(from Free North Carolina)
In an article entitled “Historic Preservation Still Unites Us” First Lady of Virginia Dorothy McAuliffe touts the worthiness of historic preservation: “May we Virginians, and all Americans, continue to enjoy history through preservation and never take for granted that its lessons are the guideposts to a better future.”
We could not agree more with this statement but recognize that in the Commonwealth of Virginia there exists a hypocritical double-standard regarding historic preservation. Confederate monuments and memorials are currently the lowest hanging fruit – ripe and easy targets for those who view history with tunnel vision. It should not be this way – we as Americans should protect our past instead of shunning it. Existing memorials in our public spaces should not be banished from their long-standing locations based on emotion and divisive politics. The poet John Donne famously wrote “no man is an island,” and these monuments are not islands either – they are connected to the communities in which they reside. And they tell a story, not just about the events and people they depict, but about those who commissioned and sculpted them to vivid life. If historic preservation matters, it should matter for all Registered Historic Landmarks, and not just those deemed “acceptable” by the powers that be.
The attorneys retained to fight Charlottesville City Council’s vote to remove the Robert E. Lee Monument from Lee Park are diligently preparing their case. Rest assured that they do not take this charge lightly and will proceed with filing at the precise and practicable moment.
We appreciate your patience, support and contributions as this issue moves forward. If you have donated, Thank You. We have been touched by the messages we have received and the willingness of people across the country and even overseas to contribute to save history. If you haven’t donated and feel this issue is important, please consider a contribution – no amount is too small to help us win this battle:
Checks payable to: The Monument Fund, Inc., P.O. Box 483, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902. All contributions are tax deductible.
The idea such actions to save historical monuments are even necessary is horrific!
First, I’m a believer in this Nation’s history, warts and all.
Second, didn’t the United States Congress pass legislation almost 100 years ago stating that ALL military participants in the Civil War (or the War Between the States, or the recent unpleasantness, if you prefer!) were VETERANS as such deserving of remembrance and monuments as much as the Union soldiers?
And that desecration or removal of military monuments was against federal law?
Sadly, this is not the only location or action taken against Confederate monuments. Politically correct forces are continuing to try to erase American History (and by extension free speech), lest the young learn about the whole cloth of history!
Please help if you can.
(from Free North Carolina)
The inmates are in charge of the asylum.
California has created a travel ban of its own, which prohibits its own public university students from traveling to “anti-LGBT” states.
The law that went into effect Jan. 1 prohibits state-funded travel to states that are not LGBT-friendly, the Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday.
The law prevents students of the University of California and California State University from traveling to four states outlined by California attorney general Xavier Becerra, including Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee.
Not LGBT friendly? As defined by the California AG?
I’m not certain what that means, exactly. Rejected ‘gender non-specific’ bathroom legislation? Didn’t give extra rights to persons who are gender confused?
How is banning a student from travel (through the use of State funds) going to teach them anything about freedom? (It does teach them about the abuse of State Power.) And, how many students does this affect, exactly? Sports teams? Band members? Debate clubs?
I think the California Attorney General is tilting at windmills, in the name of political correctness.
I’ve oft written here (or
copied stolen other’s writings) regarding the substitute of ‘science’-with-an-agenda attached, versus pure science.
And, it seems to have happened, yet again!
First, DDT was BAD. It must be banned.
Then, the World was getting colder. The NEW Ice Age was upon us.
Followed by The Ozone Layer was being eaten away by hydrocarbons.
More recently, the World is getting WARMER. No WAIT! Weather is changing!
Now, we are losing BEE populations at an alarming rate! It’s the evil pesticides and GMOs, again! Ban stuff!
Of course, most of us are not scientists, and trust those who are to evaluate evidence without concern for the outcome, to give us a possible solution.
And governments world-wide jump on the band wagon to take control of the ‘problem’, even if it doesn’t exist!
Turns out DDT does remain present, but doesn’t seem to be harmful in the long run. Too bad, it’s banned!
The New Ice Age didn’t happen.
The hole in the ozone closed. Another crisis avoided apparently in a natural cycle. Of course, many chemicals were banned, regardless.
Climate Change? Yep, it happens. But unless scientists skew their results to fit a socialist agenda, humanity appears to not be responsible.
Regarding THE BEES:
I do find it interesting that every environmental ‘crisis’ comes now with an attached (socialist/world-wide) solution.
It’s for the children, ya know!
I suppose that all depends on how it’s imposed…
(from Brock Townsend)
This essay was first published in Southern Partisan in the Winter, 1985.
Southerners rarely while away their leisure hours by contemplating Yankees, for there is no point in thinking of unpleasant things if one is not obliged to do so. Yet the practice does have value; to some extent, at least, we are defined by those attributes which set us apart from others, and sometimes we can be made aware of such attributes only by observing people who do not share them. Another virtue of thinking about Yankees, in the long run perhaps a more important one, is that it serves to remind us that they have repeatedly tried to make us over in their own image. Indeed, though it may seem that they have been off our backs since the demise of the civil rights movement, their latest campaign to reform us is actually well under way.
What is there about us that has made us so offensive to them? Or, conversely, what is there about them that has compelled them to meddle in our affairs? The late great Richard M. Weaver, in The Southern Tradition at Bay, addressed himself to analyzing the qualities that distinguish the South from North, and for the nineteenth century he was perfectly on target. “The North had Tom Paine and his postulates assuming the virtuous inclinations of man,” Weaver wrote; “the South had Burke and his doctrine of human fallibility and of the organic nature of society.” The North embraced rationalism and egalitarianism; the South had a “deep suspicion of all theory, perhaps of intellect,” and clung to a hierarchical and deferential social order. The North bowed down before science and material progress; the South “persisted in regarding science as a false messiah,” and remained into “our own time” (the 1940s) “the last non-materialist civilization in the Western World.”
Growing up in public schools in the Southwest, we were taught it was The Civil War (in lieu of The War Between the States, or that recent unpleasantness). And that Lincoln was a hero by preserving the Union.
Simplistic, I know.
Now the Republic seems more divided than ever, and there have been rumblings (on the Internet) of secessionist movements in Idaho, Texas, Montana, California and Alaska.
Even if President-elect Trump had quoted Gerald Ford and said ‘our long national nightmare is over’, that wouldn’t necessarily make it so.
And it does appear as though Southerners DO think differently than Yankees. (A Southerner now not being necessarily geographically defined.)
And the Federal government by it’s very nature seems to want more power and control.
Between land take-overs, false imprisonments, warrantless searches, courts of Star Chamber, and not taking a firm hand to persons who break the law, and illegal alien and drug smuggling, there is potential for this not to end well.
Just look at the diverse mindsets of progressives, conservatives and libertarians on Facebook!
We are as divergent as the South and the North 151 years ag0 – coupled with Internet technology and communication. And statist millionaires fueling the fire with billions!
I fear for the Republic.
from Brock Townsend
Yep. I’m speaking of the recent dustup of things long-time ago said by candidates.
Mr. Trump has been recorded using language that might have originated in a high school locker room. As has Secretary Clinton (at least in print). And her husband. And Jack Kennedy.
And, The President.
Use (or non-use) of such language, of course, is not a qualification for The Presidency.
My question is, what ever happened to the character of individuals? Used to be persons with character aspired to be The President. Washington, Jefferson and John Adams come to mind. All persons of character. Each very different. (Yes, I know Washington and Jefferson owned slaves…)
They were human. I suspect they might have uttered socially-inappropriate language in private moments.
But they rose to the challenge to move this Constitutional Republic forward.
I don’t see that in any of the current of recent candidates.
Now, it’s reported by the Clinton’s that they have victims of rape by Mr. Trump coming forward! Seriously? Not only is the timing questionable, but the whole pot-kettle thing!
I know politics by it’s very nature is dirty. Regardless:
I weep for The Republic.
(as posted by Wirecutter
Hofstra University has posted a “trigger warning” sign to warn students about the potentially disturbing content that may be discussed during Monday night’s presidential debate.
According to CBS New York reporter Tony Aiello, a sign inside of the student center at Hofstra reads, “Trigger warning: The event conducted just beyond this sign may contain triggering and/or sensitive material. Sexual violence, sexual assault, and abuse are some topics mentioned within this event. If you feel triggered, please know there are resources to help you.”
Back when I was in college (covered wagons, etc.) there were those doing their duty. Either by questioning the authority of the government to facilitate wars, or by going to fight them! People on both sides of the issue were VERY vocal and emotional.
Yet rarely did either side feel ‘triggered’ and in need of a ‘safe space’ or ‘counseling’ based on someone’s speech alone!
Have our youth become so overly sensitive that this is thought necessary? By the nature of societal evolution?
Or, has this been the plan all along?
I’ve friends who work ‘in the media’. They become annoyed with me when I criticize the media en mass, as though all were tentacles connected to the same head.
While I DO recognize that even some big media outlets offer disparate opinions, one does have to wonder about the editorial power being used…
(from The Firearm Blog, in part)
The last few months in the US have been pretty tumultuous if you have been watching the news. Without getting too political, we have seen terror attacks, hate crimes, and a multitude of other criminal activity. It is truly unsettling and has a lot of people on edge. Some people want to scream gun control or make other arguments, but I digress. What is interesting is what firearms some Americans think should be legal or illegal. Vox, an internet news site, tried to delve into that exact topic.
Vox teamed up with Morning Consult and tried to ask the question of firearm legality. They asked 2,000 people whether certain firearms should be legal or illegal merely based on appearance and their name. The infographic below is very telling. The less it looks like a hunting firearm and the more scary it appears lead whoever they surveyed to believe it should be illegal!
Results from 2,000 people surveyed on whether certain firearms should be LEGAL or ILLEGAL [Credit: Vox/Morning Consult]
You get some interesting, and maybe not surprising results, when you start to identify respondents by their political affiliation. Vox and Morning Consult took it a few steps further by dividing results from their survey by gender. Their full story and results can be found HERE.
Yeah, regardless of what the polls think (democracy), I will keep my guns and, if at all possible add more.
BECAUSE MY INDIVIDUAL NATURAL RIGHTS ARE NOT UP FOR DEBATE OR PLEBISCITE!
I’m speaking of this Republic.
With Rome, it was either when the Ottoman Turks took Byzantium (Constantinople) 1453 AD or when a barbarian deposed the last western Roman emperor 476 AD (ancient history About.com)
My Western Civilization professor said it began with (and I’m quoting here) “Moral decadence and pleasures of the flesh!” (to the cheers of the 400 or so horny underclassmen)
What is/was the beginning of the end of this Constitutional Republic we know as The United States?
The Whiskey Rebellion? (1791)
The Civil War? (1861)
Federal income tax (1913)
Direct election of Senators? (1913)
Establishment of the Federal Reserve? (1913)
The National Firearms Act (1934)
Or is it an amalgamation of these and many other things, eating away at our Constitutional substance, punctuated by further federal government oversteps such as Ruby Ridge and Waco? No-knock warrants, followed by airport searches and sobriety checkpoints. Massive surveillance of our electronic communications. Prohibitions of Speech seen as ‘politically-incorrect’. The killing of Blacks by police – whether or not legitimate actions – spun by self-serving propagandists into an ersatz race war?
Now followed by widespread racial civil unrest, punctuated by acts of terrorism against civil authority.
I’m certain all ‘civilizations’, be they primitive neolithic cultures like the American Indian when the White man first laid eyes on him, or the Romans, or the Christian Turks all thought they would endure forever.
And so have most of we Americans.
I guess the true question isn’t what was the tipping point.
It’s what do we do NOW?
from a miniseries The Dark Ages