Selective historical airbrushing

The City of New Orleans is busy purging itself of Confederate statues, since these offend the tender sensibilities of today’s historically illiterate crybullies.  But if they’re determined to remove all vestiges of monuments to people who ever held racist sentiments, there’s work waiting for them in Washington, D.C.:

Lincoln white copy

It’s true Lincoln desired the limitation and eventual extinction of slavery, but it was not for this reason he went to war on his fellow Americans in 1861.  He made this very clear:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.   – Letter to Horace Greeley, 1862

Yes, that previously voluntary Union that was becoming compulsory with no escape during Lincoln’s reign.  “Reign” is too exaggerated, you say?  Look closely again at the monument built to his memory.  Look at the front of the armrests.  They very closely resemble this, the Roman fasces — a symbol of authority in ancient Rome later adopted by Benito Mussolini and his flock of blackshirts… known as the fascists.  All they lack is the axe, but that does not diminish in any way the power unleashed by Lincoln in his War Against the States.  (It’s worth noting the Speaker of the House is flanked by the same imagery — with the axes as well.)  Certainly, today’s America more closely resembles the Imperial Rome of Caligula than the Republic that was swallowed up by Julius Caesar.

So if we’re going to demolish any memory of white supremacy or unConstitutional exercises of power, the Lincoln memorial has to go as well.

Of course, I know better than to hold my breath, waiting for consistency from these little minds that have nothing better to do than tilt at Confederate windmills.

Advertisements

Above the law

More examples of why I say we now have the ‘rule of men,’ not the ‘rule of law’ in this country:

First:  A woman pulled over for a traffic violation chooses to record the stop, and openly notes such to the responding officer… who then responds by physically assaulting her and putting her in jail overnight.  Note the arrogance and air of intimidation of the officer involved: “I know the law better than you” (when in fact, in this case, he didn’t).

Second: shouldn’t those who prosecute offenses against the law be prevented from violating the law in doing so?  In fairness, this particular example is still in play, and may yet result in an affirmation of the rule of law by the Supreme Court.  But in today’s climate (and given SCOTUS rulings in recent years) it would not surprise me if that isn’t the outcome.  Regardless, the known facts of the case illustrate how our legal system (based on an adversarial approach of prosecution and defense) is more about ‘winning’ than it is about ascertaining truth.  This needs to change.

Third: another day, another fatal no-knock raid in the ‘land of the free, home of the brave,’ all in the name of the War of Freedom Drugs.  (Be sure to check out other actions of “LA’s finest” at the end of this story.)  Given this story and the first example above, isn’t it time to revisit the idea of ‘official immunity?’  Should taxpayers continue to be on the hook for large settlements awarded after fairly egregious behavior?  Or is accountability only for the ‘little people’ who pay the bills of the ruling class?

Fourth: the mayor of New York City, a position increasingly known for nannyism by its former and current occupants, announces a major push for traffic safety… then his official caravan is caught breaking enough traffic laws that the drivers — if mere mundanes like the rest of us — would have their licenses suspended.  (Maybe New Orleans can give New York some pointers about holding officials accountable…)

Fifth: higher up the food chain in New York state, the governor’s ‘homeland security’ advisor not only illegally packed heat at work without a proper permit, but used the laser sight on his handgun as a ‘pointer’ during presentations.  (Remember, boys and girls, only the State can be trusted to be responsible with firearms…)  The governor swung into action quickly… retroactively granting the offending staff member a waiver so that he’s “legal” to play with guns at work.

Sixth: the nation’s ‘top law enforcement official’ — the Attorney General — is unable to explain to Congress the Constitutional basis for recent Presidential Executive Orders that modify, not merely execute, laws passed by Congress.

“Do what thou wilt (and can get away with)” seems to be the modus operandi of today’s ruling class.  But the principle still remains: governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.  And any unjust power they accrue and exercise is also only possible when the people meekly assent to the abuses.

Do you consent to this environment, America?  If not, what are you going to do about it?