Month: August 2017

 

For quite some time now, many Leftist do-gooders have been on a crusade to take down Confederate monuments throughout the Southern United States.  The conflict in Charlottesville definitely brings this issue to a head.  President Trump made several good points at the press conference on Tuesday in regards to this issue.  Among them was his questioning the removal of the statue of General Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, and the door it may open in regards to the potential removal of other American monuments.  Overall, this mission to remove Confederate monuments is pretty ridiculous.  Unfortunately, we are likely to see further violence over the issue so I think it is important to address.

Let me start by saying the Confederacy absolutely deserved to have it’s keister handed to itself in the Civil War.  As a Civil War buff, and firm believer in fighting war as it should be fought, I passionately believe pre-Civil War Southern culture needed to be put solidly in check and it most certainly was.  Having said this, it is a terrible disservice to our history and to those who suffered from the Civil War to reduce a person such as General Robert E. Lee to some sort of racist figurehead.

Of all people, Robert E. Lee was not adamantly supportive of secession from the Union; nor was he all that fond of the institution of slavery.  Like many Southerners, he was unfortunate enough to live in a time, place, and culture where he had to choose between his nation and his family/home.  Nevertheless, whatever his motives, General Lee was a traitor, technically speaking.  He made a conscious decision to choose the side of a secessionist movement over the nation which he was born into.  If the primary reason for removing his statue was purely motivated by the concept of him as a traitor, I might see a little more basis for this crusade.  This is not the case though.

The primary motive for removing this statue is the based in the mistaken belief that General Lee and other Confederate monuments are purely symbols of racism.  The equation put together by those who are leading this crusade goes something like this:

Confederacy stood for slavery + General X fought for the Confederacy = General X was a racist.

I’m not here to argue that slavery as it existed in the U.S.A. and C.S.A. was not a racist institution; clearly it was.  I also won’t deny that racist beliefs were held by various Confederate generals.  Nevertheless, to reduce any one Confederate soldier or general to a worthless racist is to judge that person solely based on a single flaw.  It may be an important flaw, but it does not define these men on the whole.  Robert E. Lee is not the shining star of White Supremacy he has been equated to by many on both the Far-Right and Far-Left.  General Lee and other Confederates would probably rather have found a peaceful solution to the slavery question if they could have.  However, it was simply not within their scope or power to change this cultural dynamic within the South.  Most Confederates cared more about fighting on the side of their home and family than they cared about fighting for slaveholders; even if that’s what their choice incidentally resulted in.

None of that addresses what I find most disturbing about the crusade against Confederate statues.  What is most worrisome about this crusade is the open-endedness of it.  President Trump brought up a great point about where it could lead to; the removal of statues and icons of our founding fathers.  If racism and slavery are the only gauge we use to judge these men, it is an awfully flawed meter.

It’s easy to judge these men centuries after their deaths in a culture which has evolved considerably in terms of acceptance and tolerance.  To stand in their shoes when they lived and judge them would be much more complex.  It is simply unrealistic and unfair to hold them to the moral and cultural standard of today.  Today we know slavery is something to abhor but it was simply a part of life in their time.

To diminish men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison to slave holding racists is to ignore the many great things they provided to our nation.  Let us not forget what a tolerant and culturally diverse nation the United States is; nor forget the men that laid the foundation for us to get where we are.  Surely, the system they helped to create has been aided and complimented by others along the way (Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King to name but a few).  Our founding fathers may have written a “bad check,” as Martin Luther King put it, but they still wrote the “check.”  In doing so, they paved the way for others to build on the foundation which they established for the United States to eventually become the most free, culturally diverse, artistically rich, technologically advanced, and all-around most tolerant nation this world has ever seen.

In addition, Confederate monuments are important historical symbols.  They are reminders of the price so many Americans paid to get where we are now.  Confederate soldiers may have been wrong in what they fought for but they were still Americans whose descendants walk among us today.  We should not denounce these ancestors but rather learn from their mistakes.  

Interestingly enough, I think it speaks to the unique tolerant and progressive nature of United States history that a statue of a man who fought against our Union still stands almost 150 years after his death.  Remember, part of the healing process after fighting a Civil War includes the reintegration of the losing faction into society.  It can be argued that Confederate monuments played an integral part in that.  You can’t force that reintegration overnight.

Ironically, progressives are actually regressing by making a big deal out of something that is otherwise a non-issue as far as race relations go.  The majority of Americans view Confederate monuments as historical icons of a very different time in our history.  Very few view Confederate monuments as symbols of White Supremacy and those few certainly should not dictate how we treat items that are otherwise of important historical significance.  Besides, most of these monuments were built to honor the men they portray; not specifically what they fought for.

When considering this issue remember the following important points:

• If you look back at history’s greatest leaders and expect moral perfection, you will be disappointed every time.  Likewise will you be disappointed when applying this standard to our future leaders.

 

• If you want to stamp out all symbols of America’s history with slavery, you will have to go beyond America’s borders.  Remember: for every European who traded in African flesh, there was an African counterpart who provided the product.  You had better start doing your research on which African tribal symbols and leaders to erase from history.

 

• One would be hard pressed to find a culture that did not have the institution of slavery at some point in its history.

 

• The United States was a very young nation when it fought its Civil War.  The seeds of future conflict between North and South were sewn not long after our establishment as a nation.  Our forefathers went to a lot of trouble to create a United States that would survive its early nationhood intact, but that survival was certainly not a given. To expect them to have tackled the issue of slavery, on top of everything else they faced, and still have created a strong/intact nation is preposterous.

 

• Tearing down Confederate monuments does not change anything about the history of the United States.  It does nothing to improve the lives of Black Americans in the past or present.  If you are relying on the removal of a statue to feel good about your country, you’re in for disappointment because the statue is not the problem.

 

• The United States is a comparatively young nation and has progressed very far and relatively fast.  We have an extensive history of overcoming conflicts and mistakes, and learning from them.  We are a great nation because of this history; not in spite of it.  

Share This:

 

Despite all the aggravation it causes me to watch it, I still keep tabs on the mainstream media, recently referred to by President Trump’s Senior Policy Advisor Steven Miller as the “ex-treme media.”  Extreme is absolutely right.  For two days after the violence in Charlottesville, I heard the Extreme Media do nothing but chastise two groups they believe share responsibility for the conflict that took place there last Saturday.  One group is President Trump and his supporters.  The other group is anyone at the event whose politics were not clearly left of center.  The bias against the right has always been evident in the media, and has reached an unacceptable level.  Left leaning politicians, celebrities, and the extreme media are on a crusade to erase American history and vilify those on the right.  There is so much wrong with how this situation has been interpreted and perceived it seems impossible to give it adequate attention. There’s a lot of muck to trudge through so let’s get messy.

Let me start with a personal rant: I lament the fact that I even feel the necessity to insert a statement here declaring, for the record, that I am not a White Supremacist.  Nothing in the following writing would indicate to any reasonable person that I condone racism or Nazism.  Like President Trump and many other Americans who support law enforcement, immigration reform, and the President’s policies, I am sick and tired of having to repeatedly convince others that I am not a racist or fascist.  Well guess what: I’m not providing the all too common “I’m not a racist” disclaimer here because I shouldn’t have to.  Anyone who would apply that overused and now almost meaningless label to this writing is probably beyond understanding anyway.

I applaud President Trump’s statements today holding both sides of the Charlottesville conflict accountable.  Most infuriating is this:  holding Antifa, Alt-Left, Anarchists equally responsible for the violence is being portrayed by many as the equivalent of supporting Alt-Right, Neo-Nazi, White Supremacists.  Clearly both sides at the conflict were not devoid of their share of intolerant dirtbags looking to pick a fight with the other side.  It is also a reasonable assumption that both sides also contained their share of peaceful demonstrators looking to exercise their First Amendment rights.  

The hijacking of what may have otherwise been a peaceful demonstration by extremists on both sides is what makes the event sensational.  Yet, through the hype and chaos of the event, it is nearly impossible to determine who started the violence.  Though the violence perpetrated by the wacko Far-Leftists at the conflict had just as much potential to result in a homicide, it just happens that the only death resulted from the actions of some nutjob on the Far-Right side.  This is something the Trump-hating Extreme Media in particular is thriving on and eating up like candy.  They are capitalizing on it because, to them and their supporters, it is validation of their claims that President Trump is Hitler, his supporters are Deplorables, and they are collectively leading America on a path to some White Supremacist, dystopian future.

The extreme media would have you believe the far-Right is fully responsible for the conflict because they showed up with torches and bats.  Nevermind the fact just as many far-Lefters showed up equally armed.  Never mind the fact those on the Right may have had reason to consider their safety prior to the event after witnessing the unprovoked attacks on Trump supporters by the Far-Left in San Jose, California (among other places).  Never mind the fact the Far-Right group went through proper legal channels to conduct their protest and exercise their First Amendment right (just as Milo Yiannopoulos had).  The frequent unprovoked violence committed by those on the extreme Left, like that seen at Yiannopoulos’ scheduled appearance at Berkeley, seems to be completely ignored by the Extreme Media.  

In fact, most of the people I see placing all the blame on the Right have considerably weak, emotionally-driven arguments for doing so.  Most of these arguments are based purely on the following logic: Nazi’s were evil people responsible for millions of deaths, and there were Neo-Nazis at the protest; ergo all those who stood right-of-center in the Charlottesville conflict are White Supremacists and automatically bear full responsibility for the violence.  This oversimplified view of the situation is dangerous.  I may think Nazis and KKK members are despicable human beings, but I am objective enough to evaluate the situation based on the facts we currently know and not just on my own intolerance for their wretched beliefs.

It’s easy to put blinders on and jump on the Nazis-are-evil bandwagon.  After all, no one can justify Nazism and White Supremacy, or argue against the totalitarian evil the Nazi’s stood for and perpetrated against millions.  Neither can one deny the presence of many White Supremacists at Saturday’s event; nor ignore the damage many of them undoubtedly caused.  But it takes real moxie to speak plainly as President Trump has, and not oversimplify the existing problem as so many other politicians have.  But then again, that is the difference between President Trump and other politicians.  He won’t ignore a problem or remain silent for the sake of retaining votes.  He is not afraid to be openly honest, even if it means publicly taking a potentially unpopular stance.  Yet, instead of this being recognized as an admirable trait, he is often demonized for it.

If you equate Trump’s statements with support for White Supremacy, shame on you!  President Trump’s statements are based completely on the facts and evidence currently available to him.  Anyone can clearly see there were extremists on both sides who came for a fight.  To say so is NOT the same thing as leaving the far-Right blameless, nor does it proximate sympathy for the cause of the far Right.  Furthermore, President Trump and his supporters cannot help it if that is how the KKK and Neo-Nazis interpret his words.  Who cares what the KKK or David Duke thinks anyway?  Consider the source.  This is the United States; we hold people equally accountable for their actions regardless of race, sex, religion, or political affiliation.  

The Leftist librocrits claim to be such tolerant and understanding people.  If this is the case, why do they put the Trump voter on the same social level as David Duke and the KKK? Is it because we share a common desire for a border wall to be built?  Why can’t these noble progressives distinguish between someone who wants reasonable border control, and someone who would prefer to eject all non-Whites from the United States?  Instead, most of them are ready to believe President Trump said that all immigrants are rapists and he supports White Supremacists.  The inability or unwillingness of these so called progressives to differentiate between two clearly dissimilar groups shows that they have more in common with the ignorant groupthink of Nazis than they realize.

I cannot finish this piece without mentioning my disgust over the unabashed criticism of the police in this matter.  I’ll keep this short and to the point.  The media, having repeatedly demonstrated their ignorance of police work, have no right to criticise, nor feign shock over, what they describe as police “inaction.”  Police Chiefs order their officers to stand down when they know they will not receive support from political leaders for taking appropriate action.  Had Charlottesville PD squashed the violence, videos of “fascist” and “militarized” police officers donning riot gear would have gone viral and Chief Al Thomas would be chastised for condoning rampant excessive force.  Political leaders, more concerned with their image and votes, would have joined in the condemning of police action.  We’ve seen it before on both sides of the political scale.

The second the protest turned violent, CPD should have been allowed to deploy tear gas, stinger grenades, rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, chemical agents, and baton strikes.  CPD’s “inaction” is a direct result of a culture which is overly critical and ignorant of police tactics and demonstrates overall lack of support for law enforcement with regard to use of force.  Police are doubly hit with criticism in this situation, receiving blame for letting casualties escalate on the sides of both the far-left and far-right; neither of which, by the way, are traditionally supportive of militarized law enforcement to begin with.  As is often the case with law enforcement agencies, it was a no-win situation for CPD; born out of a no-win culture for cops.

The most frustrating political difficulty President Trump and his supporters face is this: the overwhelming majority of us are not racists by any means and yet it seems as if we must constantly struggle to convince the Left our motives are just.  We know we are good people with valid concerns for our safety and the future of a nation we are proud to be part of.  Yet, for our values, we are reduced to a “basket of deplorables.”  We are fed up with it.  The frustration seen in President Trump today is completely understandable.  For his attempts to hold both sides of the Charlottesville conflict equally accountable (based on clear evidence), he is deemed to be a Nazi sympathizer. Absurd.

~AD

 

Share This:

Considering this issue could potentially lead to the ultimate decimation of the United States, I figured the least I can do is jot a few words down regarding my thoughts.  The fact that I would even have to convince another American of the clear and present danger North Korea poses shows what a sad state our nation is in.

Let us bullet point the danger posed by North Korea (these are not in any particular order):

• North Korea has nuclear weapons capable of reaching American allies and military bases at the minimum, if not the western coast of the United States.  They have also successfully launched observation satellites.
• Kim Jong-un is an unpredictable megalomaniac.  To speculate on the propensity for him to demonstrate any logic or practicality in his behavior is a waste of time.
• The mere possibility of North Korea supplying terrorists, Jihadists, and/or other rogue nations with Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) should scare the Hell out of all Americans (and the rest of the West).

Let’s look at the first point.  The danger posed by Kim Jong-un possessing nuclear weapons should concern all Americans.  At this point I can’t help but think half of American’s are either oblivious of the threat or are so wrapped up in other concerns, they are too busy to be troubled with what they consider an exaggerated threat.  

The reality of the situation is our nation has been in a similar conundrum in the past.  However, it can be argued that at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, neither Khrushchev nor Castro were nearly as unstable as Kim Jong-un.  Despite the fact American’s are obviously faced with an enemy leader no less maniacal than Hitler or Stalin, many in power still contend Russian President Putin is the greater threat.

Regarding the second point: Kim Jong-un has demonstrated he is unpredictable at best and malicious at worst.  His mind is warped from decades of having been told that everything he ever did was great and all his people love him (despite all the suffering of the average North Korean; which he is either oblivious or insensitive to).  Granted, my expertise in psycho-analysis is limited.  Regardless, American leaders better regard Kim Jong-un as potentially the most unhinged leader in the world, if we are to adequately counter the threat he poses.

Third point: the likelihood of North Korea sending a nuclear strike against the United States is probably minor (though it should be regarded as probable for the sake of national security).  However, the prospect of Kim Jong-un providing WMD to Jihadists is more concerning.  I shouldn’t have to detail for you the disturbing thought of a group like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, or Hezbollah having even the most meager of nuclear weapons at their disposal.

Now let me bullet point some of the steps (and the attitude) the United States could and should take in neutralizing the North Korean threat.  The sequence of these can be flexible, depending on China and North Korea’s actions:

• Forget the United Nations: there’s a reason countless sanctions have been ineffective against North Korea and it is only half due to the fact China is on the Security Council.  If the U.N. wants to pass sanctions against the United States for taking action against North Korea, best of luck to them.
• Forget China: China is not likely to take military action against the United States.  They have too much to lose economically from such a prospect.  China is also not likely to take major economic action.  The United States is China’s biggest customer.  Approximately 18% of Chinese exports go to the U.S. (about 4.5% goes to South Korea).  If they cut us off, their economy crashes just as much as ours, and probably more so.  It’s unlikely they would be willing to risk World War 3 for a little pissant like Kim Jong-un.
• Destroy Kwangmyŏngsŏng 4, North Korea’s observation satellite.  North Korea cannot be trusted with such a device and any capability it may have in launching an EMP attack against the United States should be immediately negated.  The U.S. may even be able to make it look like an “accident” if it so chooses.
• Impose a naval blockade against North Korea.  The entire U.S. Pacific Fleet, consisting of the Third and Seventh Fleets, should be dispatched to the Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan.  This will likely lead to war and so be it.
• Initiate focused cyber-attacks on North Korea’s missile systems and space program.
• Send an ultimatum to North Korea: 1) dismantle all nuclear and space programs and equipment, 2) allow U.S. inspectors into North Korea (U.N. inspectors can go pound sand), 3) (optional) force Kim Jong-un to forfeit all power.
• If Kim Jong-un fails to accept the terms of the ultimatum; the U.S. should consider a massive pre-emptive air strike, preceded/supported by naval launched cruise missiles, that would put Operation Focus to shame (“Focus” was the IAF’s 1967 air strike against the Arab air forces).  Primary targets should be missile launch sites, major air bases, and artillery in range of Seoul.

One only has to study the post World War 2 history of North Korea, and Kim Jong-un’s sabre-rattling, to understand the direction this situation is moving.  The problem has been repeatedly ignored by previous administrations.  Unfortunately, by ignoring the problem and placating China, North Korea is now in a position to potentially kill many Americans.  This is unacceptable.  The farce of the United Nations is palpable when you consider how many Americans (over 36,000)  and South Koreans (over half a million) died in the Korean War, yet 64 years later the North Korean leader technically has the power to start a nuclear war.

Why has the United States allowed this to happen?  The reason is a combination of fear and aloofness.  In the past few decades China has continually warned Japan, South Korea, and the U.S. not to interfere in North Korean activities (such as the launching of Kwangmyŏngsŏng 4).  All three have been all too willing to oblige.  The U.N. repeatedly writes nasty letters regarding North Korea’s rogue behaviour; which China and North Korea both laugh at.  Yet the feeling among the U.N. (and even popular within the U.S.) is that Western powers must not do anything to upset China or North Korea.  What do China and North Korea learn from this?… they can do whatever they want and the West will do nothing but send empty threats, condemnation, and vague critique.  The West seems unwilling to do anything that could potentially lead to war; even if that means putting itself at risk of being attacked.

For the first time in years the West may have a leader that is willing to send more than just ineffectual statements to North Korea.  President Trump has unfortunately inherited this problem from the past several administrations.  Maybe President Trump understands a concept previous presidents either failed to understand or plainly ignored; the U.S. should not put it’s own citizens at risk for the sake of appearing as a peace-loving nation.  Maybe he feels it’s wrong that so many proponents of nuclear disarmament, who vilify the U.S. for using atomic weapons in the Second World War, are the same people who seem to give North Korea a “pass” on this issue.

North Korea doesn’t just have the largest military institution in the world for the heck of it.  It does not have a nuclear and space program just for fun.  However, Kim Jong-un has done the U.S. one tremendous favor; he has not hidden his intentions.  If North Korea were to attack the United States or South Korea, Americans could not honestly claim to be surprised; as opposed to the surprise Americans felt on December 7th, 1941.  Nevertheless, the U.S. has chosen to pursue a RE-active stance to the problem, thus far.  It seems to be hedging it’s bets on the hopeful occurrence of some random event which will prevent this rogue nation from bringing war; perhaps a coup or the sudden death of Kim Jong-un and subsequent replacement by a much nicer North Korean leader.

Ask yourself these questions: Is this reactive stance what Americans really want?  Are Americans really willing to rely on China to control North Korea and hope that the latter doesn’t do anything that leads to American deaths?  Why all the resistance among so many Americans to be PRO-active?  Do people really believe it is acceptable for Americans, South Koreans, and/or Japanese to die first; out of some misplaced belief that the U.S. should not appear as an aggressor?  

It is obvious many Westerners are in denial over the fact that War is politics by other means.

The U.S. cannot rely on North Korean inaction based on the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).  MAD relies on a certain level of rational thinking on both sides of the conflict.  Kim Jong-un has not demonstrated a history of rational behavior, and simply hoping he is suddenly struck with rational thinking is not an acceptable strategy.  Moreover, MAD theory is undermined when one power is potentially reckless enough to share it’s WMD with terrorist groups.  

Let’s face it: casualties are coming sooner or later.  Would we rather have fewer casualties now, or a lot more later?  If only more Americans summoned the same enthusiasm to hate Kim Jong-un that they seem to feel for their own President.  It’s a sad state of affairs when so many Americans compare President Trump to Adolf Hitler while there is currently a living breathing version of Hitler leading the nation of North Korea and clearly threatening the United States.  We can only hope Americans will not pay for underestimating this threat.

~AD

Share This: