​I was probably 5 years of age when I was taught to pledge my allegiance. 
I was 18 years of age when I took an oath.
I was 20 years of age when I pledged to join an organization.
I was 23 years of age when I took another oath. 
In my experiences, no one informed me exactly what my actions meant entirely.  That’s not to suggest this was anyone’s fault beyond my own.  However, so many adults call themselves being “protective” with children from topics they consider beyond a child’s comprehension.  Did anyone ever considered a 5 year old being too young to pledge their allegiance?  Did anyone ever considered asking children if they were even interested in making such a pledge?  In each of my instances, no one ever went into any detailed explanation regarding what pledging an allegiance actually meant.  Maybe that was strategic.  Even when I was older and took an oath to support and defend the United States Constitution, I never experienced anyone deemed to be in a position of authority go to any length to determine if I understood what I was doing.  No one even asked if I had any questions about what I was about to do.  No one even went line by line over the document I was swearing to defend.   Maybe that was strategic.  Would it not make more sense to ensure anyone making a pledge or taking an oath comprehends what they are doing?  To whose benefit is it to have children who barely understand why they are even attending school to learn to recite the pledge of allegiance?  Maybe this is why some never question and even find it disrespectful if someone decides to ask questions or ask for reciprocating allegiance in return.     

​I’ve been hearing the terms conservative and liberal thrown around quite a bit lately.  Not that I have not heard these terms before, I just never put much thought into what they mean.  My initial thought regarding these words made me think of servitude and liberty, however I did not want to jump to conclusions so I opted to do some research into the creation of these terms.    
The Liberal Party was an British political party formed in the early 1800’s.  The founding leaders of this party sought to establish policies which supported free trade, religious liberty and social legislation.  This party won the British election of 1832 and remained in control until about 1865.  The party’s policies reformed and reorganized British possessions and territories which included abolishing ownership of human beings.  The liberal party was formed in reaction to some of the policies of the preceding Conservative Party. 
The Conservative Party was also an early 1800 period political party in England.  English conservative party members were avowed to changes in old and established practices.  In the United States, it was first the Democratic Party that opposed the establishment of the subtreasury system and adopted the Conservative Party Name, as did both Northerners and Southerners who opposed the reconstruction period following the Civil War.    
I’ve witnessed enough to be fairly confident that this would be the time that those who choose to unapologetically follow their particular political party will seize the moment to wave their political banners as a symbol of victory along with the battle cry of “I told you so!”  However this bit of information raises some additional questions.  I’ve read many Republican Party supporters’ comments and they seem to have crossed over into ideas supported by the aforementioned Southern and Northern Democratic Party members.  The lines appear to have been blurred with current Republican Party members shouting “insults” of liberalism and now the current Democratic Party members are associated with a political party that may not of had the best interest of a group of people they are considered relative with. 
I still have some thoughts about the two words that required additional investigation.  Without researching the words and learning the literal meanings, when I look at the root of liberal, my first thoughts were associated with liberty which many associate with freedom.  One of the dictionaries I read indicates the word Liber derived from a Latin word, liberalis meaning freedom.  The dictionary reads, liberal arts are courses of study at a college which are befitting of a free man and even further reads liberalism emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority. 
From its inception, “conservatives” sought to keep or preserve those traditions, practices and policies that directly supported their interests, which indicate some similarities with the word conserve.  Conserve also appears to be a combination of the words con & serve.  The prefix con derived from the Latin word, conducere meaning to lead or bring together and serve derives from the Latin word servus meaning a servant, slave or serf.  Interesting that servant, slave and serf all have the same meaning yet somehow the prevalent thought of those words or terms of servitude are somehow different.  For example indentured servant, slave, even serfdom are not viewed as the same practices, and some consider indentured servitude and serfdom as a better condition of existence in comparison with slavery.        
 Henry Peter Brougham is credited with the quote, “Education makes a people easy to lead, but difficult to drive; easy to govern, but impossible to enslave.”  This quote reminds me of the concept associated with the study of liberal arts, befitting of a free man.  I even notice some connectivity with liberal, liberty and library.  This bit of information provides me with a better understanding of those who “insult” anyone whose ideas oppose theirs.  Is it really insulting to be identified with being accepting of change, as supportive of ideas that foster freedom from traditional or authoritative concepts that do not benefit all that have a right to exist on this planet?  Before anyone decides to makes a presumption regarding my affiliation with a certain political party, know that I consider myself a political free agent.  I do not feel a need to be associated with any political party but I am open to consider any group actually seeking changes which promote the right for people to exist as they chose just as long as they don’t harm or obstruct another’s equal right to the same.  It is confusing that many who have a sense of pride about a country marketed on freedom will frown upon those who actively practice what the framers of the Declaration of Independence wrote, when they sought freedom from those who held them in servitude and imposed policies and practices designed to conserve their right to exist in accordance with the laws that nature’s god entitles them. 

Privilege from a Latin word privilegium meaning a law in favor of or against an individual.  Supremacy, from a Latin word supremus meaning that is above.  Inferior from Latin word inferus meaning being below or under.
If you are like me, you may have heard these terms in relation to what is deemed race issues.  After reading a Facebook thread some of the responses caused me to look at these terms in relation to the relationship of parent/child or adult/child.  Especially when concerning the privilege or right some express in regards to hitting their inferior, my apologies I meant to write loved one.  Could those who feel so strongly about their privilege, to what is erroneously labeled discipline, be displaying a sign of supremacy? 
One of the reasons I read, really caused me to think about this perspective.  The response in favor of hitting their child was associated with not having their child “back talk” to them as if their child was their EQUAL.  I immediately had thoughts of a group of people asking to be considered equal.  Other than a thought of supremacy over another individual identified as a child what else could it possibly be?  Other interesting thoughts I had in relation to these three terms made me think of actions displayed by those having a thought of supremacy and privilege over those deemed to be inferior.  Could they be the same in most cases? 
One of the definitions of white supremacy is an ideology centered upon the belief, the promotion of the belief, that so called “white” people are superior in certain characteristics, traits and attributes to people of other “racial” backgrounds and that therefore should politically, economically and socially rule “non-white people.” 
White privilege is described as a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. 
It’s noted that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said the following; “it is probably true that the inferiority complex is one of the most stagnating and strangulating and crushing conditions of the human personality.  It distorts the personality and plunges it into the abyss of inner conflicts.  And so one of the first things that individual must do to integrate themselves and to be sure that their personalities are integrated is to seek to overcome a feeling of inferiority.  This is one of the first and basic conditions of life.” 
I ask that each reader re-read the last three paragraphs above and insert adult or parent supremacy, adult or parent privilege and child inferiority.  Can you find any comparisons?  An article titled “Prevalence, Societal Causes, and Trends in Corporal Punishment by Parents in World Perspective,” indicates research has shown that In the United States, the spanking of infants is common with toddler-age children being spanked the most.  Many supremacists will typically respond that spanking, swatting, patting, whipping, tapping, all which include striking or hitting the body with a hand or another object, as a necessity to make children compliant, prevent unwanted behaviors, and promote respect of superiors.  I can describe several instances of non-complying adults displaying unwanted social behaviors and showing what could be considered as disrespect of superiors; by adults who will proudly express receiving spankings as discipline and turning out just fine.  Could this be an example of children simply not having yet obtained adult privileges?  Now try and imagine what the response would be if children took to the streets, with signs expressing their right to be treated fairly as equals?  Would their superiors come to the table for a discussion or would the demonstration be met with additional discipline?     
I will end with a summation of an article titled “Spanking and Child Development:  We Know Enough Now to Stop Hitting Our Children,” indicates there are a number of documented adverse physical, mental and emotional effects of spanking and other forms of corporal punishment, including various physical injuries, increased anxiety, depression and antisocial behavior.  As a recovering supremacist with thoughts of privilege I can clearly see the harm I caused in those I deemed my inferiors.  I’ve often heard many times that there is no book with instructions to raise children yet clearly some have documented how NOT to raise children. 

​So many times I have found myself standing there when someone says, "I need you to make me understand before I can proceed".  The question becomes, why are so many people insisting upon understanding before they are willing to do the work that one must do in order to know?  The directive that is found in all of the great books tells the reader that you must develop knowledge and wisdom before you can get understanding. God gave to Solomon Knowledge and Wisdom and with those gifts, he (Solomon) was able to get understanding. In other words something has to be done before you get that which is above all getting.
Today, in order for us to acquire what the Son of David was able to accomplish we must put ourselves into God's hands through effort, and then, we too will be given the gift that is above all GETTING. The gift is a reward and rewards that come from on high are awarded only to those who give of themselves the energy called EFFORT.  This energy is exerted in the behavior that is called work. We must work to get knowledge.  For a person to get knowledge they must first get INFORMATION. Effort must be put forth to acquire the data. Then, when more work has been performed, the information will come together as knowledge.  Once knowledge has come to be, and the one who has done the work (put forth the energy) is a good person that has Good Intent, that person stands the chance to receive the wisdom of God and only then can you hope to UNDERSTAND.
                                                                                             -CLIFFORD BLACK
 
1 KINGS 4:29
2 CHRONICLES 1
2 CHRONICLES 1:11

The fight-or-flight response (also called the fight, flight, freeze, or fawn response in post-traumatic stress disorder, hyperarousal, or the acute stress response) is a physiological reaction that occurs in response to a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival.  It was first described by Walter Bradford Cannon.  His theory states that animals react to threats with a general discharge of the sympathetic nervous system, preparing the animal for fighting or fleeing.  More specifically, the adrenal medulla produces a hormonal cascade that results in the secretion of catecholamines, especially norepinephrine and epinephrine.  The hormones estrogen, testosterone, and cortisol, as well as the neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin, also affect how organisms react to stress. 
This response is recognized as the first stage of the General Adaptation Syndrome that regulates stress responses among vertebrates and other organisms.

We actually live in a world where this response can be charged as a crime.....let that sink in.

Most recently the news has been about how disrespectful it was for Colin Kaepernick’s choice to not stand during the National Anthem prior to the kickoff of a football game.  In response to his action, he was called everything from unpatriotic to epithets by those who were offended or insulted by his act of protest.  I’m not sure how many people actually saw the game or witnessed him refusing to stand, to which he clearly articulated why he decided to do so but the outrage was expressed nonetheless.  Just as Colin decided to exercise his right to protest, many others equally exercised their right to oppose his act of protest. 
Not that I am speaking for all with the same experience but I having “served” in the military and also as a Deputy Sheriff do not find offense with his act of protest.  I do not expect some undying sign or symbol of gratitude for my time of employment in either field, because that’s all it was a job that I received payment and benefits in return for my labor.  I feel no need to attempt to glorify or aggrandize either.  What has seemed to have been missed is an opportunity to discuss coming together in a true attempt that people have a right to exist on the planet they were born in.  More focus has been placed on arguments regarding either how disrespectful it was for him to not honor those who fought and died for his right to protest or arguments for his right to protest.
Despite missing an opportunity to discuss solutions, I wonder how many of those who feel the need to defend the honor of veterans actually honor the vets they speak of.  According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness Fact Sheet, in January 2014, communities across America identified 49,933 homeless veterans.  Is it simply enough to chastise one person for disrespected with examples such as homelessness that show that all veterans in need aren’t made whole.  How many of those offended take the time to visit veterans homes and hospitals to spend time with those who made the sacrifice spoken of.  How many of those offended have walked by a vet shaking a cup asking for spare change, rolled up their windows and stared stone faced ahead as that beggar, who could be a veteran,  stands at a traffic intersection asking for a handout.  Some chose to not only purchase a Kaepernick jersey, but burn the jersey as a sign of disgust, would those same people scoff at the idea of giving the money it cost to purchase a jersey  to a veteran sleeping or begging on a street corner?  I’m not beyond reproach on this issue but at the same time I know its more convenient to stand up  for the anthem as a sign of respect or wave the U.S. flag proudly on Veterans day, than it is to truly make a sacrifice to honor the men and women who make and made that precious sacrifice that many have decided to defend at this moment. 
Instead of evolving as the higher thinking people we make claim to be, another opportunity appears to have been wasted.  I think Kaepernick spoke of the injustices and oppression he sought to bring light to, the same way the framers of the United States spoke of the injustices and oppressive actions of their government.  Not only did they list their grievances, they went to war with their former government to obtain what they felt as their right to exist.  Most if not all of these framers not only had access to education that the majority of colonists were not privy to but they also had economic means that the majority of colonists did not have.  Sounds very familiar to the pompous action of an ungrateful millionaire refusing to stand in respect of a government that afforded him the opportunity at such wealth.  Now why are the actions of the framers of the U.S. applauded but how dare anyone else seek such freedom from injustice and oppression.
The pledge of allegiance, that we learned in school ends with “and justice for all.”  Are these just words that we learned to repeat or have we exhausted every possibility to put the meaning of those words into effect.  What exactly is this appropriate way to protest grievances?  I’m pretty sure those offended don’t wish to be told the appropriate way to show honor, reverence and respect any more than those seeking equality wish to be told how to protest.  When it comes to equality, freedom and justice for all what exactly is the fear of obtaining that?  We try and teach our children that we can achieve what we put our minds to, how about let’s demonstrate achieving what we put our collective minds to.  Peace

The 50th NFL Superbowl halftime show included a dance routine from Beyonce Knowles.  Beyonce and the other dancers in the routine wore clothing fashioned after the Black Panther Party for Self Defense.  The performance and the chosen attire has seemed to cause some outrage, and labeling the group as a hate and/or supremacy organization and even comparing the organization with the Klu Klux Klan.  The Black Panther Party for Self Defense was an organization founded in 1966.  The group formed in response to practices of police brutality.  The members armed themselves, patrolled neighborhoods, monitored the behavior of those employed as police and challenged acts of brutality in Oakland California.     

The Klu Klux Klan was founded sometime between 1865 and 1866 by six members who were former soldiers in the Confederate Army.  In response to the Reconstruction Era, Klan groups started to spread throughout the South United States.  The actions of members of the Klan groups caused the federal government to pass the Enforcement Acts; the Enforcement Act of 1870, the First Enforcement Act of 1871, the Second Enforcement Act of 1871 and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.    
The Klu Klux Klan resurfaced from the years of 1915 to 1944 and again from the 1950s through the 1960s.  The actions, tactics and influence of the Klan groups caused the Federal government to pass additional Civil Rights Acts.  

Hate is defined as feeling of dislike or an aversion to.  Even if both organizations were founded based on hatred, the outright evil and violent actions of one group is seemingly overlooked in an effort to make some the comparison of the two organizations.  I'm even wondering if those individuals who have expressed their issue with the halftime performance and attire, have equally expressed their issue with the Production Executives who not only had knowledge of the performance and attire but actually have the power to approve or cancel performances.  It would seem with the advancement sapient man has been able to achieve, the ability to overcome an illusion would be rather easy.  ​