Freedom of Speech Facts: Even in National Anthem Protest in Football Game, First Amendment Rights have Choices and Consequences

For Constitution Day, Freedom of Speech Facts:

Even in a National Anthem Protest in a Football Game. . .

First Amendment Rights have Choices and Consequences

In a free and open society with the First Amendment guaranteeing political speech, there are consequences. ~Rush Limbaugh

 

Rush Limbaugh

What do you think the First Amendment’s free speech clause grants you? The right to say what you want politically? You’re right. It does. Now, the First Amendment says that government cannot stop you from saying what you want. It doesn’t say the San Francisco 49ers can’t. If you work someplace, your First Amendment rights do fall under the policies of your owner or of your boss or of your workplace.

This is not a fine point. But larger point is this: The media is trying to portray Kaepernick as a hero for courageously and with great guts criticizing his own country and criticizing the bias and the prejudice and the murderous police. It takes guts and courage.

1) You Have the Right To Say What You Want, But You Don’t Have The Right To Be Heard

Now, there’s every entitlement to do it. Kaepernick, anybody else has every right to say what they want to say about that. But, two things are incumbent here. No one has the right to be heard — and this I find… When I say this to people who think they understand the First Amendment, that shocks them.

‘Cause they’ve never thought of it that way. Yeah, you can say what you want, but nobody has to listen to you.

2) You Don’t Have the Right To Be Immune from the Consequences

The second thing is you have the right to say what you want, you have the right to believe what you want, but you do not have the right to not suffer any consequences from it. So if you are going to make a case as a player in the NFL that your country is rotten, that your country mistreats people of color — if you’re gonna say what Kaepernick said — then you’ve got to be willing to accept the consequences of what you said!

How many people do you think believe that Kaepernick should be applauded for courage and not have to suffer consequences for what he said? How does that work? Everybody… You know, there’s a price.

There are consequences.

There’s gonna a reaction. Not everybody’s gonna agree with everything that anybody else says. Kaepernick is not a victim. But they’re trying to portray him as a victim. “He went out and he said courageous things; he had the courage to criticize his own country,” and for that he should be made a hero? That’s not how it works.

You don’t get to go out and say provocative things and then be immune from criticism or consequences.

And so that factors into what you’re gonna do. If you’re gonna go out and you’re gonna say things that are gonna make it harder for the people who might hire you to do business, it makes perfect sense they wouldn’t hire you. Now you add to that that these people may believe you’re not any good anymore. But if Kaepernick isn’t being hired because of what he said, that’s perfectly normal.

Anybody who’s been in the free speech business understands this the first time they ever say something controversial. Why do you think most people shut up? Why do you think most people “don’t want to go there”? They don’t want the reaction. They don’t want the controversy. They don’t want the criticism. So they don’t say anything. They whimper around. They may react when somebody else does, but most people will stand or sit mute — and the reason is because they see what happens.

In a free and open society with the First Amendment guaranteeing political speech, there are consequences, and there are ramifications.

Now, some of the responses, some of the circumstances are not fair, admittedly. But in a free and open society with the First Amendment guaranteeing political speech, there are consequences, and there are ramifications. The point is, the First Amendment does not grant anybody immunity from the consequences of what they say or from the reactions from people to what they say — and Kaepernick is being held up as somebody who should be immune. “He should not be held accountable for what he said because we happen to agree with what he said,” the media says. That’s not how it works.

If you’re a football coach and you believe your team needs discipline and focus if they’re to have a chance, the last thing you want is a circus, for whatever reason. Talk to Tim Tebow! Tim is the exact opposite of Kaepernick. He loves America, is a born-again proselytizing Christian. Why do you think he’s not in the league? A lot of people think, “Because there’s anti-Christian bias, Mr. Limbaugh!” There may be, but there are also people that don’t want to deal with the circus — and, if they don’t, that’s a consequence. You know, it may seem unfair, because you make value judgments on what someone says.

For Both Tebow and Kaepernick there are Reactions, Consequences

Like you may value what Tebow is and what he says, and you might not think so much of Kaepernick and what he says or does. But in both instances, there are consequences for behavior and for reactions. You know, if you want to be on radio or TV? That’s what Kaepernick ought to do. I think what he ought to do, Kaepernick ought to get a show on YouTube and go to town. He can say anything he wants; Google would celebrate it. (Google owns YouTube.) But Jim Brown said it. Jim Brown said (summarized), “Make up your mind what you want to do: You want to play football or you want to be an activist?”

It’s that simple.

When you pick up a stick, you pick up the  other end. Choices have consequences. It’s as simple as that. ~C.D.

Advertisements

Judeo-Christian Culture: Defending the Faith

Judeo-Christian Culture:

Defending the Faith

By Jörg Klebingat

The Lord needs a people willing and able to humbly yet firmly defend Christ and the kingdom of God.

War in Heaven

In the premortal existence we possessed agency, reasoning powers, and intelligence. There we were “called and prepared … according to the foreknowledge of God” and were initially “on the same standing” with our brothers and sisters (Alma 13:3, 5). Opportunities for growth and learning were widely available.

However, equal access to the teachings of a loving heavenly home did not produce a uniform desire among us—Heavenly Father’s spirit children—to listen, learn, and obey. Exercising our agency, as we do today, we listened with varying degrees of interest and intent. Some of us eagerly sought to learn and obey. With war in heaven on the horizon, we prepared for graduation from our premortal home. Truth was taught and challenged; testimonies were borne and ridiculed, with each premortal spirit making the choice to either defend or defect from the Father’s plan.

No Neutrality

Ultimately, retreating indecisively to neutral ground was not an option in this conflict. Nor is it today. Those of us armed with faith in the future Atonement of Jesus Christ, those energized by testimonies of His divine role, those possessing spiritual knowledge and the courage to use it in defense of His sacred name fought on the front lines of this war of words. John taught that those valiant spirits, and others, have overcome Lucifer “by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony” (Revelation 12:11; emphasis added).

Yes, the promise of a Savior and of a bloodstained Gethsemane and Calvary won the premortal war. But our premortal courage and testimony, our willingness to explain, reason with, and persuade other spirits also helped stem the tide of falsehoods from spreading unopposed!

Having successfully completed a premortal tour of duty in His defense, we became witnesses of His holy name. Indeed, having proven us in battle and being thus assured of our hearts and courage, the Lord later said of us—members of the house of Israel—“Ye are my witnesses” (Isaiah 43:10). Let us ask ourselves: Is this declaration still true of us today?

Our Current Battle

A conflict for the minds, hearts, and souls of our Father’s children still rages today in anticipation of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. While many in the world are sincerely curious about the teachings of the Church, an ever-widening gulf between the wicked and the righteous separates a world in moral free fall from restored gospel truths.

“We live in a time when we are surrounded by much that is intended to entice us into paths which may lead to our destruction. To avoid such paths requires determination and courage.”

“As we go about living from day to day, it is almost inevitable that our faith will be challenged. … Do we have the moral courage to stand firm for our beliefs, even if by so doing we must stand alone?”1 ~Thomas S. Monson

Are we both willing and able to engage in polite discussion with those who have honest questions?

 “Even as we seek to be meek … , we must not compromise or dilute our commitment to the truths we understand.”3~Dallin H. Oaks

Become Valiant

How many of us are proactive, valiant defenders of the faith?

He needs a people “ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh … a reason of the hope that is in [them]” (1 Peter 3:15).

You may ask, “Can someone as weak as I am be a valiant defender of Christ and His restored gospel?” Your perceived weakness can be made strong as you accept that all the Lord initially requires is “[your] heart and a willing mind” (D&C 64:34). Endowed with a courageous spirit, the “small and simple” of the world are His favorite recruits. Remember that by “very small means,” He delights to “confound the wise” (see Alma 37:6, 7). If you are willing to share and defend the restored gospel and its leaders and doctrines, you may consider the following suggestions.

 

  1. Know whom and what to defend.

A solid defensive strategy is the foundation for a solid offense. While you can’t effectively defend that which you know nothing or little about, you won’t defend it if you don’t deeply care. Just as a hireling, who is paid to care for the sheep, will retreat or flee at the first sign of trouble, so you will not hold your defensive lines very long unless you have a spiritual conviction that your cause is just and true.

Those who know and live the gospel are filled with both understanding and a burning conviction kindled from worthiness and personal experience.

  1. Evaluate your fortifications.

Honestly evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of your gospel understanding. Are you setting a good example by living a Christlike life?

Could it be that diligent study will help you gain the confidence and courage you seek?5

  1. Strengthen your fortifications.

Prayerfully read the scriptures, again and again.

“When scriptures are used as the Lord has caused them to be recorded, they have intrinsic power that is not communicated when paraphrased.”6 ~Richard G. Scott

  1. Practice!

As you become increasingly prepared, you will “wax stronger and stronger” in your confidence as a witness of Christ (see Helaman 3:35). Start with brief and simple answers. They will be adequate in most situations. But you can also strengthen your defenses even more by studying related scriptures and connecting various doctrines.

  1. Seek opportunities.

Remember, “discouragement is not the absence of adequacy but the absence of courage.”7

Stand as a Proactive Witness

Title of Liberty

by Winborg

As you continue defending the gospel of Jesus Christ, “faith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory of God, qualify [you] for the work” (D&C 4:5). As a wicked world continues violating the moral and doctrinal standards of God, Christ depends on even the least of us to be living witnesses of His name.

Gordon B. Hinckley (1910–2008) reminded us that

“it is not enough just to be good. You must be good for something. You must contribute good to the world. The world must be a better place for your presence. … In this world so filled with problems, so constantly threatened by dark and evil challenges, you can and must rise above mediocrity, above indifference. You can become involved and speak with a strong voice for that which is right.8

May your gospel living and your defense of that same gospel be a reflection of the depth of your conversion to Jesus Christ.

Strengthen Your Family’s Faith

Truth in Journalism: Media Bias, the Demise of Journalistic Integrity, and Protecting Freedom of Speech

Truth in Journalism:

Media Bias, the Demise of Journalistic Integrity, and Protecting Freedom of Speech

Journalistic Integrity, Journalistic Standards, and How to Protect Truth in Journalism

Hillsdale Imprimis Part 2:

Michael Goodwin

The New York Post

Part 2: Sinking of the Flagship of American Journalism

As we know now, most of the media totally missed Trump’s appeal to millions upon millions of Americans. The prejudice against him blinded those news organizations to what was happening in the country. Even more incredibly, I believe the bias and hostility directed at Trump backfired. The feeling that the election was, in part, a referendum on the media, gave some voters an extra incentive to vote for Trump. A vote for him was a vote against the media and against Washington. Not incidentally, Trump used that sentiment to his advantage, often revving up his crowds with attacks on reporters. He still does.

If I haven’t made it clear, let me do so now. The behavior of much of the media, but especially The New York Times, was a disgrace. I don’t believe it ever will recover the public trust it squandered.

The Times’ previous reputation for having the highest standards was legitimate. Those standards were developed over decades to force reporters and editors to be fair and to gain public trust. The commitment to fairness made The New York Times the flagship of American journalism. But standards are like laws in the sense that they are designed to guide your behavior in good times and in bad. Consistent adherence to them was the source of the Times’ credibility. And eliminating them has made the paper less than ordinary. Its only standards now are double standards.

New York Times Once Had Integrity

Alas, it was a different newspaper then. Abe Rosenthal was the editor in those days, and long before we’d ever heard the phrase “zero tolerance,” that’s what Abe practiced toward conflicts of interest and reporters’ opinions. He set the rules and everybody knew it.

Here is a true story about how Abe Rosenthal resolved a conflict of interest. A young woman was hired by the Times from one of the Philadelphia newspapers. But soon after she arrived in New York, a story broke in Philly that she had had a romantic affair with a political figure she had covered, and that she had accepted a fur coat and other expensive gifts from him. When he saw the story, Abe called the woman into his office and asked her if it were true. When she said yes, he told her to clean out her desk—that she was finished at the Times and would never work there again. As word spread through the newsroom, some reporters took the woman’s side and rushed in to tell Abe that firing her was too harsh. He listened for about 30 seconds, raised his hand for silence, and said (this is slightly bowdlerized): “I don’t care if you have a romantic affair with an elephant on your personal time, but then you can’t cover the circus for the paper.” Case closed. The conflict of interest policy was clear, absolute, and unforgettable.

As for reporters’ opinions, Abe had a similar approach. He didn’t want them in the news pages. And if you put them in, he took them out. They belonged in the opinion pages only, which were managed separately. Abe said he knew reporters tended to lean left and would find ways to sneak their views into the stories. So he saw his job as steering the paper slightly to the right. “That way,” he said, “the paper would end up in the middle.” He was well known for this attitude, which he summed up as “keeping the paper straight.” He even said he wanted his epitaph to read, “He kept the paper straight.” Like most people, I thought this was a joke. But after I related all this in a column last year, his widow contacted me and said it wasn’t a joke—that, in fact, Abe’s tombstone reads, “He kept the paper straight.” She sent me a picture to prove it. I published that picture of his tombstone alongside a column where I excoriated the Times for its election coverage. Sadly, the Times’ high standards were buried with Abe Rosenthal.

Can Media Be fixed?

Which brings us to the crucial questions. Can the American media be fixed? And is there anything that we as individuals can do to make a difference? The short answer to the first question is, “No, it can’t be fixed.” The 2016 election was the media’s Humpty Dumpty moment. It fell off the wall, shattered into a million pieces, and can’t be put back together again. In case there is any doubt, 2017 is confirming that the standards are still dead. The orgy of visceral Trump-bashing continues unabated.

The mismatch between the mainstream media and the public’s sensibilities means there is a vast untapped market for news and views that are not now represented. To realize that potential, we only need three ingredients, and we already have them: first, free speech; second, capitalism and free markets; and the third ingredient is you, the consumers of news.

Free Speech is Under Assault

Free speech is under assault, most obviously on many college campuses, but also in the news media, which presents a conformist view to its audience and gets a politically segregated audience in return. Look at the letters section in The New York Times—virtually every reader who writes in agrees with the opinions of the paper. This isn’t a miracle; it’s a bubble. Liberals used to love to say, “I don’t agree with your opinion, but I would fight to the death for your right to express it.” You don’t hear that anymore from the Left. Now they want to shut you up if you don’t agree. And they are having some success.

Truth a Powerful Weapon

But there is a countervailing force. Look at what happened this winter when the Left organized boycotts of department stores that carried Ivanka Trump’s clothing and jewelry. Nordstrom folded like a cheap suit, but Trump’s supporters rallied on social media and Ivanka’s company had its best month ever. This is the model I have in mind for the media. It is similar to how FOX News got started. Rupert Murdoch thought there was an untapped market for a more fair and balanced news channel, and he recruited Roger Ailes to start it more than 20 years ago. Ailes found a niche market alright—half the country!

Incredible advances in technology are also on the side of free speech. The explosion of choices makes it almost impossible to silence all dissent and gain a monopoly, though certainly Facebook and Google are trying.

Nations Without Capitalism Have Little Dissent

As for the necessity of preserving capitalism, look around the world. Nations without economic liberty usually have little or no dissent. That’s not a coincidence. In this, I’m reminded of an enduring image from the Occupy Wall Street movement. That movement was a pestilence, egged on by President Obama and others who view other people’s wealth as a crime against the common good. This attitude was on vivid display as the protesters held up their iPhones to demand the end of capitalism. As I wrote at the time, did they believe Steve Jobs made each and every Apple product one at a time in his garage? Did they not have a clue about how capital markets make life better for more people than any other system known to man? They had no clue. And neither do many government officials, who think they can kill the golden goose and still get golden eggs.

Support Media You Like and Trust

Which brings me to the third necessary ingredient in determining where we go from here. It’s you. I urge you to support the media you like. As the great writer and thinker Midge Decter once put it, “You have to join the side you’re on.” It’s no secret that newspapers and magazines are losing readers and money and shedding staff. Some of them are good newspapers. Some of them are good magazines. There are also many wonderful, thoughtful, small publications and websites that exist on a shoestring. Don’t let them die. Subscribe or contribute to those you enjoy. Give subscriptions to friends. Put your money where your heart and mind are. An expanded media landscape that better reflects the diversity of public preferences would, in time, help create a more level political and cultural arena.

History Facts: NEVER FORGET History Lesson We Should Have Learned From 9/11 Attack

History Facts:

NEVER FORGET  History Lesson We Should Have Learned From 9/11 Attack

NEVER FORGET:  the 5 Lessons We Should Have Learned From 9/11

ByBen Shapiro

On the sixteenth anniversary of 9/11, it’s time for a reminder of the lessons we should have learned — and that we have now unlearned. On that horrific day, on a bright sunshine-riddled morning, Islamist terrorists flew two passenger airplanes into the World Trade Center towers, collapsing them both and murdering nearly 3,000 Americans; flew another passenger airliner into the Pentagon; and were only prevented from flying a fourth into the White House or Capitol by the bravery of passengers who forced the crash of the flight in a field in Pennsylvania.

America responded with the full brunt of her wrath. For a brief moment in time, we were united against a common enemy: we reduced Afghanistan’s ruling regime to powerlessness, then turned and reduced the Saddam Hussein regime to smoldering ash. We increased bureaucracy and security at our airports. We poured money into building our military. Some of this was necessary; some of it wasn’t. But we knew one thing: we wouldn’t allow ourselves to be hit again. We wouldn’t be caught asleep at the wheel again.

We had learned our lessons.

But now those lessons have been largely forgotten. Here were some of the lessons we should have learned.

  1. Global Retreat Is Not A Strategy. The Clinton Administration foreign policy of quasi-isolationism, combined with occasional human rights-driven interventionism, was a formula for failure. After Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda bombed the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the United States did virtually nothing; again, the U.S. did virtually nothing after Bin Laden bombed the USS Cole. Bin Laden saw the United States as a paper tiger. That prompted him to strike, thinking that he would get away with it.

The Bush Administration’s aggressive response took Al Qaeda by surprise. According to James Mitchell, the man who questioned Al Qaeda mastermind Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, KSM stated, “How was I supposed to know that cowboy George Bush would announce he wanted us ‘dead or alive’ and then invade Afghanistan to hunt us down?” Mitchell writes, “KSM explained that if the United States had treated 9/11 like a law enforcement matter, he would have had time to launch a second wave of attacks.”

But the blowback from the Iraq War led the Obama Administration to imitate the foreign policy of the Clinton Administration, and in many ways, has led the Trump Administration to do the same.

  1. Money Doesn’t Buy Off Islamists. Neither Does Friendliness. For a decade, the Clinton Administration reached out to the Palestinian government with cash, pressure on our ally Israel, and symbolic moves to legitimize the regime. The response: on 9/11, the Palestinians danced in the streets and celebrated as Americans leapt to their deaths from burning buildings.

One of the great myths purveyed by Bin Laden was that the United States had been overtly hostile toward Muslims around the world. That’s nonsense. We used the power of America’s military to stop the invasion of Kuwait; we sided with the mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets; we activated NATO to prevent a genocide against Croatian Muslims in former Yugoslavia. Friendliness toward the Muslim world does not matter to Islamists, who seek only the domination of a religious caliphate.

Yet the Obama Administration sought friendship with the Iranian government, essentially handing them a nuclear program and control of a vast swath of the Middle East.

  1. Immigration Matters. President Trump is right to look to immigration vetting as a serious problem in handling of the terror threat. All 19 of the hijackers arrived on visas, either student, tourist, or business. Several of them overstayed their visas. While Trump worries mostly about immigration via the southern border, an estimated 40% of illegal immigration occurs through legal entry and then visa overstay. Our porous southern border is a problem. A bigger problem is the government’s utter failure to vet people entering the country generally and then their complete unwillingness to follow up on those who overstay their visas. While the Left complains about Trump’s refugee stay, the fact is that the government ought to be deeply concerned about those who enter the country from Islamist-rich regions. Europe is finding that out the hard way through increased crime and terrorism.
  2. Major Terrorist Attacks Require Sponsor States. This was a widely-accepted truism in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks — that major attacks require planning, coordination and resources that demand a home base. That’s why the Bush Administration took out the Taliban, and looked (wrongly) to Iraq as a sponsor state of terrorism (they should have looked more closely at Iran). That logic led the Bush Administration to think that replacement of regimes with more democratic institutions would naturally effectuate less terror; the Obama Administration, in its bizarre argument in favor of the so-called Arab Spring, felt the same way. That was a problem with the implementation of the theory, not the theory itself. Major terrorist operations do require state sponsors — that’s why ISIS’ territorial integrity matters to its sponsorship of major terror operations overseas.
  3. America Has Real Enemies. It’s tempting for the United States to look inward for threats to its citizens — we’re the freest, most prosperous country in human history. As Obama noted, Al Qaeda was never an existential threat to us, nor is ISIS. But when it comes to threats to American citizens, the first duty of the government is to prevent those threats and stop those who would perpetrate them. We should be unified in that effort, not divided for political reasons.

Many of the lessons we learned on 9/11 have faded with time. We seem to be back where we started — in the miasma of Clintonian isolationism, although tempered by a stronger anti-terror mechanism abroad. That’s why it’s imperative that we once again remember what happened on 9/11 — and what we must do to stop the next 9/11.

 

NEVER FORGET: The 5 Lessons We Should Have Learned From 9/11

Truth about DACA: Illegal Alien Crime Victims, and 14 DACA Facts the Mainstream Media Won’t Tell You

Truth about DACA:

UPDATE:

Illegal Alien Crime Victims

Mom of Teen Murdered by “DREAMer” Protected by DACA Speaks Out: What of the Devastation of Our Family that Will Never be Repaired?

Media Lies

14 DACA Facts the Mainstream Media Won’t Tell You

DACA Meaning: Applying Emotional Blackmail to YOU

I have an idea, a little test. And I’m serious. I know a lot of you in this audience are young people, you are Millennials, some of you are college students.

Why don’t each of you take in a bunch of new roommates and provide them everything they want and need. You do it under the idea of fairness, under the idea that you may have more, you may have less, but you should do it. If free money, universal income, guaranteed welfare, unending health care, if this is the answer, you do it. Do a little test lab. Provide it for your roommates and see how it works and get back to us. Tell us how it works out. ~Rush Limbaugh

 

14 Things the Mainstream Media Won’t Tell You About DACA

John Nolte

All we are seeing from our establishment media is the usual-usual propaganda: flat-out lies,  half truths, the ignoring of vital pieces of information and points of view, and most of all, emotional blackmail.

Whenever a Republican wants to move forward — you know, pass some legislation or even enforce the law as already written, they always, always, ALWAYS have to run through a mainstream media propaganda gauntlet dedicated to the status quo, loyal only to the Democrat cause and by extension opposed to anything resembling progress.

Then there is illegal immigration, which, like abortion, the Mainstream Media treats as its own personal sacrament.  Flooding America, primarily Red States, with illegal Democrats who also serve the interests of a Big Business Complex desperate to keep wages low and unions non-existent, there is nothing our corrupt media will not do to keep that illegal flood flooding.

Emotional Blackmail

These revolutionists are using a technique that is as old as the human race—a fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave them. ~David O. McKay

And so, as President Trump prepares to keep one of his biggest promises and end President Barry’s un-constitutional Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) amnesty program, all we are seeing from our establishment media is the usual-usual propaganda: flat-out lies,  half truths, the ignoring of vital pieces of information and points of view, and most of all, emotional blackmail.

If your only understanding of this complicated issue comes from the Mainstream Media, hopefully the list below will offer some clarity and context. The first point, I think, is the most important.

1. This Is Only the Fault of the Parents

My wife was born in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, and came to America as a small child. But she was brought here by her parents legally and remained here legally until she obtained her citizenship, something she prizes above most everything else. This is how immigration is supposed to work. If you ask my wife about DACA, she blames the parents of these children who, unlike her own parents,  broke the law and put their children in this situation.

If your parents don’t pay the rent, is it the landlord’s fault when you are evicted, or is it the fault of your parents?

If your parents sneak you into Disneyland without paying, is it Disney’s fault when you are booted out, or is it the fault of your parents?

If your parents sneak you into a country illegally, is it the country’s fault when you get deported, or is it the fault of your parents?

Blaming America or Trump or anyone other than the parents for any of this, is a ruse, a con, a rhetorical trick.

2. DACA Recipients Are Illegal Aliens

This simple fact has been so downplayed and memory-holed, it just needed to be spoken out loud.

3. DACA Is a Massive Amnesty Program

Although the DREAMers are in the country illegally, DACA allows some 800,000 to stay in the country legally without any kind of penalty. Qualified DREAMers are not only given a two-year deferment from deportation, they are eligible for a work permit, which means they can legally take a job in America.

4. DACA Recipients Are Not the Children

DACA is eligible only to those aged 15-32.

A very large percentage of DACA recipients are adults, not children or even minors.

5. DACA Recipients Take Jobs Americans WILL Do

The idea that illegal aliens take jobs Americans won’t do is, of course, a lie. Plenty of Americans, most especially young Americans, would love the opportunity to work on a construction site or some other manual labor job. Moreover, if the wages were better, plenty of American would be willing to work in the fields. An untold number of young Americans who live in farm communities already do. But when you flood the country with illegal and/or foreign workers this — by design — suppresses wages to a point where only those willing to be exploited are willing to do this work for almost no money.

Nevertheless, even this lie does not apply to DREAMers, many of whom have a high school diploma or a GED, and a work permit. These are not field workers, these are hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens competing for the same jobs against the 4 million young Americans who enter the workforce every year.

6. Some DACA Recipients are Criminals

Over 5 years, between 2013 and 2017, a total of 2,139 DACA recipients lost their amnesty benefits “due to criminality or gang affiliated concerns.”

The DACA screening process is in reality a joke, a rubber stamp.

 

7. DACA Is Not a Law, It Is the Violation of Law

President Obama’s DACA program is not a law or even a policy. Rather, it is a brazen violation of the immigration law as written and passed by the American people’s representatives in congress.

People in the country illegally are supposed to be deported and repatriated into their own country. That is the law here in America. That is the law in every country in the world, including Mexico.

8. Most DACA Recipients are Not Overachievers

It seems as though every time we see a DACA recipient in the media, he or she is the next Albert Einstein, someone on the verge of curing cancer and poverty.

The reality is actually quite different:

While there are some true-life scholars in the DACA program, these are not a representative sample:

For example, one-third of the people in the study sample who are older than age 25 hold four-year college bachelors’ degrees or better. In contrast, an August 2013 report by the pro-amnesty Migration Policy Institute showed that only 7.5 percent of the 800,000 DACA-qualified illegals who were 18 or older had four-year college degrees or better. An August 2017 study by the MPI showed only 5 percent of 832,000 DACA illegals who were older than 18 had four-year college qualifications.

Also, the 7.5 percent graduation rate reported by the new study is roughly one-quarter the 33 percent of native-born Americans with four-year degrees.

9. DACA Is Wildly Unfair to Americans, Most Especially Young Americans Just Starting Out

You followed the rules. Your parents obeyed the law. You are one of the 4 million Americans ready to enter the workforce every year, eager to begin your own life, to pursue the American dream, but you have to compete against hundreds of thousands of line-jumpers for the same entry-level job.

Moreover, this flood of labor depresses your wages.

10. DACA Was Already Litigated and Debated in 2016

The American people have already had the DACA debate. Hillary Clinton promised to expand DACA. Trump promised to end DACA.

Trump won.

11. DACA Encourages More Illegal Immigrants

Although DACA does not officially grant amnesty to the children of illegal immigrants who have arrived after 2007, the message is still clear: America does not have the will to enforce its own immigration laws. Of course that message works as a magnet for illegals.  If you recall

Obama declared his DACA amnesty in 2012. Central Americans saw the announcement, read the details — and roughly 400,000 people headed north during the next four years.

Moreover, making that trek is dangerous, especially from South America. People die of exposure and are exploited, sometimes sexually, by the Coyotes they hire to lead them here.

Illegal immigration is a lose-lose for everyone but Democrats who desire the votes and business owners who do not want to pay a legal resident a fair market wage.

12. In Most States, DACA Recipients are Eligible for Welfare Benefits

AZCentral:

Once DACA applicants are approved and receive a temporary employment authorization card, they can apply for a Social Security Number. Under this number, they can report wages and pay taxes.

DACA beneficiaries cannot receive federal benefits such as welfare and food stamps. Some states allow for state-funded benefits, but Arizona specifically prohibits it.

13. Unless It Is Stopped, DACA Will Never Stop Growing

Every year, more and more illegal aliens become eligible for DACA’s illegal and unconstitutional amnesty program.

Obama’s deputies low-balled his election-campaign giveaway by initially predicting it would only reach about 560,000 younger illegals who were supposedly brought into the United States by their parents before they turned 16.

But the amnesty has already provided almost 900,000 work-permits and Social Security cards to illegals who say they are aged 36 or less. More than 92 percent of the applicants got their DACA approvals, with a rejection rate of only 7 percent. The amnesty is expected to rise above 1.9 million people as additional younger illegals become adults and try to enroll in Obama’s giveaway.

14. DACA Ignores Some Criminal Behavior

Center for Immigration Studies:

DACA applies to individuals up to age 31 (as of June 2012, so 35 now) — hardly children; consequently, many Dreamers have long-since terminated their studies and most have committed multiple felonies in order to get jobs — Social Security fraud, forgery, perjury on I-9 forms, falsification of green cards and drivers’ licenses, identity theft, etc. Dreamers continue to commit these job-related crimes right up to the day their DACA status is approved and they obtain work permits and their own genuine Social Security numbers.

In addition, many illegal aliens qualifying for DACA status have previously been arrested and convicted of multiple misdemeanors and some have previously been or continue to be associated with violent gangs, as evidenced by a report in the Seattle Times that states that over 1,500 Dreamers have had their DACA status revoked since 2012 due to their involvement with criminal gangs.

On the true merits, the DACA debate is a loser for the Left and their media — which is why the 14 facts above must remain largely unspoken.

14 Things the MSM Won’t Tell You About DACA

Families honor those murdered by illegal aliens

More DACA Facts

…2,139 DACA Recipients Convicted or Accused of Crimes…

by John Binder

…Mother of Son Killed by ‘Dreamer’ Speaks Out on End for DACA

by Michelle Moons

Father of Murdered Florida Mother Reveals Suspected Killer Was DACA Recipient

 

Gallery

Western Culture Dinner Topics Newsletter: Biblical Worldview

Western Culture Dinner Topics Newsletter: Biblical Worldview September  2017 Dear Friends, Welcome to Western Culture Dinner Topics! NEWS ALERT! MASSIVE IDENTITY THEFT IN AMERICA! It’s a crisis! Millions of young Americans, many of their parents, even some grandparents, are missing … Continue reading

History Facts vs. Liberal Lies: Leftist Antifa Hate Groups did NOT win World War 2

History Facts vs. Liberal Lies

Truth about Charlottesville

MORE History Facts

Leftist Antifa Hate Groups did NOT win World War 2

The following liberal lies which Mr. Delingpole calls out really bother me.  My parents and their generation lived and fought during World War 2. They saw history for themselves, and the World War 2 Facts are: World War 2 Allies were NOT Leftist Antifa Hate Groups; Fascism and Communism are on the same side—Left. For more than 50 years, leftists have been rewriting  history and teaching liberal lies in the schools. Now politicians and delusional people are spreading these lies all over Twitter, tearing down the greatest nation on earth.  It turns my stomach.  ~C.D.

Being opposed to Antifa is no more a sign of being pro-Nazi than being opposed to Stalin automatically meant you were pro-Nazi. Anyone who doesn’t get this basic and obvious point seriously needs his head examined. ~James Delingpole

In order to defend America, which I believe is incumbent upon all of us, in order to defend America, you have to begin knowing our history. ~Rush Limbaugh

 

Delingpole: No, D-Day Wasn’t Won by Masked Leftist Thugs

by James Delingpole

Here’s a tweet to turn your stomach:

D-Day Omaha Beach

Liberal Lie #1: World War 2 Allies  who fought and defeated Germany  were Alt-Left “Thugs” fighting against the Alt-right

“Alt-left thugs” who battled Nazis

“Alt-left, violently coming at the alt-right, circa 1944.”

Liberal Lie #2:  Courageous Vets were Alt-Left “Thugs” fighting Nazis, (who they imply are alt-right)

And here – dry heave, now, I fear – is a particularly smug and noisome offering from the deputy editor of what used to be a men’s style magazine, Esquire.

“Alt-left thugs” who battled Nazis

Did you see what they all just did there? Let me explain.

Albanian history after the Great Patriotic War scarcely got a look in either because, hey, what history are you ever going to be capable of making when your economy is frozen in aspic by your Stalinist regime and your only engagement with the Western world is shooting up passing British naval ships?

Fascists and Communists are all Leftists

Why do I mention all this? Because the game Communist Enver Hoxha played in Albania and the game Stalin played in the Soviet Union during and after the Second War War was exactly the same game the regressive left is playing now.

It’s a game whereby, according to their warped rules — which they invented — you can imprison or immiserate or tyrannize or even murder as many people as you like with impunity, because however awful you are, it’s OK because you’re not Hitler.

The people on their side of the political argument — first Occupy, then #blacklivesmatter, now Antifa: all of them in fact just different incarnations of the same, hard-left Black Bloc insurgency — have done some very ugly, violent, dangerous things and are certainly no friends of Western liberal democracy. But whenever they’re in any danger of being shown up for the nasty, freedom-hating, totalitarian thugs they are, they just use the same distraction technique that Hoxha and Stalin and other evil leftists have used for decades: “Everyone who disagrees with us is Hitler.”

This line has become such a commonplace of modern leftist propaganda it has become a meme:

Jonah Goldberg discusses this in some detail in his book Liberal Fascism. It wasn’t because of their dissimilarities that the Nazis and the Communists so hated one another, but rather — see the bitter split between the People’s Front of Judaea and the Judaean People’s Front — because they had so very much in common. (The red in the Nazi swastika flag was a reflection of the party’s Socialistic leanings).

Communist Stalin branded everyone he disagreed with as a Fascist

The reason that today we think of Hitler’s National Socialists and other fascistic movements as belonging to the right rather than the left is, Goldberg demonstrates, because Stalin branded them that way. Any rival movement of which Stalin disapproved — and that included everyone from Roosevelt’s Democrats to Trotsky — he branded “fascist.”

Useful Idiots of a Vicious National Socialist Mass-Murderer

So every time a left wing person today spits out the term “fascist” and imagines that they are taking the moral high ground — what he or she is actually doing, unconsciously — is acting like just another useful idiot of a vicious, bloodthirsty, ruthless dictator who was responsible for killing millions more innocent people than even Hitler did.

Donald Trump told the truth about Charlottesville

Donald Trump has understood this perfectly well in his measured and reasonable responses to Charlottesville.

Ignorant Politicians using Fatal Dishonesty

A politician of lesser conviction would have done what the likes of John McCain and Mitt Romney are doing in the U.S. and which politicians including Prime Minister Theresa May and Communities Secretary Sajid Javid are doing in Britain.

Sajid Javid

@sajidjavid

Neo-Nazis: bad
Anti-Nazis: good
I learned that as a child.
It was pretty obvious.

Mitt Romney

@MittRomney

No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes.

Virtue signaling through the medium of fatal dishonesty, in other words.

It’s depressing enough when the regressive left plays this game. But when self-professed conservatives follow suit, we should really start to worry.

To Socialists and Fascists, the End justifies the Means

After all, the idea that organized groups of masked thugs with baseball bats and pepper spray should be given a free pass to do as much damage as they like, be it vandalizing statues or attacking people, just because they claim to be fighting against Nazis or against fascism ought to be offensive to the intelligence of anyone with even half a brain.

Yet the entirety of the MSM, vast swathes of our political class, and a significant chunk of the public appears to have fallen for it.

How Vulnerable our Civilization is to the Lies of the Dangerous Left

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

This isn’t just a sign of how gullible and/or ill-informed many people are, thanks to a combination of poor education, endless brainwashing, and relentless media bias. It’s also an indication of how fragile our civilization is and how vulnerable to the lies of the extremely well-organized and dangerous left.

Being opposed to Antifa is no more a sign of being pro-Nazi than being opposed to Stalin automatically meant you were pro-Nazi.

Anyone who doesn’t get this basic and obvious point seriously needs his head examined.

Delingpole: No, D-Day Wasn’t Won by Masked Leftist Thugs

If You Really Know True History, You Deeply Appreciate America

You have to know American history. You have to know the purpose. You have to know America’s place in history. You have to know why 56 men risked their lives and their fortunes and their sacred honor to declare independence from the tyranny of the day. You have to know why they did that. You have to know what they faced. You have to have a deep appreciation for your individual personal liberty.

You have to have a deep appreciation for the history of the world — which is that until the United States came along, [freedom] didn’t exist as a charter of government. ~Rush Limbaugh

MORE History Facts

Biblical Values: Scientific Reports, Gender Dysphoria, Truth, and Consequences of Reality Denial

Biblical Values:

Scientific Reports, Gender Dysphoria, Truth, and Consequences of  Reality Denial

Is This Really Compassion?

Dr. Carolyn Reeves

Underground Paradigm

For Christians, it’s important to understand that the creation of male and female were part of what God designed and created in the beginning. Genesis 1: 27 says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” God also created family units in the beginning, so that one man and one woman would make a covenant to live together throughout their lives and take care of the children born to them.

Numerous media stories have been written about an adorable eight-year-old girl in New Jersey, who is being allowed to change her name to Joey, dress like a boy, and join a Boy Scout troop. She wanted to join the Boy Scouts, because her best friends are the boys in the scout troop, and according to Joey, they all like to camp, do science stuff, and hang out. The official Scout policy limited membership to children whose birth certificates showed they were males, but a few months later, they changed their policy to accept children on the basis of the gender listed on the enrollment form. Girl Scouts have also accepted transgender members for the past several years.

The decision by the Boy Scouts to allow transgender girls to join their troops is being celebrated by many people as courageous and compassionate. But, is it really?

If Joey never grew up, this policy would be much less complicated. But, in about four or five years, Joey is going to stop looking like a typical boy. She will begin to develop breasts, her hips will widen, her voice will sound more like a girl than a boy, she will begin to menstruate, and her body will be flooded with female hormones. Boys, who want to take on a female identity, face similar problems, as the onset of puberty produces dramatic changes in their bodies as well.

Then what?

The parents of Joey and her Scout leaders certainly think they are being compassionate and have her best interest in mind. But, allowing an eight-year-old girl to decide she will live the rest of her life as a male may have more serious consequences than they anticipated. Will she be allowed to begin hormone therapy to stop the processes that occur during puberty? Will she start taking male hormones while her female hormones are blocked? Will there be surgical operations to make her look like a boy? Hormone therapy must be continued throughout many years, and it comes with serious health risks and the inability to have children. Surgical procedures are usually permanent.

Dr. Paul McHugh: “Don’t Do It!” 

The advice of Dr. Paul McHugh to the parents of both young girls and young boys who want to change their gender is “Don’t do it!” Dr. McHugh actually performed gender reassignment surgeries at Johns Hopkins Hospital for several years.

There were no problems with the surgeries, but he discontinued doing them for one simple reason. A battery of psychological tests were administered to the people on which he performed surgery, and the same tests were given several years after their surgery. He was surprised to find that most of his transgender patients were just as unhappy and dissatisfied with life after the surgery as they were before. He realized that life-altering surgery had produced no improvement in their well-being and for many of his patients, their depression had deepened.

Furthermore, there was a significantly greater number of suicides among those who had undergone hormone therapy and surgery to achieve gender reassignment.  

One study found that these individuals were about 5 times more likely than a control group to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide. Cancer and other medical problems were also more common in this group. 

Professionals who advocate for the right for children with gender dysphoria to be allowed to transition to the opposite sex use high suicide rates and severe depression as the basis for their arguments. Although children like Joey may temporarily experience less distress and depression, there are no long term scientific studies about the level of depression they may face as they become older. In fact, current studies indicate they will continue to battle depression in the future.

When a young girl says, “I feel like a boy, and I like to do the things they do,” is that based on some kind of gender-based reality? As a public school teacher for thirty years, I observed many girls who were called tomboys. If they had been encouraged by some well-meaning counselor to live the rest of their lives as males, they would have missed out on the satisfaction of being part of a vibrant family, which most of them now enjoy. Most of the boys I observed in school who exhibited an interest in things typically assigned to girls grew into adulthood as creative individuals who were satisfied with their gender.

By the time most gender-confused children reach adulthood, undergoing gender reassignment is no longer something they want to do. However, if they are encouraged to dress like the opposite sex and change their name to an appropriate opposite-sex name and go to the bathroom with the opposite sex for several years during their childhood, they will become acclimated to this gender.

Reality Denial, Truth and Consequences

Puberty will then force them to make a no-win decision. (1) They will have to continue to dress and act like the opposite sex even though their appearance is obviously affected by what their biological sex dictates. (2) They will undergo dangerous gender reassignment hormone therapies, and possibly surgeries, with the likelihood of serious health issues and bouts of depression. (3) They will have to revert back to their original biological sex after living several years as another gender.

What eight-year-old child has the maturity to look realistically at what changing ones gender will mean for the rest of his or her life? Reality for young children comes from their circle of family and friends and being a part of what they do that is fun and inclusive. Is having a gender that is opposite to ones biological sex backed by any kind of scientific research?

The New Atlantis published a special report on scientific findings from research regarding sexuality and gender (Number 50, Fall 2016, www.TheNewAtlantis.com). It is one of the most valuable, unbiased science-based resources to be found anywhere. The research was compiled by Lawrence S. Mayer, M.B., M.S, Ph.D. and Paul R. McHugh, MD. The authors were careful not to discuss matters of morality. Their focus was on what the scientific evidence shows and what it does not show. Yet, for the most part, it has largely been ignored. One wonders if the “feelings” of young children are more reliable than a large body of science research.

A father reads to his three young children from the Holy Bible.

Listen to Scientific Reports from Professionals 

Perhaps it’s time to listen to the advice of professional scientists and doctors. Here are a few of the findings reported by Dr. McHugh and Dr. Mayer in The New Atlantic, (Executive summary, p. 8-9)

“The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex . . . is not supported by scientific evidence.”

“Compared to the general population, adults who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery continue to have a higher risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes.”

“Only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.” 

For Christians, it’s important to understand that the creation of male and female were part of what God designed and created in the beginning. Genesis 1: 27 says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” God also created family units in the beginning, so that one man and one woman would make a covenant to live together throughout their lives and take care of the children born to them.

Culture Wars: Teaching Kids Biblical Values vs. Moral Relativism, Reality vs. Fantasy

Culture Wars:

Teaching Kids Biblical Values vs. Moral Relativism, Reality vs. Fantasy

Kids Need True Truth: Indulging Childish Fantasies Can Have Dire Consequences

By Denise Shick

A father reads to his three young children from the Holy Bible.

“Billy, it’s up to you. If you say the earth is a sphere, then it’s a sphere. If you say it’s a cube, then it’s a cube.”

“Sally, you must decide what two plus two equals. The answer is whatever you choose.”

Would you accept such guidance from your children’s teachers?

Well, that’s the kind of choose-your-facts education many public-school children—often as young as kindergartners—are getting about gender. “Wanda, you can be whatever—or whoever—you want to be, including Walter. It’s all up to you.”

And it’s going even beyond that now. Imagine not just one teacher telling one student she may choose any answer to two plus two. Imagine school boards insisting that every teacher within the school district must proactively teach every student that the answer to two plus two is whatever they choose.

That’s the level of lunacy spreading across America’s education system when it comes to gender.

Background of  Moral Relativism in Schools

Perhaps that doesn’t surprise you in this “alternative facts,” “fake news,” believe-as-you-choose culture. But if it fails to surprise you, I hope it still bothers you. If it doesn’t bother you, then let me give you more background.

Transgender advocates assert that many children are born with a mind/body conflict (a mind of one gender and a body of the opposite gender), and the only solution to such a conflict is to alter the body so that it matches the brain’s thoughts. The biggest flaw in that assertion is that children’s brains are still developing. A typical human brain isn’t fully developed, even by the end of the teen years.

“Oh, she’s going through another stage.” You’ve heard that—or even said it. A friend told me that at one point in his childhood he really wanted to become a dog. Not surprisingly, he’s grateful he still walks on two legs and can pass a fire hydrant without wanting to mark his territory. Kids go through stages, often very fanciful and even bizarre stages. Parents shouldn’t berate their children for being children who have immature fantasies. But neither should they indulge those fantasies.

Where’s the line between tolerating and indulging a fantasy? That’s hard to pin down for every instance, but I’m pretty sure that giving children puberty-blocking treatments is over the line. One study of these treatments found that “there is some evidence for decreased bone mineralization, meaning an increased risk of bone fractures as young adults, potential increased risk of obesity and testicular cancer in boys, and an unknown impact upon psychological and cognitive development.”1

I’m also pretty sure that gender-altering hormone treatments for children is over the line. Such treatments can lead to mood changes, increased risk of heart disease or diabetes, blood clots, and perhaps cancer.2

Truth about Gender Dysphoria

But for truly devoted progressives, such risks are preferable to the risk of committing suicide because of the despondency of being caught in the wrong body. The problem is, that’s another alternative fact.

Here’s the truth: “… prior to the widespread promotion of transition affirmation, 75 to 95 percent of gender-dysphoric youth ended up happy with their biological sex after simply passing through puberty.”3 The sad, simple fact—no alternative facts here—is that people who undergo sex-reassignment surgery appear to be 20 times more likely to commit suicide than the general population.4

If Sally’s answer to the teacher’s question about two plus two is something other than four, the teacher has no right to indulge Sally’s error. The teacher’s duty is to teach facts, not to indulge—or worse yet—promote errors and fantasies. That’s even more important regarding one’s gender. Errors in numbers might make for an unbalanced checkbook. Errors in self-identity can have far worse outcomes.
______________________________
1  “How Transgender Ideology Has Infiltrated My Field and Produced Large-Scale Child Abuse.”
2  “When Transgender Kids Transition,” PBS
3  “How Transgender Ideology Has Infiltrated My Field and Produced Large-Scale Child Abuse.”
4  “Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.”

 

http://barbwire.com/2017/08/02/kids-need-true-truth/

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