Tag: history

Spanberger Rips Up Confederate Heritage To Separate Virginians From Their History

Seemingly not content to just destroy her state’s rule of law and election system, Democrat Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger has declared war on Virginia’s heritage and, more specifically, those who dedicate themselves to preserving it.

The newly minted governor signed a bill on Monday that revoked tax exemptions from several Confederate heritage organizations, including the state’s divisions of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). Spanberger also recently signed a bill that ceases the production of specialty license plates bearing the likeness of Robert E. Lee.

“Governor Spanberger’s signing of this bill is a proud moment and an important step forward for Virginia,” state Delegate Alex Askew, who sponsored the bill and has campaigned for it for several years, stated. But the question is: A step forward toward what? A Virginia that hates its own history, that curses those men of the past who built the state and made it what it is today?

Spanberger’s signature represents, as The New York Times put it, part of “a yearslong Democrat-led push to shake off the state’s legacy as the capital of the 11 Southern, slaveholding states that seceded from the country in the 1860s.”

And indeed it has been a years-long campaign by the left to erase Virginia’s, and America’s, history. The era that began with the inauguration of President Barack Obama in 2009 and reached its fever pitch during the fiery George Floyd riots of summer 2020 saw the slow but sure disappearance of Confederate history from the public sphere. Even some Republican politicians found a convenient scapegoat in long-revered Southern symbols.

During a BLM riot in Richmond, Virginia, in May 2020, extremist agitators attacked the headquarters of the United Daughters of the Confederacy with “incendiary devices.” The building, deeded to the organization by the state in 1950, was filled with countless Civil War-era documents and artifacts. The resulting fire and destruction caused $4.1 million in damage to the building and its contents, according to a lawsuit filed by the UDC. The wanton vandalism that night also extended to the multiple Confederate monuments on Monument Avenue, including the famous equestrian statue of Robert E. Lee that was removed in 2021.

The UDC was founded by Southern women in 1894 to “honor their family members and ancestors who served in the Confederate military or contributed to the Southern war effort.” And because of this, Virginia’s Democrats seek to strike back for the sin of honoring their ancestors through charitable work. The new law is intended to cripple an organization that mostly dedicates itself these days to civic engagement of a decidedly nonpolitical sort — helping homeless shelters and food banks.

And, of course, the radical leftists didn’t stop at Confederate monuments. Statues and memorials to the Founding Fathers, Christopher Columbus, and Teddy Roosevelt all came under attack during the heyday of race wokeness. Many of the memorials and museums that escaped physical attack were otherwise “contextualized” into oblivion with asides and nitpicks that drilled into patrons’ heads that America’s ancestors were very bad people.

Keep reading

Leftists Are Big Mad The Education Department Is Teaching Kids American History

“History Rocks!,” a national tour led by Education Secretary Linda McMahon to honor our nation’s 250th anniversary, is expressly being promoted as a nonpartisan celebration of American greatness. Even The Washington Post has admitted that “there is no evidence that the events themselves push a political message.” And yet “parents, students and teachers” have reportedly taken issue with the tour because it enjoys sponsorship from conservative and religious organizations, leading to the cancellation of several History Rocks! events.

This left-wing backlash to History Rocks! demonstrates how deeply the left has been corrupted by an ideology that is opposed to celebrations of our nation that only a few decades ago would have elicited practically unanimous approval across America.

A Left-Wing Double Standard Over American History

One outspoken senior at a high school in Alabama described History Rocks! as “hypocritical,” because it was “very publicly supported by strongly political groups.” Similarly, after learning that an elementary school in Fairfield, Connecticut, was going to host History Rocks!, a parent voiced her displeasure to the superintendent, claiming the tour was “backed by right-wing extremist groups.” A few hours later, the district canceled the event … because of its connection to groups like The Heritage Foundation and Turning Point USA.

Meanwhile a superintendent in Massachusetts dramatically declared that her district wouldn’t participate in any event related to Turning Point. Even after the Education Department explained to the superintendent that Turning Point “was not involved in the program,” the Post reported, the official canceled the previously scheduled event. Protesters in Illinois in turn held up signs that read, “Keep hate out of our schools,” and “education not indoctrination.” The New York Times featured a mocking op-ed proclaiming, “Linda McMahon is shocked — shocked! — that there’s been a backlash to the Department of Education’s ‘History Rocks!’ tour.”

What’s actually shocking about the dustup over “extremist groups” such as Heritage and Turning Point is that we heard no complaints from such persons as the curriculum of the 1619 Project spread to more than 4,000 schools six years ago. That curriculum promotes an unapologetically leftist and racialist version of American history, claiming, as The Heritage Foundation detailed, that America was founded in order to perpetuate slavery and that there was “no tension, no debate, no struggle” over the institution at the founding. Some of the most well-respected historians in the nation have severely criticized the project. Its brainchild, purported journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, once claimed “the white race … is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world.”

What History Rocks! Is Actually Promoting

As The Washington Post readily acknowledged, the events for History Rocks! usually feature Secretary McMahon or another member of the Education Department speaking briefly, as well as a quiz on history. “Speeches provided by the Education Department and local coverage of the events suggest the events are a nonpartisan celebration of America and its origins,” the Post admitted. A review of the Department’s website shows absolutely nothing expressly partisan about the program.

“Some have tried to brand this tour as ‘radical,’ ‘dangerous’ and ‘partisan indoctrination.’ How absurd,” reads a statement from McMahon. “What you see is not politics — it is a shared commitment to our nation’s story. It speaks volumes about certain voices in our society that they would seek to distort a celebration of America’s 250th anniversary and deprive children of this experience.”

To prove McMahon’s point, a school member in Wisconsin went to a History Rocks! event and “found it inoffensive but also ‘very shallow.’” She asserted that the trivia questions were “kind of elementary, ” and she questioned whether “students learned anything that the school had not already taught them.”

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in 2022 determined that only 22 percent of eighth graders were proficient in civics and another 31 percent were deemed below basic, unprecedentedly low numbers. A 2024 survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation discovered that 70 percent of respondents couldn’t pass a “basic civic literacy quiz” that covered the three branches of government. Only about half of respondents “were able to correctly name the branch of government where bills become laws.” At this point, even basic refreshers about the author of the Declaration of Independence or the First Amendment are probably necessary for grade-schoolers.

Keep reading

The long history of the UK deep state and some of its activities

The UK deep state (UK/DS) goes back centuries, as does “democratic” government in the UK – although this website focuses on its post-WWII history. Credit for the early 20th century history below is largely due to Carroll Quigley‘s masterful exposé, The Anglo-American Establishment. Later history is derived from many different sources. In 2018-19, the Integrity Initiative leaks shone a spotlight onto some of the workings of the modern UK deep state. The group was officially wound up in 2023 after Russia formally declared it an undesirable organisation, but its members continue to show up, highlighting the ability of deep state operatives to outlive particular deep state factions.

Keep reading

Epsteins, Rothschilds Funded Hitler’s Shelter? Email Exchange Between Jeffrey Epstein and Ariane De Rothschild Show

More names have since appeared in the newly released batch of files related to the investigation of the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Amongst the files is an email conversation between Epstein and banker Ariane de Rothschild about how Hitler lived in a shelter funded by the Epstein and Rothschild families.

In a post by commentator Adam on X, a screenshot of an email conversation between Epstein and Rothschild dated 31 December 2018 shows the two talking about how Hitler lived in a shelter that was funded by three wealthy Jewish families during his early days. Rothschild seemed to find this information, which she described as a ‘conspiracy theory’, as ‘pathetic’. Epstein seemed to reply that it was true.

The Email Exchange

‘I thought you’d find amusing that in a Harvard class on Hitler they told the story of when he was so poor he lived in a shelter for the homeless and destitute..that had been financed by the three wealthy families…the Gutmanns the Epsteins and the Rothschilds. It turns out to be accurate,’ said Epstein.

‘Whether it’s a way to say that generosity is not rewarded or that the conspiracy theory still exists is quite pathetic…’ Rothschild responded, signing her name at the bottom of her reply.

‘First it turns out to be 100 per cent true, Hitler was selling his clothes and artwork and living in a shelter funded by Jews. Epstein, Rothschild, and Gutman. No conspiracy, the Epsteins were the Vienna bankers, bought their bank on the ring hence still Palais Epstein,’ the convicted financier responded.

Epstein-Rothschild Business Ties

The relationship between the late disgraced financier and Rothschild also extended to business ties. In a document dated 5 October 2015, Epstein, through his Southern Trust Company Inc., signed an agreement with the Rothschild Group worth £18.2 million ($25 million). The agreement was for providing a risk analysis and algorithm-related services, with Epstein identified as the president of Southern Trust, based in the US Virgin Islands.

The document details a ‘Letter of Agreement’ between the company and the Edmond de Rothschild Holding SA, which Ariane de Rothschild represents. The agreement between the two came years after Epstein had already pleaded guilty in Florida for sex crimes in 2008. Epstein’s business ties and the people he is known to have engaged with have since come under renewed scrutiny, especially as millions of files related to the investigation were released by the Justice Department.

Epstein died in 2019 after he was found dead in his jail cell in New York City, awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. The disgraced financier’s alleged victims said he ran a sex trafficking network that was used by wealthy and powerful people, some of whose names were redacted in the files.

Keep reading

There are fashions in medicine just as much as there are fashions in clothes

Badly conceived fashions in clothes may embarrass you, but ill-conceived fashions in medicine may kill you. And the fashions in medicine have, by and large, as much scientific validity as the fashions in the rag trade.

The most obvious fashions in medicine relate to treatments. For example, a couple of centuries ago, enemas, purges and bleedings were all the rage. In 17th century France, Louis XIII had 212 enemas, 215 purges and 47 bleedings in a single year. The Canon of Troyes is reputed to have had a total of 2,190 enemas in a two-year period; how he found time to do anything else is difficult to imagine. By the mid-19th century, enemas were a little last year’s style and bleeding was the in-thing. Patients would totter into their doctor’s surgery, sit down, tuck up their sleeves and ask the doctor to “draw me a pint of blood.” Bleeding was the universal cure, recommended for most symptoms and ailments. Feeling a little under the weather? A little light bleeding should soon put you to rights. Constant headaches? We’ll soon have that sorted for you, sir. Just roll up your sleeve. Bit of trouble down below, madam? Not to worry. Slip off your frock and hold your arm out.

A little later, in the 19th century, doctors put their lancets away and started recommending alcohol as the new panacea. Brandy was the favoured remedy in the doctor’s pharmacopoeia. People took it for almost everything. And when patients developed delirium tremens, the recommended treatment was more alcohol. If things got so bad that the brandy didn’t work, doctors added a little opium. Those were the days to be ill. Hypochondriacs must have had a wonderful time.

In the years from the 1930’s onwards, removing tonsils became the fashionable treatment. Tonsils were removed from between a half and three-quarters of all children in the 1930’s. This often useless and unnecessary (and always potentially hazardous) operation is less commonly performed these days, but in the 1970’s over a million such operations were done every year in Britain alone. Doctors used to rip out tonsils on the kitchen table and toss them to the dog. Between 200 and 300 deaths a year were caused by the operation. One suspects that few, if any, of those unfortunate children would have died from tonsillitis.

Diseases go in cycles, too. In the early 19th century, the fashionable diagnosis was “inflammation.” Then, when patients and doctors tired of that, the new keyword was “debility.” Doctors didn’t know terribly much and so their diagnoses, like their treatments, tended to be rather general.

These days, patients expect more specific diagnoses and doctors are invariably happy to oblige.

One year, everyone will be suffering from asthma. It will be the disease of the moment, just as the mini skirt or ripped jeans may drift mysteriously in and out of fashion. Another year, arthritis will be the fashionable disease as a drug company persuades journalists to write articles extolling the virtues (and disguising the vices) of its latest product. The cycle is a relatively simple one. The drug company with a new and profitable product to sell (usually designed for some long-term – and therefore immensely profitable – disorder) will send teams of well-trained representatives around to talk to family physicians, give them presents and take them out for expensive luncheons. The sales representatives will be equipped with information showing that the disorder in question is rapidly reaching epidemic proportions, lists of warning symptoms for the doctor to watch out for and information about the drug company’s new solution to the problem. Because the product will be new to the market, there will probably be very little evidence available about side effects and the sales representative will be able to accurately describe the drug as extremely “safe.” Older drugs, well-tried, possibly effective and probably safer than the new replacement, will be discarded as out-of-date. After all, their side effects will, over the years, have been well-documented.

There are even non-existent diseases which seem to me, and, I suspect, a growing number of other physicians, to have been originally invented in order to find a use for expensive medicinal compounds (and enthusiastically welcomed by parents who find the fictitious disease to be a handy and enormously useful explanation for bad behaviour).

Keep reading

Media Melts Down After Entertainer Nick Cannon (Correctly) Calls Democrats the Party of the KKK

Nick Cannon is known for being a rapper, a comedian and television personality. In other words, an entertainer.

There is a clip of him making the rounds in social media that’s getting a lot of attention because in the video he correctly points out that the Democrats are the party of the KKK.

He is right. They are.

But the media is reacting as if he said something shocking or untrue.

This is from Variety:

Nick Cannon Calls the Democratic Party the ‘Party of the KKK’ and Says ‘I F— With Trump’

Nick Cannon let his politics be known on a recent episode of his web talk show “Big Drive” (via TMZ), during which he called the Democratic Party “the party of the KKK.”

After his guest, model Amber Rose, said that Democrats “don’t care about people of color and the Republicans do,” Cannon replied, “I agree with you 100%. People don’t know that the Democrats are the party of the KKK. People don’t know that the Republicans are the party that freed the slaves. I mean, both of you and I have some conservative views. You’re just a little bit more outspoken than I am. And honestly, I don’t subscribe to either party. I rock with W. E. B. Du Bois, when he said there’s no such thing as two parties. It’s just one evil party with two different names.”

When discussing Donald Trump’s second term, Cannon enthusiastically said “motherfucker’s cleaning house” and is “doing what he said he was gonna do.”

“We got the Gulf of America now,” Cannon added. “He’s like the club. He’s charging a $5 million bottle service fee to get into the country.”

While factions of the Democratic Party were responsible for the rise of the KKK right after the Civil War, it’s not widely believed that the entirety of the party endorsed the formation of the white supremacist group.

Keep reading

The Senator Who Saved America From FDR’s Court-Packing Scheme

Americans can be thankful that the cynical effort to corrupt the Court in 1937 was defeated by principled legislators like Montana’s Burton K. Wheeler, a member of FDR’s own party.

“When you don’t like the message,” the old saying goes, “shoot the messenger.”

In the wake of Supreme Court rulings they don’t like, leading Democrats in Washington renewed calls last year to “pack” the Court with more liberal justices. Were that to happen, it would surely set off “tit for tat” fights the next time a Republican sits in the White House.

Democrats control the Senate today and could conceivably muster the votes to fill a vacancy if one occurs in the next two years. But a plan spearheaded by Senator Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) to change the Court’s composition from nine to 13 has no chance to pass both houses of Congress, at least for the moment. Boosting the number of justices for purely ideological advantage is the very definition of court-packing.

Reducing the size of a court can also be seen as a form of court packing (or “unpacking”), depending on the intent. Ten years ago, then-Congressman (now Senator) Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) introduced the ironically named Stop Court Packing Act. It would have reduced the number of judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia from eleven to eight. Clearly meant to thwart President Obama’s nominees to the court, it went nowhere.

When Democrat Franklin Roosevelt attempted court-packing in 1937, a prominent member of his own party helped lead the successful fight to defeat it. That would be none other than Montana Senator Burton K. Wheeler, who put country ahead of party when he declared,

Create now a political court to echo the ideas of the Executive and you have created a weapon. A weapon which, in the hands of another President in times of war or other hysteria, could well be an instrument of destruction. A weapon that can cut down those guarantees of liberty written into your great document by the blood of your forefathers and that can extinguish your right of liberty, of speech, of thought, of action, and of religion. A weapon whose use is only dictated by the conscience of the wielder.

Born and raised in Massachusetts, Wheeler earned his law degree from the University of Michigan before heading for Seattle. He never made it. His train stopped in Butte, where he lost almost everything he had in a poker game. He decided to recoup by building a law practice in Montana.

His political career began in 1910 when, at age 28, he was elected to the Montana legislature. After running unsuccessfully for Governor in 1920, he won a US Senate seat two years later. Wheeler was a staunch ally of Roosevelt’s New Deal policies, but he courageously broke with FDR over the court-packing plot.

Fresh from a landslide reelection to a second term in 1936, Roosevelt was determined to crush the independence of the Supreme Court by turning it into a rubber stamp for the White House. He was so rattled by rulings against his dubious New Deal policies that he publicly smeared the Court as “those nine old men.” Nobody had tampered with the size of the Court since 1869, when Congress established that the highest judicial body would consist of nine justices.

FDR asked lawmakers to approve a plan whereby the President could nominate a new justice every time a sitting one reached the age of 70 and failed to voluntarily retire. Roosevelt already controlled the executive branch and held sway over the legislative branch, with big Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. For Wheeler, a grab for the judicial branch was a bridge too far.

Keep reading

Rewriting Revolutionary History: Is Jamie Raskin Even Capable of Honesty?

The late Scott Adams had a way of describing a certain group of Democratic operatives and lawmakers that seemed fitting as I watched and rewatched an exchange between Representatives Jim Jordan and Jamie Raskin.

Adams said that while all Democrats lie, there is a small group of them who seem to assume the mantle of tier-one fibbers. These are the ones who are capable of saying the most verifiably dishonest things, and do so with a straight face that makes it look like even they believe what they are saying. 

I believe Jamie Raskin may have been among them (I’m not 100% sure), along with Eric Swalwell, Ilhan Omar, James Clapper, and John Brennan, and perhaps others. 

The reason such a group exists, Adams theorized, was that, in order for Democrats and the legacy media to make some of their most outlandish hoaxes stick, they needed a special group of people who can convincingly say something that is completely untrue and just keep repeating it until the public starts to think it is true.

Adams observed that you never hear from these people all at once, but when it’s their turn, they step in like a designated hitter and slug away with their fabrications. 

I thought of Adams’ comments when I saw Raskin in action at a hearing conducted by the House’s Subcommittee on Constitution and Limited Government on March 18. That’s when he claimed that Thomas Paine, the founding father and author of “Common Sense,” was an “undocumented immigrant.” 

Keep reading

Is “Taxation Without Representation” Occurring in 2026? Massive School District Bond Fraud Uncovered Across the US

Perhaps no phrase is used more to describe the grievances of the colonists in the lead-up to the American Revolution than “No taxation without representation!”

Mark Maloy, a historian wrote “While the exact phrase did not appear until 1768, the principle of having consent from the people on issues of taxation can be traced all the way back to the Magna Carta in 1215.

The Magna Carta was one of the first steps in limiting the power of the king and transferring that power to the legislative body in England, the Parliament. Parliament had the power to levy taxes. When King Charles I attempted to impose taxes on the English people by himself in 1627, the Parliament passed the Petition of Right the following year, which stated that the subjects of the king “should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge not set by common consent, in parliament.”

The Magna Carta, the Petition of Right and the English Bill of Rights from 1689 helped to form the basis of the British constitution (which is not a single document, but a combination of written and unwritten agreements). The British constitution protected the rights of Englishmen. English colonists in North America believed that they had the same rights as Englishmen. In North America, colonists formed their own colonial governments under charters from the king and regulated their own forms of taxation through their colonial legislatures. For many decades, these colonies enjoyed an extended period of benign neglect as the English parliament let them handle taxation on their own.

In Great Britain in the eighteenth century, there were no income taxes because it was viewed as too much of a government intrusion into the lives of the people. Instead, taxes were placed on property and on imported and exported goods. Money from these taxes helped to pay for public goods and services and supported the government’s military for defense.

In North America, the British colonies regulated their own tax system in each individual colony. These taxes, though, were exceedingly low, and the colonies did not have a professional military to support. Instead, they used a volunteer militia system to defend their towns and homes from attacks along the frontier.

In 1754, the French and Indian War broke out in North America. During the war, the British sent their military to help defend the colonies. The war spread across the globe and became known as the Seven Years’ War. Following Britain’s victory in 1763, the British national debt greatly increased. They now had a larger empire that needed to be defended. In light of this tenuous situation, and since the North American colonists benefited directly from the British military during the war, Great Britain looked to levy taxes on the colonists to raise revenue for the Crown.

In Massachusetts in 1764, James Otis published a pamphlet titled “The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved,” which argued that man’s rights come from God and that governments should only exist to protect those natural rights. He believed that any attempt to tax the colonists without their consent violated the British constitution. Here, Otis made a compelling argument for the need for representation in any taxation on the colonies: “no parts of His Majesty’s dominions can be taxed without their consent; that every part has a right to be represented in the supreme or some subordinate legislature; that the refusal of this would seem to be a contradiction in practice to the theory of the constitution.”

Colonists wrote pamphlets protesting taxes and explaining their views. Daniel Dulaney the Younger from Maryland wrote this one in 1765.

Keep reading

Historians Will Say World War III Already Began

For years, the press has insisted that every conflict must be viewed in isolation: Ukraine is separate from the Middle East, China is separate from Russia, and Iran is simply another regional crisis. But history rarely works that way. When historians look back at major wars, they rarely begin them on the date politicians announce them. World War I did not suddenly begin with a single shot in Sarajevo, and World War II was not simply the invasion of Poland. The causes were decades in the making. The uncomfortable reality is that when historians eventually write about this period, many will likely conclude that what we are witnessing today is the early phases of a world war.

One of the greatest mistakes made after the Cold War was the assumption that the ideological struggle had been permanently resolved. The collapse of the Soviet Union was treated as a final victory rather than the end of a phase. Yet no durable geopolitical framework was created to integrate the defeated power structure into a stable international system. After World War II, the United States and its allies invested enormous resources into rebuilding Europe and Japan through the Marshall Plan and establishing institutions such as the United Nations and the Bretton Woods financial order. Those efforts created stability and prevented the reemergence of the same ideological conflict that produced two world wars. After the Cold War, nothing comparable was built.

Keep reading