Sticking up for Robert E. Lee

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

Many nations around the globe know nothing but civil war – where year after year one faction is conquered or deposed by another, or a minority takes up arms against the majority, or a least the present ruling party, and this guerilla warfare often goes on for years.

We see or hear of these far away places like Africa or the Middle East, and just shake our heads at how backward and uncivilized they are.

Of course we don’t have any of those petty third world type problems here in the U.S. We wouldn’t have time for such frivolous things anyway. We’re too busy tackling the important issues of the day – like trying to completely erase our history by tearing down statues and plaques that supposedly make a very select few squeamish.

We in America will not tolerate any hurt feelings. Even if those feelings are illogical and based entirely on lies and half-truths regarding these inanimate antagonists.

The inanimate objects causing the greatest consternation are the many statues of that Confederate fiend, General Robert E. Lee. He is considered a blight on America for he was willing to not just take up arms, but lead an entire army, to defend the right to own slaves, not realizing how bad it will make pampered Americans feel over 150 years later. read more

Pro-Communist Protesters don’t Really Care about Slavery

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

There is nothing good about slavery. Owning another human being is lower than low. I would hope we can all agree.

We on the reasonable right knew that this push to expunge slave owners from American history would not end with Civil War statues, monuments and the like. We knew these radicals wouldn’t be satisfied with just Civil War era slave holders. We knew it would rapidly jump to the Founding Fathers (as it has),– the same Founders that the progressive left has been trying to erase since the days of Woodrow Wilson.

We also know that it won’t end with the slave-owning Founders. We know that this is a means to an end. If our political leadership – locally, and at the State and Federal level, continue to capitulate to, or worse, join these ill-guided rabble-rousers, the next demand will be to insist that our founding documents are, by default, illegitimate.

If Washington, Jefferson, Madison, et al, are erased, how could the documents they created live on?

The supposed protesters don’t really care about slavery. If they did, they would be forced to take a good long look at the ideology they are promoting. Communism has enslaved many millions more people than all American slave holders/traders combined. read more

Don’t TIP Your Wait Staff – It’s Racist

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

People do some pretty dopey things in the name of idealism. But this is America, where a private citizen or even a private business owner can be as dumb as they wish.

Danny Meyer

Danny Meyer, the mega-millionaire owner and founder of the popular chain of “Shake Shack” burger joints has decided that the wait staff at his 100 locations will no longer be allowed to accept tips for good service.

And why? Well, he says tipping is racist. Yes tipping was developed to skirt post-Civil War slavery laws, despite the fact it was in use in Europe well before the war.

He adds that black wait staff also are tipped below their white counterparts.

Meyer calls the tip, which is short for “To Insure Promptitude,” one of the biggest hoaxes ever pulled on an entire culture. You don’t see it in Asia, you don’t see it primarily in most European countries.” Ummm…yeah you do – maybe not in Japan, but certainly in Europe.

Still if Meyer wishes to use a socialist model for his restaurants, where outcomes are equal, regardless of performance, he’s welcome to do so. He’s welcome to remove the incentive for his employees to do a better job for their customers.

This got me to thinking. What else in America should be ceased, halted or eradicated because of racism, or at the very least developed or promoted by racists? Turns out – lots of things. read more

Obama – the Great Divider

from my Joke Man Fred:

After the terrorist slaughter of policemen in Dallas, it’s fair to say that Barack Obama might well be the worst president in U.S. history. Here’s why.

The keynote of America’s domestic politics for the last 60 or 70 years—from sometime between the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v Board of Education school desegregation decision and the 1964 Civil Rights Act—has been the nation’s effort to undo the heinous wrongs that slavery and Jim Crow perpetrated on black Americans ever since the first slave was brought here in the 1640s. I am old enough to have had friends who were Freedom Riders, white college kids who went to Mississippi to register black citizens to vote. One I’ll never forget returned with tales of old people, whom legal chicanery had blocked from voting all their lives, marveling in almost Biblical language that such a miracle could be occurring in their own lifetimes, in their own towns. I remember how Sherriff Bull Connor turned the fire hoses and German Shepherds on those civil rights protesters, black and white, in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963, and how that same year governor George Wallace stood at the door of the University of Alabama to prevent the enrollment of two black students, proclaiming himself Jefferson Davis’s spiritual heir and vowing “segregation forever!” But what I most remember is skinny Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach walking heroically down that hostile Alabama street—alone, but followed by federal marshals—to force Wallace to stand aside and let the two students enter. It was as heart stopping as Gary Cooper walking toward the showdown on Main Street in High Noon.

I also remember how civil rights zeal turned into zealotry. We made the integration of our schools, and then the closing of the black-white achievement gap, our principal educational goal for half a century, with the unintended consequence that we neglected actual education and turned urban schools into machines for perpetuating black failure. Judge-ordained busing in Boston, completely contrary to the terms of the Civil Rights Act, made the schools more segregated than ever. A judge-ordained Kansas City school-funding-equalization order, forcing local taxpayers to shell out $2 billion  over  a decade, including building a bizarrely unnecessary Olympic swimming pool, produced no educational gains whatsoever and proved to anyone with eyes to see that money was not the key to racial equality in education.

Then, the colleges turned to affirmative action in admissions, the ed schools taught their students not how to teach or what facts they needed to transmit but only “social-justice” ideology, and deans of diversity began to outnumber actual teachers on college campuses. The professors themselves brought the stupendous achievements of Western culture under the suspicion of creating nothing but racial inequality (and later an unimaginably broad smorgasbord of inequity). They replaced Plato with Ta-Nehisi Coates. read more

Constitution 101 (7)

Lesson 7: “Crisis of Constitutional Government”

Study Guide

Overview:

At the heart of the American constitutional crisis of the mid-nineteenth century stood the moral, social, and political evil of slavery. At stake in this crisis was the future of republican self-government.

Abraham Lincoln saw the dilemma facing the nation as the “crisis of a house divided.” While the American Founders worked to put slavery, as Lincoln said, “on the course of ultimate extinction,” the institution had instead flourished in the first half of the nineteenth century. By the 1850s, efforts to expand slavery threatened to tear the nation apart.

Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas championed the idea that Americans living in the territories should choose whether or not slavery should be legal there. “Popular sovereignty” eventually became the law of the land with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

For Lincoln, “popular sovereignty” was an abandonment of moral principle. Man does not have a moral right to choose a moral wrong. Self-government cannot mean ruling other human beings without their consent. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, although disguised in the language of liberty and self-government, was in fact at odds with the core principles of the American regime.

The Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision marked a further departure from the principles of the American Founding. Writing for the majority in 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that the Founders never intended for the principles of natural right enunciated in the Declaration to apply to blacks—whether enslaved or emancipated. Furthermore, Congress had no right to ban slavery in the territories. For Lincoln and the opponents of slavery, this decision was not only constitutionally and historically wrong, but it also further enabled the legal expansion of slavery nationwide.

Lincoln and Douglas debated both popular sovereignty and the Dred Scott decision in their Illinois Senate race of 1858. Douglas maintained that self-government and slavery were compatible and mutually beneficial in certain climates, and it was up to the majority of citizens to determine whether or not the conditions prevailing in their territory or state made slavery useful. Lincoln countered that republicanism and slavery could never exist in harmony, and that self-government could never be compatible with the denial of consent. America, he held, could not long exist half slave and half free; it must become one or the other.