Mr. Mueller takes little Chuckie fishing

spectator

Alt-Right's Despicability Doesn't Make 'Antifa' the Good Guys

Jonah Goldberg   "Fighting Nazis is a good thing, but fighting Nazis doesn't necessarily make you or your cause good. By my lights this is simply an obvious fact. 

"The greatest Nazi-killer of the 20th century was Josef Stalin. He also killed millions of his own people and terrorized, oppressed, enslaved or brutalized tens of millions more. The fact that he killed Nazis during WWII (out of self-preservation, not principle) doesn't dilute his evil one bit. 

"This should settle the issue as far as I'm concerned. Nazism was evil. Soviet communism was evil. It's fine to believe that Nazism was more evil than communism. That doesn't make communism good. 

"Alas, it doesn't settle the issue. Confusion on this point poisoned politics in America and abroad for generations.

" Part of the problem is psychological. There's a natural tendency to think that when people, or movements, hate each other, it must be because they're opposites. This assumption overlooks the fact that many -- indeed, most -- of the great conflicts and hatreds in human history are derived from what Sigmund Freud called the "narcissism of minor differences." . . .

Was Charlottesville a False Flag?

"The misreporting of the Charlottesville riot. . . "For example, CNN’s Jim Acosta said: “We saw the president’s true colors today, and I’m not sure they were red, white and blue.” This miscasting has been used to demand that conservatives like Bannon, Miller and Gorka be expelled from the White House."

Bob Bennett

"Was the unrest in Charlottesville, Virginia on Saturday, August 12th a riot by white supremacists, as the Media has labeled it, or something even more sinister? Was it a false-flag attack orchestrated by the Left and Democrats to permanently damage the president and compel Americans to view everything through the lens of racism?

"How the Media purposefully misreported the incident

"In the wake of the violence in Charlottesville, the ever-Trump-unfriendly media has focused on the president’s failure to immediately call out those protesting the Robert E. Lee statue’s removal, many—but not all—of whom were white nationalists and neo-Nazis. On the day of the incident, he said, “‘We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides,’ quoted the Los Angeles Times, “then, looking into the camera, he repeated, ‘On many sides.’”

"After a storm of criticism for not calling out the Klan, et al., the next day the White House issued a statement saying “of course” the president had included in his condemnation “white supremacists, KKK, neo-Nazi and all extremist groups,” and that he “called for national unity and bringing all Americans together.” But the press continued to rip him for, as the LA Times put it, “not denouncing the far-right groups that initiated the violence, and the man who drove into a crowd of counter-protesters that left Heather Heyer dead.' ” . . .

President Trump was right, where do we draw the line?

BREAKING! They're About To Take Down George Washington!!!   The slippery slope.
"James E. Dukes, a black pastor in Chicago has written a letter to Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, demanding to remove the names of George Washington and Andrew Jackson from parks on the southeast side of city. " . . .

. . . "Chicago will not be a place that embraces racism, slavery and its treacherous tentacles. But rather, Chicago will be a beacon of hope for a better tomorrow for all its’ residents."

. . . 
"Dukes even suggested to delete Andrew Jackson's name from parks and replace it with prominent black leaders such as Jessie Jackson.

"President Trump was right, where do we draw the line? " . . . 

Destroying monuments: the latest cultural fad. Albeit destructive

The real question, as Trump said, is this: how does removal of statues help blacks get jobs?  How does it help blacks in badly run cities like Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans, St. Louis, Cleveland, etc., all run by Democrats for years, and all with high crime rates, live in safety?Democrats do not want to debate these questions because of their complicity in slavery and their responsibility for today's poorly run cities.  They prefer the easy way to remove statues. 

 

American Thinker contributors were a treasure trove of wisdom today:

Why remove statues of Confederate soldiers?  "A rational person looking at the status of blacks in the United States would note the great strides made since the Civil Rights Movement, starting with the integration of the Armed Forces by President Truman.  We have laws banning discrimination in employment, housing, education, and other areas.  We have laws and court cases mandating preferences for blacks.  To be called a "racist" today is the ultimate sin and charge, especially for politicians.

"But even though the black unemployment rate is high, the burning issue now is not jobs for blacks or safety in cities like Chicago, but whether we should remove statues of Confederate soldiers from public areas.  Being a resident of a Northern city with no Confederate statues, I never gave this issue much thought.

"If I were black and saw a statue of a Confederate soldier, I would question honoring soldiers who fought for the states in rebellion against the Union over the issue of slavery.  But I would be more concerned with living in a safe area and having a good job or business to support my family.

"The answer is that we honor soldiers and warriors for their bravery, not their politics.  The soldiers did not make the policies that allowed slavery.  The politicians were the ones who allowed slavery to exist until the Civil War and the passage of the 13th Amendment.  And most of the politicians who allowed the evil of slavery to persist were members of the Democratic Party.  The Democrats ruled the Southern states that permitted slavery and ruled the Southern states after the Civil War that permitted segregation and discrimination against blacks.  The Republican Party was formed in 1856 as the anti-slavery party that elected Lincoln in 1860, which caused some states to secede.  The 13th and 14th Amendments were passed by a Republican Congress."  . . .  

Monuments down, cash very low  . . . "Second, the Democrats have chosen two issues that most Americans don't support, i.e. sanctuary cities and bringing down monuments."

WND

America's Racial History in Context  . . . "The white supremacists are rejected by the mainstream media, the entertainment industry, colleges, universities, public schools, and the people, so how did 50 nut cases capture the attention of the entire nation?

"First, extreme leftists went to the rally with sticks, bats, and the hope of having a violent confrontation. They were not disappointed."  . . . 

"Our Founders created a nation. The Confederacy would have divided it. These have two very different places in American history, but history is still history, the good, the bad and the ugly. It should be remembered and studied lest we repeat it.

"The white supremacists and far left seem to want just that -- to repeat history and fight the Civil War again. We must not give them what they want."

Thanks to Democrats for making us aware of our victimhood

How can we visualize the American nation ever rising to the level of greatness as when we stood (at last!) alongside Great Britain and Churchill in WW2, or when we loved the American Union enough to pour out our nation's blood to preserve it?

MSNBC’s Katy Tur shamelessly tries to bait mother of Charlottesville victim into hating on Trump   And succeeds.

Of course, nobody can forget the First Victim who proudly proclaims her victimization at every podium:   

Michelle Obama’s Tales of Racialized Victimhood   . . . "To show how she’s down with The Struggle of post-Ferguson agitators, Mrs. Obama cited a supposedly horrifying incident at a Target store where she was treated, in her paranoid mind, as a subservient. “Even as the first lady,” she bemoaned, “not highly disguised, the only person who came up to me in the store was a woman who asked me to help her take something off a shelf.” 

"A lowly peon asked her for an innocent favor? It’s Jim Crow all over again! ABC News reports that Mrs. Obama said such “incidents are ‘the regular course of life’ for African-Americans and a ‘challenge’ for the country to overcome.” 

"News flash: Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe that it is part of the “regular course of life” of tall people of all colors (Mrs. Obama is 5-foot-11) to be prevailed upon to reach high on behalf of those of us who are vertically challenged. These are not odious “incidents” of racism between slaves and masters. They’re matters of common courtesy between equals." . . .

The party of victims  . . . "Here's what [Romney] should have said: "The Democratic Party has become the party of victims. It is the party of those who stoke the embers of their own victimhood. It is a party that needs victims, even creating new ones when the old ones are no longer victims, and making victims of those who clearly are not."

"That's just an opinion, but an opinion is only as strong as the facts that back it up. And here are 10 examples that back it up:" . . .