its media and advertising antics than finding suitable homes for these dogs and cats."

In a statement, Berman added that PETA has a $37 million dollar annual budget.

His organization runs PETAkillsAnimals.com, which reports that in 2010 a resident of Virginia called PETA and asked if there was an animal shelter at the group's headquarters. PETA responded that there was not.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

The Virginian, the website reports, then called his state's agriculture department. Dr. Daniel Kovich investigated, and conducted an inspection of PETA's headquarters.

"The facility does not contain sufficient animal enclosures to routinely house the number of animals annually reported as taken into custody," Kovich concluded in his report.

Kovich also determined that PETA employees kill 84 percent of the animals in their custody within 24 hours of receiving them.

"[PETA's] primary purpose," Kovich wrote, "is not to find permanent adoptive homes for animals."
PETA media liaison Jane Dollinger told The Daily Caller in an email that "most of the animals we take in are society's rejects; aggressive, on death's door, or somehow unadoptable."

Dollinger did not dispute her organization's sky-high euthanasia rate, but insisted PETA only kills dogs and cats because of "injury, illness, age, aggression, or because no good homes exist for them."
PETA's own history, however, shows that this has not always been the case.

In 2005, two PETA employees described as "adorable" and "perfect" some of the dogs and cats they killed in the back of a PETA-owned van. The two were arrested after police witnessed them tossing the animals' dead bodies into a North Carolina dumpster.

PETA had no comment when the Daily Caller asked what sort of effort it routinely makes to find adoptive homes for animals in its care.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/24/documents-peta-kills-more-than-95-percent-of-pets-in-its-care/

Dealing with 'Liberal Christians'

How to Talk to a Theological Liberal
(If You Must)

Author: Justin Moser
Source: InPlainSite.org
Link: about.me/gideonsword

No doubt, you have ran into one in the past, or if you haven't, you will soon. This is especially true if you go to a University, or if you are on the Internet. I am referring to people who are "liberal" in their theology. That may seem strange to talk about -- most people are familiar with those who are politically liberal. Now, political liberals and theological liberals are probably about as annoying (I'm speaking generally, I know a few political liberals I can converse with without the urge to bonk them over the head), but theological liberals can also be potentially dangerous to those who are weak in faith or seeking. As such, I figured it would be worthwhile to do a piece for Tekton on them. Holding has probably ran plenty through with his social-historical sword, but here I'd like to focus on their methods in a way which he might haven't, yet.

What do I mean by theological liberal? Unfortunately, what they believe will vary greatly depending one what axe each individual has to grind. In fact, the term "theological" is misleading, since many I have conversed with are essentially naturalists. The best way to describe them is that they associate themselves to Jesus or Paul or the Bible, but in a way that distorts the essential message. They use Bible passages for their purposes which conveniently look like they may support the liberal's axe grinding, yet they dismiss anything which they don't like as myth. They are fond of Christ myth and other kooky conspiracy theories, fuzzy logic, and untenable translations of the original texts. They posit as fact various unsubstantiated (or even impossible to substantiate) theories about the Bible, all along dismissing what hard facts we do have available. And that doesn't even talk about how bad these people anachronize what they read with their own modernist presumptions.

Before we go on, it is important that I note that one can be politically liberal yet theologically "conservative." One does not have to lead to the other -- I've conversed with orthodox Christians who hold to the same values as the political left. This discussion will focus on the theological variety.

Really, it is almost pointless to try to reason with such people. Theological liberals (hereafter, just liberals) tend to be so enamored in their way of thinking that there is usually no hope of knocking sense into them. Without fail, every conversation I've had with a liberal ended in a Texas spitting match. Personally, I believe it is fruitless to try to reason liberals into the fold; the only reason I'd even talk to a liberal is if it was in a public setting where he or she could influence other people. Liberals are a blight on the church, and should be treated as such.

So, let's look at and critique the liberal's most common debate methods.

Method #1. I'm a Christian (even though I deny X, Y, Z, ...)
Yeah, and I'm a baked potato, even though I don't have a crusty brown exterior nor a mushy white interior. At least, not to my knowledge.

The thrust of the tactic here is that the liberal wants be understood as an insider rather than an outsider. What better way to influence the people you want to influence than to associate yourself as one of them? "You can trust me, I'm a Christian like you." And then he or she starts spouting off garbage, which many Christians may not be able to discern due to the nature of our times (i.e., fast food faith).

You have to understand that we cannot let people get away with this. If the term "Christian" is to have any meaning at all, it has to have a specific meaning. And it already has a meaning: how it has been defined for the past ages. Shall we revise the definition of this word simply because a few people will have a hissy fit if we don't? Of course not! If you deny the core beliefs that the majority of Christians over the ages consider essential to the Christian faith, you should not call yourself a Christian. To do so is intellectually dishonest.

A fun way to mess with the liberal is to call him or her a Nazi. Of course they will be offended, but explain it this way: if you can call yourself a Christian even though you deny core essentials to Christianity, then I can call you a Nazi, even though you deny such things as Aryan supremacy, the use of death camps, etc. This person is simply a liberal Nazi!

Method #2. We need to be tolerant of other people, since all faiths lead to God in their own way.
Of course, most Christians are tolerant anyways, simply not in the way the liberal demands. (See my article on Tolerance)

With regard to the pluralistic view that all roads lead to God, it seems that liberals always have the unfortunate problem that logic is just too darn inconvenient! In the general, there are at least two kinds of religions: those that hold that there is one way to God, and those that hold that there are many ways. The problem is, if the former type of religion is correct, then the latter must be wrong; and vice versa. In the specific, every religion says a set of propositions about who God(s) is; yet every religion contradicts every other religion in some way. If two religions didn't contradict each other, they would really be the same religion. Thus, no more than one religion can possibly be right in their view of God. The law of contradiction holds to even God Himself. If it doesn't -- and it is a shame the liberal doesn't think this out this far -- God would be incoherent and thus unknowable. If all religions are right, then all religions are also wrong. [See Religious Pluralism]

A quick and easy way to refute the liberal on this point is to ask them, why they don't tolerate traditional Christianity? What you want to do is put them in a dilemma: either you have to "tolerate" (by the liberal's definition) Christianity, and thus "tolerate" no other religion, or not "tolerate" Christianity, and thus you are not tolerating everyone like you should (according to the liberal). Then, grab some popcorn and enjoy the show as they try to squirm out.

Method #3. History is always rewritten by the winners.
I find this assertion odd, considering that the only people I know who blatantly rewrite history are the liberals themselves, and they are the biggest bunch of losers around!

This is typically an attempt to sidestep the evidence we do have about Biblical history, so that the liberal can prefer his or her kooky conspiracy theory. And it's brilliant too: if you can convince people that Paul took over Christianity and changed it as he saw fit, you can get them to believe that the primitive Christianity of Jesus was anything you want it to be.

Of course, we could do the same thing with any other popular character. Gandhi? He was a red meat eating, gun toting capitalist! What happened was the media misunderstood him, because his followers perpetuated a distorted version of his teachings. Martin Luther King Jr.? He didn't even exist! What we remember from the old black and white news reels was an actor; it's all a big government conspiracy theory. (And by this, I mean no offense to anyone; this is just an exercise in reductio ad absurdum.)

Try it out whenever you run into a theological liberal who does this (or skeptics, as well). And when they say how ridiculous it is, you say "Exactly!" that was your point. Or if they have the gall of bringing up the extant evidence we have of these people, it's time to get into apologist mode and show them how they just put the bullet in their own rotting carcass of a "theology."

In reality, this isn't how historical studies work (or, at least it isn't how they should). In many cases all we have as evidence is the report of an ancient historian, and sometimes even a bleak line of archeological evidence. If we were collectively consistent in applying this methodology to history, we would have absolutely nothing useful about history to learn. That includes anything from 5 minutes ago, since there might have been a vast conspiracy and 4 minutes 59 seconds ago you were brainwashed and all your memories are fake. While this might be entertaining to conjecture about philosophically, we simply cannot live like this. To some extent, we have to give the benefit of the doubt to what we perceive has history, whether it be recent or ancient. With ancient historians, they are the closest we have to eyewitnesses. Some may have malevolent purposes in how they report their history, but with enough study a good, consistent historian can sort out the fact from the fiction to some extent. [Also See The Reliability of The Four Gospels]


Method #4. Jesus was a Marxist, vegetarian, who stood up for homosexual rights and drove a solar car, etc.
Yes, not even Jesus can escape the whackiness of the theological left. Every theological liberal I've talked to has had a political axe to grind, and it almost always emerges in their "theology." And it always ends up having Jesus as it's biggest advocate. And it's no wonder! Who could argue with Jesus Himself? If Jesus was a socialist, how could we Christians be capitalists? I can seriously see how tempting it can be to make Jesus out to be the progenitor of your political party (Some would argue the political "religious right" has done the same thing).

But really, how much can we really extrapolate about Jesus' political views? You have to understand, the many of the political issues we face now did not exist in the first century Palestine. The people had much to worry about in surviving alone without dealing with the sociological impact on policies regarding (say,) abortion or homosexual marriage. It is a terrible anachronism to expect such things as economic and environmental policy to be serious issues to Jews at the time. Or with homosexuality and some other issues, at least, it was an easy choice: it was against the Torah, therefore it was illicit in Jewish society.

Furthermore, Jesus and the Apostles (as well as the rest of the early church) had to be very careful what they said about politics. Jesus, Himself, had to deal with Jews who wanted to make Him into a political king in hopes that He would overthrow the Roman rule in Judea (cf. John 6:15). He also had enough fun trying to explain the nature of His divinity (e.g. John 3) and other aspects of His teachings... He had maybe one point in His ministry where He made a politically significant point, but that was only because the Pharisees were trying to entrap Him (cf. Matt. 22:17-21). Besides, why should He? The politics of the day were basically what the Romans said they were, and why would the Romans listen to a traveling Jewish preacher in a "backwoods" province? At best Jesus would have been ignored, and at worst He would be dealt with as a political insurgent and a threat to the Pax Romana. There was no incentive for Jesus to go into details about the "virtues" of Communism or the "evils" of capitalism. The case was the same for the Apostles and the rest of the leadership of the early church.

I am not saying we cannot take Biblical principles and apply them to the existing political sphere in democratic/republic societies today. The only point here is that it is a terrible injustice to intellectual integrity, to the Bible writers, and to Jesus to put words in their mouths about issues the had no reason to speak about. [Also See Living in Babylon]

Conclusion
As you may have noticed, none of the prescriptions are designed to take the theological liberals seriously. And certainly they will be offended. But that is actually the point. What the liberal wants is for us to take them seriously. If Christians take them seriously, some of the weaker among us might think that they have something to say that is worth hearing. And then when they are taken seriously, they will go and start spouting off their usual nonsense. No, it is just best for everyone if these people get nothing from the Christian community except for utter contempt. Too long have we granted people to be their own authorities simply by virtue of them being able to communicate their opinion.

5 Ways to Fight the Left and Make Your Life Better

Link: about.me/gideonsword
Author: Daniel Greenfield
Source: the Sultan Knish blog - 07.07.2015

Lately I've been looking at Organic Opposition instead of Organizational Opposition. The latter is still important, but people are rightly disappointed and angry with everything from the GOP to assorted national groups and bewildered by a wide array of candidates.

Organic Opposition doesn't require organizations or a movement. It's about living in ways that naturally oppose the left.

Most of the people here already live in ways that the left resents without even thinking about it. Organic Opposition is about finding new ways to oppose the power of the left in your life.

This is not a complete checklist. It's a set of general ideas and people are welcome to add to them in the comments.


5. Don't Give Money to People Who Hate You

Imagine meeting an actor or a CEO, and telling him your political views and envision his response to them. If you can see his lip stretching into a sneer or a spittle-flecked rant as he orders security to throw you out, you really shouldn't be giving him your money.

That doesn't mean that you should lose out, but there are ways that you stop rewarding people who hate you.

For example, when buying new books, you are helping that writer and his publishers. If you don't support the writer, save money and buy the books used. It's easy to find most of the books you want in good condition for a fraction of the price on sites like Alibris.

Buying new books should be reserved for writers you support. Do look into writers on our side, like Edward Cline, if you like mysteries or Peter Grant, look at if you like Science Fiction, look at the projects that Adam Baldwin is involved in, and if you really must have that Stephen King or John Grisham novel, buy it used. You're not just saving money, you're denying income to people who hate you.

I know that conservatives don't like doing this. I don't like doing this. But the left does this and it works. Look at the politics of the writers, actors and directors you support. That doesn't necessarily mean only reading only those writers you agree with, but a reasonable acid test is decency.

Decency, for example, means standing up for basic freedoms. People who are on the political left can do that and when they do it, they should be rewarded for it. When Patrick Stewart recently said that a bakery should not be compelled into writing a pro-gay marriage message on a wedding cake, that was a rejection of the totalitarian norms being imposed by social justice warriors.

People who hate you don't want you to be able to live in peace. That's the essence of the SJW.

Those who take a stand against them on an issue, even if they're on the left, should get some support and a note or tweet telling them why. Likewise those who make the wrong choices should be told that from now on that even if you buy anything they make money from, you'll do it in a way that they won't see any proceeds from it. That will make them angrier than a straight boycott would.

And there's a lot more you can do that will hit the left in its pockets.

Use AdBlockers on its sites. Not on conservative ones. You'll save time and hurt the left.

Dump subscriptions to liberal magazines and newspapers.

Get rid of your cable. Cable is a financially shaky proposition. If enough people leave, it falls apart. And even if the only thing you watch is FOX News, under the current system, you're subsidizing a whole bunch of left-wing channels. If you have cable internet, you can access a wider range of programming online than you could on cable. You'll save money and hurt the left.


4. Shop Small Business and Become Independent

People were surprised when Wal-Mart turned left. They shouldn't have been.

Under the current system, major corporations will almost inevitably turn left to align with the authorities and tastemakers. Liberals have become champions of big government. The bigger a company becomes, the more it aligns with the system.

We all buy things from Amazon or Wal-Mart, but try to support local small businesses in your community when you can. They form a community in ways that a megastore won't and when they get a monopoly they will step on you, not just economically, but politically as well.

The Confederate flag hysteria and the Trump purge are a warning sign of things to come. Imagine a day when it's Ted Cruz's books being purged from every online retailer and Apple blocking his App.

It will come to that.

Look at the politics of major corporations and their policies. Avoid 'gated communities' created by the hardware sold by Amazon and Apple. Yes the Kindle and the iPhone are convenient, but you're giving control of your digital life to two left-wing corporations. As bad as Google and Microsoft are, they're somewhat better when it comes to freedom of speech.

A good test is imagine yourself working at a particular company. If you can't imagine even being tolerated there, maybe you shouldn't be rewarding it.

Learn something about the products and brands you buy. If you know of a company that shares your values, keep it in mind during your next purchase. Choose small manufacturers and stores when you can.

And avoid becoming dependent on megacorporations. The St. Patrick's Parade was undone because it had become dependent on Diageo, a mega whose vast catalog of brands includes Guinness.

When a corporation becomes big enough, it will find it easier to bend to the left than tolerate you.

A megacorp whose brands you eat will rob them of nutrition and taste to comply with the left's food police. Its cleaners will turn into useless junk to comply with the environmentalists. Even if it hasn't sold you out yet, it will sell you out later. And if you wait for it to become a monopoly, you'll have trouble finding alternatives.

Find ways to become independent. Make some of the things you've become accustomed to buying. Or buy and trade with other craftsmen. Those are useful skills in the best of times and we may be headed for darker times.

Independence threatens the left and makes your life better.


3. Build Likeminded Communities

You don't need to move to X to find a conservative community. You can build one organically by making friends, online and offline, cultivating ties, sharing and helping other people who share your worldview.

Make your own tribe. The left is doing it.

Find sane people at work. If you're in a position to hire sane people over likely leftists, do it. Be careful, don't risk your position and don't tell anyone what you're doing, but do it if you can.

A community is about more than setting up a Facebook group. It's a support structure and you'll need those, if not now, then later. The members of a community help meet each other's needs.

Don't get seduced by telescopic philanthropy. Don't focus on helping Third World countries. Help your neighbors and friends. An hour spent helping someone you know does a lot more good than all the 'penny a day' for starving children in X, which really ends up going to the marketing department.

Protect communal institutions you have and avoid hostile ones. Don't stay in a church or synagogue that has gone to the left. Find one that meets your needs. If it doesn't exist, work with other dissatisfied worshipers to make one happen.

Never subsidize left-wing clergy. America got Hillary Clinton because she came under the influence of a left-wing minister at an impressionable age.

The left is trying to break up the country's traditional social structures. One of the best ways to resist them is to maintain them, whether it's a family, a religious institution or a club. Protect them and they'll protect you.

By being part of a real community, you'll be naturally resisting the left and making your life better.


2. Have Fun Starting Trouble

The pushback to the left may not start where you expect. The Cliven Bundy standoff and Gamergate both happened when groups of ordinary people with little in common pushed back when they felt pushed into a corner.

It wasn't a national issue. Grazing sites and corruption in gaming are about as narrow as you can get.

They became national because when people fight back against the left, local goes national and then global.

The American Revolution started in part over a dispute with a British officer over a bill in Boston. That led to the Boston Massacre and by then the issue that started it all no longer mattered. What people come away with is who is being abusive in that particular situation.

People rally to unlikely flags and causes and fight for unexpected things that they care about.

A revolution against the left won't be led by the GOP. It won't come out of Washington D.C. But the pushback just might come because a group nobody pays attention to is angry about some issues you've never even heard of.

That group might be next door to you.

Fighting back does not have to be about convincing them to read Thomas Sowell and Bill Buckley. If you think like a community organizer, it's about getting them to make the connection between what they're angry about and the source of the trouble from the left.

People want to know why they're being kicked around. They don't want to hear about the politics. Those come later. They don't need the big stuff. The little stuff is pointing them at their abusers.

Community organizers spend a lot of time listening to people's grievances, especially people not one else listens to, and then slowly pointing them in the right direction while making them feel empowered. You don't have to look at it as a job.

Think of it as being a troublemaker. It's not a chore. It's fun.

The next major issue may start in your backyard and you, not some national organization, might just be the one to help set it off.


1. Focus on Your Family

You can have more influence on your kids than you ever can on Facebook or Twitter. If you have them, your biggest job in the world is making sure that you are a bigger influence on them than the latest movie or trending topic.

Be involved in their lives.

Even if they're in their forties and seem to have turned out liberal, plenty of people have turned around their politics right at that age. Don't argue with them. Shouting matches never changed anyone's mind. Show them that the way you live is better in the long run.

If you win there, the left loses big. Its big gamble is generational. If it loses your kids and grandkids, it loses. Period.

And your life will be better for it.

The Slavery Flag vs. the Southern Flag

Congressman Gohmert Reads "Slaver Flags of Islam" in Congress

Author: Daniel Greenfield
Source: Sultan Knish blog - 07.13.2015 
Link: about.me/gideonsword




Congressman Louie Gohmert read a portion of my article "Pull Down the Slaver Flags of Islam" on the floor of Congress which addresses the hypocrisy of censoring the Dukes of Hazzard while opening the doors to Islamic racism and other forms of supremacist bigotry and nostalgia for slave-owning cultures.

When Obama condemned Christianity for the Crusades, only a thousand years too late, in attendance was the Foreign Minister of Sudan; a country that practices slavery and genocide. Obama could have taken time out from his rigorous denunciation of the Middle Ages to speak truth to the emissary of a Muslim Brotherhood regime whose leader is wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. But our moral liberals spend too much time romanticizing actual slaver cultures.

It’s a lot easier for Obama to get in his million dollar Cadillac with its 5-inch thick bulletproof windows, a ride Boss Hogg could only envy, and chase down a couple of good ole boys than it is to condemn a culture that committed genocide in our own time, not in 1099, and that keeps slaves today, not in 1815.

Even while the Duke boys were being chased through Georgia, Obama appeared at an Iftar dinner; an event at which Muslims emulate Mohammed, who had more slaves than Robert E. Lee. There are no slaves in Arlington House today, but in the heartlands of Islam, from Saudi mansions to ISIS dungeons, there are still slaves, laboring, beaten, bought, sold, raped and disposed of in Mohammed’s name.

Slavery does not exist under the Confederate flag eagerly being pulled down. It does exist under the black and green flags of Islam rising over mosques in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and America today.

In our incredibly tolerant culture, it has become politically incorrect to watch the General Lee jump a fence or a barn, but paying tribute to the culture that sent the slaves here and that still practices slavery is the culturally sensitive thing to do. In 2015, slavery is no longer freedom, but it certainly is tolerance.

And it’s not just about Islam.

If romanticizing Dixie is wrong, so is romanticizing those ancient African cultures so beloved by amateur anthropologists and professional sociologists with more plastic tribal jewelry than sense. Slavery was an indigenous African and Middle Eastern practice. Not to mention an indigenous practice in America among indigenous cultures.

If justice demands that we pull down the Confederate flag everywhere, even from the top of the orange car sailing through the air in the freeze frame of an old television show, then what possible justification is there for all the faux Aztec knickknacks? Even the worst Southern plantation owners didn’t tear out the hearts of their slaves on top of pyramids. The romanticization of Aztec brutality plays a crucial role in the mythology of Mexican nationalist groups like La Raza promoting the Reconquista of America today.

Black nationalists romanticize the slave-holding civilization of Egypt despite the fact that the narrative of the liberation of the Hebrew slaves from bondage played a crucial role in the end of slavery in America. The endless stories about the “Amazons” of the African kingdom of Dahomey neatly fit into the leftist myth of a peaceful matriarchal Africa disrupted by European colonialism, but Dahomey ran on slavery.

The “Amazons” helped capture slaves for the Atlantic slave trade. White and black liberals are romanticizing the very culture that captured and sold their forefathers into slavery. “In Dahomey,” the first major mainstream black musical was about African-Americans moving to Dahomey. By then the French had taken over old Dahomey and together with the British had put an end to the slave trade.

The French dismantled the “Amazons” and freed many of Dahomey’s slaves only for the idiot descendants of both groups to romanticize the noble last stand of Dahomey fighting for the right to export black slaves to Cuba and condemn the European liberators who put a stop to that atrocity.

If we crack down on romanticizing Dixie, how can we possibly justify romanticizing Dahomey or the Aztecs or Mohammed? If slavery and racism are wrong, then they are wrong across the board.

Even by the miserably racist standard under which all lives don’t matter, only black lives matter, Dahomey and Mohammed had bought, sold and killed enough black lives to be frowned upon.

If we go back far enough in time, most cultures kept slaves. The Romans and Greeks certainly did. That’s why the meaningful standard is not whether a culture ever had slaves, but whether it has slaves today. If we are going to eradicate the symbols of every culture that ever traded in slaves, there will be few cultural symbols that will escape unscathed. But the academics who insist on cultural relativism in 19th century Africa, reject it in 19th century South Carolina thereby revealing their own racism.

And so instead of fighting actual modern day slavery in Africa and the Middle East, social justice warriors are swarming to invade Hazzard County.

As Ben Carson pointed out, we will not get rid of racism by banning the Confederate flag. Even when it is used at its worst, by the likes of Dylann Storm Roof, it is a symptom, not the problem. Roof was not radicalized by the dead Confederacy, but by the racial tensions kicked off by the Trayvon Martin case.

The same racial tensions that led to the murder of two police officers by a #BlackLivesMatter protester in New York City led to the massacre of nine black congregants in a church in Charleston. This surge of violence has its roots in racist activism by Obama and his supporters seeking power and political gain, but feeding racial tensions for political purposes eventually risks leading to actual violence.

The Confederate flag is a matter of history. The racial tensions stirred up by Obama have actually gotten people killed. Slavery is not making a comeback and Robert E. Lee will not come riding into San Francisco any time soon. The Civil War ended long ago. The country would be a better place if modern racists who believe that some lives, whether black or white, matter more than others would stop trying to start one.