Purging History


Intro to ‘Purging History’

John R. Houk Editor

Posted June 10, 2017

 

Those horrible White slave owners of American history should be purged, right? NO!

 

Ending slavery was an awesome end result of the Northern States defeating the Southern States by the end of 1865. Regardless of the immoral slave culture these Southern Confederates tried to perpetuate, many were great Christians and supporter of the heritage of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

 

The break-away Confederate States had their capital city in Richmond Virginia. The Confederate’s primary general was Robert E. Lee from Virginia. Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson was raised in what is now West Virginia, but was a part of Virginia at the beginning of the Civil War.

 

Why the emphasis on Civil War Virginia? George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all came from Virginia – former British Colony turned into one of the original Thirteen States. Those three Virginians were extremely instrumental in the formation and founding of the sovereign United States of America.

 

Washington: Commander-in-Chief the Revolutionary War army that ultimately prevailed and forced the recognition of an independent United States; President of the Constitutional Convention AND the first President of the United States.

Jefferson: Writer of the Declaration of Independence; Revolutionary War Foreign Diplomat; much of Jefferson’s Virginia legislation influenced the U.S. Constitution but not a fan of the Constitution central government yet an ardent supporter once ratified AND third President of the United States.

Madison: Madison was involved in Virginia politics during the Revolutionary War widely influential in writing Virginia’s new State Constitution; wrote the drafts of the U.S. Constitution and designed the Bill of Rights – hence known as the Father of the Constitution; one of the principle writers of The Federal Papers used to encourage the ratification of the Constitution AND the fourth President of the United States.

 

Now I realize my little synopsis of Founding Father heroes of our American is hardly complete. Also I realize that many other influential Founding Fathers both in and out of Virginia are not mentioned. MY POINT is leading to the fact these remarkably influential Virginia Founding Fathers ALL were slave-owning Plantation businessmen of their day.

 

Should we allow the hysterical American Left to purge their names from U.S. history?

 

Justin Smith wonders why We The People of America allow Confederate history to be scrubbed because of slavery? Here are some introductory words from Justin Smith:

 

This piece is by no means intended to defend the evils of slavery or the sins committed by slave owners. It is simply an attempt to illustrate the fallacies relied upon by the Left as they attempt to portray the Civil War only in the context of the slave issue; it truly was much more complex than most people understand, and this one article barely scratches the surface. Now however, the past is being improperly used as a tool of commie progressives to undermine America, as much as they are allowed by the normal population of America.

I hope this peaks the curiosity of many and moves them to halt these sort of movements whenever they arise near them or in their home towns.

 

JRH 6/10/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

Purging History

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 6/8/2017 4:20 PM

 

Monuments honoring heroes of the Confederate States of America, American heroes in fact, are being removed from the public square, due to a successful presentation of oversimplified arguments and lies by the same progressive Leftist Democratic apparatus that seeks to fundamentally transform America. These assaults on the Southern heritage by politically correct propagandists and arrogant activist ideologues are assaults on our American culture and heritage, or “AmeriKKKa” as the Left calls America; and, it is nothing short of a cultural cleansing campaign, a purging of the truth and history and a national disgrace.

 

In 2015, the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP called for the destruction of the Stone Mountain Confederate Monument, that honors Jefferson Davis, General Robert E. Lee and General Stonewall Jackson. They wanted the nearly 2000 square feet and 12 feet deep carving “sandblasted away”.

 

In February, the city council of Charlottesville, VA sought to remove Robert E. Lee’s likeness from its 100 year resting place. They have been temporarily blocked by a lawsuit filed by the Monument Fund and 29 other plaintiffs.

 

Soon protests arose in Charlottesville and NAACP President Rick Turner told the crowds: “I think a decision must be made to remove the statue by any means necessary.”

 

However, the City of New Orleans successfully removed the Battle of Liberty Place obelisk on April 24th and statues of Confederate President Jefferson Davis and General Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard on May 11th and May 17th, consecutively. The statue of Robert E. Lee was removed from New Orlean’s Lee Circle on May 19th, while other efforts are appearing nationwide, in places like Houston and Baltimore.

 

[Blog Editor: A great pro-history article at The Federalist.]

 

Starting in 1784, Thomas Jefferson and many righteous men afterwards attempted to abolish slavery until the end of the Civil War, including former slave owners such as James Madison. It is worth observing that while General Ulysses S. Grant owned one slave and his wife owned four slaves until 1859, General Robert E. Lee never owned any [Blog Editor: The no-slave claim is disputed. WaPo says yes & another source implies no. The “no” is representative of R.E. Lee’s disposition against slavery even though he managed his wife’s inherited slaves as a Plantation owner until Lee freed them by order of his father-in-law’s will.].

 

General Beauregard’s statue was taken down in the dark of night and Lee’s was coming down, when New Orlean’s Mayor Mitch Landrieu (D) revealed an astounding level of ignorance of history, stating: “They may have been warriors, but in this cause they were not patriots. These monuments celebrate a fictional sanitized Confederacy.” Landrieu could not be any more egregiously wrong.

 

On December 27th 1856, Robert E. Lee wrote to his wife: “Slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil in any country … a greater evil to the white than to the black race … nearly two thousand years [of Christianity] … and even among the Christian nations what gross errors still exist!”

 

Many Confederate generals did not want to secede and neither did Jefferson Davis. More than the issue of slavery that had profited both New England slave traders and Southern plantation owners, the South saw secession as a necessity in the face of the unfair tariffs the North had applied against the South from 1828 to 1832 and beyond. And so, they too pledged their lives, fortune and sacred honor as they seceded from an oppressive federal government to retain their sovereignty, their Constitutional rights and a free government.

 

President Abraham Lincoln was not any “Great Emancipator” himself. On August 22nd 1862, he wrote a letter to Horace Greeley, founder and editor of the New York Tribune, who supported a general amnesty for Confederate officials and angered Northeners by signing a bail bond for Jefferson Davis. In part the letter read: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”

 

So why do the Leftist mobs of Antifa and Black Lives Matter castigate, impugn and demonize the character and honor of a noble man such as Robert E. Lee, while giving Ulysses S. Grant a pass?

 

General PGT Beauregard was a St Bernard Parrish native and a man of contradictions, who spent most of his non-military life in New Orleans. He fired the first shots in a war to preserve states rights and slavery, and yet in defeat, Beauregard argued passionately for the right of black people to vote.

 

So, Beauregard is impugned, while a statue of Senator Edward Carmack (D-TN) still stands in Nashville on the south side of Tennessee’s State Capitol Building. Carmack advocated for the repeal of the 15th Amendment, which granted black men the right to vote; he was also the editor of the ‘Nashville Tennessean’ and a coward, who was shot and killed, on Union St. in Nashville, as he hid behind Mrs. Charles Eastman after firing on Duncan Cooper, his nemesis.

 

It is nearly impossible to find any truth behind the Left’s assertions, that they are campaigning against the “white supremacy” symbolized by Confederate monuments, when most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves by the time the Civil War was burning hot. To claim that the majority of non-slaveholder soldiers, who fought for the South, could have fought and sacrificed their lives and those of their families, so a minority of wealthy aristocrats could retain the “right” to own slaves is preposterous on any analysis.

 

The logic behind these character assassinations make it inescapably clear that the Left will not be satisfied until every white figure who doesn’t pass their “progressive” scrutiny is cleansed from the Southern culture and American culture too. How much truth must be sacrificed to mold history to fit a single strain of a prevailing political ideology?

 

Mitch Landrieu and Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh and many other Democrats, along with some misguided and ill-informed “conservatives” say that these men don’t deserve to be honored. Who does then?

 

President McKinley had fought against “Stonewall” Jackson, as a teenager, in the Shenandoah. McKinley was at Antietam, the bloodiest single-day battle of the Civil War; and at the start of the Spanish-American War, when Southern volunteers and former Confederate soldiers paraded through Atlanta to fight for a united America, McKinley removed his hat and stood for the singing of ‘Dixie’.

 

Nearly half of the fifty-five members of the Constitutional Convention owned slaves or facilitated the slave trade. Is anything associated with Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and other Founders now considered to be immoral too?

 

Are Americans really going to allow more monuments to be torn down? Are Americans going to sandblast Stone Mountain Confederate Monument and even Mount Rushmore, sandblasting away our American Heritage? I say “NO”.

 

Left unrestrained, the radicals of this nation will attempt to purge and destroy every vestige of anything remotely associated with any slaveholder. Our Constitution and even our Declaration of Independence have long been under their assaults, because both were written by white men and slave-owners, and these amended documents halt their own authoritarian agenda. They would scrap these documents altogether if they could, placing them in the dustbin of history and divesting them of honor.

 

A history hidden away and purged is a half-truth and a lie, no history at all. America’s sins in slavery are despicable, abominable and dark, however, Her inalienable rights that served as the mechanism to end slavery are virtues to be praised, brilliant as a rising sun.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

All links as well as text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Serving The Truth


Common Core Marxist NWO

Can’t America see the alignment of Common Core “standards” with Karl Marx’s postulate on education and Obama’s desire to fundamentally transform America? – Justin Smith

 

Justin Smith exposes the Left Wing nature of Common Core State Standards as it is affecting his home state of Tennessee; however the analysis could be applicable to every State in the Union.

 

See Also:

 

Common Core is Tool to Produce a Commie Corps – 7/11/14

 

Authoritarian FantasyLand: A Place With Required Habits of Mind but Disdain for Facts – 10/24/14

 

JRH 11/30/14

Please Support NCCR

************************

Serving The Truth

The Truth And An Ideological Battle

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 11/29/2014 8:30 PM

 

Many states, including Tennessee, are now attempting to extricate themselves from Common Core State Standards, after extensive research has proven them to be much more than an innocuous improvement on the long-standing public education system. The American people now see the subterfuge of CCSS and the intentions of the marxofascist Progressive Democrats to coopt the program in order to affect psychological changes and an alteration in the character of the American people through propaganda presented as fact and indoctrination.

 

In this light, the ‘Our View’ editorial from the November 23rd ‘Daily News Journal’ [Blog Editor: I could only find 11/22/14 DNJ editorial] is reprehensible and despicable. More than a simple “ideological scuffle”, as the DNJ named it, Common Core represents an ideological battle that will ultimately prove to be the most important component of the “21st century complexities of life, labor and liberty,” that they referenced. And yet, the DNJ urges TN State Rep. Rick Womick and “like-minded colleagues” not to “waste a lot of time, energy and resources” in battling CCSS and to essentially abandon the conservative ideas based on individualism, Western philosophies, Judeo-Christian principles and liberty – Our American Heritage – in favor of Progressive socialism, anti-American fallacies and false assumptions, atheism and more authoritarian, centralized government control over our lives and America’s children.

Common Core was originally intended to create new standards only in English Language Arts (ELA) and math in grades K – 12. Science standards were practically ignored. And now, in practice, CC goes far beyond just English and Math standards.

Very little research or analysis was conducted on Common Core prior to its adoption, and the members of the validation committee were required to sign non-disclosure agreements, as the public was initially kept well in the dark on CC. Of the members on the validation committee, there was one ELA expert, Dr. Sandra Stotsky, and one math expert, Dr. Jim Milgram, and neither one of them would sign off on it.

 

On November 13th, TN State Sen. Bill Ketron told an assembly of State Legislators, Murfreesboro City and Rutherford County School Board Councilmen that, during a recent conversation with Gov. Haslam, the Governor suggested he could beat any upcoming bill that attempts to remove Tennessee schools from CCSS, and Haslam had assurances from Lt Gov. Ramsey that such bills would fail. This will soon be tested, since Senate Bill 4 and House Bill 3 were recently filed in the Tennessee Legislature, in order to create “Volunteer State Standards” and stop Common Core expansion beyond this school year.

 

There exists many great reasons for all fifty states to permanently exit from CCSS, with all its flaws and predilection towards conformity, as exposed by Dr. Duke Pesta, who travels the nation speaking against Common Core, using the following example: Three students were instructed to collaborate on a math problem. One student answered correctly and two had wrong answers. The student who solved the problem correctly was marked “wrong”, because he went against the group. So, in the world of CC, consensus is everything and independent thought be damned.

 

One more enormous problem exists, because the College Board that wrote the Advanced Push U.S. History Redesign Framework is also headed by the architect of Common Core, David Coleman. Pay especially close attention to the word “redesign”.

 

The Framework omits Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Dwight Eisenhower and many other key figures, as it gives one brief mention of George Washington and refers to the Declaration of Independence in just one clause of one sentence; it casts America in a negative light and forces teachers to instruct students in a leftist blame-America first reading of history, tearing apart everything good and decent America was built upon and omitting traditional presentations of our Founding Principles.

 

Look on page 74 of the Framework and one finds that teachers are given the flexibility to use examples such as Students for a Democratic Society and the Black Panthers. On the other hand, please note that Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. are omitted from U.S. history.

 

A blatant, overt attempt to portray capitalism in a negative light is found on page 64: “A number of critics challenged the dominant corporate ethic in the United States and sometimes capitalism itself, offering alternative visions of the good society through Utopianism and the Social Gospel.”

 

George Washington doesn’t merit mention in AP U.S. History because he held slaves. This is a low and arbitrary slap in the face of all Americans and all real scholars, as cheap academics and untrustworthy curriculum become the new academic standard; the Progressives have rationalized and justified the evisceration of history, but in so doing, they put on display their own intellectual dishonesty.

 

In association with CC, the incredibly invasive Dept. of Education directive, ‘Promoting Grit, Tenacity and Perseverance’, demands public schools influence students’ non-cognitive development in dispositions, social skills and attitudes, which are independent of intellectual ability. To further this endeavor, schools are collecting more than 400 data points on every child through CC assessments, including their likes, dislikes, grade-point average, home situation and health questions from pre-K into the workforce.

 

Common Core builds a complete psychological profile. Any weaknesses in a child’s attitudes or values could be targeted for remedial indoctrination and education.

 

Can’t America see the alignment of Common Core “standards” with Karl Marx’s postulate on education and Obama’s desire to fundamentally transform America?

 

In ‘The Socialist Alteration of Man’ (1930) Lev Vygotsky, a Marxist Russian psychologist, writes, “It is education which should play the central role in the transformation of man this road of conscious social formation of new generations, the basic form to alter the historical human type … to reunite thinking and work which have been torn asunder during the process of capital development.”

 

The testimony of Lily Tang Williams, a former associate law professor at Fudan University in China and a legal immigrant living in Parker, Colorado, pounds the final nail in Common Core’s coffin:

 

“Common Core, in my eyes, is the same as the communist core I once saw in China … Nationalized testing, nationalized curriculum and nationalized indoctrination … I cannot believe this is happening in this country. I don’t know what happened to America, the shining city on the hill. Chinese children are not trained to be independent thinkers … they are trained to be massive skilled workers for corporations. And they have no idea what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989 …”

 

Common Core proponents want students to view society’s problems and potential solutions through a collectivist worldview that serves the interests of a class, race, certain politicized groups and the State, rather than the truth, logic and rational thought. Creativity and innovation become grounded in emotion, and terms like “critical thinking skills” (red flag) become measures of a student’s acceptance or resistance to the radical changes in values, beliefs, feelings and behaviors that CCSS demands. The word “truth” ceases to have its old meaning, and it becomes something to be dictated by the State.

 

By Justin O. Smith

____________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text or links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Protect Life, Liberty and Property from the Left


Careful What Wish For - BHO toon

John R. Houk

© January 10, 2013

 

I do not own a gun however I am not pro-gun control. I am a gun rights kind-of-guy along the lines of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

 

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Leftists like to point out the part that says, “A well regulated militia”. This is as if militia equals a Federal government administered military. The next part brings greater context: “being necessary to the security of a free state”. The implication is that citizens of a sovereign State in the USA can ban together to aid in protecting their State.

 

The Revolutionary War was fought largely by a volunteer army to throw off the oppression of an unjust British government. The British chased that Blue Coat American army all over the place. In the mean time the British deprived Americans of their Private Property as well as confiscating weapons so they could not be used against the British army.

 

The Right to Bear Arms is the right of the “people”. Thus this excludes government control of civilian weapons because those civilian citizens have the right to protect their property from an oppressive government (whether foreign or domestic) or crime.

 

President Barack Hussein Obama is about to use the excuse of crazy people perpetuating massacres as a reason to limit the kinds of arms private citizens can own. Just like everything else this President has down to move the USA slowly to transform into a Socialist society like Europe, this President will eventually confiscate American arms just like the European nations have deprived their citizens to own fire arms.

 

This President is about to take a shot at the Second Amendment by attempting the Presidential power of the Executive Order to begin to take away the gun rights of American citizens to protect themselves from criminal acts  as well as from foreign and corrupted domestic governments.

 

Americans – We the People – need to stand against the intentions to track and disarm citizens depriving of the right to bear arms to protect Life, Liberty and Family.

 

Ann Coulter’s recent article is what started me on the path of indignant thinking concerning our government’s attempt to assault the Constitution.

 

JRH 1/10/13

Please Support NCCR

**********************************

Doing the research the N.Y. Times won’t do

Ann Coulter helps out Old Gray Lady with digging up actual facts on gun control

 

By Ann Coulter

January 9, 2013

WND

 

In Sunday’s New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal claimed, as the title of her article put it, “More Guns = More Killing.” She based this on evidence that would never be permitted in any other context at the Times: 1) anecdotal observations; and 2) bald assertions of an activist, blandly repeated with absolutely no independent fact-checking by the Times.

 

There is an academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period performed by renowned economists at the University of Chicago and Yale, William Landes and John Lott. It concluded that the only policy to reduce the incidence of, and casualties from, mass shootings are concealed-carry laws. The Times will never mention this study.

 

Instead, Rosenthal’s column proclaimed that armed guards do not reduce crime because: “I recently visited some Latin American countries … where guards with guns grace every office lobby, storefront, ATM, restaurant and gas station. It has not made those countries safer or saner.”

 

So there you have it: The cock crowed, then the sun came up. Therefore, the cock’s crowing caused the sun to come up. Rosenthal went to Harvard Medical School.

 

Here’s a tip: High-crime areas are often bristling with bulletproof glass, heavy-duty locks, gated windows and armed guards. The bulletproof glass doesn’t cause the crime; it’s a response to crime. On Rosenthal’s logic, hospitals kill people because more people die in hospitals than outside of them.

 

(In any event, the Lott-Landes study didn’t recommend armed guards, but armed citizens.)

 

Rosenthal also produces a demonstrably false statistic about Australia’s gun laws, as if it’s a fact that has been carefully vetted by the Newspaper of Record, throwing in the true source only at the tail-end of the paragraph:

 

“‘After a gruesome mass murder in 1996 provoked public outrage, Australia enacted stricter gun laws, including a 28-day waiting period before purchase and a ban on semiautomatic weapons. … Since, rates of both homicide and suicide have dropped 50 percent …,’ said Ms. Peters, who lobbied for the legislation.”

 

“Ms. Peters” is Rebecca Peters, a George Soros-funded, Australian anti-gun activist so extreme that she had to resign from the International Action Network on Small Arms so as not to discredit the U.N.-recognized organization – which isn’t easy to further discredit.

 

Could the Times’ public editor weigh in on whether unsubstantiated quotes from radical activists are now considered full and complete evidence at the Times?

 

It would be as if the Times headlined an article, “Abortion Increases Risk of Breast Cancer” with the sole support being a quote from Operation Rescue’s Randall Terry. (Except Terry would have evidence.)

 

Whether or not the homicide rate went up or down in Australia as a result of strict gun-control laws imposed in 1997 is a fact that could have been checked by Times researchers. But they didn’t, because facts wouldn’t have given them the answer they wanted.

 

Needless to say, the effect of Australia’s gun ban has been extensively researched by Australian academics. As numerous studies have shown: After the gun ban, gun homicides in Australia did not decline any more than they were expected to without a gun ban.

 

Thus, for example, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, the homicide rate has been in steady decline from 1969 to the present, with only one marked uptick in 1998-99 – right after the gun ban was enacted.

 

The showstopper for anti-gun activists like Ms. Rosenthal and Ms. Peters is the fact that suicides by firearm seemed to decrease more than expected after the 1997 gun ban.

 

But so did suicides by other means. Something other than the gun ban must have caused people to stop guzzling poison and jumping off bridges. (Some speculate that it’s the availability of anti-depressants like Prozac.)

 

Curiously – and not mentioned by Rosenthal – the number of accidental firearms deaths skyrocketed after Australia’s 1997 gun ban, although the law included stringent gun training requirements.

 

It turns out, until the coroner has certified a death as a “suicide,” it’s classified as “unintentional.” So either mandatory gun training has led to more accidents, or a lot of suicides are ending up in the “accident” column.

 

Most pinheadedly, especially for a graduate of the Harvard Medical School, Rosenthal says: “Before (the gun ban), Australia had averaged one mass shooting a year. (Since then,) there have been no mass killings.”

 

Mass murder is a rare enough crime that any statistician will tell you discerning trends is impossible. In this country, the FBI doesn’t even track mass murder as a specific crime category.

 

After Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood” killers slaughtered the entire Clutter family in Holcomb, Kan., the murder rate in that quiet farming town went up 400 percent in a single year! Was it Holcomb’s big showing at the 4-H club competition that year?

 

Totally unbeknownst to Elisabeth Rosenthal, Australian academics have already examined the mass murder rate by firearm by comparing Australia to a control country: New Zealand. (Do they teach “control groups” at Harvard?)

 

New Zealand is strikingly similar to Australia. Both are isolated island nations, demographically and socioeconomically similar. Their mass murder rate before Australia’s gun ban was nearly identical: From 1980 to 1996, Australia’s mass murder rate was 0.0042 incidents per 100,000 people and New Zealand’s was 0.0050 incidents per 100,000 people.

 

The principal difference is that, post-1997, New Zealand remained armed to the teeth – including with guns that were suddenly banned in Australia.

 

While it’s true that Australia has had no more mass shootings since its gun ban, neither has New Zealand, despite continuing to be massively armed.

 

The only thing Australia’s strict gun-control laws has clearly accomplished is increasing the amount of violent crime committed with guns immediately after the ban took effect. Of course, Times reporters don’t have to worry about violent muggings, rapes and robberies because they live in doorman buildings.

 

For those who can’t afford fancy doorman buildings, bad journalism kills.

_______________________

Protect Life, Liberty and Property from the Left

John R. Houk

© January 10, 2013

______________________

Doing the research the N.Y. Times won’t do

 

© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.