Removing History

   Written by on August 31, 2017 at 11:55 am

Why is it that the people preaching tolerance and inclusiveness are as intolerant and divisive as any group they oppose? Fascism includes forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism. I’m having trouble telling who are the fascists, who are the bigots, who are the intolerant, who are the rabble rousers and why another small vocal group is  forcing its opinions on others and pretending it is reasonable.

How can you support diversity and unity if you are excluding another group or demanding they comply with your demands?

After we finish removing all monuments honoring confederate leaders, what is next?  Obviously we must rename any building, highway or town named after them.

Then we must do the same with all dead slave owners, Washington, Jefferson and all the rest.

I will be happy to take all pictures you have of Washington and Jefferson.   You should keep your Hamiltons and Lincolns.

I just read an interesting editorial by John Kass in the Chicago Tribune. Kass writes that the problem with removing statues is it doesn’t go far enough. “Because if (Al Sharpton) and others of the Cultural Revolution were being intellectually honest, they’d demand that along with racist statues, something else would be toppled.

And this, too, represents much of America’s racist history:

The Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party historically is the party of slavery. The Democratic Party is the party of Jim Crow laws. The Democratic Party fought civil rights for a century.

And so by rights — or at least by the standards established by the Cultural Revolutionaries of today’s American left — we should ban the Democratic Party.”

Kass goes on to add:

“The Democratic Party’s military arm in the South was the KKK. The Democratic Party opposed the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, making the former slaves citizens of the United States and giving them the vote.

If the new Cultural Revolution was serious, wouldn’t it also demand that the Democratic Party be put in a museum somewhere, away from decent people, along with those Confederate statues?”

For the full text see

When you read the editorial be sure to read the comments.  Kass is taken to task and abused for “taking satire too far.” He is reminded multiple times that the Democratic Party has changed. They supported civil rights way back 30 or so years ago he is told, which apparently nullifies the 160 previous years.

Funny that not one of them mentioned that Robert E. Lee supported civil rights in the late EIGHTEEN SIXTIES.

They apparently believe THEIR sins should be forgiven because they have “seen the light” but they aren’t willing to give that consideration to anyone else.

The Democratic Party has “owned” the black American vote for over 100 years. Before that they just owned them. Does anyone else think this is ironic?

Leave a Reply