Coalition of #NeverTrump Feels Huge Let Down After Trump Pulls Back on Bombing the Hell Out of Iran

President Trump reportedly authorized, and then cancelled, a retaliatory attack on Iran Thursday night for the downing of an unarmed U.S. drone the night before.

Pundits later speculated the President Trump called off the attacks after watching Tucker Carlson Tonight on FOX News.

Not everyone was pleased to see President Trump’s restraint.

The NeverTrump crowd who have opposed Trump since the beginning were especially upset with the President’s restraint.

War promoter Bill Kristol.

Trump basher Ben Shapiro.

Max Boot.

Rep. Adam Kinsinger.

The post Coalition of #NeverTrump Feels Huge Let Down After Trump Pulls Back on Bombing the Hell Out of Iran appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

High School Mulls Spending $600,000 To Remove George Washington Murals Because They ‘Traumatize’ Students

A high school in San Francisco is now weighing three options to get rid of what they consider a terribly politically incorrect set of murals of America’s first president, George Washington.

The plans come with astronomical costs: Cover the murals up with a curtain — at a stunning cost of $300,000 — paint over them at $600,000, or cover them up with paneling at $875,000.

Activists argue that two 83-year-old murals are offensive to Native Americans and African-Americans and claim they “traumatizes students and community members.”

A San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) working group says the artwork “glorifies slavery, genocide, colonization, manifest destiny, white supremacy, oppression” and “doesn’t represent SFUSD values of social justice, diversity, united, student-centered.”

“Two of the thirteen panels in the mural series have come under fire since the 1960’s for their controversial depictions of African-Americans and Native Americans,” the Richmond District Blog writes.

In one mural, entitled “Mount Vernon”, George Washington appears to be in conversation with another Caucasian man who gestures towards a seated African-American man holding corn, presumably a slave. In other parts of the mural, African-Americans are engaged in acts of manual labor like hauling large bales of hay and picking cotton in the fields, while Caucasian men are also laboring at other tasks with tools. Washington’s servant, who is pictured holding his horse, is also African-American. The mural is a clear depiction of slavery in the United States, and of George Washington as a slave owner.

The second panel, entitled “Westward Vision,” depicts Benjamin Franklin and other founding fathers looking at George Washington as he points off in the distance, while he points with his other hand to a map. On the right side of the mural, as if carrying out Washington’s call for westward expansion, frontiersmen, depicted in greyscale unlike other figures in the mural, stand over the dead body of a Native American man, signifying the genocide of Native American life and culture.

In the bottom right of the “Westward Vision” panel, a frontiersman and Native American chief sit at a campfire smoking a peace pipe. On the ground at the chief’s feet is a tomahawk, symbolizing the disarming of Native tribes. Directly above the Chief’s headdress is a broken tree limb representing broken treaties made by the U.S. government with Native Americans, and broken promises made by settlers.

Reason magazine noted that the murals were intended to be controversial. “The truth is that George Washington High School’s mural is provocative by design. It was painted in 1936 by a Russian-American artist named Victor Arnautoff, who held leftist sympathies. Arnautoff did not wish to blindly celebrate Washington while ignoring the less savory aspects of the American founding, and thus he depicted the first president working his slaves and sending men to confiscate Native American lands. It was an attempt to remind students that history is a lot messier than what they read in class,” wrote Robby Soave.

“He put those ghastly gray pioneers literally walking over the dead body of an Indian to demonstrate that the settlement of the west was an act of conquest that involved the slaughter of Native Americans,” Robert Cherny, a San Francisco State University professor, told the school district’s board of education in 2018. “That was a very bold effort on his part to counter the kinds of textbooks that students were seeing.”

Soave noted that some people who attended a public hearing on the matter don’t seem to understand what a school does. ” ‘Why do we have to explain the pain caused by the visual offense that we see in that building that is supposed to be an institution for learning?’ asked one woman at a public meeting about the issue on Tuesday. ‘It’s not in a museum, it’s inside a school,’ lamented another speaker, who apparently did not understand the point of a school. ‘Our students, all of them, deserve better,’ ” Soave wrote.

Historian Fergus M. Bordewich told The College Fix in May that it is “a deeply wrongheaded habit to project today’s norms, values, ideals backwards in time to find our ancestors inevitably falling short.”

“It betrays a very troubling intolerance of art and the ambiguity of art and the aspirations of art,” he said. “It’s incredibly stupid if we try to erase history. It still happened, and you should argue about its meanings.”

 

The post High School Mulls Spending $600,000 To Remove George Washington Murals Because They ‘Traumatize’ Students appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Man Nabbed In Violent Rape Of White Woman Allegedly Said She ‘Deserved It’ For ‘Slavery’

Horrible. Via NY Post: A black parolee arrested for raping and bashing a white woman on the roof of his Bronx apartment building allegedly told a witness that she “deserved” the brutal attack because of slavery, according to court papers. “She was a white girl. She deserved it because us minorities have been through slavery,” […]

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us

The Democrats’ Presidential Field and Communism

Everything that America stands for is being opposed by the resurgence of communism with its profound hatred of private property as the root of alienation and exploitation in society.  Inequality and the injustice that is believed to flow out of that inequality of ownership is, for the communist mentality, the starting point for a radical critique of American society, indeed of Western Civilization.  The left rejects belief in and gratitude for the fact that the U.S. rose out of the British rights framework which is inherently capitalistic. The liberty enshrined in our leading documents and law is closely justified by its support of private property as an inalienable right and by Christian values derived from a 2000 year old abiding faith in the God of the Bible and in Christ His Son.  Communism, by contrast, arose out of a Germanic cultural and dialectical mindset that was atheistic, so we are not surprised that communism should be so repulsive to our citizens.

In American politics we have many contenders for the Democrat Presidential nomination using deceptive rubrics such as Democratic Socialism, Green New Deal, Black Lives Matter (remember Stokely Carmichael in the sixties with the clenched fist “power to the people”?), progressivism, and even liberalism in a way wholly different from classical liberalism.   Bernie Sanders self-labels as a Democratic Socialist, but has participated in the Democratic caucus in the Senate, and is now a leading contender for the Democrat Party nomination for President.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez self-labels as a Socialist but was elected to Congress as a Democrat.  Just as these socialists are comfortable working in Washington DC as Democrats, we see that communists are comfortable with referring to themselves as socialists. An entire section of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) website is entitled “Bill of Rights [of] Socialism.” If socialists can be Democrats, and communists can be socialists, then we can entertain the possibility some or many of the Democrats and socialists are communists.

Further, has any reporter asked them, “Are you a communist? And if not, how do your views differ from those of communism?” They do not ask these questions because the questions themselves would be seen as a form of disparagement.

The fact that there are some differences among the Democratic candidates is not evidence in itself that they do not deserve to be stigmatized.  Historically, there were and are differences among different factions of communists.  The Mensheviks were violently opposed to the Bolsheviks.  Leon Trotsky had to flee the USSR because of his opposition to Joseph Stalin.  Here are some of the programs and policies listed by Rich Noyes that are being advocated by the Democratic Party primary candidates.  These positions extend the reach of the federal government and trample on the notion of right to one’s property, which trampling brings about a curtailment of individual liberty: 

[1] ‘free’ health care, [2] ‘free’ child care, [3] ‘free’ college, [4] massive forgiveness of student loans, [5] reparations for the descendants of slaves, [6]  doubling the federal minimum wage, [7] tearing down existing barriers on the U.S.-Mexican border,[8] refusing to appoint any pro-life judges,[9] increasing the Supreme Court to 15 members and [10] eliminating the Electoral College.” 

Additionally, lurking in the background are infanticide (none have condemned New York’s latest and extreme law allowing abortion up to the point of delivery), confiscation by the feds of all privately owned firearms, and giving voting rights for non-citizens living within the borders of the USA, plus lowering of the voting age to 16.

Of the above list of items, number 1-5 appear explicitly in the extensive, bulleted platform of the Socialist Party 2018-2019.  The Socialist Platform also would lower the voting age to 15.

Yet, behind the Democrats, the Socialists, and the Communists is the overarching goal of the federal takeover of the means of production as advocated by communist founders Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, not merely enacting a list of reforms.  As the Socialists explicitly state,

We call for social ownership and democratic control of productive resources [that is, ownership of the means of production]….  Although reforms will not in themselves bring about socialism, the fight for them will advance the cause by demonstrating the inherent limitations and injustice of the capitalist system.” 

Thus, the socialists admit upfront in their preamble that although they are calling for a myriad of “reforms,” their goal is not first and foremost to bring reform but to inculcate in the public a sense of the injustice of the capitalist system.

As we approach the Fourth of July, we must acknowledge not only that we overthrew the British enemy for the sake of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now it behooves us to overthrow the fifth column enemy within by the Democratic Party which seeks by verbal duplicity and nuance to pretend that it is not linked profoundly with socialist and communist aspirations, and that this linkage would pull us away from our sovereignty and the values of Western Civilization.

We reject communism as an ideology, theory, lifestyle…whatever anyone chooses to call it.  By what stretch of their ignoble imaginations have they come to describe America — even though it be flawed — as the land of exploitation rather than the land of opportunity when so many millions have voted with their lives to come here (black, white, and yellow, so-called) to improve their lot in life?  

This writer calls on all communists/socialists/Democrats to repent of their devastatingly negative thinking/ideology, to come to their senses, and to appreciate the on-the-ground positive contribution of capitalism, democracy, and republicanism which include ways to redress grievances, albeit not perfectly. What a pathetic and paltry ideology is communism!  They must give up their Sanders-like rhetoric of superiority as though they hold the moral high ground. All candidates must denounce socialism and communism, and be pressed to do so by the news media.   The stench of their atheistic and class/race/sex bilge floats from the smokestacks of their consciousness.  Let us instead breathe in the clean air of truth as we fight against collectivism in our fight to uphold a Second Declaration of Independence by repudiating the Democrat Party.

Graphic credit: Pixabay

Everything that America stands for is being opposed by the resurgence of communism with its profound hatred of private property as the root of alienation and exploitation in society.  Inequality and the injustice that is believed to flow out of that inequality of ownership is, for the communist mentality, the starting point for a radical critique of American society, indeed of Western Civilization.  The left rejects belief in and gratitude for the fact that the U.S. rose out of the British rights framework which is inherently capitalistic. The liberty enshrined in our leading documents and law is closely justified by its support of private property as an inalienable right and by Christian values derived from a 2000 year old abiding faith in the God of the Bible and in Christ His Son.  Communism, by contrast, arose out of a Germanic cultural and dialectical mindset that was atheistic, so we are not surprised that communism should be so repulsive to our citizens.

In American politics we have many contenders for the Democrat Presidential nomination using deceptive rubrics such as Democratic Socialism, Green New Deal, Black Lives Matter (remember Stokely Carmichael in the sixties with the clenched fist “power to the people”?), progressivism, and even liberalism in a way wholly different from classical liberalism.   Bernie Sanders self-labels as a Democratic Socialist, but has participated in the Democratic caucus in the Senate, and is now a leading contender for the Democrat Party nomination for President.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez self-labels as a Socialist but was elected to Congress as a Democrat.  Just as these socialists are comfortable working in Washington DC as Democrats, we see that communists are comfortable with referring to themselves as socialists. An entire section of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) website is entitled “Bill of Rights [of] Socialism.” If socialists can be Democrats, and communists can be socialists, then we can entertain the possibility some or many of the Democrats and socialists are communists.

Further, has any reporter asked them, “Are you a communist? And if not, how do your views differ from those of communism?” They do not ask these questions because the questions themselves would be seen as a form of disparagement.

The fact that there are some differences among the Democratic candidates is not evidence in itself that they do not deserve to be stigmatized.  Historically, there were and are differences among different factions of communists.  The Mensheviks were violently opposed to the Bolsheviks.  Leon Trotsky had to flee the USSR because of his opposition to Joseph Stalin.  Here are some of the programs and policies listed by Rich Noyes that are being advocated by the Democratic Party primary candidates.  These positions extend the reach of the federal government and trample on the notion of right to one’s property, which trampling brings about a curtailment of individual liberty: 

[1] ‘free’ health care, [2] ‘free’ child care, [3] ‘free’ college, [4] massive forgiveness of student loans, [5] reparations for the descendants of slaves, [6]  doubling the federal minimum wage, [7] tearing down existing barriers on the U.S.-Mexican border,[8] refusing to appoint any pro-life judges,[9] increasing the Supreme Court to 15 members and [10] eliminating the Electoral College.” 

Additionally, lurking in the background are infanticide (none have condemned New York’s latest and extreme law allowing abortion up to the point of delivery), confiscation by the feds of all privately owned firearms, and giving voting rights for non-citizens living within the borders of the USA, plus lowering of the voting age to 16.

Of the above list of items, number 1-5 appear explicitly in the extensive, bulleted platform of the Socialist Party 2018-2019.  The Socialist Platform also would lower the voting age to 15.

Yet, behind the Democrats, the Socialists, and the Communists is the overarching goal of the federal takeover of the means of production as advocated by communist founders Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, not merely enacting a list of reforms.  As the Socialists explicitly state,

We call for social ownership and democratic control of productive resources [that is, ownership of the means of production]….  Although reforms will not in themselves bring about socialism, the fight for them will advance the cause by demonstrating the inherent limitations and injustice of the capitalist system.” 

Thus, the socialists admit upfront in their preamble that although they are calling for a myriad of “reforms,” their goal is not first and foremost to bring reform but to inculcate in the public a sense of the injustice of the capitalist system.

As we approach the Fourth of July, we must acknowledge not only that we overthrew the British enemy for the sake of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now it behooves us to overthrow the fifth column enemy within by the Democratic Party which seeks by verbal duplicity and nuance to pretend that it is not linked profoundly with socialist and communist aspirations, and that this linkage would pull us away from our sovereignty and the values of Western Civilization.

We reject communism as an ideology, theory, lifestyle…whatever anyone chooses to call it.  By what stretch of their ignoble imaginations have they come to describe America — even though it be flawed — as the land of exploitation rather than the land of opportunity when so many millions have voted with their lives to come here (black, white, and yellow, so-called) to improve their lot in life?  

This writer calls on all communists/socialists/Democrats to repent of their devastatingly negative thinking/ideology, to come to their senses, and to appreciate the on-the-ground positive contribution of capitalism, democracy, and republicanism which include ways to redress grievances, albeit not perfectly. What a pathetic and paltry ideology is communism!  They must give up their Sanders-like rhetoric of superiority as though they hold the moral high ground. All candidates must denounce socialism and communism, and be pressed to do so by the news media.   The stench of their atheistic and class/race/sex bilge floats from the smokestacks of their consciousness.  Let us instead breathe in the clean air of truth as we fight against collectivism in our fight to uphold a Second Declaration of Independence by repudiating the Democrat Party.

Graphic credit: Pixabay

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Latin America Is Pivoting From Socialism to Freedom

South
America’s attempt at a leftist version of the European Union is on life
support.

The regional grouping, called the Union of South American Nations, was founded in 2008 and funded by Hugo Chavez’s then-oil rich Venezuela. The group aimed at spreading Chavez’s “socialism for the 21st century” throughout South America.

In
the years since Chavez’s death and the destruction of Venezuela by his
socialist policies, the rest of South America has wised up and elected
center-right presidents in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Colombia. All of them
favor market democracy over socialist populism.

Those
four countries have led the creation of a new group—the
Forum
for the Progress of South America
—which, according to Chilean President Sebastián Piñera, will function “without
ideology and bureaucracy, but with a total commitment to freedom, democracy,
and human rights.”

This
forum is meant to supplant the old leftist Union of South American Nations,
which Chavez established with the former leftist governments of Brazil,
Argentina, and Ecuador. Brazil and Argentina have renounced their countries’ membership
in that group, as have Paraguay and Peru.

Even
Ecuador, in a stunning reversal under President Lenín Moreno, has
quit the old group in favor of the new—a stinging rebuke to his Chavista
predecessor Rafael Correa.

It’s not hard to see why.

Colombia and Chile, leaders in the new organization, also are regional leaders in The Heritage Foundation’s annual Index of Economic Freedom.

This means they tend to enjoy greater prosperity because they respect the rule of law and promote business freedom and regulatory efficiency.

Countries in the new organization average 60 out of 100 on their economic freedom scores. Those in the Chavez-founded group average 48.3, and it would be much lower if Uruguay left the group.

Weaker rule of law in less economically free countries means there are significantly higher risks of government expropriation of private property. 

For example, land owned by farmers who were out of favor with the Chavez regime was seized by the Venezuelan government and given to small scale agricultural communes and co-ops, often run by people who lack expertise in agriculture. As a result, agricultural production in the country plummeted even as demand for food increased.

In
short, countries in the old organization have stagnated or languished, and
those in the new group of freedom-minded countries have made great strides in
poverty reduction and economic freedom.

If
South America continues this pivot, the future of the continent will continue
to brighten.

The post Latin America Is Pivoting From Socialism to Freedom appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

The Problem With Ocasio-Cortez’s Shameful Ignorance of History

“The United States is running concentration camps on our southern border, and that is what they are.”—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

In April 1944, two Slovakian Jews named Alfred Wetzler and Rudolf Vrba escaped from Auschwitz and provided two of the first eyewitness accounts of the horrors of the European concentration camps.

Both men had been rounded up with a group of their countrymen and sent to the Birkenau section of the camp in the spring of 1941, where they were immediately put to work as slave labor.

This was before the German regime had properly streamlined and industrialized efforts to destroy European Jewry.

In the early days of the camp, any man incapable of labor was immediately executed. Those who survived were sent to do the grueling work of construction.

The men began their work at sunrise, and except for a half-hour break at noon, when the prisoners were fed cabbage and turnip soup, they worked until 6 p.m. For dinner, the men were given an ounce of moldy bread made from “ersatz flour and sawdust.”

Lice and fleas tortured their emaciated bodies as they slept on wooden boards. “Rats were so bold they gnawed at the toes and fingers of sleepers and stole the crumbs they had left in their pockets,” wrote Robert Conot in his book “Justice at Nuremberg.”

A third of the prisoners died every week. If a worker was hurt, he was allotted three days of recovery time. If they failed to heal, those working in the infirmary—where Dr. Josef Mengele had already begun his nefarious work on women and children—would inject a fatal dose of phenol directly into their hearts.

Of the 2,722 Slovakian Jews who had been rounded up with Wetzler and Vrba, only 159 survived to the summer of 1942.

Those who died had been dumped, with another approximately 105,000 bodies, into shallow trenches around Birkenau. “As they decomposed” Conot noted, “the earth rose like a yeasty mixture of dough and bubbled up nauseating gases, which spread for miles.”

I think of that last sentence whenever some modern-day know-nothing begins comparing the United States to a proto-Nazi state.

Maybe it’s because their analogies are embarrassingly ignorant and intellectually lazy, or maybe it’s because people like Ocasio-Cortez, perhaps unknowingly, diminish the suffering of millions of dead. Or maybe it’s because my own grandfather was taken as slave labor in Austria.

Then again, maybe it’s because the comparison itself is a despicable smear of the American people.

It’s true that we’re not prepared for the crush of refugees on the southern border. While there is a border, however, we ask migrants who show up to follow existing laws, ones that are subject to the democratic process and the court system.

Sometimes we reacted ham-fistedly, even temporarily breaking up families who are transporting children without any oversight.

Some migrants have been abused, and some have died in our care. There is no excuse for it. Neither is sanctioned by the state.

If you believe any of this is morally equivalent to carting away millions of people to crematoriums for execution because their faith, your moral compass is irreparably broken.

This doesn’t mean that people of good faith can never be critical of U.S. policy or contrast any policy with those of Nazi Germany.

“Concentration camps” have a long history that predates the Holocaust, after all. But the contemporary usage is clear, notwithstanding Ocasio-Cortez’s unconvincing attempts to walk back her initial statements. She, in fact, stresses: “I don’t use those words lightly. I don’t use those words to just throw bombs.”

This dumb Nazi equivalence certainly isn’t new. We see a spike whenever a Republican is elected—be it Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, or George Bush. Of course, with Donald Trump, they are in full bloom.

We see it all across social media—not only from random accounts but from celebrities, well-known pundits, and major newspapers peddling fourth grade-level historical analysis. What they’re doing is cheapening their own arguments, on top of all else.

Ocasio-Cortez, whose historical obliviousness leads her to believe we’re living in an economic and racial dystopia, says she is speaking to those who “are concerned enough with humanity to say that ‘Never Again’ means something and … that concentration camps are now an institutionalized practice in the ‘home of the free.’”

It’s indeed strange to hear a leftist who champions anti-Israel causes and anti-Semitic politicians using this phrase, as the Jewish state is the most successful and enduring manifestation of “Never Again.”

The appearance of “Never Again” also undermines her later contention that she wasn’t talking about the Nazi camps.

We’re forced to take Ocasio-Cortez seriously because she is both a charismatic elected official with many impressionable fans and a person bestowed with a huge media platform.

Only last weekend, she appeared on “Meet the Press” praising socialism—the other scourge of the 20th century.

Yet, when we need our media to ask Ocasio-Cortez to explain her profoundly childish and destructive statements, they are nowhere to be found.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

The post The Problem With Ocasio-Cortez’s Shameful Ignorance of History appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/