I agree with Laura Ingraham and Pete Hegseth. It is only a matter of time before the left comes for Monticello, or Mount Vernon, or indeed Mount Rushmore.
Never content with their destructiveness, wait until they learn the history of Mount Rushmore. Not even 1,000 Confederate statues would draw the same outrage.
The 60-foot high sculpture in South Dakota — depicting Presidents Washington, Jefferson, T. Roosevelt, and Lincoln — was sculpted by a Ku Klux Klan member. Prepare for the onslaught.
Gutzon Borglum originally worked on the Stone Mountain project, which one Democrat candidate has already demanded be permanently vandalised in an attempt to erase American history. As AJC News reports:
Removing the faces of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson would take a monster of a sandblaster and require a change in state law. The Georgia code has a clear mandate for the memorial, saying it should be “preserved and protected for all time as a tribute to the bravery and heroism of the citizens of this state who suffered and died in their cause.”
How befitting then, that the totalitarian left should come for the Shrine of Democracy next. After all, the Nation of Islam has already decried the great American monument, and the uncomfortable truths about its sculptor will add fuel to the fire for the anti-conservationist minded.
Writer Alex Heard revealed in the New Republic some correspondence between Borglum and then-KKK Grand Dragon D.C. Stephenson, who cut his political teeth in the Socialist Party, before joining the Democrats, then in later life, defecting to the Republican Party.
“In addition to Jews and blacks, he especially disliked Catholics and the ‘wretched refuse’ who are welcomed with raised torch by the Statue of Liberty.”
Writing in the Minnesota Star Tribune, Democrat-endorsing journalist Ron Way wrote of Mount Rushmore:
As it was in colonial America, the young country’s expansion was fueled by “Manifest Destiny” — a self-supreme notion that any land coveted by Euro-Americans was, by providence, rightfully theirs for the taking.
The sculptures were chiseled by an imported Ku Klux Klansman on a granite mountain owned by indigenous tribes on what they considered sacred land — land that the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1980 was illegally taken from them.
In other words, the left has already been laying the groundwork for an assault on this iconic monument.
What better way to do so, as Mr. Way does, than by calling into question the track records of the men it depicts?
Of the presidents, Way writes:
But the four also sanctioned, and themselves practiced, dominance over those with darker skin.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.
Abraham Lincoln famously emancipated slaves, but he supported eradicating Indian tribes from western lands and approved America’s largest-ever mass execution, the hanging of 38 Dakota in Mankato for their alleged crimes in the 1862 war along the Minnesota River
Teddy Roosevelt, in his “The Winning of the West,” wrote: “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every ten are … .”
The rhetoric is handily similar to that invoked by the Nation of Islam. An image carrying the group’s web address states:
“George Washington enslaved 350 Africans. His home state of Virginia was the prime breeder of Black people for the domestic slave trade, and at one point the state exported at least 6,000 Black people annually — its biggest ‘cash crop’.
“Thomas Jefferson enslaved 200 Africans. He wrote in 1812 that the Indians ‘will relapse into barbarism and misery, lose numbers by war and want, and we shall be obliged to drive them, with the beasts of the forest, into the Stony mountains.’
“Theodore Roosevelt believed that Blacks’ religions had no ethical basis and that the Africans were ‘ape-like, naked savages who dwell in the woods and prey on creatures not much wilder or lower than themselves.
“Abraham Lincoln [said:] ‘I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so’.”
There is much to be said on all these issues, for instance, in the very same letter cited by the Nation of Islam, Jefferson wrote of his “attachment and commiseration” for “Indians”. He recalled to John Adams of Outassete, “the warrior and orator of the Cherokees”, that “His sounding voice, distinct articulation, animated actions, and the solemn silence of his people at their several fires, filled me with awe and veneration”, and explained his defensive posture, rather than the aggressive nature implied by the aforementioned quote: “The possession of that country secures our women and children for ever from the tomahawk and scalping knife”.
As much as I wish the revisionist, half-baked “history” of these men and the monuments to them was simply on the fringes of the internet, it has even begun to penetrate American classrooms.
Fox News reported in 2014 that the mother of an eight-year-old child found “a handout from the Nation of Islam that portrayed the presidents on Mount Rushmore as being racists”.
Sommer Bauer tells me her son was given The Nation of Islam handout at Harold McCormick Elementary School in Elizabethton. The handout asked “What does it take to be on Mount Rushmore?”
In 2015, the hard-left website Daily Kos published an article about “sanitized” American history, pointing to Stone Mountain and Mount Rushmore as monuments built by a KKK member. But their own sanitization is clear for most with a working knowledge of American history to see.
Klan membership was around 5 million nationwide in the 1920s when construction began on Rushmore. This meant about three in 20 eligible people in the United States were members of the KKK. Can you guess which political party was most heavily affiliated with the Klan? The Democrats, of course.
In fact there were so many Klansmen in attendance at the New York-based convention that the whole episode came to be known as “Klanbake“, and descended into a farce the likes of which had never been seen before in U.S. political history.
It took the party 103 ballots to settle on a presidential candidate, and they ran extraordinarily close to nominating the Klan’s favoured candidate William McAdoo, who never rejected the KKK’s support.
No mention of this, of course, by any of those who have already attempted to bring the history of the monument into question. No apologies either, from the Democrats who continue to support the tearing down of these statues and symbols, for the fact that their own party fostered and incubated a lot of the views they now claim to stand against.
“But that was almost one hundred years ago! The Southern Strategy! The Southern Strategy!”
These are the excuses deployed by the left. Nothing excuses older history as far as their foot soldiers are concerned. But these are their excuses.
It is worth recalling that while many think the Democrat obsession with race ended in the 1930s and 40s, it did in fact get arguably worse: underground.
Author Robert A. Caro’s notes in his book Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson III, the Democrat president once uttered the following words, aboard Air Force One, no less:
These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.
Doesn’t this just go perfectly hand-in-hand with Democrat duplicity? The history of Planned Parenthood, for instance, whose founder even gave a talk to a KKK women’s branch.
We’ve been here before. At least, other human beings around the world have.
I’m not talking about those who have cast off oppression who, in the fervor of celebration, pull down the likenesses of Saddam Hussein or similar. I’m talking about the fascists within Islamic extremist movements who want to obliterate the history of the areas they conquer. I’m talking about the French revolutionaries who sought to purge their nation’s history. These things are usually a prelude to the purging of ideas, and eventually people too.
It follows that such attitudes — the “cultural appropriation” of the joy of those freed from legitimate tyranny — would lead to a country more divided than united.
But realistically, if the left wants to continue tearing down America’s history — no matter how ugly, especially when uncontextualized — then there is one major institution they absolutely must also destroy in order to be morally, historically, and intellectually consistent: the Democratic Party of the United States.
College melts down over plan for white people-free day on campus
After protesters at a Washington state college called for a day without white people, a biology professor says he no longer feels safe on campus — and student activists complain they’re being vilified by conservative media.
Evergreen State College students said racial tensions have been simmering in recent weeks, but reached a boiling point when a faculty member disagreed with their plans to protest what they say is institutional racism at the Olympia campus, according to The Olympian.
Students were particularly incensed by an email that surfaced on Twitter on May 25 between Professor Bret Weinstein and Rashida Love, director of First Peoples Multicultural Advising Services. Weinstein, who is white, allegedly condemned the “Day of Absence” event that asked white people to leave campus for the day.
He called the day “an act of oppression in and of itself” and said he would visit campus in spite of the demonstration, according to USA Today.
If there was interest in a public presentation and discussion of race through a scientific/revolutionary lens, I would be quite willing to organize such an event,” Weinstein wrote.
In a YouTube video posted on May 27, a group of students is heard calling for Weinstein to be fired. Demonstrations have involved as many as 200 students pouring into classrooms and the school president’s office.
“Hey-hey, ho-ho, these racist teachers have got to go,” the students chanted in the video.
Weinstein told news station KING that he was advised last week not to go to campus for safety reasons.
“I have been told by the Chief of Police it’s not safe for me to be on campus,” Weinstein told KING. The station notes that Weinstein has spoken out in this year against increasing the role race plays in the admissions process.
Multiple protest videos have been picked up by conservative media outlets, but the students disagree with the coverage, calling the footage “edited.”
“We demand that the video created for Day of Absence and Day of Presence that was stolen by white supremacists and edited to expose and ridicule the students and staff be taken down by the administration by this Friday,” students said in a statement to the College Fix.
An Illinois college has restricted certain sections of a mandatory introductory course to black students.
“While helping my son register for college at Moraine Valley Community College, we noticed that the required course College 101 has two sections limited to African-American students,” one concerned parent told The Chicago Tribune. “He wants to know why there are not two sections limited to Asian-American students? How about Native American students?”
This segregation of students by race seems odd, especially considering the course’s emphasis on diversity.
“[College 101] provides an opportunity to assess your purpose for college, assess your study strategies, set college and career goals, examine your values and decision-making skills, and develop an appreciation for diversity,” the course catalog states.
But Jessica Crotty, Moraine’s assistant director of communications, made the case for segregation, saying the school periodically reserves certain course offerings for various demographics of students, including veterans.
“Sometimes we set aside sections for specific populations, including veterans and older students,” Crotty noted.
“The focus can be on specific issues they face,” she explained. “For example, veterans face a specific set of challenges. Students feel comfortable and are more likely to open up because they’re with other students who are like them.”
Conversely, Michael Olivas, acting president of University of Houston Downtown, told Inside Higher Ed that he feels such exclusionary program offerings are misguided, however pure the intentions behind them may be.
“I think it’s ill-advised, arguably subject to legal challenge, and you don’t want to wave the flag in front of the bull,” he argued, saying that even support services targeted at specific demographics should be available to all students to avoid creating potentially counterproductive perceptions.