Friday, September 18, 2020

"Patriotic Education": 1619 versus 1776


Friends, you wouldn't think that honoring America's Founders and its history of freedom would be a partisan issue, but these days everything is partisan.  C'est la vie.  President Trump is doing his best, however, to defend our country's heritage and good name, and he's therefore hitting back at efforts by the Left to enshrine 1619, and arrival of the first slaves at Jamestown, Virginia, as the seminal moment in America's past.  He's proposed a "1776 Commission" to revive "patriotic education", as opposed to curricula that are designed to vilify America and our traditional heroes.  Lurking beneath all this is a campaign strategy that aims to give voters a binary choice: will they vote for a candidate and a party that loves America, or a candidate and a party that disparages and disdains America?  You would think that would be an easy choice!


In other news, the Department of Education is opening an investigation into Princeton University.  It's a cute maneuver, in point of fact: the ultra-left President of Princeton is on record saying that his institution is racist.  (Well, liberals are on record saying that every institution is racist.)  The problem is that they also claim, in their equal opportunity statements, that they're not racist.  So which is it?  If, indeed, proof exists of racist behavior by colleges and universities, then they could lose federal funding.  This could therefore be a backdoor approach to defunding left-wing higher ed!  Let's explore the possibilities, shall we? 

Meanwhile, Chicagoans are dropping like flies.  This year, though, they are being shot in alarming numbers, even by Chicago standards!  This article documents the phenomenon, but it never asks the tough questions: does liberal "criminal justice reform" have anything to do with the light sentences meted out to violent offenders?  Does the castigation of law enforcement have anything to do with the declining effectiveness of policing in the Windy City?  Oh no.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.  Let's just spend more money on "community programs".  In other words, let's enrich the activist class.  That'll do the trick.


Finally, take note of the fact that the Democratic majority on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is at it again.  Before 2018, they redrew the boundaries of Congressional districts in PA -- to favor Democrats.  Now they're messing with the 2020 election with similar alacrity.  They're extending deadlines for mail-in ballots, and perhaps more importantly they've thrown Howie Hawkins and the Green Party off the ballot altogether.  Excluding the Greens and Kanye West from the ballot is a nationwide Democratic obsession.  The Dems are desperate to keep 2020 as Trump v. Biden, because they know that many "progressives" would appreciate a third choice!  But no -- that can't be allowed in their version of "democracy". 


  1. In 1619, the first Black Slaves (not to be confused with White Indentured Servants) arrived at Jamestown, and were immediately disliked even more than White People by The Native Americans (Indians), who were hanging around in the area, and thinking about killing all of them.

    1. and not to be confused by Black Indentured Servants who were already at Jamestown. Just saying.

  2. IF we are going to discuss 1619 and its falsehoods...I would like to remind the author of a man named Anthony Johnson 1600(c)-1670(c) aka Antonio. He was the first black indentured servant to own slaves in 17th Century VA-he was freed sometime by 1620 (ca). I wrote a 30 page paper about this, the paper earned a B+ (minor grammar issues kept it from an A). Gosh, that author of the 1619 Project drives me insane. Since I didn't want to be labeled for pilfering a race other than my own (sarcasm), I decided against being a "Slavery Historian"--Actually, that class got me a B+. I rather enjoyed the class and excelled at arguing err. debating. Geesh, the internet is a wonderful place now a days-especially the National Archives and The Library of Congress. It is also worth noting, I am old enough to remember the card catalogue.

    ANYWAYS...where was I? I seriously doubt there will be a winner by Inauguration Day Jan 21. Mark my words; Pelosi will reign for a short time. That's the plan, just my "conspiracy theory" mind working over time. Oh, Soros is working over time too, so many news articles out about him and his election meddling. I have fallen behind in keeping up with all this, especially the devil Soros...that is one scary fellow. Oh, and Michigan Supreme Court just ruled mail in ballots can be counted 2 weeks after the election, as long as it was postmarked by Nov.2. I'm telling you, this is going to be a mess.

  3. LINDA,

    Just think of the BLM movement as one huge slave uprising. In any event (and as you know), it was The Republican Party that was against slavery and promoted abolition and so on before and after The Civil War, generally speaking. The Democrats were always the pro-slave party right up through the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. And now the Democrats are trying to make all of their sins of the past go away by perverting history, and USING Black to do this. Blacks are being played by today's Democrats.

  4. On the subject of Black Slavery.

    I'm sure that many of my WHITE EUROPEAN ANCESTORS were slaves of The Romans a lot longer than Blacks were slaves of White people in America. And in addition, my European WHITE ANCESTORS never owned any Black slaves, BECAUSE they did Not come to The United States until 40 years after the civil war. I venture to say that more than a few Americans fit into that category, and yet they are placed in the same bins with other Whites, slave owning or not. Anyway, I always told my college students that The Romans were equal opportunity slave employers promoting a policy of WHITES ONLY as qualified to be slaves. In reality, there were very few Black slaves in the Roman Empire. In addition, it was the Arab Muslims who got the slave trade in Africa going many many centuries before WHITE Europeans showed up on that continent. Again, it was WHITE people who were also in the forefront to abolish slavery on moral and ethical grounds. In addition, Blacks were exploited by other Black Africans who sold "slave tribes" to Whites and reaped handsome profits from it.

  5. So, two months from now, will we really know if Trump is going to continue as President, or if Biden will become our new "leader"? That is to say, will we still be counting and recounting ballots come mid November 2020, or waiting for the Supreme Court to call it. or what? Sorry to digress from the subjects at hand in this article, but if Biden wins you can be sure that the 1619 Project will kick in big time. Maybe it's time for a BLACK COLUMBUS. How about it folks. Then we can say that a Black man discovered America. We can darken George Washington up significantly can't we, in order to show that the first President of The U.S. was really Black?

  6. Ray, good point that a Native American massacre of the Jamestown colony would, after the passage of several centuries, have led to the unemployment of numerous critical race theorists. We can only thank God, therefore, that the Indians were held at bay.

    Linda, as I'm sure you're aware, plenty of freed slaves in the Americas owned slaves themselves. Figure out the reparations bill on THAT!

    Pelosi as President? I don't believe it. Not even the Dems are that wacky. Seems more likely to me that, if the election is contested and an electoral college majority is elusive, Trump will win (as per the Constitution's stipulations) in the House, which will vote by state delegation. Thus, it's more likely that Nancy will PRESIDE over the vote that selects Trump, than that she will be President herself.

    Ray, you can make a strong case that the Democratic Party has always been based on making black people scared -- before the 60s, in making them scared to vote, and, after the 60s, in making them scared not to. Bottom line: a relaxed, well-adjusted black person is the bane of the Democrats' existence!

    Ray, you're absolutely right about the multiracial nature of slavery and slave ownership. Americans would do well to study the complex history of slavery.

    You jest, Ray, but someday soon we might all be combing our family trees for some non-white ancestors. Our comfort and safety might depend on it!

    Will the Supreme Court be picking our next President for us? Could be...and if so, given today's developments, hadn't we better fill that vacant seat tout de suite???

  7. Patriotic education? Talk about indoctrination!

    As for the election, there will be a clear winner either on Election Night or within a week. All of the noise that Trump is generating about mail-in voter fraud (to date, nonexistent), and/or problems with vote counting, etc. (way overblown) is just that -- noise. Not that Trump hasn't impacted the voting process. As shown by pictures out of VA, people are voting in person early because they don't trust the post office with delivering ballots on time. Given that voters were wearing masks while in line, it appears that a LOT of Democratic voters were turning out.

  8. As for Ginsburg's replacement, there is almost NO CHANCE of a nominee being confirmed before Election Day. In addition, Grassley, Graham, Murkowski and Cornyn are already on record as saying that SCOTUS nominees should not be approved during a presidential election year. Now, throw in Collins and Gardner who are already in serious danger of losing their seats, and the numbers may not be favorable for a vote.

    Two additional wild cards. First, Mitt Romney may not support a SCOTUS nominee before the election. Second, Mark Kelly is almost certain to win the Senate seat in AZ. Because it is to fill the McCain seat, McSally is out once the results are certified. That means the Senate moves from 53-47 GOP to 52-48 GOP. At that points, Dems only need to pick off 3, rather than 4, GOP senators to prevent a SCOTUS pick.

  9. Dr.Waddy et al: some fascinating dynamics are at work here: if the President, should he win or lose the election and the Senate were to remain GOP, could President Trump's nominee yet be seated? We could of course count on Rino Supremo Romney to side with the dems in ANY circumstance but beside that?

  10. Dr.Waddy et al: No,it very probably comes down to the "election", as much it promises to be the political and judicial War of the American Succession. The Dems know they are on the cusp of complete, emotionally unendurable defeat and the anxiety,we must hope , is driving them to distraction. Not only do they have our opposition to face but the distinct possibility of an AOC led monumental tantrum putting paid to any notion of their party being anything but a Pol Potist vindictive mob. Why even Romney might vote against that.

  11. Rod, if you're under the impression that problems with mail-in voting have been "non-existent", you haven't been paying attention. There have been elections this year in which 20% of ballots were rejected. You think similar figures in November might be politicized, just a little, by one side, or both? I sure do! I agree that the counting will largely be done in a week. I certainly don't agree that that will seal the deal for Biden or for Trump.

    Rod, I see you're optimistic that a Trump nominee for Ginsburg's seat can be defeated. Maybe, but you assume the vote would be held before the election. From the good guys' perspective, what's the rush? Why not hold the vote the day after the election, when all the complications you cite would be moot? Even if the worst happens, and your lot wins the White House AND the Senate, why wouldn't the GOP fill the vacant SCOTUS seat on their way out the door?

    Jack, all we can do now is speculate on how some of these key Republican Senators might vote. For one thing, we have no nominee as yet, and no timetable either. I trust McConnell to move forward only with a plan that he knows will work.

  12. Dr. Waddy, if you are going to quote me, please do so accurately. I said "voter fraud" is non-existent. I did not say the same about problems. Yes, the major problem with mail-in ballots is that either the voter does not sign the ballot or the signatures don't match. Those are rules associated with mail-in ballots. Rejecting those votes upholds integrity to the process.

    It looks as if there may be fewer mail-in ballots, anyway. DeJoy has so undermined the Post Office, more folks are showing up in person for early voting.

    So far, Murkowski and Collins have come out against voting for a nominee. Two more (Romney is likely to be one, and Graham made such a definitive statement that going back on it will likely cost him his Senate race).

    Yes, Senators could rush the nomination through if Biden wins. If they do, and the Dems win the Senate, then the Dems will move to expand the Court to at least 11, and they will be justified in making such a move.

  13. Rod, the distinction between "voter fraud" and "voter problems" is moot, politically. If the election hinges on whether we accept or don't accept a bunch of signatures, you better believe the science of handwriting will become overtly political overnight, as will jurisprudence, but that will be less of a surprise. And how many of the ballots rejected in earlier elections this year were "fradulent"? How would we know, unless the FBI went and knocked on every door of a voter involved? Fraud is hard to prove. Irregularities are legion, and seemingly they can be conjured out of thin air whenever needed.

    Rod, you place a lot of stock in the comments of Murkowski, Collins, et al. Okay, they'd rather not have to vote now on a Trump nominee. No kidding. If there IS a nominee, and that nominee is strong, do you really think Murkowski and Collins will torpedo her? Would you be willing to bet your life on it? I wouldn't. This process is only beginning.

    I see you're ready to pack the court. First, you'll need to win the election. If fact, you'll need something like a clean sweep. Bon chance!

  14. Dr. Waddy. Trump would like the distinction between "voter fraud" and "voter problems" to be moot politically, which is why he lies so much about it.

    If someone attempts to commit voter fraud, but the ballot is rejected, then no voter fraud exists because the vote did not count. There is an attempt at voter fraud, but no voter fraud (analogous to the difference between attempted murder and murder). Yes, we will never know how many attempts at voter fraud that there have been, but we know actual voter fraud is virtually non-existent.

    As for the election, Biden is leading and the Senate is very much in play. Dems have AZ, CO and ME, GOP has AL. So, one more from NC, MT, GA (2), IA and SC and the Senate switches as well.

    I like Dem chances.

  15. Rod, I suppose you're right that not all voter fraud leads to votes being cast and counted...but it still represents a barrier to a free and fair election. Can you imagine if a team of lawyers went in search of every voter who cast a questionable ballot? Such ridiculousness may happen, in one or more states, if the country's future depends on it... The bottom line is that there WILL be a contested, messy election, unless the margin of victory is ample.

    You're right that we Republicans are skating on thin ice in Senate terms, although that was true in 2016 too and we did fine. As I recall, in 2018 the Dems even thought they had a chance at taking over the Senate. I personally would bet on the GOP keeping a narrow majority, but we'll see. Luckily it's the present Senate that will help mediate the 2020 election, not to mention confirm the next Justice of the Supreme Court. That gives me peace of mind. :)