Sunday, August 20

Unprovoked, senseless murder in NYC; killer on the loose; Post doesn't print his description

Two days ago in New York City a young couple were walking on the sidewalk after apartment hunting.  They walked past two men sitting on steps.

Moments later one of the men fatally stabbed George Carrol as his horrified wife looked on helplessly.

The killer fled.  

The next day the New York Post ran a story about the murder.

Now, with the killer still on the loose and the wife having witnessed the fatal attack at close range, you'd think an absolutely crucial part of the story would be for the fable-writer "reporter" to include a description of the killer, right?

For some reason the Post didn't think that was important enough to bother including a description.

The next day, the Post ran a followup.  Surely, I thought, by then some editor would have noticed the glaring omission from the first story and would have edited the story.  But still no description of the killer in the totally unprovoked attack.

Until a few years ago--2004 or so--newspaper stories about murders where the killer was still on the loose included a description, which often resulted in useful tips.  But I guess the "journalism schools" have decreed that helping the cops locate killers is no longer worthwhile.  Yeah, dat's probably it.  Cuz I can't imagine any other reason to refrain from printing a description.

Anyone have any info on the new stylebook?

Bill Maher, Democrat propagandist

On Friday Bill Maher commented about the violence in Charlottesville.

Recall that every one of the rat-bastards in the Lying Mainstream Media blasted Trump for condemning violence "on all sides."  The media implied--though they very carefully didn't explicitly state--that all the violence came from one side only: from those protesting the removal of the statue of General Robert E. Lee from the park once named for him.

Like everyone who watched the hours and hours of rerun video of the fighting, Maher has to know his claim is bullshit.  So he elides the truth by joking that "liberals don’t form militias, they form drum circles.”

Gotta admit that's actually pretty funny.  But Maher can't let the joke go without complaining that "Trump kept saying, ‘There’s violence on both sides.’ [But] there wasn’t."

Bill, you lying sack of crap, I watched the endlessly-repeated videos for hours, and both sides were throwing punches.  To say that only one side was violent insults everyone's intelligence.  Oh that's right--your viewers believe your crap, without question.  Mission accomplished.

Maher completed his mission by adding that even if there was violence on both sides in Charlottesville, it doesn’t matter...because he compared Antifa and BLM to American soldiers in WW2.

Naturally you don't believe that, so here's the quote: "...because there was violence in World War II and the Allies were still the good guys."

I hate lying sons of bitches like Maher.

Democrats and MSM: "Conspiracies involving huge systems--like voting--can never happen." Ooops.

Whenever some poor, deplorable working stiff claims insiders conspired to rig anything big that operates in the public realm, how do the Lying Mainstream Media always react?

They ridicule him.  "Can't possibly happen," they claim.  "To do something that outrageous would require lots of people's help, and it would be impossible to keep such a conspiracy secret."

Ridiculing the possibility of a successful conspiracy is how Democrats make people refuse to believe massive, organized vote fraud can or has happened--and will happen again and again.

So if someone claimed insiders had rigged a state lottery, resulting in their winning at least five jackpots worth over $16 million, you can be certain your betters in the media would say "Couldn't happen.  Cuz winning numbers are generated randomly by a computer that's in a glass room with video security, and not connected to any outside network.  There's no way that could possibly happen.  And anyone who believes such a ridiculous story is a fool."

Ah.  Well....

Now a computer guy working for the "Multi-State Lottery Association" pleaded guilty to rigging the lottery so he and his friends could win over five state lotteries worth over $16 million.  Got away with it for at least five years.

The guy did it by inserting a program into the computer that generated the supposedly-random winning numbers. 

Oh, and did I mention that the guy was head of security for the lottery association?   Yeah.

The guy's own brother "won" $568,000 in the lottery, but no one in the association thought that odd.

But remember, citizen:  conspiracies involving big-stakes deals, in areas subject to intense public scrutiny, simply can't happen.

And also remember that if you ever heard any warnings from conservatives, back when your state was considering whether to start a lottery, that they'd become magnets for corruption, you are advised to ignore those warnings.  Because you can trust government officials to make sure things are honest.

Besides, half the proceeds go to funding schools.  So "it's for the children," right?

In Dem-run cities, Antifa and BLM have effectively banned any speech they don't like

One of the core tenets of the founders of this nation--one so vital that they put it in the First Amendment--is freedom of speech.  [Dems may need to read the Note at the end of this post.]

The events of the last two weeks have conclusively shown that te leaders of the Democratic party don't believe in that right--at least for speech they don't like.

Back in the 1960's, Democrats were totally in favor of free speech:  They wanted to be able to burn the American flag and call for the government to be overthrown by force, with no consequences.  Conservatives recognized the damage this would do to the nation but also realized the importance of free speech, so the Democrats were free to radicalize as many young Americans as possible.

But today, with Democrats totally controlling the Lying Mainstream Media, public schools, universities and most lower courts, Democrats have effectively eliminated the right of Americans to say anything the Democrats don't want said.

They've have done this by allowing mobs of leftists to attack speakers the Dems don't like.

Of course many Democrats will angrily deny that their party has done any such thing, but the fact is that in every case since the last presidential election where a speaker or group sought to speak in a Dem-controlled city, the police have either allowed the mob to attack without intervening, or else have removed the would-be speakers from the venue before they could speak, as happened yesterday in Boston.

Not one Democrat politician has condemned Antifa or BLM for their attacks--because all Dem pols know that condeming the mob attacks by BLM and Antifa would be political suicide.

Instead, Dems have followed the lead of their emperor, who got away with clearly violating the Constitution's mandate that the president "shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed" when he ordered federal agents not to deport millions of young illegal aliens.  When congress declined to impeach Obama for this, Democrats realized the Constitution was no longer the supreme law of the land. 

Now they have allowed the mob to block speech they don't like.  In doing so they have violated the Constitution and the rule of law.  To the Democrats, "free speech" only applies to speech they approve of.

Not surprisingly, a few million Americans are angry about this.

So here's what's very likely to happen:  Instead of choosing a Democrat-controlled city and state to hold a rally, the "free speech means what it says" movement will announce a rally in a smaller town with a Republican mayor, in a state with a GOP governor.  BLM and Antifa will call up their mobs as usual--but this time the governor will mobilize the state's National Guard to help city and county cops protect the speakers.

The mayor and governor will announce that anyone wearing a mask will be promptly arrested.  With their faces exposed and recorded, snotflakes will be far more likely to behave.

Of course the hard-core leftists won't be deterred, and will take on the cops and the guardsmen.  At that point things will get far more interesting.

Note on the First Amendment (for Democrat legal quibblers):  As everyone should know, it actually says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

Quibblers on the left may well claim that this amendment actually does NOT guarantee freedom of speech--nor of the press, nor freedom of religion, nor of the "right to assemble"--but merely bars congress from passing a law restricting those rights.

Literally that's obviously true.  However, back in the days when the nation's highest court actually believed in the Constitution, on numerous occasions the court held that no state could deprive any citizen of any of the rights enumerated in the Constitution.

Saturday, August 19

The true face of Antifa

A few days ago the Lying Mainstream Media and various Lefty blogs like HuffPo ran pics of American troops jumping off a landing craft to fight their way ashore on D-day. 

So were they honoring the bravery of American GI's?  Hardly.  They compared the anti-American thugs of Antifa to these troops!

Whereupon some blogger sought to...uh...correct the record:
Antifa=American GI's storming the beaches on D-day.  Yeah, sure.

Lying Media = cunning idiots

Vandals deface statue they think is Confederate hero; actually Christopher Columbus

In Houston last night vandals spray-painted a statue of Christopher Columbus. 

Word on the street is that the vandals believed the statue was of a Confederate general, so, you know....

After historians noted that Columbus pre-dated the U.S. civil war by three and a half centuries, the local TV station--anxious to avoid angering local residents screaming about being triggered by Confederate-era statues--defended the act by noting that "some consider Christopher Columbus to be a controversial figure."

Well there ya go then.  Everything's fine.  According to Liberals and Democrats all ya need to excuse vandalism is to claim that a statue is "controversial."  That also serves to excuse stabbing.  Or hitting someone on the head with a club.

The snowflakes have gone full-Idiocracy.


Saw the movie "Idiocracy" a couple of days ago, for the second time.

The first time was a decade ago, and it struck me as sophomoric humor but fairly amusing.

This time it looked more like a documentary.  And not because of Trump.

Fact or Fake: Is the NAACP demanding a boycott of the NFL unless Kaepernik is signed?

Fact or Fake?  Things have gotten so crazy that it's hard to know anymore.

The NAACP (for those under 30 that's the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) has called for a boycott of the NFL unless some team hires America-hating washed-up QB Colin Kaepernik.

If Kaepernik isn't hired by an NFL team, the black organization will ask fans to not attend NFL games or even watch 'em on television.

A spokesman for the Georgia branch of the NAACP said
“There will be no football in the state of Georgia if Colin Kaepernick is not on a training camp roster and given an opportunity to pursue his career.  This is not a simple request.  This is a demand."  --Gerald Griggs, spokesman for Georgia NAACP
Wow, a "demand," eh?  Clearly the NAACP is feeling new power following the success in getting Democrat pols to remove statues deemed offensive to the black community.

I predict NFL owners and the commissioner will secretly arrange for some team to sign Kaepernik for over a million a year--with the cost secretly split by all owners--rather than risk a boycott by 12 percent of the population.

And of course this will prove to any blacks who weren't already convinced that you can do anything to show you hate the U.S. and still be paid handsomely.  Good lesson, eh?

Mayor of Baltimore refuses to say where the statues went; city council member wants them destroyed

Further to the story about the black female mayor of Baltimore ordering the before-dawn removal of four statues:  Some conservative reporter had the gall to ask the mayor where the statues were now.

The mayor refused to say where they were.

Also, an unnamed member of the city council has called for the statues to be destroyed.  The mayor commented that "no decision has been made" on whether to destroy them. 

The statues would like be worth hundreds of thousands if auctioned off.  But of course, that won't happen.

As I noted in a prior post, the most likely outcome is that after a few years the statues will have vanished, and no one in the city government will claim to know what happened to them, or even where they were stored.  In fact they will have been melted down for the value of their bronze, probably by a brother-in-law of a city council member.  But because the statues will have been out of public view for years, there won't be any way to find out who did it.

After murder of 14 by a van in Barcelona, will Dems demand a ban on vehicles?

Ever notice that whenever anyone, anywhere uses a gun to kill someone, Democrats and Leftists call for a ban on guns?  Sure.  Every time.

Now that Muslims have used vehicles to mow down over a hundred civilians in an near Barcelona, does anyone think we'll be hearing calls from Democrats and Leftists to ban cars, vans and trucks in city limits?  Of course not.

There's been a wave of fatal stabbings in Germany--virtually all by Islamic immigrants--capped by the stabbing deaths of two in Finland, by an immigrant.  Does anyone think we'll be hearing calls from Democrats and Leftists to ban knives?  Of course not.

Why the double-standard when it comes to guns?

Simple:  If Democrats didn't have double-standards they wouldn't have any standards at all.

When Norks threatened to nuke U.S. libs didn't say jack, but when Trump responded...OMG!

Pelosi calls for removal of statues of Confederate figures from U.S. capitol

In the capitol building of the United States there's an area featuring statues commemorating two residents of each state.  Each state gets to select the citizens its people want to commemorate.

Ah, but that was then.  Now Democrat and former speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has called for...well, let's get the exact quote:
The Confederate statues in the halls of Congress have always been reprehensible.  If Republicans are serious about rejecting white supremacy, I call upon Speaker Ryan to join Democrats to remove the Confederate statues from the Capitol immediately.    --Nancy Pelosi
Pelosi was joined by Dem senator Cory Booker, who said he would introduce a bill to remove the statues.

Oh wait--just now realized the above story and quote were published by a notoriously unreliable source, so you can't really trust it to be true, y'know?

Source is the NY Times.

In other news, Pelosi also called for everyone whose last name is "Lee" to change their name to something that won't offend people who are triggered by that name.  Pelosi said "If Seattle can remove the name "Lynch" from three of its schools, why can't I order the same thing?  After all, what difference is there in the principles involved?"

In still other news Democrat senator Chuck Schumer called for the word "lee" to be removed from dictionaries in the U.S.  Schumer said the phrase "lee side," meaning the side of a ship opposite from the direction of the wind, was a "gratuitous, totally unnecessary micro-aggression" for millions of Americans.

Schumer said "The courageous Democrats of Seattle have shown us that Americans don't have to tolerate names or terms that offend them."  He added that if Republicans refused to pass his proposed law, student activists should simply tear out the offensive pages.  "After all," he said, "that's what we do with offensive statues."

And as if on cue, in the middle of the night last night, Duke university removed a statue of Robert E. Lee from campus, on orders of the university's president.  In a written statement the president of Duke explained
The purpose of universities was to provide a safe, non-triggering space for people too young to have developed the personal skills required to enable them to cope with triggers, so removing this horribly offensive statue was the right thing to do.
Now:  You're well-informed, right?  Cuz you listen to the Mainstream Media, which tells you everything significant that happens they want you to know.  So you know which two of the above events actually happened. 

"We'll ban speech we don't like, destroy property, erase suppress fascism"

And 99% of those on the Left are totally unaware of the contradiction.

Statue vandalized in California; CBS station buries the lede. See if you can discern the reason

In journalism, the most important part of a story is called the "lede."  Normally the lede is in the first sentence or paragraph.  When a paper publishes a story in which the "real news" is several 'grafs down, it's called "burying the lede." 

Back when reporters were fairly non-partisan this was ridiculed as an error made by newbie reporters.  It'd be like printing an article on the assassination of JFK that said "President's return to DC delayed by hospital visit."

But burying the lede is actually quite useful when the Lying Mainstream Media wants readers to NOT notice the "real" significance of an event.  Here's an example from two days ago:
MISSION HILLS ( — Several people stopped by a statue of Father Junipero Serra in a park across from Mission San Fernando on Thursday after a photo made the rounds on social media appearing to show the statue had been vandalized.

A picture circulating Facebook showed the statue spray-painted red and the word “murder” written on Serra in white.
d0fe2e50a9fa41339f7d13c96458bf6b Junipero Serra Statue Vandalized In Mission Hills
While city officials would not confirm the authenticity of the photo or the clean-up, a CBS2 reporter saw red paint on Serra’s arm and a swastika on the statue of the child standing next to him.
The real story here is that some low-IQ revolutionary, following the lead of his comrades who are tearing down statues they don't like, vandalized this one.  But notice how the CBS station wrote the story: The first sentence tells us "Several people stopped by a statue..."

Whoa!  Stop the f'n presses!  If you find that to be...less than gripping, you're right.  That was deliberate.

Next phrase: "...after a photo made the rounds on social media..."  Wow!  "A photo made the rounds on social media," ya say?  Is that really an important element of the story?  Well, maybe to highschool students--cuz everyone knows how Americans are slavishly devoted to whatever appears on "social media."

Finally, CBS clues you to the significance of the photo:  it's "appearing to show the statue had been vandalized."  Not "vandals spray-painted a statue in Mission Hills," but rather that someone posted a photo appearing to show vandalism.

Note how careful CBS is here:  The photo clearly shows the statue spray-painted with the word "murder." Unless you're an idiot, that's vandalism.  But CBS wants to bury that fact.  Why?  Because admitting it up front would validate the predictions of dozens of conservative commenters who warned that vandalizing statues was a "slippery slope" guaranteed to have consequences far beyond what the current mainstream media and Democrats believe.

Conservatives warned Americans about this.  And it took about one day to be proven correct.

In fact, someone who wasn't from California could easily conclude that this "apparent vandalism" was just another example of snowflakes vandalizing a statue honoring a Confederate figure.  Nothing noteworthy about that, eh Sparky?

For those who are still naive enough to think this is paranoia, a brief thought experiment will show you the truth:  If someone vandalized a statue of MLK, what do you think the Lying Media's opening 'graf would be on that event?  Would it be
Several people stopped by a statue of Martin Luther King jr. after a photo made the rounds on social media appearing to show the statue had been vandalized.
Obviously not.  QED.

What MUST happen when Dem-controlled city governments allow Antifa to beat up others?

From a commenter on Belmont Club:
When the Antifa types learn that Democrat-controlled governments will allow them to attack others with impunity (something they've already learned), not only will they continue to attack, but will increase the violence of those attacks. 

If they can beat people with baseball bats while the police watch without responding, what is to keep them from shooting or stabbing those who oppose them next time?  In a Democrat run city, there will be no response, no arrest, no prosecution.

That's why the media has to jam that story, to keep Americans not on the Left from grasping that reality.
The public was starting not to believe The Narrative of "Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election," so on August 12th something the Media spins as a "racist riot" by "white supremacists" happens in Charlottesville. 
The Media instantaneously pivot out of "collusion with Russia" and into "Racism & Riot" without missing a beat. After nearly a year of Trump & Russia, all day, every day, the "collusion with Russia" narrative vanishes.  Trump is no longer a Russian.  Instead, Trump is now a racist.
Democrats and liberals claim not to believe there's any connection whatsoever between the thugs of "Antifa" and the Communist Party.  If you're one of those, take a look at this pic of the dais at the Communist Party's "Third International:"

Wait!  Be reasonable, comrade.  Anyone can see that this photo is CIA agitprop!

Another commenter:
Soon--if not already--just advocating for the local university to teach a course in western civ will get you labeled as a white nationalist, racist, terrorist.

Friday, August 18

Muslim terror attack in Barcelona bumps The Narrative off the headlines; Media will fix that soon

"The Narrative" is like the Matrix--it's what the Democrats and their media allies want you to believe.  Examples:
  • The Dem National Committee was hacked by the Russians.  
  • Mueller will conduct an impartial investigation.  
  • One must have "intent" in order to be prosecuted for violating laws for compromising classified material.  
  • Anyone who protests the removal of statues of Robert E. Lee must be a white supremacist and raaaacist.
Many, many more examples.

But once in a great while events can overwhelm the Narrative.  It's called burn-through, which is what happens when a radio signal is stronger than the power of a jamming station.

Narratives are powerful but not omnipotent.  For example, the public is all to willing to believe the narrative that all attacks by Muslims after 9/11 were carried out by "lone wolves."  But that only works when such attacks are fairly infrequent.  But if such attacks happen too frequently, the Narrative fails and the public begins to wonder if the attacks are really being triggered by a central authority. 

Even the immense resources at the disposal of the mainstream media--thus at the disposal of Democrats--can be overcome by a strong enough signal from events.  And in this case...

ISIS has claimed responsibility for the van attack on a popular tourist venue in Barcelona that killed 13 dead and injured 100.

Suddenly the war on statues has been bumped off the front pages by Islamic terrorism.

Oooh, can't have that.  And you may be certain that the Mainstream Media will do their best to get us back to The Narrative.  Cuz the Media know that if Americans see terrorism as a problem, the Media loses.  The Media desperately, intensely want you to believe that Trump and America-first policies are the greatest threat to your well-being. may be certain that the Barcelona attack will quickly disappear from the headlines, replaced by Russia Russia RUSSIA!  Or infighting by members of the White House staff.

Or that Trump is about to start a nuclear exchange with that peace-loving fellow who runs North Korea.

Wolf Blitzer is already on video wondering (i.e. trying to get you to consider it plausible) whether the vehicle attack that killed 13 in Barcelona was--listen carefully--a copycat of what happened in Charlottesville.

Naturally you don't believe that.  You don't believe it because you can't believe any reasonable facsimile of a human could make such an absurd statement.  Well, click here to read the story.  And it's not from some right-wing source, but from the totally Left-wing Huffington Post.  And since it represents an "admission against interest," it's a lot more reliable.

I really, really hate the Lying Mainstream Media.  And the party they work for.

Australian senator walks into senate chambers wearing burqa; no one asks to see her face

Many citizens of western nations correctly see that "protected groups" don't have to obey rules that members of non-protected groups are forced to obey.

A female senator in Queensland, Australia--Pauline Hanson--decided on a clever way of showing this:  She walked into the senate chamber wearing a "burqa"--worn by Muslim women and which covers the entire face and head.

Not a single security guard stopped her, asked her for identification or asked to see her face.

But her clever demonstration revealed a lot more about her fellow senators and the region's attorney-general, who screamed bloody murder--not at the security staff, but at Hanson, claiming her demonstration had "ridiculed Islam."

I'd say "You gotta be kidding" but this sort "some-religions-are-more-privileged-than-others" equivocation is all too common in almost all western nations.  Hard to figure.

Oz is rapidly undergoing Islamization, just like the U.K., Germany and most of Europe.

Dem-loving WaPo claims "we owe our country's very existence" to civil-rights movement or...

Three days ago the Washington Post ran this bizarre claim, penned by a college professor:
We owe our country’s very existence as an enduring political experiment to the work and sacrifice we now call the civil rights movement or the black freedom struggle, 
How...odd.  Somehow I'd gotten the impression that the existence of the United States was due to a war fought almost entirely by white males against the British empire.  Now along comes this fellow claiming that the U.S. REALLY owes its existence to "the civil rights movement or the black freedom struggle."

That's just...amazing.  But it was printed in the WaPo so it must be accurate, right?  And it was written by professor, so it has to be accurate, right?  I mean, who would bullshit us about something so easily checked?

Oh I see the author is black.  In that case, never mind.  Cuz blacks and gays and militant feminists and similar get to make up their own history, and if you don't accept it you'll be accused of a micro-aggression or something.

Once again, yesterday's satire is today's demand by angry blacks and their white allies

Angry, hate-filled blacks--and their white allies, including Leftist blogs--are making so many war-urging statements that it's becoming hard to even log them all.

Latest example: An angry black guy named Wilburt Cooper wrote a piece for the leftoid website "Vice" originally titled "Let's blow up Mount Rushmore," in which the author complains that the men commemorated on Rushmore were evil. 

You get a quick sense of where this asshole's head is when you read his description of the inspiring Lincoln memorial in DC:  "...Abe Lincoln squatting on his throne or George Washington's phallus towering over everything in DC."  The author also whined that the president blamed violence on all sides rather than blaming ONLY the folks protesting the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee--a group the Lying Mainstream Media have dutifully, slavishly labelled "white supremacists" in every single article and story.

Well...a few hours after Vice published the piece, its leftist operators appear to have sensed, shall we say, murmurs of disagreement.  So they changed the title from "Let's blow up Mount Rushmore"  to
 "Let's get rid of Mount Rushmore."  
They didn't want to just delete the piece, of course, since they'd lose face with their leftist and black readers.  So as of now, anyway, it's still on their site.

But as everyone knows by now, the internet records stupid shit like this, so if you wanna see evidence of the original "Let's blow up Mount Rushmore" title--and a tweet from Vice showing how proud they were of the original title--click here.

The editors also added an oh-so-fake non-apology at the end of the article.
Editor's note: The headline and URL of this story have been updated. We do not condone violence in any shape or form, and the use of "blow up" in the original headline as a rhetorical device was misguided and insensitive. We apologize for the error.
They say they apologize for "the error."  But of course it wasn't an error.  The site's operators read the article and the headline, and posted it.  It was NOT an error (except tactically).  Stupid, yes, but not an error.

Let's take a look at some other brilliant, precious quotes from this crazed, white-hating son of a bitch:
At the same unhinged press conference in which Donald Trump again blamed both sides for the deadly violence in Charlottesville last weekend, he also painted a picture of a slippery slope where those fighting for the removal of Confederate statues today might be destroying tributes to more mainstream slave-owning icons like George Washington tomorrow.
The president turned out to be utterly prescient on that one, eh?  Cuz a week later your homies at Vice ran "Let's blow up Mount Rushmore."  Wow, Trump predicts your tactics yet again!
I'm not sure there is any American president worthy of being etched into the side of a 60-foot mountain with explosives and jackhammers. I mean, every single [president] has at least been partially complicit in horrific atrocities.
"Complicit in horrific atrocities," eh?  So I'm guessing you believe societies should only build monuments to people who were perfect, right?
Obviously Washington and Thomas Jefferson were remarkable individuals who helped usurp British rule in America... But they also enslaved their fellow man, committing special kinds of inhumane acts that should never be confined to footnotes. 
First is the guy's astonishing but predictable trivialization of the Revolutionary War to six words:  Washington and Jefferson "helped usurp British rule in America."  Wow.  So looks like you hate this country and don't want to be here.  Got it.

In case you weren't sure, this snowflake claims Black Lives Matter " actually doing work to make this nation more equitable."

Snowflake considers killing cops to be "Doing work to make this nation more equitable," apparently.

By the same metric, the emperors regime had "great optics," but the snowflake is puzzled that Obama's policies "seem to have done little to heal the wounds of racism in this nation."

Gosh, could that be because the emperor constantly fanned the flames of race hatred?  "Get in their faces," he said.  And surely everyone can understand what a great strategy that is for bringing the races together, right?
It's hard to be critical of a system when that system becomes an article of faith, filled with myths (the cherry tree), deities (Founding Fathers), and notions of salvation (the City on a Hill). It's going to be impossible to improve America if we can't be honest about its origins and its past. Her fruit is born from violence and greed, watered by the blood of my ancestors
Snowflake, how many white Americans died in the Revolutionary War?  How many blacks?

How many whites died in the war of 1812?  How many blacks?

How many whites served, and how many died, in the two World Wars?  How many blacks?

So if you enjoy living free in the U.S, you might open your eyes and quit complaining about how unfair life is for ya.
Trump and his white supremacist cohorts believe the reverence some Americans have for these statues is simply respect for history, and that tearing them down is tantamount to ripping pages out of a textbook. But monuments built by the state are not history—they manifestations [sic] of power. They don't tell you who, what, why, or how something happened. Instead, they just inform you who's in control. 
Back in the day there were "history teachers" in the public schools who actually taught the details of things like our War Between the States.  That got thrown out somehow.  I'm sure it was replaced by something more important, like the wonders of being transgender or something.
Erecting [statues to Confederate figures] amounted to power moves by white people who felt threatened. 
That's your theory.  Others believe they were honoring men who fought nobly for a cause--not slavery, but the right of states to secede from the Union.  You and your comrades demand that your theory prevail, to the point that you're not only perfectly willing to pull down the statues you don't like, but you scream that this is the only right thing to do.  And that if anyone should have the temerity to disagree with you, the ONLY possible reason must be that they're racist.  Interesting.
As a young man I was always skeptical of Martin Luther King Jr., in comparison to more radical leaders like Malcolm X. I couldn't help to notice how King was hailed by white people who wanted to avoid hard discussions about race. These people wanted to rely on a flimsy "dream"...
Yes, we can all see why you'd reject MLK's dream--the notion that a person should be judged on the quality of their character.
With the president of the United States basically justifying neo-Nazism...
Wilburt wants you to believe the people who got a permit to protest against the removal of the statue were "neo-Nazis," and that the president made a statement "basically justifying neo-Nazism."  Of course the only statement he can point to to support his utter bullshit is that the president condeming violence "on all sides."  At no time did the president even attempt to "basically justify neo-Nazism."

But we wouldn't expect an angry agitator to tell the truth.  Ever.

Dear snowflakes: We do understand. Really

Blacks and white "social justice warriors" are angry at George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee and the fact that a handful of streets on Army posts are named for some of the most brilliant generals the country has ever seen (yes, generals who fought for the Confederacy).

We do understand.  Really.  Now, with that said, *please* keep trying to erase the history of the harshest, most destructive war to be fought on U.S. soil.  It helps good people see you for what you are:  Crazed communists.

You aren't satisfied to strive to live productive lives in the freest, most productive nation on the planet.  Instead you want the government to stop using taxpayer funds to maintain monuments to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln et al.  You insist that they should have conducted their lives the way you want them to have, instead of according to the prevailing ethos of the time they actually, y'know, lived in.

By all means, do keep it up.  You're doing a great job, really.

By the way:  CNN didn't think the story of the Dem state representative's Fakebook post was worth putting on the air or on their website.  BUT, after the story broke on other sites, CNN swung into damage-control mode with a story about how other Dem leaders were critical of this bitch's Fakebook post.  And that some were even calling for her to resign.

But of course she won't--and no member of her party will force her to resign.  Because they agree with her sentiment.

But CNN gave them cover by publicizing their *criticism* of her.

Once again CNN covers for Dems.  As always.