Blaming Others for Dastardly Deeds

Capitol Hill displays 100 luminaries in Statuary Hall: two donated from every state in the nation. Per The Washington Times, more than 25 of these silent sentinels—Confederate politicians and/or soldiers; others merely slaveholders or segregationists—from a bygone era have come under public assault by polarizing progressives. Notably, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) recently said:

“There is no room for celebrating the violent bigotry of the men of the Confederacy in the hallowed halls of the United States Capitol or in places of honor across the country.”

Recall, Ms. Pelosi is a 30-year veteran of the House of Representatives. Has she forgotten she was in charge of that institution not so long ago? As the 52nd Speaker of the House, why didn't she have the “offensive” Confederate figures populating her workplace removed? Wasn't four years—from January 4, 2007 to January 3, 2011—enough time to purge the chamber of her “undesirables”?

Correspondingly, Democrats had total control of the U.S. Senate for four months. A 60-member filibuster proof majority from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. For context, in that small window there was ample time for them to pass Obamacare. Yet, on this matter, why were Democrats as mute and inactive then as the statues they now so vehemently object to?

A shame unmentioned by anyone—but known by everyone—is an open historical secret. Ms. Pelosi's violent bigots were her own political forebearers: antebellum Democrats. If those disreputable Southerners were not pro-slavery, why did they start the Civil War? Did they not also create the Ku Klux Klan to resist liberating Republicans, and intimidate their supporters? Furthermore, weren't chastened Democrats still managing things on the ground after the Reconstruction in 1877? Did they not establish segregationist Jim Crow laws (as antithetical to Republicans as slavery) that finally went out of favor at the beginning of the civil rights movement of 1950?

Certainly a cruel record they would like the informed to forget. Fortunately, conservatives—aptly represented by the GOP's symbol of the elephant—have long memories. What's understood is that liberals, regardless of the passage of time, have always been rabble-rousing troublemakers. Specifically, as they evaluate every circumstance through the superficial prism of race—aren't they as identity obsessed, and polarizing, as their political ancestors?

Each generation presents a clear and unmistakable threat to traditional American values. Therefore, in function, obstructionist Democrats (read: anti-Trump proponents) are simply the latest version of anti-Union Confederates. As an example, wasn't West Virginia Sen. Robert C. Byrd—known as the “Exalted Cyclops” of the KKK—also a lifelong Democrat? In that regard, it's interesting to note that Ms. Pelosi worked side by side with this former Klansman for 23 years. Thus, for decades, she was apparently untroubled by Mr. Byrd's outspoken embodiment of racial prejudice. Why then should inanimate Confederate statues now provoke discomfort for her?

What hasn't bothered her in more than a quarter of a century suddenly does so on August 17, 2017 when she proclaimed:

“The Confederate statues in the halls of Congress have always been reprehensible. If Republicans are serious about rejecting white supremacy, I call upon Speaker Ryan to join Democrats to remove the Confederate statues from the Capitol immediately.”

So, solely on her say-so—via Democratic voodoo (one imagines some magical form of osmosis she has been immune to during her lengthy Congressional career)—Republicans have secretly been infected by pro-KKK attitudes? Specifically, Republicans should be condemned for not doing what she never has—and brought up for the first time last week? This Democratic leader has certainly mastered the art of hypocrisy!

In truth, her ridiculous assertion contradicts the GOP's founding principle of abolitionism! From its inception in 1854, Republicans have repeatedly championed equal rights for all. Thus, only dupes would heed this Johnny-come-lately to anti-Confederacy sentiment. Likewise, Ms. Pelosi's hollow claim to value honor is yet another polarizing stunt. It's neither Republicans nor Confederate statues that's contemptible here!

In light of all their dreadful history, it's easy to see why progressives will never acknowledge these facts. As with their antecedents forming the KKK, today's Democrats encourage their lawless followers to riot and terrorize. Once again, Pelosi's fiery rhetoric—based upon utter falsehoods—foments insurgency:

“I am deeply alarmed by the hateful and dangerous nature of the event, its timing so soon after the horrors in Charlottesville, and the serious questions over whether the National Park Service is at all equipped to ensure public safety during a white supremacist rally.”

Pelosi's “dangerous” assembly is a multicultural free speech rally by Patriot Prayer next Saturday at San Francisco's Crissy Field. Since when is a gathering to express mainstream American tolerance something “hateful”?

In any case, what Democrats care about here is cleansing the American landscape of physical mementos of their vile political past. Hence, their Confederate counterparts must go. In practice, when that occurs, progressives ensure the innocent right wing is blamed for it; as well as any associated street violence (perpetrated by their fascist thugs).

With the abetting MSM media in tow, Democrats' propaganda is constantly reinforced. Their message is wrongly perceived by the low-information citizen as gospel. To subsist, responsibility-phobic Democrats habitually scapegoat others (read: “Trump Derangement Syndrome”). Thus, liberals' latest fixation on imaginary Confederate ghosts is yet another subject-changing distraction from their own leftist tyranny.

In the final analysis, how devious is Nancy Pelosi's strategy: demonizing the defenseless dead while simultaneously defaming the reputations of Republicans as de facto 21^st century collaborators! Yet, her wickedly revisionist narrative fails to hide the timeless cultural sins of her corrupt political party.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

Exorcising Democrats' Confederate History

Why are progressives clamoring to remove many of America's mementos dedicated to the Old South? Generations later, can remnants of Civil War Democrats cause active psychological “harm”? That seems highly unlikely. However, what's real is the targeting of Robert E. Lee, J.E.B. Stuart and Jefferson Davis. If that's the liberal standard for destroying their icons, who has caused more recent and lasting damage than Barack Obama? Therefore, isn't it logical for them to purge both ancient root and modern branch? Yet, fear not, President Obama's safe from their revisionist historical pruning. It's only his antebellum counterparts who find themselves on the chopping block.

Let's pull some contextual threads from this spidery progressive web, shall we? Reportedly, Democrats in Alexandria, Virginia want to rename a main thoroughfare, Jefferson Davis Highway. Also, they want to move a statue on State Route 400 of a Confederate soldier, “Appomattox,” to the comparable obscurity of a nearby museum. Erected in 1889, is the presence of this unarmed Southerner—like the street named for the Confederacy's president—suddenly noxious to the average commuter? Do they trigger so much daily trauma that they're right to nix them? Not to be outshone, Fairfax County is embroiled in a two-year debate to strip Confederate General Stuart's name from one of its most racially diverse high schools. Their dragnet is not local however, it's a monstrosity cast widely across state lines as far as Louisiana.

As the left's revisionist hysteria is never satisfied, Stuart's famous contemporary General Robert E. Lee is targeted in both places. Atop a pillar since 1884, his towering figure was removed from its New Orleans perch last Friday after 133 years. (His was not the first to fall. On May 11th, the powers that be removed a statue from the Jefferson Davis memorial there. On Saturday, a display—the word “LOVE”—was found on its vacated platform.) Only time will tell if his Virginia likeness—mutely astride his majestic horse in Lee Park since 1924—will suffer the same “loving” fate. As the land was specifically donated to showcase this Southern soldier, is it right to unseat him after 93 years? What's more horrible here, destroying the vestiges of progressives' 19^th century past or the wasteful expenditure to taxpayers of $300,000 to do it?

Doesn't all history have a worthy place simply because it happened? How can eradicating the lessons that shaped our collective cultural experience ever be the “right” thing to do? Isn't the mind-set to wipe clean the landscape—of old dignitaries' names and harmless inanimate objects—really a fascist desire to ban ideas themselves? (Will these safe space liberal “do-gooders” advocate “Fahrenheit 451”-style book burning next?) Obviously, their predecessors' dual stains of slavery and segregation—never acknowledged or owned by them hereafter—are of lasting shame. Well, frankly, they should be. Hence, their current self-serving agenda to simply airbrush monuments out of existence.

To this end, their go-to narrative is one of distraction and manipulation. To the muddleheaded, the dishonest proclaim often repeated nonsense: America is “secretly racist”! In the same vein as “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” liberals have kind of a politically-motivated hysterical blindness. What of the widespread advancements since the 1950s and 1960s Civil Rights movements? A prominent trend—the “black is beautiful” paradigm shift of the '60s and '70s—doesn't matter? Heck, these naysayers don't even acknowledge the cultural significance of the former occupant of the White House! So, concrete facts of societal progression are meaningless to them. Only their deluded aim to erase transgenerational political sins.

Seriously, it's been 152 years since the end of the Civil War! Only misguided spendthrifts waste today's public funds to “purify” the past. Obviously, historical footnotes—like the name of a road or a school, or four statues—have no magical power to corrupt anything of the now. What relevance to the day-to-day life experience of Americans do they really have? Very little, if any. In fact, their only intrinsic value are as markers showing where America has been—and how truly tolerant she has become!

Despite these ridiculous assertions, racism is not infused in the bronze edifices resembling long-dead Southerners. Likewise, it's not found in the hearts of persons striving to preserve them either. Interestingly, only Democrats' self-hatred persists with the passage of time. That liberal malady is seen in their psychological projection of guilt upon the rest us whose ancestors never owned a slave. Clearly, that's a problem better suited to the analyst's couch then the political realm. (On a related note, can our country be correctly viewed as innately “sexist” as Hillary Clinton is the latest nominee of her party—and the winner of the popular vote?) All elements described above encapsulate the schizophrenic thinking pervading every level of the Democratic Party.

In truth, tangible proof of America's well-established—and ever-expanding—pattern of embracing and celebrating diversity is everywhere! What of commonplace interracial marriage or the recent legalization of gay marriage? So, is it fair to automatically demonize a Republican simply for expressing a history-protecting impulse? Virginia's firebrand GOP gubernatorial hopeful Corey Stewart recently said:

“There’s all kinds of things that offend people, but that [removal] doesn’t make it right. That doesn’t make it so [fix the past]. This [the statue of Robert E. Lee] is a part of our history; if you don’t like our history, that’s too damn bad.”

Well, precisely. What's crystal clear is the Democrats have a cringeworthy history. Understandably, they're desperate to annihilate any reminders of the irrefutable and indefensible. Chief among them is their sole ownership of two infamous institutions: Virginia's antebellum past (read: slaveholding) and white supremacy (read: creating the Ku Klux Klan). As Abraham Lincoln preserved the Union, his party has a duty to safeguard the other side's artifacts for posterity. Without them as silent witnesses, falsely tarring conservatives with their own ongoing record of misdeeds becomes easy. If successful, all that would remain is a nebulous war of words for progressives to dominate. As George Santayana wisely advised: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Ironically, destroying America's Confederate past also diminishes her freedom-loving future.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

“Character” Cruz: Political Pariah

“The true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching.” – John Wooden, UCLA's 10-time national champion basketball coach

The inverse axiom of this statement—when everyone is watching—is equally valid. Given the global importance of First World America, national political leadership is supposed to be led by adults willing to make the tough, country-preserving calls. Why then, do today's leaders (on both sides of the aisle) act as petulant, ego-driven children?

In this case, I refer to coy Ted Cruz's Trump non-endorsement convention speech. What columnist Charles Krauthammer succinctly likened to “the longest [political] suicide note in U.S. History.” If Mr. Cruz could not wholeheartedly support the people's choice, he had no business being on that RNC stage. Specifically, even sore losers like Ohio governor John Kasich and the dynastic Bush Family (read: JEB), had the good sense to stay away. Yet, not this mighty orator of conservative values, this Texas senator who exposed himself to all the world as a two-faced Judas. As his personal 2020 presidential ambitions now favor a Hillary Clinton victory, Mr. Cruz used the petty excuse of a personal grievance with Trump to put self-interest before the fate of a nation.

Ted Cruz nebulously advised the electorate to “vote your conscience” in November. His feeble attempt to hamstring Mr. Trump has, in actuality, slit his own throat. In the likelihood Mr. Trump wins, Mr. Cruz will be correctly marginalized as untrustworthy. On the other hand, if the Republican nominee loses, Mr. Cruz will rightfully be blamed. Either way, the record-setting number of Trump voters will look elsewhere in the future.

Given his established non-team player reputation in the Senate, Mr. Cruz is already viewed askance by fellow Republicans. After this latest self-serving stunt, he will never be embraced by them. Further, he will never be trusted by the Democrats either. Politically, he is a man alone; an island unto himself. Although Ted Cruz stated publicly that he did not want the post, he could have been a Supreme Court justice. He might even have eventually become commander-in-chief by following Ronald Reagan's path (ultimately supporting incumbent Gerald Ford despite losing a contentious primary contest to him in 1976.) Due to his fatal flaw—hubris—none of that can happen now. He has consigned himself as a footnote to history. Undone over a couple of terrible and untrue insults regarding his father and his wife. Welcome to politics 101, Teddy: put your big boy pants on and deal with it. Despite the outlier of corrupt Hillary Clinton's meteoric rise, those with authentic character put country first, period.

To contrast, Abraham Lincoln's fortitude makes him first in the pantheon of many great U.S. presidents. Recall Spielberg's “Lincoln” (2012) played sublimely by the 3-time Oscar-winning actor Daniel Day-Lewis. Against the heart wrenching backdrop of immense personal tragedy—the death of Lincoln's beloved 11-year old son Willie (in 1962) and his grief-stricken, inconsolable wife, Mary—the President successfully won the Civil War (the bloodiest American conflict threatening to tear the country in half). To add to his Herculean labors, the 16^th U.S. president finagled passage of the 13^th Amendment over strong Democrat Party resistance which ended the scourge of slavery in America for all time.

Monuments honoring such men of character like Lincoln and Reagan—those willing to sacrifice and/or make hard choices to the greater benefit of the country—will never be built to the likes of Ted Cruz. His misbehavior at the convention conclusively demonstrates that his lofty rhetoric is meaningless because it is not backed up by corresponding action.

In the final analysis, for graciously permitting Ted Cruz a prime time speaking slot, Donald Trump is the magnanimous one. That bigger person is likely White House bound. By not being similarly conciliatory, the truth about the Texas senator is laid bare. He is a small person who threw away the possibility of lasting greatness (ironically for himself and the country) because it required honoring his public pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee. A cautionary tale about not keeping one's word, and the exorbitant cost of being thin-skinned (unlike Lincoln). For him, all is lost over a grievance stuck in Cruz's craw during a now forgotten primary season.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Conjuring Civil War’s ghost in post-racial America

Why is The Washington Post’s resident Don Quixote tilting at the windmills of history in Obama’s post-racial America?   While the adage that “those that don’t know history are bound to repeat it,” the opposite extreme is Courtland Milloy whose myopic focus on Civil War struggles—fortunately and mercifully exactly 150 years now long over—ignore the passage of time and the clear evolution of America into a more accepting society.  Indeed, what greater proof of this new reality (inconceivable to people in Lincoln’s time) could there be: a black man is currently cooling his heels in the White House for a second term.  Mr. Milloy’s two beefs are a waste of valuable newspaper column space: he laments the supposed ignorance of the millennial generation claiming they don’t even realize that the Civil War was fought over the forced enslavement of black people; and he sees subtle racism in the fact that the general public sees more value in monuments depicting “battles and generals” rather than “freedom and slavery” at a military park in Fredericksburg, VA.  Undoubtedly, for many, slavery was a bummer pre-1865 and it sure is an irrelevant downer to Jane Q. Public and her brood now. 

Further, does the insipidly scribbling columnist Milloy really subscribe to the idea that the millennial generation—hooked into technological everything—does not know, for example, of the Oscar winning Steven Spielberg film “Lincoln” (2012)?  The truth is the racist culture embodied by the Old South is literally “Gone with the Wind” in America of 2015.  The “point” Mr. Milloy wishes to peddle in his ‘slavery’ column is White Guilt for things that happened to people no longer alive by people no longer living: six generations ago. 

Somehow this august generation should feel guilty for not erecting enough monuments to the vaguely eluded to “contributions of slaves” although Mr. Milloy—in his righteous fervor—never bothers to specifically articulate what those contributions were.  That is likely because he does not know—because the rest of the world has already moved on from this unfortunate chapter of American history—a point he clearly “misses” as he berates his readership for missing “his point.”

The greater “point” that Mr. Milloy doesn’t deal with in his column are the massive present-day problems that affect the black community happening in this time: 50 percent of Afro-American children aborted in the womb; out-of-wedlock births for blacks are over 72 percent; 90 percent of blacks in America are killed by members of their own race per 2012 crime statistics—to name just a few.  No doubt there is still work to be done.  However, the present is called the “present” for good reason: the “now” is the only place constructive societal change can be undertaken.

However, today is not as bleak as Mr. Milloy’s ‘slavery’ column would have the uninformed reader incorrectly infer about America of 2015.  To a great extent, we are actually living in a post-racial and inclusive society. There are Afro-Americans at every level of government, the private sector, the arts and sports.  Interracial marriages are commonplace and their children are vibrant, fully embraced members of our society.  Moreover, Eminem notwithstanding, rap music—a principally black form of artistic expression—is mainstream American music.  Likewise, black athletes and entertainers (recent Oscar winners include: Denzel Washington, Halle Barry, Morgan Freeman, Whoopie Goldberg and Jennifer Hudson) are lionized with an almost God-like status universally by white and black young people.  Indeed, blacks have taken over popular culture: movies "Be like Mike" (2002) and its sequel "Be Like Mike 2" (2006) are flattering references to NBA superstar Michael Jordan (whose $200.00 Air Jordan sneakers are highly sought after).  In this same vein, the white youth of today have eagerly integrated the rather questionable language and fashion sense of their black idols from Mr. T-style necklaces and jewelry to baggy jeans that hang down exposing the backside of the wearer. 

In every way possible, the dominant white culture has repeatedly extended the hand of friendship (through equal employment statutes, civil rights and social welfare programs) to our black American brothers.  It is their persistent resistance to accept our integrative overtures due to 150 year old historical grievances—never-ending and reiterated by Mr. Obama last week and echoed in Mr. Milloy’s July 1^st salt-in-the-wound “historical” column—that have nothing whatsoever to do with the current generation that populates America. 

To demonstrate how far we have come, there used to be a "one-drop rule" for a person of mixed race to determine that individual's non-white identity.  Being white, as close to white as possible—or even better "passing for white"—was a necessary mechanism of economic survival when racism ran rampant in America of the past.  Today, we have Rachel Dolezal, disgraced former president of the NAACP chapter in Spokane, Washington: a white woman who lied about her racial identity and passed herself off as black (a position that definitely would have landed her in the mad house in Lincoln’s time).

Since Mr. Milloy likes to wade in the annals of history he should follow the sage advice of the Ancient Greeks who said: “Only speak well of the dead” (related to both sides of the Civil War).  I would therefore encourage Mr. Milloy (and Mr. Obama) to join the rest of us in the 21^st century.  Their enslaved ancestors, if they had any, would have found the waters better than fine—a comparable paradise of tolerance—more than worthy of commemoration at that military park in Fredericksburg, VA that the public of today would flock to, with pride.

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

re. Courtland Milloy's 'Is America ready to deal with slavery, or just continue to miss the point?' (Washington Post, June 30, 2015)