VIDEO Well, As Long as We’re Demolishing “Racist” Statues… – Erasing Dem Party’s Fingerprints on History

Democrat’s Cornucopia of Racism

Well, As Long as We’re Demolishing “Racist” Statues…

Aug 17, 2017 By 

As long as the Left is determined to tear down historic symbols of racism, I say we help them out and point them toward some statues and portraits of real racist scumbags.  The country has any number of former Democrat racist “worthies” that will fit the bill quite nicely.

A hat tip here to the actor James Woods for suggesting that we tear down a statue of the late Democratic Senator Robert Byrd.  Seems to me that Byrd, who was once an “Exalted Cyclops” in the Ku Klux Klan (a position that the reviled Robert E. Lee never dreamed of holding) is a prime candidate for black racists to scrub from history.  Byrd, the so-called “Conscience of the Senate” once filibustered for 14 hours against civil rights for blacks.  Why aren’t blacks demanding that statues honoring him be removed?

What about the late Democratic governor and presidential candidate George Wallace?  “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!”  I don’t know about any statues, but there’s a big ol’ painting of him in the Alabama State Capitol Building in Montgomery.  As an extra bonus/incentive to anyone who might be inclined to visit there’s a “stars ‘n’ bars” flag painted in the background.There’s Democratic icon President Woodrow Wilson.  This racist believed that black slaves were by and large a happy bunch (perhaps even a bit spoiled).  He spelled it out for those of us ignorant of this “fact:” “…Domestic slaves…and almost all who were much under the master’s eye, were happy and well cared for.”  Sho nuff Massa Wilson.  Those who beg to differ with President.Wilson will find a plethora of statues, paintings and whatnot to direct their attention toward.

The perception that black slaves had it good (lucky devils) seems to have been widely shared among Democrats.  For example, the following quote is from Democratic Senator John C. Calhoun.  He is comparing the “benign and fortuitous circumstances” of black slaves in America, with less fortunate and destitute poor free whites in Europe.

I believe when two races come together which have different origins, colors, and physical and intellectual characteristics, that slavery is, instead of an evil, a good, a positive good

…I may say with truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age. Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe–look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse. [bold added]—John C. Calhoun, Democratic Senator from South Carolina, seventh Vice President of the United States.  From comments made on the US Senate floor February 6, 1837

Cornucopia of Racism

Those Democrats…always looking out for the welfare of others—plus ça change, plus cest la meme chose, nest ce pas?  There are several statues of John C. Calhoun available for perusal should you happen to disagree with the late Democratic Senator’s take on things.

Well that’s enough from me.  I just wanted to help out a bit and get folks headed in the right direction.  If you want to find statues and paintings honoring racists, then I recommend researching Democratic politicians, especially prior to the mid-1960s.  It’s a cornucopia of racism.  I promise you will not be dissapponted

Students asks D’Souza to prove the Democrats’ racist history

The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party

Assault against history goes way beyond the confederacy. It has become identity politics on steroids. The way to destroy liberty is to destroy the history, especially if the hero in history is a dead white European male. . .

Erasing Democrat Party’s Fingerprints on History

Aug 17, 2017 By 

The liberal left’s desire to tear down any and all memories of the Confederate States of America is reaching a crescendo.  Statues are being torn down.  State flags are being redesigned and burned.  According to the Democrats, and their Black Lives Matter brethren, all vestiges of the dark time when the Southern States practiced slavery must be stricken from the record.

There’s an old saying. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.  You can’t truly erase history.  Shouldn’t we seek to learn from it.

The goal is complete erasure of the sins of the Democrat Party

In truth, the leftists’ crusade is not about erasing history as much as it is about erasing the historical sins of the Democrat Party’s past.

The goal is complete erasure of the sins of the Democrat Party, and the true history of liberty and equality of the Republican Party.  It is the progressive left’s goal to eventually have the mobs convinced that it wasn’t even the Republican Party that was the political party which was created to abolish slavery, in the first place.

Google has already begun the effort.  If you Google “What political party did Abraham Lincoln belong to,” the answer you will get from Google is “National Union Party” (see image to the above-left), not the Republican Party (Abraham Lincoln was the first GOP president).

The mob reminds me of the Nazis and communists, acting under the cover of darkness seeking to do what they can to erase anything that does not make their ideology look great.  They seek to take down any statues or monuments depicting individuals who were connected to the Confederacy.  It’s like the Muslims wanting to take down the Great Pyramids, and other historical sites, because it’s not Islamic.  Except, there is a difference.  The Democrats don’t want to take down all remnants of the Confederacy because its not in line with the belief system of their party; they want to take down all remnants of the Confederacy because every last piece of it is a reminder of who the Democrats truly are.  They are the party of slavery.  They are the party of the KKK.  They are the party of Jim Crow Laws.  They are the party of bondage and authoritarianism.  They want their history erased so that they can remake it in a new false image.  A false image they’ve been trying to push since the sixties, but one that only the ill-informed has fallen for.

Bondage is through government dependency

The pawns, the tools, the idiots who fall for the Democrat Party rhetoric cheer when images of the confederate flag, confederate statues, and confederate monuments are taken down and destroyed.  They cheer, not even realizing that the ones they follow in the Democrat Party are not only the ones connected to slavery in our past, but to bondage in our present … it’s just that now, the bondage is through government dependency.

In other words, the Democrat Party Plantation still exists, but instead of the slave-master being a rich southern Democrat plantation owner, the slave-master is now a rich Democrat politician.

In addition to hiding the Democrat Party’s historical connection to slavery, the cleansing is also a direct attack on the South.  The South used to be solidly Democrat, but now that the once Confederate pro-slavery, pro-Democrat southern States have abandoned the Democrats, the leftists have determined the South must pay the price for their betrayal.

In the latter part of the twentieth century the southern States began to finally take advantage of manufacturing and production, and as the free market took off in the South, by the late nineties they were ready to start voting Republican (the Southern Strategy/Dixiecrat shift is a myth, by the way) because when it comes to capitalism, it turns out that like the communists, the Democrats hate the free market economy.  So, since the South has become economically prosperous chasing the American Dream, and have abandoned the Democrats, the Democrats have determined the South must be whipped into submission.  What better way to do that then to wipe out any pride Southerners should have in their heritage?  It’s the same strategy as we are seeing at the colleges.  Anything European is being demonized. The left is pushing the “white privilege” concoction from their cauldron of steaming racism, and they are using the strategy so as to rewrite history through their own vision of hard left socialist progressive religiosity.

The snowflakes demand safe spaces and free speech zones

because political correctness dictates that all things not progressive is offensive and hurtful.

The thing is, it won’t last.  Eventually, liberty will reveal itself to them, and the Democrats will reveal how dark and tyrannical they truly are.

Either that, or true tyranny will take place and anything that disagrees with the Democrats will be silenced, jailed, and eventually executed gestapo-style.

The Democrats don’t care about the Constitution, or Americanism.  It’s about power, and they are willing to do anything it takes to gain it.

As for the assault against history, it goes way beyond the confederacy.  It has become identity politics on steroids.  The way to destroy liberty is to destroy the history, especially if the hero in history is a dead white European male. . .

My buddy John L. Hancock tells a story in his Distortion of History presentation about how the confrontation visited Alfred University way back in 1991:

In the fall of 1991, the relatively small and quiet university of Alfred University in New York State was engrossed in controversy.  Indignant professors led students in protests, heated debates raged throughout the divided campus, editorials filled the school and local papers. At the heart of the controversy was the newly-installed statue of King Alfred, the medieval English monarch after whom the town and school was named. Ten years prior, when the monument was commissioned, no one could foresee the controversy it would eventually cause. Yet, its placement offended the sensibilities of the university’s history professors.

By the strong and negative reaction one would think that Alfred must have been a tyrant, an oppressor of his people, a man deserving of the title Alfred the Terrible. Surprisingly, it is the opposite that that is true.

From 871 to 899, Alfred was the King of Wessex, one of the four kingdoms that would eventually become England. During his reign he revived the tradition of learning that had died with the fall of the Roman Empire. He required all of his nobles be literate and increased their education by translating the great Latin texts into English. Additionally, he has the honor of being the first king in English history to write a book, preceding King James by eight centuries. Thus, he is known as the “education king.”

More significantly, for the first time, English law would be written and would establish the tradition of England being a land ‘ruled by laws’ rather than by the whims of powerful men. Within these laws we find the genesis the principles of due process, trial by jury, and respect for the individual; no matter how lowly. His laws protected the commoner from arbitrary and excessive punishment. Even slaves were protected by his laws. There were limits on the number of hours they could be forced to work and were granted 37 work-free holidays per year. Furthermore, the slaves were allowed to work on their own behalf and retain all proceeds from their endeavors. Through the church, Alfred created a system that fed the poor and provided them with medical care.

For the 9th century, Alfred was a very enlightened king who was loved by his people and for this reason he is the only king in English history to be bestowed the moniker “the Great.” Alfred the Great, the father of England and education king.

So why would the history professors be opposed to a memorial to this great proponent of education?

The truth is that the opposition to Alfred had more to do with what he symbolizes rather than actual history. Linda Mitchell, who specializes in Medieval history, was one of the protesting professors. As she explained in a New York Times interview, Alfred “is not a good logo to promote a modern university because virtually any historical figure who had any social or political influence is undoubtedly going to be a D.W.E.M.—dead white European male,” she said, “it would be foolish to choose a symbol so exclusive and effective in emphasizing the straight white male power structure of history.”

For Alfred, being a DWEM (Dead White European Male) means that his great achievements are to be ignored because they do not fit into the ideologically-driven, anti-Western civilization, revisionist history that is currently being taught in schools.

Sadly, Alfred U is not the only place in academia where the truth is sacrificed to the ideology of leftism.

Herman Cain on Hannity, explaining who’s really behind all the racial animus

Aug 17, 2017 By 

There’s a part of me that wants to just stop talking about this. People are getting so angry with each other, to the point where people who should know better are actually accusing other people of being Nazi sympathizers because they think all parties bore some responsibility for what happened in Charlottesville. When things get to that point it sort of seems like we all need to take a break.

But you can’t, really, because in the midst of such tumult, someone has to bring some truth – especially when there are people who are pushing this intentionally because it’s part of an agenda. So take it away, boss:

He’s right about the how the media and the Democrats keep moving from narrative to narrative trying to make something stick, although I don’t think it’s simply a matter of “let’s try racism this week.” There’s been a notion within the left and the media that Trump is a racist ever since he started running for president. When the white supremacists demonstrated in Charlottesville, the Trump statement on the matter was scrutinized the way another president’s wouldn’t be – and the unspoken reason was that the media think they can sell Trump as a racist, or even as a Nazi sympathizer.

So when Trump condemned hatred and bigotry, they had to find a way to say it wasn’t enough. “He didn’t mention them specifically by name!”

It was dishonest and idiotic to think that was required, since everyone could see who he was condemning. So fine, he came out and condemned them specifically by name two days later. But in making that statement he did not back off, nor did he need to, the assertion that all sides were responsible for the violence.

Then we came to Monday, when Trump calls a press conference to talk about infrastructure. When it’s time to take questions, the media don’t want to talk about infrastructure. They want to talk about Charlottesville, and Trump once again says what he’s been saying since Saturday – and they go ballistic.

The sad thing here is that Trump is not and should not be the story, and it’s not his fault that he’s become the story. There was nothing wrong with what Trump said on Saturday, or on Sunday, or on Monday. They were all true statements.

There was a lot wrong with the violence on Saturday in Charlottesville, and if we had a serious media in this country, they’d be delving into that instead of trying to pin the whole thing on a president who wasn’t even involved with it and has done nothing but condemn the people they want you to think he sympathizes with.

Now we’ve got people on social media accusing each other of being Nazi sympathizers for not buying this media narrative. I really wish we could just talk about something else, but when things get this heated and irrational, someone has to say what’s true.

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

VIDEO Our New Reality, To RT On Barcelona Carnage


“Each month we’re discovering that this could happen in a new country, in a new place, in a new town.”

‘People must open eyes to new reality’: Experts to RT in wake of Barcelona carnage

Aug 18, 2017

High-profile acts of terrorism similar to the those in Spain on Thursday night is effectively a new reality in the modern world, and no country can ensure enough protection against it, security experts told RT in the aftermath of the Barcelona attacks. 

The terrorist attack left 13 people dead and 100 injured when a van was deliberately driven into pedestrians on La Rambla, one of Barcelona’s most popular and overcrowded boulevards. Seven people were injured in a separate attack in a town of Cambrils, 120km away.

The Barcelona carnage is yet another incident in a growing string of lone-wolf attacks that have ripped through major European cities over the past two years. Nice, Berlin, London and Stockholm have all suffered attacks of this kind, indicating that all-round security may have become a luxury in today’s world.

“People have to open their eyes – two weeks ago it was Germany, last week it was France, this week Spain. No country – we’re talking Europe but there were similar attacks elsewhere, in Maghreb, in the Middle East – can say it’s safe from such an attack today,” political analyst Nikola Mirkovic told RT.

The phenomenon is so widespread that “each month we’re discovering that this could happen in a new country, in a new place, in a new town,” Mirkovic added.

“The London Mayor Sadiq Khan said we have to get used to this, the French President Emmanuel Macron said the same thing – and unfortunately they seem to be right.

“How do you fight, how do you stop someone ramming a van or a truck into a crowd?” Mirkovic asked. “This is extremely difficult, but they do have to be prepared.”

Product of West’s wars in Middle East.

Dan Glazebrook, a British political writer, noted the new reality is very much the product of the wars the West had been waging in the Middle East.

“The UK has issued a statement they stand side by side with Spain against terror. This is not the first time the UK and Spain have stood side by side,” Glazebrook remarked.

“They stood side by side in 2003 alongside the US invasion of Iraq, and it was that invasion that unleashed this process of handing over ever largest swaths of territory to Al-Qaeda and ISIS [Islamic State or IS]… This process has continued right up to date in Libya, Syria and now, Yemen,” he added.

Migrant flows make Spain weak spot of Europe

Former MI5 intelligence officer Annie Machon said the very fact that IS has claimed responsibility for the Barcelona attack “raises the idea that Spain is also one of the key points of access to Europe now for migrants and refugees coming from the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa.”

Geographic proximity to major migration lanes “seems to have turned into a weak spot of the EU,” Machon said.

She added that terrorism could possibly become commonplace given the latest developments.

“I think this is a new reality, yes, there’s no getting away from it across Europe – this could happen anywhere.”

In addition, she said, Barcelona, which is “a boiling kettle of Catalonia,” is on its way to the landmark vote on secession from Spain. “So there are a number of political and economic issues at play here in Spain and the rest of the EU.” 

Commenting on emerging reports that the suspect had already been on police’s radar, Machon said “it represents one of the general security issues at the moment in the Western world.” She added that security agencies across the world are capable of collecting intelligence on high-profile lone-wolf terrorists, but they often fail to carry out pre-emptive action.

“What they have is just big database stuff,” she said, adding the problem is rooting in the bulk of information intelligence agencies cannot process alone.

“It is no the intelligence work, but the police work.”

Corey Stewart Has Testy Exchange with CNN’s Chris Cuomo


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

VIDEO Dana Loesch’s NRA Ad Attacking New York Times Understates Its Dishonesty

August 8, 2017 by  


Dana Loesch, the conservative radio talk-show host and spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association (NRA), voiced the anger of many citizens that the mainstream media, specifically the New York Times, has moved from reporting the news to faking the news to promote its own agenda. In the latest video produced by the NRA that hit the wires on Thursday, she expressed that anger:

We’ve had it with your constant protection of your Democrat overlords, your refusal to acknowledge any truth that upsets the fragile construct that you believe is real life.

And we’ve had it with your pretentious, tone-deaf assertion that you are, in any way, truth or fact-based journalism.

She said that she and the NRA would “fisk” — scrutinize carefully for accuracy — everything that the Times writes. During an interview on The Story on Fox News on Tuesday, Loesch explained:

With this particular ad campaign [by the NRA], the whole point is to show the media and announce to the press that [a] free people also have the right to criticize and fact-check the press. That’s why I use the word fisk because apparently the New York Times was completely unaware of a free people’s [right] to fact-check the press, particularly when this is the press that has falsely maligned so many people for so long.

What much of the media missed was the rest of her attack:

We’re going to fisk the New York Times and find out just what “deep rich” means to this old gray hag, this untrustworthy dishonest rag that has subsisted on the welfare of mediocrity for one, two, three decades. We’re going to laser focus on your so-called “honest pursuit” of truth. In short, we’re coming for you.

She could have, and have perhaps should have (except for the limitations placed on a 53-second commercial), used the phrase “promotion of treason against the United States” in place of “welfare of mediocrity”  and “generations” in place of “decades.”

For that is what the “old gray hag” — a reference to days long past when the Times was reverently referred to as The Gray Lady — has been promoting since at least the 1930s.

The Times’ bias and history of false reporting is legendary. A simple Google search for “Jayson Blair” will uncover the episode where Times’ reporter Blair was fired for plagiarism and fabrication in 2003. Or Google “Duke University lacrosse” for details on how the Times jumped to the conclusion that the players were guilty long before they were in fact proven innocent. So blatant was the bias of the Times, in fact, that authors of Until Proven Innocent concluded that “at the head of the guilt-presuming pack, the New York Timesvied in a race to the journalistic bottom.”

Or one could Google the more recent bias exposed by the Times’ attempt to marginalize Bernie Sanders while touting its favorite candidate, Hillary Clinton. So outrageous was the bias that Times’ public editor Margaret Sullivan was forced to admit it:

The Times has not ignored Mr. Sanders’ campaign, but it hasn’t always taken it very seriously. The tone of some of the stories is regrettably dismissive, even mocking at times. Some of that is focused on the candidate’s age, appearance and style, rather than [on] what he has to say.

But for damning evidence of the Times’ promotion of evil by either calling it good or by ignoring the evil altogether, one need only Google “Walter Duranty.”

Duranty’s deliberate and intentional coverup of the Ukrainian starvation in the 1930s known as Holodomor ordered by Soviet Dictator Joseph Stalin took years to come to light. And when it did, along with the massive generational damage it caused, the Times issued a polite disclaimer instead of a full-on apology for keeping this pro-Soviet propagandist on its payroll for years afterward.

Holodomor was a Stalin-ordered starvation of the Ukrainian people for political purposes that resulted in a catastrophe paralleling the Holocaust: Between seven and 10 million citizens were deliberately starved to death by the dictator. Wrote Duranty in March 1933: “Conditions are bad, but there is no famine.” And then added, “But — to put it brutally — you can’t make an omelet [a soviet “paradise”] without breaking eggs.”

Months later, while Ukrainians were dying on the streets and sidewalks (chilling photos are available on the Internet), Duranty wrote, “Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.”

For his efforts he received the Pulitzer Prize, damning that group to infamy as well for its part in promoting the false narrative.

As the truth came to light, pressure was brought to bear on the Times to refute Duranty’s articles as propaganda for the murdering Soviet dictator and to force the Pulitzer Prize board to withdraw its award. Wrote the Times in its limp-wristed, half-hearted “acknowlegement”:

Duranty, one of the most famous correspondents of his day, won the prize for 13 articles written in 1931 analyzing the Soviet Union under Stalin. Times’ correspondents and others have since largely discredited his coverage….

Some of Duranty’s editors criticized his reporting as tendentious, but the Times kept him as a correspondent until 1941.

Since the 1980s, the paper has been publicly acknowledging his failures. Ukrainian-American and other organizations have repeatedly called on the Pulitzer Prize board and the Times to return it, mainly on the grounds of his later failure to report the famine.

The board refused to acknowledge its error, finding “no clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception” on the part of Duranty, and the Times said it couldn’t return the prize given to him because it “does not have the award in its possession.”

The damage done to Western civilization by Duranty’s efforts to deceive can scarcely be overestimated. In his book Harvest of Sorrow, historian Robert Conquest wrote:

As one of the best known correspondents in the world for one of the best known newspapers in the world, Mr. Duranty guiled not only the readers of the New York Times but because of the newspaper’s prestige, he influenced the thinking of countless thousands of other readers about the character of Josef Stalin and the Soviet regime.

And he certainly influenced the newly-elected President Roosevelt to recognize the Soviet Union.

Stalin was then able to secure financing for his failing dictatorship, thus continuing it and its atrocities for decades into the future.

Dana Loesch no doubt knows all this treacherous history of the New York Times. She was mostly likely unable to cram all of it into a 53-second commercial.

Photo of Dana Loesch: Gage Skidmore

An Ivy League graduate and former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

VIDEO Story Is NOT Trump! – ‘Country being ripped apart’ by monument removals – 2 Bushes, Hatch Support – Spoke Truth


The Story Is NOT President Trump!


The media makes Trump the story.    Certainly they do!   Their mission is not to report news, if it was they’d show what really is behind the riots.   Their mission is to continue to tear down Trump, find a way to get him removed from office.   Blame him for everything, anything.   Hell, Trump is the cause for litter along Interstate 70, just because it’s there.    Riots, Trumps fault, because damn it, it happened!   Trump drove that car that killed that woman in Charlottesville.  Trump is vandalizing monuments, not some illiterate group of thugs.

The Media shows the video, the pictures…….. its real evidence.   Then they accuse Trump, like he created all this.    According to the Main Stream Media the world and the U.S. were just fine, until Trump came along.   The only world Trump is ruining is theirs.

What you see in the cities, in the streets IS CIVIL WAR.    Opposing groups fighting one another from these United States.    There is no civility, nothing united, not one, not two but multiple groups.    Each fighting for their own purpose with one common denominator ……….HATE, and they don’t even know why they hate except the others color is wrong, or religion isn’t their religion.   The KKK, Nazi’s, and Black Lives Matter and who knows who else, all have that one ugly characteristic………hate for anyone different.    This didn’t start over a Confederate statue, this is from deterioration of society, failure of society,  parental failure, school failure, church failure, GOVERNMENT FAILURE.   Every facet of society is failing.   We have pulled away from God and we are collapsing.

What is going on today is worse than civil war, it’s a chaotic free-for-all.   We can not be a united nation before the world when we are divided at home.   Division?  Think about it, who supports division in America…………. ISIS, Terrorists, Russia, North Korea……….they’re all smiling, laughing along with George Soros………and in my opinion Barack Obama.


Trump: ‘Country being ripped apart’ by monument removals

Aug 17, 2017 By Cody Derespina

President Trump on Thursday refused to back down from critics who’ve ripped him for failing to condemn protests surrounding the removal of Confederate monuments, doubling down on his belief the statues should stay and questioning if the progressive movement would turn on America’s Founding Fathers next.

In the aftermath of a deadly car attack Saturday — following clashes at a largely white nationalist rally protesting the University of Virginia’s plan to remove a statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee — Trump bemoaned the accelerated effort by many on the left to take down other symbols of the Confederacy.

“Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments. You can’t change history, but you can learn from it. Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson – who’s next, Washington, Jefferson? So foolish!” Trump wrote in several tweets.

He added: “Also the beauty that is being taken out of our cities, towns and parks will be greatly missed and never able to be comparably replaced!”

Trump’s remarks echoed those he made during a controversial news conference at Trump Tower on Tuesday. While Trump condemned members of white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups who were present during the Charlottesville protests, he also contended that not all of the demonstrators “were neo-Nazis, believe me.”

“Many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee,” Trump said Tuesday. “So this week, it is Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

Following the weekend incident in Virginia, the city of Baltimore took down four Confederate statues in the middle of the night on Wednesday. A day earlier, several people in North Carolina pulled down a Confederate statue. Four people were eventually arrested in that episode.

Trump Spoke Truth About ‘Both Sides’ In Charlottesville, And The Media Lost Their Minds

The media behavior in the wake of this press conference was arguably something new, a sort of grotesque watermark of the media’s coverage of the Trump administration thus far.

Aug 17, 2017 By 

Our media have a problem: they are essentially incapable of covering Donald Trump with anything less than full-on deranged hysteria.

I do not say this as an excess of rhetoric or op-ed theatrics. It is a very real, very pressing problem, only getting worse, and it poses a significant danger to the social fabric of the United States. Twenty-first century American media has the ability to shape our discourse and shift our public consciousness, and it is abusing that power in the worst ways possible. This is likely a bigger problem than any of us realizes.

The last 48 hours provided a crystal-clear example of the genuinely dangerous course upon which the media have set themselves. At Trump Tower on Tuesday, President Trump held a press conference that was initially supposed to be about infrastructure but quickly went off-script and became about the Charlottesville neo-Nazi madness.

By itself this is nothing new: Trump regularly goes off-script, if it can even be said that he has a script. But the media behavior in the wake of this conference was arguably something new, a sort of grotesque watermark of the media’s coverage of the Trump administration thus far.

The furor surrounding the press conference stemmed largely from one particular line Trump delivered. When one reporter asked about his claim that there had been “hatred [and] violence on both sides,” Trump replied: “Well I do think there’s blame. Yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at both sides. I think there is blame on both sides.”

Media Immediately Jets Into Astral Orbit

With that unremarkable assertion, the media were off. “HE STILL BLAMES BOTH SIDES,” CNN blared in enormous font on its front page. In a headline, The New York Times blared that Trump “again blames ‘both sides.” So did the Chicago Tribune. So did NBC News. So did U.S. News and World Report (calling it “an insane press conference” to boot).

So did NPR. So did CBS News. So did the Washington Post. So did the Wall Street Journal. So did Time. So did MSNBC. So did USA TodayNBC News later wondered: “Has Trump Lost His Moral Authority for Good?” CNN continued with the massive headlines, calling Trump’s press conference “a meltdown for the ages,” and declaring: “Trump is who we feared he was.” Vox claimed Trump “is offering comfort to racists and extremists.”

The unambiguous implication of this media firestorm is obvious: we are supposed to see it as outrageous at best and morally abhorrent at worst that Trump would claim that “there is blame on both sides.” The thing is, Trump was telling the truth. There is blame on both sides. And we have eyewitness descriptions and photograph evidence to back it up.

Truth Is Truth, People

Trump appears to separate the generalized violence of that Saturday afternoon from the vehicular homicide a white nationalist perpetrated on Charlottesville’s mall near the end of the whole affair. In the press conference, Trump stated in no uncertain terms: “The driver of the car is a murderer. What he did was a horrible, inexcusable thing.”

It is, rather, the periodic violence that occurred throughout Charlottesville’s downtown area to which Trump was apparently referring. And he’s right: both sides committed violence on that day.

We know this because people there saw it happen and have confirmed Trump’s characterization publicly. New York Timesreporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg, for one, attested: “The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right,” she tweeted. “I saw club-wielding ‘antifa’ beating white nationalists being led out of the park.” If there were any doubt as to whether the Left were committing violence that day, Stolberg later clarified: “[I] should have said violent, not hate-filled.”

I did not notice any wall-to-wall coverage of Stolberg’s unambiguous eyewitness testimony. Did you?

Another eyewitness report comes from Isabella Ciambotti, a creative writing major from the University of Virginia. Speaking to The New York Times, Ciambotti testified that at one point “a counterprotestor ripped a newspaper stand off the sidewalk and threw it at alt-right protesters.” Photographic evidence confirms Ciambotti’s account.

Raw footage of the moment the counterprotestor threw the box is inconclusive but strongly suggests the counterprotester was unprovoked at the time. Further raw footage shows counterprotesters hurling objects at white supremacists and neo-Nazis while the latter simply stand there a good distance apart from the crowd.

Ciambotti also claims to have witnessed “another man from the white supremacist crowd being chased and beaten.” Additionally she saw “a much older man, also with the alt-right group, [who] got pushed to the ground in the commotion. Someone raised a stick over his head and beat the man with it.” Ciambotti claims to have intervened before the beating could continue further.

Ciambotti further asserts:

There were absolutely groups of peaceful protesters in Charlottesville this past weekend, many making a mature show of resistance. But what I saw on Market Street didn’t feel like resistance. It felt like every single person letting out his or her own well of fear and frustration on the crowd.

These People Don’t Have Strong Motivations to Lie

Both Stolberg and Ciambotti can fairly be seen as credible witnesses. Ciambotti, in particular, affirms she was a part of the counter-protest, yet she directly attests to the violent nature of the liberals who gathered in Charlottesville that day.

Additionally, Charlottesville police chief Al S. Thomas Jr. has affirmed that the protest saw “mutually combative” individuals on both sides. If the police chief who oversaw the mayhem is affirming Trump’s basic premise, might we assume that Trump is onto something?

It is not unreasonable to blame “both sides” of protesters that day. Yes, the neo-Nazis and white supremacists showed up preaching vicious hate, ugliness, and stupidity. Many were armed to the teeth while doing it.

But liberal protesters showed up armed, as well, and we have unequivocal testimony and footage proving that they committed unprovoked violence that day. This was not a gentle counter-protest of “passive resistance;” the Left did not show up to downtown Charlottesville to practice civil rights-style non-violent activism. They had fighting on their mind. And they fought.

There Was Plenty to Legitimately Criticize Here

The fact that our media dedicated an entire news cycle to Trump’s truthful statement on the matter is staggering. This was not necessary. There were plenty of things the media could have criticize in Trump’s press conference. He asserts, for instance, that “very fine people” marched with the white supremacists and Nazis, people “that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue.”

We have newsmakers whose only professional function these days seems to be whipping tens of millions of people into angry, irrational frenzies.

Maybe this is true, but there is no evidence that the statue protest was made up of anything other than paranoid racists. Trump should not have made this statement unless he was willing to provide proof to back it up.

Yet he also told the press: “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.” This, according to Vox, constitutes Trump “offering comfort to racists and extremists.”

Trump makes a lot of mistakes. Some are minor, some major. In that, he is like every president who has ever held the position. Sometimes he gets things right, too—-as he did blaming the Charlottesville street violence on “both sides.”

The media’s responsibility, if it even cares anymore, is to learn how to tell the difference between the things he does right, the small mistakes he makes, and the big blunders he commits. Currently the media are apparently incapable of telling the difference between all three: it’s one and the same to them, no matter what he does, no matter what he says.

This is a dismal situation for Americans to be in. We have newsmakers whose only professional function these days seems to be whipping tens of millions of people into angry, irrational frenzies. They do not seem to care about the truth. They do not seem to care about honesty, integrity, or accuracy. We are lurching from one shrieking, insane media episode to the next. And it is wearing on all of us, and weakening the bonds of fellowship and friendship between common Americans.

As I write this, the top headline on CNN’s website is: “This is a moral crisis. And it’s self-inflicted.” That’s true. So what is the media going to do about it?

Daniel Payne is a senior contributor at the Federalist. He is an assistant editor for The College Fix, the news magazine of the Student Free Press Association. Daniel’s work has appeared in outlets such as National Review Online, Reason, Front Porch Republic, and elsewhere. His personal blog can be found at Trial of the Century. He lives in Virginia.


“To ascribe racism to the president which some people are trying to do is not only hitting below the belt it’s vicious stuff.”

Aug 17, 2017

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, defended President Trump as someone who “doesn’t have a racist bone in his body” as the commander in chief faces backlash over his comments about the violence in Charlottesville over the weekend.

Hatch, who said he spoke with Trump over the phone on the matter, repeated those words throughout an interview with KUTV, a CBS affiliate in Salt Lake City.

“To ascribe racism to the president which some people are trying to do is not only hitting below the belt it’s vicious stuff,” Hatch said. “He’s done a lot to try and help quell racism in this country.”

On Saturday, a demonstration held by white supremacy groups and allies protesting the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville turned violent when counter-protesters confronted them. Amid the tense standoff, 19 people were injured and one woman was killed when a car drove into a crowd of counter-protesters.

Read more


They must be big racist bigots, too

Joint statement from George Bush senior and jr. says exactly what Trump said

Aug 17, 2017 by Bizpac

Former Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush called on Americans to reject “hatred in all forms,” in a joint statement.

The former presidents released the rare joint statement Wednesday in response to the deadly rally in Charlottesville, Virginia last weekend.

“America must always reject racial bigotry, anti-Semitism, and hatred in all forms,” the father and son said in the combined statement from each of their offices.

“As we pray for Charlottesville, we are reminded of the fundamental truths recorded by that city’s most prominent citizen in the Declaration of Independence: we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights,” they said, referring to Thomas Jefferson. “We know these truths to be everlasting because we have seen the decency and greatness of our country.”

Though there was never a mention of President Trump, the statement came a day after Trump placed blame on “both sides” for the violent rally Saturday that left three dead, including Heather Heyer who was killed when a white nationalist allegedly drove his car into the crowd of protesters.

While Trump has come under fire for his remarks about the event, which critics complained did not specifically condemn the white supremacists at the “Unite The Right” rally, his comments have consistently denounced the violence and its perpetrators.

But the liberal narrative will not likely acknowledge the similarities between Trump’s words and the statement from the former presidents.

Twitter users spoke up in response to the Bush statement, shining a spotlight on the obvious.

Wake up right! Receive our free morning news blast HERE


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

VIDEO Antifa,Resurgence of Anti-War Movement, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter – “Start Throwing Rocks”

Brandon Darby: Antifa Is the Resurgence of Anti-War Movement, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter

17 Aug 2017 by John Hayward

Breitbart Texas Editor Brandon Darby provided some vital background on the violent Antifa group during his Thursday appearance on Breitbart News Daily with SiriusXM host Alex Marlow.

Darby noted that the “moderate left” and its media apparatus generally provides cover for their “extreme crazies.”

“For instance, with MSNBC and Chuck Todd yesterday, when he had a man on who was writing a book about Antifa, and he allowed the man to talk about the importance of fighting racists in the street. He gave him the same credibility that you or I would give the head of the Democratic Party, or the head of the Republican Party if we had them on our show,” Darby said. “He allowed him to express his views in full and even gave him the last word. They rally around their crazies.”

He warned that the left’s current crusade will not end with knocking down some statues.

“This is very simple: These people have a far-left movement, and that far-left movement mobilizes and become something different every time there’s a need for it to happen. The liberals in mainstream media rally around, support, and provide cover for that extreme left movement, however it manifests.”

Darby described the same fringe group reinventing itself as the anti-war movement during the Bush years, Occupy Wall Street for the 2012 election cycle, Black Lives Matter in 2016, and Antifa now.

“It was largely the same people who were doing the same organizing, the same networks,” he said, describing Antifa as “the resurgence of Anti-Racist Action and a bunch of other extreme far-left groups who believe that it’s okay to go and use violence and intimidation to shut down racists.”

“If you look at the history of Anti-Racist Action, if you look at the history of these far-left groups, they routinely call everyone who’s in the GOP a racist,” he added. “They have a history of showing up, and protesting, and fighting against just Republicans in general. So when you have the mainstream media glorifying, deifying, justifying, or asking the question if it’s okay if these people use violence against actual Nazis or actual racists, we need to remember that they consider all of us to be racists, even though we’re not.”

Darby explained that the larger goal of this endlessly mutating movement is to attack the very foundations of American law and culture, most especially the Constitution itself.

“They’re already calling for anything with George Washington to be removed,” he noted. “What comes after that is any document created by these racists, any document these racists had a part in creating. They also need to be removed, because they’re vestiges of racism.”

“You have people who attack the Constitution, people who attack capitalism, people who attack free-market systems, and they keep finding new manners and new ways and new means to attack these things. These people believe that capitalism is a vestige of white supremacy. They believe that. Get into Critical Race Theory. These people believe that capitalism is, in fact, a result of white supremacy,” he warned.

“At some point, somebody is going to have to stand up and say, ‘You know what? You guys are crazy. You’re not going to remove our history. You’re not going to remove historical figures. We’re not going to do this anymore. You can do it now, or you can do it in two years, but ultimately it’s just going to continue to push and push and push, and go further and go further and go further, and it isn’t going to stop. Somebody is going to have to stop it,” he said.

Darby noted that when outlets like Breitbart News stand up to this relentless push from the left, they are attacked with advertiser boycotts.

“These people believe in using force, and intimidation, and economic intimidation to force you to accept and agree with their world-view, and not to say things they don’t like, and not to do things they don’t like. That’s who these people are. And ultimately, there’s going to be a conflict about it,” he predicted.

Darby highlighted the danger of mainstream media outlets giving a “wink-wink, nod-nod to these violent people to take it to the streets.”

“When you do that, it creates an environment for more violence,” he cautioned. “I’m not blaming what happened in Charlottesville on anybody other than the racist who drove his car into a crowd of people, a person I believe to a racist if the reports I read are true, and I believe they are. But I’ll tell you this: we had months and months where Trump rallies and anything that was right-of-center were attacked by leftist thugs who beat the hell out of people and created a violent scenario. When you do that, you create a scenario where more violent people want to show up at protests simply to get in fights, and to have that experience.”

“The far left gets violent, then the far right gets more violent, then the far left ups the ante, and then the far right ups the ante, and we end up with dead people,” he said.

“This is where we have come as a nation, and it’s not Trump’s fault, and it’s not the right’s fault,” Darby said. “What happened is the left lost an election. They thought they had their revolution, and they were going very, very far – whether from opening our borders to a myriad of other issues. They lost an election and they can’t stand it, so now they’re going to take it to the streets. That’s what they’re doing. And then they’re going to say look how violent the country became under Trump, and how racist the country became under Trump.”

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. Eastern.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Top FBI investigator has unexpectedly stepped away from special counsel Mueller’s Russia probe

Robert Mueller

Aug 16, 2017 by Natasha Bertrand


A highly experienced FBI investigator and former army officer hired by special counsel Robert Mueller to examine Russia’s interference in the 2016 election has unexpectedly stepped away from the probe, ABC News reported on Wednesday.

Peter Strzok, a veteran counterintelligence investigator, is now working for the FBI’s human resources division, according to ABC. It is unclear why he stepped aside, or if he did so voluntarily.

Asha Rangappa, a former FBI counterintelligence agent and associate dean at Yale Law School, said that she had “never heard of an agent being moved to the human resources department.”

“I have seen instances where if some issue comes up, the agent might be moved to another investigation or to the operations center, where you essentially field calls all day,” Rangappa said. “But why he would be moved to HR is just bizarre.”

Rangappa did not want to speculate on what may have happened in Strzok’s case, but said there were many factors — ranging from small administrative violations to more significant incidents — that could raise questions about an agent’s ability to stay on a case.

A former FBI agent who worked with Strzok on and off over several years in the bureau’s counterintelligence division said that Strzok’s move to HR means he has now been separated from counterintelligence work altogether.

The FBI sometimes parks agents in the human resources department, the agent explained, when they need to be reassigned quickly away from substantive matters and there’s no other place to put them. Christopher Wray, who was confirmed as the new FBI director two weeks ago, would have played a role in reassigning Strzok.

Strzok headed the FBI’s counterespionage division last year and was one of the top officials overseeing the criminal investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information while she was secretary of state. He had previously worked on some of the “most secretive investigations in recent years involving Russian and Chinese espionage,” according tothe New York Times.

Rangappa noted that the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) opened an investigation in January into the FBI’s handling of the email probe, including former FBI Director James Comey’s decision to announce a new inquiry into her email server 11 days before the election. It is not clear whether Strzok, who supervised elements of the email probe, was caught up in the OIG investigation.

The OIG declined to comment. But their website lists the probe as ongoing.

Strzok’s departure also came one week after The Washington Post reported that Mueller had obtained a search warrant to raid the home of President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. The Post report cited “people familiar with the search,” prompting questions about whether anyone on Mueller’s team had leaked the existence of the search warrant to the Post.

Mueller has assembled two-dozen investigators and lawyers to help him examine Russia’s election interference and whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Moscow to undermine Clinton. The former FBI director impaneled a grand jury in late July that quickly issued subpoenas related to the June 2016 meeting between Trump’s eldest son and a Russian lawyer with connections to the Kremlin.

Manafort and Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, also attended the meeting.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Corporate Antifa: CEOs Revolt Against American Democracy

17 Aug 2017 by John Carney

The leaders of corporate America launched an unprecedented revolt against President Donald Trump this week, abandoning two CEO councils created by the White House in protest at the president’s comments on the recent violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The rebellion was a breach of corporate America’s traditional stance of public deference to the institutions of electoral democracy. Corporate leaders and Wall Street titans had decided for the first time to pit their power, prestige and vast wealth against the man elected president by the American people just 10-months earlier.

“In American history, we’ve never had business leaders decline national service when requested by the president,” Yale School of Management professor Jeffrey Sonnefeld toldthe New York Times.

But the CEOs did not just decline to serve on the president’s councils. Several issued statements lambasting the president and repeating false accusations that Trump had defended white nationalists and other racist protesters in Charlottesville. The statements made clear that America’s corporate leadership had taken sides with those on the American left and in the American media who have never relented in their opposition to Trump.

“As our members have expressed individually over the past several days, intolerance, racism and violence have absolutely no place in this country and are an affront to core American values,” the members of the Strategic and Policy Forum said in a joint statement issued after the group had decided to abandon the council.

“I strongly disagree with President Trump’s reaction to the events that took place in Charlottesville over the last several days,” J.P. Morgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon wrote in a memo to employees Wednesday. “Racism, intolerance and violence are always wrong.”

“Racism and murder are unequivocally reprehensible and are not morally equivalent to anything else that happened in Charlottesville. I believe the President should have been–and still needs to be–unambiguous on that point,” Campbell’s Sourp CEO Denise Morrison said.

Of course, Trump had unequivocally condemned racism and the violence in Charlottesville. “Racism is evil,” Trump said Monday. “Those who cause violence in its name are criminal and thugs, including the K.K.K., white supremacists and other hate groups.”

He repeated those condemnations at his fiery press conference in Trump Tower on Tuesday. But he added a condemnation of the violent left-wing antifa counter-protesters, the “alt-left” in Trump’s words, who battled with the white nationalists in Charlottesville, breaking with the mainstream media’s narrative that the violence came only from one side. The New York Times somehow described these statements with the headline “Trump Gives White Supremacists an Unequivocal Boost.”

In the hours after the news conference, executives began calling each other to discuss what would become the corporate rebellion. Every single one reportedly shared the New York Times view of the press conference, regardless of its inaccuracy. On a 45-minute conference call Wednesday morning, the CEOs decided to make their revolt public by dissolving the Strategic and Policy Forum. Trump pre-empted their action by announcing that he himself would dissolve both that council and another focused on manufacturing.

While Wednesday’s defections threw a bright light on the oppositional stance of corporate America, there have been signs of a brewing Corporate Antifa for months. Some corporate executives had already announced their opposition to Trump and dropped off of White House panels over the Trump administration’s policies on immigration and the Paris Climate Accord.

It is not even confined to attacking Trump or his administration’s policies. Corporate America has increasingly been willing to flex its economic might to accomplish political goals that clash with the views of many American, particularly conservatives.

As Greg Ip of the Wall Street Journal writes in a story titled “In New Political Status Quo, Big Business Bucks the Right”:

The dramatic schism that opened up between Corporate America and President Donald Trump this week might look like an outlier, of reputational risk coming to outweigh any benefit business hoped to get from forging a good relationship with an administration that could help them on tax and regulatory policy.

But it isn’t an outlier, and to understand why, look to Austin, Texas, not Washington, D.C. There, a seven-month effort by social conservatives, backed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, to regulate transgender access to public facilities such as bathrooms was defeated Tuesday when a special legislative session adjourned. The principal authors of the defeat were businesses. More than 700 companies and business groups, including many of the state’s largest employers, came together to attack the bill as discriminatory and bad for the state’s economy.

It was a stunning rebuke to the Republicans who control what they boast is the nation’s most business-friendly state. But it illustrates how business has increasingly parted ways with Republicans, including Mr. Trump, on noneconomic issues, becoming, in the process, a check on their policy agenda.

Ip goes on to explain that Corporate America increasingly fears crossing the left on cultural issues. This highlights just how powerful the forces aligned against the Trump administration have become. There is no counter-balancing fear of crossing the right or even openly defying a sitting president.

“This pushback against the right on many issues means Mr. Trump and Republicans can’t count on reflexive support from business simply because they promise to cut taxes and regulations,” Ip writes.

Wednesday’s rebellion, however, did not just show that Trump and his allies cannot count on support from business. It showed that Corporate America is part of the opposition, parroting the oppositions accusations against the president and openly announcing their own opposition.

Corporate America may find that it has overplayed its hand. Trump has already begun to lay the groundwork for a case that some giants of technology, particularly Amazon, have anticompetitive advantages. This could grow into a general case for breaking-up corporate giants that mix communications technology with retail and media businesses.  Even without new laws, the Trump administration could act to block AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner or Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods. Just as America regulated the telephone business when it was our primary means of instant communication, we might decide to treat Facebook and Google as public utilities. Efforts to break-up the biggest banks, or make being Too Big to Fail too costly to continue, could gain steam.

“This is a remarkable moment in history,” Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs said Wednesday night. “Everyone of those CEOs is a coward and–the president is exactly right–a grandstander in the service of the left. Make no mistake this is an orchestrated attack against this president.”

When asked specifically about JP Morgan chief’s Dimon, Dobbs sounded more anti-big bank than Elizabeth Warren. The bank, Dobbs said, “is responsible for billions of dollars in fines and settlements for breaking banking regulation. This is man claiming moral highground? People should be in prison right now for what they carried out under the auspices of J.P. Morgan Chase.”

If there is any precedent for this corporate rebellion against democratic political power, it is to be found in the era of the Robber Barons. Railroad mogul Cornelius Vanderbilt once bosted, “Law! What do I care about law? Haint I got the power?”

“He was right. He and his kind did have the power,” socialist writer Leo Huberman wrote in his 1932 American history book We, the People.

Vanderbilt’s son William would go even further, announcing that his motto was “The People be Damned!”

But the people wouldn’t be damned. Within a generation, they were electing progressive politicians who broke up the 19th century equivalents of today’s corporate giants.

This is a clarifying moment in American politics. The confederacy of the media institutions, the American left, and Corporate America has aligned itself against the populist uprising that brought Trump to the White House. The battle lines are clear.

Which side will emerge victorious remains to be seen.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments