Democrat Reps. attempt Trump censure for Charlottesville comments. Hey, Democrats: Censure yourselves | The Daily Dose – 8/17/2017

 

 

In response to President Donald Trump’s heated exchange with the media concerning the violence and mayhem at the Unite the Right event in Charlottesville, VA last weekend, Democratic lawmakers are introducing a formal resolution to censure him.

In case you don’t know, censure is “a formal, and public, group condemnation of an individual, often a group member, whose actions runs counter to the group’s acceptable standards for individual behavior”.
History tells us that only three US presidents, Andrew Jackson (1834), John Tyler (1842), and James Buchanan (1860) have faced such public condemnation by Congress. Democrat Andrew Jackson, was formally ‘censured’ by the US Senate in 1834, but this ‘censure’ was later expunged in 1837. 

It should also be noted that Congress actually possesses no Constitutional authority to censure the President, or any other member of the executive branch. Therefore any resolution of this type is technically unconstitutional.

So why are Democrats making such a grandiose (and unconstitutional) gesture if it’s almost sure to fail? Why go to such extreme measures over Trump’s ‘controversial comments’ on Charlottesville?

Race-baiting; The darling of 21st century left-wing political ‘discourse’.

In the wake of the tragic events in Charlottesville, Trump condemned all involved for the violence that took place: “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides”. His initial statement was met with furor because he had failed to condemn white supremacist groups directly.

Under pressure, Trump made a second statement two days later in which he directly criticized white identitarian movements by name; “Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” Naturally, this second response garnered even more criticism from public figures and the media, saying that he was too slow to condemn white supremacist movements, and accusing him of being uncomfortable with making such a condemnation. 

True to form, Trump responded :

This brings us to the rapid-fire exchange between President Trump and members of the press in the lobby of Trump Tower on Tuesday. Once again, Trump denounces the violence from both sides in Charlottesville and reiterates his condemnation of white supremacist movements : “I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups.” He went on to say that, “Not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists, by any stretch”.

This was a mistake.

Unite the Right was clearly a white identity/nationalist event. His qualifying ‘not all’ remarks seemingly minimized the problem of white identitarian movements in America. This is a cancerous brand of identity politics, and it should not be ignored or forced underground. It needs to be openly addressed. President Trump, nor the ‘right-wing’ of American politics, should dismiss this small, but growing presence in their midst.

Generally speaking however, all Trump did was return to expressing sentiments closer to those of his original statement; violence on many sides. As he observed, everyone is afraid to criticize left-wing political violence, and he was merely willing to point out that political violence is coming from the left, too. Is stating the obvious such an egregious offence that it warrants a censure?

And why insist President Trump emphatically and specifically denounce white supremacist groups if you didn’t also insist President Obama denounce the black supremacist group, Black Lives Matter, in a similar way?

Aren’t both groups driven by racial collectivist and supremacist ideologies based on showing preference to their in-group and violently oppressing perceived out-groups? If so, then isn’t one the moral equivalent of the other? If one is wrong, why not the other? And if the two are morally equivalent, why are they treated so differently in public discourse?

Could it be because moral grandstanding about the evils of  neo-Nazis and white supremacists serves the progressive left’s socialist political agenda, and condemning Black Lives Matter does not?

Sure, hearing ‘black supremacy’ will likely conjure up images of Black Panthers with raised fists for whites. But for blacks, hearing ‘white supremacy’ no doubt conjures up horrific images of cross-burning men in white hoods beating, terrorizing, and lynching black people. White supremacy conceptually carries far more emotional weight in American public discourse, therefore it’s a far more valuable race-baiting currency.

The progressive left preys on minority fears as a means of gaining political power and expanding the authority of the state. They have worked for years to convince the nation that the corpse of America’s KKK past has risen from her cultural crypt to menace minorities in the present. Progressive politicians, with the enthusiastic assistance of the media, have painted America a terrifyingly racist landscape crawling with bands of bigots out for blood; and on this blood soaked canvas, all the devils are painted white.

When people are frightened they’re easier to control, and that’s exactly what the far-left is doing to America’s minority communities, controlling them through fear.

Minorities in America are regularly baited into fear and suspicion that anyone espousing an opinion deemed right of center must be racist. Many have become obstinate in the belief that right-wing equals racist, and will not listen to or flat-out refuse to engage with anyone on the right. As a result, American minority groups are largely trapped in a mainstream media echo-chamber of racist horrors. Fearing the fabled right-wing racism of the media narrative, minorities rush into the waiting arms of the left who then further manipulate them, using them to gain and assure their continued social and political power.

And the left calls the right racist…

Always remember, it was Democrats who owned slaves in America prior to the Civil War. It was Democrats who formed the Klu Klux Klan. And it was Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Today, the far-left is still virulently racist and just as violent as they’ve always been.

It is the left who view blacks and other minorities as heard-like collectives rather than as individual human beings. It is the left who lies to and manipulates them for political gain. It is the left who routinely engages in racial identity politics and increasingly resorts to violence to advance their political agendas.

I’m quite sure Adolf Hitler himself would have a great deal of admiration for the authoritarian, thuggish tactics of groups like AntiFa, as well a good bit of agreement with their socialist political agenda.

Far from being the right-winger revisionist history claims he was, Hitler was in fact a dedicated socialist and Nazis were members of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Hitler actually credited Karl Marx’s philosophy as the ideological inspiration for National Socialism.

Taking history into account, it seems the most dangerous Nazi-like threat roaming the streets of America are the black-clad foot soldiers of the radical left. They’ve simply lowered the swastika and raised the hammer and sickle.

The most authoritarian, violent, and racist regimes have all sprung from left-wing ideologies, yet the prevailing narrative is that they all magically emerged from the right. The truth of the left’s history of politically and racially motivated violence is continuously swept under the rug of public discourse just like their present day violence in Charlottesville.

I believe this is the point Donald Trump has been trying to make all along. He is equivocating racially and politically motivated violence on both sides because it needed to be done. One group is no more justified in their violent actions than the other.

Using violence to advance a social or political agenda is always wrong. 

Should President Trump be ‘censured’ over his response to Charlottesville? No. Has he inadvertently revealed himself to be a white supremacist and a Nazi sympathizer? Of course not.

Besides, if being a racist Nazi sympathizer is grounds for censure, then I think it’s high time the Democratic party censured itself.

 

Meet the ‘Alt-left’.

The Thinkery | YouTube

 

 

 

 

 

 

What a cruel thing war is… to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors. 

| Robert E. Lee |