Men would fire back that not all men were dangerous to women, and any bear you run into in the woods is dangerous. All things ‘No Shit.’

To be fair, not all men and women were at odds, rather it was a vocal minority on each side. Plenty of others simply laughed at the memes that came out of the controversy. You can always rely on memes. But for that vocal crowd this became a polarizing all or nothing debate, where in reality this is another example that two things can be true. 

Where did things go wrong? The concern that women have is obviously valid and true. However the framing of this concern was done exceptionally poorly, which gave birth to natural exceptions coming from men. Women were receiving “not all men” as a response because the thought experiment included all men. Women certainly were not saying that all men are this way, but it did construct yet another caricature about men that was unflattering, essentially stating that they are to be viewed as animals or sexual predators regardless of whether or not they are. While illustrating points can be beneficial for making a point, venturing into hyperbole about people is not a good way to convince them to listen to you. 

The thought experiment became less and less honest as the women making this comparison demanded control of all nuance. No nuance allowed from men, nor even from women who made counter points.

Below is a post from a woman extending the logic from the forest to women’s spaces such as bathrooms and locker rooms. 

She is told that this is irrelevant despite it being a natural and logical extension of the thought experiment. It is clearly an applicable element of this debate, so why is it irrelevant? Because you don’t control the nuance, that’s why. You don’t get to suggest this. That’s not where we intended for this conversation to go. 

Here seems like a good place to casually mention that just about every day a female adult sexually assaults a gradeschool boy.

The data is clear. Obviously way more women are harmed or killed by men than by bears every year. So why wouldn’t this comparison make the grandest of sense to everyone? Why wouldn’t men just understand that they should be perceived as threatening everywhere they go?

Let’s talk about how men understand this.

The thought experiment is centered around chance encounters with strangers. Men actually understand chance encounter violence very well, because more men are killed by strangers than women (and yes, we recognize that it is mostly men doing the killing).

While chance encounter violence does occur with women, the overwhelming majority of danger to women comes from intimate partners. When you see women justifying the Man VS Bear thought experiment due to 1 in 4 women experiencing sexual violence, what they are citing is an intimate partner and not a chance encounter with a stranger (which voids the premise behind the thought experiment).

Men understand bad men being intimate partners pretty well too. If you’re a man reading this, then much like myself you’ve probably warned a woman friend about an intimate partner they’ve started seeing, and she didn’t listen to you. You’re nodding yes, I can see you. You knew it was going to end badly and It did. The things you either knew about this guy, or were able to sense by his mannerisms and communications, were actually selling points to her. 

There’s a reason the vocal minority of women who are incredibly invested in this latest controversy also are conflating intimate partner violence with random chance to spread suspicion amongst all men. They’re attracted to red flags and are trying to absolve themselves of poor decision making.

Listen to the below audio clip obtained by Journalist Jonathan Choe. In this three minute voice clip sent to a friend by Liliya Guyvoronsky, she details why she has not left a toxic relationship. She gives plenty of good reasons for why she wants to leave that relationship, but listen to the reason why she hasn’t left. Now please understand that she is dead.

Liliya details many red flags about this person as reasons why she wants to leave, but the reason why she stayed is horrifying. She was emotionally invested in quite arguably the worst thing about this person. He would role play sex trafficking her, and she was so intrigued by the disturbing role play and she wanted to know what would happen next. Next she was murdered. 

Is it Liliya’s fault she was murdered? No. Is her murderer, James McNeal responsible for her death? Yes. Would Liliya still be alive if she were smarter? Also yes.

Do not absolve yourselves of poor decision making. Two things can be true.

The post Woman VS Bear: Two Things Can Be True appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Professional Business Men’s Hairstyles

Side Part

The classic side part is a gentlemen’s hairstyle that offers a chic masculine appeal. The cut is usually short on the sides with slightly longer or even medium-length hair on top, but the star of the show is the hard part on one side. You can combine this style with a quiff, slick back, or bro flow to personalize it to your liking. The side part works best for thick hair, but there are variations suitable for all types. Whether you’re wearing a suit and tie or jeans and a blazer, this classic look will complement your outfit.

Slick Back

The slick back is a retro style for men who want a classic professional look that will always look good in the office. The slicked back hairstyle features medium-length hair on top brushed straight back and paired with a taper fade on the sides. For a modern take, add a bald fade on the sides and back for an edgy flair. Some guys may prefer the undercut for a clean-cut length all around. To style it at home, use a strong-hold gel on damp hair, brush it straight back, and then allow it to air dry or blow dry to lock it into place.

Quiff

Nothing says polished and professional quite like the traditional quiff. It is a relatively simple haircut, but the clean-looking shine sets it apart from similar styles. The hair on the sides and in the back is kept relatively short compared to the hair on top, which is parted on one side, then brushed upward and back. The quiff is classy and reserved, making it well-suited for several hair textures and can be worn from the office to happy hour.

Comb Over

A comb over is a simple way to combine rugged style with sophistication for men who have straight or slightly wavy hair. The comb over haircut can be perfect for a day at the office or an important business meeting, so if you’re struggling to choose a look, this one is infallible. As a popular option, the comb over fade is a modern variation that involves a tapered cut on the sides and back to contrast the longer hair on top. When styling this look, create a deep part on one side and comb the hair over in one direction.

Buzz Cut

The buzz cut continues to remain popular among white-collar professionals thanks to its simplicity. Men who work long hours often want to look their best without having to invest hours into their hair routines, and this military-inspired cut suits the purpose. You can wear it with a shaven face, a full beard, or anything in between.

Hard Part

A hard part lends a hint of formality to a wide range of haircuts, which makes it perfect for black tie events, fundraisers, or just everyday office wear. Your barber or stylist will leave the top of your hair slightly longer than the sides and back, which is what gives the hard part its personality. Apply a strong-hold gel to damp hair, then use a fine-tooth comb to define the part and blow-dry or air dry.

Ivy League

The Ivy League is a variation of the classic crew cut with more styling options. Rather than a close crop, the hair on top is left long enough to style in a simple side part. Also known as the Harvard Clip or Princeton, this cut is a favorite among professionals because it affords some versatility in styling that makes it ideal to wear with jeans and sneakers or with a crisp suit. Subtle variations in the length of the hair and even the degree of the taper can provide completely different looks to suit your personality. The Ivy League will take your ensemble to the next level.

Man Bun

The man bun is the ideal way to handle medium-length or long hair in a corporate setting. Rather than loose, flowing hair, this style keeps things neatly in place during meetings or client dinners. This cut works well for guys who have hair that is all one length, but it can also be paired with an undercut for a bit more contrast. To do it, just slick your hair back into a ponytail, wrap it in a bun, and secure it with an elastic that matches your hair color. According to Fashion Beans, the man bun may be a nonsensical business casual hairstyle that contradicts itself but has become an accepted trend.

Bro Flow

The bro flow is the perfect solution for guys who aren’t into the stuffy businessman look. It’s cool, charming, and slightly rugged, and it’s becoming more accepted in the executive world – especially if you’re an entrepreneur in the tech or creative field. The slightly tousled medium to long hair creates a relaxed appearance that looks surprisingly handsome with a suit and tie.

Crew Cut

The crew cut is a cool military-inspired haircut style for guys who want a masculine look. The crew cut can be paired with a fade or undercut to create a fresh style. You can choose between shorter and longer hair on top to achieve your desired finish. Use a texturizing product for a fuller look.

The post 10 Stylish Professional Haircuts For Men appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Gervais infamously lit into Hollywood, mocked them, and called them friends of Jeffrey Epstein. His most important point was the last few sentences of his monologue:

“So if you do win anything, don’t come up here and give a political speech. You’re in no position to lecture the general public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg. So if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent and your god, and fuck off.”

At this time Gervais delivered this rebuke to Hollywood, Cobra Kai had completed two seasons with YouTube and was set to release their third season with Netflix at the beginning of 2021. Netflix had completed their acquisition of Cobra Kai from YouTube just a few months after Gervais’ monologue. 

The acquisition by Netflix exposed Cobra Kai to a much larger audience, and I wouldn’t have heard of it otherwise. I spent the day with a friend of mine who introduced it to me after Season 3 had been released on Netflix, and we burned through Season One and half of Season Two during the day. Just prior to the release of Season Four, I subscribed to Netflix and started over, watching the first three seasons. 

The series is incredibly diverse. Characters from every ethnic background, with the protagonist student being Hispanic. Same sex relationships also exist in the series. Yet, Cobra Kai does not get on a soap box about any of it. They don’t scream the point in your face, they don’t lecture you, and they don’t use it to crow about how virtuous they are. In fact, Cobra Kai has made a point of mocking Virtue Signaling.

During the championship tournament in the Finale of the first season, Cobra Kai openly ridiculed the idea of virtue signaling.

While competitors were being introduced, the defending champion Xander Stone did forward flips to the front, grabbed the microphone from the announcer, and began to lecture the audience about ending hatred and intolerance, and called for a moment of silence.

During that moment of silence, Sensei Lawrence said to his student Miguel, “kick that pansy bitch in the face.” 

Yes, hatred is a bad thing. Also yes, showboating and demanding praise and glory when you are in effect doing nothing, is also a bad thing. Virtue Signaling, or drawing attention to yourself for applause, is frowned upon in this clip. They did a good job demonstrating how ridiculous virtue signaling is, by depicting it as showing off and being tacky while doing nothing to help a cause.

While race appears a sensitive topic these days with who is the good guy and who is the bad guy, how does Cobra Kai rationalize this with a diverse cast? Who are the good kids, who are the bad kids and which races are they? 

The answer is simple. They’re all the good guys and the bad guys. Character development is guided by triumphs from positive influences, and faults from negative influences. They have all been on the Heel to Villain spectrum, as well as the Hero spectrum. This is true for both Student and Sensei. Everyone has evolution and purpose.

Contrast this approach with a work like Ghostbusters Afterlife which was a terrible film on its own merits. I’m not opposed to a female Ghostbusters, but women can be Ghostbusters too was the only thing the film had to deliver.

Cobra Kai has had no problem delivering the message that girls can kick ass without having to make it a tiresome lecture that leaves the audience clockwatching. Just the opposite, it’s enjoyable.

The other thing that Cobra Kai does well is depicting overly broad and disastrous council decisions. Following the fight at the high school, the City Council made the move to cancel the All Valley Under 18 Tournament, citing not wanting to foster a culture of violence. Cobra Kai made the notion sound as ridiculous as it actually sounds. 

More impressively, in the appeal to the council, student Miguel cited how this has helped him deal with bullying problems, and how schools care more about the perception that bullying doesn’t exist (see: zero tolerance), rather than actually doing anything to solve the problem. They satirized these school approaches by introducing Hugs Not Hits as a school initiative to combat bullying. 

Miguel convinced not only the council members, but hopefully also the entire Netflix audience that these school campaigns and facades surrounding bullying are useless, and that instead we should be teaching our to be children capable of violence.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this article stated Ricky Gervais’ monologue was delivered at the Oscars, when the monologue was delivered at the Golden Globes. Correction Credit: @KingAdrock42

The post Cobra Kai Being Anti-Woke Makes It Refreshing appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The post Woman Ends 20 Year Marriage Over Cobra Kai Differences appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

“Under My Thumb” – The Rolling Stones 

This bluesy Rock n’ Roll tune by one of the leading groups of the British Invasion of the mid-1960s is sure to make a blue-haired man-hater’s head explode.

In this song, Mick Jagger tells a story from the perspective of a man who has been in an emotionally abusive relationship. It’s a classic case of the old saying, “you can’t have your cake and eat it too.” After having fun running around, she realizes how good she had it with her previous lover and comes back begging for his affection and will do whatever he says. As he says, 

 “It’s down to me
Yes it is
The way she does just what she’s told down to me
The change has come
She’s under my thumb
Ah, ah, say it’s alright.”

 Payback’s a bitch, isn’t it?

“Stand By Your Man” – Tammy Wynette 

Tammy Wynette’s classic country ballad, which she co-wrote with her record producer Billy Sherrill became a #1 hit on the country charts in 1968 and a top 20 pop hit. The song was written as a love song by a woman who ironically was preparing for her second divorce. It was marketed as Wynette’s response to the women’s liberation movement of the late 1960s.

The ballad will make all the femininazis cringe as it discusses a woman being loyal to her man even when he does things that aren’t right. The song faced just as much criticism by the women’s liberation when it was released as it has in more modern times.

“A Newsweek article called it a song, quote, “for the beleaguered housewife who grits her teeth as destiny dumps its slop on her head.” And fellow singer Jeannie C. Riley of “Harper Valley PTA” fame said, quote, “It sounds like you should take anything he dishes out.” Ironically, Wynette, while recording the song, was preparing to divorce her second husband for George Jones, another turbulent marriage she would eventually leave. Evelyn Shriver says Wynette defended the song, calling it a reflection of her background.”, according to NPR.

 The ballad was even mocked by former First Lady Hillary Clinton, according to The Wallstreet Journal.

 “Hard Headed Woman” – Elvis Presley 

Elvis the Pelvis was known for his ability to make women faint with his high energy shows, soulful southern voice, and legendary leg shakes. Feminists would be throwing something harder than themselves at the King of Rock ‘n Roll for this track.

In this song, Elvis takes us all the way back to creation in which he states that all the world’s problems have been caused by a “hard head woman and a soft-hearted man who have been causing trouble ever since the world began.”

The track highlights three biblical stories, including “Adam and Eve”, “Samson and Delilah”, and Jezebel and King Ahab. The lyrics light-heartedly poke fun of the female characters in each story, claiming that they were the source of each man’s downfall. Presley then relays his own frustrations with his own love interest in the last verse.

The song is great because it will throw the same logic feminists use by asserting that the patriarchy is the source of the world’s problems right back in their faces in a joking way.

 “A Woman’s Place is in the Home” – Gilbert O’ Sullivan

 1970’s Irish Pop Star Gilbert O’ Sullivan bangs out a ballad on his piano that will wreck every bra-burning broad’s mind. Sullivan’s song defends traditional western values, which he boldly states is that a woman belongs at home. In the mid-1970s, when the song was released, popular culture had already started to reject the idea of a woman staying home to raise her children and began pushing the idea that women should be in the workplace. Sullivan notes that he admires a woman “who can make it on her own,” but he believes a woman’s place in the home. If you want to destroy a loud-mouthed man-hater’s day, cranking this up on your nearest sound system should do the trick.

 “Bitches Ain’t Shit” – Dr. Dre

 To round out the list, Dr. Dre’s 1992 West Coast Rap classic is guaranteed to trigger any feminist tramp! Dr. Dre’s bumping beat talks about screwing women and using them for sex and kicking them to the curb. I should note that in no way do I think this is acceptable behavior, but if third-wave feminists are going to degrade good men, why not throw it back at them and have a little fun with it?  

There you have it, guys—five more fantastic tunes to trigger those self-loathing, man-haters who deep down are in desperate need of getting laid but too consumed with hate to admit it.

Image: Alec Perkins, Flickr

The post 5 More Fantastic Tunes to Trigger Feminists appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The news of Craig’s final appearance as Bond has left people wondering who will be the next person to play the iconic British spy of Ian Flemming’s novels.

Vogue.com released a list of 17 candidates that could potentially fill the role. The list includes Henry Golding, Idris Elba, Tom Hardy, and actress Lashana Lynch.

There has been a push among the “woke” culture to make the next 007 agent a female since Daniel Craig announced his retirement from the role. However, when Craig was asked in an interview with Radio Times what he thought about a female replacing him as the next Bond, the actor insisted that Bond should remain a male character.

“The answer to that is very simple,” he said. “There should simply be better parts for women and actors of colour. Why should a woman play James Bond when there should be a part just as good as James Bond, but for a woman?” Craig said, according to RadioTimes.com.

The fact that some people would even entertain the idea of transforming James Bond into Jane Bond is utterly preposterous. It makes no difference to me what ethnicity the new Bond is, considering the color of the actor’s skin would not fundamentally affect the story. However, making a male character a woman would utterly destroy every essential element that goes into making a James Bond movie.

In my mind, the only basic requirements to play James Bond are being a biological male, British, and being capable of carrying oneself with a sense of sophistication and machismo that has been key to the Bond character since he first appeared on screen in 1962.

In the spirit of honesty, it would be better to kill James Bond in the upcoming film and never make another 007 film than to make his character a woman. These words come from someone who has been a fan of the franchise for as long as I can remember. It is not that I am against strong female leads in film, but rather that changing the gender of the lead wouldn’t fit the storyline of a masculine, sophisticated, womanizing spy who saves the world from some global threat reminiscent of the Cold War. Not to mention, as great as the 007 series is, the James Bond movies today are a far cry from its glory days of the ’60s with legendary actor Sean Connery. It may be time to close the Bond story altogether rather than attempting to revive the same old storylines for 50 more years.

I agree with Daniel Craig that there should be better roles for women in the film industry instead of making a woman fit a male role. Regendering James Bond makes about as much sense as trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Furthermore, it is an insult to talented actresses to not give them a role which suits their own unique brand of storytelling and displays their feminity instead of ruining a story by attempting to reshape it to fit the woke cult’s taste.

Good examples of strong female leads in the modern era can be found in movies such as D.C. Comics’ “Wonder Woman” and Marvel’s “Black Widow.” Both of these films display strong female leads with characters that were made for women rather than trying to make a masculine role feminine.

Fortunately, the world’s favorite 007 spy doesn’t seem to be in danger of gender reassignment anytime soon, as Bond’s producer Barbara Broccolli, whose company, Eon Prods, has the rights to finance and distribute the franchise, told Variety, “He can be of any color, but he is male. I believe we should be creating new characters for women — strong female characters. I’m not particularly interested in taking a male character and having a woman play it. I think women are far more interesting than that.”

While it is still unknown who will replace Daniel Craig, we can be sure that as Bond continues to save the world for future generations on screen, his identity will be saved from the evil minions of the woke mob who want to destroy the western world.

Image: Wikimedia

The post It’s James Bond, Not Jane Bond: Daniel Craig Says No to Female 007 appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

There was even a petition started on Change.org in support of trying to get Crayola to remove ‘negro’ from its black Crayon.

How tone deaf have American social justice warriors become when they now can’t distinguish between legitimate examples of racism within society and the Spanish language?

Negro translates to black in Spanish. It’s not derogatory or offensive to say the color black. This behavior is a prime example of when outrage crosses with ignorance. According to languagemagazine.com, as of 2019, Spanish is spoken by 580 million people worldwide, which makes up 7.6% of the world’s total population. Langauagemagazne.com also reported that the language is studied by almost 22 million people in 110 countries and is the third most used language on the internet.

Crayola is a global company and makes crayons for people around the world, not just English speakers. The company even joined in the conversation on Twitter in an attempt to enlighten the outraged SJWs.

“With Crayola products sold in more than 80 countries and packaged in 12 different languages, Crayola is very much a global company. The word “negro” appears along with the words “black” and “noir” because it is the literal Spanish translation of the word black,” Crayola tweeted.

This outrage is based on nothing but pure ignorance of the Spanish language and the culture of the people around the world who speak it. It should also be said that it appears racist and exclusionary to want to remove a word from a product just because a group of people are enraged by a language they don’t understand. It is ironic that someone on the political left would scream about the need for inclusion and diversity in American society and then in the same breath say that the Spanish word for black should be removed from a crayon because it looks like the N-word.

There is a saying that leftists care about every form of  diversity except for diversity of thought.  However, this should serve as proof that they really couldn’t care less about any form of diversity and only want to use talk of these things to attempt to win over the votes of minorities every election cycle.

If SJW’s gave a crap about multiculturalism, you’d think they would spend more time learning basic cultural differences instead of claiming a language is racist just because it is similar to a derogatory word.

My message to all Spanish-speaking people in America is simple. If the same folks who claim to care about your background want to remove your native tongue from a crayon, don’t think for one minute that they care about you, the interests of your community, or your well-being.

As a freedom-loving American, it is my conviction that multiculturism is part of what makes this country great and unique among all the other nations of the world. Attempting to censor an individual’s language for any reason is wrong and not in line with the values of a country that was founded on the ideas of individualism and free speech, much less on the basis of ignorance and false assumption of bigotry.

There seems to be no sign that Crayola will bow to the “woke” mob anytime soon, which is good news.

Perhaps those offended that Spanish will not be taken off of Crayola’s ‘negro’ Crayon would be a lot better off if they would spend a little more time being culturally informed instead of showing the blackness in their own hearts toward a group of people whose language they do not understand.

If education doesn’t triumph over blind ignorance and hatred, we will have soon have much darker things to contend with than the word for a color on the back of a Crayon.

The post Triggered America: SJW’s Go Loco Over Spanish Language on Black Crayon appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The Congresswoman from New York wore a white dress with the words “Tax the Rich” written in large red letters across the back.

Tickets for the Met Gala cost $30,000 per person with tables start at $200,000, according to The New York Post.

A reporter for NewsMax, Benny Johnson, also claimed that AOC’s choice of attire for the event had a price tag of $1,000.

AOC must think she is the progressive counterpart to outspoken conservative singer/model Joy Villa, who first gained national attention with her “Make America Great Again” dress that she wore to the Grammys in support of former President Donald Trump in 2017. Villa, I might add, has shown much more dignity and grace than AOC ever dreamed of.

The problem lies not in making a political statement at a big event like the Met gala. In fact, I do not think it is out of place for a sitting member of Congress to make a political statement.

The issue at hand is the blatant hypocrisy of AOC’s message. It’s highly ironic that a sitting congresswoman would attend an event that costs $30,000 and wear a $1,000 gown, and then have the audacity to talk about taxing the rich!

AOC, you are the rich! Do you think middle-class Americans have the kind of money to attend high-class balls, wearing clothes that cost thousands of dollars? Do you think they have the connections or money to rub shoulders with the who’s who of the entertainment industry?

What would you say to your constituents about your decision to attend the Met Gala when so many are likely scraping by just to make ends meet? You are not a woman of the people. If you really cared, you would be fighting in Congress to keep the American economy open and removing regulatory burdens placed on the American people instead of trying to be a Progressive Cinderella.

This behavior is all too typical of progressive politicians and they whine and complain about people they call “rich elitists” while refusing to acknowledge their own arrogance. People like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are no different than the kings and queens of old who wined and dined, getting fat and living easy off of the backs of people who suffered in poverty.

In spite of the congresswoman’s decision to attend the Met Gala, it’s not out of line to ask about her abuela’s  home in Puerto Rico that she claimed was severely damaged by Hurricane Maria back in June. AOC blasted former President Donald Trump for blocking relief to the island in the aftermath of the hurricane. If the congresswoman can afford to be at an event as prestigious as the Met Gala, surely she can afford to at least help take care of her grandmother’s home repairs.

Unless of course, she doesn’t really care about her grandmother and was just using her as a political prop in an attempt to increase government spending. Perhaps it is old-fashioned of me to think that if you genuinely love someone, you should help them when they are in dire circumstances if you have the means to do so. I hope that AOC’s grandmother is in a much better state of living these days—especially since her granddaughter thinks it is appropriate to live the lifestyle of the rich and famous while claiming to serve the common people of New York.

If AOC lived according to her principles, she would be appalled at the idea of attending the Met Gala while so many of her fellow Americans are suffering as businesses struggle to get by or have closed
due to government restrictions under the guise of a pandemic.

Tyrants of the past and present would be proud of the progressive darling who is living up to the mantra, “Do as I say and not as I do!”

The post Tax Me: The Hypocrisy of AOC’s “Tax The Rich” Dress appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

When you think of Elvis Presley, the phrase “civil libertarian” might be among the last things to come to mind when referencing the legendary “King of Rock ‘n’ Roll.” However, if one were to study the details of the life of Elvis, nothing could be more apparent than that he was indeed an advocate for civil rights and significantly contributed to dismantling racial barriers that existed in American culture from the 1950s to the early 1970s.

In order to understand how revolutionary Elvis was, we must go back to the very beginning, long before he became one of the Founding Fathers of Rock ‘n’ Roll.

Elvis was born on January 8, 1935, in Tupelo, Mississippi to parents Vernon and Gladys Presley. Elvis grew up in extreme poverty in the deep South at a time when the nation was still extremely segregated, except among those who lived in extreme poverty. Young Elvis was greatly influenced by a wide array of musical genres including Gospel, Blues, Country, and R&B. It is likely both Presley’s devout Christian upbringing as well as his exposure to black culture throughout his lifetime motivated him to care about the struggle of black Americans for equality under the law.

Did Elvis march with Civil Rights activists such as Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X? No. In fact, very little is known about Elvis’ political views in general as he saw himself as strictly a musician and entertainer. However, when we consider the cultural barriers that Presley obliterated by integrating popular music, he enabled black musicians to enjoy the mainstream success that had eluded them for so long.

There is a long-standing lie that Elvis didn’t truly care about black people and was actually a racist who exploited black American musicians for decades prior to the dawn of his musical career. Nothing could be further from reality.

The origin of this misconception was a lie printed in a white-owned magazine created for a black audience called “Sepia.” The magazine published an article in 1957 asserting that Presley said, “The only thing Negroes can do for me is buy my records and shine my shoes.” The article in question stated that Elvis made this remark after playing a gig in Boston. However, when he was questioned about the statement by a reporter behind the scenes of his film, “Jailhouse Rock,” he said he not only never said that, but had never been to Boston at that time. Reverend Milton Perry also penned a piece in the highly popular black magazine “Jet,” where he spoke to black people who knew Elvis well who verified that the claim was not something he would say.

The King of Rock ‘n’ Roll also recorded songs that spoke to the issues of the black community during the height of the civil rights movement. Records such as “If I Can Dream,” “In the Ghetto,” and “Walk a Mile in My Shoes” certainly reflect his views on equality under the law and his social awarness concerning the issues of his day.

Elvis almost didn’t play the Houston Astrodome in 1970 because the people in charge told him that he could leave his backup singers at home because they were a black girl group. Elvis told the individuals in charge that not only were “The Sweet Inspirations” coming with him, but they would be allowed to ride in a Cadillac around the stadium right behind him or he wasn’t going to play the show. Needless to say, he got what he wanted and the women were treated fairly.

This might not sound like a big deal today, but considering the political and social climate of the late 1960s and early 70s, making such a statement was a bold move that could have cost him. Elvis chose not to play it safe and stood up for what is morally right.

It is almost impossible to find out what Presley believed politically as he was incredibly private when it came to political matters. Still, when it came to actions, there is no doubt that Elvis contributed greatly to the Civil Rights movement even though he never marched with Dr. King.

The song “If I Can Dream,” which is the closing song of his legendary ’68 Comeback Special, truly gives us a glimpse into the heart of a man who rose from the humblest of beginnings and became the innovator who changed the world of popular music in a way no one had before or since.

While his musical talent is often praised, the man himself and his contributions to the betterment of American society have been largely ignored. This aspect of the revolution that Elvis sparked should be celebrated as the precious gift that it is.

May the world always remember Elvis, and may we all use our gifts to better the world just as he did—even if he was never given the respect he truly deserved.

Long live the King of Rock ‘n’ Roll!

Image: YouTube

The post “If I Can Dream”: Elvis’ Cultural Contributions to Civil Rights appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The lyrics are as follows:

Happy birthday America, It’s the 4th of July

I get to wake up in your freedom, But sometimes I wonder why

Seems like everybody’s pissin’ On the red, white and blue

Happy birthday America, Whatever’s left of you

You were the darlin’ when you saved the world WW I and II

France would just be part of Germany now If it hadn’t been for you

Now your children want to turn you in To something other than yourself

They burn your flag in their city streets More than anybody else

Who they gonna count on When you’re not there to take their call

Will the world keep right on spinnin’ Without the greatest of them all

Without the helping hand of God Your days are numbered my old friend

We’re sure gonna miss you girl You were the best that’s ever been

Happy birthday America

All the broken-down cities By the left’s design

And the right can’t seem to get it right Most of the time

Every time I go to town and vote I just come home with the blues

The lesser of two evils, All we ever get to choose

I have been a fan of Toby Keith’s music for most of my life, and I have always respected him for his unabashed love for this country. As an outspoken advocate for individual liberty and the values that made America the greatest nation in the history of the world, this song struck a chord with me.

It was my love for liberty that first led me to get into the world of media because I felt that many modern-day Americans on both sides of the political aisle don’t really understand the principles on which this country was founded.

I understand his sentiment of feeling like there’s not much left of what America used to be as it seems that both sides want to worship government in their own way instead of valuing limited government and the freedom to live in whatever manner you choose. I am sure it wouldn’t be too bold of me to say that I am sure the lyrics of “Happy Birthday America” resonate with millions of my fellow countrymen as they feel like it is just a matter of time before our nation falls into oblivion. However, I am convinced that no matter how dark the days ahead may seem there is a light inside each one of us that will show us the way forward. 

It is this internal light that will guide the hands and hearts of all who understand the blessings of liberty to fight the evil that seeks to destroy our country from within. The lyrics of Toby’s song have more than just a hint of truth in them. 

Listen to this song and let it stir your heart—not to mourn, but instead let the lyrics motivate you to action to save our American Republic. Let us not pass the buck off to another generation, but fight for what is good and right today. 

What better way to celebrate America than to fight to restore our founding principles and strive to be that more perfect union our founding fathers intended for us?

Listen to Toby’s new song below:

Image: Flickr, fishhawk

The post Toby Keith’s New Song Should Be a Call to Action for Americans appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.