Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

THE RESISTANCE TO THE ILLEGITIMATE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN ...


Recommended Posts

logo-pjmedia.svg

What the Media Won't Tell You About the United States' Coronavirus Case Fatality Rate

 
BY MATT MARGOLIS JUL 16, 2020 1:20 PM EST

87930d88-664b-4fac-a5d8-4b108992c38e-730x487.jpg

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

Without fail, the media seems intent on making America out to be the lone failure in the world in the battle against the coronavirus.

Many media outlets have described the United States as “losing the war” against the coronavirus because of the number of cases keeps going up. Axios, for example created a chart show that if all coronavirus patients (confirmed cases) were a city, it would be the third-largest city in the country. The recent trend of the media to focus on the total number of cases seems to be a result of the recent spike cases that failed to produce a similar spike in deaths. So far, we’ve only just seen a small bump in fatalities, and there is evidence that data dumps of backlogged data could be inflating those numbers.

Nevertheless, because we’ve witnessed a spike in cases and there have roughly 3.5 million cases in the United States, that’s the number the media seems to be gravitating to. Why? Because when you look at the number of cases or the number deaths individually and compare them to other countries, the USA seems be the hardest hit…

…that is until you account for population or look at the ratio of deaths per confirmed cases. I’ve previously examined how the United States measures up on cases and deaths per capita, so we know why the media doesn’t report on that, but the media the media aslso doesn’t want to report about case fatality rate (CFR). And the following graphs will show you why.

I decided to look at the case fatality rate of the United States and compare it to select European countries. We often hear about how enlightened Europe is compared to the United States, with their progressive politics and various version of universal health care. So, let’s see how they measure up:

PJ Media >> https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/07/16/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-the-united-states-coronavirus-case-fatality-rate-n610264?utm_source=pjmedia&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=&bcid=d1d9d5db078c535efec82c0b247fe08a&recip=3533816

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chronicles Magazine of American Culture
 
 
Blog
 
July 16, 2020

Roger Stone's Case Shows the Left's Control of U.S. Courts

 
Roger_Stone_in_february_2019
 

The contrived conviction of Roger Stone showed that America has a profoundly serious problem with its legal system. The reaction to President Trump's commutation of Stone's sentence by mainline media, and former and current prosecutors tells us that the president himself is likely to be prosecuted after leaving office.

The roots of this problem lie in the politicization of American justice.

After the onset of the Progressive Era in the early 20th century, American law schools began to instruct their attorneys to apply progressive political views to the interpretation of the United States Constitution. The Constitution was no longer considered a fixed instrument for limited government, but a living document adjustable to changing times and circumstances. Just as the progressives came to dominate American higher education, so progressives came to dominate legal education.

Consequently, we now have a problem with aggressive and very political attorneys general, federal district court judges, federal prosecutors, and U.S. attorneys.

If you are a conservative, or a person of wealth, it is best not to fall within the purview of progressive jurisdictions, lest you be singled out for retribution. Not merely will a crime be found to pin on you, but you will be seen in the media to be representative of all that progressives detest.

Putative Republican conservatives like National Review Editor Rich Lowry and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have taken offense at Trump’s decision to pardon Stone. They seem to be unaware of the growing feeling that the Department of Justice, federal prosecutors, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are out of control. The FBI, especially, has a checkered history going back to the days of J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover collected “dirt” on everyone who might challenge him, and was feared by everyone in public life, especially those who drank too much, lied, or committed adultery. Those are surprisingly good descriptors of everyone above room temperature among our political classes. And, it appears, Hoover’s tradition of intimidation has continued into the present day.

The Judge who presided at the trial of Roger Stone, Jude Amy Berman Jackson, a 2011 Obama appointee to the Washington, D.C., U.S. District Court, is a liberal Democrat who in 2004, according to the Washington Post,  “co-wrote an op-ed in the Legal Times, arguing that Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) was the answer to the headline ‘Who’s Better for Lawyers?’ over Bush.”

With progressive ideology dominating her politics, she accepted the role of presiding Judge in trials of President Donald Trump’s campaign staff.

This blatant bias of those who administer our Justice system bears watching closely. For now, the trials and convictions of parents who sought admission of their children to prestige colleges are prime examples.

Two Federal Judges in the United States Attorney’s Office for Massachusetts, Indira Talwani and Nathaniel Gorton, are “hanging judges” meting out extremely harsh sentences to parents who thought they could bribe admission of their children into the “best” colleges and universities. Judge Talwani’s harsh ruling in the case of Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin has been followed by another harsh sentence by Nathaniel  Gorton. Examination of these decisions reveal a very real problem as progressives dominate every aspect of American life.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, Andrew E. Lelling, led an investigation of parents and others engaged in buying access to prestigious colleges calling it “Operation Varsity Blues.” That catchy name was first used by a film featuring Jon Voight and directed by Brian Robbins. It is interesting that a U.S. Attorney was familiar with a “teen” film produced in 1999. Born in 1970, Lelling is 49 years of age—too old to be a devotee of teen “pics”—and a University of Pennsylvania Law School graduate. Penn’s law school is top of the line with rigorous standards. Lelling was admitted on merit, not his “legacy.” But his explanation that parents who pay bribes to gain admission to prestigious colleges have committed a serious crime worthy of prison sentences smacks of self-righteousness.

Of course, Judge Lelling’s entire career has been in government service and Lelling, too young to have experienced anti-Vietnam war protests, was trained by educators who did. They believe that government service, not the private sector, benefits the public and that self-righteousness has rubbed off on Lelling and judges hearing “Varsity Blues” cases that Lelling brings to their courts.

Though we have read a great deal about “due process of law” and crimes of “obstruction of justice” by Roger Stone and most recently in the Impeachment of President Trump by the U.S. House of Representatives, it is difficult for political conservatives to believe that a fair sentence will be administered in any one of several Federal District Courts dominated by liberal-progressive Justices, including the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the Southern District of New York. Massachusetts is another danger zone.

So biased are many of the judges and prosecutors in those federal district courts, anyone engaged in elective politics as a political conservative is well-advised to find another line of work, seek only state office, or choose any state other than New York, Massachusetts, or the District of Columbia in which to reside.

Never forget, the U.S. Department of Justice is a part of a vast administrative state that governs all aspects of the lives of American citizens and reflects the interests of the “deep state.” If you are a vocal critic of liberalism, mainline media, or the administrative state and you are identified as a Republican or worse—a conservative—you are at a distinct disadvantage in these Courts.

Roger Stone was convicted on seven counts including witness tampering and lying to investigators. That caused consternation on the part of President Trump who tweeted “This is a horrible and very unfair situation. The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!” Journalists, attorneys, and federal justices are appalled that the president would intervene in the process by commutating Stone’s sentence. 

On the contrary, I think we have an attorney problem.

What can be done to arrest this development of judicial arrogance?

Congress could act by reducing the number of federal district courts, restricting certiorari of the U.S. Supreme Court, or by censuring Judges that engage in overreach. That will not happen, but there is some good news. The numbers of attorneys elected to congress has declined, physicians and medical professionals now outnumber them.

That reminds me, what did William Shakespeare write in Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2?

 

Richard J. Bishirjian

 

Richard Bishirjian’s latest book is The Conservative Rebellion (St. Augustine’s Press).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Blog
 
July 17, 2020

Is America Up for a Naval War with China?

 
Secretary_Pompeo_Meets_With_Chinese_President_Xi_Jinping_in_Beijing_(42746353062)
 U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China on June 14, 2018. [Image by: U.S. Department of State from United States / Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons]
 

Is the U.S., preoccupied with a pandemic and a depression that medical crisis created, prepared for a collision with China over Beijing's claims to the rocks, reefs, and resources of the South China Sea? For that is what Mike Pompeo appeared to threaten this week. "The world will not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire," thundered the secretary of state.

"America stands with our Southeast Asian allies and partners in protecting their sovereign rights to offshore resources ... and (we) reject any push to impose 'might makes right' in the South China Sea." Thus did Pompeo put Beijing on notice that the U.S. does not recognize its claim to 90 percent of the South China Sea or to any exclusive Chinese right to its fishing grounds or oil and gas resources.

Rather, in a policy shift, the U.S. now recognizes the rival claims of Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, and the Philippines.

To signal the seriousness of Pompeo's stand, the U.S. sent the USS Ronald Reagan and USS Nimitz carrier battle groups through the South China Sea. And, this week, the guided-missile destroyer USS Ralph Johnson sailed close by the Spratly Islands.

But what do Mike Pompeo's tough words truly mean?

While we have recognized the claims of the other littoral states of the South China Sea, does Pompeo mean America will use its naval power to defend their claims should China use force against the vessels of those five nations? Does it mean that if Manila, our lone treaty ally in these disputes, uses force to reclaim what we see as its lawful rights in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy will fight the Chinese navy to validate Manila's claims? Has Pompeo drawn a red line, which Beijing has been told not to cross at risk of war with the United States?

If so, does anyone in Washington think the Chinese are going to give up their claims to the entire South China Sea or retreat from reasserting those claims because the U.S. now rejects them?

Consider what happened to the people of Hong Kong when they thought they had the world's democracies at their back. For a year, they marched and protested for greater political freedom with some believing they might win independence. But when Beijing had enough, it trashed the Basic Law under which Hong Kong had been ceded back to China and began a crackdown.

The democracies protested and imposed economic sanctions. But the bottom line is that Hong Kong's people not only failed to enlarge the sphere of freedom they had, but also, they are losing much of what they had.

The Americans, seeing Hong Kong being absorbed into China, are now canceling the special economic privileges we had accorded the city, as the British offer millions of visas to Hong Kong's dissidents who fear what Beijing has in store for them.

In June, Pompeo also charged Beijing with human rights atrocities in Xinjiang: "The world received disturbing reports today that the Chinese Communist Party is using forced sterilization, forced abortion, and coercive family planning against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang, as part of a continuing campaign of repression." These reports, said Pompeo, "are sadly consistent with decades of CCP practices that demonstrate an utter disregard for the sanctity of human life and basic human dignity."           

China has rejected U.S. protests of its treatment of Uighurs and Kazakhs and of its handling of Hong Kong as interference in its internal affairs and none of America's business. As for the South China Sea, China dismissively replied, the U.S. seems to be "throwing its weight around in every sea of the world." These American warnings, and Beijing's response, call to mind the darker days of the Cold War.           

So, again, the question: Is America prepared for a naval clash in the South China Sea if Beijing continues to occupy and fortify islets and reefs she claims as her own? Are we prepared for a Cold War II—with China?

While China lacks the strategic arsenal the USSR had in the latter years of the Cold War, economically, technologically, and industrially, China is a far greater power than Soviet Russia ever was. And China's population is four times as large.

Can we, should we, begin to assemble a system of alliances similar to what we had during the Cold War—with NATO in Europe and Asian security pacts with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand? Should we adopt a policy of containment of Communist China, which, says Pompeo, is an expansionist and "imperialist" power?

Should we start issuing war guarantees to China's neighbors? Should we start putting down red lines China will not be allowed to cross?

Before we plunged into our half dozen Middle East wars, we didn't think through where those would end. Have we considered where all our belated bellicosity toward Beijing must invariably lead, and how this all ends?

 

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

rcp-logo-ss-red-250.png

Democrats Don't Have the Winning Hand

Conrad Black, American Greatness July 17, 2020
 
Even with the incessant Democratic media effort to terrify the entire population out of its wits over the COVID-19 pandemic, it will no longer be possible to represent Trump as President Chaos.
 
 
 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, JakeHolman said:

rcp-logo-ss-red-250.png

Democrats Don't Have the Winning Hand

Conrad Black, American Greatness July 17, 2020
 
Even with the incessant Democratic media effort to terrify the entire population out of its wits over the COVID-19 pandemic, it will no longer be possible to represent Trump as President Chaos.
 
 
 
 

People may vote for Biden simply out of protest instead of policy like during the 2018 elections.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hamradio said:

People may vote for Biden simply out of protest instead of policy like during the 2018 elections.

Absolutely. Lots of 'em.

What's the real worry for people who want Democrats to win is President Trump's "secret voters". These are those who don't show up in polls.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SadPanda said:

Absolutely. Lots of 'em.

What's the real worry for people who want Democrats to win is President Trump's "secret voters". These are those who don't show up in polls.

Or the "secret voters" that do show up in polls and say they are voting for Biden but instead know they will be voting for Trump,  and who thus mislead the pollsters for all sorts of reasons;

e.g.  distrust of polls,  wishing to give the Dems a false sense of security,,,,  just like to punk pollsters,    

No one has a clue how many of either type are out there.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Or the "secret voters" that do show up in polls and say they are voting for Biden but instead know they will be voting for Trump,  and who thus mislead the pollsters for all sorts of reasons

Can't blame them. Saying out loud that you're a Trump voter could get a milkshake thrown at you - or worse. The radical-ness of Trump-haters is not helping the accuracy of polling.

Quote

No one has a clue how many of either type are out there.   

I think the Republicans have a much better idea than the MSM.

They sure had a better grasp of the numbers back in 2016. I believe they have a much better understanding of what the true numbers are now as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, once we know how many people voted for Donald Trump in the 2020 election we will have a census of the braindead in America.

 

07/17/2020 16:00:33
TOTAL ESTIMATED U.S. COVID-19 DEATHS: 137,972

Trump Death Clock

82,783
Estimated U.S. COVID-19 Deaths Due To POTUS Inaction
In January 2020, the Trump administration was advised that immediate action was required to stop the spread of COVID-19. According to NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, “there was a lot of pushback” to this advice. President Trump declined to act until March 16th. Experts estimate that, had mitigation measures been implemented one week earlier, 60% of American COVID-19 deaths would have been avoided. (For further reading, click here).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SadPanda said:

Can't blame them. Saying out loud that you're a Trump voter could get a milkshake thrown at you - or worse. The radical-ness of Trump-haters is not helping the accuracy of polling.

I think the Republicans have a much better idea than the MSM.

They sure had a better grasp of the numbers back in 2016. I believe they have a much better understanding of what the true numbers are now as well.

The GOPers did not have a good grasp in 2018 though.  As for 2016, Trump never really expected to win - he just did it for the publicity and boost to his ego and his "brand."  It was probably a big surprise for the rest of the GOPers as well.

In certain parts of the country, saying you are anything but a Trump supporter will get you in trouble.  The Trumpists are more radical than the Trump-haters.

Polls are nearly useless this far out - and maybe up until the day after the election.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheCid said:

The GOPers did not have a good grasp in 2018 though. 

President Trump did. The Senate was the goal - strengthen the hold on it and he did. 

Quote

Polls are nearly useless this far out - and maybe up until the day after the election.

Yes. The only poll that matters is election day.

Until the MSM reverts back to reporting instead of propagandizing, most of the lead-up polls will remain useless. Too many people have wised up to the falseness propagated by the Mainstream Media.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SadPanda said:

President Trump did. The Senate was the goal - strengthen the hold on it and he did. 

Yes. The only poll that matters is election day.

Until the MSM reverts back to reporting instead of propagandizing, most of the lead-up polls will remain useless. Too many people have wised up to the falseness propagated by the Mainstream Media.

Not really.  He lost the HOUSE and even some state offices that the GOP had held.  He barely held on to the Senate.  In 2016, far more Dem seats were in danger than GOPers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheCid said:

Not really.  He lost the HOUSE and even some state offices that the GOP had held.  He barely held on to the Senate.  In 2016, far more Dem seats were in danger than GOPers.

He gained in the Senate in 2018.

The House was far less important in 2018 than was the Senate. But taking back the House should happen in about 3+ months and his second term will be momentous because of it.

The de-corruption of deep-state government will move into high gear. The draining of the swamp has been slow but steady so far, but getting back the House will immensely accelerate that draining. Legislation will come fast and sharp and there'll be no more bogus waste-of-time "House investigations" gumming up the system.

Or not. Maybe the Democrats will win everything instead. How wonderful would that be?

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

 

:rolleyes:

Nice to see Trump shown up in person on his usual BS. No wonder he's getting ticked off with Fox these days. I suspect Chris Wallace just got crossed off Trump's Christmas list.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Not really.  He lost the HOUSE and even some state offices that the GOP had held.  He barely held on to the Senate.  In 2016, far more Dem seats were in danger than GOPers.

As we discussed the key in 2018 was that the gains by Dems in the House where mostly by moderates;  E.g.   the defeat of the GOP incumbent in my district,  where the GOP had held the seat for over 25 years.      While I"m still concerned about Dem voter turnout,  especially by the more liberal \ progressive wing of the party,   I just don't see Trump winning in Florida.      The company I work for is in Florida and,  while this is anecdotal,    the vast majority of people I have talked to are really disappointed in their Trump clone governor,  De Santis,  and that will likely taint Trump as well.

While anything is possible,  and the Dems have messed up 'sure things' in the past,  I just don't see it this time.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder - Charlottesville ... Children kidnapped and put in cages .... 140,000 Americans dead and guess who doesn't give a damn.

You would have to be braindead or completely evil to vote for this son of a b****.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Federalist

You Can’t Claim Memorials Deserve To Be Taken Down If You Don’t Know Anything About Them

You Can’t Claim Memorials Deserve To Be Taken Down If You Don’t Know Anything About Them

We, as a country, have spent the last century-and-a-half trying to heal the wounds of the past. In just a few short weeks, the left has succeeded in undoing it all.


JULY 16, 2020

The slippery slope argument was correct. In just three short years, the discussion has morphed from debating Jefferson Davis’ place in modern America to activists fantasizing about erasing the sculptures of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt from the face of Mount Rushmore.

Unfortunately, we are still traveling down that slippery slope because Democrats have no shortage of imagination. With the support of Senate Republicans, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has successfully attached an amendment to the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act designed to erase any mention of the Confederacy from Department of Defense property.

Her amendment, found in Section 377 of the legislation, has been billed as an effort to rename American military bases named after Confederate soldiers. It would require the federal government to “remove all names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederate States of America … or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America from all assets of the Department of Defense.”

It is true that the namesakes of iconic military bases including Fort Hood, Fort Benning, and Fort Bragg fought on the Confederate side of the Civil War. While it is undoubtedly easier to brand these men as racist Confederates and call it a day, that fails to tell the story of why these bases bear their names. Human beings are complicated and complex, and therefore so is their history. Hindsight reveals that good people sometimes end up on the wrong side of conflict.

John Bell Hood Displayed Unmatched Tenacity

As an example: Fort Hood is named after John Bell Hood. A graduate of West Point, Hood served in the U.S. Army on the frontier and was shot by an arrow during one of his patrols. Had the Purple Heart been awarded back then, Hood would have received it. Yes, Hood eventually resigned his commission and joined the Confederate Army after secession, and held personal and political beliefs that are repugnant today.

But that is not why Fort Hood exists. The military base in Killeen, Texas, bears Hood’s name because, by all definitions, Hood was one of the bravest and most tenacious men in American military history. At the Battle of Gettysburg, Gen. Hood led his men in a charge against the Union troops holding Little Round Top. During the advance, Hood was hit by an exploding artillery shell that crippled his left arm and rendered it immobile, dangling at his side.

Hood’s contemporaries encouraged him to resign his commission and explained there would be no disgrace in retiring given his injuries. Hood, however, had other plans. Once he was healed, he demanded a reinstatement and regrouped with his men at the Battle of Chickamauga.

On the third day of the battle, Hood was once again wounded. A bullet shattered his femur, forcing doctors to amputate the leg just four inches below the hip. They had so little confidence Hood would survive, the doctors discharged him with his amputated leg so it could be buried with him.

Hood survived and recovered. Again, he was pressured to resign his commission, but again, he pressed on. Not only did he demand to be reinstated, but he convinced Jefferson Davis to give him a promotion.

This man lost an arm at Gettysburg and a leg at Chickamauga. For the final year of the war, the Texas Brigade was led by a one-armed, one-legged general who had to be physically strapped to his horse so he wouldn’t fall off. That is why the Army chose in 1942 to name its new base after Hood. It wasn’t to glorify the Confederacy or to glorify the institution of slavery.

Hood’s story is being completely lost in this debate over Civil War symbols. Activists are reducing him to a racist, Confederate soldier and signaling that he deserves to be forgotten.

Nancy Pelosi Knows Nothing about History

Take former Speaker of the House Charles Crisp as another example. Last month, current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered Crisp’s painting in the Speaker’s Lobby to be taken off the wall because he fought for the Confederacy. Many cheered Pelosi’s decision as long overdue, but no one mentioned the fact that Crisp joined the Virginia Army when he was just 16.

Crisp’s parents were immigrant actors in a traveling Shakespeare troupe and just happened to be performing south of the Mason-Dixon line when war broke out. Had they been performing in Maryland or Delaware instead, Crisp likely never would have joined the Confederate Army.

That Crisp joined the Virginia Army when he was just 16 years old, however, is apparently sufficient reason to remove his painting from the halls of Congress and act like he never went on to serve as the 33rd speaker of the House in a reunited United States.

Destruction Isn’t Justice

Across this country, Confederate graves and memorials are being defaced and defiled. In Silver Spring, Maryland, a memorial honoring 16 unnamed soldiers was broken in half and graffitied last month. How can anyone possibly justify the destruction and vandalization of a grave site honoring soldiers too bloodied and disfigured to be identified? How can anyone possibly claim the dead “deserve it” when no one genuinely knows who they are?

Warren’s amendment to rename military bases would also require that the 106-year-old Confederate Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery be removed. Four hundred eighty-two Confederate soldiers are buried in a circle around that memorial. That monument cannot be destroyed or removed without also defacing the graves themselves.

While Warren has gracefully added an exception to her amendment that would spare the Civil War dead from having their gravestones destroyed or their bodies exhumed, the amendment would make it illegal for the cemetery to direct people to where the Confederate dead are buried because that would “honor or commemorate” the Confederacy. In other words, the graves can remain, but visitors aren’t allowed to know where they are.

Progressives Are Undoing Progress

Reconstruction after the Civil War was hard, but reconciliation was even harder. It would have been far easier to simply punish anyone who had served in the Confederate Army. But to pursue Lincoln’s dream of an American house undivided, all Confederate soldiers (with the exception of bona fide war criminals) were offered full pardons.

It is in this spirit of reconciliation that every president since Theodore Roosevelt has laid a wreath at the Confederate Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery, not to honor the Confederacy, but in recognition of the fact that as misguided as the soldiers may have been, they were not inherently evil.

We, as a country, have spent the last century-and-a-half trying to heal the wounds of the past. In just a few short weeks, the left has succeeded in undoing it all. Time will tell whether they are successful in this push, and whether conservatives try to appease the mob or stand up to this lunacy.

It is hard to imagine anything more pathetic than believing that justice requires posthumously punishing Civil War dead.

Max McGuire has a Master’s Degree in Political Science from Villanova University and is the Advocacy Director of Conservative Daily.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some sources claim A. Lincoln intended to treat the South with respect and with a conciliatory policy  and believed the entire nation was responsible and at fault for slavery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re;

Progressives Are Undoing Progress

Reconstruction after the Civil War was hard, but reconciliation was even harder. It would have been far easier to simply punish anyone who had served in the Confederate Army. But to pursue Lincoln’s dream of an American house undivided, all Confederate soldiers (with the exception of bona fide war criminals) were offered full pardons.

 

 

 

You can thank John Wilkes Booth for that.

https://emergingcivilwar.com/2015/04/14/john-wilkes-booth-and-the-legacy-of-reconstruction/

Excerpt..

Booth would not live to see the results of the tragedy he inflicted on the nation. His bullet killed not only Lincoln but, as it turned out, any hopes for peacefully assimilating the South back into the country. It also killed any chance for a national dialogue about race—a conversation we still struggle to have.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • JakeHolman changed the title to THE RESISTANCE TO THE ILLEGITIMATE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN ...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...