Is the Obama Administration breaking the law?

hillary-clinton-blackberry-emailIs the Obama Administration breaking the law in the Hillary Rodham Clinton email scandal? The FBI and the DOJ have been investigating the case for some months now without any perceptible movement.

If it was anyone else there would be a grand jury empaneled and evidence would be submitted to it. But because we’re talking about a Democrat and a Democrat administration things have been adjusted.

The go-slow investigation is proceeding as such a slow pace that it seems that the American people will lose interest and that’s what the Obama administration wants.

They don’t want to be seen as favoring or disfavoring a candidate especially if the President’s good friend and associate, Joe Biden, enters the race.

There is no love lost between the Clintons and the Obamas but there all Democrats and she is the semi-leading candidate. Once considered the anointed successor of Barack Obama she now has even odds to be the nominee.

Let’s look at the potential charges against Hillary and her associates.

Of the many allegations related to Hillary Clinton’s emails the most serious are the findings by two inspectors general that Clinton’s private email server contained classified information and a related referral to the FBI concerning a potential compromise of classified information.”

While details remain unclear, the alleged presence of classified information on a private email server undoubtedly has legal implications for the controversy and places a strain on Clinton’s public defense.

By having a private email server Clinton was attempting to hide correspondence that she did not want revealed through a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request.

Her denial that classified material on her server rings false since everything that the Secretary of State sends and receives must be deemed as classified materials.

For anyone who has witnessed the State Department’s liberal use of redactions of classified information in publicly released documents, the assertion that thousands of emails sent and received by a secretary of state would not contain any classified information, even if only inadvertently, strained credulity.

Predictably, once the State Department began releasing portions of Clinton’s emails, they contained redactions for classified information. Clinton’s ready response was that these were “retroactive” classifications in which previously unclassified information was upgraded to classified when it was reviewed for public release. Therefore, Clinton’s defense that at the time the emails had contained no classified information survived.

The inspectors general found, however, that a sample of Clinton’s emails contains information that was classified “when they were generated,” which therefore “should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.” This is a significant, serious allegation that cannot be lightly dismissed.

To say that the FBI is not carrying out a criminal investigation is specious. All FBI investigations are of a criminal nature. Quite simply, their are in the business of investigating criminal actions.

Wrapped up in the investigation should be the connection between Hillary’s actions at the State Department, her husband’s high paying speeches and donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Nearly two thirds of likely U.S. voters — including 45 percent of Democrats — think it’s likely that some of the actions former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took during her time in office were influenced by donations to the Clinton Foundation, according to a new poll.

Sixty-three percent of likely voters think it’s likely. Eighty-four percent of Republicans, 45 percent of Democrats, and 65 percent of unaffiliated voters agree, with 23 percent of Democrats saying it’s very likely, according to the Rasmussen poll on the subject.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign has had to fend off a recent New York Times report that millions in donations flowed to the Clinton foundation during her time as the nation’s top diplomat from a donor involved in a uranium deal with the Russian government.

The campaign has also dismissed the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash” by conservative author Peter Schweizer, which catalogues foreign contributions to the foundation, as a partisan hit job.

We’ll have to see if the Obama administration believes that we are a nation of laws or nothing better than a ‘banana republic’.



Once you’re a New Yorker, you’re always a New Yorker

September 11, 2001I haven’t lived in New York since 1977, yet I still think of myself as a native New Yorker. It must be my New York accent. It has become smoothed out over the years but it still identifies me. I guess you can take the kid out of Brooklyn, but you can’t take Brooklyn out of the kid. I am a kid no more. On next Wednesday I’ll be 67. I was born on September 16, 1948 in St. Mary’s Hospital in Brooklyn. On my mother’s side of the family I’m an 11th generation New Yorker. On my father’s side only five generations. I lived in Brooklyn 22 of my nearly 67 years.

On September 11, 2001 I was living in Mequon, Wisconsin, a suburb of Milwaukee. I was having breakfast at McDonald’s when I heard that a plane had crashed into one of the World Trade Center Towers. I immediately wondered if had been a small plane that had gotten lost in the early-morning fog. On my way home, where I worked, there were very few details.

I knew the World Trade Center well, every New Yorker did. We watched it as it was being built. Engineers from my alma mater, Manhattan College, supervised the construction from their positions at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Every New Yorker was proud and truly believed that New York as the greatest city in the world deserved not only one but two of the world’s tallest buildings.

After all, when locals refer to New York they only call it The City, as in are you going to The City today. That’s all that’s required in the shorthand language of New York. Johnny Winter celebrated New York in song as did Frank Sinatra.

I’ve lived in New Jersey (New Yorkers refer to it Joisey), Wisconsin and Virginia and trust me New Yorkers are the proudest city-lovers that I’ve ever met.

As far as New Yorkers are concerned New York is tops, nothing to compare with it. After all, it’s the city that never sleeps. Only Las Vegas can say that and their entire city could probably fit in Brooklyn.

On September 11th all native New Yorkers were rocked to the core. How dare they attack our city? They have some nerve. I watched the first responders rush to the scene and up into the towers trying to assist people to safety.

Then the South Tower came down at 9:59 AM, less than an hour after it was hit. The inconceivable had happened. By then we knew we were at war since the Pentagon had been hit. But with whom? Less than a half hour later the North Tower went down.

As I sat staring at my television, I was incredulous. How could this have happened. How could two airplanes bring down two of the tallest, superbly-The Pentagon on September 11, 2001engineered buildings in the world?

The rest is history. “Let’s Roll”, the last words that his wife heard her husband, Todd Beamer, say before he and other passengers stormed the cockpit of United 93 and prevented yet another air assault, probably on the U.S. Capitol building. George Bush’s impromptu speech at Ground Zero. The American attack against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The War in Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Fourteen years later, I still tear up on this day. I still mourn the innocent people who died. I still mourn the firemen, policemen and the other first responders who rushed in to the buildings while others rushed out. There is still a hole in my heart for my birth city and its citizens. I think about them and pray for them all of the time. On this day I am reminded that once you’re a New Yorker, you’re always a New Yorker.

The Last Day of Peace

The World Trade Towers

The World Trade Center Towers on September 11, 2001 REUTERS/Steven James Silva

Today is the last day of peace in our time. Tomorrow we will commemorate the 9/11 attacks that killed almost 3,000 Americans and our friends.

This day is similar to December 6, 1941, the last day of peace before three years and nine months of war. Millions died in the struggle against the Nazis and the Japanese.

Our war has gone on for 14 years so far with no end in sight. Ten of thousands have died. Our current administration would like to ignore this war on terror but the other side keeps interfering with their wishes by staging savage attacks against civilization.

Al-Qaeda (it still exists) and its offspring ISIS or the Islamic State have continued to stage attacks all over the world. We have seen so-called ‘Lone Wolf’ attacks in the United States, Canada, France, Britain and elsewhere around the world.

The two primary jihadi terror organizations have spawned dozens of clones worldwide. In Africa we have al Shabab in Somalia and Yemen and Boko Haram in Nigeria and Cameroon.

Around the globe there are numerous other organizations such as Abu Sayyaf, the al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigades, al-Nusra, AQAP, Ansar al-Sharia just to name a few.

Wherever hate, Islamic fundamentalism and the desire to kill infidels exists there are terror groups willing to hurl themselves into battle.

Our enemies never sleep. They thirst to destroy us ‘root and branch’. But we won’t let them. Despite everything that Barack Obama says and does we will protect our country.

We will do everything possible to make sure that our citizens are safe and sound. If that requires arming ourselves like the Israels, we will do that. If it requires more aggressive policing, we will do that. If it requires profiling, we will do that.

For 14 years we we have protected our country. There have been many side benefits, good and bad, to our actions.

We have lost thousands of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. War is always a blood affair and our war on terror id no different.

At home we have tightened our security at airports, train stations, bridges and tunnels. We have legislated a series of of laws that have curtailed our own personal freedoms. NSA surveillance on our phones and in our homes are just two of the curtailments.

Through it all the American people have not wavered in their determination to never let another 9/11 happen on our soil.

So when you get up tomorrow morning remember the fallen. They died at their posts whether their were office desks, guard stations or flying. They died at the Towers or the Pentagon or on four flights used by the hijackers to attack their targets.

If we’re ever attacked in our homeland let’s all remember the words of Todd Beamer on Flight 93: “Okay, let’s roll”. For all of those who perished on 9/11, we didn’t forget and we never will.


A Long Walk to Freedom

RefugeesNot since the time of Julius Caesar has the Western World seen a massive migration as we are witnessing today.

Huge numbers of refugees from Syria and Iraq are surging North across Turkey and into Greece and Serbia in order to get to the Northern European countries, such as Germany.

There they are being welcomed with food, clothing, housing and monetary stipends to make a new life away from the violence of their homelands.

Several of the countries on their route North have been overwhelmed by the migration. Greece, Hungary and Serbia have pleaded for assistance from their wealthier neighbors.

Germany’s foreign minister is pressing other major powers and Arab nations to ease a funding crunch at the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has appealed for an extra $30.5 million to help deal with Europe’s refugee crisis. Meanwhile, funding shortfalls have forced the U.N. to cut food aid to refugees in countries neighboring Syria over recent months.

Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, whose country holds the Group of Seven presidency, said Wednesday he will organize a meeting of G-7 countries and Syria’s Arab neighbors when the U.N. General Assembly meets later this month.

He told lawmakers his message would be: “If the fate of these people is really close to our hearts, then at least ensure UNHCR gets the necessary money to give them their daily rations.”

Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka says his government’s opposition to mandatory quotas for accepting migrants in the EU member states has not changed.

“The compulsory quotas are not a good solution,” Sobotka said in a statement. “To continue with a discussion about their establishment all across Europe only prevents us from taking really important and necessary steps.”

State Secretary for European Affairs Tomas Prouza told the Czech public television Wednesday: “We consider the quotas nonsensical. They don’t solve the problem.”

The Czechs argue most of the migrants have been heading for Germany and don’t want to migration mapstay in the Czech Republic.

Last Friday, the prime ministers of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Poland rejected calls by Germany and some other EU members for compulsory sharing of refugees.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama, the chief architect of these disastrous events, has chosen not to comment on the migration. Obama, and by association our country, no longer has the right to meddle in European affairs, particularly on the migration crisis.

Right now, the Europeans don’t want to hear Obama’s comments from the peanut gallery.

As debate rages among politicians and pundits in Washington over whether to endorse last month’s historic nuclear compromise with Iran, key European allies have already given their verdict: a resounding thumbs up.

Government ministers and business leaders in France, Germany, Italy and elsewhere in the EU are racing to open up a new era of diplomatic, trade, investment and possible future military cooperation with Tehran, regardless of what American and Israeli sceptics say.

While Americans argue over timescales, technicalities and Iranian trustworthiness, behind their backs the scramble for Persia, recalling Europe’s 19th-century scramble for Africa, has already begun. The cohesion of the international sanctions regime isolating Iran is crumbling by the day.

Europe’s enthusiasm for re-engagement has been welcomed by Iranian government leaders who, like Obama, face domestic opposition from conservative critics of the nuclear deal.

They calculate that the faster and deeper the rapprochement with Europe, the harder it will be to isolate Iran again, even if the nuclear deal collapses. And other major international players like China and Russia, which disliked sanctions all along, will help accelerate Iran’s rehabilitation, if only to steal a march on the US.




Donald Trump’s List of Income Tax Solutions

donald_trumpDonald Trump has admitted he actively works to pay as little as possible in taxes because he despises the way the government utilizes taxpayer funds.

Largely ignored by the news media is that in his 2011 book, “Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again,” the billionaire laid out a plan to completely transform the tax code, with a uniform proposal for all Americans to pay lower taxes.

Trump’s revenue prescription, which he labeled his 1-5-10-15 income-tax plan in the book four years ago, could form the basis for his campaign’s tax proposals.

In the book, Trump decried the current tax code: “Imagine your paycheck was 40 percent higher than it currently is. What could you do with 40 percent more wealth? How many jobs and opportunities for others could you create?

“The longer you really think about it the madder you will get,” he wrote, “especially when you consider the waste, fraud, and abuse the federal government traffics in as it inflicts its self-defeating policies on hard-working Americans.”

Here’s Trump’s proposed income-tax plan:

  • Those making up to $30,000 will pay 1 percent.
  • Income from $30,000 to $100,000 results in a flat 5 percent.
  • $100,000 to $1 million income will be taxed at 10 percent.
  • On $1 million or above will be taxed 15 percent.

“It’s clear and fair,” wrote Trump. “Best of all, it can be filled out on the back of a postcard and will save Americans big bucks on accountants and massive amounts of time wasted attempting to decipher the tax code.”

In the book, Trump offered up a five-point economic plan “that encourages growth, savings, and investment.”

Here is a WND summary of those five points:

1) Abolish the estate or “death” tax

“It’s immoral for the government to tax you after you’re dead,” he wrote, “to seize a portion of your money and property that you spent your life building up, and on which you already paid taxes. Your children deserve your estate, not the federal government.”

Obama in April proposed changes to estate tax that critics say could bring the death tax to an effective rate of 57 percent. Adding in state inheritance taxes, the rate would average 65 percent but could go as high as 67 percent, according to a Heritage Foundation analysis.

Writing in 2011, when Obama proposed moving the death tax to an effective 45 percent, Trump cited a study by former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who found that found the 45 percent rate “is a proven jobs killer, because it will strip $1.6 trillion of small business capital out of the hands of job creators.”

Holtz-Eakin predicted a loss of 1.5 million new jobs.

2) Lower tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

Trump labeled these as “two more taxes that are proven jobs and investment killers.”

“Capitalism requires capital,” the reality star explained. “When government robs capital from investors, it takes away the money that creates jobs – real private sector jobs that contribute to the health of our economy.”

3) Lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate from 39 percent to zero to fuel jobs growth.

4) Punish companies who outsource jobs overseas with a 20 percent tax hike

The billionaire also suggested lowering to zero the tax rate for those companies that outsourced overseas but decided to return to the U.S.

“Bottom line: hire American workers and you win. Send jobs overseas, and you may be fine, but you will pay a tax,” he wrote.

5) The 1-5-10-15 income tax plan for all Americans.

Trump: ‘I fight like hell’ to pay low taxes

Speaking to CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Trump declared, “I fight like hell to pay as little as possible, for two reasons. Number one, I am a businessman, and that’s the way you are supposed to do it. And you put the money back in your company and employees and all of that.”

He continued, “But the other reason is that I hate the way our government spends our taxes. I hate the way they waste our money, trillions and trillions of dollars of waste and abuse. And I hate it.

“And I will be probably the first candidate in the history of politics within this country to say, I try and, like every, by the way, like every single taxpayer out there, I try to pay as little tax as possible, and, again, one of the big reasons is, I hate what our country does with the money that we pay.”
Written by Aaron Klein for WND.

Obama Will Stop at Nothing to Win Elections

         Shouldn’t the focus be on only eligible voters voting? (Photo: EdStock/iStock)

The recently concluded federal trial over North Carolina’s election rules proved one thing beyond a reasonable doubt: The Obama administration and its partisan, big-money, racial-interest-group allies will stop at nothing to win elections. And using the courts to change election rules is a key part of their strategy.

That was clearly evident in the federal courtroom in Winston-Salem. The plaintiffs, including the Justice Department, challenged a number of election reforms implemented in 2013 that were designed to reduce the cost and complexity of running elections and make it harder to commit voter fraud.

The administration pushed a novel legal argument. In its telling, if a change in election rules might statistically affect blacks more than whites, it constitutes illegal discrimination. For example, if 98 percent of whites have a voter ID but only 97.5 percent of blacks have one, then requiring voters to present ID violates federal law. Never mind the fact that getting an ID is free, easy, and open to everyone without regard to race. And never mind if a policy change is in line with the rules of many other states, or if it’s explicitly sanctioned by federal law. The mere act of changing the law in the wrong direction is discriminatory.

In other words, the Obama administration would turn the Voting Rights Act into a one-way ratchet to help Democrats. The court refused to go along.

None of the reforms had an obvious racial angle. For example, North Carolina required voters to vote in the precinct where they actually live. This commonsense reform—returning to the law the state had prior to 2003—prevents chaos on Election Day, from overcrowded polling places to precincts running out of ballots because election officials can’t predict how many voters will show up. Thirty-one states do not allow voting outside of your precinct. The Justice Department claims that North Carolina broke the law when it returned to this policy.

North Carolina was wrong to end same-day registration, too, according to Justice. North Carolina implemented same-day registration in 2007. Shortly thereafter, a local election in Pembroke, N.C., had to be done over because of voter fraud and unverified ballots. The problem with same-day registration is that people can register and cast a ballot simultaneously—leaving election officials unable to verify the accuracy of a voter’s registration information. So the state changed that. In North Carolina, you now have to register at least 25 days before the election, well within the voting standard set by federal law, which makes 30 days the maximum. Only about a dozen states today have same-day registration.

The state also shaved a few days off early voting to cut down costs, but North Carolina’s new ten-day period falls well within the norm. The number of early-voting days allowed by states varies from just four to 45, with the average being 19. At least 16 states don’t allow early voting at all. Additionally, more than 20 early-voting states do not allow either any weekend voting or Sunday voting, both of which are available in North Carolina. And yet, according the Justice Department, this reform was also illegal.

The rule in most states is that you can register to vote if you will be 18 prior to Election Day. In 2009, North Carolina changed the law to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to pre-register, apparently causing a logistics nightmare for election officials, who were forced to create two different voter-registration lists and integrate them when the pre-registered teenagers actually became eligible to vote. So the state went back to the prior rule, which the vast majority of states follow. Justice challenged this decision as well.

To no one’s surprise, given the current Justice Department’s partisan history on voting-related issues, North Carolina’s new voter-ID requirement was also challenged, although that law will not be in effect until 2016.

Incredibly, the Justice Department, the NAACP, and the other plaintiffs claimed that all of these changes were “discriminatory” and violated the Voting Rights Act—a law designed to break down racial barriers to the ballot box. Apparently, in 2015 North Carolina, not being able to register when you are 16, having to register 25 days ahead of time, having only ten days before the actual date of an election to vote, and being required to vote on Election Day in the precinct where you actually live are not only racist, but barriers to voting itself.  Contrast these “conditions” with the ugly discrimination of the early ’60s.

Times have certainly changed. When the racial interest groups sued North Carolina over its reforms, a swarm of lawyers from gigantic law firms donated their services. The Justice Department devoted hundreds of thousands of dollars and man-hours to attack the law. But no witnesses could be found to say they couldn’t vote because of the changes.

The Justice Department also pumped untold thousands of dollars into a database run by a company called Catalist. This database has been populated with data provided by the Democratic National Committee, unions, and other liberal organizations and is used to help them win elections. Catalist’s infrastructure and database are expensive to maintain, but fear not: the Justice Department, in the North Carolina trial and elsewhere, has provided federal tax dollars to its expert witnesses so that they could purchase Catalist’s proprietary data. Yes, federal dollars were used to fund a database that will be used next year to try to win the 2016 election for Democratic candidates.

For all the resources expended, the Justice Department’s entire case was built on speculative claims. Not able to produce a single eligible voter who was or would be unable to vote, the plaintiffs relied on hypothetical statistical arguments to claim that the turnout of black voters would be “suppressed” because they might use early voting and same-day registration slightly more than white voters, and because black voters are “less sophisticated voters.” DOJ experts actually made the borderline racist argument that “it’s less likely to imagine” that black voters could “figure out or would avail themselves of other forms of registering and voting.” That’s a shameful way to enforce a law that was used to protect real victims of real discrimination in the Deep South.

In the end, real statistics destroyed the Justice Department’s case. The reforms the plaintiffs claimed would disenfranchise “less sophisticated” black voters didn’t depress turnout at all. Indeed, in comparison with the 2010 primary, the turnout of black voters actually increased a whopping 29.5 percent in the May 2014 primary election, while the turnout of whites increased only 13.7 percent. The same thing happened in the general election. This knocked the stuffing out of the plaintiff’s discrimination claims.

The Justice Department still holds a thoroughly demeaning view of civil-rights law. It is a view that insists that blacks are incapable of performing basic societal functions, and therefore the law must step in any time they are asked to comply with a simple procedural step to participate in the electoral process. This is not only an abuse of the department’s authority; it’s a misuse of the Voting Rights Act. It should not be tolerated.


J. Christian Adams is the president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, the author of the New York Times bestseller “Injustice,” and a former Justice Department lawyer.

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative.

Originally published in National Review Online.

Rewriting History in New Orleans

Once again the revisionist among the oligarchy are seeking to revise history. This time it’s the removal of a number of monuments around the city of New Orleans. Here’s the story from FoxNews.

We are dealing with people who are judging men and women who lived 150 years ago by the standards of the 21st century. They lived in an earlier time when slavery and the Confederacy were part of the fabric of 19th century society.

jackson square2.jpg

                                Old Hickory at Jackson Square in New Orleans

If New Orleans intends to purge all symbols of the Confederacy, it must take down its famous statue of Andrew Jackson, too, according to a Big Easy professor, who says his tongue-in-cheek demand is meant to show the absurdity of measuring historical figures by contemporary standards.

With rebel symbols under fire around the nation in the wake of the mass shooting in June of black worshipers at a Charleston, S.C., church by a white supremacist who embraced the stars and bars, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu has called for the removal of statues of Confederate stalwarts Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and PGT Beauregard.

But a local university dean says a longstanding city ordinance being invoked by Landrieu would just as easily apply to the seventh president, known as “Old Hickory” and famous for defeating the British in the War of 1812’s pivotal Battle of New Orleans.

“If they [keep] going down this route, they will open Pandora’s box.”

– Richard Marksbury

The ordinance allows city officials to remove any statue or monument deemed a nuisance if, among other things, it “honors, praises, or fosters ideologies which are in conflict with the requirements of equal protection for citizens as provided by the constitution and laws of the United States.” Taken at its word, and without the benefit of historical context, the ordinance would mandate the removal of the statue of Jackson on horseback that has marked Jackson Square since 1856, said Tulane University Prof. Richard Marksbury.

“I don’t want to see any statues taken down,” Marksbury told “I’m trying to prove a point.”

Marksbury, who has called New Orleans home for more than 40 years, said he is dismayed at the calls for removal of historical statues. Jackson owned slaves, battled fiercely against Seminole Indians in Florida, ordered the Cherokee nation onto reservations and signed the Indian Removal Act, all actions that could put his statue at odds with the ordinance. But he was of a different time, and a significant historical figure, said Marksbury. Monuments may be seen as marking history, not necessarily venerating individuals, he said.

Last week, a public commission in the French Quarter voted to remove a 124-year-old obelisk monument dedicated to the White League’s brief, and bloody, overthrow of a biracial Reconstruction government after the Civil War. The fate of 35-foot-high monument, which stands on the edge of the old historic district, now awaits a decision from the City Council, as do the Confederate statues.

“If they [keep] going down this route, they will open Pandora’s box,” Marksbury said, explaining why he proposal, first made in a letter to local newspaper The New Orleans Advocate in late July. “My position is that if you remove one, you have to remove them all.”

Landrieu’s office in New Orleans did not immediately return requests for comment.

Jackson died 16 years before the Civil War but made military history in the War of 1812. When New Orleans was under threat, Jackson took control of the defenses, including militia for various western states and territories. In the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, his 5,000 troops successfully fought off nearly 8,000 British troops, saving the city.

Next on the chopping block is an engraving of the Confederate flag that is part of a mural near the entrance of City Hall according to local TV station Fox8.

“Across our state and our country, there has been broad consensus that confederate flags should not fly over government buildings,” Landrieu said. “Staff is currently researching the history of the etched marble at the entrance of City Hall to determine the process for removing the Confederate flag crest, as well as alternatives to represent the Civil War period of our city’s history in this mural.”

Orleans Parish Councilman James Gray is in favor of taking down the Confederate monuments in the city, but he does not believe the Confederate engraving should be removed.

“I think it’s a real difference in having a mere historical account than having a statue that is set in a place of honor and being maintained by taxpayer dollars,” Gray said to Fox8.

Perry Chiaramonte is a reporter for Follow him on Twitter at@perrych

Rewriting History…Again

homas Jefferson by RembranThe left is at it again. Elements of the Democrat Party have decided that they no longer wish to be associated with two of most noted Presidents: Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. A number of state organizations have advocated the the Jefferson-Jackson events be renamed.

Their reason is that these two Southerners held slaves. Unfortunately, this was a common practice for Southerner landowners in the first half of the 19th century.

Both men were archetypical Southerners who owned large estates that required a great deal of labor in order to be profitable.

Jefferson was ambivalent about the ‘peculiar institution’. He was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life.  Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation.

Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty.  These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm.

In 1778, he drafted a Virginia law that prohibited the importation of enslaved Africans.  In 1784, he proposed an ordinance that would ban slavery in the Northwest territories.

But Jefferson always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a democratic process; abolition would be stymied until slaveowners consented to free their human property together in a large-scale act of emancipation.

Jefferson advocated a plan for the gradual emancipation of slaves. First, the transatlantic slave trade would be abolished.  Second, slaveowners would “improve” slavery’s most violent features, by ameliorating living conditions and moderating physical punishment.  Third, all those born into slavery after a certain date would be declared free, followed by total abolition.

Andrew Jackson owned many slaves on his plantation, The Hermitage, 10 miles east of Andrew Jacksondowntown Nashville, Tennessee. Jackson himself was a substantial planter, owning as many as 150 slaves, and while he insisted that they be treated “humanely,” he showed no disposition to disturb the legal and constitutional arrangements that maintained the slave system.

His administration certainly was hostile to abolitionism and any efforts to disturb the South’s “peculiar institution.” It showed a continuing solicitude for southern opinion and interests, and it embraced the racial tenets of “herrenvolk democracy,” which affirmed the equality of whites and their superiority over non-whites. Yet Jackson’s position on the slavery issue was more complex than this.

Jackson’s denunciation of abolitionism did not signify that he considered slavery a positive or permanent good. Rather, he thought that by maintaining sectional calm, Providence would, in time, somehow eradicate the evil. Indeed, he generally perceived the growing slavery controversy as artificial and political, with both abolitionists and southern extremists seeking to divide the Union to serve their separate ends.

Remember that Thomas Jefferson was the man who wrote one of the most significant documents in American history: the Declaration of Independence. His undying line that “All men are created equal” lives on in the hearts of his countrymen and women.

Yet, the politically correct revisionists in the Democrat Party are choosing to divorce themselves from the third and the seventh Presidents of the United States. We cannot judge 19th century Americans by our 21st century standards. It’s unfair to us and our progeny and it’s unfair to the men and women who lived in a different America.

Who will be the next person to be written out of American history, George Washington?


Understanding Hillary’s Sense of Entitlement

Hillary Clinton madChris Stirewalt on his daily newsletter Fox News First Daily Politics gives us an excellent take on why Hillary Clinton has a sense of entitlement for the Presidency and why she is acting as she is.

The press and public are apparently in need of a history lesson to understand why Hillary Clinton feels entitled to do as she does.

Clinton’s catastrophic press conference in Nevada on Thursday, her eye-rolling dismissal of Black Lives Matter protesters and her flippant but still mirthless jokes about the scandals that have overtaken her candidacy reflect a candidate who doesn’t get that her audience doesn’t understand.

So here’s a primer for those who don’t know why Clinton is behaving as she does.

Clinton is currently as disliked as she has ever been, at least according to the CNN poll out today. She clocks in with 53 percent unfavorability, and two points worse than that among registered voters. She’s underwater by 9 points. She is more disliked than at any prior point in 23 years of polling, including during her 2008 defeat, except one. She currently matches her score from March 2001 amid the scandals surrounding the issuance of pardons to donors and friends at the end of her husband’s administration.

And, as it happens, Clinton’s answers to the current scandals about unseemly buckraking and secret servers are substantially the same as they were upon her departure from the White House: What Ken Starr and Newt Gingrich put the Clinton’s through made her do it.

People too young to recall rotary phones or ashtrays in offices might not remember those guys, but when Clinton made her first stumble of her current candidacy, it was because of them. She was “dead broke” because of the legal bills incurred defending her and her husband on a variety of charges, including the successful fight against removal from office and the unsuccessful fight against disbarment.

The Clintons, then, were entitled to rake in the dough from Denise Rich back then or Vladimir Putin’s inner circle in the current iteration.

Putting secret material at risk on a homebrew email server? That too is because of Starr and the Republicans. The Clintons, having been hounded so relentlessly by their persecutors, came to love secrecy too much. But can you blame them?

It turns out that, yes, you can.

These dangerous indulgences were nurtured over the years by the same clutch of friends, supplicants and favor seekers who will wreathe the Clintons as they spend the week in the Hamptons. These are people who believe that because of the cruelties of the late 1990s, the Clintons are owed a return engagement at the White House.

But as she interacts with reality, albeit in limited doses, she is finding that others don’t remember (or care) how deserving she is when it comes to breaking the rules and sometimes ask insistent questions – we’re looking at you Ed Henry – about things which she has already said she did not want to talk.

On her way to defeat in 2008, Clinton found a degree of engagement and vigor to which voters responded, albeit too little, too late. Her tenacity and ambition were authentic and letting it show created some kind of a connection. Her neediness broke through brittle entitlement.

How bad will it have to get this time before Clinton gives in to the clarifying panic that drove her in the later phases of 2008? Maybe not so long now…

1 2 3 79