More Proof that the Government is Altering Our History of the Civil War

FORT SUMTER & SLAVERY

Based on the article “Revisionism” by Andrew P. Calhoun, with an introduction by Diane Rufino

Anyone who knows me knows how much I love history and how much time I spend reading and researching historical events. I don’t want to read some liberal historian’s take on history or some progressive professor’s view of history. I want to know exactly what happened, why it happened, and the conditions, the views, the cultural norms, the customs that defined the particular time period. I look to primary documents and recordings/documentation at the time of the event, by those who were involved, who were affected, or who were witnesses.

For example, I know for a fact that the Civil War (the War of Northern Aggression; aka, the War to Prevent Southern Independence; aka, the War Between the States) was NOT started over slavery and Lincoln did not initiate hostilities with the South or invade the South in order to subjugate those states back into the Union for the purpose of abolishing slavery. Addressing slavery only became a war measure later in the war when the North realized it was losing and needed to re-energize its effort and to prevent any European powers from entering the war on the side of the South (which they were likely to do). Yet, when my husband and I visited Fort Sumter in Charleston two summers ago, I was stunned to see that the museum focused primarily on slavery and its role in the starting the war, as well as the glorification of Abraham Lincoln – the president who bravely “saved the Union.” In the book store, were there any books on why the South chose to secede? NO. Were there any books on the bravery of Jefferson Davis in his decision to head the Confederate States and to defend the principles of the Declaration of Independence? NO. Were there any books on General Robert E. Lee and his bravery in deciding to defend the rights of his state and the new union Virginia had joined rather than in subserviently going along with Lincoln’s scheme to force the southern states back into the union with the northern states? NO. Were there books on slavery? YES. Almost all the books were about slavery or about particular slaves.

I asked the woman who looked to be in charge of the museum and asked why the history presented was so clearly skewed, so biased against the South, and so historically inaccurate. She told me that the museum was run by the US Parks Service and out of the hands of South Carolina or Charleston.

There it was – government indoctrination…. a dishonest government trying to convince Americans, especially our youth and un-informed adults, that the North had only the most noble reasons for pursuing war against the South and that the South was evil and seceded for the sole purpose of protecting and preserving slavery. Of course, I should have expected this from our government. The victors get to tell the story. They get to tell the story that supports their action and conduct (including all the unconstitutional and tyrannical government action) while demonizing those they defeated.

Here is an article I found by the Abbeville Institute that explains WHY our Civil War sites are pushing the slavery narrative:

REVISIONISM, by Andrew P. Calhoun, Aug. 12, 2019 [https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/revisionism/]

Does anyone remember United States Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.? I mean, for something other than being the son of The Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. and for being sentenced to 30 months in jail for violating federal campaign finance laws.

Well, I do. It was Jackson, Jr who, in 1999, amended an appropriation bill for the Department of Interior. The language in his amendment required that the National Park Service (NPS) include mention of the ”unique role that slavery played in the cause of the (civil) war” in all their Battlefield Park presentations. Jackson’s amendment reasoned that the NPS battlefield tours were long on battle history, but short on the history of the cause of the war. He also concluded that African-American attendance at the Parks was sparse because the history made them feel uncomfortable. But, alas, there is no constitutional right to feel comfortable.

With the passage of this amended bill, the United States Government opened a historical Pandora’s Box and inserted itself into the arena of revisionism. The NPS initiated a program at their Battlefield Parks that presented the war as a fight to end slavery rather than a war between two regions of the country that were hotly divided politically and economically. By mandating their personnel promote slavery as the reason for the war, the NPS ignored a century and a half of irrefutable historical facts to the contrary.

It is well documented that the seeds for the War Between the States were sown in the 1820’s and 1830’s when Northern industrial capitalism began disrupting Southern agricultural capitalism through the imposition of discriminatory taxes and tariffs. A series of tariffs on imported goods almost led to Southern secession, and war, after the Tariff of Abomination was passed in 1828 followed by the Force Bill in 1833. Other tariffs ensued and little, or none, of the revenue generated by these tariffs ever returned to the South in the form of investment or infrastructure. By late 1860 the South had enough and South Carolina led the secession movement.

In his March 4, 1861 Inaugural Address, President Abraham Lincoln expressly declared that he proposed no interference with slavery in the States. Two days earlier, the Corwin Amendment was put forward to change the United States Constitution so as to shield “domestic institutions” in the states from any further constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress. Although the Corwin Amendment did not explicitly mention slavery, it was designed to protect slavery from federal power. Congress proposed the Corwin Amendment on March 2, 1861, but it was not ratified by the requisite number of states because of the outbreak of the war. If slavery was the sole cause of the war, why didn’t the Northern Congress pass a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery instead of one that would protect it forever.

Four days after the first major battle of the War Between the States, the Union Congress enacted a resolution on July 25, 1861, known as the War Aims Act. It declared that the War would be fought by the North only to preserve the Union and not to abolish the South’s “peculiar institution” of slavery. Therefore, Lincoln’s own words and the actions of his government confirm slavery was not the cause of the war.

Two years after the war started, Lincoln issued his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation to announce the freeing of slaves in the North and in Union occupied areas of the South. This was a war measure designed to cause panic in the ranks of the Confederate soldiers hoping they would desert and return to their homes and farms fearing a slave rebellion. The Confederacy was not subject to Union law, a slave rebellion never materialized, and the Proclamation freed very few slaves.

Considering the foregoing, it should have been historically difficult for the NPS to proclaim that it was slavery that divided the North and South and caused a war. Nevertheless, the NPS took that position and promoted a misguided storyline whereby the North equaled good and the South equaled bad despite the fact slavery had legally existed in both regions of the country for almost 200 years by the time of the war.

To avoid potential budgetary conflicts, the NPS quickly moved forward with Jackson’s strong arm plan to revise the Battlefield Parks’ history lessons. Afterward, many social justice groups started their own versions of the “North/good—South/bad” narrative. Before long, all things Southern (in general) and all things Confederate (in particular) were attacked as racist and offensive symbols, or “reminders” of slavery. Monuments were vandalized or taken down, artwork removed, streets renamed, and some groups even suggested that certain cities be renamed. History and facts aside, the social justice warriors (SJW) forged ahead with their campaign to expunge these “reminders.” However, the reality is that one must actually experience something in order to be reminded of it and, obviously, none of today’s SJW have ever experienced slavery.

These symbols are lifeless objects that have no ability to offend or remind. People must be taught what to think about them. Through their constant moral posturing, SJW are instructing their followers how to interpret these symbols This trend continues today and is a growing social justice cancer that has now morphed into “presentism” whereby historic events of the past are deceitfully judged by current social ideologies.

In the two short decades since Jackson engineered the federal government’s foray into historical revisionism, social justice warriors have intensified their shameless politically correct efforts to transform our past and eradicate Southern history. As 18th century British statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke said: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” It is long past time to push back, resist those efforts, and reestablish that Southern history is American history.

Oh yes, I remember Jesse Jackson, Jr.

 

***  Please check out the ABBEVILLE INSTITUTE BLOG for the outstanding articles their members and contributors write, as well as for the invaluable history lessons it teaches.  The legacy of the South will live on only as long as successive generations learn and then teach that truthful legacy.   The Abbeville Institute blog – https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/ 

 

Reference:

Andrew P. Calhoun, “Revisionism,” Abbeville Institute,” August 12, 2019. Referenced at: https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/revisionism/

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Reject the Progressive Agenda! The Truth is that Strong Traditional Families Build Strong and Healthy Communities

FAMILY - Strong Families Build Strong Communities

by Diane Rufino, July 31, 2019

It is easier to raise strong children than to repair broken men and women. And it’s a whole lot less expensive on society and on our pocketbooks as well.   (modified quote from Frederick Douglass)

The most important job we have, and our most important contribution to society is to devote ourselves to our families, to keep then strong, and to raise our children well, with values and education so that that they will go on to contribute productively to their community and then serve as role models themselves for the next generation.

Nothing else is as important to our society.

Over the years, we’ve seen this critical responsibility become eroded to make way for the “new progressive era” values – the breakdown of the nuclear family, single parenthood, same-sex parenting (denying the child or children they raise the benefit of learning key life lessons and role-modeling lessons from both sexes), alternative lifestyles, a genderless society, having children for the wrong reasons (for a welfare check) and killing children for the wrong reasons (the pregnancy is inconvenient; having a baby would be inconvenient), parents leaving the job of raising their children to the public schools and to government (the same institutions that reject religion in favor of immorality, that embrace progressive social change over conservative social values/norms, and that has no concern for effective outcomes), rejection of religious values and religious teachings, demonization of religious values and teachings, a focus on wealth distribution rather than good old fashion career-planning, learning important skills, ingenuity, hard-work, and risk-taking in the marketplace, the commonplace of recreational drugs, the lowering of standards in our school systems, the epidemic of teens who “graduated” from high school but are still not meaningfully competent in reading or writing or capable of doing simple math, etc.

Government is making it harder and harder and harder and harder for our young adults to be able to make the decisions and the plans to assume their important roles in society – to settle down, to buy a home, and then to have and raise good and productive children. Government fights them at every step – higher college costs, higher taxes, too much regulation in the marketplace, too much regulation over property, high daycare costs, and then the insidious indoctrination in the public school system.

Our right to raise our children according to OUR values and not government’s values (or minority group values) is worth fighting for. The health and vitality of our communities are worth fighting for. We only get one chance to raise our children, to invest in our legacy…. We need to do it right and we need to get government out of the way so we can do it right.

I am not taking a position opposing alternative lifestyles or denying anyone their rights to do what they want (within the confines of our laws); I’m just in favor of government policy putting in place laws and policies that favor conduct that furthers what our society needs most – strong families and well-raised children.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump Supporters Not Treated Fairly in Recent USA TODAY Article

TRUMP and OMAR (Courtesy of Second Nexus)

(Photo courtesy of Second Nexus)

by Diane Rufino, July 31, 2019

This past Saturday I met with a reporter with USA TODAY for an interview regarding the Trump Rally on July 17 in Greenville “and it’s aftermath.” This reporter traveled from DC to Greenville to do this story. We spoke for at least an hour and a half about the rally, about the diversity in age of those in attendance at the rally, about Donald Trump, about Greenville, about North Carolina, about North Carolina values, about North Carolina history, about the Tea Party movement and its actual and perceived purpose, about the Eastern NC Tea Party in general, about Tea Party principles, about the left’s campaign to smear anyone who holds a different viewpoint by claiming “racism” or “racist,” about race relations in Greenville, about our mayor P.J. Connolly and his incredible energy and commitment to the town, and of course, about the chant (“Send Her Back”) that has now become the left’s new claim of “racism” from Trump and his supporters.

I was warned by probably every single person I know not to meet with USA TODAY because the leftist paper “will no doubt twist what you say” and “end up doing a hatchet job on you.” Yet I chose to meet with the reporter anyway. I thought that, being that I had actually attended the rally, had in fact attended about 5 or 6, have grown up being familiar with Trump (in New Jersey and New York, where I grew up and then went to grad school, respectively), had written an article on the rally, and have a history of strongly defending the Tea Party movement and Tea Partiers, I would surely be able to help explain the chant, help explain the support for President Trump, and effectively counter the allegations from the left about the chant being racist, about Trump supporters being racist, and about the chant now dividing our community.

And to be honest, all said and done, when I left the interview, I was confident I had accomplished what I set out to do. The reporter seemed open to what I had to say.

But then the article came out yesterday – “NC City Wrestles With Echoes of ‘Send Her Back’” (Link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/07/29/send-her-back-chants-trump-rally-open-wounds-greenville-nc/1828979001/ ]

I think Beth Capillary, president of the Republican Women of Pitt County said it best when she told me: “I was disappointed in what they chose to print from all you discussed with her. She tried to make us look mean-spirited. I never trust the main-stream media. At a time when we need healing and honest reporting, we get articles like this. I fear the mainstream media is going to frame the whole 2020 election in terms of race and racism. But to be fair, some of the comments she printed from you were good.”

I have serious criticisms and disappointments with the article and I need to address them:

(1)  I was interviewed for about an hour and a half and the snippets she used in the article were not indicative or representative of my answers or explanations. I feel she sabotaged me to a good extent in that respect.

(2)  I knew the article would focus more on the views of the left (and indeed I was warned about that) and I was prepared for it. It’s just a shame that the article focused more on the views of those who do NOT support the president and those who were NOT present at the rally than on those who attended the rally and could speak more accurately and correctly to the chant. Of all the people interviewed and referenced in the article, only two actually attended the rally – myself and Greenville Mayor P.J. Connolly. Mayor Connolly, unlike myself, claimed he didn’t even hear the chant. The others interviewed and emphasized in the article are not supporters of President Trump and did not attend the rally (no surprise). Samar Badwan, the Muslim woman who heads Greenville’s Human Relations Council, for example, said she chose not to join the protest of Trump’s rally but “knew it wasn’t going to be pretty.” Sounds like she has already written Trump off as being someone who is hostile to her community’s interests or her party’s platform. This seems to beg the question – Who is the real hater ?

If I were writing the article, I would have focused on the first-hand accounts of those who actually attended the rally and the views of those supporting the president and then asked those who do not support the president, those who may feel offended by the chant, and those who didn’t attend (thereby relying on secondhand soundbites and the mainstream media’s account of the chant) to respond and comment. The reporter, in this case, chose to approach the article from the opposite point of view.

The article gave in to the “version” of the rally and of the chant that the left (probably fueled by the Democratic Party, Democratic party leaders, and the mainstream media) has come up with – which always, always, always involves some sort of allegation of racism. By giving into the version that the left has decided to promote, USA TODAY has decided to intentionally push a false narrative, to help tarnish Greenville, NC, to create division in our ordinarily close-knit town, and to help the left continue to frame the 2020 election in terms of race and perceived racism from the right.

One specific question asked of me was: “Do you think the chant and its aftermath is dividing the community?”  My answer was clear: “I think the left’s characterization of the chant and the constant promoting of that version by the mainstream media is what is dividing the community – and intentionally so.”

(3)  The article cites a comment I made regarding Mayor Connolly’s statement that he was extremely disappointed and disheartened by hate-filled calls and emails he had received after the rally (including from those who said they would never visit his city). First of all, what I was told about Mayor Connolly was quite different than what was printed. I was told that he said he didn’t hear the chant but then chose to condemn the chant, saying that “hate will never have a place in our community.” According to the account I was told, it sounded like Mayor Connolly didn’t care what the audience meant by the chant and didn’t care to support the more innocent version of the chant but rather immediately caved in to the characterization of that chant by the left. It sounded like he chose to believe it must have been racist (even though he wasn’t actually paying attention during that part of the rally). I did however, follow up with the reporter by explaining in great detail that Mayor Connolly is the most excellent mayor we’ve ever had, telling her all the things he is supporting, explaining his strong ties to the community and his love and loyalty to Greenville. None of that was included in the article.

(4)  The gist of the article was that the chant defined the rally and the crowd who was there to support Trump and it was divisive, mean-spirited, and racist. But none of that is true. The truth is that only a small minority of those in attendance actually chanted “Send Her Home.” The entire section of the arena where I sat (off to the side of the stage), which was a large section, sat quietly and did not engage in the chant. My husband and I looked around and took note of that. In fact, it may even explain why Major Connolly claimed he didn’t hear it. I saw him at the rally (with his wife and small children) and he was having a great time. He was smiling, laughing, and conversing with friends and acquaintances he ran into. The chant was in response to comments by President Trump. He simply quoted her words and especially several of the vile comments she made attacking our country, its policies, its greatest friend and ally in the Middle East (Israel) and defending terrorist organizations and terrorists in particular. I don’t think most people at the rally thought the crowd’s reaction was appropriate response to the incessant anti-American rage that has been spewing from the mouth of Rep. Omar, which is what President Trump reminded the crowd.

Could the chant have been phrased differently? Probably so. But chants are spontaneous, often originating from a single member of the audience and then picked up by those around him or her. As one commentator noted: “It was a political rally – not a church service.” But here is another question: Was Rep. Omar using the platform given to her as a US Congresswoman to comment on US policy from a representative of the US point of view or from a Somalian and radical Islamic point of view? Was she misusing her platform to serve her own ideological motives? Trump’s comments, in a sense, were that if Rep. Omar hates this country so much and is so motivated to berate it at every chance she gets, why is she even here, (“America, Love It or Leave It”). It was not racist and certainly was not meant to suggest that Trump strip a US citizen of her citizenship and send her back to her country of origin. The people who support Trump are extremely patriotic and do not take kindly to people, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN GOVERNMENT, who despise our country and speak badly of her. Anyway, I am upset that the article’s focus was on how the chant reflects badly on Greenville and on Trump supporters instead of offering the truthful explanation of the chant and instead of explaining that our gripe is in the offensive speech that comes out of Omar’s mouth and not in the fact that it is coming out of a Muslim woman’s mouth. Such is the evil-intentioned leftist media.

There is a problem in this country and it’s a serious one. Those on the left, in good part, are incapable of separating message and speech from the color or nationality of the person speaking it. If someone doesn’t agree with the speech spoken by a Muslim woman, it’s because that person is clearly racist against Muslims. Ir someone doesn’t agree with the message spoken by an African-American woman, it’s clearly because that person is racist against people of color. It can never be that the reason those on right disagree with someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum is simply because of the content of the speech. In the minds of those on the left, there must always, always be a more sinister explanation. There must always be some outright or implied racism. There must be some actual or latent racism on the part of the conservative, on the part of the conservative white person. We on the right are so very tired of racism, etc being imputed on us in everything we do, everything we say, and everything we stand for. Racism is simply not there and we’re tired of the manufactured hatred. Clearly, the hatred is coming from the left. We saw how racism is pervasive on the left – we’ve seen it for many years now. When African-American lawyers for the woman who claimed several Duke lacrosse players raped her (a totally false allegation and a HUGE miscarriage of justice, yet she was not punished) imputed guilt on the lacrosse players in the media by claiming: “We all know white boys can’t help themselves around black women,” there was no outrage in the media or in the country over that horribly racist and reckless statement. When Al Sharpton used racial stereotypes against 4 white boys to defend Tawana Brawley (who again, made the totally false allegation that the 4 white boys attacked her), he condemned whites as generally being incapable of not being racist. When President Obama, then Michelle Obama, and then Hillary Clinton publicly stated that white people are incapable of not being inherently racist (even if its subconsciously), no one showed any outrage at the outright racist comment. No one dared to stick up for the white person or for the conservative. To do so would itself have been labeled as “racist.” There has been a steady attack against white culture and a steady condemnation of whites and of conservatives as being inherent racist probably beginning in the 80’s but definitely in the 90’s. I imagine it was part of an intentional progressive agenda to divide our country along racial lines in order to further political goals and social policies. One should always keep in mind that law schools these days are not simply “law schools” but centers for “social justice.” As many lawyers will comment, some of these schools and some of these liberal law professors see racial and social injustice where it doesn’t exist. One such example is in classroom management and school policies to address infractions of the school code, incidents of sexual abuse and violence, and breaking the law or other criminal offenses (such as drug offenses, theft, etc) which social justice warriors now claim are intentionally discriminatory to African-Americans.

There is not a single conservative person that I know here in North Carolina or from back home in New Jersey who has any racist intentions or any racial animus. The people I know and associate with are inclusive, welcoming, color-blind, and tolerant. What we are NOT are tolerant of those who hate our country, who push for policies to erode our freedoms, who condemn policies that keep us safe and secure, or who disparage it for no apparent reason than our country’s values don’t coincide with radical religious values or because our country doesn’t enough for those who sure non-citizens or because our country still hasn’t done enough to make sure that everyone shares in the new definition of “equality” which means that everyone is entitled to “equal outcomes” and that certain people are automatically entitled to the wealth and property of others. We love our country and we love what she stands for. We are proud that she has helped to advance freedom and independence in the world and that she has wrestled countries and peoples from genocidal and oppressive regimes. We are proud that for the most part (except for weak presidents like Carter and Obama and even Clinton, internationally), our country has offered hope to those around the world who are repressed and targeted with violence. This is not to be confused with a policy to allow our border to remain open to all those who want to relocate here, which is an idiotic policy to say the least. Conservatives are principled; they are not racist. There is a big difference. The left just can’t seem to grasp that concept.

I know it isn’t always easy being a reporter and finding a way to report objectively and fairly on an event or an issue, but I will always hold out for honesty and integrity and will expect the same from others. Honest reporting on an event should never be sacrificed in order to advance or promote a political agenda. The first is the reason for the expansive protection given the press by the First Amendment; the latter is not.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

In the Lap of the Gods (ie, federal judges) – Trump’s New Asylum Policy

Asylum Seeks (Fox 8)

(Photo credit: Fox 8)

by Diane Rufino, July 26, 2019

The tyranny of a dysfunctional system that permits plaintiffs to forum shop in order to find a single district judge who will purport to dictate immigration policy to the entire Nation … must come to an end.” — Stephanie Grisham, White House press secretary

Last Tuesday, President Trump’s new asylum policy went into effect. As we all know, the Trump administration has been pursuing meaningful changes to our immigration policy to fight back against the crisis at our southern border – the gross lawlessness and disrespect for our laws, the human trafficking, the drug trafficking, and the influx of violent gangs to prey on our youth. Unfortunately, President Trump been working with a very hostile Democrat-controlled House of Representatives and a very hostile pop culture that views any policy that denies any person anywhere a right to residency in the United States, a right to taxpayer-funded programs, and a right to continue illegality and criminality in our cities and communities as racist and as violative of human rights. But aside from the wall, which is moving forward, the new asylum policy is a forceful attempt to meaningfully cut down on the number of people seeking asylum here in our country.

The new policy requires that any migrant who passes through another country on their way to the United States MUST seek asylum in that country and be denied in order to be considered for asylum in our country. If it is truly about escaping from an oppressive regime in their home country, then once they’ve entered another country, they’ve achieved their goal and they should be happy to take their chances with another country (especially one sharing the same language and very close to their own culture).

Most migrants arriving at our southern border applying for asylum (coming from Central America, Haiti, Cuba, and Africa) necessarily pass through Mexico. They likely also pass through other countries. Why not apply for asylum in Mexico? Isn’t it better than other countries like Haiti (a true shithole of a country), Cuba (poor and oppressive; communist), other poor Central American countries, and many countries in Africa? Mexico isn’t communist. It isn’t a repressive socialist country. And it happens to have the 15th largest economy in the world.

Under the former asylum policy, asylum seekers had to pass a “test” to be considered for asylum status in the US. It used to be an easy test: applicants needed to assert a “credible fear” of remaining in their country – of persecution, violence, genocide, etc. Under this simple test (where the applicant asserts his or her “credible fear” through an interview process), most applicants have been able to pass this hurdle. But under Trump’s new policy, there is a subsequent hurdle. Applicants will now need to show that they have sought asylum in at least one country that they traveled through to get to the US and were denied. Most will fail this second hurdle. Why? Because the real goal of the trip to the US is not about escaping the “credible threat” but about coming here and taking advantage of all the benefits our country offers (especially to those who have no professional skills and are at the poverty level or below). Applicants who fail this second hurdle will be placed on fast-track deportation status. They will be afforded a quick proceeding concerning their application for asylum followed by a flight back home to their country of origin – all at taxpayer expense.

Cuban migrants claim special status because they say that once they leave, they will not be allowed back. They also claim that the first country they arrive at on their way to the US is Nicaragua, a communist country. They certainly don’t want to seek asylum in another communist country. But they don’t explain, and they can’t logically explain, why they can’t seek asylum in Mexico.

Trump’s new asylum policy was immediately challenged by the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), the Southern Poverty Law Center (an anti-white hate group), and other civil liberties groups. These groups technically lack standing to sue – they themselves will not suffer great harm by the new policy. Yet, they filed motions seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) , to block the implementation of the policy. But President Trump defends the policy by saying that immigrants, especially lately, are taking advantage of our nation’s asylum policy and taking advantage of services provided at US taxpayer expense. Trump also acknowledges that these latest groups of migrants (including migrant caravans), which just so happens to have formed since he took office, are being prompted and aided by asylum support groups here in the US (including legal assistance) and by the Democratic Party.

One commentator had this to say about Trump’s new policy: “Most migrants pass through both Guatemala and then Mexico to get to the United States. These migrants are claiming that they need to escape from their home country because of some ‘credible fear.’ Well, once they leave their oppressive home country, they’ve escaped from the oppression. So, is it really about escaping the fear and persecution of their home country or is it more about coming specifically to the US?”

On Wednesday, July 24, a federal judge in DC, District Court Judge Timothy Kelly denied the motion asking for the Temporary Restraining Order. He explained that the groups challenging the policy did not show that their work would suffer “irreparable harm” if the policy went into effect (which is the proper threshold question for such a request). Judge Kelly was appointed to the bench by President Trump.

However, as expected, a federal judge in San Francisco, Judge Jon Tigar, agreed with challengers and went ahead and issued a TRO, putting a hold on the new asylum policy. He issued his ruling also on Wednesday, just hours after Judge Kelly denied the motion in DC. The White House has condemned this ruling, referring to it as an example of “judge shopping.” As White House Press Secretary, Stephanie Grisham commented: “The tyranny of a dysfunctional system that permits plaintiffs to forum shop in order to find a single district judge who will purport to dictate immigration policy to the entire Nation … must come to an end.”

The case will eventually head to the Supreme Court.

The article below, posted on July 25 in the Epoch Times, addresses Judge Tigar’s ruling:

“White House Slams Judge’s Order Blocking Asylum Restriction,” by Petr Svab

On Wednesday, July 24, at the request of activist groups, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco blocked President Trump’s new asylum policy. The new policy is an administrative rule that denies asylum to people who pass through countries where they could apply for asylum on their way to the United States and who have chosen not to do so. According to the new policy, if a migrant passes through any other country before reaching the United States and has NOT applied for asylum in that country and been DENIED, he or she will not be eligible for asylum in the United States.

Just hours earlier, another federal judge in Washington denied a similar request from a different group of plaintiffs.

INJUNCTION POWER  —

The administration has complained for some time about what it calls “activist judges,” whom it accuses of blocking its policies on ideological grounds. “Too many judges believe it is their right, their duty, to act upon their sympathies and policy preferences,” then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in an Oct. 15 speech, calling judicial activism “a threat to our representative government and the liberty it secures.”

Among the specific issues Sessions pointed out were the nationwide injunctions, in which a judge presiding over a local case blocks the executive action in dispute across the nation while the case proceeds through the courts. He explained: “In the first 175 years of this republic, not a single judge issued one of these orders. But they have been growing in frequency and, since President Trump took office less than two years ago, 27 district courts have issued such an order.” Attorney General William Barr voiced a similar concern on May 21, saying “the legal community and the broader public should be more concerned, particularly about this trend of nationwide injunctions.”

In 2018, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in an opinion that nationwide injunctions “are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system….. I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions … If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality.”

Earlier in May, Vice President Mike Pence said the administration will “seek opportunities” to have the Supreme Court review whether district judges have the legal power to issue such injunctions in the first place.

“It’s imperative that we restore the historic tradition that district judges do not set policy for the whole nation,” Pence said.

IMMIGRATION BATTLE 

Judge Tigar ruled in favor of advocacy groups represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for Constitutional Rights.

The policy would have limited exceptions that would allow for asylum: if someone has been trafficked; if an asylum-seeker sought protection in a country but was denied; or if the country the migrant passed through didn’t sign one of the major international treaties that govern how refugees are managed, which most Western countries have signed.

The decision comes as tens of thousands of people wait in Mexico on official and unofficial lists formed after U.S. agents started turning away many asylum-seekers, citing a lack of space and delays in immigration courts. They also include people sent to wait in Mexico while their cases wind through the U.S. immigration process, another Trump policy that has so far survived a legal challenge.

Tigar’s ruling is the latest example of courts blocking Trump’s immigration policies. A court stopped the administration from detaining asylum-seekers without giving them a chance to be released on bond. A judge in Oakland, California, prevented the Trump administration from tapping $2.5 billion in Pentagon money to build border barriers. (The administration has appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court and has asked for a ruling by July 26).

 

Reference: Petr Svab, “White House Slams Judge’s Order Blocking Asylum Restriction,” Epoch Times, July 25, 2019. Referenced at: https://www.theepochtimes.com/white-house-slams-judges-order-blocking-asylum-restriction_3016853.html?ref=brief_News&utm_source=Epoch+Times+Newsletters&utm_campaign=611b5ebe3e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_07_25_06_27&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4fba358ecf-611b5ebe3e-239825589

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Author Gene Kizer, Jr. Defends the South to the Editor of a Charleston, SC Newspaper

GENE KIZER, Jr (2019)  (Photo: Gene Kizer, Jr)

by Gene Kizer Jr, July 12, 2019, with an Intro by Diane Rufino

This post is to give you some FOOD FOR THOUGHT…….

And perhaps even to inspire you to action, which I hope will be to defend our nation’s history and to assert our American First Amendment rights.

We live in trying times… maybe even reminiscent of the years when our country was involved in a quasi-war with France (during John Adams’ administration), when Abraham Lincoln was building his case for the invasion of the Confederate States and then pursing the Civil War, during the Cold War (the Red Scare and the McCarthy hearings), and during the Obama administration (government harassment of Tea Party and other conservative groups, control and politicization of the mainstream media, and illegal spying on the Trump campaign to effect the outcome of the 2016 election). In each of these examples, the American people had their rights to free speech and free press and their rights to conscience and political association violated by the government. These trying times are even reminiscent of the early years of Adolf Hitler, as he schemed to consolidate his power and his plans for a mighty Third Reich in Germany. Government control was all about controlling the message and about controlling how people thought and how they acted. It was mind-control (ie, indoctrination) and dissidents were punished. Germans were kept in line by the armed unit of the Nazi Party (the SS guards… not unlike our modern-day Antifa). Recognizing threats to our liberty and to the foundation of that liberty (ie, the conservative values and principles on which our country was founded, including the limited grants of authority to the federal government through the Constitution and the prohibitions outlined in the Bill of Rights) is the first step in assuming the role our Founders expected of us, which is one of resistance to such threats. Resisting the threats is the surest way to preserve our great country and to re-assert our alienable and other liberty rights.

We live in a dangerous era when progressives are trying to define what is acceptable speech and expression, what is acceptable conduct, and what history should be taught and even recognized in our country. We live in an era where the federal government had previously spent 8 years commandeering the full forces and instrumentalities of government to suppress political opposition, to exonerate political elites/favorites while punishing others, to illegally spy on a presidential campaign in order to find or manufacture ways to sink that campaign in favor of its preferred candidate, and to allow the Swamp to grow in DC to work insidiously day and night to undermine the will and wishes of the American people. We live in an era where political correctness is far more important than free speech, where the right to one’s conscience is non-existent, where those on the left think it’s proper to economically and reputationally destroy a person simply for holding a viewpoint that differs from theirs, where decent people are harassed, bullied, and beaten in public places by mental midgets and intolerants on the left, including Antifa simply for daring to be a conservative or for supporting our current president. We live in an era where history is actively being re-drafted and re-prioritized to align with the indoctrinational views of the progressive left. Confederate statues are being torn down or vandalized. The Confederate battle flag has been demonized and almost decreed a hate symbol. Names of historical figures (mostly Southern antebellum) are being scrubbed from public buildings, universities, and street signs. Even our great Southern Founding Fathers (such as Thomas Jefferson) are being vilified for living their lives in line with the custom of the time (ie, owning slaves – an institution recognized by the federal government and even protected by it). It is unconscionable that historians and professors teach students and our mushy-minded young adults that a man as revered and as important to our founding history as Thomas Jefferson is to be associated with slavery rather than with all the prolific contributions he made to our country and to the world – the Declaration of Independence, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man & of the Citizen (a civil rights document from the French Revolution written as a collaboration between he and the Marquis de Lafayette), the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (addressing both the natural right to one’s conscience and religious affiliation and exercise), the Northwest Ordinance, his influence on the state constitution of Virginia and its Declaration of Rights, his strong influence on James Madison to add a US Bill of Rights, his powerful defense of the “Necessary & Proper” Clause of the Constitution (to strictly confine what powers the government was delegated – going head-to-head with the nationalist/monarchist Alexander Hamilton), his defense of State’s Rights and his brilliant articulation of the doctrine of Nullification, the hundreds of letters he wrote explaining the meaning and intent of the Constitution and providing warnings and advice for future generations, and his creation of the US Library of Congress. While slavery was an (evil) institution practiced in our country, and in fact, was an institution that was firmly entrenched and embraced by almost all countries and colonies of the world at the time, it was NOT a contribution of Jefferson.

As any serious intellectual will tell you, you can’t view our past through the lens of our 21st century standards. The social norms of today are as far away from the social norms of our founding era as possible. The social norms of today are even as far away as possible from the social norms of our country when the great war between the states was fought. As Gene Kizer Jr. makes clear, when you apply current norms or when you view the past through the lens of 21st century standards, you are being intellectually dishonest. You aren’t trying to understand or analyze the past at all. You are simply trying to advance a political or progressive agenda.

With this introduction, please read the article that Gene Kizer, Jr. wrote, which is copied and pasted below:

Defending the South to an editor of the Charleston, SC Post and Courier – by Gene Kizer, Jr., Charleston Athenaeum Press, July 12, 2019

I had some correspondence with an editor of the Post and Courier this week when I sent them a letter for publication in response to their July 6, 2019 editorial “Don’t Let Extremists Define our National Symbols.” As a result, I saw an opening to send some valuable Southern history to this newspaper and I jumped on it.

Their editorial is good in that they are alarmed at Nike removing the Betsy Ross flag, the Charlottesville city council ending a celebration of Thomas Jefferson, and the idiots on the San Francisco school board voting to paint over an 80-year-old work of art portraying the life of George Washington.

The Post and Courier does not want us to validate bad people who attempt to redefine patriotic symbols, but wait! THEY in the media have done exactly that for years ad nauseam! The media is the primary reason we have this politically correct hate and destruction of history in the body politic.

Here is the 250 word letter-to-the-editor that got this started:

START

Your editorial of July 6, “Don’t let extremists define our national symbols” shows that your heart is in the right place but, boy, you need to look in the mirror.

You let the KKK and Dylan Roof define the Confederate battle flag though neither of them has an iota of claim to it.

You put the Southern Poverty Law Center’s disgraceful campaign to remove Confederate monuments on your front page, and you agitate all the time against ancient monuments including the Calhoun monument on Marion Square, and even against the word “Dixie.”

And now you are surprised when Colin Kaepernick and others follow your lead and turn the Betsy Ross flag, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington into vile racists?

The foundation of our great nation was indeed set in 1776 as you write, but it was certainly not “reset in 1865.” It died a violent death in 1865.

In the republic of the Founding Fathers, states were supreme, but after 1865, the Federal Government and Northern majority were supreme, which was the North’s goal all along.

You quote the Gettysburg Address but here’s what the great H. L. Mencken wrote in May, 1920: “The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – ‘that government of the people, by the people, for the people,’ should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves….”.

END

The editor wrote back and asked who the “YOU” was and that gave me my opening:

Actually, the “you” is the Post and Courier, but also the news media in general because so much of the media is of the same political philosophy, which has utterly politicized history in recent decades.

As serious historians know, one can’t apply 21st century standards to the past. When you do that, you aren’t understanding the past at all. You are using it as a current-day political tool.

Your own writer, Robert Behre explained to us on the front page on May 16th why we should hate the word “Dixie” after the College of Charleston in a disgusting fit of political correctness changed the 175-year-old name of Dixie Plantation (“C of C Dumps ‘Dixie’ Name for Plantation”). Behre then implied why we should also hate the song “Dixie” and word “plantation.”

Do you not find it odd that four weeks later on June 15th, the Antifa vandalizers of the Defenders Monument at the Battery also had a large sign that said “DIXIE IS DEAD.”

Maybe they were inspired by Behre and maybe it was just a coincidence, but the Post and Courier is really not fair or accurate with Southern history at all.

You let the KKK and Dylan Roof define the Confederate battle flag though neither of them has an iota of claim to it. The battle flag is, arguably, the greatest symbol of pure American valor our nation has ever produced because it was a soldier’s flag, not a national flag. It flew over the bloodiest battlefields of a war in which 800,000 died and over a million were wounded. It never flew over a slave ship like the US and British flags did for over two centuries. The largest Klan groups of the early 20th century carried the American flag.

Your editorial had mentioned the Declaration of Independence so I wanted to tell you that when Southerners debated seceding in the months before they actually did, the most widely quoted phrase of the secession debate came from the Declaration of Independence:

Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government. . .

And please don’t quote that garbage about States’ Rights being the right to own another person. The Confederate Constitution allowed free or slave states to join.

Five slave states fought for the North throughout the entire war, and the Emancipation Proclamation deliberately exempted them all as well as slaves in most Confederate territory already captured by the Union army.

The one thing that can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt is that the North did not go to war to end slavery. They went to war to preserve the Union, as Lincoln said over and over, because all their wealth and power were tied to the Union. They manufactured for the South and shipped Southern cotton and they made obscene amounts of money with tariffs, bounties, subsidies, monopolies and such, which caused three-fourths of the treasury to flow continually into the North, though most of the money in the treasury came from the South.

When the Cotton States seceded, the Northern economy began a dramatic collapse and by war time, there were hundreds of thousands of people unemployed and a dire situation in the North.

Southerners seceded because they were fed up with Northern hate and support for terrorism such as John Brown and Hinton Helper that Republicans had used to rally their votes in the election of 1860 in which over 60% of voters nationwide voted against Abraham Lincoln.

The War Between the States was one of the most unnecessary wars in all of history but then, from Lincoln’s standpoint, it was necessary for him and his new political party to establish their control over the rest of the country, though 800,000 had to die and over a million be wounded for them to do it.

To Southerners, 1861 was 1776 all over, and we in Charleston can be especially proud because we were never beaten by the Union army or navy. Charleston was unconquered militarily and never surrendered in the War Between the States. It was the only place besieged that did not give way to the besieger. When Confederate troops were ordered to evacuate in February, 1865 to continue the war elsewhere, the city, which had endured one of the longest sieges in history, was turned over to the Union army by a city alderman.

Slavery was dying out and would not have lasted another generation.

It is unconscionable that you maintain this politically correct hatefulness toward Southern history. Maybe you should go back and read your own archives which tell a different story.

Good and decent people are SO fed up with idiotic political correctness. They are fed up with decisions by snowflakes and indoctrinated and otherwise ignorant progressives to, for example, remove the Kate Smith’s monument (she helped win WWII with God Bless America), to have Thomas Jefferson’s birthday cancelled as a paid holiday in his hometown of Charlottesville, to allow a beautiful 80-year-old mural of the life of George Washington to be painted over in San Francisco, and most recently, the Kaepernick/Nike thing over the Betsy Ross flag.

It is disgusting and alarming, as your editorial pointed out. It is like a cancer. It ain’t gonna stop. It needs to be opposed and defeated, which will be hard because one political party is heavily invested in it.

I wish the Post and Courier would give me a chance to write long articles on history as you do with others. Everything I write is solidly argued and documented. It would definitely add to the debate.

Regardless, thank you for letting me send this to you.

Gene Kizer, Jr.

 

***   Gene Kizer, Jr. is the author of the book “Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States.” It’s an excellent, excellent book and I recommend it most highly. I also recommend going to his website – https://www.charlestonathenaeumpress.com/ – and signing up to read his articles. His most recent articles include: “Why the Cotton States Seceded and Formed the Confederate States of America” (July 2, 2019), “Obliterate the Sophism that Confederates Were Traitors” (June 30, 2019), “We Are in a Political Fight and Not a History Debate”(June 29, 2019), “The Absurdity of Slavery as the Cause of the War Between the States” (June 25, 2019), and “Satirical Letter-to-Editor Defending Confederate Monuments” (June 22, 2019).

 

Reference: Gene Kizer, Jr, “Defending the South to an editor of the Charleston, SC, Post and Courier,” Charleston Athenaeum Press, July 12, 2019. Referenced at: https://www.charlestonathenaeumpress.com/defending-the-south-to-an-editor-of-the-charleston-sc-post-and-courier/

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Trump’s Rally in Greenville, NC was a YUGE SUCCESS !!

Donald Trump

(Photo Credit: This photo is the property of Spring Hope Enterprise)

by Diane Rufino, July 19, 2019

On Wednesday evening, July 17, President Donald J. Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence came to Minges Coliseum, home of the ECU Pirates’ men’s and women’s basketball teams, to continue kicking off his 2020 presidential campaign (“Keep America Great!”). VP Pence listed the incredible achievements of our great president and then introduced the man everyone crowed into the arena to see – President Trump (MAGA man) himself – the 45th president of the United States and the only US president to make his daily priority, every single day, the fulfillment of the promises he made to the American people during his 2016 election campaign. “Promises Made, Promises Kept.”

The election of Donald J. Trump was a great moment in history, not simply because of the political movement he helped to galvanize, but because Trump did something that perhaps only one other president dared to do – he told the people he was working towards two fundamental goals – to Make America Great Again (to put America and Americans first) and to hand the government in DC back to those to whom it works for – the American people. Every time I hear President Trump speak, I am reminded of those very critical and historic words he spoke in his Inaugural Address back on January 20, 2017 – a day some liberal reporters hoped would be met with an assassination attempt. He said:

Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.

For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you. It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America. This is your day. This is your celebration.

Indeed, these words were very Jeffersonian, and Thomas Jefferson was the Founder who most clearly and succinctly articulated our founding values and principles, including the inalienable right to a government that serves the people, and especially in the free exercise of their God-given rights and the equal right to “alter or abolish” that government when it becomes too ambitious and ends up frustrating the purposes for which it was established.

President Trump did not disappoint. With the incredible energy that he brings to every rally, he reminded attendees of the great movement in 2016 and of the historic victory on election night. He reminded them of his promises and how he has kept them. The turn-around in our country, the prestige we hold on the world stage, the additions to the Supreme Court and our lower federal courts, the attention to the illegal immigration crisis and the human trafficking and drug trafficking crisis, and the economic successes of all the special groups in the United States is a direct testament to the fact that Trump has committed himself to work for the American people and to address their reasonable expectations as citizens. He promised to expose the Swamp in DC, expose their self-serving back-door schemes, and to drain it, thereby making the federal government more transparent and more accountable to those for who it works – the American People and the individual States.

The most controversial point of the night was when President Trump talked about Rep. Ilhan Omar and all the controversial things she said since being seated in the US House (representing the Minneapolis area). He re-iterated a theme that has been very popular since the 1960’s – “AMERICA: Love it or Leave it.” Bumper stickers with those words were popular, aimed at the discontented youth who (right or wrong) seemed to find a great amount of fault with the United States. Trump expressed his opinion that if Omar has such hatred for this country and has such little respect for this country, and if her feelings run so deep that she is actively seeking to undermine and change the values and policies which have defined our country for a long time, then why did she move here? Why didn’t she stay in her home country of Somalia and work to make changes there? The crowd responded with the chant “SEND HER HOME.”

As you can imagine, this chant became very controversial and the backlash has been utterly ridiculous. People have complained, commenting: “How dare we talk about sending an American citizen back to the country they originally came from.” Please, please, please with the nonsense and the inability to see the chant for what it was – a reference to the theme that Trump led with (if you hate our country, do don’t need to be here. Love it or leave it!). President Trump himself felt a little uncomfortable with the chant, as he commented after the rally, but he understood what the crowd meant. Good and decent American citizens are getting increasingly frustrated and intolerant of those who are here but hate our country and hate what she stands for.

Trump broke stride in his remarks to talk about the upcoming special elections in our state – in the third congressional district (with NC Rep. Greg Murphy) and in the ninth congressional district (with NC Senator Dan Bishop). He introduced both candidates and reminded attendees that he needs them to be elected to fill the respective open seats and to help him further his agenda. Dr. Murphy promised to support Trump in his remarks, and Dan Bishop, in a wonderful entertaining fashion, told the crowd that although there are two candidates running for the seat named “Dan”: “I am the RIGHT Dan!” He also promised to support Trump in Congress.

President Trump recognizes that North Carolina will hold a very important role in the 2020 election, and we can be sure that he will be visiting our great state many more times between now and Election Day 2020. And we will look forward to it.

We will look forward to working hard to keeping our state red and keeping our state supportive our great president. We will also look forward to working hard to getting our Republican candidates, Dr. Murphy and Dan Bishop, elected in our third district and our ninth district, respectively. If we support President Trump and if we truly support his agenda and want to help him further it, we need to elect those who will do his bidding in Congress.

Thanks to all who worked hard to help make the rally an exceptional event. And thank you to all the fine attendees who exhibited such outstanding conduct and showed such caring and compassionate attention to their fellow patriots. Several elderly men and women were stressed, exhausted, and even dehydrated from the extreme heat and the long wait, and the care they received from total strangers (those getting them cold water, a seat, an umbrella, sitting with them) was inspiring.  Our community is truly a loving and caring one.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Charlottesville, Virginia: Demonizing Thomas Jefferson and Continuing the Trend to Foreclose Education and Free Speech

THOMAS JEFFERSON - statue at U-VA

by Diane Rufino, July 6, 2019

On July 2, the Charlottesville (Virginia) City Council voted to no longer recognize Thomas Jefferson’s birthday, April 13, as a celebrated a paid holiday. Charlottesville is the hometown of our country’s most renown Founding Father. It is the home his sprawling hilltop estate, Monticello. In fact, it’s hard to think of Charlottesville, Virginia, without thinking of Jefferson. He was born there in 1743 and he died there, and Monticello was always the place he called home and the place where he found his greatest inspiration and greatest comfort.

Monticello draws almost half a million visitors annually and the town benefits greatly from that tourism.

According to local news, “city officials voted to scrap the holiday in honor of the slave-owning third president of the United States and instead adopt Liberation and Freedom Day, to be celebrated each March 3.” The city council’s decision came just days after James Fields Jr., the 22-year-old driver convicted of killing a woman and injuring dozens of other people at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in 2017, was sentenced to life behind bars.

Jason Hill, a professor at DePaul University in Chicago, said: “I think this was a great man that helped found this country. If we start by retroactively looking at the sins of great figures who have made enormous contributions to western philosophy, we are going to be left with a decimated history.” Professor Hill is an African-American who is not one of those who is unable to review history except thru the lens of slavery. While he refers to slavery as a “birth defect” of the United States, he acknowledges that Jefferson’s legacy, the Declaration of Independence in particular, was ultimately used to freed people from its bonds.

Hill accuses Jefferson of being a flawed man, as evidenced by his ownership of slaves, but his legacy which includes enormous contributions to America far outweighs that single flaw.

It should be mentioned that since slavery was an established institution in the states, and since it was recognized and protected by the Constitution, that almost all of our Founding Fathers from the more southern states and tied to an agrarian economy can be accused of practicing something that was perfectly legal and acceptable at the time. We will be hard-pressed to find any of our Founding Fathers or leading historical figures from any of the southern states who either didn’t own slaves or who didn’t say even something that might be taken as insensitive by today’s civil rights standards. The fact is that today’s hyper-sensitivity to our pre-13th Amendment past prejudices southern historical figures. We cannot judge our forefathers by the social norms of our current times.

What disturbs me, intellectually, aside from the very public snub of the man who gave us our “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” and who gave us the notion of inalienable rights, as opposed to government-granted rights, thereby establishing our American system that values the protection and security of those rights over the longevity of government, is that Chancellorsville choice to observe a far more offensive event. The Charlottesville City Council voted to substitute March 3 – that day in 1865 when Union General Philip Sheridan’s troops entered the town and found a population that was majority African-American (most of them being slaves) – as the new “official holiday.”

Why do I say this event is offensive? First of all, the act of the Northern states, having control of the federal government, attacking, invading, and subjugating the Southern states back into the union was the ultimate act of government tyranny. It was unconstitutional on every single level, including an outright violation of paragraph two of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. The Southern states had duly and lawfully left the union and established an independent and sovereign new nation. The invasion of the South had nothing to do with slavery, as an honest historian and researcher well knows. It was about the North deciding that the union needed the southern states and that an independent Confederate States of America posed great threats to the interests of the North. Virginia did not secede to protect slavery or to maintain slavery; when Virginia finally voted to secede, it was because Abraham Lincoln demanded the state send its share of 750,000 troops to fight its southern neighbors. Virginia, respecting the principles in the Declaration and respecting the understanding the states had when they adopted the Constitution and agreeing to be loosely-held in a union, knew that the Constitution would never sanction the government demanding that one state take up arms against another state. Jefferson, as it turned out, was the most vocal proponent of the proper remedies states are entitled to when they simply no longer get along or find enough common interests – with the most fundamental being secession. After all, the colonies seceded from Great Britain with the Declaration – a secessionist document. [The first paragraph opens up: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…” (ie, It becomes necessary to secede from the government it has been associated with and establish an independence). And the last final paragraph reads: “We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”]

Second, Abraham Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, by executive order, on January 1, 1863. It did nothing to free any slave in the southern states because the southern states had seceded from the union and therefore dissolved its association with the federal government. It was intended as a war measure to incite slave rebellions in the South, and particularly against the women and children who were left home on the farms/plantations (while the men were off fighting). It was an insidious war measure but Lincoln hoped the men fighting would leave the battlefield and go back to their homes and their farms/plantations. What the Emancipation did allow, however, was the freeing of slaves in any territory that the Union forces captured and took control of. This certainly would have been something, right? But the truth is that essentially not a single Union general exercised his discretion to free the slaves. And this was what happened in Charlottesville. While some of the slaves may have used the Union occupation to try to escape their condition, it was not Sheridan who granted them freedom. It was not the Emancipation Proclamation which freed them. Sheridan was a cold killer. After the Civil War, he was given the task of slaughtering the American Indians and moving them off land that the federal government wanted.

So what exactly did the Charlottesville City Council vote to endorse while impugning Thomas Jefferson? They chose to endorse slavery. They chose to endorse the view by the Union that slaves should not be freed, even when agents of that government (Union generals) had the discretion to do so. They chose to endorse the notion that the federal government has the absolute right to order one state to invade, wreak violence, and subjugate another state with whom it disagrees with. They chose to endorse the notion that the federal government is supreme and has the right to subjugate the states to its views and to its whims, including as dictated and coopted by an absolute tyrant.

Charlottesville not only voted to reject Thomas Jefferson but it voted to reject the Declaration of Independence as well.

Virginia sure has come a long way. An how utterly shameful it has become.

In March of this year, some students at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY. called for the removal of a Jefferson statue from the campus, claiming he represented racism and slavery. I find it troubling that they would associate Thomas Jefferson with racism and slavery rather than as the author of the Declaration of Independence or the father to the liberties and rights that they obviously take for granted. I find it troubling that college students are that unintelligent and that uninformed as to our country’s history, although after listening to college students speak these days, I am not surprised.

I am sorry that our country has a checkered history. I am sorry that the British imposed slavery on our colonies and that the colonies embraced the ownership and forced labor of fellow human beings. I am, however, grateful that several of our founders tried very hard to abolish it early on – before we formed our union of states. Truth be told, the very man that modern liberals like to demonize, Thomas Jefferson, had several plans to abolish slavery or at least to minimize it and to transition to freedom. Even prior to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Thomas Jefferson proposed (in 1779) a policy of gradual emancipation, education and training, and possible re-location and colonization as a practical solution to end the legal enslavement of human beings (ie, chattel slavery). He believed education and training were absolutely necessary and must be part of the plan to abolish slavery because liberating people who were unprepared for total freedom would be a recipe for disaster. They would need to be able to support themselves and live in dignity. He wanted Africans to be successful and to build successful black communities. In 1784, Jefferson proposed federal legislation that would ban slavery in the New Territories of the North and South after 1800, which ended up failing to pass Congress by only one vote. In his Notes on the State of Virginia, which he published in 1785, Jefferson expressed the beliefs that slavery corrupted both masters and slaves alike and promoted the idea that African-Americans were inferior in intelligence. Again, Jefferson seemed to be looking out for Africans and not looking to keep them in bondage. In 1807, President Jefferson signed legislation to finally abolish the slave trade to the United States.

I am sorry that today’s liberals are so fragile-minded, so fragile psychologically and emotionally, so intellectually stunted, and so intolerant that the sight of Thomas Jefferson or even the mention of his name shatters their fragility and reduces them to absolute moron-ity. I’m sorry that today’s liberals have taken a position to move our notions of civility backwards in the United States. Modern Americans are the very examples of what our Founders hoped could be avoided by giving individuals a country devoted to freedom (and finally, to equality) and instilling in them the responsibility to defend it. Today’s liberals are mental midgets, more obsessed with a long-dead institution than with the health and stability of our country. I’m sorry that slavery continues to dominate our national discourse and taint our ability to come together to celebrate shared values, shared ideals, and shared dreams. I’m sorry that the history of one particular race continues to dictate what can be discussed, celebrated, acknowledged, taught, or included on plaques, memorialized in statue form, inscribed on buildings, in this country. I’m sorry that certain individuals are completely incapable of seeing things without looking at them through a lens of color.

I wish these individuals, these loud-mouths, these trouble-makers and rubble-rousers, would exercise the same tolerance that they demand of others.

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it guarantee that individuals have a right NOT to be offended or to feel offended, or the right NOT to be confronted by events in history that happen to offend them. In fact, these rights are not even included in the progressives’ version of the Bill of Rights (authored by FDR who referred to it as “The Second Bill of Rights). This “Second Bill of Rights,” pushed so strongly by FDR, then Truman, then LBJ, then Nixon, then Clinton, and then, to some extent George Bush was an attempt by liberal/progressive-minded presidents to mitigate the “evils” that naturally arise in a free market, capitalistic society – one based on competition and ambition and hard work. The results of our American system (the “evils”), as FDR believed, are primarily economic inequality and to a lesser degree, social inequality. This “Second Bill of Rights” includes the “right” to a job, food, a home clothing, healthcare, a good education, and recreation, and the freedom from the “fear” of unemployment, old age, sickness, and unfair competition.

The First Amendment guarantees the right of FREE speech – not sensitive speech, not politically-correct speech, not sanitized speech… but FREE speech. The First Amendment guarantees that every spoken word, every written word, every historical event, every statue, every plaque, every painting, every work of art is an opportunity for discussion and debate. It is an opportunity for more speech. It is always a learning or teaching opportunity – something to sharpen our minds and our understanding, and NOT to foreclose it to views that others, including government, want to dominate.

The sad thing is that there is a group of individuals – a group much larger than the current liberal snowflakes I am referring to above – that has no connection to slavery, has no part in any efforts to discriminate or any past action of discrimination, and has no discriminatory mindset or discriminatory heart, but who absolutely loves this country, recognizes its history (both good and bad), and values the lessons we had to learn as a fledgling nation predicated on the equal rights of man. Our entire history has made us the country we are today, for good or for bad – but always as a subject for discussion and political views. I am a second or third generation American, depending on whether you look from my mother’s side of the family or my father’s. My family came to the United States from Italy prior to WWI, with little money in their pockets and with no safety net or entitlements to help them. Italians in the day were not a popular ethnic group and as our immigration laws in the 1920’s showed (set limits on the number of immigrants from Italy to limit their population in the US) and as employment signed showed (“No Italians need apply”), they were generally not welcome. But Italians don’t languish over their mistreatment; rather, they quickly became one of the most patriotic and loyal of ethnic groups

The people that I know and that I associate with (mostly white since I am a white woman) do not possess the thought process that says that just because a person has a different skin color, he or she is of a different worth or has less dignity as a human being. We often don’t possess the thought process that directs us to review and scrutinize everything we write and say to make sure that absolutely nothing can be misconstrued, mistaken, or twisted into showing us to be discriminatory or to be otherwise insensitive to others. It’s because we come from a place where we don’t discriminate and we don’t set out in any way, shape, or form to be insensitive to others. Most of us are like this because of our deep foundation in religion. We respect one another because we are taught to love one another; strong communities are founded on mutual respect and a fondness for one another. The problem is that our current culture of racial divide, the constant flinging of the terms “racist” and “white supremist” are imputing on well-intentioned white people a tendency – always a tendency, as President Obama, Michele Obama, and Hillary Clinton publicly stated – to be these terrible things and to inherently look down on black people. It’s not fair to the vast majority of white persons and this problem needs to be addressed. Something needs to done to protect white people and their free exercise of the First Amendment, without the automatic presumption of discrimination.

Maybe we’ve dwelled on slavery and on past discrimination for too long. Maybe we’ve retreated to political correctness for too long to avoid honest conversations about the state of race relations and the effect of history on our current status. Perhaps we’ve allowed African-Americans, too fragile to think outside the “slavery and discrimination” box, to control the dialogue for too long. Thomas Sowell once said: “When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.” Maybe for once we should really trying treating everyone as equals rather than as special.

It is a true denial of the free speech rights of others and an exercise of true intolerance when certain individuals refuse to see things without looking at them through a lens of color. How far can it go? I think the Charlottesville city council vote is one example. In their myopathy, they chose to discard Thomas Jefferson in favor of another form of acceptance of slavery and in favor of government tyranny. Of course, the war against Confederate monuments and leaders is another example.

In closing, I want to emphasize again that I wish today’s liberals and race mongers would exercise the same tolerance that they demand of others.

 

- 000000000000000000000000000000 (July 7, 2019) (3)

 

Reference: “Charlottesville Will No Longer Celebrate Thomas Jefferson’s Birthday in His Virginia Hometown,” FOX News. Referenced at: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/charlottesville-will-no-longer-celebrate-thomas-jeffersons-birthday-in-his-virginia-hometown-report

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments