“U.S. disarmament ambassador Robert Wood dismissed the reward as ‘ridiculous’, telling reporters in Geneva it showed the ‘terrorist underpinnings’ of Iran’s establishment.”
Indeed. And if anyone succeeds in doing this, there will be great rejoicing in Washington and mourning all over Iran. It’s a topsy-turvy world.
“Iran MP offers reward for killing Trump, U.S. calls it ‘ridiculous,’” by Parisa Hafezi, Reuters, January 21, 2020:
DUBAI (Reuters) – An Iranian lawmaker offered a $3 million reward to anyone who killed U.S. President Donald Trump and said Iran could avoid threats if it had nuclear arms, ISNA news agency reported on Tuesday amid Tehran’s latest standoff with Washington.
U.S. disarmament ambassador Robert Wood dismissed the reward as “ridiculous”, telling reporters in Geneva it showed the “terrorist underpinnings” of Iran’s establishment.
Tensions have steadily escalated since Trump pulled Washington out of Tehran’s nuclear agreement with world powers in 2018 and reimposed U.S. sanctions. The standoff erupted into tit-for-tat military strikes this month.
“On behalf of the people of Kerman province, we will pay a $3 million reward in cash to whoever kills Trump,” lawmaker Ahmad Hamzeh told the 290-seat parliament, ISNA reported.
He did not say if the reward had any official backing from Iran’s clerical rulers.
The city of Kerman, in the province south of the capital, is the hometown of Qassem Soleimani, a prominent Iranian commander whose killing in a drone strike ordered by Trump on Jan. 3 in Baghdad prompted Iran to fire missiles at U.S. targets in Iraq.
“If we had nuclear weapons today, we would be protected from threats … We should put the production of long-range missiles capable of carrying unconventional warheads on our agenda. This is our natural right,” he was quoted as saying by ISNA….
This month, Iran announced it was scrapping all limits on its uranium enrichment work, potentially shortening the so-called “breakout time” needed to build a nuclear weapon….
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2020-01-22 07:39:472020-01-22 07:43:41Islamic Republic of Iran: MP offers “$3 million reward in cash to whoever kills Trump”
It’s become quite apparent that in his admiration for establishing a one-world government administered by a new world order, America is an object of hate for Pope Francis.
The handwriting was on the wall at least two years ago when yet another article from Eugenio Scalfari revealed that the pontiff has so little regard for the United States that he actually thinks we should simply give up our national sovereignty and submit to a new world order.
Maybe the Dems can nominate Pope Francis for their party’s candidate for president. He can assume presidential powers and then dissolve the U.S.A. After all, it seems like he’s got experience doing the same thing with the Church.
The old atheist Italian journalist says that in 2017, Pope Francis called him shortly after the G-20 summit and demanded to see him at four o’clock that afternoon. According to Scalfari, Francis had become agitated about the United States and other nations commanding such power in the world.
Pope Francis told the Italian newspaper La Repubblica that the United States of America has “a distorted vision of the world,” and Americans must be ruled by a world government as soon as possible, “for their own good.”
Now that’s an incredible statement to make, and as the article continued, the disrespect for the idea of national sovereignty mounted. European nations also came under the papal displeasure: “I also thought many times to this problem and came to the conclusion that, not only but also for this reason, Europe must take as soon as possible a federal structure.”
There is without a doubt an extreme dislike with this pope of anything that strikes of nationalism, meaning national sovereignty. Since America seems to lead the world in the area of national pride, the United States is never passed over in the papal condemnations of national sovereignty.
Somewhere, somehow, he has in his head that the idea of individual nations is bad because that translates into immigrants being mistreated, and among rich nations — the First-World nations — poverty escalates and the poor are taken advantage of.
That’s what he thinks, and so the solution for him is to introduce a one-world government, ruled by a single new world order, so all immigrants can get a fair shake out of life.
Last week the reports came out that Pope Francis thinks national pride, touted by political conservatives, is the beginning of Nazism reappearing. He said to an international group of specialists in penal law: “And I must confess to you that when I hear a speech [by] someone responsible for order or for a government, I think of speeches by Hitler in 1934, 1936,” adding, “They are inadmissible behaviors in the rule of law and generally accompany racist prejudices and contempt for socially marginalized groups.”
“It is no coincidence that in these times, emblems and actions typical of Nazism reappear, which, with its persecutions against Jews, gypsies and people of homosexual orientation, represents the negative model par excellence of a culture of waste and hatred,” he continued.
Pope Francis has drunk the Kool-Aid of the Left.
So there it is, perfectly framed by this pontificate: Immigrants and homosexuals need to be protected classes, and sovereign nations must give way to those who do not respect borders and those who reject natural law. And nations, now bordering on embracing Nazism, must surrender their independence because it is the will of God. For their own good, the nations of the world, especially the powerful ones, must pass out of existence, surrender themselves and abolish their borders for their own good.
When Americans are chanting “USA!” at sporting events or political rallies for Republicans, in Pope Francis’ head, that apparently rings as Sieg Heil!
This is dangerous, dangerous stuff. For the occupant of the throne of Peter to be outwardly demonizing nations — especially the leading nation which defeated the Nazis — as Nazis themselves, a line has been crossed from which there is no coming back.
To then turn around and underscore that part of what makes a person a modern-day Nazi is to not go along with the homosexual agenda and resist the evil, this is beyond the pale and must be called out.
Pope Francis has moved into territory that no pope has ever transgressed. He is transferring the mission of the Church from the salvation of souls to the foundation of a one-world government.
What precisely the role of the Church itself would be in that new world order still seems vague, but one thing is clear. Francis never criticizes Islamic nations. He never tells them to clean up their act and stop throwing homosexuals off roofs. He never has a word of criticism for their brutality of FGM (female gential mutilation) or sponsorship of world terror, or torture or forcing people in their nations to convert or have their heads cut off.
Yet he has no problem with hiding behind the Italian military surrounding the walls of the Vatican, protecting him from that same Muslim threat.
This pontificate is a political disaster, one gone completely off the rails.
Serious questions need to be asked about all this: homosexual men, many of whom are either abusers or covered up abuse placed into powerful posts; the theft of hundreds of millions of euros; constant lies and denials of repeated press reports; and multiple appointments of enemies of Christ to high-visibility positions within the Church. And now hurling accusations at political conservatives that their love of country makes them “Nazis,” and opposing the gay agenda means conservatives want homosexuals marched off to gas chambers.
This is outrageous. Francis hates America because America represents everything his twisted political worldview stands in opposition to.
This increased marxist view has been brewing in the Church for decades, and far from being ascendant is now practically the status quo. Love of the homosexual agenda, illegal immigrants, the abolition of nations and Islam’s “favored son” status is what Francis will be remembered for.
The Vatican has yet to comment on the Scalfari interview about Francis reportedly saying America should willingly surrender itself to a one-world government. And actually, no comment is needed. We’ve heard enough.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Church Militanthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngChurch Militant2019-11-19 11:48:102019-11-19 13:45:29VIDEO: The Vortex — Francis HATES America! He has drunk all the Kool-Aid.
This is a few moments from two intersections where a one hour pro-life expression took place. At one corner there was a counter-demonstration which seemed to attempt to profane the Catholic Church, suggesting that for them, it is more than a right-to-abort issue, and perhaps more of a complete rejection of Western values.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Vlad Tepes Bloghttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngVlad Tepes Blog2019-10-07 05:40:062019-10-07 06:09:12Pro-life Hour met with counter-demonstration in Ottawa
House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler epitomizes the irrational HATRED he, his leftist allies in Congress and the drive-by media have towards President Trump. Without any evidence produced by the Mueller investigation, Nadler stated “we are going to initiate investigations into abuses of power, corruption and obstruction of justice.” He plans to call in 60 former/current Trump officials and many others including those with whom Trump had business dealings long before becoming President. Trump supporters know this vitriol stems from his legitimate election which Nadler & hi s ilk still can’t accept.
Nadler, like Mueller, is conducting a “Witch Hunt” to create crimes that don’t exist. His assertion that “our job is to protect the rule of law” demonstrates the height of hypocrisy and double standards after all the criminal activity conducted by Obama and his administration including “Fast & Furious”; Benghazi; IRS scandal; failure to follow Obamacare laws; Iran deal; whitewashed Clinton investigation, etc.
No POTUS before Trump has ever been falsely criticized 24X7 for his first two years much less maintained a 50% approval rating and delivered on every campaign promise. The left, including Nadler, just don’t get it. They are lying themselves into another loss in 2020.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Royal A. Brown IIIhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRoyal A. Brown III2019-03-14 06:43:242019-03-14 07:10:47House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler Doesn't Get It
George J. Marlin raises a question very much on the minds of many Catholics. Surely, some rebuke from New York’s bishops is necessary.
In March 1970, the New York State Legislature repealed the anti-abortion law that had been on the books since 1830. The bill narrowly passed, due to support from several legislators from heavily Catholic districts who were subsequently defeated for their apostasy in the November elections.
Back in those days, the Catholic Church in New York possessed moral authority; and the Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Terrence Cooke, was not afraid to use that power in the public square.
Cardinal Cooke led the charge to repeal the law that permitted unrestricted abortions up to 24 weeks. And in May 1972, the State Legislature did just that and reinstated the 1830 statute.
Sadly, Governor Nelson Rockefeller vetoed the repeal of the liberalized abortion law shortly thereafter.
The New York abortion issue became moot, however, when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973.
Fast forward forty years and abortion has once again made headlines in New York thanks to Governor Andrew Cuomo.
Cuomo, a baptized Catholic and graduate of Archbishop Molly High School in Queens and Fordham University in the Bronx, has abandoned some major moral tenets of his faith.
In 2011, his first year in office, he engineered the passage of same-sex marriage legislation. “Marriage equality,” he declared, “is a question of principle and the state shouldn’t discriminate against same-sex couples who wish to get married.”
Then on January 16, 2014, Cuomo announced, on a radio show, that Catholics and others with traditional moral views were unfit citizens who were no longer welcome in New York:
Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.
It gets worse.
Cuomo has been off the rails on the subject of abortion. In his 2013 State of the State Address, he cast his lot with the radical pro-abortion lobby, screaming four times, “It’s her body; it’s her choice!”
Cuomo introduced legislation that would repeal the 1970 abortion law, and would codify abortion as a “fundamental right of privacy,” a classification even the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected.
Cuomo’s proposal was bottled up in the Republican-Conservative-controlled State Senate for four years. But last November, the GOP lost control of that legislative chamber.
A jubilant Cuomo boasted that his so-called Reproductive Health Act would be the first order of business before the newly organized Legislature in January 2019.
And so it was.
On January 22, the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Legislature passed the bill, to thundering applause and wild laughter. Minutes later, to a standing ovation, Cuomo signed it into law.
This law goes far beyond Roe v. Wade. It removes abortion clauses from the penal code and “creates a right to the procedure under the public health law.”
Although abortions are restricted to the first twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, exceptions are so broad (i.e., economic, social, or emotional distress) that anyone will be able to procure an abortion up to minutes before giving birth. In other words, the lives of unborn children who have viability outside the womb can now be terminated by doctors and non-doctors.
Governor Andrew Cuomo is very different than his father, Governor Mario Cuomo. The elder Cuomo tried to be St. Thomas More and Machiavelli at one and the same time.
In his famous 1984 Notre Dame speech on “Religious Belief and Public Morality,” the More-Cuomo said “The Catholic Church is my spiritual home. My head is there and my hope. . . .[and] I accept the Church’s teaching on abortion.” But the Machiavelli-Cuomo gave himself an “out” by claiming that as a public official, he could not impose his private religious views on the rest of society.
Mario Cuomo demonstrated the absurdity of his position every time he vetoed death penalty legislation that was approved overwhelmingly by the Legislature and was supported by over 60 percent of New Yorkers. Cuomo imposed his personal moral objections even though there was public opinion against him.
Andrew Cuomo is vastly different from his father. There is no duality; he prefers to be a Machiavellian and he promotes whatever works to advance his political ambitions.
In fact, it has been reported that when he was Clinton’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, one of his first acts “was to distribute the book by Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, to his key aides. . .telling them: ‘This is my leadership philosophy.’”
Cuomo uses or spurns the Church when it suits his political ends. While he discarded Church teaching on abortion, he embraced and praised Pope Francis’s message concerning the needy and the marginalized. And when the pope visited St. Patrick’s Cathedral on September 24, 2015, Cuomo made sure he was in a front pew. It was great political theater for the governor.
Since Andrew Cuomo has dismissed the fundamental Church teaching that all persons have the right to life because they are made in the image of God, maybe it’s time the Church dismissed him.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that “Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged.”
So, at the very least, the bishops of New York should announce publicly that because Cuomo has caused public scandal, he must be denied Communion.
Or the bishops, if they have the mettle, might call Cuomo in and point out the canonical penalties they are prepared to impose if he does not renounce his heresy. Whether or not that includes excommunication is a matter for canon lawyers.
But something really must be done, lest New York’s bishops confirm the growing perception that the Catholic Church is a compromised paper tiger.
This is unlikely to succeed, but it shows widespread dissatisfaction not just with Tlaib, but with the direction the Left is taking.
“This woman is an anti-Semite, a war mongering hate filled Palestinian who has vowed to try and destroy our constitutional rights, hates America, hates American citizens.”
Can those charges reasonably be disputed?
“150,000 Sign Petition to Impeach Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib,” by Anthony Gockowski, Tennessee Star, January 12, 2019 (thanks to the Geller Report):
A Change.org petition calling for the impeachment of Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI-13) already has close to 160,000 signatures.
“This woman is an anti-Semite, a war mongering hate filled Palestinian who has vowed to try and destroy our constitutional rights, hates America, hates American citizens,” the petition states. “She’s a danger to our sovereignty, a detriment to society, and to this country, and is unfit to serve in any capacity within our government.”
The petition also takes issue with Tlaib’s election, claiming that she “lied about living in Detroit” by “using her father’s house address.”
Tlaib made headlines earlier this week when she vowed to “impeach the motherf—” during a party in celebration of her being sworn in to Congress.
“I stand by impeaching the president of the United States. I ran on that,” she said in an interview discussing her comments. She called her promise to impeach President Donald Trump something she “very much” holds “dearly.”
“They love that I’m real, and that I am very much focused on getting the government back up and running, but also making sure we’ve held the president of the United States accountable,” she said.
Tlaib later apologized that her comments caused a “distraction,” but refused to apologize for the explicit remarks….
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Rashida-Tlaib-facebook-page-e1547470577212.jpg407639Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2019-01-14 07:09:352019-04-30 18:16:50190,000 sign petition to impeach Muslim Rep. Rashida Tlaib who called Trump “motherf**er”
It’s completely disingenuous to tag D. James Kennedy Ministries as a hate group alongside the KKK and neo-Nazis. We desire all people, with no exceptions, to receive the love of Christ and his forgiveness and healing. We unequivocally condemn violence, and we hate no one.
It’s ridiculous for the SPLC to falsely tag evangelical Christian ministries as “hate groups” simply for upholding the 2,000-year-old Christian consensus on marriage and sexuality. It’s nothing more than an attempt to bulldoze over those who disagree with them, and it has a chilling effect on the free exercise of religion in a nation built on that. We decided not to let their falsehoods stand.
SPLC’s so-called “hate map” has been linked to violent attacks against conservatives in the past. In 2012, a gunman wounded a Family Research Council (FRC) employee when he attempted to gain access to the organization’s Washington, D.C. headquarters. The suspect would later tell FBI investigators he targeted FRC because it was listed as an “anti-gay group” by SPLC and “planned to kill as many people as possible and then to smear [Chick-fil-A] sandwiches on their faces as a political statement.”
SPLC was also linked to the recent attack on the Republican Congressional baseball team practice when U.S. Representative Steve Scalise wounded by a gunman who was reported fan of SPLC’s Facebook page, in addition to other leftist groups.
Other conservative organizations labeled as “hate groups” by SPLC merely for their conservative principles and Judeo-Christian beliefs include Alliance Defending Freedom, American Family Association, organizations opposing illegal immigration, and many more.
The Kennedy Ministries lawsuit is a serious matter because SPLC sits on top of a massive warchest–an endowment of over $300 million–to finance it’s legal battles and political attacks. The Washington Times reports SPLC’s rating was downgraded last year from a “C+” to an “F” for having an inordinate amount of reserve assets compared to annual operating costs. William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection suggests “SPLC’s bad habit sensationalizing and politicizing ‘hate’ ” is designed “to generate even more money for its already bloated coffers.”
Apple and JPMorgan Chase aren’t the only companies supporting SPLC’s defamation and targeting of conservatives. We’ve compiled a list of sixteen other corporations that directly enable SPLC’s politically motivated attacks. Our SPLC resource page documents the financial relationships between companies like Charles Schwab, Kraft Heinz, Newman’s Own, Verizon, and more and this radical group whose misleading information has helped inspire true violence.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/antifa-burning-document-e1503827117457.jpg3596402ndvote .comhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png2ndvote .com2017-08-27 05:45:412017-08-27 12:36:46Meet the Corporations Supporting the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Assault on Christians and Conservatives
Not physically ugly, but ugly deep in their souls. Georgetown University professor Christine Fair happened upon neo-Nazi Richard Spencer, who is not me, at a gym and began berating him. The gym then revoked Richard Spencer’s membership. I have no regard for Richard Spencer, as often as I am confused with him (even in the comments at National Review on this piece, some clown says that the article should have highlighted Richard Spencer’s remarks on white nationalism, not his criticism of Islam; in reality, he is the one who writes about white nationalism, and I am the one who writes about Islam, and we are two completely different people): he has more than once demanded that I reveal my “real” name, as he is convinced that I am secretly a Jew who has changed my name to fool good white folks like him.
So while I have nothing but disgust for Richard Spencer, I have even greater disgust for Christine Fair, who in this incident showed herself to be more of a Nazi than Richard Spencer could ever hope to be. Like the Nazis, she wants those whom she hates destroyed, full stop. Just destroyed. She doesn’t want them to be able to speak in public. She doesn’t want them to be able to hold memberships in gyms. She doesn’t want them to be allowed to live in the city she lives in. She doesn’t want them to breathe. This is quintessentially Nazi behavior, and is in direct contradiction to the principles that make a society free.
While Richard Spencer is indeed a Nazi, albeit in a different way from how Fair is one, and there is no excuse for that, as long as he is not breaking any laws he has as much right to be in that gym as Christine Fair has. But not as far as Christine Fair is concerned. She has apparently not reflected upon the precedent she is setting, or on the possibility, as remote as it is, that one day her views could be out of favor, and she could find herself getting poisoned, and forbidden to speak, and screamed at by campus fascists, and driven out of gyms, and the like, and that a healthier and freer society allows for the freedom of expression and doesn’t persecute or hound those whose ideas are unpopular or even unarguably obnoxious.
National Review writer Jeremy Carl brings me into this because I have been on the receiving end of Fair’s wrath before, and have found her to be a shockingly rude, unkind, angry, and remarkably unpleasant individual — all while she preens as an exponent of “tolerance” and “peace.” Carl is a bit hasty, in my view, to accept the claims of my critics without evaluating those claims or my work on their merits, but his anxiousness to distance himself from me is perhaps understandable in a piece that appears in the publication that Ann Coulter so famously observed years ago was run by “girly men.”
I would happily debate Jeremy Carl, or Christine Fair, or any serious analyst on the nature of Islam or any of the assertions I have made in my work, and I am confident that the claims about my work that Carl so readily embraces here would, in that event, be proven false. It’s certain, however, that neither Carl nor Fair will agree to debate me, and so that is that. Whatever the undeniable flaws of Carl’s piece, he is dead-on about the Left’s increasing authoritarianism and thuggery. Mark my words: I won’t be the last enemy of the Left that Leftists will try to kill.
Addendum: I just noticed that in her hate screed against Richard Spencer in the Washington Post, Christine Fair cites as factual the thoroughly discredited study claiming that “right-wing extremists” pose a greater threat than Islamic jihadists. This is what an academic is today: not a thinking individual, but a propagandist for the hard-Left.
Georgetown University professor Christine Fair
“Liberal Bullies Threaten Free Speech,” by Jeremy Carl, National Review, May 24, 2017:
…Let’s stipulate that Richard Spencer is a man who has embraced values that are anathema to America’s, and that his vision is quite obviously not one that conservatives or Republicans share. But Fair publicly claims that Spencer’s very presence in the gym, because of his political views, creates an oppressive environment, which is a much more dramatic and potentially dangerous claim. If you are still cheering on Professor Fair, consider the case of another Spencer — Robert Spencer (no relation to Richard), a persistent critic of political Islam and a favorite of Steve Bannon and other figures in the Trump administration.After he spoke to a large audience last week in Reykjavik, Iceland, a leftist approached him as he was dining with companions and managed to slip a combination of MDMA (“Ecstasy”) and Ritalin into his drink, causing him to become ill to the point that he was hospitalized. Fortunately, police seem to have identified the perpetrator. But despite Spencer’s relative prominence and the dramatic nature of the crime, this political poisoning attracted almost no attention from the mainstream media.
As Spencer put it ruefully, “The lesson I learned was that media demonization of those who dissent from the leftist line is a direct incitement to violence. By portraying me and others who raise legitimate questions about jihad terror and Sharia oppression as racist, bigoted ‘Islamophobes’ without allowing us a fair hearing, they paint a huge target on the backs of those who dare to dissent.”
Spencer, the author of two New York Times bestsellers on radical Islam, is certainly controversial — and has his fair share of critics even on the right. But one should be able to be controversial without being poisoned. In the wake of the bombings in Manchester, are critics of political Islam really the people who should be beyond the pale of civil discourse?
hat does all this have to do with Professor Fair? Well, it turns out that Robert Spencer too has had his share of run-ins with Professor Fair, who according to Spencer called him a “lunatic” and likened him to Charles Manson while “refusing (of course) to debate me on questions of substance.” Robert Spencer says he has never met Fair in person, which has not saved him from being a repeated target of Fair’s ire.
Very well, you may say, but Spencer’s harsh and cherry-picked criticism of Islam may have stirred up legitimate anger — there’s no reason to defend him.
Well, how about Asra Nomani, a liberal Muslim immigrant woman, former Wall Street Journal reporter, and Georgetown professor who committed the mortal sin (to Christine Fair) of voting for Donald Trump and then writing a piece in the Washington Post explaining her decision. In response, she was brutally harassed by Professor Fair on Twitter for the better part of a month. As Nomani subsequently wrote to Georgetown in a formal complaint against Fair: “Prof. Fair has directed hateful, vulgar and disrespectful messages to me, including the allegations that I am: a ‘fraud’; ‘fame-mongering clown show’; and a ‘bevkuf,’ or ‘idiot,’ in my native Urdu, who has ‘pimped herself out’ . . . this last allegation amounts to ‘slut-shaming.’”
But while a quick perusal of Fair’s public statements reveals her to be an extreme case, a virtual parody of liberal intolerance, she is hardly the only liberal behaving badly. In just the past year, many conservatives, libertarians, and other assorted right-wingers, from Ann Coulter to Charles Murray to Heather Mac Donald to Milo Yiannopoulos to Ben Shapiro, have been shouted down and prevented, often by violence, from sharing their views, most often on America’s campuses. And so far, almost without exception, those universities have declined to give any significant punishment to the perpetrators. It is all well and good for conservatives to point out that there is a yawning gap between the Richard Spencers of the world and the Charles Murrays and Heather Mac Donalds. But for the Christine Fairs of the world — and an increasing number of her ideological soulmates on the left — they are all the same. None should have the right to speak — and increasingly, they are not even free to lead private lives free of harassment and threats. All of the people named above have been called “Nazis,” “white supremacists,” and similar epithets. If the Right, through silence, decides it’s okay to harass or physically attack Richard Spencer because he is a “Nazi” (a video clip of an Antifa member sucker-punching Spencer has become a favorite Internet meme on the left), they should not expect that the punchers will stop at Richard Spencer — or Robert Spencer, or even Asra Nomani. If we won’t fight for the free speech of those who anger the Left, no matter how distasteful we find their views, because we are afraid that the Left will wrongly ascribe their views to us, then conservatives are little more than feeding red meat to the ravenous left-wing lion in vain hopes that they will be the last ones eaten. And the lion is getting stronger and hungrier.
In his comments on Fair, written long before his poisoning incident, Robert Spencer wondered, “Why are the loudest proponents of ‘tolerance’ and ‘peace’ so frequently ugly, hateful people?” It’s a question the Left doesn’t want to answer — and too many on the right, afraid of being labeled as bigots by the most intolerant voices on the left, are scared to even ask.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/christine-fair-georgetown-university.png370640Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2017-05-26 05:56:032017-05-26 05:59:59Why are the loudest proponents of 'tolerance' and 'peace' so frequently ugly, hateful people?
Daily we see the fringe become more fringe. The latest example is a MTV News reporter named Ira Madison III. Madison, who is black, hates America, loves Obama and takes cheap shots at the grandchild of U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions. Katie McHugh from Breitbart reports:
Culture writer for MTV News Ira Madison III attacked Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions and his Asian-American granddaughter as a “prop” to distract from his “racism.”
Madison was named in the piece as a “young activist-writer” who was “deeply entrenched” in “identity politics.”
[ … ]
According to his LinkedIn page, Madison is a gradaute [sic] of Loyola University of Chicago where he studied theater and NYU where he studied dramatic writing.
[ … ]
When asked about racism in America, Madison said, “I think at this point, the world has changed so much where I don’t afford people the right to have “different perspectives” if they’re damaging to others. Like, if you’re an asshole and homophobic and racist now, you were the same when you were younger and you knew it was wrong then.”
[ … ]
The day after Donald Trump won the presidency of the United States, Madison posted this throwback photo on Facebook. Madison regularly posts photos of the first family on his photostream. A few days later on his MTV.com column, Madison wrote, “This week, all of America needs to get deleted. You made Barack Obama utter the words “President-elect Donald Trump” and I will honestly never forgive my country for this.”
Here is Madison’s tweet, which has since been taken down:
Can you feel the hate and anger in this black man for an innocent Asian child?
Ira Madison III
After taking down the above tweet Madison attempted to justify himself by Tweeting, “Why is she a prop? Sessions argued for policy that in the 1880s was used to discriminate against Asian Americans https://t.co/sZitqzLBS4.” The link is to a Think Progress article about a 2013 U.S. Senate committee meeting on comprehensive immigration reform, of which Senator Sessions was a committee member. When you go to the link you find that Senator Sessions was not arguing to discriminate against Asian Americans at all. Rather Senator Sessions asked the President of the Asian American Justice Center Mee Moua “if a country should legitimately decide that it wants to admit one productive family member, but not another, less motivated individual.” Sessions noted:
It’s perfectly logical to think there are two individuals, let’s say in a good friendly country like Honduras. One is a valedictorian of his class, has two years of college, learned English and very much has a vision to come to the United States and the other one has dropped out of high school, has minimum skills. Both are 20 years of age and that latter person has a brother here. What would be in the interest of the United States? …
Clearly it would be in the best interest of the United States to only grant a visa, work permit or citizenship to those who benefit the host country, in this case the United States. Immigration is a key issue for Americans and impacts the economy, jobs, security of the homeland, education, public policy and the criminal justice system.
As the U.S. Attorney General Senator Sessions will be dealing with law and order issues and enforcing the immigration laws of the United States. Laws that make it illegal for someone to come here without permission.
That is something Madison, Obama, Democrats and others fail to understand. When you lose elections, just as when you break the law, there are consequences.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ira-madison-iii.jpg350640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2017-01-10 17:23:512017-01-10 18:39:02Who is Ira Madison III and why does he hate Asian children and America?
Drexel became aware today of Associate Professor George Ciccariello-Maher’s inflammatory tweet, which was posted on his personal Twitter account on Dec. 24, 2016. While the University recognizes the right of its faculty to freely express their thoughts and opinions in public debate, Professor Ciccariello-Maher’s comments are utterly reprehensible, deeply disturbing, and do not in any way reflect the values of the University.
The University is taking this situation very seriously. We contacted Ciccariello-Maher today to arrange a meeting to discuss this matter in detail.
Here is Ciccariello-Maher’s Tweet:
So what exactly is there to discuss?
George Ciccariello-Maher. Photo: Drexel University.
I am very excited to have joined the Drexel community after having taught political theory at U.C. Berkeley, San Quentin State Prison, and the Venezuelan School of Planning in Caracas. Everywhere that I have lived, from Caracas to Oakland, has impacted my approach to teaching, research, and how I understand the world more generally, and I expect Drexel and Philadelphia to do the same.
My research and teaching center on what could be called the “decolonial turn” in political thought, the moment of epistemic and political interrogation that emerges in response to colonialism and global social inequality.
Ciccariello-Maher’s specialization includes, “Colonialism, social movements, political theory, Latin America, and race and racism.” He “contribute[s] journalistic writing to such publications as Counterpunch, MRZine, and Venezuela Analysis, ZNet, and Alternet among others, and I have written op-eds for the Philadelphia Inquirer and Fox News Latino. I appear regularly in media outlets ranging from community radio to NPR, from Al-Jazeera, CNN, Time Magazine, the Christian Science Monitor, and Fox News.”
Perhaps Ciccariello-Maher should take the lead and be the first to commit “white genocide”? Or maybe he already has?!
Since your election to the Florida House of Representatives in 2012 until now, I have always known your reputation as a legislator to be one of nothing but respect for the dignity of the institution, for the legislative process and for your fellow colleagues. Even those who firmly disagree with you on matters of public policy speak highly of you, of your talents as a legislator and the unique perspective you bring to the process.
However, after the tragic and despicable acts of evil which took place right down the street from my offices in Orlando on June 12, I was shocked to learn of your repeated statements accusing your fellow legislators of creating an environment that gives rise to such horrible violence when they speak out against any LGBT bills as bad public policy in the Legislature.
After the local NPR affiliate interviewed you, WFSU issued this report:
“Florida’s only openly gay legislator says Orlando’s mass shooting is an example of a deranged individual taking anti-gay political rhetoric to the, “next level.” Democratic Representative David Richardson of Miami Beach says attempts by religious conservatives to roll back recent gains in gay civil rights encourages extremists… “[P]eople who are prone to committing violent acts are emboldened by speeches that they hear from policy makers that want to roll back our advances.”
When I respectfully confronted you on another NPR affiliate radio debate for linking vocal opposition to new LGBT laws with violent acts such as the ones that occurred in Orlando, you initially denied these statements– until I read your words back to you on the air. Then, instead of retracting or apologizing for these irresponsible remarks, you doubled down and repeated the same very offensive and incorrect argument again. In that interview you said,
“I absolutely do think that people are emboldened, by the comments of certain lawmakers whether they are reacting in a violent way…”
While I realize the matter of the Orlando shooting and the topic of creating new LGBT rights are still raw, emotional, and highly personal matters for members of the LGBT community, this in no way justifies these inflammatory remarks which do nothing to foster good will, understanding or collegiality among fellow members of the Legislature, much less the general public. On the contrary, your comments breed divisiveness, sow discord and are an attempt to manipulate and silence robust debate among the other elected leaders of our Legislature on these important policy decisions.
Additionally, you have also stunningly stated:
“It doesn’t help when they go to Tallahassee and spew hatred and rhetoric that is harmful to our community. I really wish we could get to a place where everyone can get along and respect the rights of everybody.”
I personally know many of the members of the Legislature who are known to be the most vocal and the most actively opposed to these bad gay-rights bills.
I have been in some of their homes.
I know their families.
None of them, even in private or casual conversation, make comments that “spew hatred” toward the LGBT community. On the contrary, these are truly some of the finest, most loving and charitable people you could ever know. Do you have specific examples of Florida legislators “spewing hatred” when debating in opposition to the creation of new LGBT rights?
The primary push by gay-rights activists after the Orlando tragedy, as you know, is the so-called “Competitive Workforce Act” (CWA) which seeks to create a new legal protected class for sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. These laws are being used all across the country as weapons to punish Christians who want to live out their constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion in public life without government interference. Even more egregiously, this CWA bill would also allow fully biological men to freely use women’s locker rooms and showers in any facility declared a public accommodation like YMCA’s, camps, LA Fitness & health clubs and domestic violence shelters. This is a gross invasion of privacy, safety and security for women. The more serious problem created with the CWA has not so much to do with transgendered persons themselves, as it does with actual criminals (voyeurs, sex offenders and pedophiles) who are looking for excuses to go into women’s intimate spaces, which the latest version of this bill would unquestionably allow.
These are just a few of the many legitimate and compelling public policy and constitutional problems which compel legislators to speak out publicly and strongly oppose the CWA. For you to argue that when any legislator speaks out in debate against this dangerous bill they are “spewing hatred,” “encouraging extremism” and “make people prone to violent acts” is simply beyond the pale of decency for a member of the legislative branch of government.
Rep. Richardson, this sir– is not your finest moment.
Is there a way to disagree on these policies and not be judged as hateful or contributing to creating an environment of terror? If we cannot disagree in civility without being slimmed with such accusations, then our civil society has a real problem.
Unless you can provide real examples of such “hateful” behavior, rather than talking about it in generalities, you should stop making these assertions. It is not helpful to this important debate, it is manipulative and pollutes the work we are hopefully both committed to, namely building a better Florida, even in the midst of our disagreements.
You have correctly stated that, “it does not help when [people] go to Tallahassee and spew rhetoric that is harmful.” If you really mean that, please start by reexamining and reconsidering your own harmful words directed to your own colleagues and do not confuse “robust debate” with “hateful rhetoric” just because you disagree.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Richardson.jpg385640Florida Family Policy Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFlorida Family Policy Council2016-07-06 10:32:072016-07-06 10:43:32An Open Letter to Florida’s Only Openly Gay Legislator
Progressives talk a lot about the evil of hate. We are told that if we object to Sharia law and jihad, then we are intolerant haters. But what about hating what harms people?
I hate wife-beating, yet the Sharia, Koran and Sunna support it.
I am intolerant of child abuse, including child marriage, but the Sunna and Sharia support it.
I hate the jihadist killings of Christians, Jews, Buddhists and apostates.
I am intolerant of religious leaders, such as the Pope and Dai Lama, who will not condemn the jihadic killing of their groups.
I hate dualistic ethics, which lack integrity.
I am intolerant of face coverings, since it cuts off open communication.
As a society, we have lost the ability to become morally outraged and are incapable of anger about the Islamic harm of innocents. I hate that.
Ненависть может быть добродетелью
Прогрессивные много говорят по поводу зла ненависти. Нам говорят, что если мы возражаем против шариата и джихада, то мы проявляем нетерпимость и ненависть. Однако, что насчет ненависти, которая вредит людям?
Я ненавижу избиение женщин, а шариат, Коран и Сунна его поддерживают.
Я нетерпим к надругательству над детьми, включая детские браки, но Сунна и шариат поддерживают их.
Я ненавижу убийства джихадистами христиан, иудеев, буддистов и вероотступников.
Я нетерпим к религиозным лидерам, таким, как Папа и Далай-лама, которые не осуждают джихадистские убийства своих групп.
Я ненавижу дуалистическую этику, в которой отсутствует целостность.
Я нетерпимо отношусь к закрытию лица, поскольку это исключает открытое общение.
Как общество, мы потеряли способность морального возмущения и неспособны проявить гнев по поводу исламского вреда невинным людям. Я ненавижу это.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of the four cardinal virtues: prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/4-cardinal-virtues-667x462-e1466951737836.jpg406640Bill Warnerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngBill Warner2016-06-26 10:37:092016-06-27 11:13:59VIDEO: Hate Can Be a Virtue
I’m a reporter in Grande Prairie, Alberta. My editor, for whatever reason, didn’t want to run my story on Robert Spencer’s talk here (though they did run my advancer). I think it’s worth running, though, since there didn’t seem to be any coverage of what he actually said while here in Canada (see the CBC’s blatant hatchet job here). I created this blog simply to publish the story I would have submitted (with minor changes befitting a blog). I might eventually put up other stuff too.
More than 100 people came to hear Robert Spencer speak about Islam during his stop in Grande Prairie on Friday.
The New York Times best-selling author has appeared on CTV, Fox News, BBC and other networks to discuss Islamic terrorism. His website, Jihad Watch, seeks to call public attention to the ideology motivating Islamic terrorism.
“The longer we misapprehend this problem, and the longer we keep our heads in the sand about it and deny what it’s really all about, the more we will not be able to deal with it adequately and the more lethal it will grow,” Spencer said.
In the years since 9/11, it has become taboo to discuss the ideology that Muslim terrorists themselves cite as their source of motivation, Spencer said. The refrain among Western political leaders is that Islam is a religion of peace, and self-proclaimed jihadists actually have nothing to do with it.
Spencer said this is dangerous, for an obvious reason: “You cannot defeat an enemy you don’t understand.”
The key point that the political and media class don’t want to admit, according to Spencer, is that Islamic terror attacks are inspired by a straightforward reading of the religion’s sacred texts, the Koran and the Hadiths.
Of particular concern is the Koran’s promise of Paradise for believers who “fight in God’s way; they kill and are killed.”
“This is why we see people strap bombs to themselves and go and blow themselves up in a crowd of infidels,” Spencer said. “Because they know that if they kill in the way of Allah, Paradise is promised to them.”
Spencer acknowledges plenty of Muslims aren’t even particularly religious, let alone fundamentalist. However, those who devoutly believe what the Koran tells them present a problem for secular societies even if they don’t resort to violence, he added. This is because Islam comes with a built-in political system, one which believers think is divine.
Spencer also points out that the Koran incites hatred against Jews and Christians, calling them “the most vile of created beings.” Muslims, in contrast, are “the best of people.”
This means some Muslims come to the West with a belief in the superiority of their own societal model and the inferiority of Western secular society, Spencer said. While they may not support terrorism, they do support curtailing basic liberties such as the freedom of speech.
Britain’s Channel 4 last month released the results of a survey in which 68% of British Muslims said they believed people who “insult Islam” should be arrested and prosecuted.
A member of Spencer’s audience on Friday suggested his talks contribute to “Islamophobia.” Spencer said this phrase is deliberately used to place Islam beyond criticism and make Westerners feel guilty for talking about Islamic terrorism.
“Islamophobia is a term that was actually conceived by the Muslim Brotherhood in order to manipulate and intimidate people into thinking that it’s wrong to oppose jihad terror,” he said.
Spencer was invited to speak by a local group called Concerned Canadians for Canadian Values….
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ISIS-Israel-and-the-Chaos-in-Gaza-e1451595814741.png354640Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2016-05-04 06:43:372016-05-04 08:08:13VIDEO: The roots of the Islamic State and Islamic anti-Semitism
Last month, the Canadian House of Commons voted 229-51 for of a resolution calling upon the government to denounce the virulently anti-Israel BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanction) movement. The Conservative opposition to the Trudeau government introduced this anti-BDS resolution, and the ruling Liberal Party supported it. The New Democratic Party (NDP), however, voted against it, with some NDP members saying that they did so not because they supported BDS, but solely on free speech grounds.
An NDP MP, Charles Angus, suggested in a parliamentary session that the principle of free speech was at stake in supporting the anti-BDS motion. He said: “I note that last August the United Church of Canada, which represents two million Protestants, supported the divestment movement…This has nothing to do with my colleague’s claim that it is delegitimizing the State of Israel. This was a choice it made.”
Why would the United Church of Canada (UCC) make that choice? Solely on free speech grounds? Then why did it refer to Israel as “the thief,” “the occupier,” and “the aggressor” in their 26-page working group report on a bogus fact-finding mission to Israel? (Only three people constituted this “working group” that went on this “mission,” yet they presented themselves as a “working group” that represented the UCC. I have personally spoken to many pastors in the UCC who are against this and felt that the UCC had been were infiltrated by an agenda that was muscled into the church without their knowledge and against their will.)
NDP MP Angus went on to say: “My Conservative colleagues are asking Parliament to stand up in the House and condemn individuals in this country for their right to debate…We are being asked…to deny and condemn individual students for debating politics.”
On the other hand, Liberal foreign affairs minister Stéphane Dion said: “The Liberals do not support this boycott movement, because we do not believe it is conducive to achieving peace in the Middle East.”
That’s much more realistic. BDS is an aggressive movement forced upon universities by Islamists on campuses globally and in Canada through the Muslim Student Association, which do indeed debate politics, as NDP MP Angus stated: the Muslim Student Association has direct ties to terrorism and the Muslim Brotherhood. BDS is clearly a delegitimization of the state of Israel. Constitutionally, it can be disingenuously presented as needing to be protected under a right to free expression, but it is not ultimately about the freedom of expression. The BDS movement is about the branding of Israel wrongfully. Israel is a state that is threatened with obliteration while BDS and other anti-Israel propagandists accuse it unjustly of everything from apartheid to crimes against humanity.
In light of that fact, voting against the anti-BDS motion, as the NDP did, is not, in fact, a free speech or free expression issue. It is an anti-Israel/antisemitic issue which is disguised as an issue of the freedom of expression or the right to one’s own opinion. What other nation on the face of the earth faces threats to its existence in the face of ongoing attacks? None. Not even states that regularly carry out severe abuses against their own citizens and engage in the persecution of religious minorities. Only Israel.
The idea that the NDP actually opposes the BDS movement, while simply supporting the freedom of expression, is extremely dubious claim on other grounds as well. For example, during the debate on this resolution, NDP MP Hélène Laverdière asked whether by adopting the motion, she would be condemning the Ontario arm of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), which endorsed BDS.
One CUPE local site features this anti-Israel propaganda: an article entitled, “Raid on the Gaza Flotilla Israel’s Attack on Us All.” This CUPE article asserts that “Israel is on a “collision course” with international standards of decency, solidarity, and respect for human rights.” How, pray tell, did the Canadian Union of Public Employees ever think it was part of its duties to get involved in Israel’s business?
For the record, on the CUPE site it states: “CUPE is a founding partner of the NDP. We are proud to be New Democrats.”
Because we value the freedom of expression, BDS is able to flourish stop in our democracy, but the NDP’s opposition to the anti-BDS motion is motivated by an agenda that is far more ominous than a simple determination to defend the freedom of speech, given the NDP’s history and its partnership with CUPE.
Christine Williams is an award-winning broadcast journalist; advisor to Canada’s Office of Religious Freedoms; and Public Affairs/Media Consultant, International Christian Embassy Jerusalem–Canada.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/NDP-Logo-e1459115092226.png337640Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2016-03-27 17:45:512016-03-27 17:45:51Canada’s New Democratic Party Supports of Boycotting Israel
“Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” ― Edmund Burke, British House of Commons.
The Vice-Mayor of Charlottesville, Virginia, Wes Bellamy, is leading the charge to request the City Council to order a statue of Robert E. Lee removed, as well as change the name of Lee Park where the statue rests.
Bellamy has planned a press conference, conveniently during normal working hours, for Tuesday, March 22 at 9:30 a.m. He hopes to gather community leaders together in order to pressure the City Council to take action on this critical issue.
Bellamy moved to Charlottesville from Atlanta, Georgia in 2009, and teaches computer science at Charlottesville High School and has aspirations of becoming the principal one day. So, it is surprising that someone who is dedicating their life to teaching our young people is desiring to remove statues that are reminders of where we came from and who we want to be in the future.
General Robert E. Lee, a graduate of West Point, was a brilliant military officer, commanding General in the Confederate Army during the Civil War and a gentleman. He surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant in 1865, thus ending the Civil War. The Civil War is integral to our history as a nation, and contrary to many people’s belief, was not all about slavery, but about States rights.
A few of Bellamy’s reasons for removing the statue are as follows:
Robert E. Lee has no ties with Charlottesville.
Several current residents have stated that they believe the statue was used as a psychological tool to show dominance of the majority over the minority during this time period, (1924). Subsequently, a large portion of city residents have refused to step foot in Lee Park due to what they believe the statue and park represent.
Governor McAuliffe’s veto announced Thursday, March 10th, of House Bill 587 that would have prevented localities from removing monuments of past historical significance, McAuliffe said he supports historic preservation, but called the legislation a “sweeping override of local authority” that has ramifications for “interpretive signage to tell the story of some of our darkest moments during the Civil War.”
In addition to Bellamy’s desire to strip our history away, there is a young high school girl, Zyahna Bryant, who started an online petition to have the statue removed. One wonders if Mr. Bellamy has had an influence on Ms. Bryant’s thinking since she attends the same school where Bellamy teaches.
She apparently is also petitioning for a Black Student Union at her school. So, for someone who wants to erase the history of racism in our country, she chooses to be in involved in areas which are definitely racist towards anyone who isn’t born with the proper amount of pigment.
When I think of Robert E. Lee I instantly think of someone fighting in favor of slavery. Thoughts of physical harm, cruelty, and disenfranchisement flood my mind. As a teenager in Charlottesville that identifies as black, I am offended every time I pass it. I am reminded over and over again of the pain of my ancestors and all of the fighting that they had to go through for us to be where we are now.
Nevertheless, let’s not forget that Robert E. Lee fought for perpetual bondage of slaves and the bigotry of the South that kept most black citizens as slaves and servants for the entirety of their lives. As a result, legislatures of the south chose to ignore and turn a blind eye to the injustices of African Americans from Jim crow and anti-black terrorism to integrated education.
This past summer, “Black lives matter” was spray painted on the statue. This is just an example of the reactions and the emotions that are evoked because of its presence. Many people, including myself, feel very uncomfortable in the park and we don’t visit it. There are events that I don’t attend simply because they take place in that location.
What I would like to ask Mr. Bellamy and Ms. Bryant, is why stop at Lee Park and Robert E. Lee’s statue? Shouldn’t the city also look at demolishing the University of Virginia as well as his home of Monticello? Thomas Jefferson, after all, owned slaves. If we are to follow the thinking of Bellamy and Bryant, then much would need to change around this city and others.
For example, Washington and Lee University should look into building a new campus and rename it’s school as well. I am sure it causes great emotional turmoil for those black students to attend classes there. Surely Washington D.C. would need to do some remodeling as well.
I think you get my point.
The Civil War happened and no amount of removing statues will change history. What is important though is to teach factual history to our young people growing up in an increasingly hostile world. No one can deny that blacks in our country have experienced horrible treatment, especially during slavery and the Jim Crow years, which Ms. Bryant mentions. But, does she know the history behind Jim Crow?
Democrats were entirely in control through the entire time of Jim Crow laws, and fought against having them squelched. Both in 1956 and 1964 the Republican Civil Rights Act was blocked by the Democrats. An article in The Blaze recounts the specific numbers that might surprise people who have been led to believe the Civil Rights Act was a Democrat idea. The article states,
“Goldwater was one of just six Senate Republicans to vote against the bill in 1964, while 21 Senate Democrats opposed it. It passed by an overall vote of 73-27. In the House, 96 Democrats and 34 Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act, passing with an overall 290-130 vote. While most Democrats in both chambers voted for it, the bulk of the opposition still was from Democrats.”
The KKK was a product of the Democrats as well, and used in order to keep political control. They would beat blacks until they promised not to vote Republican. This is very similar to how the Democrat party is using the Black Lives Matter organization today. See recent FB account of black police officer who attended Trump rally where BLM was protesting.
Black Lives Matter (BLM) uses intimidation, vandalism (case in point, the Robert E. Lee statue right), foul language, and harassment to threaten anyone who doesn’t agree with their cause. They trample others first amendment rights when they don’t mirror their own, as has been seen at the republican presidential rallies.
If anyone truly wants to improve race relations in this country, it won’t be Black Lives Matter. They only incites racism, and continually show contempt for those police officers that make it their job to protect the citizens. Anyone who joins a group of people who march down a street chanting, “Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon,” when referencing our police officers has nothing in the way of fostering better race relations on their agenda.
At some point, as adults, we need to accept what was our past and not remain entrenched in battles that were fought, and won. I personally am weary of constantly hearing about racism. Martin Luther King expressed it best during his ‘I Have a Dream” speech when he stated,
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
In the long run showing respect to one another and raising our children to do the same will go a lot farther than pulling down any statues. And those who are bothered by certain historical monuments would do well to be reminded of the struggles we have been through as a nation and draw pride from the fact we live in the country with the most freedom in the world.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/robert-e-lee-statue-e1458585617780.jpg348640Suzanne Shattuckhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSuzanne Shattuck2016-03-21 14:40:352016-03-21 14:44:01Another Historical Monument Under Fire