History Facts: Robert E. Lee was Against Slavery

History Facts, truth about Charlottesville:

Robert E. Lee was Against Slavery

In order to defend America, you have to begin knowing our history. ~Rush Limbaugh

Commenting on the Tragedy and Violence in Charlottesville Virginia

Dr. Jerry Newcombe

On a sunny morning in the summer of 2012, I visited Charlottesville, Virginia (Jefferson’s hometown). My host was a local pastor, Dr. Mark Beliles.

Beliles brought me to two parks downtown on that peaceful day and showed me two statues that he said were shrouded in controversy, although they have stood for a hundred years. They were of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.

Fast forward to this past weekend, and the scene was anything but peaceful. The protests centered around the Robert E. Lee statue, which apparently is slated to be dismantled.

Protesters for and against the statue clashed in ugly violence. A 20-year old reported Hitler-loving racist from Ohio allegedly drove his car into a crowd of counter-protesters and killed a 32-year old woman and maimed others. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and families.

After this awful melee, President Trump said (8/14/17): “… we condemn in strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. It has no place in America. And as I have said many times before, no matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws. We all salute the same great flag. And we are all made by the same almighty God.” 

 And he added, “Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”  

The Irony of All the Fuss is that Robert E. Lee was Against Slavery

Whether Confederate statues should remain in the parks (as opposed to museums) is one issue. But the irony of all the fuss over Robert E. Lee is that the man himself would have been among the first to eschew racism. The real Robert E. Lee is an ironic lightning rod for such violence.

In research for this piece, I came across an article from National Geographic News from 2001. Edward C. Smith wrote an opinion piece; “U.S. Racists Dishonor Robert E. Lee by Association.” Hear. Hear. He writes: “Lee, the epitome of the image of the noble, chivalric cavalier, accepted the loss of the quest for Southern independence with extraordinary grace.”  

 General Lee didn’t fight to preserve slavery. He freed slaves, at great personal cost, that he had inherited by marriage. He hated the “peculiar institution.” 

He also was in favor of the preservation of the union and opposed to secession. But when asked by President Lincoln to lead the troops to squash the burgeoning rebellion, he asked, “How can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native state?”

State’s rights were the ostensible reason men like Lee and Jackson fought for the Confederacy, but clearly, the catalyst cause was slavery. This reality is clearly a mark against Lee, Jackson, and others who fought for the South. But we should also remember them for who they actually were, rather than as two-dimensional cutouts in a simplistic morality play of obvious good versus obvious evil.

If we start to tear down all statues of Lee and Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, why stop there? What about the nine presidents of the United States who owned slaves? Washington was the only one of those who freed his slaves.  

And why stop with just slavery? Didn’t the Union General Sheridan go on to fight Native-Americans in the West and to reportedly declare (although he denied it), “The only good Indian I ever saw was dead”? Too many statues. Too little time.

 We should be honest about our history, but not try to revise it with a giant eraser, like the “unpersons” in George Orwell’s 1984. 

America needs a great revival, where we can honor the past, but not be held captive to it.

In one particular incident after the war, Robert E. Lee himself provides a great example of the kind of change we need in this country going forward. Smith writes: “One Sunday at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Richmond, a well-dressed, lone black man, whom no one in the community—white or black—had ever seen before, had attended the service, sitting unnoticed in the last pew. Just before communion was to be distributed, he rose and proudly walked down the center aisle through the middle of the church where all could see him and approached the communion rail, where he knelt. The priest and the congregation were completely aghast and in total shock.

No one knew what to do…except for General Lee. He went to the communion rail and knelt beside the black man and they received communion together—and then a steady flow of other church members followed the example he had set.” 

 

Commenting on the Tragedy and Violence in Charlottesville Virginia

Truth in Journalism: Truth about Charlottesville, Alt-right, and Antifa Violence

Truth in Journalism:

Truth about Charlottesville, Alt-right, and Antifa Violence

Update:

Antifa Protestors Appear at Funeral of Heather Hayer, Show up With Bats and Shield

At a press conference a day earlier Trump made reference to a “beautiful statement” Heyer’s mother, Susan Bro, had sent him. Bro had written, “Thank you, President Trump, for those words of comfort and for denouncing those who promote violence and hatred.”

Following the violence in Charlottesville, Trump condemned what he described as the “egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence” saying it has no place in America. He specifically condemned the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, but has also said that the alt-left was in part to blame for the violence.

At the memorial service, Hayer’s mother said she hoped that people can talk about their differences instead of resorting to violence.

“The truth is, we are going to have our differences. We are going to be angry with each other, but let’s channel that anger, not into hate, not into violence. Not into fear, but channel that difference, that anger, into righteous action,” she said.

7 Things You Need To Know About Antifa

ByMichael Qazvini

August 14, 2017

Over the weekend, Charlottesville erupted into chaos. White supremacists and neo-Nazis brawled with masked left-wing Antifa rioters in what could only be described as a battle between Satan and Lucifer.

While the mainstream Left has attempted to frame this weekend’s insanity as a one-sided issue, video evidence clearly demonstrates that members of Antifa, or anti-fascists, heavily contributed to the violence.

Here are seven things you need to know about Antifa:

  1. Antifa uses fascist tactics to achieve its goals. Antifa is to anti-fascism what Stalin was to freedom. Antifa is fascism personified. Despite calling themselves “anti-fascist,” members of Antifa routinely deploy fascist tactics to shut down, intimidate, harass, and bloody their political opponents.
  2. The Department of Homeland Security labeled Antifa’s actions as “domestic terrorism.” “Shortly after Trump’s election, anarchist and far-left protesters rioted in Portland, bringing at least a million dollars’ worth of damage — and resulting, in the eyes of the Department of Homeland Security, in ‘domestic terrorism,’” explains Politico.
  3. Antifa uses “black bloc” attacks to promote violence, sow chaos, and evade law enforcement. Like their counterparts in Europe, American leftist activists often promote violence and reap chaos through time-tested tactics such as black bloc assaults, which feature thousands of black-clad and masked self-professed anarchists destroying everything in sight with hockey sticks, baseball bats, metal poles, trash cans, and virtually anything they can get their hands on.
  4. Antifa’s garbled ideology is grounded in Marxism. All Antifa members seem to share an aversion to capitalism. Beyond that, Antifa’s political aim cannot be pinned down to one issue or cause.
  5. The mainstream Left is praising Antifa. Paranoid and conspiracy minded, the mainstream Left has abandoned all sense of political decorum to embrace vigilantism. And even liberals who aren’t explicitly praising Antifa are refusing to condemn their behavior.
  6. The vast majority of Antifa members are pitiable losers. As The Daily Wire’s Aaron Bandler reported, While Antifa claims to support “diversity,” the group’s rank-and-file is comprised mostly of single, unemployed young white males (far-left Antifa meet “alt-right” neo-Nazis and white supremacists). 7. Antifa conflates speech with violence, believing that “offensive” rhetoric, “hate” speech, and micro-aggressions should be counteracted with macro-aggressions, or physical violence.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/19717/7-things-you-need-know-about-antifa-michael-qazvini#

Truth About Neo-Nazis or ‘Alt-Right’

Rush Limbaugh

Not enough Neo-Nazis and KKK to elect Anybody—They have No Power

And here’s the real irony. This bunch of people down in Charlottesville, this ragtag bunch of Nazis and Klan members and white supremacists? There’s not enough of those people to affect any kind of change whatsoever. Not systemic change. Not enough of those people to elect enough people to matter. There aren’t enough of those people to matter, period.

They are not the problem. They don’t have power in America today. They don’t have any, compared to the people opposing them. How many people show up at a Klan rally these days if they have one? The media doesn’t show you because it’s so tiny. The media wants you to think the Klan elected Donald Trump. The media wants you to think the Klan, the Nazis, and the white supremacists elected Donald Trump and that Steve Bannon put ’em all together and grew them. There aren’t enough of those people to elect a member of Congress, much less a president.

They are not the problem. The problem is on the other side. The problem comes from people who do have power — and what power they have! They have the power to shut down free speech on campus. They have the power to totally corrupt the movie, the book, the music and TV industries. They have real power! The anarchists, the anti-Americans, the Antifa, the Occupy Wall Street, the Black Lives Matter, the United States mainstream media, the Democrat Party, they have power.

These little hapless people marching around wearing white hoods couldn’t stop diddly-squat. They don’t have any power. They’ve been shamed into practically nonexistence. Yet they are hoisted up. They are portrayed as the people running this country — or the people who used to run this country and they ran it for all these years, and now they are losing it, justifiably, and they are panicked and causing trouble. They don’t have any power compared to the people that I’m talking about. You think the Klan can compare to the mainstream media?

You think the Nazis, however many of them there are — or few — can compare to the media and academia and Hollywood? It’s a joke! The same thing with the Nazis and the same thing with the white supremacists. But when you talk Black Lives Matter, when you talk Occupy Wall Street or any of these other left-wing groups that end up rioting and protesting, they are the military wing of the people with power in this country. These people run the Washington establishment. You don’t find in you Klansmen there, and you don’t find any Nazis there, because there aren’t enough of those people to matter a hill of beans.

Neo-Nazis have no Power on the Internet, But Facebook Has Power to Shut Down Free Speech

Do you say, “Well, Rush, I gotta side with ’em. I don’t think the storm troopers ought to have a website, and I don’t think the supremacists ought to…” Okay, fine. Remember, they don’t have any power to do diddly-squat. All they can do is offend you and make you mad. They don’t have any power to do anything.

But do you think that three people — Zuckerberg and whoever the other two are that run PayPal and Facebook, Twitter, whatever. Do you think they ought to be able to wake up one day and just decide? But they’re doing it — under the guise, by the way, of cleansing and pursuing and sanctifying.

That’s not what they’re doing. They are limiting speech.

 

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/08/18/america-is-under-attack-from-within/

 

 

Critical Thinking Skills: Capitalism Questions and Answers for the Millennial Generation

Critical Thinking Skills:

Capitalism Questions and Answers for the Millennial Generation

Welcome to the family-friendly classroom! A young Millennial, a nice young man, schooled in leftist philosophy, asks the right person to help him understand Socialism and Capitalism better. It’s a little long, but just enjoy the dialogue, and the true history lesson we all need. ~C.D.

Young Leftist on Capitalism

Rush Limbaugh

RUSH: We’re back with Mac in Ithaca, a 27-year-old who describes himself as a — did you say liberal or leftist? Which do you prefer? I don’t want to —

CALLER: Yeah. I’m definitely not a liberal. Leftist. Yep.

CALLER: Yeah. Um, well, I listen to you every day on my way home from work. Uh, actually, I listen to the talk — talk news pretty much all day, and I love listening to you guys but I pretty much disagree with you on everything. I’m a leftist. So, um, I just wanted to… The other caller said, like, you can never — never win an arg… Well, he said “liberal,” but I — I assume he meant leftists in general. So, uhh, I just wanted to call in and say, like, we try to be reasonable. Ha! Ha!

RUSH: You listen to this program on the way home from work so you’re on the way home from work now?

CALLER: Well, um, right now it’s summer. I’m in the education business,

RUSH: My question, if you listen, say, to this program or to F. Lee, how can you — how have you — remained a leftist?How has this happened? I’m genuinely curious.

CALLER: Well, I mean, I read Marx and it just talks about how the fluctuations in the market are going to get worse and worse, and looking through history it seems like since capitalism has been around the fluctuations in the market continue to get worse and worse, you know?

RUSH: Well, what would be the solution to market fluctuations? You think they shouldn’t fluctuate then?

CALLER: It’s not that they can’t fluctuate at all, but, personally, I think that we should tax capital or… Yeah, pretty much taxing capital I think would probably be the way to do it.

RUSH: We do.

CALLER: I know. Yeah. But I don’t think we should have any other taxes. I just think that we should only tax capital.

RUSH: Why? To solve what? What problem?

CALLER: Um, well, I think, like, people who work really hard should get ahead, right? I know a lot of people that work really hard, but they don’t get ahead.

CALLER: You think getting rid of the unions would help those workers out?

RUSH: You don’t like capitalism because you think it’s unfair. Some people make too much, some people don’t make enough, capitalism doesn’t accommodate for the differences, the market fluctuates wildly —

CALLER: Rush, I mean, that’s not quite what I said. Capitalism would be fine. I just don’t think that it’s, like you said, sustainable. I don’t think, like, that’s a big word with my generation, you said, but, yeah, I just think that it’s headed for ruin and —

RUSH: Can you cite for me — and don’t misread my tone. I’m not being contentious. I genuinely am trying to learn the way you think. Can you cite for me anywhere in the world where a noncapitalist form of government has created wealth and plenty for the majority of the population? Or the opportunity for wealth and plenty. Can you cite for me that country where it exists?

CALLER: Well, Japan.

RUSH: Wasn’t kind of sustainable, though, was it? ‘Cause where are they now?

CALLER: Japan?

RUSH: Yeah. They’re in massive debt.

CALLER: They’re killing themselves.

RUSH: Japan Inc. came together. They had a combination of business and government that didn’t quite solve the problem, ended up in massive debt. Point is, you can’t find a country on earth with a higher standard of living. You can’t find a country higher than America. You can’t find a place on earth where the opportunity to grow your standard of living, as an individual, is greater than the United States of America.

Capitalism may not be perfect, but it’s better than anything else that’s out there.

RUSH: Your problem is, you’re focusing on punishing achievement rather than trying to figure out a way for people to achieve. Punishing achievement isn’t gonna help anybody. Trying to equalize people by lowering the people at the top, that’s not good. All that is is punitive. Why don’t you find a way to elevate people at the bottom?

It’s like teachers. I often hear that it’s unfair that athletes should make what they make versus teachers, because who’s more important. But that’s not how the market works. Markets don’t sign things. You know what you’re worth is what somebody will pay you. It’s not some arbitrary — the purpose of a company is not to create jobs and health care. That’s not why they exist. And it’s not to create fairness or any of that. That’s not why people form businesses and try to sell a service or a product.

CALLER: Yeah, I hear ya, I just think you’re not seeing, like, the bigger picture. I think it’s headed for ruin if we keep trying to push it, personally. I don’t want to punish those that achieve. You know, I do agree that, you know, businesses are job creators, you know, businessmen are job creators. But it just seems, like, if this level of disparity continues, like, there are gonna be some people that just, you know, it’s asking for terrorism and class welfare —

RUSH: Mac, let me tell you something. There’s a benefit to having lived longer than other people and that is that I have the benefit of having seen more and experienced —more than you have. I’m 66 and you’re 27. I’m gonna tell you something that’s truthful. You think we’re facing ruin now. There have been times in the past where things have been much better and opportunities have been greater. What you don’t understand is why it was better in the past and why it seems to be fledgling right now.

We are under the stifling regulation and taxes of a predominantly left-wing type of thinking and philosophy. The eight years of Barack Obama have shrouded this country in punitive regulations. We haven’t had economic growth higher than one and a half percent for the last eight or nine years, and that was done on purpose.

But your way of doing it is what we have been doing the last eight years. We have been trying to equalize it. We have been trying to take the rough edges off capitalism. Obama has been trying or was trying to transform the country away from the way it was founded, and it is causing misery, and it is causing a lack of optimism about the future. It’s resulted in massive student debt, worthless college degrees, no job opportunities.

CALLER: Well, I wasn’t around in the eighties, but I actually think we were a lot closer to ruin in the eighties than we are now —

RUSH: Trust me on this. You’ve been lied to by people who have been educating you about that. The 1980s were one of the robust periods of economic growth that sustained all the way through the nineties and into the early 2000s ’til the recession. Don’t doubt me.

RUSH: So young Mac thinks the eighties we were close to ruin, but he wasn’t alive then, so why does he think that, do you wonder? Hello, education system. Capitalism, the only system of economics that allows for upward mobility. There’s no other system that does that.

RUSH: Where Mac was coming from is classic. It’s classic Marxism. I don’t know if he’s aware of that; it doesn’t matter if he’s up to speed on that or not.

Here’s a man, 27 years old, and he’s a nice guy, and he identified as a “leftist” and wants to be called a leftist, and he thinks the 1980s saw the United States near ruin! He wasn’t even alive then. So he only knows of the 1980s what he’s been told and maybe what he’s seen in movies and television shows. There’s no way that he could understand that the 1980s led to one of the greatest 20-year economic booms this country has ever seen. He doesn’t know it because the left cannot allow for that to be realized.

The left has been revising the history of the eighties since before the eighties ended.

They have been mischaracterizing the eighties as “trickle-down economics, didn’t work.” And what is trickle-down economics? Trickle-down (what the left teaches young people like Mac) is that we experimented. “We gave the rich all the tax cuts! The theory was that those tax cuts would lead to more money for the rich and that they would share the money and they would spread the wealth or give it away or whatever, and that would cause everybody to do well.”

There’s disparity everywhere! People are different. People earn different amounts of money. People have different standards of living. People have more possessions than others, different kinds of possessions.

People have different material lives than other people do. Marxism capitalized on this disparity by calling it immoral and unfair. It was not fair, not right that some should have so much and others shouldn’t, and the disparity (with young, impressionable minds) works every time it’s tried because it’s rooted in the idea of fairness — or unfairness, depending on how you choose to look at it. And since the United States has always been a capitalist system this disparity — this inequality, this lack of sameness, this lack of fairness — has been blamed on capitalism.

In fact, the disparities that exist in any culture exist because of the differences in people.

There are differences in ambition. There are differences in capabilities. There are differences in intelligence. No two human beings are the same because no two souls are the same. No two human beings have the identical skill set. Never will. Never have. These disparities are as much a part of nature and creation as is anything else.

Marxists Blame Differences in Human Nature on Capitalism

But the Marxists have come along, and they have taken these disparities and have attached them as existing solely because of the unfair nature of capitalism, which captivates young minds because it is unfair that there’s such great disparity. We shouldn’t have so much disparity. People shouldn’t have so much more than others. Once the Marxists — in the form of professors and teachers and moviemakers. Once they have young skulls full of mush ensnared on this premise, they pretty much own them.

You never have to succeed in equalizing things primarily because you can’t. Like I asked Mac, “Can you point to any place in the world where life is better? Can you point to anyplace in the world where there’s more opportunity? Can you point to anyplace in the world where there’s a greater opportunity for you to live your dream than the United States?” There’s an immediate no-answer to that because that’s not the way it’s taught nor looked at. The United States is taught/portrayed as a very punitive place and very discriminating place and unfair place. Elsewhere, like Cuba, is said to have “the best health care system in the world — and China!

“Look at all the railroads and look at all the sameness and the lack of disparity.” The only way you can have a lack of disparity is if most people are equally miserable, because there is no system that mandates — that can offer and deliver — mass prosperity to the tune these people are talking about it. Because people are different. It’s not capitalism that creates these differences; it’s freedom. Capitalism is rooted in freedom, market economics and freedom. You have the freedom to join the union and accept the terms.

You have the freedom to say:

“You know what? I don’t want to join a union. I want to be the owner of the construction company. I don’t want to join a union; I want to own the radio station!” Or “I didn’t want to make movies.” Whatever you want to do in the United States — if you’ve got the ambition, if you’ve got the drive, and if you have the desire — you can do. Desire, I believe, is 80% of achieving anything. If you have that, this is the one place in the world where you can pursue it. Whether you get it? There are a lot of factors involved.

Nothing is guaranteed except the opportunity to make the most of life —

and we’re all going to encounter different obstacles. Everybody’s gonna encounter somebody who’s got more connections than you do. Everybody’s gonna encounter somebody that has more of something than you do. You’re gonna encounter mean people. You’re going to encounter people that will try to undermine you. At the same time, you’re gonna run into people that want to help you. You’re gonna run into people that will be great mentors. You’re gonna run into all kinds, which is what opportunity is.

Socialism, leftism takes all of that away —

and claims to also take the risk away. And when the risk is removed, there’s no pain, right? And since there’s no risk and no pain, if you’re no different than anybody else, or if you’re only marginally different, then the way you end up is considered okay because everybody’s that way. Socialism, communism, literally kills the lifeblood of opportunity and energy and creativity because there is no outlet for it, and yet all of those things are a natural part of the human existence, desire, ambition, energy, creation. We all have those things in different amounts, different allocations. And they change.

There is no Croatian dream. There is no European Union dream. There is no Chinese communist dream, except maybe to get out.

But there is and always has been an American dream.

And the dream is possible. The dream can become real. And nobody in government stifles the dream. You’ll run into people that will try to talk you out of it because there are negativists everywhere. But the United States standard of living is expressed also as, “How are the vast majority of people in our country living?”

Under Communism, Only the Elite get their Dreams

It’s not about whether some have more than others, because that’s always gonna be the case, even in communism! Especially in communism. Especially in socialism. Socialism and communism are set up so that a select few elite get most of everything and the rest of society is equally miserable in poverty and oppression. So if you can be in the ruling party elite, socialism, communism, you’ve got it made. That’s less than one half of one-tenth a percent of the population in those countries.

In the United States, the vast number of people are living well. It isn’t whether some have more than others. It’s how is the economic system for everybody? People in the United States of America today, even after eight years of Barack Hussein O, people in the United States of America today live better than people ever have. The poor in this country would be considered affluent in most poor and poverty ravaged regions of this world.

The poor in this country have a car, air-conditioning, a TV and cell phone.

The United States of America provides the freedom,

I should say permits, allows, does not constrain the freedom that we’re all born with that allows each of us to pursue whatever it is that we define as a quality of life. Access to quality-of-life services, access to quality-of-life products is unparalleled in the United States of America.

American Exceptionalism

Most societies — this is what American exceptionalism really is when you get right down to it. Most people in most countries don’t have anything approaching —I’m not talking about disparity. I’m talking about the population at large, there is no country on earth where the population at large lives anywhere nearly as well as the population of the United States.

Most countries feature societies of populations of people that just barely get by.

Socialism, leftism, liberalism not only doesn’t respect the unique abilities of free people; it attempts to quash them and to eliminate them.

Because it’s unfair not only to have more than somebody else, it’s unfair to be better than anybody else at whatever you do. That’s not fair. So we define everything down to the lowest common denominator. We take the people at the top, bring ’em down to people at the bottom and say that’s equality. We punish achievement if liberalism and leftism rules the day. But capitalism is where the respect for unique abilities and freedom resides.

 

A 27-Year-Old Leftist Thinks Capitalism Isn’t Sustainable

History Facts: Nazi Racism Ideas borrowed from Democratic Party, Planned Parenthood Founder

History Facts:

Nazi Racism Ideas borrowed from Democratic Party, Planned Parenthood Founder

Dinesh D’Souza on How the Nazis Borrowed Ideas from American Democrats

Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left and Democratic Party

Rush Limbaugh

RUSH: On Tuesday afternoon, I interviewed the author and moviemaker, Dinesh D’Souza. He has a new book coming out called The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left. Provocative, obviously: “Exposing the Nazi roots of the American left.” So I chatted with him for the upcoming issue of The Limbaugh Letter. What he said… He gave three examples of how his book is true, the allegation here that the Nazis were able to take cues from the American left.

But the first claim that D’Souza makes — and by the way, to back this up, we need to point out that militant Islam has also deep ties to Hitler and Nazism.

Hitler had an appreciation and an understanding for Islam, and there are numerous bits of evidence that recount meetings between the Grand Mufti and mullahs and Hitler during World War II. These are things not said in polite society. It’s not alleged. What D’Souza is doing — and he’s in the process of making a movie about this as well. He said it will be ready next summer, into next September, as a prelude to the election. His first contention is there are basically three examples of the Nazis, the German Nazis adopting leftist ideas from the American Democrat Party.

Fed Up with Liberal Lies

I’ll tell you why he decided to do this. He’s like everybody else in the right-wing: Fed up with the allegation that racism and all this has its home in the Republican Party. It’s the exact opposite. Racism, segregation, all of this, these were all Democrats back in the 1960s that were trying to violate civil rights and keep blacks out of universities.

Democrat Governors vs. Martin Luther King

All those governors and Bull Connor, the fire chief, turning the firehoses on African-American protesters and Martin Luther King? They’re all Democrats. D’Souza is, like many people in the right, frustrated with this history revisionism.

1) How Hitler stole from the Jacksonian Democrats of the 19th century

So he decided to write the book and do a movie about how it’s even worse than that, and his first example here is how Hitler stole from the Jacksonian Democrats of the 19th century.

D’SOUZA: Hitler remembered that in the 19th century the Jacksonian Democrats — despite the existence of all these treaties with the American Indians — essentially decided to violate the treaties, throw the Indians off their land, drive them further west. So displace them, resettle that land — and if any of the Indians remained, either kill them or attempt to enslave them. Hitler goes: “This is a fantastic idea!

“I don’t need to go to India like the British. I’ll just conquer in Europe; I’ll throw the Poles off their land, the Slavs, the Eastern Europeans, the Russians. We’ll resettle that land with German families — and if any of the natives stay back, we’ll enslave them.” So this notion — the historians call it Lebensraum, which means “living space.” But it’s basically German expansion in Europe. Hitler got the idea to do that from the Jacksonian Democrats of the 19th century.

RUSH: As I talked to him about it, I said, “Wait, is this just your interpretation? Are you looking at events that happened in America in the 19th century and then comparing events that happened in Europe in the 1940s? Are you drawing a connection?”

Hitler liked Jackson’s Treatment of the Native Americans

“No, no, the Nazis acknowledged this,” he said. The historical record is clear.” The Nazis acknowledged where they, quote/unquote, learned this stuff. His point here was that when he saw how the Jacksonian Democrats dealt with Indians, Native Americans, throwing them on the reservation, throwing them off — basically getting them out of mainstream circulation; saying, “Hey, this is a good idea.”

Now, this is going to offend I can’t tell you how many people. It’s going to light up I can’t tell you how many people — if his book isn’t ignored and if his movie isn’t. But I guarantee you, these are just things you don’t say.

2) Hitler Liked Southern Democrat Style Segregation

 D’Souza is saying these things after having been imprisoned by the Obama administration for this bogus campaign finance charge. The second example of the Nazis adopting leftist Democrat ideas was that Hitler stole the whole idea of segregation from Southern Democrats.

D’SOUZA: The Nuremberg Laws were the laws that turned Jews into second-class citizens. The senior officials of the Nazi Party get together to draft these laws.

 There was a transcript made of their meeting, ’cause they felt it was a momentous occasion: They were founding the world’s first racist state.

D’SOUZA: And then one of the Nazis in the justice department, who happened to have studied in America, basically told the Nazis: “Not so fast. You can’t start the world’s first racist state because the Democrats in the American South have already done it.

3) Nazi Forced-Sterilization and Euthanasia Laws Modeled on Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood Founder

D’SOUZA: The Nazis, in the 1930s, based both their forced-sterilization laws as well as their euthanasia laws on the models that had been created by Margaret Sanger. As Margaret Sanger said, “More children from the fit and less from the unfit,” and that’s how she viewed birth control. And not as a matter of giving every woman a choice, but as a matter of convincing the sort of, the successful and the fit to have more kids and the unsuccessful — the sick, the “imbeciles” and what she considered to be the disposable people — essentially to prevent them from “breeding” altogether.

The other idea that a California eugenicist named Paul Popenoe had proposed. He said, “We have…” He said, “We have all these useless people who are already born, and so it’s not enough to have sterilization. We have to have euthanasia. We have to kill these people off. The first people that they killed were not the Jews. They were the sick, the disabled, the group that was called “imbeciles.” And later, the Nazi euthanasia program was expanded into Hitler’s Final Solution.

RUSH: But it’s not going to sit well with people on the American left who, of course, are portraying themselves as the exact opposite of all of this. Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood are perhaps best.

Correcting Liberal Lies on History 

1) True History: Republicans passed Civil Rights Act of 1964, NOT Democrats

That is the Democrat Party — the original racists, the original segregationistssomehow have rewritten history and have ended up seeing themselves portrayed as saviors and rescuers. And the Republican Party, which did not let the Democrats get away with segregation… LBJ’s Civil Rights Act, ’64, would not have passed were it not for Republican votes. Major history revision.

2) True History: Planned Parenthood was Never about Choice . . . Especially for the Unborn

Margaret Sanger/Planned Parenthood was not about “choice” and it was not about allowing women to have control over their bodies.

Margaret Sanger was the original eugenicist in this country.

She was from Australia. Many Americans joined her in this effort to create a master race. Margaret Sanger believed in getting rid of the sick, preventing them from “breeding,” as it’s said here.

History has revised the original intent and objectives of Margaret Sanger as well, so as to prevent the Democrat Party from being harmed by the actual truth of any of these assertions.

Dinesh D’Souza on How the Nazis Borrowed Ideas from American Democrats

The Key Facts About Slavery That the Left Conveniently Ignores

Walter E. Williams

 

History Facts: Media Bias, the Demise of Journalistic Integrity; Rise of the Smear Campaign

History Facts:

Media Bias, the Demise of Journalistic Integrity; Rise of the Smear Campaign

The 2016 Election and the Demise of Journalistic Standards

Hillsdale Imprimis Part 1

Michael Goodwin
The New York Post

I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale—that most of what you read, watch, and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.

It’s not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at The New York Times, so I’m familiar with the species.

History of Media Bias

For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and ’70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large. The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government—and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in All the President’s Men. Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That’s because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.

Promote Big Government, Not Report Truth

During the years I spent teaching at the Columbia University School of Journalism, I often found myself telling my students that the job of the reporter was “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” I’m not even sure where I first heard that line, but it still captures the way most journalists think about what they do.

Habit of thinking: Create Victim Groups

Translate the first part of that compassionate-sounding idea into the daily decisions about what makes news, and it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that every person afflicted by something is entitled to help. Or, as liberals like to say, “Government is what we do together.” From there, it’s a short drive to the conclusion that every problem has a government solution.

The rest of that journalistic ethos—“afflict the comfortable”—leads to the knee-jerk support of endless taxation. Somebody has to pay for that government intervention the media loves to demand. In the same vein, and for the same reason, the average reporter will support every conceivable regulation as a way to equalize conditions for the poor. He will also give sympathetic coverage to groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.

A New Dimension

I knew all of this about the media mindset going into the 2016 presidential campaign. But I was still shocked at what happened. This was not naïve liberalism run amok. This was a whole new approach to politics.

 In the beginning, Donald Trump’s candidacy was treated as an outlandish publicity stunt, as though he wasn’t a serious candidate and should be treated as a circus act. But television executives quickly made a surprising discovery: the more they put Trump on the air, the higher their ratings climbed. Ratings are money. So news shows started devoting hours and hours simply to pointing the cameras at Trump and letting them run.

As his rallies grew, the coverage grew, which made for an odd dynamic. The candidate nobody in the media took seriously was attracting the most people to his events and getting the most news coverage. Newspapers got in on the game too. Trump, unlike most of his opponents, was always available to the press, and could be counted on to say something outrageous or controversial that made a headline. He made news by being a spectacle.

Despite the mockery of journalists and late-night comics, something extraordinary was happening. Trump was dominating a campaign none of the smart money thought he could win. And then, suddenly, he was winning. Only when the crowded Republican field began to thin and Trump kept racking up primary and caucus victories did the media’s tone grow more serious.

One study estimated that Trump had received so much free airtime that if he had had to buy it, the price would have been $2 billion.

The realization that they had helped Trump’s rise seemed to make many executives, producers, and journalists furious. By the time he secured the nomination and the general election rolled around, they were gunning for him. Only two people now had a chance to be president, and the overwhelming media consensus was that it could not be Donald Trump. They would make sure of that.

The coverage of him grew so vicious and one-sided that last August I wrote a column on the unprecedented bias. Under the headline “American Journalism Is Collapsing Before Our Eyes,” I wrote that the so-called cream of the media crop was “engaged in a naked display of partisanship” designed to bury Trump and elect Hillary Clinton.

Historic Smear Campaign of a Presidential Candidate

The evidence was on the front page, the back page, the culture pages, even the sports pages. It was at the top of the broadcast and at the bottom of the broadcast. Day in, day out, in every media market in America, Trump was savaged like no other candidate in memory. We were watching the total collapse of standards, with fairness and balance tossed overboard. Every story was an opinion masquerading as news, and every opinion ran in the same direction—toward Clinton and away from Trump.

For the most part, I blame The New York Times and The Washington Post for causing this breakdown. The two leading liberal newspapers were trying to top each other in their demonization of Trump and his supporters. They set the tone, and most of the rest of the media followed like lemmings.

The Presidency as a First Job for an Outsider?

On one level, tougher scrutiny of Trump was clearly defensible. He had a controversial career and lifestyle, and he was seeking the presidency as his first job in government. He also provided lots of fuel with some of his outrageous words and deeds during the campaign.

But from the beginning there was also a second element to the lopsided coverage. The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, meaning it would back a dead raccoon if it had a “D” after its name. Think of it—George McGovern over Richard Nixon? Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan? Walter Mondale over Reagan? Any Democrat would do. And The Washington Post, which only started making editorial endorsements in the 1970s, has never once endorsed a Republican for president.

All Pretense of Fairness Dropped

But again, I want to emphasize that 2016 had those predictable elements plus a whole new dimension. This time, the papers dropped the pretense of fairness and jumped headlong into the tank for one candidate over the other. The Times media reporter began a story this way:

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalist tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him? [But it was A-OK for Obama to cozy up to anti-American dictators? ~C.D.]

If you can’t be fair, you shouldn’t cover the candidate—Cover Sports or Entertainment

I read that paragraph and I thought to myself, well, that’s actually an easy question. If you feel that way about Trump, normal journalistic ethics would dictate that you shouldn’t cover him. You cannot be fair. And you shouldn’t be covering Hillary Clinton either, because you’ve already decided who should be president. Go cover sports or entertainment. Yet the Times media reporter rationalized the obvious bias he had just acknowledged, citing the view that Clinton was “normal” and Trump was not.

What happened to fairness? What happened to Journalistic Standards? New York Times Eliminated Them

I found the whole concept appalling. What happened to fairness? What happened to standards? I’ll tell you what happened to them. The Times top editor, Dean Baquet, eliminated them. In an interview last October with the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, Baquet admitted that the piece by his media reporter had nailed his own thinking. Trump “challenged our language,” he said, and Trump “will have changed journalism.” Of the daily struggle for fairness, Baquet had this to say: “I think that Trump has ended that struggle. . . . We now say stuff. We fact check him. We write it more powerfully that [what he says is] false.”

Baquet was being too modest. Trump was challenging, sure, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He’s the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be abandoned without consequence.

New Formula: Who, What, When, Where, and Why + OPINION

With that decision, Baquet also changed the basic news story formula. To the age-old elements of who, what, when, where, and why, he added the reporter’s opinion. Now the floodgates were open, and virtually every so-called news article reflected a clear bias against Trump. Stories, photos, headlines, placement in the paper—all the tools that writers and editors have—were summoned to the battle. The goal was to pick the next president.

Liberal Lies Never Exposed

Thus began the spate of stories, which continues today, in which the Times routinely calls Trump a liar in its news pages and headlines. Again, the contrast with the past is striking. The Times never called Barack Obama a liar, despite such obvious opportunities as “you can keep your doctor” and “the Benghazi attack was caused by an internet video.”

From Journalistic Integrity to Cheerleading

Indeed, the Times and The Washington Post, along with most of the White House press corps, spent eight years cheerleading the Obama administration, seeing not a smidgen of corruption or dishonesty. They have been tougher on Hillary Clinton during her long career. But they still never called her a liar, despite such doozies as “I set up my own computer server so I would only need one device,” “I turned over all the government emails,” and “I never sent or received classified emails.” All those were lies, but not to the national media. Only statements by Trump were fair game.

 

History Heroes: Pioneers of America

History Heroes:

Pioneers of America

Builders of the Nation

 

Ida R. Alldredge

 

They, the builders of the nation, Blazing trails along the way;

Stepping -stones for generations were their deeds of every day.

Building new and firm foundations, pushing on the wild frontier,

Forging onward, ever onward, blessed, honored pioneer!

 

Service ever was their watchcry; love became their guiding star;

Courage, their unfailing beacon, radiating near and far.

Every day some burden lifted, every day some heart to cheer,

Every day some hope the brighter, blessed, honored pioneer!

 

As an ensign to the nation, they unfurled the flag of truth,

Pillar, guide, and inspiration to the hosts of waiting youth.

Honor, praise, and veneration to the founders we revere!

List our song of adoration, blessed, honored pioneer!

Gallery

History Facts: True Story about Statue of Liberty and Immigration

This gallery contains 4 photos.

History Facts:  True Story about Statue of Liberty and Immigration Rush Limbaugh   RUSH: Here’s Jim Acosta at CNN. By the way, Jim Acosta, after having been humiliated by Stephen Miller, after having been exposed as an idiot, as an … Continue reading

Immigration Facts: Merit-based Immigration System and Immigration Assimilation in the US

Immigration Facts:

Merit-based Immigration System and Immigration Assimilation in the US

Polls Show Huge Public Support for Trump’s Immigration Reforms

Seven Facts About Donald Trump’s Merit-Based Immigration System

Neil Munro

Candidate Donald Trump promised to reform the nation’s cheap-labor immigration strategy, and President Donald Trump unveiled the merit-based immigration reform plan on Wednesday.

Here are seven major features of the new merit-based economic and immigration legislation.

  1. The Senate bill was jointly drafted by two GOP Senators who were elected in the 2014 wave. In that election, Senate Democrats lost ten seats because voters were angry at the Democratic-dominated “Gang of Eight” plan that would have doubled immigration for at least ten years, and shifted more of the nation’s annual income from employees to employers. The two Senators are Georgia CEO David Purdue, and Arkansas veteran and Harvard grad Tom Cotton
  2. The plan would roughly halve the inflow of unskilled labor into the United States, so forcing employers to boost recruitment, training and pay for ordinary Americans. It would halve the inflow of unskilled by canceling the so-called “diversity lottery” which annually hands green cards to 50,000 people picked by lottery, by capping the inflow of refugees at 50,000 per year, and — most importantly — by largely ending the “chain migration” which allows new citizens to bring in their parents, adult children, and siblings, regardless of health, skills or ability to work.
  3. Trump’s plan would allow companies to bring in highly skilled or “ultra-skilled” foreigners — if those foreigners can prove their skills by showing job offers which pay MORE than what is being paid to local Americans. That merit-based process would put an upward ratchet on Americans’ wages, instead of the current process which drags down wages by flooding the labor market with unskilled workers.
  4. Most applicants for immigration and citizenship would be graded on a points system, determined by their age, education credentials, English-language skills, professional awards, investment resources, and job offers. That process likely will allow the immigration of highly skilled foreigners who want to assimilate into Americans’ democratic culture — and who can also develop new technology that makes Americans more productive and wealthy.
  5. Progressives want to hate the reform. It would end their plan to seize national power via the mass immigration of unskilled, government-dependent migrants. That plan has already won them near-complete power in California and Illinois. But without those future migrants, progressives would be forced to seek the votes from actual blue-collar and white-collar Americans, so shifting the focus of national politics back towards a focus on middle-class Americans, and away from the progressives’ media-magnified push for pro-transgender laws, free abortion and weather control.
  6. Business and investors rationally hate the merit-based plan. It would reduce the inflow of cheap labor and of welfare-funded consumers which have helped boost profits and the stock market. Without those migrants, companies will have to raise wages for employees, recruit and train now-sidelined Americans, and invest in American-made, labor-saving machinery, such as robots for farms, restaurants, and slaughterhouses.
  7. Prior polls suggest Trump’s plan will be very popular because it prioritizes Americans over foreigners, employees over employers, wages over profits, and solidarity around the English language over imposed multiculturalism. But the media polls will try to suppress that Trump advantage by portraying the pro-American plan as being mean to weak foreigners, so allowing many elected officials to ignore the public’s real views until around September 2018. That is when the Americans will have the decisive opportunity to vote for or against politicians who support or oppose Trump’s reform. To read more about immigration polls, click here.

Under pre-Trump policies, the federal government annually imports 1 million legal immigrants into the United States, just as 4 million young Americans turn 18.

The federal government also awards roughly 1.5 million temporary work permits to foreigners, grants temporary work visas to roughly 500,000 new contract workers, such as H-1B workers, and also largely ignores the resident population of eight million employed illegal immigrants. That huge extra inflow of wage-cutting workers is to be handled via different legislation and regulation.

The current annual flood of foreign labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families.

Click here to read the full text of the legislation. Click here  for a section-by-section summary and click here for a fact sheet on the legislation.

Immigration Assimilation in the US

Rush Limbaugh

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection.com for his great cartoon

THE PRESIDENT: Crucially, green card reforms in the RAISE Act will give American workers a pay raise by reducing unskilled immigration. This legislation will not only restore our competitive edge in the twenty-first century, but it will restore the sacred bonds of trust between America and its citizens. This legislation demonstrates our compassion for struggling American families who deserve an immigration system that puts their needs first and that puts America first. Finally, the reforms in the RAISE Act will help ensure that newcomers to our wonderful country will be assimilated, will succeed, and will achieve the American dream.

RUSH: Whoa! Whoa! Did you hear that? He used the word “assimilated.” You don’t hear that in immigration anymore. “Assimilation? Why, that’s discriminatory! Why should immigrants have to have the American way of life forced on them?” That’s what the left says. That’s right. The American way of life is an imposition, don’t you know? Yes, we have forced — we have imposed — our way of life on people around the world against their wishes.

And we now want to impose our way of life on immigrants. Who the hell do we think we are? That’s their attitude. But assimilation has always been the key to immigration. Again, I want to remind people, immigration, legal immigration in the United States stopped in the mid-1920s and was not resumed until 1965, with the Immigration Act of that year. Do you know why? Because there had been a flood of immigrants in late 1800s throughout the early 1900s, and we had to assimilate them.

Now, it was easy because they wanted to become Americans. They came from all over the world and wanted to be Americans. But it still takes time to assimilate to a new culture, to learn English as your predominant language. We didn’t have any legal immigration for all of those years, mid-twenties to 1965. Every time I tell people that and they don’t know it, they’re shocked.

History Facts: Predictions on Climate Change proven False; Global Warming Hoax has Origin in Nazi Germany

History Facts:

Predictions on Climate Change proven False; Global Warming Hoax has Origin in Nazi Germany

O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it. ~Jesus Christ, Matthew 16:3-4

 

Here’s How Wrong Past Predictions on Climate Change Have Been

Walter E. Williams

Daily Signal, Heritage Foundation

Each year, Earth Day is accompanied by predictions of doom.

Let’s take a look at past predictions to determine just how much confidence we can have in today’s environmentalists’ predictions.

Earth Day  Predictions in 1970: Death of 100-200 Million People

In 1970, when Earth Day was conceived, the late George Wald, a Nobel laureate biology professor at Harvard University, predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

Also in 1970, Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist and best-selling author of “The Population Bomb,” declared that the world’s population would soon outstrip food supplies.

In an article for The Progressive, he predicted, “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years.”

He gave this warning in 1969 to Britain’s Institute of Biology: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

On the first Earth Day, Ehrlich warned, “In 10 years, all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.”

Despite such predictions, Ehrlich has won no fewer than 16 awards, including the 1990 Crafoord Prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ highest award.

1975: New Ice Age Predicted

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection.com for his great cartoon

In International Wildlife (July 1975), Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”

In Science News (1975), C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization is reported as saying, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”

In 1970, ecologist Kenneth Watt told a Swarthmore College audience:

The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years. If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.

2000: Earth will burn up from Global Warming

In 2000, climate researcher David Viner told The Independent, a British newspaper, that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”

In the following years, the U.K. saw some of its largest snowfalls and lowest temperatures since records started being kept in 1914.

Extinction of Animal Life

Also in 1970, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wis., wrote in Look magazine: “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian (Institution), believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

” Gold and Silver to Disappear”

Scientist Harrison Brown published a chart in Scientific American that year estimating that mankind would run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver were to disappear before 1990.

Erroneous predictions didn’t start with Earth Day.

” Oil and Natural Gas Depleted”

In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last for only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.

Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey said the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas.

The fact of the matter, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, is that as of 2014, we had 2.47 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas, which should last about a century.

Dishonesty—the End Justifies the Means

Hoodwinking Americans is part of the environmentalist agenda. Environmental activist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine in 1989:

We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

In 1988, then-Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., said: “We’ve got to … try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong … we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Americans have paid a steep price for buying into environmental deception and lies.

Global Warming Hoax has Origin in Nazi Germany

Revealed – How Renewables and the Global Warming Industry Are Literally Hitler

James Delingpole

Nazi vision of windmill

Have you ever wondered what kind of sadistic, totalitarian mentality you might need to want to carpet the countryside with bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes in order to save the planet from an imaginary problem?

This book, unearthed by David Archibald at American Thinker, offers a clue: Unfortunately, Archibald reports, the scheme foundered for practical reasons. Just one of these towers would have required 27,500 tons of steel – “approaching the amount used in the Scharnhorst.” So the Germans put their renewable energy drive on hold in 1936. It was, of course, revived five decades later in their Energiewende – an ingenious scheme to replace fossil fuels with energy powered by wind and the sun in which Germany is so abundant sometimes for as many as two or three days each year.

But Nazi Germany’s contributions to the modern climate change industry did not stop with gigantic wind turbines. No. One of the earliest proponents of man-made global warming theory was none other than the Luftwaffe High Command’s chief meteorologist Hermann Flohn.

To be fair, some of us have been well aware for quite some time of the green movement’s connections with Nazi Germany: Himmler’s embrace of organic food; Hitler’s partial vegetarianism; Goering threatening to send animal abusers to the death camps; agricultural minister Richard Darre’s obsession with “Blood and Soil”; the ban on smoking on public transport; the Reich Nature Protection Law; etc. (I wrote about this in Watermelons)

Who the Real Nazis Are

After all, people on the conservative/skeptical side of the argument are far too often being accused by ignorant leftists of being literally Hitler. And I do think it’s important, every now and again, to remind these historical illiterates who the real Nazis are.

Delingpole: Revealed – How Renewables and the Global Warming Industry Are Literally Hitler

 

Culture Wars: Transgender Military Cost compromises Military Lifestyle and American Security

Culture Wars: 

Transgender Military Cost compromises Military Lifestyle and American Security

Military Thanks Trump for Transgender Ban: ‘Courageous Decision’…

5 Good Reasons Why Transgender Accommodations Aren’t Compatible With Military Realities

Ryan T. Anderson

Heritage Foundation report

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump announced that he was reversing an Obama-era policy that opened the military to people who identify as transgender.

The most helpful therapies for gender dysphoria focus not on achieving the impossible—changing bodies to conform to thoughts and feelings—but on helping people accept and even embrace the truth about their bodies and reality.

Mortality Facts

Unfortunately, 41 percent of people who identify as transgender will attempt suicide at some point in their lives, compared to 4.6 percent of the general population. And people who have had transition surgery are 19 times more likely than average to die by suicide.

People who identify as transgender suffer a host of mental health and social problems—including anxiety, depression, and substance abuse—at higher rates than the general population. Biology isn’t bigotry, and we need a sober and honest assessment of the human costs of getting human nature wrong.

So there were well-justified concerns that Obama was using the military to advance the latest social justice culture warrior agenda item—seeking to mainstream transgender identities and promote controversial therapies for gender dysphoria.

Obama’s policy change ignored the reality that placing individuals who might be at increased risk for suicide or other psychological injury in the most stressful situation imaginable—the battlefield—is reckless.

But even people who disagree about the underlying transgender issues should acknowledge that there are practical concerns for the military when it comes to people who identify as transgender.

Wednesday’s announcement reflects good reasons why transgender accommodations are incompatible with military realities. Here are just a few of the considerations:

  1. That the privacy of service members must not be infringed.

This means that no soldiers, including those who identify as transgender, should be allowed to use the sex-specific facility of the opposite sex. When it comes to barracks, bathroom, showers, etc., the privacy of all service members must be respected.

Given the nature of military living quarters, it is unclear where soldiers who identify as transgender could be housed.

  1. That all service members remain combat-ready at all times.

But soldiers who have “transitioned” medically require regular hormone treatments and follow-up visits after sex-reassignment surgery. It is unclear how someone who has “transitioned” would be deployable.

  1. That all service members be held to the same physical fitness standards, and that these standards by based on the reality of biological sex, not the subjective “gender identity.”

Men who identify as women should not be held to a lower standard than other men—they should be held to the standard for someone with their body that the military has determined is most effective for combat.

  1. That scarce taxpayer monies not be expended on costly and controversial sex-reassignment therapies.

This is particularly the case as growing foreign threats are stretching our military’s resources, and as we struggle as a nation to provide basic health care to all. But it is unclear how soldiers who identify as transgender would pay for their treatments apart from including coverage in Tricare, the military health care program.

  1. That the medical judgment, conscience rights, and religious liberty of military doctors, chaplains, commanding officers, and fellow service members be respected.

Unless and until military leaders are able to find a way to respect all of these provisions, there will remain good reasons why the military will be unable to accommodate people who identify as transgender.

Walt Heyer:

I Was Once Transgender. Why I Think Trump Made the Right Decision for the Military.