Political Furies: The Voices Never Heard

Notice how the Democrats AUTOMATICALLY assumed the firing of Jim Comey constituted “obstruction of justice”, as though his removal would end the probe into President Trump’s alleged “Russian collusion”.  Any fool would know that Comey’s replacement would simply step into the role and the investigation would continue regardless of the FBI’s leadership.

What we now know is that Joe Biden orchestrated the firing of Ukraine’s equivalent of Attorney General which indeed DID thwart the investigation into his son’s involvement in a corrupt deal within that nation.  These details are just now coming available, but the backdrop sheds light on the “heads on fire” reaction the Democrats had over Trump’s firing of Comey.

So, it goes to show that the level of detail in the accusations Democrats level at the Trump Administration is a strong indicator that they are deeply involved in those behaviors, themselves.

Think about it…

I oppose the obviously phony allegations by women, who are doubtlessly Leftist activists, against Judge Kavanaugh.  Their claims are so OBVIOUSLY contrary to his character and clean record that it is no stretch to view them with skepticism.

• This does NOT mean I am a misogynist.
• In fact, I find it equally appalling that their phony claims will harm future legitimate claims by women of sexual assault.
• To claim that this sentiment is hateful toward women is stupid.

I support the construction of a border wall and all other efforts to curb illegal immigration.

• This does NOT mean I hate immigrants.
• This does NOT mean I am a racist against Hispanic people.
• To claim that I am such is just stupid.

I support assertive police measures to fight crime.  I oppose Black Lives Matter because they were founded on a lie and further the rancor of racial bitterness toward police.  I also oppose the phony “protest” by NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem.

• This does NOT mean I hate black people.
• This does NOT mean I am a racist.
• To call me a racist because of this is utterly stupid.

I support a strict vetting of immigrants and refugees from nations known for producing terrorists, posing a danger to America from within.  These nations openly seek to take up residence in the U. S. in great numbers specifically to commit seditious acts against America.  It is already happening in Europe.

• ‘This does NOT mean I hate Muslims.
• This does NOT mean I hate refugees and refuse to welcome them in America.
• To accuse me of Islamophobia or Xenophobia is a bigoted attitude toward me.

I reject “Social Justice”, “Antifa”, and all other Left Wing movements to undermine the Constitutional Republic we know as America.

I reject the Leftist agenda of Democrats and all their efforts to rally all the “diverse” demographic minority in America to collectively coalesce en masse to summarily overthrow the majority.

• This does NOT mean I hate the LGBTQRSTUV community.
• This does NOT mean I am a racist.
• This does NOT mean I am a sexist.
• This does NOT mean I am any of the slanderous epithets cast at Conservatives by the Left-Wing state-run media.
• To label me as any of those renders me among the “dregs of society” worthy of murder without remorse.
• Epithets like racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobe, etc. dehumanize a person such that people believe the world would be a better place without them.  That is a dangerous sentiment.

If I pointed at a black man and stated, “That’s a (racial epithet that must never be uttered)!”, no one … NO ONE.. would ever think of murdering that man because of the epithet with which I labeled him.

If I pointed at a white man and stated, “That’s a RACIST!”, many people would believe, if not MOST people, that murdering him would be justified.

“Racist” is an epithet that should NEVER be cast at anyone without undeniable proof that he is such.  It dehumanizes people in a very dangerous way.

Think about modern TV shows that cast the lead character as a Zombie or serial killer that must blend in with the populace.  They must kill people in order to eat or to satisfy their manic compulsion, so they choose the “dregs of society”, the scum of the Earth that society would find to be justifiably murdered human beings.  Did you ever notice that the Swastika-tattooed RACIST is always one of those “justifiable” victims.  One could argue that a true white supremacist IS a worthy murder victim.

However, think about the frequency with which Democrats and the Left-Wing state-run media call Republicans “racists” and “white supremacists”.  People actually believe we are, based on the over-the-top rhetoric constantly bombarding them on TV.  Joe Biden called Trump supporters “dregs of society”.  Hillary Clinton called us “a basket of deplorables”.  It won’t be long before this hateful propaganda becomes so indoctrinated that people find us worthy of murder.

So, who REALLY are the hateful ones in this nation?  “Hate Groups”, such as white supremacists, are a micro-population.  There are only 5,000-8,000 real white supremacists in the United States.  Out of 750 million people, that is about 0.0001% of our population.  However, Democrats constitute nearly 50% of America’s population.

It is clear to me that the disciples of Meta-Hate are the most populous HATE GROUP in America.

Google searches for raw statistical data have produced page after page of “news” reports that posit the ubiquitous Left Wing slant to “statistical” analyses of everything I have researched since beginning this blog.  It takes hours to finally get anything resembling an objective report of raw statistical data that has not already been twisted into some Leftist-supporting phony percentage.

The phony narrative that America is a racist nation must end. We are being fed the sensationalized impression that America was a nation of whites who subsisted upon destroying and subjugating non-white races.

There is a LOT more to our history than dumbing it down to that.

• Throughout the eras of America’s birth, development, and expansion, several European nations continued their bid to stake claims to North American territory.  This was a source of pure fear for Americans in that day.
• Non-white races were caught up in a power struggle between a burgeoning America and several imperialistic European nations.  Enslavement was a common practice throughout the history of humanity, and it still lingered as America was founded.
• America sought only to establish itself as a sovereign nation free of a continental enemy due to colonization by the English, French, Spanish, Dutch, or other European powers.
• America did not set out intent upon destroying any race of people.  Conflicts between native peoples and Americans were the unintended consequences arising from a push to gain continental territory before European imperialists did.
• Internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was a decision originating from fear of reprisals from adherents to Shintoism, NOT merely a racist subjugation of people who were not white.  There was no way to distinguish fanaticism related to apotheosis of the Japanese emperor.  In order to prevent widespread panic that would have resulted in the slaying of untold numbers of Japanese Americans out of fear arising from reports of atrocities being committed in the Pacific by the Japanese Imperial Army, the decision was made to place them in encampments.  It was as much for their safety as it was for the safety of the overall American populace.  Equating this to the Nazi concentration camps intent on exterminating the Jewish population of Europe is ignorant.

Looking back from the perspective of today’s ideals is historical fallacy.

• How dare they establish liberty and still hold slaves…
• How dare they wage war on the Indigenous peoples of North America…
• How dare they place Japanese Americans in internment camps…

Life is lived forward without the benefit of looking back on the history of one’s decisions to justify their impact.

America carved itself a civilized democratic republic out of nothing, with no coeval model to follow, from a point in history in which slavery, human brutality toward others, and constant fear of conquest were already established.

America did not simultaneously invent liberty, slavery, imperialism, and continental expansion… the latter three already existed.  America invented liberty while struggling to cope with civilizing itself beyond the others.

Now, we can appreciate having accomplished that. We shall NOT judge our forefathers based upon what we only now have attained.

They had the unprecedented foresight to establish The United States Constitution “in order to form a more perfect union”.  They realized that the existing conditions of their union were not perfect; they established a constitution that allow the development, bit by bit, into a nation with liberty and justice for all.  That did not happen with the stroke of a pen, overnight, or without great efforts of many great people over many years.

After 240 years of perfecting a free civilization beyond that which existed in the 18th Century… we MUST NOT condemn our forefathers for not being what we are now.  We MUST NOT condemn Americans of historical significance, through good times and bad, for the development that occurred from era to era.

We must continue to revere them for laying the foundation and raising the structure that allowed us to become what we are now.

President Trump reached out to protesting NFL players and offered to PERSONALLY review any criminal case they thought to be precipitated by injustice.  He invited them to come to the White House and meet with him, bring him specific claims of injustice they know of, and he would review to determine if a pardon were in order.

President Trump offered to SOLVE the problem they claim to be the reason they feel compelled to kneel during the National Anthem.

President Trump offered to ELIMINATE the need to protest, thereby rendering the protest successful… he offered the grease for their squeaky wheel.

“We will never meet with Trump because he is a racist and promotes the atmosphere of racism that we are protesting” is a loose quotation of an excuse one framed for flat-out refusing the invitation.  They continue to kneel in disrespect of our nation, favoring the publicity of their tantrum over actually doing something about the issue they are protesting.

This proves to me they don’t really want to solve the problem… why?

1. The claim posited by Colin Kaepernick regarding the “statistical proof” of systemic racism in law enforcement is NOT ACTUALLY A PROBLEM; it is a lie furthered by a phony comparison of incomparable percentages.  How can you “solve” a problem that is not really a problem?
2. They would rather promote the racial discord of the canard that has prompted their decision to protest that actually solve the “problem” they protest.  It does not fit their narrative to eliminate the ill effects of racism.
3. If the populace of this nation were to perceive that instances and attitudes of racism were diminishing, the “social justice” movement would lose its platform, political leverage, and power to govern from the political minority.  They cannot let that happen.
4. If President Trump were to play a key role in solving the racism problem, it would strip them of their #1 dehumanizing epithet for him:  Racist.  They slander him as a racist, claim that his narrative emboldens the “white supremacy movement”, and fail to acknowledge… or, rather, REFUSE to acknowledge that his policies are benefiting racial minorities in this nation more than ever in the history of America.

So, let me review this political movement…

Leftists want Americans to believe racism “is interwoven into the fabric, the DNA, of America”.

•  “Racism” allows them to petition the government indefinitely under the guise of “hurt”.
• “Racism” allows them to force changes in public policy when their representatives are not in the majority
• “Racism” allows them to refuse to cooperate with authorities under the guise of “not trusting” them because they have a “history of racism”.
• “Racism” allows them to capitalize on this refusal to cooperate with authorities in order to manipulate public demonstrations.
• “Racism” allows them to control the narrative and divert media attention.
• “Racism” allows them to weaponize indignation to force the resignation of politicians with whom they disagree.
• “Racism” allows them the moral license to riot, loot, and instigate violence with impunity.

Yes, the NFL players are just one more group of actors in the “social justice” movement that is “fundamentally changing America”.

We must NOT let them succeed in turning us into a socialist nation.

We can start by refusing to watch the NFL in order to weaken the impact and ultimately quash their movement.

I will NOT be watching the NFL again this season.

Do you feel like there was something missing from the reports coming from Charlottesville regarding the 2017 “Unite the Right” demonstration?

I did too… so I researched it.

Part I:  My motivation

Being a veteran teacher, I am accustomed to children reporting sketchy confrontational incidents in sensationalized terms of their most indignant outrage to cover for their own questionable involvement.

When I witnessed the same sensationalized terms of indignant outrage in the reporting of the “Charlottesville Riot”, I felt that familiar suspicion.

1.       The first red flag was when President Trump was UNIVERSALLY condemned for simply stating “there was violence on BOTH sides”; that seemed to be a foregone conclusion, yet the indignation that he DARE “make a moral equivalent to the racist demonstrators” was sketchy.

2.       Next, I found every news report of the event using identical rhetoric, the same talking points, the same words of condemnation, and utterly rejecting ANY implication that violence was not the sole responsibility of the “Unite the Right” demonstrators.  Once again… the “guilty child” indignation seemed sketchy to me.

3.       The somber, sacrosanct attitude of media and political figures who stepped carefully with their rhetoric in deference to social sensitivity also contributed to my suspicion.

Part II:  Something’s not quite right about all this…

Something was being covered up, ostensibly paying homage to the historical plight of victims terrorized by white-hooded, torch-bearing, cross-burning, noose-wielding Ghosts of Racism Past:

• Why was it “out of the question” to even inquire as to the source of violence?  Wouldn’t it be prudent to factually report the sequence of events?
• Why was it “racist” to even query the possibility that counter-protesters might have committed violence, too?  It was obvious they would have at least acted in self-defense, yet the president was denounced as a “racist” for stating that “there was violence on both sides”.
• Why was it regarded with indignation that the noble counter-protesters could ever incur blame since “racists” deserve to be the targets of violence simply for their opinions?  It is disturbing that the portrayal of the event seemed to convict one side in the court of public opinion simply because of their “detestable” opinions?
• Could the Leftists, having failed at outlawing “hate speech”, be enacting de facto censorship via public outrage and condemnation?

Part III:  I can’t let this go….

I researched into this event to gain insight into what appeared to be a cover up of the true circumstances by news media outlets.  All reports of the event provided only the same three “sources” of details, arousing my suspicion that things were not being truthfully publicized.  The Left Wing was, once again, controlling the narrative and driving public opinion through the use of widespread outrage.

Violence was universally reported by news outlets in these terms… exclusively:

• Specific accounts of violent acts committed by “Unite the Right” demonstrators
• Specific counter-protester “eyewitness” reports of how UtR demonstrators had “attacked” them (noticeably implying that it was initiated by the other and unprovoked)
• Vague, passive voice reports of violence “from the crowd”, or “something flew from the crowd and struck a police officer”

Part IV:  I’m STILL not getting any answers…

I kept looking, because I knew police departments enlisted outside consultants to audit the actions of their officers in incidents like this.  I took some time, and a lot of frustration, but I finally located just such a document.  Therein, I could read for myself an objective report and get answers to my questions.

Part V:  Here’s what I FINALLY found…

Preliminary information:

Prior to the August 12, 2017 “Unite the Right” rally, Police departments did their homework.  Although the media portrayed them as inept, the police DID their part.  The Charlottesville Police Department and Virginia State Police were the two most prominent agencies involved that day.

Albemarle County Police refused to participate because they “did not want their logo to appear in photographs with symbols of white supremacy”… 

I think this is important to know, because they deserve to have complaints lodged against them.

Yes, THEY WERE THAT LAME AS TO SHIRK THEIR DUTY FOR THE SAKE OF IMAGE.

Important Note:

Law Enforcement authorities conferred with police organizations in other cities that had experienced similar rallies for expectations of consistent similarities.

• ANTIFA, Black Lives Matter, and other counter-protest groups historically arrive equipped with devices not useful for self-defense, but quite purposeful for inciting violence:
  • bags of urine/feces to throw at demonstrators
  • home-made flamethrowers consisting of an aerosol canister and a flame source
  • masks with which to conceal their identity
  • bags or balloons filled with paint to throw at demonstrators
  • video recording devices with which to document retaliatory behaviors
• Counter-protest group behavior patterns indicate the intent to incite violence.
• Right-Wing groups will take measures to ingratiate themselves to police.

·         Law Enforcement authorities attempted to pre-arrange the movements of demonstrators and counter-protest groups to prevent physical intermingling of individuals.  Had all parties participated, the day would have ended a lot differently… and the police could have effectively done the job they initially set out to properly accomplish.

Keep reading… I know this is long, but it is VERY important that people know the truth!

Ultimately, I discovered that the Left-Wing Counter-protest groups indeed bore considerable responsibility for the day’s violence.  There were many factors that contributed to this responsibility beyond simply the physical assault of one individual by another.

Contributing factor #1:

Various black activist leaders openly lodged pre-loaded complaints through the media based on their own prejudices.  These proved to result in detrimental decision-making on the part of Law Enforcement.  Yes, I firmly believe that these talking points resounded in the minds of police officials and inhibited their judgment.  Orders were withheld or delayed attempting to avoid accusations of “racism”.

These claims were stated to the agents who audited the incident:

• 1. Black activist groups do not trust police because they “historically” discriminate.
  2. Police “always” for the benefit of the “white supremacists”.
  3. Police “always” show up to racially-contentious demonstrations in riot gear as a default escalation to violence when confronting black protesters.
  4. We do not accept the offer of police protection; we will be providing our OWN SECURITY.

Contributing factor #2:

Due to the pre-loaded complaints #2 and #3 listed above, Law Enforcement authorities committed these blunders:

• intentionally positioned officers WITHOUT riot gear, openly in deference to claim #3, causing a breach in security AFTER the onset of violence when waves of officers were ordered to leave their positions in order to don the equipment for their own safety (due to claim #3 above)
• failed to IMMEDIATELY declare an unlawful assembly as the counter-protesters showed up WITHOUT a permit and in an unorganized manner that would inevitably generate chaos that would escalate into a riot (due to claim #2 above)
• allowed violence to escalate such that officers could not safely intervene due to the previous two blunders

Contributing factor #3:

Although, Kessler, the organizer of the “Unite the Right” demonstration followed legal protocol and obtained a permit for the public assembly, he committed a catastrophic blunder.  It appears this decision, among others, was motivated by claim #4 above.

Kessler made the following blunders:

• enlisted the assistance of “militia” groups to provide security, an “arms race” escalated by claim #4 above
• employed “militia” security equipped with firearms that provided opposition the talking point that his group “showed up armed with assault rifles to intimidate people”, motivated by claim #4 above
• organized a “covert” torchlight demonstration extraneous of the authorization of his permit on the night of Friday, August 11^th, which supported the “intimidation” stereotype of a torch-bearing hate group
• attracted a counter-protest group in response to the “covert” torchlight demonstration without police protection, relying on the sketchy “security” of each of the opposing groups
• exacerbated the antipathy by waging an ill-fated pre-protest that degenerated into a mini-riot and supported the suspicions of his opposition

Contributing factor #4:

ANTIFA, Black Lives Matter, and other “Social Justice” activist groups made questionable choices.  These choices and the coincidence thereof make it quite apparent that their positioning, movements, and actions were NOT extemporaneous; it seems as though a lot of deliberation took place ahead of time.  These activist groups did the following things:

• Before demonstration:
  • Refused to cooperate with police to pre-organize, resulting in a disorganized arrival, leading to intermingling of antipathy-enraged opponents, degenerating the scene into chaos that ultimately erupted into a riot (see #1 above)
  • Refused to establish identifiable leadership to meet with the authorities, making it impossible for police to adequately provide security by addressing the needs, demands, and legal parameters necessary to prevent chaos (see #1 above)
  • failed to procure a legal permit for public assembly (see #1 above)
  • made anonymous “death threat” phone calls to local church group prayer vigils (claiming to be “racists”), spreading panic and promoting the narrative that the “racists descended upon the city” with the intent to intimidate and commit violence
• During demonstration:
  • deliberately arrived at the park from multiple entrances to thwart police intervention (see #2 above)
  • deliberately intermingled with the “Unite the Right” demonstrators so they could get into face-to-face confrontations, despite police efforts to prevent this (see #2 above)
  • verbally and physically harassed the demonstrators purposefully expecting violent retaliation (see #2 above)
  • incited mob violence causing a fray in such preponderant numbers the police could not safely maintain security (see #2 above)
• After the police declared “Unlawful Assembly” in response to violence:
  • verbally taunted and condemned the police officers, who chose not to act at their own peril, for not aiding them in their time of self-imposed crisis
  • refused to allow safe passage for “Unite the Right” demonstrators to exit the park after police declared “unlawful assembly” as the violence escalated (note the Corey Long flamethrower incident)
  • physically herded departing demonstrators into predominantly black public housing areas of Charlottesville to support the claim that “racists descended upon the city” with the intent to intimidate people
  • prevented departing demonstrators from getting to their vehicles to leave the scene
  • purposefully caused damage to people’s vehicles as they were attempting to leave
  • intentionally blocked, with their bodies, the departure of vehicles from parking areas

These actions not only appear deliberate, but pre-planned and well-orchestrated.

Please feel free to fact-check me; I know these conclusions are controversial.

Hunton & Williams LLC is the law firm who published the following audit from which I gleaned my research.  All my facts and conclusions are derived from this report.

https://www.hunton.com/images/content/3/4/v4/34613/final-report-ada-compliant-ready.pdf

• The majority of news organizations are Leftist leaning.  This fact is supported by observing the nature of their narrative, not merely a function of my opinion.
  • These networks often completely IGNORE important developments that do not support the Leftist agenda.
  • All “news” reports are ultimately opinionated Leftist slanted rants by pundits ostensibly portraying themselves as reporters or news anchors.
  • Questions directed to Republican figures by “reporters” from these networks have an obvious slant to them intended to trap that person into providing an answer that supports a Leftist narrative.
  • Facts are either completely fabricated, falsely skewed, obscured, or eschewed in order to support an obvious Leftist agenda.
  • “News” reports are rife with opinionated, sensationalized rhetoric that is obviously NOT factual, but an assertion promoted by the anchor to support the Leftist agenda.  For Example:  “Our president….. (pause for ersatz solemnity implying ABSOLUTE truth)… is a RACIST!” spouted one anchor.  I would rather he have reported the facts and let me come to my own conclusion as to whether I believe him to be a racist or not.  News is NOT a matter of opinion like that.
• Fox News is the only “readily-available” media outlet that supports Conservative opinion.  Fox News is the ONLY network that will cover many issues that completely ignored by other networks.
  • Leftists will IMMEDIATELY denounce the source of ANY narrative (factual or opinionated) that contrasts with their own using the familiar mantra, “Where did you get your information, FOX NEWS?”
  • They regularly imply, if not openly state, that Fox News is a Right Wing propaganda network that lies in favor of Conservative indoctrination.
  • The fact is, Fox News IS a Conservative venue for news.  However, I find myself YELLING at Fox News as much as other networks.  WHY?
    • They REGULARLY provide a dissenting Left-Wing opinion.
    • The pundit providing the dissenting opinion is ALWAYS a strong debate opponent, not merely a token endorsement that cowers before a barrage of prevailing narrative.
    • The dissenting opinion conveys the narrative of the other networks in the same talking points and Leftist agenda.
    • Other networks rarely provide a dissenting opinion to their anchor’s Leftist monologue… and if they do, the counter-argument is either weak or shouted down by the preponderant supporting pundits.

• One would think that over half of Americans are gender-confused, yet they are less than 1% of our population.
  • Why, I wonder, do we put so much emphasis on them when it comes to matters of public policy?
  • There is a disproportionate amount of accommodating going on in public policy in terms of funding and overall political power manifested in a plight that is portrayed as quite common in the American public.
• One would think that white supremacists are threatening the very existence of Americans who are subject to their hatred on a genocidal level.
  • Yet, accusations of “racist”, “white supremacist”, or “bigot” are thrown around on a wholesale basis toward Trump and the Americans who support him.
  • Saying one is a “racist” does not make it so, yet the narrative always diverts to discussion of this or the debate thereof.

Conservatives must stop taking the bait and engaging in discussion of such “red herring” issues.  They are thrown up as a diversion away from the important topic of discussion at hand in order to avoid a lost cause, as is the Leftist/Socialist agenda these days.

All you Pathos Leftists with your little red signs “But the Name HURTS”, pick yourselves up, dust yourselves off, and go on with your lives; Robert E. Lee never did anything to hurt you (but someone is putting a mighty effort into convincing you that he did).  All you Ethos Leftists with your little gray signs “Shame on the Name”, go tell it to the mass grave of Virginians and other CSA dead in Thornrose Cemetery who died fighting to protect their homes from the swath of “total war”… see if that makes you feel morally higher.  All you Logos Leftists with the white signs “Reclaim the name:  Staunton High”, take it upon yourselves to find anyone who remembers that as the name of the local high school here in Staunton…. Oh, nobody alive today can attribute that to their culture.  Can we call this “cultural mis-appropriation”?

Hmm… What we really have here is a multifaceted attack, each with a claim that is a fallacy of logos, ethos, or pathos.  But, never mind the high school name… they could change it to Queen City High School:  home of the Champions of Diversity; the result would be the same…

Someone injected a racially-charged controversy into a community that was relatively free of such front-page rancor.  Shame on THEM, indeed.  They obviously have not learned from Reconstruction-Era politics and the dreaded “Carpetbaggers” in our nation’s history that this is a bad idea.  But, judging from their dumbed-down version of Robert E. Lee’s significance in history, it is no surprise that they didn’t learn a whole lot from the era that followed the Civil War either.

What it boils down to is Leftist politics in the vein of the new Socialist Movement.  They have weaponized indignation, exploiting the plight of ethnic minorities with a troubled history, such that they can exert political leverage, both when their party of choice holds the power AND when their representation does not constitute the majority in government.

This is a Socialist Revolutionary technique that, in its burgeoning manifestation, seems innocuous or even beneficent, and therefore passes by with little notice.  The technique is to exert political power to force public policy by special interest groups whose political representation does not possess the majority in government.  This is an underhanded way of subverting the legislative process by majority rule inherent in our Constitution.  Instead of lobbying representatives to make decisions, they force-feed the public their leveraged changes by casting allegations of “hurt”, exploiting an ethnic minority whose ancestors encountered past adversity, and “shame”, promoting guilt among the majority that they are furthering said “hurt” unless they make the desired change.  This can rise to the political extortion including unwarranted indelible labels of bigotry should one decide to oppose said change.  For instance, the dissenting opinion offered herein will most probably incur an onslaught of invective, alleging that the sentiment is racist.  My motivation is quite the opposite, however:  I dissent in the hope that Leftists will stop using racial divisiveness as a political pawn.  Their actions are far more to the detriment of those they claim to be helping with their push for “inclusiveness”.

Here’s a recap of what I have been noticing interpolated with what I know from my historical studies:

• Leftists are intent on “fundamentally changing America”… their hubris has led them to openly state this; we no longer need to suspect.
• When their party of choice holds the power of government, they change as much as they can in the time they hold the power.
• Leftists have long had sway over the American education system and they use it to indoctrinate disaffection toward America.  Again, whereas back in the 90’s it was subtle enough that I could only suspect it, it now is quite palpable.
• Much disaffection toward America is through emphasis on the plight of minority groups throughout history
• What at first began as “bleaching” the Confederate figures from our history has now evolved into a move to eradicate figures such as Columbus, Washington, Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson (just to name a few)…
• What harm is it in abandoning the name of a Confederate figure as the name of a local high school?  Plenty.  It is a gateway change in policy successfully forced by a numerically inferior group who lacks the democratic potency to legitimately do so.
• Through this ostensibly beneficent, “diversity-promoting”, “inclusive”, “safe-for-all” decision, a micro-population leveraged a policy change in this city OVER the wishes of a dissenting majority.
• This is not how our Democratic Republic works, according to the Constitution.  It is a fundamental change in our policy dealings and sets a disturbing precedent that undercuts our Constitution.
• This leads to the unavoidable question, “What’s next?”  What is the next change these agents of Socialism will coerce through “hurt”, “shame”, and “guilt” in this manner that subverts the power rightfully exerted by the political majority.  Laying the groundwork through seemingly minor changes, greater attacks are likely to follow.  They wouldn’t be putting this much effort into simply changing names of schools, otherwise.
• So, Leftists control when they hold the political majority AND have found ways to leverage control when they do not.

The sad thing is that the “inclusiveness” they are providing lip-service to promoting with this ridiculous move is ultimately going to have the opposite effect:  The change will end up spreading rancor within our community and having an overall divisive effect.

But, that doesn’t matter to them.  Ultimately, they will have gotten what they wanted:  the unwarranted power to force change…

I remember watching the announcement by James Clapper that the intelligence community determined that Russia hacked into the DNC server and ultimately “interfered with our 2016 election”.  At no time during that announcement did he utter the words “in favor of Donald Trump” or any favor one way or another.

Soon thereafter, every news anchor, reporter, politician, and concerned citizen spoke of the “Russian interference in the 2016 U. S. election ‘in favor of Donald Trump'”.  I found myself scratching my head… I DO NOT remember that now ubiquitous addendum to Clapper’s announcement.

Recently, having been nagged by that disparity between rhetoric and my memory, I felt he need to clear it up by researching Clapper’s actual announcement.  It wasn’t easy to find.  Most subsequent reports paraphrase his announcement to include the phony addendum.  I finally found a New York Times article that reported the announcement.

I found that he had, as I thought, NOT included the “in favor of Donald Trump” conclusion to his report.  That was a hybrid of Clapper’s words and those of John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign manager.  It was Podesta’s take that the interference ultimately awarded the presidency to Donald Trump.  The Media thereafter took the liberty of attaching Podesta’s assertion to Clapper’s intelligence report, creating what has become the universally accepted narrative.  Well, it is a FALSE narrative that festered without challenge.  The intelligence community did NOT, in fact, attribute the Russian interference to the victory of President Trump as the Media has led us to believe.

Below, I have related relevant excerpts of the NYT article in standard font along with parenthetical notation of my comments relating today’s Media narrative to the text of the article in red, italic font.

U.S. Says Russia Directed Hacks to Influence Elections
The New York Times
By David E. Sanger and Charlie Savage
Oct. 7, 2016

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration formally accused the Russian government of stealing and disclosing emails from the Democratic National Committee and a range of other institutions and prominent individuals, immediately raising the issue of whether President Obama would seek sanctions or other retaliation.

(In fact, Obama did not act because he assumed Hillary Clinton would win the election. It was not until Donald Trump won that this information was made into a public spectacle.)

In a statement from the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., and the Department of Homeland Security, the government said the leaked emails that have appeared on a variety of websites “are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.”

(Notice the lack of the words “in favor of Donald Trump” coming from Clapper and the DHS. The narrative became corrupted by the Media to include that assumption as the Trump/Russia Collusion canard gained momentum.)

The emails were posted on the well-known WikiLeaks site … “We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities,” the statement said.

It did not name President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, but that appeared to be the intention.

(Once again, Putin is not specifically named as the one authorizing the hacks, but the media, in deference to Democrats, makes that assumption and continues to run with it.)

The statement from Mr. Clapper and the Department of Homeland Security said the intelligence agencies were less certain who was responsible for “scanning and probing” online election rolls in states around the country. It said that those “in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company,” but stopped short of alleging the Russian government was responsible for those probes.

The announcement came only hours after Secretary of State John Kerry called for the Russian and Syrian governments to face a formal war-crimes investigation over attacks on civilians in Aleppo and other parts of Syria. Taken together, the developments mark a sharp escalation of Washington’s many confrontations with Moscow this year.

(Here NYT takes it upon itself to make a connection that was NOT directly stated by the intelligence community, yet became part of the narrative to connect the Trump Campaign to some manner of “collusion to alleviate sanctions”.)

For weeks, aides to Mr. Obama have been debating whether to openly attribute the cyberattacks to Russia, and … the director of the National Security Agency refused to publicly accuse Moscow.

(… and why is that? Oh, yes… they assumed Hillary was going to win the election and did not want to make a big deal of the issue. However, Trump won… THEN it became a big deal… interesting)

But with little more than a month to go before the presidential election, one senior administration official said that Mr. Obama was “under pressure to act now,” in part because a declaration closer to Election Day would appear to be political. Two days ahead of the second presidential debate, the announcement also puts the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, more on the defensive over his assertion last month that Mr. Putin is a better leader than Mr. Obama.

(Stating Mr. Putin is a better leader than Mr. Obama is not necessarily a comment intended to show favor to Putin… it is simply a commentary on the ineptitude of Obama’s Presidency… yet, the media takes that and uses it to supply late night comedians with their ridiculous allegations that Trump is Putin’s fellatio puppet.)

In the first debate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump’s Democratic rival, blamed Russia for the cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee, but Mr. Trump said there was no evidence that Russia was responsible; he suggested it could have been the Chinese or “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.”

(Gee, I wonder how these hackers, wherever their origin, gained access to the DNC? Could it have been through Hillary Clinton’s illegal, unprotected, personal server through which she conducted State Department business? DUH… Yet the FBI found nothing worthy of further investigation.)

• thousands of deleted emails that had been subpoenaed by the FBI
• electronic devices of State Department staff members directly connected to Secretary Clinton that had been physically rendered inoperable for data recovery
• the bleach-bit, acid-wash scrubbing of the personal server, mockingly referred to by Mrs. Clinton with a washing hand gesture in condescension to the American public as though anyone suspicious of her corruption is stupid…
• open defiance of an FBI subpoena that ended up not only unpunished, but not investigated at all!
• subsequent discovery of open bitter anti-Trump/pro-Clinton bias through personal text messages between FBI Lead Investigator Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page on official FBI devices… and Strzok was instrumental in exonerating Clinton and launching the anti-Trump “Russia Collusion” probe!

(I am overwhelmed with consternation regarding why there is no widespread Watergate-esque push by the Media at large to find out to what extent the Clinton corruption spread within our Deep State.  Yes!  This scandal is of greater magnitude than the Watergate Scandal, yet the Media is sweeping it under the rug.)

Soon after the administration accused the Russians of hacking into the committee, WikiLeaks published hacked emails from John D. Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman.

In a Twitter message Friday evening, Mr. Podesta said that “I’m not happy about being hacked by the Russians in their attempt to throw the election to Donald Trump.’’

(THERE’S the source of the liberties taken with the narrative by the Media. Thereafter, all reports of “the Intelligence Community” determination of Russian interference in the 2016 election bore the addendum “in favor of Donald Trump”. This statement was NOT made by a member of the Intelligence Community; Podesta was the Clinton campaign chairman… it is a completely biased allegation, yet reported as “fact” by the Media.)

WikiLeaks has released troves of hacked Democratic emails, but has not revealed their source.

(Put two and two together and it equals Hillary Clinton’s unprotected personal server with which she conducted classified State Department business, but destroyed the email trail… which takes suspicion further to include the possibility that Clinton voluntarily SHARED the classified information via email to foreign actors…)

A major question is how Mr. Obama might respond without setting off an escalating cyberspace conflict with Russia between now and Nov. 8. One possibility is that the announcement itself — an effort to “name and shame” — will deter further action.

(Both presidents opted not to castigate Russian officials regarding this matter with vastly different reactions from the Press… Obama: Free-Pass:: Trump: Treason…)

But Mr. Obama’s aides have assembled a range of possible responses, from using economic sanctions to covert action against Russian targets, potentially including the computers used in the hack.

(it is interesting how these “possible response sanctions” became part of the narrative that Trump colluded with Putin to get elected to ease said “sanctions”, in addition to the sanctions enacted with regard to Russia’s support of Assad in Syria. Some Democrats have specifically used these phantom sanctions to support their allegations of Trump/Russia Collusion)

The official accusation against Russia comes after anonymous American intelligence officials told The New York Times in July that they had “high confidence” that the Russian government was behind the hack of the D.N.C., which led to the resignation of Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Florida Democrat, as committee chairwoman, amid evidence that the committee was favoring Mrs. Clinton over her competitor for the party nomination, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

(How could the Russian hacking at this point have occurred for the purpose of favoring Trump over Clinton? The timeline at this point in the sequence of events belies the push that Trump was the beneficiary of the Russian hacking. And, somehow, this got twisted in the Media narrative into appending the “intent” of the Russian interference adding, “in favor of Sanders and Warren in the primary”… HOW is that even logical? It was obvious that HRC, in collusion with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, manipulated the primary in order to steal it from Sanders, who was actually more popular among Democratic voters. How did Russian interference possibly, POSSIBLY, turn out to be in any way supportive of Bernie Sanders? That is INSANE how the Media has warped that narrative.)

Democrats on the House and Senate intelligence committees, Adam Schiff and Dianne Feinstein, both of California, said Russia and its leaders were responsible, citing classified briefings.

Mr. Schiff, who had urged the Obama administration to name Russia and better prepare American voters for the possibility of interference between now and the election, on Friday praised the decision “to call out Russia on its malevolent interference in our political affairs.”

“I hope this will establish a deterrent to further meddling,” he said. “I don’t think the Russians have decided yet how much they plan to continue their interference, so I think this attribution is very timely. We’re also encouraging the administration to work with our European partners, who have been the subject of even worse meddling, to coordinate a response to this.”

Mr. Schiff said he was afraid Russian hackers might attempt to delete or manipulate voter rolls, causing long lines at the polls and delays in counting votes because people would be forced to cast provisional ballots. (Voting machines themselves are not linked to the internet, so it is effectively impossible to hack them in a systematic way and change the outcome, specialists say.)

(It was subsequently confirmed by the Intelligence Community that the outcome in terms of number of votes was indeed NOT altered by any of the hacking…. yet the canard of “Russian Interference/Trump Collusion” continues as though he “stole” the election… utterly absurd, yet embraced wholeheartedly by the Media at large and a significant portion of the American population.)

But as “profound” as that concern is, Mr. Schiff said, he and others see as “the most grave risk” something else: Russia could take emails it has already stolen, manipulate them to create a false impression that a candidate has done something outrageous or illegal, and cause them to be published online shortly before the election.

That, he said, “could have an election-altering effect.”

(Notice how Schiff stated that Russia “could take emails it has ALREADY STOLEN…” implying Hillary Clinton’s vulnerable server had in fact been subject to the hacking … and the only false impression created was the Fusion GPS Dossier which was leveled against TRUMP, not Clinton… so where, oh, where is the evidence that Clinton’s opportunity to be president was sabotaged by the Russians?)

Federal officials are trying to help states plug holes in their internet defenses for election management systems. One thing they will not do before the election is pronounced such systems “critical infrastructure,” as the secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, proposed in August.

Administration officials said that the idea of declaring elections systems critical infrastructure is dead for now, lest it discourage states from working with the federal government.

(Actually, it is more likely the Obama Administration’s choice not to address the problem was out of a reluctance to cast doubt on the results, assuming Clinton was going to be the 45th President of the United States.  Once Trump was declared the winner, the cries of foul play exploded and continue to proliferate exponentially.)

I would like to, again, note that the standard font text in blue is a collection of excerpts from the New York Times article.  The red, italic font, parenthetical notations are my commentary related to the current Media narrative.

It is vitally important to stand up for TRUTH when engaging in discussions about these matters.  Americans are NOT getting the truth from the Media.  Leftists have, as is typical, taken control of this narrative by including deliberate equivocation with which to falsely support their agenda.  Please use this carefully researched information and cite it as proof that the Trump/Russia Collusion narrative is founded upon a LIE.

This sign represents a movement to protect the integrity of native Stauntonian history.  There are historical negationists pushing a movement in Staunton to eliminate the name Robert E. Lee from the city’s high school.  The Leftist movement is spreading even to small-town Virginia here.  The most infuriating thing about such activists is that most, if not all, are not originally from Virginia.  The modern education system has served a disservice to history students by portraying the American Civil War as a simplistic dichotomy of slavery vs. abolition.  There was WAY more to it than that, particularly in Virginia, home of the majority of the battles in the war.

This sign represents the opposition.  These activists have imputed their view that people should feel pain vis-a-vis the name of Robert E. Lee.  All the years I grew up here, no one ever complained about such pain.  This is a recent movement… a “me too movement” contrived by National Socialists who wish to drum up racial strife for political leverage.

This was my Facebook post responding to the sentiment behind this sign:

If the decision hinges on how “hurt” someone is, consider the forgotten population in all this malignant narcissism: The descendants of Virginians who fought under General Lee.

Virginians historically honor Robert E. Lee for reasons other than the simplistic, dumbed-down version portrayed in public schools.

1. In 1860, Augusta County had 27,749 residents and 811 of those people owned slaves. Around 5,000 of those residents were slaves, so the white population was around 22,500. The slave owners constitute 0.04% of the white population. So, contrary to mainstream historical teachings, only a small number of white southerners even owned slaves.
2. Virginia did not initially secede with the first states to form the Confederacy. It was not until President Lincoln called forth an army of 75,000 soldiers did Virginia decide to leave the Union, and only then to hopefully avoid becoming the battleground between clashing armies.
3. General Lee declined President Lincoln’s appointment to command the U.S. Army because he could not justify taking up arms against his fellow Virginians. Knowing the integrity of this man, the decision to torch his illustrious military career with the U.S. Army solely because he believed in maintaining the servitude of any race of people would have been utterly illogical. His loyalty to the people of Virginia was much more compelling of his self-deprecating decision.
4. General Lee led the Army of Northern Virginia to defend the citizens of Virginia against the rampages of hostile invading army. General Sheridan sought to apply the policy of “scorched earth” to force the citizens of the South to withdraw their support for the war. This means he ordered his soldiers to destroy every resource of the farming landscape to effectively starve out the people of Virginia.

So… Robert E. Lee is revered by ancestral Virginians for his devotion to their protection in the face of an invading army
.

As a countervailing position regarding “the name hurts”, I posit the questions:

• What makes one’s “hurt” more important than others?
• Are these individuals not worthy of consideration because they are those repugnant white people?
• What hubris is it to place one’s putative umbrage above another’s?
• Is one group morally superior and thereby subject to preferential consideration to one’s “hurt”?

Regardless, blacks were political pawns in the 1800’s and they continue to be used for their “hurt” to this day. The perpetuation of 150 year old anguish over past servitude for purposes of political leverage needs to stop.
#savethename

A short time later, I saw a sign in another local resident’s yard with a new angle to the opposition’s sentiment:

I felt compelled to post again, to point out the narrow-mindedness of this perspective:

This photo shows another local nod to the opposition for keeping the name of Robert E. Lee High School.

The Beverly Street property upon which this sign has been displayed is in close proximity to Thornrose Cemetery. A large knoll in this cemetery entombs the remains of an untold number of Virginians in a mass grave marked only by the statue of a soldier. Robert E. Lee led these Virginians who died fighting for the sole purposes of defending the citizens of their home state from an invading army.

This invading army did not abide by today’s liberal rules of engagement that self-perilously restrain the actions of our military. This army was ordered to conduct “Total War” dictated by U.S. General William T. “War is Hell” Sherman. His subordinate commander, General Phillip Sheridan, applied this policy as he led his army through the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. “Total War” was the U.S. Army’s policy of destroying everything in its path to purposefully and indiscriminately starve out the citizens of Virginia to erode the will to fight back. These ancestral Virginians are the forgotten people of the war, lost underfoot in the road dust kicked up by all the political exploitation of “hurt”.

My stance is not motivated by white supremacy. The overwhelming bias is that to speak out in such opposition is tantamount to racism. I have nothing personal, political, or financial to gain from advocating against destroying the vestige of General Lee. As a Conservative, I am indiscriminately mis-categorized as a “racist” already, simply for opposing the Liberal agenda. I have nothing to gain by openly sticking out my neck onto the chopping block of public condemnation.

I have no reason to speak out other than to stand on the principle that the ancestors of much of the population of Virginia deserve consideration in this dispute. Hurt is not a manifestation unique to one perspective in history.

We descendants of Virginians of that era, those Americans whom President Lincoln advocated readmitting to the Union without further punishment beyond the ravages of war they had already endured, honor General Lee as a vicarious memorial to our ancestors.

For these reasons, I reject the movement to change the long-established name of our community’s high school:

1. Most of the people (if not all) who stand in favor of abnegating the name of Robert E. Lee from our history are not originally from Virginia and have no ancestral connection to Virginia. They have only one perspective with which to assess the controversy.
2. Advocates for change are exploiting the ever-festering rancor between racial groups in America to bolster their political leverage to force changes in public policy; a political pawn, proverbially speaking.
3. While ostensibly a beneficent activism to effectuate change to alleviate “hurt” in the spirit of a legitimate grievance, the activism is only an exploitation of wounds that are continually lanced to remain open for a never-ending political advantage It has become alarmingly clear that there will be no end to this.
4. The political advantage is utilized to exert power from the position of an ideology that does not currently possess the majority of representation in our government. This is not an acceptable means of usurping power that contravenes the provisions set forth in our Constitution.
5. Above all, I reject the hubris of continually striving to convince blacks that they have been, and always will be, victimized by America. This arrogant exploitation continues to harm the black community by promoting the collective dejection that inhibits many from making the most of opportunity. The name of Robert E. Lee High School does not hold anyone back from economic success; demoralizing an entire community in a manner that spreads maladaptive discontent does.

Perhaps this advocate would find it righteously carminative to go to Thornrose Cemetery, stand before the mass grave of Virginians killed by the invading army, and say “honor something worthy”.
This condescending arrogation desecrates the ancestors of much of the local population by saying that the man who led the defenders of the civilian population of this area from an invading army is not worthy.
Shame on the blame, perhaps?