political correctness

Hit List: CNN Publishes Map of Confederate Monuments in U.S.

CNN posted a map on August 17 showing the location of approximately 1,500 Confederate monuments and/or official symbols in the U.S. The map will, no-doubt, serve as a hit-list for the frenzied Workers World Party members and others seeking the removal and destruction of Confederate statues in city after city across America. CNN reports, “Roughly 1,500 Confederate symbols still exist on public land more than 150 years after the conclusion of the Civil War.” It explains that 718 of the Confederate symbols are “monuments and statutes.” The outlet embedded a Southern Poverty Law Center/CNN map of the U.S. in the article–a map complete with green, blue, and red dots to signify the locations of the Confederate symbols. The green dots show schools with Confederate namesakes, the blue dots show courthouses that have Confederate monuments/statues, and the red dots show “parks, trails, monuments, municipalities, holidays, buildings, flags” that are maintained. CNN then lists states that are heavy with Confederate symbols, citing Virginia as “the state with the most Confederate symbols [at] 223.” It adds that “Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi, South Carolina and Alabama each have more than 100 Confederate symbols each.” The same activists President Trump labeled the “alt-left” can use this information as they search for state and city leaders prone to capitulation.

..which is exactly what liberal CNN, and the completely discredited Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) would love to see.  Typical..

Gettysburg Stands Firm: Battlefield Says All Monuments Staying Put

Officials at the Gettysburg National Military Park said Wednesday that the monuments at the expansive Pennsylvania battlefield will stay despite unrest over Confederate memorials. “These memorials, erected predominantly in the early and mid-20th Century, are an important part of the cultural landscape,” battlefield spokeswoman Katie Lawhon told the Hanover Evening Sun. Gettysburg was the site of the bloodiest battle of the Civil War, from July 1-3, 1863. There are more than 1,300 memorials at the park- ranging in size from tiny stone markers for smaller regiments’ positions, to the massive Pennsylvania State Monument that includes a cupola for visitors. The park also has several streets named after soldiers on both sides, including the Union’s Daniel Sickles and Winfield Scott Hancock, and the Confederacy’s Ambrose Wright. The National Park Service’s policy on battlefield monuments states that the feds are “committed to safeguarding these unique and site-specific memorials in perpetuity, while simultaneously interpreting holistically and objectively the actions… they commemorate.” Farther south in Richmond, Va., gubernatorial candidate Ralph Northam (D-Accomac) said he will press for several Confederate statues along the city’s Monument Avenue to be taken down. However, Northam said he would “defer to the city” on how to proceed in doing so, according to the Richmond Post-Dispatch. Democratic Mayor Levar Stoney said a commission established to “add context” next to the monuments is preferable to taking them down, the paper said.

Glad to see the National Park Service and the Dept of the Interior aren’t jumping on this frightening band wagon of sanitizing our country of our history.

Analysis: Twelve Memorials that Must Be Removed if Democrats Are Serious About Erasing Racism

If Democrats seeking the removal of historical memorials tied to racist history are serious, they should be tripping over one another to get in front of a camera and call for the removal of memorials and namesakes to Presidents Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and Sen. Robert C Byrd. These five men had two things in common–all had a penchant for racism to one degree or another, and all were Democrats. Some of the memorials to them are monuments, some are groves, others are highways, bridges, colleges, and even cemeteries. Of course, the cemeteries ought not be disturbed, but they should be renamed if the Democrats are serious about rooting out the vestiges of racism. Click here to read a short description of each of the Democrats and the memorials and/or namesakes in their honor:

Democrat politicians and the dominantly liberal mainstream media have a short memory…a VERY short memory.  After all, the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) was the Sen. Majority Leader (for crying out loud), and was in the Senate up til 2010; only 7 years ago.  Keep in mind that Sen. Byrd was an “exalted cyclops” of the Ku Klux Klan!! And yet NOBODY in the Democratic party OR in the liberal media said ANYTHING about that.  Where was Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Chuck Schumer, the NAACP, PBS/NPR, CNN, and of course, MSNBC?!? Their silence for decades has been deafening.  Talk about brazen hypocrisy!!  And, that’s just for starters..  The liberal media and Democrats like to bring up the KKK, and throw out the name “David Duke” (a former Louisiana state legislator and former leader of one of the many Klan organizations in the U.S.) as some sort of talking point.  It’s totally scripted, and phony.  For those who may not know..  Started in 1865 after the Civil War, the membership of the KKK was almost exclusively Democrats for the first ONE HUNDRED YEARS of it’s existence!  That’s a very inconvenient FACT that the left doesn’t want you to know.  Anyway, to read the rest of this outstanding op/ed by AWR Hawkins, click on the text above.

Black Lives Matter Co-Founder: Hate Speech ‘Is Not Protected Under the First Amendment’

On Monday’s broadcast of “MSNBCLive,” Black Lives Matter co-founder and Executive Director and Founder of Dignity Now Patrisse Cullors argued that hate speech isn’t protected by the First Amendment and white supremacists are “directly related” to President Trump’s policies. Cullors said, “David Duke and the white supremacists who showed up to Charlottesville, that is Trump’s base. And that base is not isolated. It’s not — it’s directly related to Trump’s policies and the policies that have continued to harm and kill black people and our allies. I think we’re seeing a movement of white nationalists rising up because they’ve been emboldened by trump and his government. And I really want to invite people to be on the right side of history right now.” She added, “I think what’s important in this moment is white nationalists are actually fighting to take away people’s rights. Black Lives Matter and groups like Black Lives Matter are fighting for equality. And hate speech, which is what we’re seeing coming out of white nationalist groups, is not protected under the First Amendment rights.”

Umm…WRONG!!  The First Amendment to our great Constitution absolutely covers speech that some might find objectionable.  That was the whole point of it!  And, in fact, that speech which is controversial has always been afforded a higher protection from the Courts for exactly that reason.  So, Ms. Cullors is 100% WRONG and someone oughtta school that self-righteous, sanctimonious, hypocritical, black racist, blowhard on some actual/real American civicis, and what our U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights actual say, and mean.  What a tool..  Of course MSNBC didn’t do their job and challenge her.  Typical..

Opinion: Trump Was Right to Condemn Violence on ‘Many Sides’ in Charlottesville

President Donald Trump reacted to Saturday’s violence in Charlottesville by condemning violence “on many sides.” His critics pounced, saying that he should have specifically condemned violence by white supremacists, and that by not doing so, he in fact condoned such violence. The critics are guilty of a double standard, and of exploiting the violence for political gain, widening America’s divisions at a time when national unity is the only proper course. First of all, as a factual matter, it is self-evident that there was violence on both sides on Saturday, though the attack in which a car plowed into a crowd of left-wing protesters stands apart as a despicable act. Two groups who have been fighting all over the country — white supremacists and so-called “anti-fascists” — went to Charlottesville to do the same, just as they did last summer in Sacramento, and just as they have elsewhere. Condemning one side alone would essentially have given the other side a pass for its tactics — and a political victory that neither deserved. Second, Trump’s critics never applied the same standard to Barack Obama. When five Dallas police officers were murdered in cold blood at a Black Lives Matter protest, Obama did not disavow the movement, nor did the media demand he do so. On the contrary, when he spoke at a memorial service for the police, he actually endorsed the movement and its goals: “I understand these protests — I see them. They can be messy. Sometimes they can be hijacked by an irresponsible few. Police can get hurt. Protesters can get hurt. They can be frustrated. But even those who dislike the phrase “black lives matter,” surely, we should be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family. … With an open heart, we can worry less about which side has been wronged, and worry more about joining sides to do right.”(Alton Sterling was shot by officers in Baton Rouge; he was armed and had allegedly threatened someone with a gun.) When presented with an opportunity to disavow his racist pastor, Jeremiah Wright, then-candidate Obama gave an entire speech about how he could not do so: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.” The media swooned and compared him to Abraham Lincoln. (He eventually disavowed Wright — but only after a substitute preacher, Michael Pfleger, attacked Hillary Clinton from the pulpit, at a time when Obama needed to consolidate Clinton supporters for the general election.) Third, many of those attacking Trump today did not make the same demand of Democrats just two months ago, when five Republicans were shot and wounded by a left-wing gunman in Alexandria. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) even managed to blame Republicans for the shooting by allegedly inflaming political rhetoric during the Bill Clinton era. Fourth, the media and the Democrats blame Trump for violence even when he, and his supporters are the target of that violence. Last June in San Jose, California, Trump supporters were viciously attacked by left-wing thugs as they left a rally. Some media reported the riot as if Trump supporters had started the violence (“Trump supporters clash with protesters“), while Democrat Mayor Sam Liccardo blamed Trump and his campaign for what happened. Finally, the claim that Trump has failed to disavow white supremacists is a lie repeated from the 2016 campaign, when the media ignored Trump’s prior rejections of the Ku Klux Klan and claimed he had failed to denounce them. Trump even denounced racism earlier this year, in his address to Congress: ” Tonight, as we mark the conclusion of our celebration of Black History Month, we are reminded of our Nation’s path toward civil rights and the work that still remains. Recent threats targeting Jewish Community Centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, as well as last week’s shooting in Kansas City, remind us that while we may be a Nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all its forms.” The purpose of the lie is to connect Trump to white supremacists by implying that he has something to disavow. Many of Trump’s critics compounded that lie Saturday by recycling false claims about members of his staff. Trump’s critics are guilty of something worse than hypocrisy. They are trying to divide the country when the right thing to do is to stress common bonds, as Republicans did in June, though they were the targets. Trump’s critics tried the same tactics in 2016, and all they achieved was more hatred. It is well past time for the slander to stop.

When I first turned on the news and first learned of this event, the very first photo I saw was some white guy with a flag rolled up on its pole confronting a black guy who had turned some aerosol can into a torch and blasting a firey flame toward the white guy.  On it’s face, it wasn’t clear who was the instigator and who as the one fighting back.  But, what WAS clear, was that there were two sides; NOT just one side.  And, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous, hypocritical, and self-serving.  But, that’s par for the course for these self-righteous, sanctimonious, agenda-driven liberals in the media and elsewhere.  What started as a perfectly reasonable rally to counter the historical fascism of the left who continue to want to erase our history, turned into an ugly scene culminating in some lunatic driving his car through a crown killing an innocent woman.  That Hitler-loving loser should be put down like the dog he is.  BUT, Trump is exactly right.  There were elements on BOTH sides who escalated the situation and took advantage of the opportunity to further THEIR respective agendas.  Yeah, the Nazis and so on were there.  But, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) thugs were there with their baseball bats as well, lookin for a fight.  BOTH were at fault.  So, kudos to Trump for NOT playing the race card to further some self-serving agenda like Obama was notorious for doing.  Thanks to Joel B. Pollak for that outstanding op/ed.

French: Transgenderism Doesn’t Excuse Treason

If Bradley Manning had stayed Bradley Manning, would he still be in prison? If Bradley Manning had stayed Bradley Manning, would he be basking in celebrity, enjoying fawning photo shoots? Given the magnitude of his crimes, I dare say that he’d be in prison today if he still identified as a man. Then he’d be nothing but what he actually is, a garden-variety traitor — a faithless soldier who should count himself fortunate not to face capital punishment. It’s worth remembering what he did. He disclosed, in a gigantic document dump, more than a million pages of classified information, including information about American military operations, American diplomacy, and American allies. The Obama administration was forced to rush to safety foreign friends whom Manning had outed as helping Americans. He broke faith with every relevant provision of the Army’s warrior ethos — he abandoned his mission, he actively aided the enemy, and he acted with stunning disregard for the lives of his comrades. He did so because, acting on his own authority, he decided he wanted to stimulate “worldwide discussion, debate, and reforms.” To be clear, this wasn’t whistleblowing. He didn’t identify a specific wrong and expose it responsibly while taking care to minimize the harm of disclosure. He just disclosed documents without regard for their contents. He didn’t know if anyone would die because of his actions. He didn’t know to what extent vital missions or programs would be compromised. He just did what he wanted to do. There was no honor in his action. None. And now look at him. He’s the subject of a fawning Vogue profile and photo shoot. In fact, he’s an LGBT celebrity now, swarmed at public events and even featured at New York’s Pride March, where he waved “from a drop-top Nissan alongside Gavin Grimm.” When Trump issued a series of tweets declaring a ban on transgender soldiers in the military, media outlets flocked to cover Manning’s response. But one wonders, do the transgender soldiers actually serving look at Chelsea Manning as a poster child for trans service? But no matter. For many leftists, Manning offers the irresistible combination — radical criminal acts combined with revolutionary identity. It’s “Radical Chic” all over again, this time through the lens of latest civil-rights fashion, transgender rights. The radical quarters of the Left have a long history of excusing and celebrating even the most vile of criminals so long as they have the right revolutionary politics. Disturbingly, that celebration leaks even into organizations that are billed as “meanstream.” Recall, it was just last month the Women’s March tweeted its appreciation for convicted cop-killer and FBI most-wanted terrorist Assata Shakur: Earlier this summer, New York’s Puerto Rican Day Parade sought to honor convicted terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera as a “National Freedom Hero.” Under pressure, he decided to “forgo” that honor, but he was featured in a float anyway — and parts of the crowd gave him a “hero’s welcome.” These kinds of celebrations are not just morally abhorrent; they’re deeply polarizing. They represent the idea that the rule of law — even when the subject is murder or treason — is contingent upon the politics and racial or gender identity of the lawbreaker. Americans on opposing sides of the ideological divide are given a signal — that when it comes to advancing the radical cause, not even human life or national security can stand in the way. There are no lines that can’t be crossed. This is what radical identity politics does. It twists and distorts normal moral analysis. It declares that the ends justify the means, and then goes even farther to say, “By any means necessary.” This is an unacceptable ethic not just for a constitutional republic but for any form of civil society. Allegedly “mainstream” media outlets, politicians, or organizations that honor or respect the likes of Manning, Rivera, or Shakur cover themselves in shame.

Agreed!  And, well said, David.  Attorney, and Army Reserve officer (Major), David French is responsible for that excellent op/ed.  David was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq.  David understands better than most, what real honor is all about.

Opinion: The smug bigotry of Trump-haters

They told me if I vote for Donald Trump we would be overwhelmed with bigotry the likes of which we have never seen before. And, boy, were they right. Little did we know, however, those obsessed in their opposition to Mr. Trump were actually speaking about themselves. Last week was a banner one for anti-Trump bigotry. During a briefing at the White House detailing President Trump’s new immigration plan giving priority to those who, among other things, speak English, Jim Acosta, CNN’s White House correspondent, responded, “This whole notion of they have to learn English before they get to the United States, are we just going to bring in people from Great Britain and Australia?” Mr. Acosta was widely panned for the ignorance of the remark, but it’s also an example of Michael Gerson’s phrase, “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” Coined when he was President George W. Bush’s speechwriter, it perfectly describes the smug attitude of the elite expecting the downtrodden to automatically fail, and their perpetual need for government to save them from themselves. Stephen Miller, the president’s aide, immediately confronted Mr. Acosta’s casual contempt. “This is an amazing moment,” he said, “that you think only people from Great Britain or Australia would speak English is so insulting to millions of hardworking immigrants who do speak English from all over the world.” Exactly, but it was even more than that. Not only was he wrong on the fact of the matter (54 sovereign states have English as their official language), the soft bigotry comes in the form of expecting non-Western individuals to not be able to cope, adjust or deliver when a requirement is made of them. This cosmopolitan deceit proclaims The Other as infant, perpetually unable to help themselves. Mr. Acosta is not alone when it comes to thinly-veiled contempt of those unlike society’s all-knowing benefactors. Stuart Rothenberg, a Trump hater and pollster with “Inside Elections,” which bills itself as a provider of “nonpartisan analysis,” tweeted this during President Trump’s rally in West Virginia: “Lots of people in West Virginia can’t support themselves or speak English.” When confronted on Twitter about the true nature of the good, hardworking West Virginians, he agreed but then insisted they are also “close-minded, provincial, angry & easily misled.” Soft bigotry isn’t the purview of liberals alone. Ironically, it appears to be an affliction of many, including those in the Republican establishment, who are the most fervent at warning people about Mr. Trump’s supposed evil, bigoted bias. In February 2016 the National Review delivered their now infamous “Never Trump” issue. One month later Kevin Williamson, their “roving correspondent,” wrote about rust-belt, white working-class support for Trump:

To read the rest of this spot on op/ed by Tammy Bruce, click on the text above.