Monumental Dishonesty

By | 2017-06-02T18:30:05+00:00 December 6, 2017|
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Walk around any college campus, and you will see the names of distinguished faculty and generous donors adorning most of the buildings. Likewise, many campuses feature statues, memorials, or plaques dedicated to individuals or events of historical significance to that particular school, or the school’s home state. Such monuments typically seek to connect us with the past by preserving the memory of someone or something of consequence—institutional history.

Remembering the past is not the same as celebrating it, but erasing the past dooms us to forget the lessons it offers—both good and bad.

Although the coverage in the media has dissipated, the craze for monument destruction has not abated in the wake of the Charlottesville uproar this summer. Indeed it has spread, especially on college campuses. Oregon State University is just one school where the mania has reached a fever pitch. Not content to erase all memory of those with confirmed pro-slavery views (in a state that never allowed slavery), OSU has now moved on—in many cases without solid or tangible evidence—to remove the names of persons rumored or “suspected” of possibly harboring such regrettable views.

But OSU is not unique in its willingness to tear down its past.

In recent years, other universities—including my alma mater, the University of Texas—have begun renaming buildings and mothballing statuary recognizing Confederate-era figures who have fallen out of political fashion. The stated concern is that students with delicate sensibilities might be offended by a reminder of uncomfortable periods in history, in the unlikely event that they even bothered to notice the objectionable statues or were aware of the figures whose names are engraved on the pedestal or building wall. Texas was part of the Confederacy, so cleansing the UT campus of imagery related to the Civil War effectively expunges an important part of the state’s heritage.

I suspect that the real motive for removing historical references is not to make the campus “inclusive,” or to provide students with a “safe space,” but rather of advancing identity politics—pitting people against one another based on group characteristics. Another factor is a simple desire on the part of the Left—now dominant in higher education—to exert its power. As John Davidson has noted, “the purpose of this relentless war on the past is not really to adjudicate America’s historical sins or educate the young about them, but to justify political force in the present day.”

Moreover, the movement to airbrush unpopular historical symbols out of public view is a manifestation of the utopian notion that human beings, no matter how accomplished, must be perfect—by modern standards—to deserve our respect. This is a wholly unrealistic conception of history.  All great men and women exhibited flaws, and judging them from the perspectives of today ignores the prevailing mores and attitudes of the past. Historians refer to this as the fallacy of presentism.  

At UT, the process began in 2010, when the university renamed one of its oldest dormitories (Simkins Hall) because its namesake, a Civil War veteran and renowned member of the UT law faculty for 30 years (1899-1929), was—like Justice Hugo Black, Senator Robert Byrd, and many others liberal heroes from that time—involved in the Ku Klux Klan as a young man. The sanitized name is now Creekside Hall. This was the first domino to fall.

In 2015, another domino fell, in response to the church shooting by deranged loner Dylann Roof in Charleston, South Carolina. Roof, it may be recalled, had posed for a photo with a Confederate battle flag prior to the shooting. This prompted many timorous bureaucrats in Southern states to over-react, including UT’s President, Greg Fenves, who quickly sought political cover by appointing a task force loaded with administration cronies and progressive activists to recommend whether an assortment of Confederate-era statuary, which had stood on the campus’s main mall for 82 years, should be removed.

The result, of course, was preordained by the composition of the task force, headed by UT’s diversity czar.

Fenves predictably acceded to the panel’s recommendation by ordering the removal of a bronze statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis that had stood on campus since 1933. A companion bronze statue of President Woodrow Wilson was also removed, in order to “maintain symmetry” on the mall.  Both statues, by the noted sculptor Pompeo Coppini, had been commissioned by George Littlefield, an early UT regent and major donor. (The Italian-born Coppini also created the Alamo Cenotaph, sometimes referred to as the “Spirit of Sacrifice,” to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Texas’s independence from Mexico in 1836.)  Fenves concluded that “it is not in the university’s best interest to continue commemorating” Davis on the UT campus, although Fenves pointedly rejected demands that four other Confederate-era statues by Coppini (including one of General Robert E. Lee) be removed from campus, on the ground that the four had deeper ties to Texas than Davis did.

Fenves’ show of resolve was short-lived. Earlier this year, following the violent altercation in Charlottesville, Virginia sparked by a protest against that city’s removal of a Lee statue from a city park, a squeamish Fenves abruptly had the remaining four Coppini statues—including one depicting a former Texas governor and UT benefactor—removed from campus overnight. Fenves explained that “those parts of our history that run counter to the university’s core values, the values of our state and the enduring values of our nation do not belong on pedestals in the heart of the Forty Acres. We do not choose our history, but we choose what we honor and celebrate on our campus.” Quite a pirouette! More dominoes fell.

A statue of George Washington remains on the UT campus—at least for now—as does a large fountain by Coppini, also endowed by Littlefield, whom the Left reviles as a former Confederate officer and sympathizer. (Fenves has already ordered an “offensive” inscription removed from the fountain that he previously said would remain.) Critics also complain that two UT buildings are named after alleged segregationists (T.S. Painter and Robert Lee Moore). Will these “sins” be corrected by removing or re-naming the offensive symbols? Fenves’ feckless record to date offers little reason to believe otherwise.

But if statues of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and other Confederate-era figures are undeserving of display on campus because they are imperfect—too flawed to warrant the public recognition once felt to be appropriate—one has to ask: Do any of our heroes meet this lofty standard? The UT campus also displays statues commemorating Barbara Jordan, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Cesar Chavez (among many others). Mega-donor Joe Jamail has two statues. Are these icons faultless?

Jordan was the first African-American woman from the South to be elected to Congress, but her views on immigration were unfashionably strict by present standards. If a thin-skinned UT student was so inclined, he could object to Jordan’s leadership of an immigration commission in the 1990s that recommended many reforms similar to those advocated by President Donald Trump, including a reduction of legal immigration, elimination of most family-based admissions, an increased emphasis on assimilation and English language training, and making illegal aliens ineligible for publicly-funded services. Like Trump, Jordan also opposed granting amnesty to those who entered the country illegally.

King was a courageous civil rights leader and important proponent of nonviolence, but he was also a plagiarist and notorious philanderer who associated with Communist agents. Chavez founded the United Farm Workers union, but his autocratic leadership accomplished little to improve the conditions of farmworkers and he worked to deport illegal aliens who didn’t honor UFW picket lines. Chavez’s  biographer, Miriam Pawel, documents his corruption and self-dealing. Jamail, an impressive courtroom advocate, personified professional incivility, and was publicly admonished by the Delaware Supreme Court for his rude and vulgar behavior. I bring this up, not to discredit these liberal icons, but to point out that even “heroes” have flaws–and in some cases, significant ones.

Take Malcolm X, for example, who was a convicted felon and former pimp and drug addict. In his Pulitzer Prize-winning biography, Manning Marable documents that as a disciple of the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X advocated racial separatism, black nationalism, and anti-Semitism, and proselytized that white people are “devils” and that blacks are superior to whites. Malcolm X, who denounced Rev. King as an “Uncle Tom,” was a complicated figure whose views evolved over the course of his life, and he is now regarded as an inspirational leader to many African-Americans. But he is hardly flawless. Yet, since 1995, UT has maintained a student lounge for black students named after Malcolm X. (As a thought experiment, imagine the reaction if UT (or another school) were to establish a lounge for white students and name it after Lester Maddox, George Wallace, or Bull Connor.) Again, my point is not to criticize Malcolm X, but to point out that this icon is imperfect.

The double-standard must stop. Otherwise, the historical monument demolition campaign will not end with Robert E. Lee and other Confederate-era figures. Statues of Christopher Columbus have already been vandalized elsewhere. At a Virginia church, historical references to George Washington have been removed because he was a slave owner—as were many of the founding generation. Are Jefferson and Lincoln, who were not saints, next? Ad infinitum, so the dominoes fall. Our entire national heritage—our collective memory—is at risk.  

About the Author:

Mark Pulliam

Mark Pulliam is a lawyer and commentator who fled California and now lives in Austin, Texas. He is a contributing editor at the Library of Law and Liberty.

  • Joel Mathis

    The problem isn’t that figures like Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee are “flawed.” The problem is that the reasons they were honored with monuments – betrayal of the union on behalf of the protection of slavery – is … a reason they shouldn’t have monuments. That’s not an “oopsie” on otherwise glistening record: It’s the record.

    • Party of Lincoln

      Exactly. I actually endorse keeping these statues of Davis, Lee and other Confederate heroes, but we should be honest about the “cause” each of them fought for.

      They betrayed the Union on behalf of the protection of slavery. Too many Americans revere those who fought to defend slavery, but by keeping these statues up we can only pray that someday our grandchildren and their grandchildren will live in a society which is unequivocal in its condemnation of slavery and the pathetic attempts at distorting the Constitution, what Lincoln called the Frame of Silver, in defense of slavery. The Framers framed a Constitution for a people they fully understood was not ready to abolish slavery, but they believed framed a Constitution that would lead the eventual destruction of slavery. Confederate heroes such as Davis and Lee risked their lives and that of hundreds of thousands of other Americans to destroy the monumental achievement of the Framers.

      The Party of Lincoln who opposed the Confederates treasonous effort to destroy the Union.

      The historical amnesia and moral obfuscation on “American Greatness” — “because they are imperfect”, as though anyone is holding “imperfection” as the reason we should not honor Davis and Lee — is a disgrace to the cause to which Lincoln dedicated his life.

      • Europa

        The Confederate States had a right to secede and that was denied. Lincoln wanted to preserve the union far more than ending slavery. The Union was formed by consent which any state could dissolve. Lincoln forced the Union using a military

        • Party of Lincoln

          No state has a “right to secede” and no state may “dissolve” the Union.

          Confederates, and now you, made this argument, but this argument has no constitutional basis. Confederates concocted this argument to shield slavery from the prospect of its abolition and the emancipation of millions of slaves. To remind ourselves of the horrors of slavery and the constitutional illiteracy it bred, we must never destroy Confederate statues. We must never forget their crimes against humanity and against the teachings of Jesus Christ.

          • Dusty Thompson

            America’s Constitution doesn’t begin with “We the State”

          • BayouKiki

            Where is it stated that no state has a right to secede??

          • Party of Lincoln

            In Texas v White (1869), the Supreme Court held that a state may not unilaterally secede from the United States.

            In his majority opinion, Justice Chase wrote that the United States is not a mere “compact”, that the union of Texas (and every other states upon its admission) was “complete”, “perpetual” and “indissoluble”. In pertinent part, the Court held “There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”

            In other words, the only constitutional form of secession from the Union is with the consent of the other States. Today, as it has been since the founding of the republic, no state may unilaterally secede from the United States. Neither Texas, New York nor California may unilaterally secede from the Union. This is consistent with the original intent of the Founders.

      • Matthew Tenney

        Lincoln is the disgrace. Lincoln was a white supremacist who, even through December of 1862, had hoped to get blacks to leave the country. Lincoln’s one and only concern was to stop secession and he didn’t care if he had to kill every man, woman and child in the south or north to do it. Other countries both before and after our Civil War managed to abolish slavery without war. Allowing seven states to go in peace would not have destroyed the Union, in fact, many people thought it would make the Union stronger. The one reason Lincoln opposed secession is that it would have ended his political career.

        • Dusty Thompson

          The man who freed people from teh enslavement of Democrats is a hero. Youre a disgrace and you have the intelligence of a gnat.

          The KKK is the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party. You had better wash your sheets.

          • Matthew Tenney

            Do you know that insults and mockery are hallmarks of a bully? Google it.

        • Party of Lincoln

          You fail to discern the distinction between racism and white supremacy.

          Even if it were conceded that Lincoln was a racist (a typical liberal ad hominem attack which gained currency in the 1960s), he was never a white supremacist.

          The white supremacist believes that the legal framework should be constructed to empower whites to impose their will on blacks. The aparthied regime in South Africa is an example of the kind of regime that a white supremacist honors. Another regime that a white supremacist honors is the Confederate States of America.

          Lincoln ordered the destruction of the Confederate States of America. This is historical fact that’s beyond any denial even here on American Greatness.

          This claim is one I’ve never heard before, not even from radical leftists:

          “The one reason Lincoln opposed secession is that it would have ended his political career.”

          This is one of the most preposterous and historically illiterate statements I’ve ever read in the Lincoln slander, literature which has gained a toehold into conservative thought in the very recent past (see some of the writings post-Charlottesville). The Republican Party was founded as an anti-slavery party (see the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854), which most Republicans viewed as an abomination. What divided Republicans, however, was how best to achieve the goal of destroying slavery — direct abolition or allowing slavery to die a slow death. Lincoln was in the latter camp. Lincoln detested slavery but strongly opposed abolition. What he also opposed was the expansion of slavery into the territories. The South seceded, of course, despite Lincoln’s pledge that he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed. This assurance wasn’t good enough for the slaveholding class and secession was in the works, a decision which of course resulted in the destruction of the privileges they fought to protect.

          There is, however, not a scintilla of evidence to support the slander that “the one reason Lincoln opposed secession is that it would have ended his political career.” It would have been, in truth, political suicide for Lincoln to have allowed secession to go unchallenged.

          • Matthew Tenney

            “It would have been, in truth, political suicide for Lincoln to have allowed secession to go unchallenged.” I agree. Take a look are current politicians. How far would a politician go to avoid political suicide? For every politician, including Lincoln, decisions are made with the overarching goal of maintaining power. Tell me. Would you have invaded the south if you were in Lincoln’s position but knew that it would cost 800 thousand lives and cause bitter resentments that would last centuries?

    • Matthew Tenney

      Lincoln started the war. If he had simply evacuated Ft. Sumter, there would not have been war. Ft. Sumter was indefensible and so there was no military reason to stay there. Declaring war is a congressional responsibility and so Lincoln’s invasion was illegal. He arranged for the deaths of 800 thousand Americans. He invented the concept of total war. He invented the scorched earth policy. He arrested his critics and suspended habeas corpus.

      • Dusty Thompson

        The little ignorant NAZI named Matt doesn’t like that Black people were freed from Democrats, but instead pretends its about “States rights to enslave anyone.” We get it Matthew, sheesh… I dont think you understand you’re a DEMOCRAT, lolol…

        • BayouKiki

          One thing I like about this site is that commenters discuss without sarcasm and childish name calling. I wish you’d consider that before posting again

        • Matthew Tenney

          Suppose the south had been the progressive one and had freed it’s slaves and was angry that the north wouldn’t abolish slavery and so the south wanted to secede because of that. Do you think Lincoln would have given permission to secede? I don’t. That’s why I think that the reason for the south seceding isn’t relevant.

      • Party of Lincoln

        The Civil War was “started” by the states which purported to secede from the Union, using violence to do so. This is historical fact.

        I hope Professor Jaffa’s students, many of whom keep American Greatness going, are paying attention to the growth of Lincoln hatred that coincides with the rise of Trump.

        Jaffa dedicated his career, both political and academic, to the recovery of America’s first principles, which rightly understood to be best exemplified by the statesmanship of Lincoln. Jaffa explained in meticulous detail and with undeniable power what was at stake in 1858 and in 1860, and why Lincoln was right when he argued that the United States could not endure half-slave and half-free.

        The frame of mind that slanders Lincoln has a rich history. First, it was the Dunning School which glorified the Lost Cause thesis. Then it was the Black Power movement in the 1960s. Today’s neoconfederates have taken up the cause of slandering Lincoln.

        It is precisely this reason, a profound misunderstanding of why the Civil War was fought, that the statutes revering Davis, Lee, Forrest and other Confederate traitors must remain forever. Americans and the rest of the world must never forget the atrocities they risked their lives to glorify.

        • Matthew Tenney

          Conclusions are not facts. Most everything you’ve written is based upon emotions. How dare I attack Lincoln. How dare I disregard Jaffa. I’m a neoconfederate. How dare I not recognize the glory of Lincoln. If we demonize people, we’re well on our way to violence.

          • Party of Lincoln

            Sorry, Matthew, but it’s a historical fact that the South resorted to violence and to secede from the Union to defend what they believed to be their constitutional right to own black men and women as slaves.

            Whether the Confederates in 1861 were right to defend slavery is a matter of reasonable debate (not in my mind, but I think you know what I mean), but the fact they they did so is not a matter of factual debate.

            It is also not a matter of factual debate that Lincoln offered a deal to the slaveholders that would have allowed them to keep their slaves. It is a historical fact that the slaveholders rejected Lincoln’s offer and literally and figuratively fired the first shot in a war that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

            You are free to loathe Lincoln, but you will be called out when you lie about him.

          • Matthew Tenney

            Maintaining a fort in someone else’s country is an act of aggression. Everyone knew that trying to resupply that fort was provoking a response. Two things about Lincoln’s offer. One is that it shows Lincoln was ready to throw the blacks under the train if he could prevent secession and two it shows that, by rejecting Lincoln’s offer, it wasn’t about slavery.

          • Party of Lincoln

            The country was, and is, the United States of America.

            South Carolina could no more secede in 1861 than Nebraska could secede today. It takes an act of Congress of admit new states and it takes an act of Congress to allow states to secede. We are governed by the Constitution, not whims.

            You are right to note that Lincoln was willing to allow the slaveholders to keep their slaves but quite wrong to continue denying that the Civil War was about slavery.

            Where Lincoln drew the line, so to speak, was in denying the right of slaveholders to expand slavery into new states. With the continued expansion of the United States into the western territories, slaveholders understood that if slavery did not expand into the west that the legal status of slavery in the southern states would eventually die a legal and political death. As did Lincoln.

            Both sides understood the stakes and hundreds of thousands of Americans died for their “cause”. The cause for which the soldiers for the Confederate States risked their lives was, to borrow from Taney, the denial that “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it.” (Dred Scott v Sanford)

          • Matthew Tenney

            You’re arguing over legalities (which did lead to 1) deaths of hundred of thousands of American men, women and children 2) bitter resentments lasting for centuries 3)terrible precedents as to the unbridled power of the President during “emergencies”) and I want to argue about the practical solution for ending slavery without all those horrible consequences.

          • Party of Lincoln

            The Constitution is not a mere “legality”.

            Lincoln did offer a “practical solution” to the slaveholders: that they could keep their slaves where they already existed. But where Lincoln and the Republicans could not go is in allowing the expansion of slavery into the western territories. This is what the slaveholders demanded. Not even you can deny this.

            Slaveholders fired the first shot. Lincoln and the Republicans could not allow the dissolution of the United States. No practical solution to avoid war was more practical than the one Lincoln offered.

          • Matthew Tenney

            Does secession of seven low population, low industrial power states equal dissolution? No. There would have been a United States of America consisting of 27 states instead of 34. The economic and military power of the North would have assured that no more territory would be allowed to the CSA. Texas would have seen that the CSA could not protect against Mexican reassertion and most likely would have rejoined the union. The USA would not even have had to give up claim to the seven states, similar to China not giving up claim to Taiwan. The USA could have partnered with Britain to stop the export of slave-grown cotton.

    • BayouKiki

      This country was not that old at the time of the war and it was widely believed that states that agreed to form the union could also opt out. Southern states opted out and the union declared war to keep them in. The union won. Do you think the people of California who talk about seceding know that history?? (Then again, there are many who would gladly say “see ya!”)

      • Micha_Elyi

        “Do you think the people of California who talk about seceding know that history??”–BayouKiki

        Why yes they do. They’re pursuing a negotiated exit. If you knew anything beyond your envy and hatred of all things California then you’d have known that.

    • Mark Pulliam

      Did you read the article? This is not limited to Confederate-era figures. The campaign to remove statues now extends to Woodrow Wilson, Christopher Columbus, George Washington, and former governors of Texas. The dominoes are falling. Jefferson and Lincoln could be next.

      • Micha_Elyi

        “This is not limited to Confederate-era figures.”–Mark Pulliam

        This Leftist iconoclasm isn’t new either. Back in the 1980s, the same sort of agitators were lobbying school boards to take names like Jefferson and Washington off the names of schools because they were slave owners.

  • Europa

    The Confederate monuments are far more than the history of slavery in America, but about the civil war and the right of 11 states to leave the Union according the Declaration of Independence.
    Destroying monuments that reminds one of slavery never stopped slavery. Africa had no monuments praising slavery or memorials to slavery yet for thousands of years slavery was a major industry in Sub Saharan Africa
    Maybe monuments to the whole scale sale of black men, women and children sold by other blacks would have reminded the Africans of the evils of selling their own into slavery.

    • E. +Goldstein

      Slavery is still a thriving business in Muslim Africa, just ask Boca Haram.

      • Europa

        True.There are an estimated 48 million known slaves in the world, with 18 million just in India today.

      • Constitution First

        Notice the outrage of the snowflakes? No, I didn’t either. That makes them cowards, hypocrites or both.

      • Micha_Elyi

        Boca Haram? The name means “school is sin”.

  • History is what happened. You can’t change it because you disapprove. You can’t change it because of slavery. The fact that the South lost the war is part of history, as are the monuments to the Lost Cause. America’s history of going to war about an attempt at secession, the defeat of slavery, and the history of legislative efforts to bring about a kind of social justice are all a part of a remarkably admirable story. What all the monuments are about is the history of a long episode in America’s history. The more that is left makes more of a feast of information to help us understand the whole long history of slavery. I lost two great(?) uncles on each side of the Civil War, and never had that batch of distant cousins I might have had. A Great(x 5 or 6) Grandfather from Pennsylvania owned 5 slaves, who were all freed at his death. My Great (x3) Grandfather from South Carolina moved to Ohio to establish a station on the Underground Railroad for slaves escaping to Canada.

    Stop blathering about tearing down monuments, re-naming buildings, and banishing the memory of anyone who may have owned slaves in the past. Study history more deeply, learn about the Civil War, learn about Slavery. Did you know that of all the slaves shipped from Africa, only a minority ever came to the United States? Do you know a lot about he economics of the time? The only way to understand the times is to study up. The only way to be prepared for the strange things that come along in today’s world is to be informed. Who would have thought with all that history California would be threatening to secede, and a lot of people would be hoping that they would.

    • Barbara

      Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
      On tuesday I got a brand new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It Sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      fz14ssd:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleCashCareerSalePartTImeJobs/computer/jobs ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::fz149lhhh

  • Matthew Tenney

    Secession and war are two entirely different things. Secession wasn’t over slavery, it was over what the south saw as arrogant and tyrannical rule by the northern block of states. It was over what the north saw as southern arrogant aristocrats. Over decades, confirmation bias strengthened these views. The war was over the common idea that the opposing side is inherently evil and being evil gives the other side the right to hate and to kill.

    • Dusty Thompson

      No, the Civil War was about slavery.

      The GOP was a THIRD party elected specifically to end the Democrats enslavement of Black people.

      What you’re arguing is that the GOP was elected to Collectivize/Federalize/Centralize our entire Govt against “Freedom Fighters” of the Confederacy that only want to strengthen Individual rights? Laughably absurd Matt. That you believe that tripe makes you sound really dumb.

      • Matthew Tenney

        Disputes that eventually become violent or go to court started with something concrete like spending but then pride entered and the dispute was over disrespect. See Big Endians versus Little Endians in Gullivers Travels for Swift’s satire on the subject.

    • Brian Goodman

      Ok, name a single states right other than slavery that could not have been resolved without war. One cannot logically state that the civil war was about states rights but not slavery unless you can come up with such a right other than the issue of slavery that was not resolvable.

      • Matthew Tenney

        In all disputes I’ve ever encountered which have led to violence or near violence, pride is the issue. It’s the issue today with the Confederate statues. It was the issue in 1861.

    • Constitution First

      Why let facts get in the way of ideology?

      • Matthew Tenney

        Okay.

  • E. +Goldstein

    The left does not want any heroes to exist. They want equality and that means no one is any better than anyone else. If someone has status above another that is inequality and that is evil to them. They seek to remove the founders as much as the Confederate monuments. Today they are in the process of destroying their own current “heroes.” From Teddy Kennedy to Slick Willie to Hillary, the heroes fall. The left seeks a world where the psychopathic serial killer and Mother Teresa are the same. If all are equal then their worthless pathetic lives mean as much as that of someone who has worked hard for success all their lives.

    • Dusty Thompson

      The ctrl-left doesn’t want equality of Liberty, the ctrl-left demands equality of results…

      • Darlene

        Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
        On tuesday I got a brand new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It Sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        fl161d:
        ➽➽
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleInternetCentreComunityWorkFromHome/make/more ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::fl161lhhh

  • Dusty Thompson

    It’s easy to be an American liberal. Just close your eyes, close your ears, and close everyone’s mouth who disagrees with you. It’s a formula for smug self-satisfaction.

  • S.D. (Bob) Plissken

    “fled California and now lives in Austin, TX” Come on, the dude went to University of Texas. This means he fled Texas for California and then fled back to Texas. He seems to flee a lot.

    • Mark Pulliam

      I spent 32 years in California after finishing law school. Left Texas regretfully in 1980 and returned joyfully in 2012. “Fled” is facetious.

      • Micha_Elyi

        IOW, you’re one of the invaders from Texas who made the Golden State the lump of lead it is today.

        If only there had been a wall to keep Texans out of California.

  • Fox2

    It’s always “Year Zero” for The Revolution.

  • Constitution First

    The very same Progressive ideology that claims they abhor slavery, embraces the murderous communist regimes that systematically killed well over one hundred and sixty million innocent souls in just the last century.

    Never let a cult, such as is the Leftists of today, assume to lecture any of us about morality. Nothing has been more repressive, abusive, Fascist and genocidal as the Left has been in my lifetime. Never mind what happened one hundred and fifty years ago, when none of us where alive who can put it in prospective.

    Where is the Progressive outrage on modern day slavery, or the savage treatment of women of the Middle East Muslims? Crickets! Why? Because they are cowards and hypocrites.

    The only people less intelligent and spineless then the Leftists of today, are the people who kowtow to thier nonesense.

  • RaymondJelli

    The modern university system is like Obamacare. Highly regulated by the feds and the competition is more

    apparent than real. It seems that they would like to make their institutions as vanilla as possible. Real differences in heritages, university goals, tradition etc. would make competition more real than apparent

  • Terenc Blakely

    Leftists are letting their inner Stalinist rage freely. Remember Hillary’s ‘deplorables’ speech? The first thing that popped into my head when she went on about those millions of ‘irredeemables’ out there was ‘death camps’.

  • Brendan Miles

    Sure can tell the author, Mark Pulliam, is from California

    • Micha_Elyi

      Most people who have compared the two, prefer California to Texas.

  • elHombre

    “Presentism,” dishonesty and hypocrisy are all natural offshoots of the moral relativism that defines the left.

  • gacl

    Well written article. I am disgusted to see how successfully today’s political left has branded the US Confederacy as a symbol of evil, not out of some genuine moral concern or objective analysis of history, but out of political self-interest. I wish there was some way I could more meaningfully voice discontent.

  • jskdn

    “Jordan was the first African-American
    woman from the South to be elected to Congress, but her views on
    immigration were unfashionably strict by present standards.”

    Jordan Headed the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform which proposed reforms the anti-borders establishment didn’t want. The archives for the commission were at the University of Texas LBJ School for decades (lbj.utexas.edu/uscir). But they are no longer there. Using the internet WayBack Machine I found records of them until just after Trump was elected. It’s not Jordan as the imaginary symbol as a black woman member of Congress, but her clear-headed views on immigration that’s being excised.

  • Mallet Head

    Look this is simple enough. You have to destroy the past, replace it, control the now, control the future. Does anyone remember who lead, on the behest of what ideology, and for what reason there was a book burning movement back in the 1930’s? Yeah, the more things change ..