Month: July 2020

Democrats are dismantling anything in America that has ever been connected with slavery. Statues are felled, school names are changed, and institutions are rebranded. Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and others are gone because of their connection with enslaving blacks.

Rep. Louis Gohmert from Texas has been paying attention, and he’s gotten the message. The new rule is that slavery, which ended in America over 150 years ago, is so wrong that anything associated with slavery must be banned. Gohmert introduced a “privileged resolution calling on Congress to ban any political party or organization that has held a public position supportive of slavery.” As his official statement makes clear, the only thing still operative in America that meets this metric is the Democrat party:

As outlined in the resolution, a great portion of the history of the Democratic Party is filled with racism and hatred. Since people are demanding we rid ourselves of the entities, symbols, and reminders of the repugnant aspects of our past, then the time has come for Democrats to acknowledge their party’s loathsome and bigoted past, and consider changing their party name to something that isn’t so blatantly and offensively tied to slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan. As the country watches violent leftists burn our cities, tear down our statues and call upon every school, military base and city street to be renamed, it is important to note that past atrocities these radicals claim to be so violently offensive were largely committed by members in good standing of the Democratic Party. Whether it be supporting the most vile forms of racism or actively working against Civil Rights legislation, Democrats in this country perpetuated these abhorrent forms of discrimination and violence practically since their party’s inception. To avoid triggering innocent bystanders by the racist past of the Democratic Party, I would suggest they change their name. That is the standard to which they are holding everyone else, so the name change needs to occur.

Gohmert has mastered Alinsky’s Rule 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

The resolution opens by noting that the House has voted to remove all statues from the building honoring people who “served as an officer or voluntarily with the Confederate States of America or of the military forces or government of a State while the State was in rebellion against the United States….”

The Resolution continues by saying that these statues were just adjuncts to the real horror in the House. Even with the statutes gone, the house continues to contain

[T]he most ever-present historical stigma in the United States Capitol; that is the source that so fervently supported, condoned and fought for slavery was left untouched, without whom, the evil of slavery could never have continued as it did, to such extreme that it is necessary to address here in order for the U.S. House of Representatives to avoid degradation of historical fact and blatant hypocrisy for generations to come.

What is this obscenity that lives on despite the statue purge? It’s the Democrat party itself. Gohmert details the horrific sins that the Democrat party committed against African Americans, beginning with its 1840 platform and continuing to the Democrats’ 75-day-long filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the way the party lionized Robert Bird, a one-time KKK recruiter. The Resolution also references:

• the 1856 Democrat party platform saying that there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent either existing or new slave states;
• the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850;
• the 0% support Democrats gave to the 14th Amendment, giving slaves citizenship, and the 15th Amendment, giving them the right to vote;
• the 1902 Virginia Constitution that disenfranchised 90% of black men and nearly half of all white men, effectively suppressing Republican voters;
• the 1912 decision Democrat President Woodrow Wilson made to segregate U.S. government employees; and
• the 1924 Democrat National Convention in New York City’s Madison Square Garden, which cheerfully hosted a massive KKK presence.

Given all the historic wrongs associated with enslaving and oppressing blacks, the Resolution concludes that it’s only right and proper to Resolve as follows (emphasis added):

1. That the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall remove any item that names, symbolizes or mentions any political organization or party that has ever held a public position that supported slavery or the Confederacy, from any area within the House wing of the Capitol or any House office building, and shall donate any such item or symbol to the Library of Congress.

2. That any political organization or party that has ever held a public position that supported slavery or the Confederacy shall either change its name or be barred from participation in the House of Representatives.

(You can read the full three-page Resolution here.)

Looking back on Democrat party history, as well as the terrible depredations their policies have visited on blacks in America through to the modern day, the Democrats might want to watch this comedy video and ask themselves the same question the earnest SS soldier on the right asks of his friend:

Dear Democrats, yes, you are the baddies.

Image: The image is a contemporary Currier & Ives picture of “The First Colored Senator and Representatives,” who sat in the 41st and 42nd Congress of the United States. All were Republicans.

Democrats are dismantling anything in America that has ever been connected with slavery. Statues are felled, school names are changed, and institutions are rebranded. Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and others are gone because of their connection with enslaving blacks.

Rep. Louis Gohmert from Texas has been paying attention, and he’s gotten the message. The new rule is that slavery, which ended in America over 150 years ago, is so wrong that anything associated with slavery must be banned. Gohmert introduced a “privileged resolution calling on Congress to ban any political party or organization that has held a public position supportive of slavery.” As his official statement makes clear, the only thing still operative in America that meets this metric is the Democrat party:

As outlined in the resolution, a great portion of the history of the Democratic Party is filled with racism and hatred. Since people are demanding we rid ourselves of the entities, symbols, and reminders of the repugnant aspects of our past, then the time has come for Democrats to acknowledge their party’s loathsome and bigoted past, and consider changing their party name to something that isn’t so blatantly and offensively tied to slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan. As the country watches violent leftists burn our cities, tear down our statues and call upon every school, military base and city street to be renamed, it is important to note that past atrocities these radicals claim to be so violently offensive were largely committed by members in good standing of the Democratic Party. Whether it be supporting the most vile forms of racism or actively working against Civil Rights legislation, Democrats in this country perpetuated these abhorrent forms of discrimination and violence practically since their party’s inception. To avoid triggering innocent bystanders by the racist past of the Democratic Party, I would suggest they change their name. That is the standard to which they are holding everyone else, so the name change needs to occur.

Gohmert has mastered Alinsky’s Rule 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

The resolution opens by noting that the House has voted to remove all statues from the building honoring people who “served as an officer or voluntarily with the Confederate States of America or of the military forces or government of a State while the State was in rebellion against the United States….”

The Resolution continues by saying that these statues were just adjuncts to the real horror in the House. Even with the statutes gone, the house continues to contain

[T]he most ever-present historical stigma in the United States Capitol; that is the source that so fervently supported, condoned and fought for slavery was left untouched, without whom, the evil of slavery could never have continued as it did, to such extreme that it is necessary to address here in order for the U.S. House of Representatives to avoid degradation of historical fact and blatant hypocrisy for generations to come.

What is this obscenity that lives on despite the statue purge? It’s the Democrat party itself. Gohmert details the horrific sins that the Democrat party committed against African Americans, beginning with its 1840 platform and continuing to the Democrats’ 75-day-long filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the way the party lionized Robert Bird, a one-time KKK recruiter. The Resolution also references:

• the 1856 Democrat party platform saying that there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent either existing or new slave states;
• the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850;
• the 0% support Democrats gave to the 14th Amendment, giving slaves citizenship, and the 15th Amendment, giving them the right to vote;
• the 1902 Virginia Constitution that disenfranchised 90% of black men and nearly half of all white men, effectively suppressing Republican voters;
• the 1912 decision Democrat President Woodrow Wilson made to segregate U.S. government employees; and
• the 1924 Democrat National Convention in New York City’s Madison Square Garden, which cheerfully hosted a massive KKK presence.

Given all the historic wrongs associated with enslaving and oppressing blacks, the Resolution concludes that it’s only right and proper to Resolve as follows (emphasis added):

1. That the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall remove any item that names, symbolizes or mentions any political organization or party that has ever held a public position that supported slavery or the Confederacy, from any area within the House wing of the Capitol or any House office building, and shall donate any such item or symbol to the Library of Congress.

2. That any political organization or party that has ever held a public position that supported slavery or the Confederacy shall either change its name or be barred from participation in the House of Representatives.

(You can read the full three-page Resolution here.)

Looking back on Democrat party history, as well as the terrible depredations their policies have visited on blacks in America through to the modern day, the Democrats might want to watch this comedy video and ask themselves the same question the earnest SS soldier on the right asks of his friend:

Dear Democrats, yes, you are the baddies.

Image: The image is a contemporary Currier & Ives picture of “The First Colored Senator and Representatives,” who sat in the 41st and 42nd Congress of the United States. All were Republicans.

When President Trump had his interview last Sunday with Chris Wallace, he made two points: the first was that Joe Biden’s brain is running on empty.  The second was that Trump had taken a test of his cognitive ability and passed, but it was “very hard.”  Leftists fell over themselves laughing because, as they repeatedly claimed, the test is a dead easy one intended to prove minimal mental functioning.

I wrote that Trump (of course) wasn’t the fool the leftists thought he was.  Instead, Trump was baiting a trap for Biden.  If leftists are correct that the test is so easy, Biden shouldn’t have a problem taking it.  That is, the test shouldn’t be a problem for him if he is, as his supporters insist, cognitively intact.

The Biden campaign is now in a corner.  If Biden doesn’t take the test, he looks as if he’s hiding because he can’t pass.  And if he takes the test, few in America would be surprised if he were to fail and fail badly.

It was a perfect Trump maneuver, one that saw him bait a Demo-rat trap and have the left gallop into it.  I’m betting, though, that Trump didn’t expect that he’d catch more rats than Biden himself.  On Thursday, though, a second rat walked right into the trap and had it snap shut on him.

CNN anchor Don Lemon, a man whose values are all messed up but who seems to have some functioning intelligence, didn’t even take the full test on air with his buddy Chris Cuomo.  Instead, he waved it around, glanced at it, and made a giant mistake.  Tucker Carlson was all over this story:

Now that you’ve watched that, do not forget that these two men — Lemon and Cuomo — are insisting that they’re smart enough to tell you how to vote, for whom to vote, and what values you should share.

You really must see the full interview in which Trump discusses why he took the test, what was in the test, and why Biden should take the test:

Did you catch how Trump repeated over and over that list of five random items?  Just try imagining Biden repeating that list of random things even once.

I can already hear Biden.  ”Person, potato, and, and, you know…the thing!”  The trap is baited for Joe.  Lemon stepped in it and was caught.  I’m willing to guarantee that for Biden, the accurate answers if he takes the test will be “lose, lose, lose, lose, and fail.”

Image: YouTube screengrab.

When President Trump had his interview last Sunday with Chris Wallace, he made two points: the first was that Joe Biden’s brain is running on empty.  The second was that Trump had taken a test of his cognitive ability and passed, but it was “very hard.”  Leftists fell over themselves laughing because, as they repeatedly claimed, the test is a dead easy one intended to prove minimal mental functioning.

I wrote that Trump (of course) wasn’t the fool the leftists thought he was.  Instead, Trump was baiting a trap for Biden.  If leftists are correct that the test is so easy, Biden shouldn’t have a problem taking it.  That is, the test shouldn’t be a problem for him if he is, as his supporters insist, cognitively intact.

The Biden campaign is now in a corner.  If Biden doesn’t take the test, he looks as if he’s hiding because he can’t pass.  And if he takes the test, few in America would be surprised if he were to fail and fail badly.

It was a perfect Trump maneuver, one that saw him bait a Demo-rat trap and have the left gallop into it.  I’m betting, though, that Trump didn’t expect that he’d catch more rats than Biden himself.  On Thursday, though, a second rat walked right into the trap and had it snap shut on him.

CNN anchor Don Lemon, a man whose values are all messed up but who seems to have some functioning intelligence, didn’t even take the full test on air with his buddy Chris Cuomo.  Instead, he waved it around, glanced at it, and made a giant mistake.  Tucker Carlson was all over this story:

Now that you’ve watched that, do not forget that these two men — Lemon and Cuomo — are insisting that they’re smart enough to tell you how to vote, for whom to vote, and what values you should share.

You really must see the full interview in which Trump discusses why he took the test, what was in the test, and why Biden should take the test:

Did you catch how Trump repeated over and over that list of five random items?  Just try imagining Biden repeating that list of random things even once.

I can already hear Biden.  ”Person, potato, and, and, you know…the thing!”  The trap is baited for Joe.  Lemon stepped in it and was caught.  I’m willing to guarantee that for Biden, the accurate answers if he takes the test will be “lose, lose, lose, lose, and fail.”

Image: YouTube screengrab.

For quite a while now, we’ve been treated to the demoralizing and unedifying spectacle of media outlets and corporations bowing down to the mob’s cancel culture demands.  Authors have been banned, editors fired, Trader Joe’s products renamed, statues dragged down, and much more, merely because spoiled, entitled, college-educated snowflakes, secure in their victimhood, have said words or products hurt their feelings and made them feel “unsafe.”

Thankfully, after the first shock of this Maoist attack on American institutions, some are beginning to recover their backbones.  First, Goya Foods stood up to the mob.  Then Red Bull refused to back down.  And now the Wall Street Journal has declined to allow its baby journalists to hold its editorial page hostage.

The back story to the Journal’s courageous stand is that 280 employees in the News department signed a letter to the publisher, Almar Latour, criticizing the paper’s opinion pages.  The letter is a marvel of Orwellian writing.  It opens by expressing support for the First Amendment and then spends three pages explaining why the paper’s opinion page needs to stifle itself because it publishes material with which the letter’s signatories disagree.  Not coincidentally, they invariably disagree with conservative content.

The greatest offender, according to the letter, was Heather Mac Donald’s piece about a pair of academics’ cowardly decision to withdraw from publication a study showing the absence of systemic racism when it came to the police shooting blacks in America.  The academics wanted to withdraw the piece because Mac Donald had relied on its findings.  (N.B.: Mac Donald had not twisted the results; she had merely relied on them.)

Mac Donald wrote about this academic game in the Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages, something the letter-writers found unacceptable.  Indeed, the MacDonald article caused psychic pain greater than any snowflake should have to bear:

Multiple employees of color publicly spoke out about the pain this Opinion piece caused them during company-held discussions surrounding diversity initiatives[.] … If the company is serious about better supporting its employees of color, at a bare minimum it should raise Opinion’s standards so that misinformation about racism isn’t published.

There’s more, all in the same vein.  The complaining employees suggested several fixes, including the right to challenge the paper’s editorial page.

The editorial board was not impressed.  It noted, first, that it had no relationship to the news side of the paper.  Both sides report to the publisher, but the complete separation “allows us to pursue stories and inform readers with independent judgment.”

While the board conceded that it was inevitable that the cancel culture crowd would come for it, “as it has at nearly every other cultural, business, academic and journalistic institution,” it was unafraid.  Or, as it said, “we are not the New York Times.”  For that reason, the editorial board wrote a declaration of independence from the censorious cancel culture cabal in the newsroom:

As long as our proprietors allow us the privilege to do so, the opinion pages will continue to publish contributors who speak their minds within the tradition of vigorous, reasoned discourse. And these columns will continue to promote the principles of free people and free markets, which are more important than ever in what is a culture of growing progressive conformity and intolerance.

If enough people develop the kind of courage the editorial board just showed, the cancel culture temper tantrum that is wreaking havoc across a nation already damaged by Wuhan virus hysteria will quickly subside.  It’s high time that we return to a culture defined by free speech, the marketplace of ideas, and an ability both to tolerate and politely argue against beliefs and values with which we disagree.

Image: Wall Street Journal by Steve Rainwater, Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic.

For quite a while now, we’ve been treated to the demoralizing and unedifying spectacle of media outlets and corporations bowing down to the mob’s cancel culture demands.  Authors have been banned, editors fired, Trader Joe’s products renamed, statues dragged down, and much more, merely because spoiled, entitled, college-educated snowflakes, secure in their victimhood, have said words or products hurt their feelings and made them feel “unsafe.”

Thankfully, after the first shock of this Maoist attack on American institutions, some are beginning to recover their backbones.  First, Goya Foods stood up to the mob.  Then Red Bull refused to back down.  And now the Wall Street Journal has declined to allow its baby journalists to hold its editorial page hostage.

The back story to the Journal’s courageous stand is that 280 employees in the News department signed a letter to the publisher, Almar Latour, criticizing the paper’s opinion pages.  The letter is a marvel of Orwellian writing.  It opens by expressing support for the First Amendment and then spends three pages explaining why the paper’s opinion page needs to stifle itself because it publishes material with which the letter’s signatories disagree.  Not coincidentally, they invariably disagree with conservative content.

The greatest offender, according to the letter, was Heather Mac Donald’s piece about a pair of academics’ cowardly decision to withdraw from publication a study showing the absence of systemic racism when it came to the police shooting blacks in America.  The academics wanted to withdraw the piece because Mac Donald had relied on its findings.  (N.B.: Mac Donald had not twisted the results; she had merely relied on them.)

Mac Donald wrote about this academic game in the Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages, something the letter-writers found unacceptable.  Indeed, the MacDonald article caused psychic pain greater than any snowflake should have to bear:

Multiple employees of color publicly spoke out about the pain this Opinion piece caused them during company-held discussions surrounding diversity initiatives[.] … If the company is serious about better supporting its employees of color, at a bare minimum it should raise Opinion’s standards so that misinformation about racism isn’t published.

There’s more, all in the same vein.  The complaining employees suggested several fixes, including the right to challenge the paper’s editorial page.

The editorial board was not impressed.  It noted, first, that it had no relationship to the news side of the paper.  Both sides report to the publisher, but the complete separation “allows us to pursue stories and inform readers with independent judgment.”

While the board conceded that it was inevitable that the cancel culture crowd would come for it, “as it has at nearly every other cultural, business, academic and journalistic institution,” it was unafraid.  Or, as it said, “we are not the New York Times.”  For that reason, the editorial board wrote a declaration of independence from the censorious cancel culture cabal in the newsroom:

As long as our proprietors allow us the privilege to do so, the opinion pages will continue to publish contributors who speak their minds within the tradition of vigorous, reasoned discourse. And these columns will continue to promote the principles of free people and free markets, which are more important than ever in what is a culture of growing progressive conformity and intolerance.

If enough people develop the kind of courage the editorial board just showed, the cancel culture temper tantrum that is wreaking havoc across a nation already damaged by Wuhan virus hysteria will quickly subside.  It’s high time that we return to a culture defined by free speech, the marketplace of ideas, and an ability both to tolerate and politely argue against beliefs and values with which we disagree.

Image: Wall Street Journal by Steve Rainwater, Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic.