Personally, I’ve figured that the statues honoring Confederates in public squares should be moved for some time now – can’t remember exactly when it occurred to me, but it was nigh to 20 years ago. Here’s why:
At the end of the day, the Confederate leadership decided to break up the nation because an election didn’t go their way – and it signaled that the long-held Southern dominance over the national Executive was coming to an end. Demographics decreed that: the population of the North was not only much larger, but was growing much faster. No matter how you sliced it, eventually the Southern leadership was going to be on the outside looking in. They didn’t want that – so they decided to set up shop for themselves. And that is what started the war – wars always being started by someone desiring something they don’t have title to. The reality is that if the South hadn’t gone out, Lincoln would have led a minority government in DC and probably would have failed for re-election. But the Southern leadership wanted their out so bad that they deliberately engineered the election of Lincoln by splitting the Democrat vote…and then used Lincoln’s election as their excuse for secession. Such people, quite simply, do not deserve places of honor in any American city.
Now, as for the soldiers – that is a bit of a different story. I always honor soldiers who do their duty – and can feel nothing but sympathy for those who stayed true even in a losing cause. But even then, people like Lee broke their sworn oath. You might have heard of the Oathkeepers groups out there…people who (correctly) hold that their oath to defend the Constitution doesn’t end the day they get out of the military. This is true – there was an expiration of my enlistment, but there was no expiration for my oath. I’m bound by it until the day I die. So was Lee – if he felt that he couldn’t fight against the South (as his duty commanded) then his only course of action was to refuse to fight, at all. He choose to break his oath and fight against that which he had sworn to defend. A statue honoring him is, in my view, just wrong.
To be sure, for the Left, this is all just Step One. Step Two is where they demand that statues and memorials to the Founders be torn down. The people causing the ruckus on the left don’t hate particular things about America, they hate the very idea of America. They view our history as nothing but a compendium of evil and they won’t be happy until all that is destroyed and some sort of Progressive Utopia (ie, a totalitarian dictatorship) is imposed on the United States. But just because the Left is lunatic, doesn’t mean we have to defend everything they attack. I think our best course of action, as Conservatives, is to urge that all Confederate memorials be moved to museum-like settings. Obviously, the national cemeteries must remain inviolate, but we also must not destroy the statues and memorials…but they can be moved and placed in a setting where they educate.
That said, I’m not about to be lectured on what is right and wrong by people who hold that abortion is a morally good thing. No Progressive who holds such views has any business telling me what I should or should not do. And I do not have to disavow racists because I am not a racist. I have nothing to do with them; they are not part of any political or social coalition I belong to. Just take a look at the emblems they carry and you know, instantly, that they are not part of any patriotic, Conservative, Christian, American grouping. They are largely pagans; they hate the United States as much as the Progressive lunatics do (you might see a couple American flags at their events, but pride of place is given to Confederate and Nazi symbols) – they, too, despise all that has come before (other than Confederate leaders, of course) and wish to impose upon the United States their own form of totalitarianism. Trump, as I noted before, was right to condemn “all sides”. Odd day in America when the only political leader who gets it right – who has the courage to speak what is obviously true – is President Trump. My estimation of him went up quite a lot with that comment.
I’m also not going to be lectured to by supposed Conservative “leaders” who say that I must do this or must do that or I’m betraying Conservatism. All I can say about modern American Conservatism is that it didn’t even manage to defund NPR – if this is “leadership” then I don’t want it. People who just lose gracefully to Progressives who shout “racist” at the drop of the hat hold none of my respect – I won’t follow them anywhere.
We are slouching towards Civil War, folks. People who know least – antifa and alt-right – are most sure about everything. They are setting up fights (helped by the left, mostly, because they feel it is tactically in their best interest) which, one day, might degenerate into mass violence. Junior-league Leninists (as I called them many years ago) are desperately calling forth a Franco to fight them.
Now, just why is this happening? Because they don’t know – and they don’t know because they weren’t taught anything relevant or true. I pointed out on Twitter today that both the antifa and alt-right people are products of the public schools and pop culture that the left has created and owns outright. We Conservatives had nothing to do with this – other than the negative effect of not really doing anything to stop it (largely because our so-called leaders were afraid of the fight). If kids aren’t taught the glory of America, then they will go for some other form of glory…people want a cause; take away the cause of making a more perfect Union, and some other cause will arise. Did you see the picture of those alt-right nimrods? They were clearly middle class white kids – children who have had it soft their whole lives. They’ve got nothing to really complain about…but, there they are, hating their own nation and their own people…and getting into battle with other middle class kids (who are also, in their large majority, white) who have had it soft, but also hate their own nation and their own people. Into the vacuum of not telling kids about Valley Forge, Shilo and Guadalcanal rushes the twin lunacies of Communism and Nazism. I read that one of the leaders of the white racist groups was, a few years back, a Occupy Wall Street activist…don’t know for sure if it is true, but it doesn’t surprise me in the least. These kids have nothing in their brains of merit, and so they are easy prey for anyone with a con to sell…and I can see them falling for different cons in succession.
As I see it, now, our job as Conservatives is to just push back with all our might against this – and against both sides. Don’t get drawn into the Progressive game of “condemn the racist” because no matter what we say on it, the left will still call us racists. Also don’t fall for twaddle about “don’t punch right” which the alt-right is trying to sell. Punch back (rhetorically, of course) against everyone who hates this nation, the reason for their hatred be damned. This is the greatest nation in human history – we are the good guys. We’ve fought Nazis and Communists before and we must keep doing so. The survival of our nation as a Republic is at stake over these next few years – we either push these fools back into the ash heap of history, or our nation is gone.
Blogs For Victory 
Here is another example of the stupidification of the Right, as even its putative defenders buy into Leftist revisionism.
Most understand that the linking of Nazis to the Right was a tactic used by Stalin to try to explain away the fact that one Leftist country attacked another. His solution was to say that the National Socialist Party of Germany was really “right-wing”. This canard was accepted for years, mostly by Leftists who loved the idea of linking the Right with the ugliness of the Nazis. It has since been debunked, repeatedly.
But here it raises its ugly and stupid head again.
The clash between Nazis and leftists in the streets was an ugly and surreal scene …
http://dailysignal.com/2017/08/14/went-charlottesville-protests-heres-saw
As Nazis were Leftists from the get-go, as the National Socialist Party openly identified Nazis as Leftists (“Nazi” is just a slang term for the name of the party) and as the entire political structure of the party was clearly Leftist, how is it that even now there is so much confusion that even so-called “conservatives” can think of them as somehow being on the Right?
I’ll tell you how. It is because the Left excels at semantic infiltration, knowing that if they repeat something often enough, if they have the cooperation of a Complicit Agenda Media doing the same thing, their lies will become accepted as truth.
And so we have a report, supposedly from a conservative, who writes on a pretty good blog, finding Nazis and leftists on opposite sides in a conflict. The Left writes the narrative and some of us on the Right stupidly repeat it.
Yet it appears that the entire conflict was staged, BY THE LEFT, to generate a lot of attention and to smear the Right by linking it with racists. It was a set-up. It was scripted. And no, Nazis are not “right-wing”, never have been. These “Nazis” are hired thugs, supplemented by anarchist racists, and there is no link to the political Right other than that invented by the Left, and promoted by ever-helpful but ignorant Right.
We have met the enemy, and it is us.
Yet it appears that the entire conflict was staged, BY THE LEFT, to generate a lot of attention and to smear the Right by linking it with racists. It was a set-up
You are 100% correct. The entire Charlottesville incident was staged by organized leftists. They have no shame, no principles, no moral foundation, and should not have a place here in this country.
Yet the Complicit Agenda Media and their followers, including many “conservatives”, are casting the conflict as Left vs Right, when in fact it was the Left in Left jerseys and the Left in Right jerseys, in a sham war with the Left on both sides, playing to the gullible and the ignorant.
Much of America (and seemingly all of Europe) buy into whatever the media tell them, but we are to blame if we don’t loudly and instantly correct them. Yes, I know it is a full time job—but somebody’s got to do it.
Instead we have conservative sites like the Daily Signal parroting the Leftist narrative, that this was a L v R battle. Arrrghhh
I’m curious what your explanation is for why white supremacists vote overwhelmingly Republican if they aren’t on the right.
There are maybe 100,000 white surpemacists in the whole country – if you take the probably massively over-stated SPLC numbers seriously. If all of them voted Trump, it didn’t make a difference. But most of them probably didn’t – remember, they hate the United States as much as the antifa people do. They consider our government illegitimate and want it overthrown in favor of some weird, pagan neo-Nazi ideology. We of the Republican Party and Conservatism have zero in common with any of them…which is more than can be said about the Democrat leadership, which shares at least some of the desires of antifa on the policy level.
Try, I’m curious about why people like you are still so ignorant of Identity Politics.
There are myriad reasons for voting for Republicans, ranging from the character of most Dem politicians to rejection of socialism . But what you are doing is conflating issues with ideology.
I will type slowly so maybe you can keep up. The ideology of the Right, that is the belief that the federal government must be restricted as to size, scope and power with most authority left to the states or to the people, stands alone. That is, people with a wide range of issues can vote for people who represent this ideology.
I know, this is a very alien concept to you massive-federal-power types, and incomprehensible to you Identity Politics types, but it is in fact the very definition of conservative.
Therefore, people with widely varying positions on issues can still vote for Republican candidates, in the hope these candidates will work to support that ideology.
Got that? Good. Let it sink in.
Now think of all the various issues that are important to people. For example, a Wiccan lesbian who wants to marry her girlfriend can vote Republican if she believes this is an issue that is outside the scope of federal authority. And you know what? Her vote would have absolutely NOTHING to do with the positions of the other millions who also voted Republican. If every Wiccan in America voted Republican for this reason, it would not mean the Republican Party represents, or is even aligned with, Wicca.
Two separate things. Not related.
Approaching this from another direction, as I can sense your forehead furrowing in bewilderment, try to find one single thing in Right-wing ideology that relates in any way to white supremacy. You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.
If there is a demographic that represents any specific issue that also believes the federal government must be restricted as to size, scope and power, and that most authority must rest with the states or with the people, that demographic can and probably will vote for the party that represents that political or ideological position, but the party is not therefore representative of that particular issue.
This baffles you Identity Politics types, because you for the most part not only don’t have a coherent political philosophy, you don’t even understand the concept. I know this because for about 15 years now I have asked Lib after Lib to explain his political philosophy, and in that time only one—-ONE—has been able to do it, and he is an ardent Marxist who has studied that ideology and bought into it. As an ideology. As a blueprint for how best to govern. The rest of you have come up with silly responses that sounded like Miss America candidates in the question-and-answer segment. “Well, I am a Liberal because I believe in, like, you know, like in FAIRNESS and, like, you know, like EQUALITY”. “But what is your POLITICAL philosophy?” I ask, to which I get either “?????????” or a snarl that I am stupid and asking a stupid question.
To people like this, the very idea that one can have a political philosophy and a commitment to an issue that are not one and the same is just incomprehensible.
As you illustrate by your question.
Try, as you are obviously on the Left, does that mean that you, and the Dem party in general, believe that it is not only OK but an acceptable goal to kill law enforcement people? After all, those who shout “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. As these people are on the Left, and you are on the Left, does this mean they represent you and your beliefs?
Neither of you even attempted to answer my question.
Got it.
Oh, that wasn’t entirely fair. Mark at least tried to quibble about whether white supremacists actually vote Republican.
That’s pretty patently absurd, but I’ll go ahead and make the question more narrow:
Why did leaders of white supremacist movements like David Duke and Richard Spencer endorse Trump?
You might want to revise your beliefs on how many white supremacists there are, by the way. 58,581 people voted for David Duke, Holocaust denier, segregation advocate, former imperial wizard of the KKK, former literal Nazi (he was a member of the American Nazi party), for a Louisiana senate seat just last year. Are those white supremacists?
Here’s a quick helpful guide of questions I didn’t ask, by the way:
– Why are all Republicans white supremacists?
– Why did you let the Nazis vote republican?
– Why haven’t you apologized for running over those counter-protestors with a car?
I just want to know what you think it is about the Republican party’s platform that makes it appealing to people who tend to do things like throw around Nazi salutes and talk about their dream of an all-white nation.
Because they were asked to by an MSM serving the Democrats – they wanted a “Racist Endorses Trump” headline, and as con artists who make their living by MSM notoriety, they were more than happy to bark when the MSM snapped it’s fingers.
Your problem is I know precisely how this game works.
I will set aside your blatant virtue signaling travesty because all of us here know what a wonderful, righteous person you are. I mean, your moral principles are unquestioned. That being said, I thought I would remind you of one terribly inconvenient fact. Your preferred ideology is the one that engages wholly in identity politics. Your ideology is the one that defines who belong to those identity groups, constantly promote the struggles of each group (as if they were homogeneous), and most importantly who is to blame for those struggles, and that is the key right there. So now we have an incident where two equally deplorable “political identity” groups riot with each other and you look to blame someone else?
Rational people see right through your bullshit and the media’s bullshit, etc, travesty. The childishness of all of this is embarrassing, but do carry on. Your comical virtue signaling is worth the admission. Oh and here’s a good read, if you can read:
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/charlottesville-virginia-fake-news/2017/08/16/id/808009/
Neither of you even attempted to answer my question.
Oh, yes I did. I answered it quite thoroughly. It’s just not what you wanted to hear.
I have a question of my own.
(1) Why are you so sure that “…white supremacists vote overwhelmingly Republican…”? This assumption depends on (A) Knowing how many “white supremacists there are; (B) How many of them vote Republican; and (C) How you know this. And, naturally, there are no answers to any of these questions. When the Left defines pretty much anyone as a “white supremacist” this entire meme is shot down from the beginning, because there seems to be no real definition. You all just slap the designation on people at random. If you are going by who riots in the name of white supremacy you have to first determine whether or not these people really ARE “white supremacists” or just hired thugs sent out to portray white supremacists. If you do manage to pin this down, then you have to do the math and figure out what percentage of all “white supremacists” is represented so you can extrapolate the estimated total nationwide. As even you can see, this is impossible because of all the variables.
And then you have to consult that crystal ball the Left depends on for
so much ofall of its opinions and beliefs to know how this vague undetermined demographic votes.In other words, you question is moronic because it is based on an unsupported assumption that you know how many white supremacists there are in the country and then that they all vote the same way, and then that this is for Republicans. It’s sheer nonsense, reeking of the bigotry and idiocy of the Left.
This is in addition to my explanation of the difference between ideology and issues, an explanation that you clearly don’t understand because it just doesn’t fit into your simpleminded Identity Politics matrix. For thinking people, issues and ideology are simply not the same. Period. Any number of issues-based belief systems can also, simultaneously, in unison, at the same time, co-exist with a particular concept of how the nation should be governed, without having that voting decision related in any way to any particular personal issue.
And if a group were, as a group, to vote for a particular political ideology, that does not mean they represent that ideology, or that it represents them. They are just in the same place at the same time. Therefore, one can be a white supremacist and vote Republican without representing the Right, and without the Right representing him.
What you are so desperately looking for is a justification for smearing the Right by linking it with a vile racist demographic. And it simply won’t work. Oh, I am sure you will continue to cling to this bigotry, as it seems to have a lovely taste in your mouth, but no matter how hard you try you can’t make it hold together once you get out of the bigotry arena.
Try, you didn’t even try to answer my question: “as you are obviously on the Left, does that mean that you, and the Dem party in general, believe that it is not only OK but an acceptable goal to kill law enforcement people? After all, those who shout “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. As these people are on the Left, and you are on the Left, does this mean they represent you and your beliefs?
Do blatant racists who judge all people by the color of their skin and promote violence and even death for those whose skin color is not acceptable represent “the Left”? Most of them vote for Leftists, after all. Doesn’t that mean “the Left” is virulently racist to its core, given its base?
Here’s another question you will duck: Are white supremacists worse than black supremacists?
Here’s another: Do white supremacists advocate the killing of people of other races, as the black supremacists do?
Here’s another: How many white supremacists do you think are in this country, and how many black supremacists?
I guess it is easier to pretend I avoided your questions if you just delete the answers?
Why did leaders of white supremacist movements like David Duke and Richard Spencer endorse Trump?
The real question is how did Trump deal with this unsolicited endorsement? By openly, strongly rejecting both men and their positions.
Your entire premise is not only bigoted, it is profoundly stupid. No party can control who decides to claim membership. No candidate can control who “endorses” him. Your whole concept is so bogus it would be laughable, if it were not so toxic.
People who are serious about studying and understanding politics and political history can spot a Dirty Trick a mile away. When a guy who was a Leftist thug engaging in Occupy Wall Street rioting then claims to be a right-wing thug, and spouts some silly claim of wanting to “Unite the Right” he needs a whole lot more than a claim of representing ANYTHING on the Right to be taken seriously. False Flag operations have existed since politics have existed, and only the most foolish and gullible actually fall for them. And then there are the agitators, who don’t even care if they are true, if they offer an opportunity to cause trouble and smear the opposition.
Our political system is so damaged by its death spiral into Identity Politics that few aspects make any sense any more. Black people, who have been treated like livestock by the Left, housed in a welfare state to be harvested for votes, who have seen their culture so badly eroded by the evils of dependency that black families barely exist, with more than 70% of black babies are born to unwed mothers, etc. still vote for the party that has kept them enslaved, albeit with invisible chains. Why? Identity Politics. Why do so many Jews vote for the party that promotes, sometimes actively and sometimes passively the end of the Jewish State? Go figure. Why do so many people who actually love and respect this country and respect the concept of the Constitution still vote Dem?
These are serious questions, and all deal with whole demographics voting against their own self interest.
Supposedly there is a demographic that simultaneously hates black people and votes Republican. Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. If there is, maybe it’s sizable, maybe it’s small. To strip Right ideology down to its most simplistic level, it is likely to appeal to people who reject and resent a huge powerful Central Authority. Does this have anything to do with race? Of course not. But to a hard-core Leftist agitator, who cruises a conservative blog (or blogs) under different names looking for opportunities to smear the Right, this seems to be something that might be spun in a malignant manner.
Enter Tryvasty.
Just stop your stupid faux-querying. You fool no one. Go back to the swamp where there are people so stupid they might actually think you are connecting real dots and arriving at real conclusions.
I just want to know what you think it is about the Republican party’s platform that makes it appealing to people who tend to do things like throw around Nazi salutes and talk about their dream of an all-white nation.
I just want to know what you think it is about the Democrat party’s platform that makes it appealing to people who tend to do things like post wanted posters with rewards for killing white people, who openly agitate for the murder of law enforcement personnel, who ambush first responders who rush to help the injured or victims, who don’t just “dream about” but actively brag about their goal of having a nation with no white people in it. That is, who don’t just engage in juvenile posturing to compensate for inadequacies but who put up money, shoot guns, drive attack vehicles and promote active, virulent racism in their schools and churches.
I also want to know what kind of mental midgetry makes it possible to link, even facetiously, a belief in Constitutional governance with racial bigotry and/or hopes of genocide. Seriously. This is such a stridently stupid question, Tryvasty, it’s clear you are at that inevitable point in trollery where it is clear you have no object in mind other than being as offensive as possible. If you have had any posts deleted, do not even try to claim it was because they were too pointed, asked tough questions, etc. If this has happened, it was undoubtedly due to the same crap we see from you every time you crawl out from under your rock to see how much crap you can dish out before you get axed. Again.
If it were up to me, I’d just automatically delete every post you try to slip in here, given your unbroken record of such tactics. On the other hand, you do throw some softballs across the plate, allowing for comparison of Right and Left which might look like gratuitous attacks on the Left if they were not solicited responses to your drivel.
Just what IS the “alt-right” and what does it have to do with the political Right in 21st Century America?
A few years ago a couple of young women earnestly explained to me that they loved “alternate rock”. I quite sincerely asked “alternate to what?” and got blank looks. But if something is an “alternate” it must have something against which to provide an alternative. So, logically, “alt-right” would be an alternate to the Right, or its opposite—-yet it is used as a synonym for the Right.
OK, I get it—it’s a catchy phrase. But what does it MEAN? And why do we, on the Right, tolerate its use and more particularly its use to link the Right to vile and ugly beliefs and actions?
I read that one of the leaders of the white racist groups was, a few years back, a Occupy Wall Street activist.. That is, a radical Leftist. And now he is labeled as “alt-right” and portrayed as a Nazi in conflict with his opposite, the Left.
No, they are all part of the radical Left, and we have to stop accepting their self-applied labels and looking past them to their actual philosophies. But in a country which doesn’t even understand the definition of Identity Politics, much less its dangers, we will have sheeple who look at the name tag and say “oh, he must be on the Right, because that is how someone has identified him”.
This bait and switch only works when people don’t know history and just accept the narratives they are fed.
The “alt-right” is right-wing about as much as Jemaine Clement is a vegetarian.
All conservatives and just simply all decent Americans need to heed Amazona’s advise and STOP buying into these redefined terms and identity politics on the left. There is ZERO merit to all of their whining, bitching, and moaning, and the best course of action is to ignore them, and continue to work towards strengthening our national defense, securing our border, and improving our economy for everyone. If we do that, we will win again in a landslide because the left has NO plan for this country other than to divide it.
At the end of the day, the Confederate leadership decided to break up the nation because an election didn’t go their way … That is one way of looking at it, probably influenced by the current temper tantrums that are truly based on fury at not winning an election. But there is another perspective, which I think is far more likely and far less scathing, and that is a belief in state sovereignty.
As a strong believer in state sovereignty, I have problems with the Civil War, because I can see and sympathize with the belief that aside from what is laid out in the Constitution, decisions are left up to the states. I admit I have not gone over this with a scholar, but I do feel that nearly everything comes down to the 10th Amendment, and nowhere in the Constitution is slavery addressed.
Yes, some in the South fought to protect economic interests. Yes, some probably fought because they believed black people to be inherently inferior beings who should not be treated as equals. But I think there were a lot of principled people who agonized over their decision to step away from a federal government which denied the right of states to govern themselves.
And like it or not, this IS part of our history, and only tyrannical despots insist on sanitizing history and rewriting it to meet their personal desires.
I also don’t think the Confederate flag is racist, and I am sick and tired of having everything in this country held up to an artificial PC standard.
Lincoln won in 1860 because the Upper North was overwhelming for him – he increased his totals there over the GOP’s 1856 effort quite remarkably: and the reason he was able to do this is summed up in Dredd Scott. That decision essentially held not only that Congress had no right to restrict slavery in the Territories, but it set the stage for a possible later decision which would nullify anti-slavery laws in the States. This is where the South’s ostensible fight for State’s Rights breaks down…the Breckenridge Democrat Platform specifically called upon the federal government to protect “property” (meaning: slaves) wherever its authority extended. In other words, a nullification of State laws against slavery. Breckenridge was set up as a breakaway Democrat candidate specifically to ensure that the Democrats lost – and I think that their platform showed what their price of Union was: the imposition of slavery throughout the United States. It was a price no one in the North was really willing to pay…and, of course, it was a price deliberately set so high by the soon-to-be Confederate leaders as to ensure it would never be paid…but it would, of course, ensure Lincoln’s election, thus giving them their excuse to secede.
There were other reasons for the fight aside from slavery, but without slavery it is highly unlikely that those other reasons would have become so acute. The common people (most, but not all of them) sprang to arms to defend the South against Lincoln’s Abolition Hordes…but no such hordes would have been forthcoming had there been no slavery to abolish.
But that still comes back to a conviction that states had the Constitutional right to make their own decisions about things that are not in the Constitution. The manipulations of the system aside, this is still the core issue to many if not most Southerners. Absent a Constitutional amendment, they believed they had a Constitutional right to make their own decisions about slavery.
I am conflicted, because I believe slavery was a blight on the character of the nation, and I believe the nation as a whole had an obligation to end it, yet I understand and to some extent sympathize with the position that according to the 10th Amendment the federal government had no legal right to do this.
But what you are doing is assigning a malignant motive to many in the South, that of trying to “..break up the nation..” and that stands apart from the political machinations you describe. I merely suggest that this is unfair, as there WAS a legitimate position involved, that of the Constitution itself.
Oh My: Leftist Southern Poverty Law Center Mentions Charlottesville White Supremacist Organizer as Former Occupy Wall Street, Obama Supporter
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/08/16/oh-my-leftist-southern-poverty-law-center-lists-charlottesville-white-supremacist-organizer-as-former-occupy-wall-street-obama-supporter-n2369506
Yep. Hired thugs who will portray any group they are asked to, as the Left works to poison minds against the Right and get conservatives so bumfuddled they have no idea what is going on. But if they do have any political or philosophical allegiance, it is to the Left.
The historical ignorance and mind numbing stupidity of the left is summed up nicely in the group Antifa. Fighting Fascism with Fascism, and neither they, the Democrats or the media really get that.
Travesty, the only answer you could possibly come up with is to place yourself within an identity group and paint yourself as a victim. It’s entirely predictable and tedious so please spare us.
One other observation- have you seen the Facebook posts of weak minded progressives (redundancy alert), with posts that say – “Don’t Let Hate Win”?? These posts are hilarious. They have all devolved back to the 3rd grade.
And again, following yesterdays now routine slaughter of innocent people in the name of Islam, progressive Democrats will be quick to remind us to refrain from any backlash towards Muslims. On the other hand, it is ok to paint all conservatives as white supremacists. Have I got that right travesty?
And for the record, I will no longer make the distinction between radical Islam and Islam. They are all from the same cockroach family and need to be identified as such.
Ben Crystal has some interesting thoughts about the aftermath of Charlottesville.
Crystal gets it. Too bad about 80%, if not more, of the country doesn’t—and, sadly, that includes way too many Republican Congresscritters and media pundits. Referring to Nazis as “the Right” shows complete buying into Leftist revisionist history and the success of Semantic Infiltration.
When Hugh Hewitt, of all people, declares on his show that the Nazis were on the Right, we have lost.
The “Russia hacked the election” story just keeps getting interestinger and interestinger.
Question – will Democrats insist on the removal of former KKK grand wizard and celebrated Democrat Senator Robert Byrd’s statue?
they should
As well as dozens of highways, bridges and buildings named after him.
I was never big on Confederate statues either. Most of them were created long after the civil war after the popularity of the film Birth of a Nation and the rebirth of the KKK. There is a legitimate racist connection to most of them. If they had been quietly moved or removed I would have been fine with it. HOWEVER, from a political standpoint, crowds tearing them down or demanding them be torn down is a losing position. And yes, once you empower mobs to decide what statues are allowed there will be no end to destruction. This is really going to bite the Democrats on the ass in the next election cycle. Trump comes across as standing up for law and order to the vast majority of people who won’t buy the MSM spin. The Democrats must know this was a losing strategy, but simply hoped there would be enough rioting to convince RINO’s to vote for Trump’s impeachment. Seems like another bungled strategy for the Democratic gang that can’t shoot straight.
I’ve got an unfailing political barometer – everything she ever says about politics is always how the majority views it, at the end of the day. Her attitude towards statues is, “who the heck cares?”. This is being borne out in polling, though I have my strong doubts about all polling these days. I’ve yet to hear any “on the street” conversations where anyone is really giving a damn one way or the other.