Hunter Wallace responds to smears by the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)that the alleged Pittsburgh synagogue shooter, Robert Bowers, was emboldened by rhetoric from sites like his:- Continue reading
“Gillum is listed as a 2012 Rockwood alum. The Florida politician’s involvement with the radical school was not cursory or symbolic. Only five months ago, Gillum boasted in a speech to the Center for Environmental Health that he attended the institute “for about a year and a half.”
In that speech, Gillum talked about getting to know the Center for Environmental Health’s director Michael Green while they both attended Rockwood together. Green is also listed as a 2012 alum along with Gillum.
In 2013, Gillum, then a member of the Tallahassee City Commission, wrote that graduating the program in June of that year was a “major milestone.”
“I will continue to use the tools and methodology in life and as I advance in my career and my role as a member of the City Commission,” he stated.
Gillum’s Rockwood graduating class included such top activists as:
•Rashad Robinson, executive director of Color of Change, which was founded by Van Jones, President Obama’s infamous former “green” jobs czar. Jones stepped down from his position after it was exposed that he was a founding organizer for the communist revolutionary group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM). Soros has financed Color of Change.
•Denise Collazo of the Soros-financed radical PICO Network, which in its own terminology says it is “pushing for citizenship, and more, for an estimated 11.3 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.”
•Mary Anne Hitt from the radical Sierra Club environmental activist organization.
•Nan Aron, president and founder of the Soros-funded Alliance for Justice.
Other notable Rockwood alums are Van Jones; Jodie Evans, co-founder and executive director of Code Pink; several senior employees of Soros’s own Open Society Foundations; and Drummond Pike, founder of the Soros-funded Tides Foundation.
Radical Linda Sarsour is listed as a Rockwood “alum in the news,” as is Alicia Garza, co-founder of Black Lives Matter.
Eric Rodriguez, vice president of the Soros-financed radical open borders group the National Council Of La Raza is also a graduate. As are Ilya Sheyman, executive director of the Soros-funded MoveOn.org, and Matthew Butler, who served as CEO and president of the Soros-funded Media Matters for America.
Also on the alum list is Idelisse Malave, former executive director of the Soros-funded Tides Foundation; David Rosenn of the Soros-funded New Israel Fund, which finances pro-Palestinian organizations; Justin Ruben of the Soros-backed MoveOn.org; Bill Lipton, founder of the Working Families Party, whose own leadership institute says it is “made possible by the Open Society Foundation”; and Pamela Chiang of the Soros-funded Center For Community Change.
Also listed is Adrienne Maree Brown, former executive director of the Tides-funded Ruckus Society. Ruckus provided “direct-action” training and official manuals to Occupy protesters. The group is infamous for helping to spark the 1999 World Trade Organization riots in Seattle.
Besides senior personalities, Rockwood also provides a “short list of foundations who have sent their staff through” its training program, including Soros’s Open Society Foundations, the Soros-financed Tides Foundation and the Soros-funded New Israel Fund.
Rockwood is in formal partnership with the Soros-funded Social Transformation Project (STP). STP was founded by Robert Gass who also founded the Rockwood Leadership Program “along with a dedicated group of environmental activists.”
Soros, meanwhile, has directly donated to organizations seeking to get Gillum elected. Days before Gillum’s Aug. 28 primary, Soros joined with billionaire Tom Steyer to lead a group of donors making a $650,000 infusion into Gillum’s coffers.
Soros also contributed to The Collective, a little-known but increasingly influential political organization that says it is seeking to build a “black political power” movement. The Collective reportedly injected nearly $2 million into Gillum’s campaign, funding television and radio ads, get-out-the-vote drives, and playing a key role in helping Gillum defeat his Democratic opponents, some of whom were better-funded and had more statewide name recognition. The group announced plans to continue backing Gillum during the current general election campaign.”
Gillum is a stealth candidate.
Few had heard of him until the aftermath of Hurricane Michael. Michael’s destruction turned out to be the tried-and-true opening hand of a round of “disaster capitalism” …or, more accurately, “disaster socialism”.... played out on the beaches of the Panhandle, the tidal waves of the Category 4/5 storm giving in to the tidal waves of Federal aid, building contracts, political grand-standing, and vote-bank politics.
Now, with an instant national profile and money pouring in from two left-wing money-bags, George Soros and Tom Steyer, Gillum hopes to turn a conservative and libertarian economic engine into a West Coast train-wreck.
Gillum’s 40% corporate tax-hike proposal is likely just the start and doesn’t even have the pretext of financial short-falls or recession. Florida is booming.
In Tallahassee, the murder rate climbed by over 50% on Gillum’s watch, violent crime is soaring, although the papers are quick to assure us that that had nothing to do with the mayor. Gillum’s own people disagree.
President Trump has signaled where he stands too. DeSantis is his man.
With that endorsement under his belt, DeSantis has come out swinging. His campaign punches away at his opponent’s involvement in an FBI corruption sting, targeting Gillum’s alleged ex-boyfriend, Adam Corey.
Gillum denies wrong-doing, but the Feds are leaning on Corey and Corey has begun publicly contradicting his old friend’s statements.
Soon, the mud will fly.
But there are only three weekends to go before November 6 and the jihadists of cultural war are popping up faster than they can be swatted down.
Even Trump and the G-men might not be enough to save Florida.
[Originally published on my site on October 19, 2018, republished October 24.]
A 225-year-old marble Colombus obelisk in Baltimore, the oldest of its kind in the nation, had its base smashed in by vandals early on Monday. The results were posted on Youtube, along with a statement that, since Columbus was responsible for the colonial exploitation of the indigenous, brown, and black people of the Americas, he was not a suitable subject for a monument.
This is the most egregious in a long list of defacements in recent weeks that have affected monuments to Lincoln, Columbus, Washington, Robert E. Lee, and Martin Luther King.
These are acts of war, no less than the destruction of churches and mosques by ISIS.
I suggest public lashing, which has had such a salutary effect in Singapore.
Twenty lashings for each miscreant, followed by a year’s unpaid labor repairing monuments.
A nation that does not have the will to propose and execute swift reprisal against cultural terrorism deserves neither its monuments nor the history which they commemorate.
From the Imaginative Conservative, a defense of Robert E. Lee by Stephen M. Klugewicz:
“Despising revolutionary social change and the rhetoric of the abolitionists, he hoped for gradual emancipation and shared with Abraham Lincoln a sympathy for the idea of colonizing freed African Americans in Central America or Africa.
Lee never purchased a slave in his life. The slaves over whom he had control, some 200, came to him through his marriage to Mary Custis, a descendant of George Washington. Lee became the executor of his father-in-law’s will. Though permitted by the will to free the slaves upon the elder Custis’ death in 1857, Lee deemed the slaves necessary to the financial recovery of the Arlington estate. He thus kept them enslaved as long as he could—the will stipulated a maximum of five years—freeing them in December 1862 on the eve of the Emancipation Proclamation’s going into effect. Again, Lee believed that his highest duty was to his family, in this case to their economic well-being, and this trumped his concern for the freedom of the particular slaves under his control.
In this, as in his paternalistic attitude toward blacks, Lee fell short of heroism. Of the bondsmen Lee once opined that “the painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race,” and he told a congressional committee after the war that it was his view blacks “at this time, cannot vote intelligently,” though he added, “what the future may prove, how intelligent they may become…I cannot say more than you can.” As Lee’s great biographer Douglas Southall Freeman writes, his “was the prevailing view among most religious people of Lee’s class in the border states. Lee shared these convictions of his neighbors without ever having come in contact with the worst evils of African bondage.”
is conservative views precluded him from, say, taking the extreme step taken by his relation, Robert Carter III, who because of his radical religious convictions freed all 500 of his slaves in 1800. It should be recalled that George Washington only provided for his slaves’ freedom in his will, and only after his wife Martha’s death (though she freed her slaves during her lifetime, as she feared they might kill her.) Lee thought enough of the prowess of African Americans that he was a proponent of enlisting slaves to fight for the Confederacy and thereby earn their freedom. This is also additional evidence that Lee did not consider the war a crusade to preserve slavery, as he was willing to give up the institution in order to secure the greater goal of Southern independence. In the post-war years, numerous incidents were reported in which Lee flouted the conventions of his class and daringly treated a black man as his equal in social situations.
Despite his flaws when it came to his views on race, Lee should be honored as a hero by all Americans and especially by conservatives. His classical devotion to the idea of duty has been mentioned. His resistance to the temptations of power also demands our acclaim. Much is rightly made of George Washington’s laying down of his sword at the end of the American Revolution to resume his status as a private citizen. Lee similarly passed this Tolkienian test when Abraham Lincoln, on the advice of General Winfield Scott, offered him command of all United States forces in April 1861 after South Carolina forces fired on Fort Sumter. Lee declined the offer, which would have gained for him the ultimate career goal sought by every West Point-trained military man.
We must remember that the alternative for Lee was NOT the command of the Confederate armies. He was not foregoing one offer of power in order to pursue another. Indeed, his home state of Virginia had not yet seceded, and at the moment he rejected Lincoln’s offer the most he could have reasonably hoped for was command of Virginia’s troops (an honor that he did eventually receive.) It ought to be kept in mind also that Lee was aware of the superior manpower number of the North and the superior resources of Northern industrialism; the prospects of Southern independence were far from certain. As with the American Revolutionaries, the noose seemed the most likely end for the leaders of Southern independence.
Even when Virginia seceded and war began, Lee did not immediately receive a high command within Confederate ranks. He was relegated to a desk job, serving as an advisor to President Jefferson Davis. He did not receive a field command until May of 1862, when General Joseph E. Johnston was severely wounded during the Seven Days’ Battles on the Virginia Peninsula. Lee then took command of the Army of Northern Virginia, but he would not be appointed commander of all Confederate forces until January 1865. This was a series of events that he could hardly have expected when he refused Lincoln’s immediate offer of power in 1861.
In addition to duty, Lee valued humility. He did not angle for promotion as he chafed at his desk job in Richmond. Rather, he humbly served President Davis, and even after being assigned command of the Army of Northern Virginia, his letters reveal that he always deferred to the prickly Davis. Just as Lee eschewed ambition, so he avoided avarice, turning down several offers in the post-war years to lend his name to companies in return for lucrative compensation. The idea of profiting from the selling of his name was anathema to Lee.
Lee embodied the Aristotelian ideal of moderation. As the deep South seceded in the winter of 1860-1861, Lee, stationed in Texas, was shocked when Texas voted for secession in February 1861; one witness recalled that Lee’s “lips trembled and his eyes [became] full of tears” when he heard the news. Lee voiced his resolve not to take up arms against the Union, “but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in defense of my native state.” When Virginia reversed its initial vote against secession in May 1861—in the light of Lincoln’s decision to make war upon the South—Lee made the anguished decision to resign his commission in the United States Army, concluding that despite his love for the Union, he “could not take part in an invasion of the southern states.”
Lee indeed despised war. Surveying the slaughter of Union troops charging his lines at Fredericksburg in December 1862, Lee commented to an aide: “It is good that war is so terrible. Otherwise, we would enjoy it too much.” As Richard Weaver has argued, this profound statement, “richer than a Delphic saying,” shows Lee to be a true philosopher. In the days after the smashing Confederate victory, Lee wrote to his wife: “What a cruel thing is war; to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbours, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world!” This is far from the tone of a bloodthirsty martinet drunk on the intoxication of his repeated victories.
Twenty-eight months later, as mentioned above, at Appomattox Lee turned aside the suggestions of aides to continue the fight as a guerilla war. The social anarchy and protracted bloodshed that would result were anathema to the conservative Lee, and he prudently judged that Southern independence was not worth the price. Guerilla war horrified Lee because it would bring down the wrath of Mars more harshly on civilians. Indeed, Lee rejected the idea of total war that was developed by Union Generals Grant, William T. Sherman, and Phillip Sheridan, and embraced by President Lincoln. Lee was always careful to avoid civilian casualties. On the first campaign into Maryland in 1862, Lee issued General Order No. 72, which prohibited the plundering of civilian property and reminded his soldiers “that we make war only upon armed men.”
Robert E. LeeLee’s action in issuing this order can be contrasted with that of Union General John Pope, whom Lee had just soundly defeated prior to his foray into Maryland. Only weeks prior to Lee’s Order No. 72, Pope had issued his own order authorizing in Virginia the burning of private homes and the levying of fines upon civilians as retribution for guerilla actions taken against Union troops. More egregiously, in May of 1862, Union General Benjamin Butler, presiding over conquered New Orleans, had issued his infamous General Order No. 28, stipulating that “when any female shall by word, gesture, or movement insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation.” In practice, this meant that a female civilian who dared merely to display a Confederate symbol on her dress was liable to be raped by Union troops. Such atrocities did occur.
Lee’s dogged adherence to the traditional, Christian principles of limited war is even more impressive in light of the many atrocities that were authorized and indeed perpetrated against his own people by his enemy. Lee considered the protection of civilian life so important that, as the head of the detachment sent to capture abolitionist John Brown on the eve of the Civil War, Lee ordered his Marines to unload their rifles during their assault on the building where Brown had holed up, lest the hostages that Brown held be injured or killed.
Lee’s amazing self-restraint reflected the advice he had given to a young mother about raising her infant son: “Teach him he must deny himself.” The Christian Lee valued self-control as essential to proper behavior and indeed to personal and public liberty. “I cannot trust a man to control others who cannot control himself,” he said in evaluating his military subordinates. Lee practiced what he preached. He had the rare distinction of being a cadet who did not earn a single demerit at West Point. He expected the same gentlemanly behavior from the young men in his care at Lexington, Virginia’s Washington College, of which he became president after Appomattox. There he reduced the college’s many rules to one simple rule: “Every student must be a gentleman.”
As his name and image, and those of his fellow Confederate officers, are removed from shops, schools, and museums across the country, it is ever more important, especially for conservatives, to speak up for Robert E. Lee. A man of military genius and personal honor, a defender of civilians and civilization, a champion of duty and truth, a model of humility and prudence, Lee was perhaps the last defender of the ideals of the Old Republic, whose greying glory was ground under the wheels of the New Order of the centralized, industrialized state that triumphed in 1865. Though he wore the racial blinders of his class and time, Robert E. Lee was a man of exemplary character and remains an excellent role model for all Americans and is indeed a worthy contender for the title of “Greatest American.”’
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.” —
So, tell me, when are the monuments to the sainted Abe coming down?