Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘civil war’

“What am I Willing to Burn”? Howard Journalism Professor Calls for Whites to Emulate John Brown


By: Jonathan Turley | October 23, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/10/23/what-am-i-willing-to-burn-howard-journalism-professor-calls-for-whites-to-emulate-john-brown/#more-237257

Stacey Patton, professor of journalism at Howard University, has caused an uproar with her advice to white people who want to oppose this Administration. Patton told them that they had to follow the path of John Brown, who led a bloodbath before the Civil War that included killing white slave owners and pro-slave settlers.

In a blog titled “John Brown Didn’t Ask Enslaved People How to Be a Good White Ally,” Patton told white liberals to stop asking how to be a better “ally” to minorities. She writes:

“It’s a question that always lands heavy. Not because I doubt their sincerity, but because the question itself is still a form of protection that centers the asker’s confusion instead of the target’s danger. It’s a request to be taught, forgiven, and reassured, again and again. It’s another round of homework assigned to the wounded…It’s exhausting as hell because it’s still a form of emotional outsourcing.”

Instead, she tells whites to become modern John Browns and presumably unleash a new era akin to “Bleeding Kansas” and the infamous Pottawatomie massacre.

Brown was a militant slave abolitionist during the pre-Civil War “Bleeding Kansas” period. In 1856, he orchestrated the Pottawatomie massacre. He and fellow abolitionists dragged five Kansas settlers, at least three of whom were pro-slavery sympathizers, out of their homes and executed them.

Brown was eventually captured after his raid on Harpers Ferry and hanged.

Patton wants whites to emulate Brown, who “saw the horror for what it was and decided that ending this racist f*ckery mattered more than being understood.” What clearly makes Brown stand out for Patton is his violence: “So when white allies ask, ‘What can I do?’ here’s the answer: Be like John Brown. Ask yourself, what am I willing to burn so somebody else can breathe?”

Of course, a hanging might be a bit stiff for many liberals longing to be Antifa. So, Patton acknowledges, “If you don’t want to die like John Brown, fine. But understand that somebody always does.”

Not surprisingly, the professor has little time for those who want to embrace the alternative, non-violent lessons of Martin Luther King:

“Now, white liberals love to quote Martin Luther King Jr. because he is a man that can be polished into civility. But John Brown doesn’t fit the script. He was a m’fukin’ gangsta! He didn’t ask for gradual change, or healing, or bipartisan cooperation. He saw a nation addicted to violence and knew that moral persuasion alone couldn’t sober it.”

Patton’s column comes after the controversy involving the John Brown Gun Club, which was connected to flyers appearing on campuses like Georgetown reading “Hey, Fascists! Catch!” The phrase was written on unused bullet casings found after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. It went on to proclaim, “The only political group that celebrates when Nazis die.”

The recent charges against Benjamin Song, an Antifa member, also raised the group. Song was charged with three counts of attempted murder of federal agents in addition to three counts of discharging a firearm stemming from an ambush-style shooting at an ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas. A dozen others were charged in the plot. He was also reportedly a member of the John Brown Gun Club.

Notably, this is a journalism professor in a school that has long been associated with advocacy journalism and the controversial hire of former New York Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones.

We previously discussed the release of the results of interviews with over 75 media leaders by former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward. They concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”

Downie recounted how news leaders today.

“Believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”

Now, objectivity is virtually synonymous with prejudice. Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor at the Associated Press, declared, “It’s objective by whose standard? … That standard seems to be White, educated, and fairly wealthy.”

Stanford journalism professor Ted Glasser insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He declared that “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”

Lauren Wolfe, the fired freelance editor for the New York Times, has not only gone public to defend her pro-Biden tweet but published a piece titled I’m a Biased Journalist and I’m Okay With That.” 

Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University Journalism Professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones is a leading voice for advocacy journalism.

Indeed, Hannah-Jones has declared, all journalism is activism.” Her 1619 Project has been challenged as deeply flawed and she has a long record as a journalist of intolerance, controversial positions on rioting, and fostering conspiracy theories. Hannah-Jones would later help lead the effort at the Times to get rid of an editor and apologize for publishing a column from Sen. Tom Cotton as inaccurate and inflammatory.

Yet, Howard saw Hannah-Jones as perfect for a chair in its journalism school.

Professor Patton seems to have left not just neutrality but sanity behind with her implied support for violent action. It is unclear how such views impact her journalism courses at Howard University. However, she has featured prominently in The New York Times, Washington Post, and The Chronicle of Higher Education as well as ABC News, CNN, and MSNBC.

How Illegal Aliens Flooding Our Border Skew Elections for Democrats Without Ever Casting A Vote


BY: BRIANNA LYMAN | FEBRUARY 28, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/28/how-illegal-aliens-flooding-our-border-skew-elections-for-democrats-without-ever-casting-a-vote/

President Joe Biden talks on the phone

Author Brianna Lyman profile

BRIANNA LYMAN

VISIT ON TWITTER@BRIANNALYMAN2

MORE ARTICLES

Why did President Joe Biden reverse former President Donald Trump’s order excluding noncitizens from being counted in the census, while simultaneously issuing a slew of executive orders decimating the integrity of our southern border? While illegal immigrants cannot vote in elections (despite Democrats’ best efforts), the left is using their illegal presence to rig elections by shifting the political landscape through apportionment.

Both congressional and electoral college apportionment is derived from the number of residents in a particular area. Trump signed a memo in July of 2020 that barred illegal immigrants from being counted in the census, which is used to apportion representation in Washington. Biden, however, reversed the policy and ordered the census to include illegal immigrants and other noncitizens.

This means that American citizens aren’t receiving balanced representation in their government.

States can pick up — or lose — a congressional seat depending on the size of their population, despite the fact that some of that population may not even be allowed to vote. Millions of illegal immigrants, many of whom are in large, left-leaning cities, dilute the voting power of American citizens who may live in a mildly populated area composed of legal residents.

And Democrats know what they’re doing.

[READ: 2020 Census Asks For Your Racial Identity, But Not If You’re A Citizen]

Democrat New York Rep. Yvette Clark said during a 2021 hearing that her district “can absorb a significant number of these migrants” because “I need more people in my district, just for redistricting purposes.”

Clark’s resurfaced clip prompted Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, and others to introduce the “Equal Representation Act” which would mandate only legal citizens are counted for congressional districts and the Electoral College map.

Sanctuary Cities

So-called “sanctuary cities,” which promise not to enforce immigration laws and often guarantee lodging to illegal residents, have long blurred the lines of law, bucking federal immigration policy and then begging taxpayers to foot the bill. But despite the drain on government resources — and sometimes violence — these policies invite, these cities and left-leaning states have reason to incentivize illegal immigrants because it helps them adjust for apportionment.

As residents flee blue states like California and New York for more family-friendly and taxpayer-friendly states like Florida and Texas, Democrats need to recoup their population losses. Illegal immigrants inflate the census data, which in turn could help Democrats retain their power.

Constitutionally Suspect

The framers likely would not support Biden’s position that illegal immigrants deserve to be counted in apportionment to determine representation.

The Constitution’s original census clause stated:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Following the Civil War, the 14th Amendment stipulated that “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State.”

But “whole number of persons” was likely not intended to encompass those illegally residing in the states.

Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, most northern states advocated for no slaves to be counted in the apportionment proceedings so that slaveholding states, some of which had slave populations as high as 43 percent of their total residents, would not have an unfair amount of representation compared to their actual voting weight.

The three-fifths compromise also lessened the incentive for slaveholding states to import more slaves in order to expand their population and increase their representation.

No ‘Colorable Constitutional Claim’

Lower courts had blocked Trump’s memorandum from taking effect after 23 states challenged the memo, saying it violated the Constitution and federal census statutes. The Supreme Court has never weighed in on the question nor answered whether the word “persons” encompasses illegal immigrants for the purpose of apportionment. But the high court has previously ruled in Mathews v. Diaz, a case regarding the Social Security Act, that while illegal immigrants are entitled to due process protections under the Fifth and 14th Amendments, they are not entitled to the benefits of citizenship. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the unanimous court:

Neither the overnight visitor, the unfriendly agent of a hostile foreign power, the resident diplomat, nor the illegal entrant, can advance even a colorable constitutional claim to a share in the bounty that a conscientious sovereign makes available to its own citizens and some of its guests.

If voting, which is a benefit exclusively for citizens, is off-limits to illegal immigrants, it would be hard to imagine that illegal immigrants should be empowered to dilute the weight of a vote by artificially expanding the population and increasing the representational advantage of one area while taking it away from another area that is populated by legal residents. And yet, thanks to Democrats, that’s exactly what they’re doing.


Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.

Nikki Haley: ‘Of Course the Civil War Was About Slavery’


By Charlie McCarthy    |   Thursday, 28 December 2023 11:51 AM EST

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/nikki-haley-new-hampshire-town-hall/2023/12/28/id/1147492/

Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley on Thursday said the Civil War “of course” was “about slavery,” and insisted her comments the previous night came after a question by one of the “Democrat plants.”

Haley faced swift criticism for making no mention of slavery when, at a town hall Wednesday night, she was asked about the cause of the Civil War.

“Of course the Civil War was about slavery. We know that. That’s the easy part of it,” Haley said Thursday morning on “The Pulse of NH,” a New Hampshire radio show.

“What I was saying was, ‘What does it mean to us today?’ What it means to us today is about freedom. That’s what that was all about. It was about individual freedom. It was about economic freedom. It was about individual rights. Our goal is to make sure, no, we never go back to the stain of slavery, but what’s the lesson in all of that?”

Moments later the former South Carolina governor added, “Yes, I know it was about slavery. I’m from the South; of course you know it was about slavery.”

At the town hall on Wednesday night in Berlin, New Hampshire, a man asked Haley, “What was the cause of the United States Civil War?”

In answering, Haley did not cite slavery as a cause of the war. Instead, she said it took place because of the “role of government.”

“I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run — the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do,” the former U.N. ambassador answered.

“I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are. And I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. It was never meant to be all things to all people.”

Haley on Thursday accused the town hall questioner of being a Democrat plant.

“Biden and the Democrats keep sending Democrat plants to do things like this, to get the media to react,” she said.

The person who asked the question declined to share his name or party affiliation with reporters at the event, The Washington Post reported.

President Joe Biden on Wednesday night also called attention to Haley’s comments, writing on X that “It was about slavery.”

Charlie McCarthy | editorial.mccarthy@newsmax.com

Charlie McCarthy, a writer/editor at Newsmax, has nearly 40 years of experience covering news, sports, and politics.

Why Twisting The 14th Amendment To Get Trump Won’t Hold Up In Court


BY: JOHN YOO AND ROBERT DELAHUNTY | AUGUST 25, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/08/25/why-twisting-the-14th-amendment-clause-to-get-trump-wont-hold-up-in-court/

President Donald J. Trump speaks with military service personnel Thursday, Nov. 26, 2020, during a Thanksgiving video teleconference call from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House.

Author John Yoo and Robert Delahunty profile

JOHN YOO AND ROBERT DELAHUNTY

MORE ARTICLES

Four indictments of Donald Trump have so far done no more to stop him than two earlier impeachments did. He remains easily the front-runner in the Republican primaries, and in some polls is running equal with President Biden. But now a theory defended by able legal scholars has emerged, arguing that Trump is constitutionally disqualified from serving as president.

Even if Trump secures enough electoral votes to win the presidency next year, legal Professors Michael Paulsen and Will Baude argue, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution would disqualify him from federal office. Former Judge Michael Luttig and Professor Laurence Tribe have enthusiastically seconded the theory. While their theory about the continuing relevance of the Constitution’s insurrection clause strikes us as correct, they err in believing that anyone, down to the lowest county election worker, has the right to strike Trump from the ballot.

Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment is a load-bearing constitutional pillar erected during the Reconstruction period. Section 3 deals with the treatment of former state and federal officials, and their allies, who had taken sides with the Confederacy in the Civil War:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Although Section 3 unquestionably applied to Confederates, its text contains nothing limiting it to the Civil War. Rather, it has continuing relevance to any future “insurrection or rebellion.” Although it does not explicitly refer to presidents or presidential candidates, comparison with other constitutional texts referring to “officer[s]” supports the interpretation that it applies to the presidency too.

Section 3 distinguishes between “rebellion” and “insurrection,” and we have a contemporary guide to the meaning of that distinction. In the Prize Cases (1863), the Supreme Court declared that “[i]nsurrection against a government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the Government.”  “Insurrection” therefore refers to political violence at a level lower or less organized than an “organized rebellion,” though it may develop into that. Trump may have been an “insurrectionist” but not a “rebel.”

But was he even an “insurrectionist”? In their Atlantic piece, Luttig and Tribe find the answer obvious: “We believe that any disinterested observer who witnessed that bloody assault on the temple of our democracy, and anyone who learns about the many failed schemes to bloodlessly overturn the election before that, would have to come to the same conclusion.”

But that view is not universally shared. Finding “disinterested observers” in a country marked by passionate disagreements over Donald Trump is no easy task. Despite the scenes of the attack on the Capitol and extensive investigations, the American people do not seem to agree that Trump took part in an insurrection or rebellion. Almost half the respondents in a 2022 CBS poll rejected the claim that the events of Jan. 6 were an actual “insurrection” (with the divide tracking partisan lines), and 76 percent viewed it as a “protest gone too far.”

Other considerations also call into question the claim that Trump instigated an “insurrection” in the constitutional sense. If it were clear that Trump engaged in insurrection, the Justice Department should have acted on the Jan. 6 Committee’s referral for prosecution on that charge. Special Counsel Jack Smith should have indicted him for insurrection or seditious conspiracy, which remain federal crimes. If it were obvious that Trump had committed insurrection, Congress should have convicted him in the two weeks between Jan. 6 and Inauguration Day. Instead, the House impeached Trump for indictment to insurrection but the Senate acquitted him.   

The Senate’s acquittal is the only official finding by a federal or state institution on the question of whether Trump committed insurrection. The failure of the special counsel to charge insurrection and the Senate to convict in the second impeachment highlights a serious flaw in the academic theory of disqualification.

According to Luttig and Tribe, it appears self-evident that Trump committed insurrection. They assume Trump violated the law without any definitive finding by any federal authority. According to their view, he must carry the burden of proof to show he is not guilty of insurrection or rebellion — a process that achieves the very opposite of our Constitution’s guarantee of due process, which, it so happens, is not just provided for by the Fifth Amendment, but reaffirmed in the same 14th Amendment that contains the disqualification clause. It would be like requiring Barak Obama to prove he was native-born (a constitutional prerequisite for being president) if state election officials disqualified him for being foreign-born.

The Electoral College Chooses Presidents, Not State Officials

If this academic view were correct, it would throw our electoral system into chaos. One of the chief virtues of the Electoral College system is that it decentralizes the selection of the president: State legislatures decide the manner for choosing electors, with each state receiving votes equal to its representation in the House and Senate. States run the elections, which means that hundreds, if not thousands, of city, county, and state officials could execute this unilateral finding of insurrection. A county state election official, for example, could choose to remove Trump’s name from printed ballots or refuse to count any votes in his favor. A state court could order Trump barred from the election. A state governor could refuse to certify any electoral votes in his favor. The decentralization of our electoral system could allow a single official, especially from a battleground state, to sway the outcome of a close race in the 2024 presidential election.

Allowing a single state to wield this much power over the federal government runs counter to broader federalism principles articulated by the Supreme Court. In our nation’s most important decision on the balance of power between the national government and the states, McCullough v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall held that a single state could not impose a tax on the Bank of the United States. Marshall famously observed that “the power to tax is the power to destroy.”

Marshall may well have frowned upon single state officials deciding to eliminate candidates for federal office on their own initiative. The Supreme Court lent further support for this idea in United States Term Limits v. Thornton (1995), which held that states could not effectively add new qualifications for congressional candidates by barring long-time incumbents from appearing on the ballot. Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens argued that allowing states to add term limits as a qualification for their congressional elections conflicted with “the uniformity and national character [of Congress] that the framers sought to ensure.” Allowing state election officials to decide for themselves whether someone has incited or committed insurrection, without any meaningful trial or equivalent proceeding, would give states the ability to achieve what term limits forbid.

Congress Has Other Means of Enforcement

We are not arguing that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment lacks the means of enforcement (though not every official who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution has such enforcement power). Each branch of the federal government can honor Section 3 in the course of executing its unique constitutional functions. Article I of the Constitution allows Congress to sentence an impeached president not just to removal from office, but also disqualification from office in the future. Congress could pass a statute disqualifying named insurrectionists from office — we think this would not qualify as an unconstitutional bill of attainder — or set out criteria for judicial determination.

Using its enforcement power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, Congress could conceivably establish a specialized tribunal for the handling of insurrectionists. The president could detain suspected insurrectionists, subject ultimately to judicial review under a writ of habeas corpus, or prosecute them under the federal law of insurrection and seditious conspiracy. Federal courts will have the ultimate say, except in cases of unilateral congressional action, such as lifting a disqualification by supermajority votes, because they will make the final judgment on any prosecutions and executive detentions.

We are not apologists for Trump’s spreading of baseless claims of electoral fraud or his efforts to stop the electoral count on Jan. 6. But as with the weak charges brought by the special counsel, the effort to hold Trump accountable for his actions should not depend on a warping of our constitutional system. Prosecutors should charge him with insurrection if they can prove it and have that conviction sustained on appeal. Congress should disqualify Trump if it can agree he committed the crime. Ultimately, the American people will decide Trump’s responsibility for the events of Jan. 6, but at the ballot box in 2024’s nominating and general elections for president.


John Yoo is the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley, Nonresident Senior Fellow at The American Enterprise Institute, and a Visiting Fellow at The Hoover Institution. Robert Delahunty is a Fellow of the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life in Washington, DC.

My Own Two Cents


ARE CERTAIN MOVIES OF THE PAST ACTUAL PROPHECIES?

July 9, 2020

I was setting here watching Tucker Carlson, and a recurring thought came to mind. A series of movies to be as specific as I dare, because just thinking about these movies might be enough for the “thought police” to have me ______.

Tucker was talking about an article I published today about some “special training” the city of Seattle made mandatory their “WHITE” employees had to participate in. One of the takeaways was the mandatory apology for being born “WHITE”.

See, there goes those thoughts of movies again.

Of all the unrest that has been growing and brewing over the last 30 years, this present craziness appears to be the most dangerous. The drums of civil war have been growing louder for 30 years or more. As Leftist of all kinds press their divisiveness politics, and some of those groups actually forming plans of creating civil war (ANTIFA is the latest), anger, malice and unreasonable expectations have risen in alarming proportions.

Now Black Lives Matter, and their submissive white supporters, are pushing for “re-education” classes, school curriculum for grades 1-12, and adult required seminars put on by their employers and making them a requirement for employment.

Tonight, Tucker made a really great point: I the news came out that such demands were made about black people, the entire world would rip it apart, and rightly so. I would help lead the way. But because the focus is on people born Caucasian, it is perfectly okay to attack, dehumanize, insult, demean, et al. Add to that anyone who opposes BLM’s Marxist agenda is called racist and every effort is made to destroy that person, their employment, family and anyone associated with them. As a result, the drums of civil war grow louder, the heated rhetoric increases exponentially, and all attempts for civil discourse diminishes.

Please explain to me how any of that is fair?

Free Speech is no longer free. As I have said since 1980, Free Speech is defined by the leftist as speech that agrees with them 100% of the time. All other speech is forbidden. THAT’S SOCILAISM/COMMUNISM.

Another thing has to do with all the guns BLM has been carrying, and using, with all the “GUN CONTROL” lefties remaining silent. Two black teens get killed in Seattle’s CHOP, and the leftist said, (crickets). White on Black killing yield unrelenting press coverage. Black on Black killing, (crickets).

Has it gone too far for peace and civil discourse?

Are the hate mongers winning their propaganda war?

How many real Americans are ready to withstand the onslaught of growing discord, hatred, and “re-education camps”?

Given the number of guns owned today, how destructive would an all-out civil war be?

Other than the Lord Jesus Christ, is God raising up leadership that can lead us out of impending destruction? (Don’t count on the spineless Republicans)

I’m certainly not smart enough for the answers. My foundational beliefs are that God can stop this with a genuine revival. I pray He does.

Jerry Broussard

WhatDidYouSay.org

Black Lives Matter Destroys Statue of Immigrant Who Died Fighting Slavery


Reported by JOEL B. POLLAK | 

URL of the originating web site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/23/black-lives-matter-destroys-statue-of-immigrant-who-died-fighting-slavery/

 

Hans Christian Heg (Phil Roeder / Flickr / CC / Cropped)

Local ABC affiliate WKOW reported:

Protesters pulled down the Forward statue that normally stands outside the State Capitol and left it lying in the middle of the road.

The same group also tore down the Col. Hans Christian Heg statue a short time later. The group then went on to throw the statue into Lake Monona. Heg fought for the Union during the Civil War and was a stark opponent of slavery during that time.

Tweets of the destruction showed Heg’s pedestal vandalized with the words “BLACK IS BEAUTIFUL” scrawled across it.

The statue was decapitated and thrown into a nearby lake.

WKOW reported that the protesters also damaged a government building.

Heg was a Republican who served as the state prison commissioner, favoring vocational training for convicts.

The Wisconsin Historical Society describes Col. Heg as follows:

Heg migrated to the United States from Norway as a child in 1840 and spent his youth at Muskego, in Waukesha County, Wisconsin. As a young man he went to California in the Gold Rush and stayed from 1849-1851. He returned to Wisconsin in 1851 following the death of his parents in order to care for his younger siblings and manage the family farm.

In the fall of 1861 a new Scandinavian regiment was recruited and Heg accepted appointment as its colonel. The 15th Wisconsin Infantry, made up largely of recent immigrants, went into training at Camp Randall in December and left for the South on March 2, 1862.

On December 30, 1862, at the battle of Stones River, Heg’s regiment lost more than 100 men. His horse was shot out from under him and his general called him “the bravest of the brave.” In February 1863 Heg was put in command of the entire brigade and pursued retreating Confederate troops through Tennessee, briefly into Alabama, and across the state line to Chickamauga, Georgia.

On the afternoon of September 19, 1863, Heg was charging forward at the front of his troops when he was shot in the abdomen. He managed to stay in the saddle for a short time, but loss of blood compelled him to leave the field and move to a hospital behind the lines where he died the next morning.

Democrats hope to win Wisconsin back in the 2020 presidential election.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His new book, RED NOVEMBER, is available for pre-order. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

NEW CIVIL WAR! Five States Considering Some Form of SECESSION!


osted By Paul Duke | 

The anger and animosity of the American populace is boiling over in 2020, just as we prepare to head to the polls to elect our next President. Perhaps it is this electoral endeavor that has us so inexorably angry.  These cyclic events do tend to sharpen the divide between left and right here in the United States, and this election in particular feels personal, if we’re being honest.

And while it may sound alarmist to insinuate that our nation is as divided as it was before the Civil War, there is evidence piling up that seems to support this idea.

“Oregon is controlled by the northwest portion of the state, Portland to Eugene. That’s urban land, and their decisions are not really representing rural Oregon,” said Mike McCarter, president of Move Oregon’s Border for a Greater Idaho. “They have their agenda and they’re moving forward with it, and they’re not listening to us.

In Virginia, the newly elected Democratic majority’s progressive legislation on issues such as gun rights has spurred “Vexit,” or “Virginia exit,” a campaign to merge right-tilting rural counties into neighboring West Virginia that organizers say has the potential to catch fire nationwide.

And there’s more!

In New York, the idea is to shear The Big Apple off of something they’d call “New Amsterdam”, relegating the Five Burroughs to an existence akin to the District of Columbia.

For California, a three-way split has been imagined.

Unlike the first Civil War, however, there doesn’t appear to be a single “rights” issue that is driving these secessionists.  Instead, these potential maneuvers are being considered on account of an overall disdain for the “other side’s” political beliefs, with rural locales railing against metropolitan municipalities down their predictably partisan lines.

Dems AWOL as Last Week Marked 153 Years Since the GOP Outlawed Slavery Forever


Reported By Cillian Zeal | December 10, 2018 at 9:03am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/dems-awol-last-week-marked-153-years-since-gop-outlawed-slavery-forever/

The Lincoln Memorial

The Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. (KSB / Shutterstock)

It’s a fairly short piece of law, too: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction,” the amendment reads.

It also gives Congress the power to enforce the law.

Now, the traditional anniversary of the end of slavery, at least in the African-American community, is Juneteenth — June 19, the date in 1865 when Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger of the Union Army read the Emancipation Proclamation to slaves in Galveston, Texas. However, when the 13th Amendment celebrated its 153rd birthday on Dec. 6, it didn’t get a whole lot of mention. And what definitely didn’t get mentioned is that it wouldn’t exist if Democrats had their way.

As Ourdocuments.gov notes, “The 13th Amendment was passed at the end of the Civil War before the Southern states had been restored to the Union and should have easily passed the Congress.

“Although the Senate passed it in April 1864, the House did not. At that point, Lincoln took an active role to ensure passage through Congress. He insisted that passage of the 13th Amendment be added to the Republican Party platform for the upcoming presidential elections. His efforts met with success when the House passed the bill in January 1865 with a vote of 119–56.”

Indeed, it had to be ratified before the Southern states rejoined the union. The reason is that the Democrats considered Dixie their own personal fiefdom up until the late 1960s. Jim Crow laws, segregated schools, the KKK, massive resistance, eugenics — all of these things were brought to you by the Democratic Party and vigorously fought by the Republicans.

But, you say, what about the “great switch?” That’s when the Democrats supposedly became the party of racial justice, all put into motion to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Well, yes, about that. The bill couldn’t have passed without Republican support.

Even the U.K. Guardian, of all sources, notes that “80 percent of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70 percent of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.”

The vote was taken during the “Solid South” era, where almost every elected official below the Mason-Dixon was a Democrat. Only eight out of 102 representatives from the former Confederacy voted for the bill in the House and one of 22 voted for it in the Senate.

Yet, the fact that the South is now pretty solidly Republican always brings a asking from Democrats, who constantly mistake the new South — the product of economic growth and migration — with the old South they provided over for so many years.

They lament the racism they so successfully fomented for years, as if their party played no role in it. They’ve washed their hands clean. As “penance,” they’ve taken on a different form of identity politics which doesn’t involve standing in the schoolhouse door but is every bit as pernicious.

That’s why the 13th Amendment ought to be celebrated a bit more, we think. Not only did it officially end slavery and passed without Democratic support, it had to be passed before the Southern Democrats could rejoin the Union, lest they continue one of the most evil practices in the history of this planet.

The Democrats have always been the party of oppression and identity politics, whether it be Dec. 6, 1865 or Dec. 6, 2018. If only America would remember that. The Democrats would certainly prefer you didn’t.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Summary

More Info Recent Posts

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech. Exercising it there under his given name could put him in danger.

Possibility of New Civil War Reiterated by Recent Pew Research Study


Reported By Andrew West | October 5, 2017

Radical Left LITERALLY Calling for CIVIL WAR on November 4th


Reported By Andrew West | August 22, 2017

More Politcally INCORRECT Cartoons for Wednesday August 16, 2017


HTTP://TOWNHALL.COM

https://tribunecontentagency.com/premium-content/editorial-cartoons/conservative-cartoons/dana-summers/

 

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Tuesday August 15, 2017


HTTP://TOWNHALL.COM

 

Tag Cloud