There Goes Robert E. Lee

 Christopher Caldwell explores the manner in which the Left now hates the very idea of America, including the Civil War.  

The controversy over Robert E. Lee is not just a matter of “refighting the Civil War.” On the contrary, it denies the relevance of the Civil War as we have up till now understood it....

Appomattox, far from being the moment when Americans began to reunite with malice toward none, with charity for all, becomes the moment when whites—North and South—unite against blacks, an episode in the history of a tyranny, a tyranny we inhabit to this day, which stands in need of a root-and-branch reconstruction.

 

 Whereas earlier Americans understood slavery primarily as a problem of liberty, today’s Americans understand it primarily as a problem of race. It seemed for several generations that the end of slavery had removed the only obstacle to honoring both sides of the Civil War. But in the newest generation, the persistence of American racial prejudice can be a reason to honor neither.

Read the whole thing. 

The history of America from the Liberal perspective.

America was founded to destroy “native Americans” and to find a place to invent slavery which never existed before.

These slaves built the country, settled the land, fought its wars and invented everything while white male devils whipped the slaves, oppressed women, keeping them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, lying around idly when not destroying the environment.

Christians are hateful bigots who want to ruin your sex life while atheists are enlightened believers in science and Muslims practice the “Religion of Peace™” while living in fear of religious oppression.

Then these racist, bigoted, homophobic, sexist, drug addled, white, male, Bible thumping, deplorable idiots stole the Presidency from Hillary! and elected Donald Trump who will destroy the world.

And that will be the end of history.

Those crazy right wingers and their desire to save nuns the cost of contraceptive coverage

Bud Norman (no fan of Donald Trump) but otherwise a good Republican curmudgeon out of Kansas reviews a new book of revisionist history about Bill Clinton's Presidency in a n article entitled The Future of Bill Clinton's Past.

Now no less a liberal pundit as Thomas Franks is lamenting “Bill Clinton’s odious presidency” in his telling of “the real history of the ’90s,” and it’s something to see. The author of the national best-selling book “What’s the Matter with Kansas?,” which explained that Kansans tend to vote Republican because they’re too crazed by Christianity to embrace the truth faith of socialism, and which was the worst book we ever read on Kansas politics, has a new title out that explains how Clinton’s tenure was a disaster for a liberals. He grudgingly concedes that Clinton achieved modest increases in the minimum wage and top tax tax brackets, and made a failed attempt at health care reform, but notes that the rest of what he’s remembered for was mostly the doing of the hated House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his fellow right-wingers and that even the economic good times were largely a matter of accounting tricks and Enron-schemes and dot-com bubbles.

As much as we’re delighted to hear such a left-winger as Franks at long last acknowledge these points, it is of course in service of the liberal agenda. Those tawdry sex scandals are now conceded, but that’s only because the religious right is now reduced to fighting for the right not to participate or same-sex weddings and saving nuns the cost of contraceptive coverage, and the woman who defended her husband’s serial abuses is now out on the campaign trail saying that any woman who alleges a sexual assault should be believed. Those tough-on-crime measures saved thousands of black lives, but now there’s a Black Lives Matter movement that is more concerned about the mass incarceration of murderers of black men and women. Don’t mention trade deals on a Democratic campaign trail, either, or even a Republican one, because those are now out of fashion, no matter what economic benefits they’ve brought. That welfare reform bill that proved so popular and effective prior to its repeal-by-executive-action under President Barack Obama is now described as “the repeal of welfare,” and the distaff Clinton is to be tarred with that as well. There’s no mention of the awful affordable housing policies that drove a housing bubble whose popping popped the entire economy, which of course is all blamed on those de-regulations, or how the lack of concern with Middle Eastern terrorism might have manifested itself a few months into Clinton’s successor’s first term, so it’s not an altogether satisfying revisionism.

Bud's always a good read, especially when he's off his hobby horse of Trump bashing.

Here's how academia views history

The Declaration of Independence is the most racist, sexist, and bigoted document written since Hammurabi’s Code. Completely devoid of the ideals of equality, inclusivity, and sensitivity, this document has led to horrible things like oppression, imperialism, and George W. Bush.

Written by a privileged, white male rapist slave owner to avoid paying taxes to a centralized government, it was signed by a non-diverse panel of rich white men for the purpose of independently oppressing colonized ethnic minorities and women while abusing the environment.

Just take a look at the way it was written: “When in the course of human events…” This presupposes human interests above animal rights and the environment’s wellbeing.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men…” This is an overtly sexist and exclusive claim that the privileged class of straight, white men can monopolize truth.

“…are created equal…” This assumes a deist creationist perspective that denies the scientific facts of biological evolution. It also upholds the “good old boy” patriarchal principle that all privileged white men are the only ones equal in the eyes of the law. That’s part of the problem.

The Declaration of Independence is misleading in that it does not reflect the convergence of Asians, Africans, and Native Americans in the development of the United States. All who signed this document should be protested until they resign their respective positions of employment while undergoing mandatory sensitivity training.

For more ways to correctly view the past, read the whole thing.

What Liberals, Leftist and Osama bin Laden have in common

We note that nutcases on the Left are accusing Republicans sound just like ISIS leaders because ISIS leaders and Republican agree on the nature of radical Islam.

He notes that al-Baghdadi has said that he is waging a war of Muslims against non-Muslims, just as the Republicans have said that al-Baghdadi is waging a war of Muslims against non-Muslims. As if that weren’t damning enough, Saletan also notes that al-Baghdadi has said that his version is Islam is incompatible with western values, and that there are verses in the Koran and Hadith that urge violent jihad against non-Muslims, and sure enough many of those Republicans agree.

 In other words, Republicans are taking ISIS at its word, which makes them just alike.

Now it appears the bin Laden agreed with many of the writers on the Left, having some of the more unhinged in his library.

We’re the snoopy sorts who will always seize the opportunity of a party to look over the nearest bookshelf, assuming there is one, and glean whatever insights it offers into the host’s mind. The fine folks at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence apparently share the same fascination with other people’s reading habits, and have helpfully compiled a list of the books that our brave fighting men seized during their raid on the home of the late Osama bin-Laden.

It’s a fascinating collection, although much of it is surprisingly familiar to anyone who has lately been invited to the home of an up-to-date American liberal. The list includes “Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies” and “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance” by Noam Chomsky, the esteemed linguist and far-left political analyst, “The Best Democracy that Money Can Buy” by far-left journalist Greg Palast, “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower” and “Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II” by far-left historian William Blum, as well as several other similarly fashionable far-left titles. We couldn’t find Frantz Fanon’s “Wretched of the Earth” or anything by Maya Angelou or the “magical realists” of South America on the list, but otherwise bin-Laden seemed to share the same literary tastes as President Barack Obama or any other impeccable liberal. We’ve long marveled at the way pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, anti-God leftists have found so much common ground with Islamists who execute homosexuals and subjugate women in an attempt to impose totalitarian theocratic control, but their overlapping reading lists suggest they at least share the same dissatisfaction with western civilization.

Based on bin-laden’s reading list we can attribute the 9/11 attack on Leftist American writers? After all, who would not want to destroy the World Trade Center and everyone in it if your reality is the world created by the Left? We can be grateful that these people are not more widely read or we would have had more terrorist attacks.

Here’s a flashback to what the Democrats, including Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, were saying on Iraq before the invasion: