During the Soviet Era – Russians now avoid the word “Communist†– Josef Stalin gained a certain notoriety by purging from his regime’s history the names and images of people who had fallen into disfavor with him. A tool for this effort was his Bureau of Erasure (I don’t know the Russian title) which doctored all official photos to erase the images of persons Papa Joe didn’t want remembered. These included Trotsky and others who were “terminated with extreme prejudice†during his bloody reign. Their erasure turned them into “unpersons†– as though they had never existed. Some original photos survived, so it’s possible to compare the originals to the expurgated versions.
We used to laugh at this, back in the day, but not so much lately, since we have now embarked on a variant of the practice ourselves. Leftists have been on a thirty-year crusade to erase the names of certain American historical figures from all public venues. Starting in the 1980s, minority-aligned politicians in the South began to rename schools, buildings, streets and bridges originally named after famous Confederates like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forest, etc. Even the name of America’s iconic Revolutionary general and first president, George Washington, is now being erased from schools and even schoolbooks because he owned slaves.
More recently, a drive to remove statues of Confederate heroes from public lands has swept across the South. In Charlottesville – home of the University of Virginia – demands that a statue of Robert E. Lee be removed from a public park provoked a protest by groups that oppose the removal. Their protest – for which they had received a police-permit – was met by an attack from club-wielding leftists clad in black outfits and face-coverings. The original protesters resisted, producing a riot in which a woman was killed and numerous others were injured when a car deliberately drove into a crowd. Two police officers also died in a helicopter accident as they attempted to reach the scene of the violence. The driver of the car has been charged with murder.
Mainstream Media initially characterized the violence as a racist, Nazi-like attack on counter-protesters, but video-footage of the event belied that claim. Instead, it showed that elements of both left- and right-leaning groups had come to the clash armed with clubs and other implements. President Trump at first criticized the event’s “racist†tone, but later updated his statement to blame leftist as well as rightist elements. He said both sides deserved responsibility. “We are all Americans,†said Mr. Trump, by way of requesting calm and order. His remarks enraged liberals and their media compadres who will accept no criticism of leftist demonstrators, no matter how violent they are.
Mr. Trump went on to ask how far the history-purging would go: “George Washington was a slave owner. So …are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson?†He didn’t mention eliminating the many portraits of all those historical characters whose lifestyles now offend our politically correct sensibilities – an effort undoubtedly on the horizon.
How long will it be, one wonders, until the “Purgists†notice that Democrats’ great hero, Woodrow Wilson, actually segregated the civil service so minorities could hold only menial government-jobs. Liberals tend to ignore this glaring fact, but Wilson’s infamous segregation-order lasted all through the FDR/Truman era, until Dwight Eisenhower finally reversed it in the 1950s. Ike’s order boosted the desegregation-movement that finally tipped the Jim Crow boat over and changed the country.
President Wilson was also a dedicated Eugenicist. For the unschooled, Eugenics was a racist, faux-scientific movement that advocated elimination of “inferior peoples†by means of sterilization and abortion. The targets were, of course, primarily the “dark†races. The movement was very prominent a century ago. Its adherents included Teddy Roosevelt, Helen Keller, H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill, and Alexander Graham Bell.
Margaret Sanger, modern liberals’ “patron saint†of abortion, was a militant Eugenicist and racist who saw abortion and forced sterilization as the ideal means for eliminating America’s “undesirables.†Her views and those of her peers in the Eugenics movement during the 1930s and ‘40s led to compulsory sterilization laws in 30 U.S. states, ultimately producing more than 60,000 sterilizations of vulnerable people, including those considered “feeble-minded,†“idiots,†and “morons.â€
Following the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and ’60, the Eugenics star had waned, but it shot up again in the 1970s to herald the heroic new crusade for “a woman’s choice.†No longer linked to racism, abortion became liberals’ new Cause célèbre and a compulsory litmus test for all Democrats.
Unnoticed in the hoopla over women controlling their own bodies, however, is the inconvenient fact that while whites are 63.7% of America’s population, white women account for only 37% of its abortions. 30% of black pregnancies end in abortion, while fewer than 11% of white pregnancies are aborted. If these percentages have held constant across the 44 years since Roe vs. Wade, then over 30 million minority babies were killed in the womb over that time – a racial “genocide†that would have astonished Der Führer and made Margaret Sanger so proud. Indeed, Hitler drew inspiration for his own depraved racial purification ideas from Sanger’s efforts.
But I digress. My reason for discussing all this is to show that the historical-cleansing target-list is far richer than one might have thought. Once we grasp the reality of how many historical figures were complicit in – and even championed – mistreatment of minorities, there will be decades of purgative work ahead
But a wide open historical-cleansing movement might take unexpected turns. Like so many reform-movements, there’s no telling where it might eventually go. Today it’s statues of Confederates that a militant faction doesn’t want to see standing in the public square of Southern towns and cities. Tomorrow, maybe George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson will be toast. After that, who knows? Even progressive icons like FDR and JFK might fall under the historical surgeon’s knife.
After all, wasn’t it FDR who discounted reports of Nazi atrocities and refused to admit boatloads of Jewish refugees to the USA during WWII? Didn’t he also fail to support expanded civil rights for blacks in the racist South for fear of alienating his voter-base there? A child could see that the guy has got to go. All his statues, portraits and photos should be taken down, and his name erased from our history (as though he never was).
And didn’t JFK decline to meet Martin Luther King, Jr., and other black leaders when they held their famous “I have a dream†rally at the Lincoln Memorial in August 1963? Wasn’t he afraid of offending that same Southern Democrat base? How can he possibly remain in the Pantheon of progressive heroes after such pusillanimous behavior?
What about Senators J. William Fullbright, Al Gore, Sr., Robert Byrd, and other Democrats who repeatedly blocked legislation to undo Jim Crow laws? They filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights act for 57 days until Republican Senator Everett Dirksen shamed them into letting the legislation come to a vote. In fact, wasn’t the iconic Senator Byrd, an active member of the West Virginia chapter of the Ku Klux Klan? Let the memory of them be erased forever! They’re stinkin’ up the joint!
In June of 2016 the dean of Washington National Cathedral ordered two stained-glass windows featuring Confederate flags to be taken down from the historic Gothic edifice. “It is time to take those windows out,†said the Very Reverend Gary Hall. The famous church had windows honoring Confederate generals Thomas “Stonewall†Jackson and Robert E. Lee. Each window contains an image of the rebel flag.
I live in Virginia now, but I’m a born Pennsylvanian. My forebears worked and farmed there. Some of them were soldiers of the Revolution, and some fought for the Union during the Civil War. So I don’t carry a torch for Robert E. Lee or any other Confederates. But you don’t have to be an unregenerate, flag-waving Rebel to feel uncomfortable about mobs pulling down statues of brave men who acted honorably, as they saw it – even if we now think their cause was mistaken.
I hope I’m a mature enough American to understand that not everyone who disagrees with me is a bad person who has to be silenced and erased. I am deeply offended by the fact that our public dialogue is being controlled by people with exactly that attitude.
Must all those Rebs now go down the “memory hole†of history because we think they were wrong? Is that really the kind of people we want to be? I suggest that our champions of “historical cleansing†should be careful what they wish for. They have heroes, too, and the game can be played two ways. Who will referee it? And how will we know when the game has gone too far? Perhaps it already has.
61 comments
Woody: Well thought out and nicely written piece. If you and 1,000 others just like you went to Charlottesville to protest the removal of the statues you’d be beaten into sub mission by the cultural Marxists while the police looked on in bemusement. Three people died in Charlottesvile – McAuliffe lied because he wanted the vilolance to feed his 2020 presidential campaign.
It’s absurd that this is even a “thing” …
We are arrogantly judging historical figures by today’s culture instead of in the context of their time. If these same people were alive today and espoused the same views, I would vehemently disagree with them. But they lived in another time and place and need to be evaluated in that context. They fought for their state because they believed it was the honorable thing to do.
Yes they did.
Let’s talk about erasure: Bannon says this morning the Trump presidency is over, less than a year after it started.
There’s a bit over a year before the House changes hands.
What can be done to save the self-dismantling Republican party, or at least the ideas behind conservative thought?
Quickly. People are fleeing (see polls) and Republican infighting is at an all-time high.
Time for a change. It’s sad to confront this new reality but without swift action it’s over and only the mirror frames the culprit correctly.
Don’t believe it? Dispute it? Fine, cling to it. Your choice.
If we open a quarrel between past and the present, we shall find that we lost the future. Winston Churchill.
And that, my friends, is where we are because we have opened up that quarrel.
” In Charlottesville – home of the University of Virginia – demands that a statue of Robert E. Lee be removed from a public park provoked a protest by groups that oppose the removal.”
Wrong. A group of Nazis showed up in Charlottesville to get attention and hopefully provoke a fight. They used the recent controversy over the statue because they knew it would generate significantly more attention and media coverage.
Stop providing aid and comfort to people who are using you to achieve the advancement of their radically twisted views of society.
A group of antifas and grievance group thugs showed up in Charlottesville to commit violence. The used the excuse of neo-nazis as cover for the fight they intended to wage with the tacit support of police and political leaders of the left. They did not count on the death of one of their own but knew it was always a possibility.
Stop providing aid and comfort who are using you to achieve the advancement of their radically twisted views to destroy society.
I know exactly who showed up, on both sides, to pick a fight. I’m not the one trying to whitewash (pun intended) the identity of the Nazis.
The BLM/Antifa thugs are not the ones trying to claim they are on my side. The Nazis are.
I want the Nazis to go away and stop trying to give me and my party a bad name. They won’t do that while folks on are side are playing footie with them, excusing their role in this.
Its the Democrats problem to get rid of BLM/Antifa. If they don’t want to do that, and let their thugs keep making fools of themselves, and turning ordinary folks against the left, that’s their problem.
There are a lot of people who claim to be on your or my side and there is really nothing we can do about it. We can however condemn all of the bad people on both sides because we are Americans and we know evil when we see it. Trump was not partisan in blaming everyone involved as he assumed, and rightfully so, that no American would think the neo-NAZIs or KKK were anything but evil doers. The Democrats will never get rid of the BLM or antifa because that is the violent part of their base. They are quite happy to have the neo-Nazis because it hides their calumny.
“Trump was not partisan in blaming everyone involved as he assumed, and rightfully so, that no American would think the neo-NAZIs or KKK were anything but evil doers.”
The author of this piece tries to make it sound like this was just a bunch of southern history enthusiasts that were suddenly set upon by a vicious, bloody thirsty mob of miscreants (oh, and some lady got run over). I’m surprised he didn’t try to crank out the whole “the driver of the car was a Soros plant” conspiracy theory I’ve seen dancing around the edges of crazy town here on the internet.
The problem is people on our side being unable to condemn the Nazis without trying to create a morally relativistic comparison to the counter protesters. This creates the image of our side essentially claiming the Nazis as a group we are sympathetic with because they were fighting Antifa. You may not see it that way, but that is the story that is being woven, and it will keep going until the Nazis are off the stage again.
“I refuse to give up on law and order. The scale of justice is blind and weighs the facts. To pick one set of facts and ignore another as you suggest is neither just or ultimately constitutional.”
No one is saying to give up on law and order. I am not picking one set of facts. I am spelling out the facts on the ground, and the facts are that this rally was not about a statue, and it was not about southern heritage. it was about setting the stage for a brawl.
Here is an article that makes the exact same argument I have made:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450585/antifa-fascist-strategy-against-conservatives
Here is the last paragraph from that article:
“Most of the debate about Confederate monuments after Charlottesville has been a distraction. The rally organizers came prepared for violence, and they wanted it. They wanted footage of themselves getting punched and maced so that they could use conservative antipathy to Antifa to erode conservative antipathy to ActualFascists. Don’t fall for it.”
Another fact is that there’s not a damn thing you and I can do to stop Antifa from rioting and violence. I could rail against Antifa all day and all night, and not a single one of those miscreants is going to think twice about filing a balloon with urine and tossing at someone. Why would they listen to me? To them, I am the enemy.
The only people they will listen to are the ones paying their bills, and that is the left. When the antics of these people start costing Democrats elections, start turning the people against them, and start hurting the cause of liberalism, the money will be cut off and the riots will stop. Why do you think the Black Lives Matter protests suddenly died down later in the year last year? The last thing Hillary Clinton wanted was images of leftist thugs burning down cities right before the election.
The left is already over-reaching on this. Every time I hear another Democrat shill calling for statues of Washington to be removed, or Mount Rushmore to be demolished, I know that another group of normal, apolitical people just turned away from their craziness.
Let the Democrats worry about cleaning their own house. We need to clean ours, and that means making it crystal, and unconditionally, clear, that we condemn the Nazis, removing them from the stage, and putting them back in their holes.
I think every American condemns the neo-nazis and the kkk. And if you note, both republicans and democrats do so. I don’t know how we can make this more crystal clear unless we are prepared to use force of arms against them – and that is neither legally justified nor constitutional. In other words, like leaches, they attach themselves to us and that is regretful and frustrating.
Thus, to me, we need to fight for justice and that involves all the facts not just those that favor Republicans. (Do we have to scream daily, I am not a Nazi? After a while it sounds Like republicans are nazis because they deny it so much – reverse psychology.)
When we see a statue damaged, we should not say that is not a Nazi or not us, but that is the radical leftist antifa and they hate america. Then let the democrats try to say that is not us. Frankly, republicans stand on far superior factual and logical ground if we will but advocate unequivocally for it.
You are picking facts, Mick… there is NO indication that the permit holders were violent before Antifa started beating people. They were there legally and no matter what bad-thought you think (or even know) they are guilty of, they still had the right to march and they had the right to not have the police stand by as they were beaten.
You allowing the press to define who you are and who is associated with you? I don’t know how to help you with that as I long ago started ignoring them.
See below about the violence, and the intent of your “peaceful protesters.”
As for the press defining who I am, you are the one that is allowing the press to paint our party as sympathetic to Nazis.
Mick… as much as you hate them, the Nazis had the permit and did not start fighting until Antifa and their clubs and baseball bats made it necessary to. Even Nazis have the right to self defense.
Really? Because the videos I have seen show a Nazi punk carrying a white flag running and slamming into a group of counter protesters. Then I see the protesters start throwing punches. Then I see a larger Nazi come running up to sucker punch a girl in the face, and then scurry away.
Then of course there is the guy in the car mowing down people. I guess he was just exercising his right of self defense too, huh? According to Chris Cantwell (one of the head Nazis), that was completely justified. He said,
“sadly, because our rivals are a bunch of stupid animals who don’t pay attention, they couldn’t just get out of the way of his car, and some people got hurt.”
The interviewer asked him what this means for future rallies:
Cantwell – “I say it’s gonna be really tough to top but we’re up to the challenge.”
Interviewer – “Wait, why? Tough to top? I mean someone died.”
Cantwell – “I think a lot more people are gonna die before we’re done here, frankly.”
Organizing a group of armed men with the intent to provoke a violent confrontation is not a peaceful protest, and it is not Constitutionally protected freedom of speech. If I arm myself with a couple of Glock 9’s. then tape $100 bills to myself and go strolling down MLK Blvd in downtown Atlanta, GA, hoping someone tries to rob me so I can shoot them, I’m not practicing self defense. I am committing premeditated murder.
This Cantwell idiot is practically declaring to the world that their goal is to spark violent confrontations with counter protesters. They WANT the violence to occur. They are trying to provoke it. That’s premeditation and intent. Thankfully this time nobody actually pulled a gun and shot somebody. Next time we might not be so lucky.
But you just keep wrapping your arms around them in a great, big bear hug.
Saw Charles Bronson in Death Wish last night. He started out as a concientious objector who eschewed violence. Then his wife was murdered and daughter turned into a vegetable by violent thugs who broke into his apparentment in NYC. He didn’t care about their political affiliation only that the police and the politicians didn’t do their job. The gun he used was a present not a purchase with intent to use.
When Bernard Goetz shot 4 thugs on the NYC subway, he didn’t care about their political affiliation, only that he was not going to be the victim of violent robbery again. Had he not turned himself in as a good citizen, he would never have been caught.
When the law breaks down, the citizenry can’t be blamed for subsequent action. In your comment about Atlanta, both Charles Bronson’s character and Bernard Goetz are the victims. The streets are public not set aside for thugs only. My property is my property. Regardless of my motive in walking down said street flashing $100 bills, nothing happens if I am left alone. Consider me stupid or calculating, nothing happens if I am left alone. And, eventually, if I am left alone my peaceable journey ends peaceably.
Uh, Death Wish was a fictional movie with no basis whatsoever in fact.
It is noteworthy as regards you that Bernard Goetz and Chas Bronson inform your values. Again, you are on the spectrum, aren’t you? I write this not out of derision but recognition of symptoms and evidence, your apparent lack of context and social norms.
Death Wish was based on a book and an event in the authors life which caused him to think about a worst case scenario.
Bernie Goetz was a quiet rather wimpish guy sitting on a subway train. He had been assaulted before and injured. The vaunted NYC police had done nothing to help him – he was just another statistic to them and he realized it. He refused to be another statistic. I note his subway assailants, conveniently ignored by you, all carried screwdrivers – you might want to ponder whether being stabbed by a knife or a screwdriver causes more internal damage.
After the incident, subway riders were asked to describe him, and not surprisingly, the descriptions were all over the map. Speculation has it that they knew but weren’t going to turn in a guy they agreed with. Goetz eventually turned himself in.
Good timing!
“Less than a week after The New York Times’s Vincent Canby reluctantly went to see Death Wish a second time 40 summers ago, President Richard Nixon resigned from office.”
“It’s a despicable movie,†Canby sneered in his original review, “one that raises complex questions in order to offer bigoted, frivolous, oversimplified answers.†That people might enjoy those answers was surely a sign of lumpen devolution.”
Again, a work of complete fiction. Death Wish and Goetz. You sure do advance persuasive, winner advocacy! No wonder the Republican ship is lost!
To someone who thinks, there are a lot of interesting questions posed in Death Wish I look at the issues it presents and, unlike you and Canby, there are very serious issues presented to challenge the viewer. I will give you one.
What would you do if your wife and daughter were killed by thugs and the authorities did nothing or worse found you to be an annoyance. This is a question presented every day to moms and dads, brothers and sisters, and friends and families. Do you take the vengeance is mine said the lord approach? What if you are an atheist, do you believe in vengeance? Do you hire an investigator and bankrupt yourself in a search for answers? What happens if the killers are caught and jury nullification takes place? What do you do with your emotions associated with loss? how do you let it go? Can you let it go? Hopefully, you never confront these questions personally.
In Death Wish, the vigilante was a conscientious objector who originally did nothing. However, deep within him the anger, frustration and outright injustice grew. A series of disconnected circumstances led him to action. He did not originally intend to kill and when mugged the first time hit the mugger with a roll of quarters. He was horrified that he had taken any action in self defense. The injustice of the system got to him and he then stepped over the line searching for muggers and killers to kill. Interestingly, the justice system not only failed him once but then as a result of politics failed him again. Bernie Goetz is a far less sympathetic character than the death wish vigilante.
Ever watch the Godfather movies? Again, major issue of morality are presented and the ugliness of the mafia is also presented. What is important is to apply critical thinking to what is presented and challenge yourself to look at alternatives, options, and realities.
Yes, these are movies. But movies like books challenge and test critical thinking and that is why we use them for things other than pure entertainment.
Seriously? I’m with Canby on this. It is pure fiction with malicious motive.
This is not your best line of thinking. Move on.
So, if death wish was a book, you would dismiss it as well? I wonder, do you actually read fiction? Do you ever learn anything from fiction? Personally, I love the anything that provokes useful thought.
Death Wish was in fact a book, a work of fiction made into a movie. We learn from all to which we are exposed, but we should not mistake Star Trek for NASA, not conflate the world of Death Wish for reality. It is what someone wishes we would think was true, a supposition, a hypothetical — at best a product of their imagination and penchant for creative writing. Combined with Goetz you are on the wrong path with this line of advocacy.
The bridge of Star Trek was specifically studied by DARPA to see how efficient it was or could be made. The Goetz story is true. Death Wish (being remade for the movies by the way) is a work of fiction that raises a lot of interesting and disturbing questions.
I am not sure what you mean by advocacy. I certainly don’t advocate for the Nazis or KKK and I certainly don’t advocate for the antifa either. I can walk an chew gum at the same time. I can even walk, chew gum and adjust my hat at the same time. I can even walk, chew gum, adjust my hat and think at the same time. I am multi-talented.
Pure fiction. In Star Trek, there is no money, objects replicated on demand or virtually generated in a holodeck. Fantasy.
Yes, you are indeed multi-talented. Good boy. Who’s a good boy? You’re a good boy, Warmac. I am sincere when I write that given your limitations you are impressively persistent and seeking engagement. Well done.
You mentioned Star Trek. I simply responded to your comments. And yes, DARPA did study the Star Trek bridge to see if its ideas were useful. By the way, much more to the story but I am certainly not going to further feed your paranoia.
By the way, the Ferengi had rules of acquisition and trade. Not all objects can be replicated on demand – there were mining companies. The virtual world is being created but so far no holodeck – just VR glasses and realistic sex dolls. AI and robotics will replace a lot of unskilled jobs.
Mick you are wrong on this.
This, is the problem. Take care of the problem in the Republican house, the one you should be able to control, before wringing your hands about the problem with everyone else.
If you can’t even handle your own business why should you be trusted with others?
AmyH: You understand both sides had permits, right? You understand that the Nazis asked first, set the stage, right? You do realize the Nazis carried assault rifles, torches, and sprayed lighter fluid, right?
Nazi self-defense? God help us if saving Republicans and/or the conservative cause is left to those with your cognitive capabilities.
Both sides did not have permits… and “assault rifles” are not a thing except in the fevered brains of liberals. For all the hysteria about “80% of those people having assault weapons”* from the Governor, not one person was shot. Not being a liberal, I am not particularly fussed by people exercising their right to open carry.
You will get nowhere with me by claiming “the Nazis started it by daring to gather”. That is their Constitutional right and it is shameful that Antifa thinks the answer to speech they do not like is to beat people. It is more shameful that the police allowed them to carry through on that thought.
As for “sprayed lighter fluid”… the only incendiary I saw in pictures of last Saturday was a flamethrower that an Antifa thug made from a spray paint can and a lighter.
*This is the same Governor that claimed 93 million people a day are killed by gun violence.
Cannot argue with a sick mind.
Dude, it is not me who has decided the Constitution only applies to people I like.
Who said that, AmyH? Seriously, you have a problem with facts. And I support the right of anyone to speak, even Nazis, and would’ve given them a permit.
You pulling out the phrase “assault rifles” kinda gave you away.
I had a similar thought about his description of a big bad assault rifle which I use in deer hunting adventures. But what he fails to note is that having a permit will never say “allowed to commit violence because you don’t like somebody”. He is arguing from a leftist perspective and, I believe, increasingly as an Antifa. There is nothing conservative in his words and he betrays himself further with the words “your political party”. We have given him much time and many valid constitutional arguments but he is stuck like johnny one note on an ever transparent and poorer argument.
Limited reasoning on display again, Warmac. Get out of the way.
Johnny One Note: Anti-fascist. Against facism. By whatever means, confront at every turn, whatever it takes. (It’s already taken tens of millions of lives.)
You can call a rose by any other name but it will still be a rose. You can call a fascist by any other name but they are still a fascist. The antifas are today’s fascists, Nazis, communists, global socialists, and advocates of totalitarianism – and given a chance they will take tens and hundreds of millions of lives during the creation of a world dystopia.
Wrong, but it seems obvious you would claim an “anti-fascist” is in fact a fascist. No surprise there. Often wrong, never in doubt!
In fact, you are complicit in this fascism, but I have less blame for you because I think you truly are incapable of context and social balance. You do very well for someone on the spectrum.
Gave what away? I own one. I call it what it is: An assault rifle. It’s made for killing and assaulting people. It’s not suited for hunting, for which I have other arms. Neither is it particularly useful for personal self-defense, for which I have handguns. In the unlikely event of self-defense of our substantial property, it may prove useful, and it sure is fun to shoot.
I would never carry a firearm into a crowd where police, state troopers and the sheriff are providing protection. No firearm is useful in such circumstance. I reserve them for those minutes you need help and local law enforcement is a half hour away.
Aw T Kane, we know your lying. We all know that anyone who uses the term “assault rifle” would faint if they ever had to actually touch a gun.
Now you call me a liar? I exercise and cherish my Second Amendment rights and you are an ass for questioning it. Truly, you have proven disrespectful of the rights of others simply engaging in your deceitful line of discourse, denying their exercise of the Second Amendment and suggesting some have less First Amendment rights than others (though both bear appropriate permits).
Here’s where we can agree, me and you: Anyone engaging in unlawful violence lost their rights at that moment. Did one group demonstrably kill and maim? Did one group clearly express fascist beliefs? I say let’s assign 100% of the blame to that group. Full stop.
Meanwhile, love me my Bersa Thunder (nicer than the Walther to which it is similar) with Crimson Trace grips for open carry, the Remington 870 self-defense a backup, buckshot-slug-buckshot-slug for bears. Little need for rifles but for fun and theoretical tactical situations.
How many rounds do you shoot in the average month, AmyH? I’ll guess I go through a brick of 500 a month. Love visiting Clark Bros.
LOL… liar, liar pants on fire.
precisely the words on the Politifact page proving your claim of one permit is false.
And, really, this is discourse for you? Phrases like SNORT and liar, liar? Have it your way. Tear the party apart, Retard progress. It’s all about you, AmyH. Gee you sure are smart!
How many rounds do you shoot a month, AmyH?
How about when the local law enforcement is there but refuses to provide you with protection, and you know in advance that will be the case. How about thinking that one through.
Poor choice. Don’t attend if you feel that way. Leave policing to the police, trooping to the troopers, and always trust the sheriff (I get along well with ours, great guy, solid Republican).
If you cannot or do not trust the govt that issues the permit, why ask? Doesn’t make sense. Find another avenue.
This article says you are wrong, has a picture of the permit:
http://bit.ly/2uVwYpJ
There are others, but this link seems bipartisan.
If you knew there was a permit but deny it, you are a liar. If you didn’t know this but asserted it anyway, you are clueless and apparently without search capabilities.
Either way, you and yours have eviscerated your political party and tainted conservative thinking with lies, falsehoods and hate.
Fortunately, smarter and stronger conservatives are stepping up for a reset. Your gang cannot shoot straight, cannot lead, will not follow. Get out of the way.
That permit was not given to the Antifa thugs and, in any case , is not a license to riot and beat people.
Why be stupid? Are you suggesting the first group had a permit to kill, maim and spray lighter fluid? Are you suggesting a permit for a counter demonstration applies only to some and not to others? A permit to gather doesn’t carry a list of eligible names nor restrict those who may gather under the permit.
Yes, I am saying the permit applied to some and not to others.
So now you are saying there were two permits? When did you change your mind? And when will you change your mind on your latest foolish assertion, that some in attendance were without a free speech right to gather for failure to obtain a permit?
It is not possible to read http://bit.ly/2uVwYpJ with a rational mind and conclude as you do that “the permit applied to some and not to others”. It simply fails to pass the smell test. False. A knowing lie, purposeful deceit, and you know it.
There is no report of both sides having permits. But let’s assume you are correct, permits were to march and protest peaceably not to wage war. As far as carrying guns, torches, etc, one clear photo showed a guy using a spray can as a flame thrower. I doubt he was a neo-NAzi or kkk since he was black. Thus, I conclude that both protestors and counter-protestors were spoiling for a fight.
Once the melee started and the police kindly stepped out because it was too dangerous (or the nice mayor of Charlottesville conveniently forgot to give the “break this up” order or the “get the national guard”order) all hell broke loose. The utter chaos left people injured on both sides and one innocence gal in the wrong place was killed.
http://bit.ly/2uVwYpJ
Fact. Admit you are wrong.
The only thing people who erase history will lose is their own character.
No, you’re wrong Mike, anyone connected, no matter how remotely will also lose my vote.
Screw the Republican Party and their position on lawlessness and letting left wing thugs riot, burn down, tear down, loot, and pillage this country,
I think,you mean democrats.
and, if you believe in Churchill, their future.