Erased From History For Speaking the Truth?

I wrote an article a while back entitled Damnatio Memoriae for the 21st Century? that discussed the disturbing trend of how Southern History was being systematically erased because of this ambiguous, evil entity sneaking across this land called “Political Correctness”.

Well it appears this trend has not lost any steam. In fact, it is now reached the point of “Steam Rolling” over people who decide to speak the truth. This is a tragic symptom of a society that is well on it’s way to complete and total moral corruption.-SF

NY Yankees Vs Boston Red Sox- Bostons starting pitcher Kurt Schilling.

ESPN Erases Curt Schilling From Baseball History

In the bad old days of the Soviet Union, Stalin, Brezhnev and the rest would literally airbrush out of photographs those who fell out of favor. Killing them and sending family members to Siberia did not suffice; they had to be erased from collective memory.

In this famous photograph, commissars who were killed or were no longer of use were removed in the dark room one by one until Stalin was left alone at the end, finally satisfied.

Now along comes ESPN airbrushing a game played by former Red Sox great Curt Schilling out of a recent broadcast of a documentary on the 2004 American League Championship Series. Unless you have been vacationing in Mars, you know that Schilling was until recently an ESPN broadcaster.

Until, that is, he dared say that men should not be allowed into women’s bathrooms, no matter how much they regretted that Y chromosome with which they were born and can never part.

Read the Remainder at Daily Signal

Let Political Correctness Be Damned!

I make it a point to stay away from the political carnival, and I know the actions of politicians are ALWAYS duplicitous and eventually self-serving, but it really is a breath of Fresh air to see a Governor, more to the point, a SOUTHERN Governor, stand up against the rising tide of liberalism and Federal Extortion of the States to ignore the MAJORITY’s Moral and Religious beliefs.

After Georgia Governor Nathan Deal recently vetoed a similar bill (because of Federal and Corporate Extortion) and by consequence cow-towed to the Gay Rights minority, I thought the South was doomed to join the rest of the country in that long grey line of the “Politically Correct”, but Governor Phil Bryant has thrown a huge monkey wrench into all that. Let’s hope his example of  sticking up for a States Sovereign Rights spreads like wildfire. Thank You Governor. -SF

Jan. 3, 2011 - Hernando, MS, U.S. - m4bryant -----DESOTO SECONDARY----- January 3, 2011 - Lt. Governor Phil Bryant announces his candidacy for Governor of Mississippi during a stop in Southaven.(Credit Image: © Stan Carroll/The Commercial Appeal/ZUMAPRESS.com)

On Tuesday, Gov. Phil Bryant of Mississippi signed the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act into law. To protect religious liberty in his state, he stood up against corporate bullies and leftist pressure groups.

The Republican governor should be an inspiration to lawmakers everywhere.

In the last few years, states and localities nationwide have prosecuted small businesses for declining involvement in gay marriage ceremonies. We’ve seen the government do some pretty terrible things, like Washington state trying to bankrupt a 70-year-old florist, or Oregon fining a bakery $135,000 and then placing a gag order on the owners to silence them.

We’ve even seen the most intolerant tendencies of the Left’s rank-and-file whena pizza place in Indiana was threatened with violence for even discussing thepossibility of not participating in a gay wedding celebration.

 The message has been clear: It’s not enough to respect everyone, to live and let live. You must actively participate in ceremonies that go against your beliefs or the government will punish you.

To make matters worse, whenever state legislatures have considered religious freedom bills to protect regular Americans from this intolerance, activist groups and massive corporations like Disney, Hilton, and Marriott have shown up and threatened boycotts, protests, and relocations. Recently, lawmakers in West Virginia and Georgia have been cowed into shelving or vetoing these common sense policies.

This is the toxic atmosphere of corporate bullying Bryant chose to fight. As he wrote in a signing statement:

I am signing HB 1523 into law to protect sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions of individuals, organizations and private associations from discriminatory action by state government or its political subdivisions […]This bill merely reinforces the rights which currently exist to the exercise of religious freedom as stated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

A shocking amount of slanted news stories uncritically describe Mississippi’s new law as “anti-gay” or “discriminatory.” Nothing could be further from the truth

A shocking amount of slanted news stories uncritically describe Mississippi’s new law as “anti-gay” or “discriminatory.” Nothing could be further from the truth—you can read the details here. The law now simply protects religious organizations and a narrow slice of small businesses from being forced by government to engage in behavior that contradicts their deeply held beliefs. Nobody is being denied services because of who they are.

Bryant and the Mississippi state legislature have set a sterling example for other states seeking to protect the rights of all Americans. They did so in the face of vitriolic, misleading opposition from progressives and the corporations they use as instruments of bullying. This took real courage, and deserves our praise.

Read the Original Article at Daily Signal

Texas News: Supreme Court Get’s It Wrong Again…Non-Citizens SHOULD NOT be Counted

The Federal Judicial Branch is more screwed up than a soup sandwich. Bad Call. -SF

SC

In a loss for voters, the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against two residents of Texas who had argued that the Texas legislature diluted their votes when it used total population to redraw state Senate districts.

In Evenwel v. Abbott, the Supreme Court allowed states to use total population in redrawing district lines, even though that this includes a large number of noncitizens (legal and illegal), felons, and others who are ineligible to vote.

Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger challenged the state Senate districts drawn by the Texas legislature using total population in 2013. They claimed that both the number of citizens of voting age and the number of registered voters in their districts deviated substantially—between 31 and 49 percent—from the “ideal” population of a Texas Senate district. They argued that this disparity significantly diluted their votes in comparison to those of voters who live in districts with large numbers of non-voters.

 According to this logic, their votes were worth roughly half those of voters in other districts. In other words, they claimed that their Senate districts had the same number of representatives as other districts that contained the same number of people but only half the number of eligible voters.

This is a particular problem in Texas, which has almost two million illegal aliens, about seven percent of the state’s population.

‘One Person, One Vote’

By way of background, state legislatures reapportion voting districts for their state and federal representatives following each decennial Census. The guiding principle for states—“one person, one vote”—requires that all voters have approximately equal voting power.

This principle comes from a line of cases decided by the Supreme Court in the mid-1960s. Prior to that time, the Court had refused to intervene in redistricting controversies, claiming it was a “political question” that the courts should not consider.

According to the Court, the “one person, one vote” principle that it read into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires that “seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis.”

The Court never defined what population basis states could use. When the Court previously declined to hear a 2001 case similar to Evenwel v. Abbott, Justice Thomas Clarence observed that the Court “left a critical variable … undefined … the relevant ‘population’ that States and localities must equally distribute among their districts.”

Urban Lawmakers Dominate

Before the Supreme Court’s creation of the “one person, one vote” principle, many states had refused to redistrict for more than half a century, despite a dramatic nationwide population shift from rural to urban areas.

These state legislatures were dominated by rural legislators, who were not willing to reapportion and lose their power and control. The “one person, one vote” principle led to legislative districts being redrawn in nearly every state and urban areas gaining a large number of legislative seats.

Today, lawmakers from urban areas dominate many state legislatures the way rural areas used to because of the huge influx of noncitizens, both legal and illegal, into predominantly urban settings. The Court’s decision in Evenwel is a refusal to correct this problem, in sharp contrast to what it did sixty years ago when the situation was reversed.

Claims of vote dilution have been the driving force of redistricting cases for decades, and the Court has affirmed dozens of judgments against states and local governments for diluting the votes of its minority residents. Yet in Evenwel v. Abbott, the Court failed to enforce its “one person, one vote” principle evenhandedly. With this ruling, the Supreme Court has sanctioned states’ dilution of citizens’ votes.

Total Population

The Court has concluded that states may base their legislative districts on total population. In an opinion for six members of the Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg found that history, the Court’s precedents, and the settled practice of states using total population make clear that “it is plainly permissible for jurisdictions to measure equalization by the total population of state and local legislative districts.”

The majority also pointed out:

[N]onvoters have an important stake in many policy debates … and in receiving constituent services, such as help navigating public-benefits bureaucracies. By ensuring that each representative is subject to requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total-population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation.

The problem with that analysis is that noncitizens, particularly illegal aliens, are not entitled to any representation, constituent services, or public benefits. Their presence distorts the redistricting and apportionment process and shifts political power in a way that is fundamentally unfair to citizens, both those eligible to vote and those, like children, who are not eligible.

There is also no credible basis for the claim that representatives would choose to vary the amount of help they give to constituents depending on how large the population is in their districts.

Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito agreed with the majority’s conclusion but not its reasoning. Writing separately, Thomas noted that the Court has never provided a sound basis for the “one person, one vote” principle and has struggled to define what that principle protects. Thomas concluded that Evenwel and Pfenninger are right that the Court’s “one person, one vote” precedents are based on “the theory that eligible voters have a right against vote dilution.” In his view, the majority’s reasoning “rests on a flawed reading of history and wrongly picks one side of a debate that the Framers did not resolve in the Constitution.”

Alito pointed out one of the only redeeming features of this decision. Texas asked the Court to also rule on whether states “are not barred from using eligible voter statistics” to draw boundary lines instead of total population.

This question “implicates very difficult theoretical and empirical questions about the nature of representation.” Alito stated the Court has “no need to wade into these waters in this case” and can consider it “if and when” the Court gets a redistricting plan that “uses something other than total population as the basis for equalizing the size of districts.”

State legislatures should consider changing their rules and laws governing redistricting to make citizen population the standard for drawing legislative districts, not total population. That is the best way to protect the value of citizens’ right to vote.

Read the Original Article at Daily Signal

Holocaust History: The Ghost of Babi-Yar

babi yar

KYIV, Ukraine—Seventy-four years later, I reached up and broke off a small piece of a branch that was long and gray. It was bent in the strange, contorted ways it had blindly grown to look for light here at the cold bottom of the ravine, where the forest canopy above had turned the sunny spring day into dark winter’s night.

The branch connected to an old tree with gray and brown bark that was growing out of the hardened black earth on which I stood. It had been a difficult climb down here to the bottom, where tens of thousands of bodies had fallen all those years ago.

The ravine’s muddy walls were steep and slick and carved by erosion.

>> Editor’s note: The Ukrainian government on Wednesday pledged $1 million to build a memorial at Babi Yar, a ravine where Nazis murdered about 150,000, including 50,000 Jews, during World War II. Officials plan to complete the memorial by the 75th anniversary of the massacre in September. The Daily Signal’s Nolan Peterson recently visited the site. <<<

BY1

In some parts the trees grew at impossible angles, their roots holding the mud slope together. At the top of the ravine, at the sharp lip of it, the wind blew through the leaves that rustled against the silence that you didn’t notice until it was broken by something as quiet as rustling leaves.

An old road ended at the edge of the ravine. That road was overgrown and closed to traffic and now just a path through a park. Young mothers pushed strollers, and young men played fetch with their dogs. Students hurriedly walked past with headphones in their ears; old men in tweed jackets and old women with covered heads shuffled along.

This old road crossed through a forest of tall trees that swayed in the spring wind until it joined a noisy, larger road full of cars and taxis and buses. This road rolled up and down hills and past stores and restaurants and coffee shops into the heart of Kyiv, where, on Sept. 26, 1941, occupying Nazi soldiers posted this order:

All Yids of the city of Kiev and its vicinity must appear on Monday, Sept. 29, by 8 o’clock in the morning at the corner of Mel’nikova and Doktorivska streets (near the cemetery). Bring documents, money, and valuables, and also warm clothing, linen, etc. Any Yids who do not follow this order and are found elsewhere will be shot. Any civilians who enter the dwellings left by Yids and appropriate the things in them will be shot.

Three days later, on Sept. 29, 1941, more than 33,000 Jews packed as much as they could carry and left their homes in Kyiv forever. They brought suitcases full of clothes, jewelry, art, and memories. Some children carried a stuffed animal in one hand and held a parent’s hand with the other as they spilled into Kyiv’s cobblestone streets for the two-mile walk from the city center to the Babi Yar ravine.

‘Endless Row’

The SS troops, waiting at the corner of Mel’nikova and Doktorivska streets,were surprised; they expected only 5,000 to 6,000 Jews to show up. The troops, part of the combat arm of the Nazis’ most fanatical organization, wondered if they had enough bullets for what they had been ordered to do.

BY2

Some Jews arrived early, hoping for a better seat on the fictional resettlement trains. People in apartments on Melnyk Street, along which the more than 33,000 Jews marched, described an “endless row” that was “overflowing the entire street and the sidewalks.”

As the procession marched along the road to Babi Yar, most still believed the lie that they were to be resettled. But some within the crowd must have suspected what was about to happen. They were marching to their doom.

Maybe it happened when the SS troops started taking away their luggage, and then their coats, and then their clothes, and then their shoes and their underwear. Maybe they understood when they first heard the machine guns firing, or when they reached the end of the road and were beaten and driven in groups of 10 to the edge of the ravine and looked down at the pile of naked dead and waited for their turn as the bullets went down the line and the bodies dropped sharp and hard in the faster-than-gravity way that death pulls one to the earth.

Maybe during all of this, some finally understood what was happening to them.

But a morning walk is hardly enough time to abandon all hope in the goodness of men and believe in the evil at your back.

By the night of Sept. 30, 1941, the bodies of 33,771 murdered Jews lay at the bottom of the Babi Yar ravine. Soon the bodies of about 100,000 others—ethnic minorities, communists, prisoners of war, gypsies, Ukrainian nationalists, and more Jews—slid down the steep dirt slopes to join them.

The bodies remained there, naked in the earth, until August 1943, when the Nazis decided to conceal their crimes as the Red Army advanced on Kyiv.

Read the Remainder at Daily Signal

Dose of Truth: 6 Questions Obama Should Have Asked Castro

ABC

President Barack Obama is to be commended for raising the issues of civil liberties and free elections with Raúl Castro on his Cuban trip, saying, for example, that Cubans should be free to speak their minds and protest against their government without fear of “arbitrary detentions.” It must have been difficult for someone raised and educated by Progressives who have argued for nearly six decades that Cuba is a socialist “paradise.”

But Obama did not go far enough. Here are some of the other questions he should have asked Raúl Castro:

1. When will you allow free and open elections to be held in Cuba, as promised by your brother Fidel shortly after he took command of the country in 1959? How long will the Cuban people have to wait to exercise this basic right of a democracy?

2. When will you open your government’s archives to allow historians and others to document just how many Cubans have been executed at the order of your brother and other communist officials? The figure given in “The Black Book of Communism” is between 15,000 and 17,000. Is that too high or too low an estimate?

3. When will you release all political prisoners, especially the husbands, sons, fathers, and friends of the Ladies in White, who have provided you with the names of those who are in jail for speaking out for libertad? “The Black Book of Communism” estimates that 100,000 Cubans have been placed in prisons and forced labor camps for “political” reasons. Is that figure too high or too low?

4. When will you allow the free market to truly operate in Cuba so that the average worker will be able to earn a decent wage rather than the penurious $20 a month he presently receives? When will you allow credit cards—an essential instrument of modern commerce—to be used and accepted?

5. When will your brother Fidel admit that Che Guevara—admired by many young Americans—was not a high-minded revolutionary, but a cold-blooded murderer who functioned as Fidel’s personal executioner? Isn’t it true that he was a great admirer of China’s Cultural Revolution and that it was he, not Fidel, who invented Cuba’s first “corrective labor camp”—i.e., a gulag?

6. Isn’t it true that Cuba is not a socialist “paradise,” but a troubled third-world country ruled by a communist regime that discourages religion, denies freedom of the press and of speech, bars legitimate elections, treats the judiciary as a lapdog, and reveres the Communist Party above all things?

Any meaningful and enduring relationship between Cuba and America must be based on the truth. And the truth about what communism has done to the Cuban people for nearly sixty years has yet to be told.

Read the Original Article at Daily Signal