Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Rev. Graham on SOTU: ‘Our Nation is Broken – It’s Broken Morally, It’s Broken Spiritually, It’s Broken Politically’

cnsnews.com

Rev. Franklin Graham. 

(Screenshot, FNC)

In anticipation of President Barack Obama’s last State of the Union Address on Tuesday night, Rev. Franklin Graham said he could already reveal the condition of our nation – it is broken, morally, spiritually, politically, and racially.

The reverend added that he hoped President Obama would “turn to God for wisdom and direction” in leading America for his last 12 months in office.

“Tonight the president is set to give his final State of the Union address,” said Rev. Graham in a Jan. 12 post on Facebook. “I can tell you the state of our union.”

“Our nation is broken -- it's broken morally; it's broken spiritually; it's broken politically; it's broken racially,” he said.

“The state of our union cannot be fixed unless we repent of our sins individually and ask our nation to do the same,” Rev. Graham continued.

”I've just led a Decision America Tourprayer rally in the capital of Florida--#2 of 50!” he said.  “Now I'm on way to Baton Rouge to pray with the people of Louisiana for their state and this nation tomorrow at noon.

“Mr. President, I hope in the time you have remaining in office that you will turn to God for wisdom and direction about how to lead this nation,” said Rev. Graham.  “May your last 12 months be the best and most beneficial for this country. ‘Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord’ (Psalm 33:12).”

Franklin Graham, 63, is the son of world-renowned evangelist Billy Graham. Franklin Graham oversees the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and the international Christian relief group Samaritan’s Purse.  He is married and has five children. 

COMMENTS

Clinton rips into Sanders as her Iowa lead vanishes

A Marist/Wall Street Journal/NBC poll out this week, however, showed a very different snapshot, with Clinton leading Sanders among voters who are Democrats by 18 points.

Among independents and new voters likely to take part in the primary, the Monmouth poll shows Sanders with a 58 percent - 34 percent advantage, similar to his 59 percent - 35 percent lead in November.

Fifty-two percent of these voters say they've settled on their choices, up from 35 percent two months ago. Sanders' supporters (55 percent) are a little more decisive than Clinton's (49 percent).

Sanders (50 percent) now leads Clinton (44 percent) among women voters, and he's holding his lead among men, 57 percent - 32 percent, similar to previous months. And voters under the age of 50 prefer Sanders, 58 percent - 30 percent. Older voters said in this survey they would support Sanders over Clinton by 50 percent to 44 percent. Two months ago, Clinton led this group 56 percent - 38 percent.
www.washingtonpost.com

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton challenged Bernie Sanders's 

(The tightened race between Mrs. Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is revealing a sharp generational divide within the Democratic Party, with primary voters under 45 favoring Mr. Sanders by a roughly 2-to-1 ratio.)

stance on gun control during a campaign event in Amers, Iowa on Jan. 12. (Reuters)AMES, Iowa – With her lead in the Democratic presidential race in Iowa effectively vanished, Hillary Clinton tore into insurgent rival Bernie Sanders here Tuesday over a litany of issues from health care to gun control.
[As Clinton says only she can win, Sanders points to the polls]
Clinton charged that Sanders’s policy proposals were unrealistic, that the Vermont senator would raise taxes on middle-class families and that he could not be trusted to fight special interests and protect President Obama’s achievements, including his signature health-care law.
On health care, she argued that Sanders’s “Medicare-for-all” plan would jeopardize the Affordable Care Act and effectively turn over health coverage programs to the states, many of them led by Republican governors.
[Clinton in Iowa attacks Sanders health-care plan as a ‘risky deal’]
“If that’s the kind of ‘revolution’ he’s talking about, I’m worried, folks,” Clinton said, a reference to Sanders's call for "a political revolution."
Stump speeches by GOP presidential candidates reveal that they're already planning for a race against Hillary Clinton in the general election. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)Clinton’s speech to a few hundred supporters on the campus of Iowa State University was striking in its sharp tone and the breadth of her attacks against Sanders. Her intensified assault came as a new Quinnipiac poll Tuesday showed Sanders overtaking her in Iowa, 49 percent to 44 percent.
Clinton accepted the endorsement here of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and used the occasion to tear into Sanders for his 2005 Senate vote that gave immunity to gun manufacturers. That bill was a major priority for the National Rifle Association.
Clinton mocked Sanders for claiming that he was voting in line with the interests of his rural state with a deep hunting tradition.
“He says, ‘Well, I’m from Vermont,’” Clinton said. “Pat Leahy, the other senator from Vermont, voted against immunity for the gun lobby. So, no, that’s not an explanation.”
[Clinton camp sees gun control issue as a way to get to Sanders’s left]
Sanders has vowed to break up the big banks, but Clinton asserted here that she has stood up to special interests throughout her career, including on Wall Street. She said she went after derivatives and corporate executive compensation, and that she helped influence the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill, which passed after she left the Senate to become secretary of state.
“Don't talk to me about standing up to corporate interests and big powers," Clinton said. "I’ve got the scars to show for it, and I’m proud of every single one of them.”
[Bernie Sanders vows to fight the ‘fraud’ of Wall Street, provide relief to bank consumers]
Speaking more broadly about the challenges of the presidency, Clinton said she was the only candidate prepared to do all the duties of the office. She spoke movingly about her role in the White House Situation Room during the Osama bin Laden raid, calling it “one of the most tense days of my life.”
Without mentioning Sanders by name, Clinton implicitly suggested he was naïve to think he would be able to implement his ideas, especially with a Republican-controlled Congress.
During a speech on economic reform, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is running for the Democratic nomination for president, drew applause when he said his campaign is about a movement unifying people of many different backgrounds. (Reuters)“This is hard work,” she said. “I wish we could have a Democratic president who could wave a magic wand and say, ‘We shall do this, and we shall do that.’ That ain't the real world we're living in!"
Clinton appeared to relish laying into Sanders. “We’re getting into that period before the caucus that I kind of call the ‘Let’s get real period,’” she said. “Everybody’s been out there, lots of good energy, I love it. I love the spirited debate on our side.”
[Clinton, Sanders make competing cases for electability in Nevada]
In recent days, Clinton has been highlighting her perceived electability, something her campaign is trumpeting in a television advertisement airing here. Pointing to her longevity in the public eye, she suggested that she was the only Democratic candidate who could withstand the Republican attacks in a general election.
“You’ve got to know what you stand for, you’ve got to be able to defend it, and you have to withstand the barrage of attacks that will come against our Democratic nominee,” she said. “I am still standing.”

Chelsea Clinton Takes on Bernie Sanders
abcnews.go.com

Chelsea Clinton made her way around New Hampshire today in attempt to convince voters that they should support her mother, Hillary Clinton, as the next president.

Bernie Sanders, Clinton's chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, is practically tied with Clinton in voter polls. He now leads Clinton by a slim margin in Iowa for the first time.

Until now, Chelsea Clinton has shied away from directly naming Sanders in her speeches. She took a shot at the Vermont senator when asked by a young voter how to best galvanize young Americans, who are excited about Sanders' candidacy.

The youngest Clinton was on the defensive. “I never thought that I would be arguing about the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare in the Democratic primary,” Clinton said at an event in Manchester. “Senator Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the CHIP program, dismantle Medicare and private insurance.”

She then went on to say that she believes her mother has a “more robust" record on health care than anyone else in the race.

The Clinton campaign has said that Chelsea Clinton will continue stumping for her mother on the campaign trail. She will join her father, former President Bill Clinton, in Iowa for a joint campaign event this weekend.


Read The Full Text Of Nikki Haley's State Of The Union Rebuttal [VIDEO]


OLITICS


 6 hours ago | Updated 5 hours ago.
 Read the full text of Haley's speech below:



“Good evening.
“I’m Nikki Haley, Governor of the great state of South Carolina.
“I’m speaking tonight from Columbia, our state’s capital city. Much like America as a whole, ours is a state with a rich and complicated history, one that proves the idea that each day can be better than the last.
“In just a minute, I’m going to talk about a vision of a brighter American future. But first I want to say a few words about President Obama, who just gave his final State of the Union address.
“Barack Obama’s election as president seven years ago broke historic barriers and inspired millions of Americans. As he did when he first ran for office, tonight President Obama spoke eloquently about grand things. He is at his best when he does that.
“Unfortunately, the President’s record has often fallen far short of his soaring words.
“As he enters his final year in office, many Americans are still feeling the squeeze of an economy too weak to raise income levels. We’re feeling a crushing national debt, a health care plan that has made insurance less affordable and doctors less available, and chaotic unrest in many of our cities.
“Even worse, we are facing the most dangerous terrorist threat our nation has seen since September 11th, and this president appears either unwilling or unable to deal with it.
“Soon, the Obama presidency will end, and America will have the chance to turn in a new direction. That direction is what I want to talk about tonight.
“At the outset, I’ll say this: you’ve paid attention to what has been happening in Washington, and you’re not naive.
“Neither am I. I see what you see. And many of your frustrations are my frustrations.
“A frustration with a government that has grown day after day, year after year, yet doesn’t serve us any better. A frustration with the same, endless conversations we hear over and over again. A frustration with promises made and never kept.
“We need to be honest with each other, and with ourselves: while Democrats in Washington bear much responsibility for the problems facing America today, they do not bear it alone. There is more than enough blame to go around.
“We as Republicans need to own that truth. We need to recognize our contributions to the erosion of the public trust in America’s leadership. We need to accept that we’ve played a role in how and why our government is broken.
“And then we need to fix it.
“The foundation that has made America that last, best hope on earth hasn’t gone anywhere. It still exists. It is up to us to return to it.
“For me, that starts right where it always has: I am the proud daughter of Indian immigrants who reminded my brothers, my sister and me every day how blessed we were to live in this country.
“Growing up in the rural south, my family didn’t look like our neighbors, and we didn’t have much. There were times that were tough, but we had each other, and we had the opportunity to do anything, to be anything, as long as we were willing to work for it.
“My story is really not much different from millions of other Americans. Immigrants have been coming to our shores for generations to live the dream that is America. They wanted better for their children than for themselves. That remains the dream of all of us, and in this country we have seen time and again that that dream is achievable.
“Today, we live in a time of threats like few others in recent memory. During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation.
“No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country.
“At the same time, that does not mean we just flat out open our borders. We can’t do that. We cannot continue to allow immigrants to come here illegally. And in this age of terrorism, we must not let in refugees whose intentions cannot be determined.
“We must fix our broken immigration system. That means stopping illegal immigration. And it means welcoming properly vetted legal immigrants, regardless of their race or religion. Just like we have for centuries.
“I have no doubt that if we act with proper focus, we can protect our borders, our sovereignty and our citizens, all while remaining true to America’s noblest legacies.
“This past summer, South Carolina was dealt a tragic blow. On an otherwise ordinary Wednesday evening in June, at the historic Mother Emanuel church in Charleston, twelve faithful men and women, young and old, went to Bible study.
“That night, someone new joined them. He didn’t look like them, didn’t act like them, didn’t sound like them. They didn’t throw him out. They didn’t call the police. Instead, they pulled up a chair and prayed with him. For an hour.
“We lost nine incredible souls that night.
“What happened after the tragedy is worth pausing to think about.
“Our state was struck with shock, pain, and fear. But our people would not allow hate to win. We didn’t have violence, we had vigils. We didn’t have riots, we had hugs.
“We didn’t turn against each other’s race or religion. We turned toward God, and to the values that have long made our country the freest and greatest in the world.
“We removed a symbol that was being used to divide us, and we found a strength that united us against a domestic terrorist and the hate that filled him.
“There’s an important lesson in this. In many parts of society today, whether in popular culture, academia, the media, or politics, there’s a tendency to falsely equate noise with results.
“Some people think that you have to be the loudest voice in the room to make a difference. That is just not true. Often, the best thing we can do is turn down the volume. When the sound is quieter, you can actually hear what someone else is saying. And that can make a world of difference.
“Of course that doesn’t mean we won’t have strong disagreements. We will. And as we usher in this new era, Republicans will stand up for our beliefs.
“If we held the White House, taxes would be lower for working families, and we’d put the brakes on runaway spending and debt.
“We would encourage American innovation and success instead of demonizing them, so our economy would truly soar and good jobs would be available across our country.
“We would reform education so it worked best for students, parents, and teachers, not Washington bureaucrats and union bosses.
“We would end a disastrous health care program, and replace it with reforms that lowered costs and actually let you keep your doctor.
“We would respect differences in modern families, but we would also insist on respect for religious liberty as a cornerstone of our democracy.
“We would recognize the importance of the separation of powers and honor the Constitution in its entirety. And yes, that includes the Second and Tenth Amendments.
“We would make international agreements that were celebrated in Israel and protested in Iran, not the other way around.
“And rather than just thanking our brave men and women in uniform, we would actually strengthen our military, so both our friends and our enemies would know that America seeks peace, but when we fight wars we win them.
“We have big decisions to make. Our country is being tested.
“But we’ve been tested in the past, and our people have always risen to the challenge. We have all the guidance we need to be safe and successful.
“Our forefathers paved the way for us.
“Let’s take their values, and their strengths, and rededicate ourselves to doing whatever it takes to keep America the greatest country in the history of man. And woman.
“Thank you, good night, and God bless.”

In State of the Union, Obama Confronts Americans’ Fears

www.nytimes.com

Slide Show | President Obama’s Last State of the Union Mr. Obama delivered his final State of the Union address on Tuesday.By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and MICHAEL D. SHEARJanuary 12, 2016

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Tuesday set forth an ambitious vision for America’s future but conceded his own failure to heal the political divisions holding back progress, calling it a lasting disappointment of his tenure.

In a prime-time televised speech that avoided the usual litany of policy prescriptions, Mr. Obama used his finalState of the Union address to paint a hopeful portrait of the nation after seven years of his leadership, with a resurgent economy and better standing in the world despite inequality at home and terrorism abroad.

But Mr. Obama, who campaigned for president on promises of hope and change, and vowed when he took office to transform Washington and politics itself, accepted responsibility for falling far short of that goal.

“It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency, that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better,” Mr. Obama said, adding that “a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide.”

He acknowledged that many Americans feel frightened and shut out of a political and economic system they view as rigged against their interests, even as he offered an implicit rebuke of Republicans who are playing on those insecurities in the race to succeed him.

“As frustration grows, there will be voices urging us to fall back into tribes, to scapegoat fellow citizens who don’t look like us, or pray like us, or vote like we do, or share the same background,” Mr. Obama said. “We can’t afford to go down that path.”

He repeatedly sought to contrast Republicans’ bleak appraisals of the state of the nation with his own upbeat assessment. He called his opponents’ version “a fiction” and defended his decisions, many of them flash points for the partisan divide. Mr. Obama implicitly singled out Donald J. Trump, the leading Republican presidential candidate, for pointed criticism, saying that Americans must resist calls to stigmatize all Muslims at a time of threats from the Islamic State.

“Will we respond to the changes of our time with fear, turning inward as a nation, and turning against each other as a people?” Mr. Obama said. “Or will we face the future with confidence in who we are, what we stand for, and the incredible things we can do together?”

He also made an indirect but derisive reference to Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, another Republican presidential contender who has criticized Mr. Obama’s foreign policy and urged him to “carpet bomb” the Islamic State.

“The world will look to us to help solve these problems,” Mr. Obama said of global challenges, “and our answer needs to be more than tough talk or calls to carpet bomb civilians.”

The speech, a mix of Mr. Obama’s often lofty rhetoric and punchy, colloquial language, drew more scattered applause than in earlier years. The president appeared liberated by his decision not to present the usual menu of legislative proposals, although it lasted an hour and four minutes, longer than some past addresses. Mr. Obama spoke informally at times, and with occasional flashes of humor.

“Now I’m guessing we won’t agree on health care anytime soon,” he said at one point, as the sound of a single person clapping on the Republican side could be heard in the chamber. Mr. Obama smiled. “A little applause back there,” he said wryly.

Mr. Obama opted for symbolism to make some of his points, leaving a chair empty in the first lady’s guest box to symbolize the victims of gun violence. The other seats were filled by an array of guests including a Syrian refugee. Among the guests invited by Republican lawmakers was Kim Davis, the Kentucky court clerk who became a folk hero to social conservatives for refusing to sign marriage certificates for same-sex couples.

In his remarks, Mr. Obama said America should harness innovation and not be intimidated by it. He called for a “moonshot” effort to cure cancer, to be led by Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., who lost his son to the disease last year.

The address before a joint session of Congress departed from Mr. Obama’s past practice of outlining executive actions intended to sidestep gridlock in Washington.

Instead, Mr. Obama sought to pose and answer the four central questions his aides said were driving the debate about America’s future, including how to ensure opportunity for everyone, how to harness technological change, how to keep the country safe, and how to fix the nation’s broken politics.

He called for an end to gerrymandering — the gaming of political districts to ensure one party’s advantage — reducing the influence of secretive campaign contributions and making voting easier. Mr. Obama also called on Americans to get more involved in politics and participate, a theme of his first campaign and of his presidency.

The speech was one of Mr. Obama’s few remaining opportunities to shape the public conversation before the nation’s attention shifts to the campaign to replace him that is already underway. Except for a final address at the Democratic convention this summer, Tuesday night might have been Mr. Obama’s last big speech.

“I know some of you are antsy to get back to Iowa — I’ve been there,” he said at the start, acknowledging that the political focus is on the state, which holds the country’s first nominating caucuses.

Mr. Obama was determined that the address be forward-looking, aides said, even as his time remaining in the White House is limited. The president called for compromise with Republicans on an overhaul of the criminal justice system, approval of a broad free-trade agreement spanning the Pacific Rim and new initiatives to address poverty and the opioid crisis in the United States. He proposed to provide jobless workers with retraining in addition to the unemployment payments they already received.

In an effort to find common ground with Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Obama noted that Mr. Ryan, a Republican, supports expanding a federal tax credit for low- and middle-income workers. “Who knows, we might surprise the cynics again,” he said, noting a bipartisan budget agreement they struck late last year.

And he repeated past calls for legislative action on his domestic initiatives that have fallen short, including raising the minimum wage, revising the nation’s immigration laws and enacting stricter gun restrictions.

He used the speech to trace the arc of his presidency and its major themes: the economic collapse and recovery, the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the push for free trade and climate pacts, and his failed bids for an immigration overhaul and new gun laws.

Mr. Obama also argued that the country’s most acute challenges emanate not from the strength of adversaries — a primary criticism of Republicans who portray the president as feckless in the face of mounting threats — but from their weakness.

He defended his approach to taking on the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, describing it as a dangerous threat to the United States that must be dealt with, but not an existential one, and not a force that warrants a commitment of American ground forces in Iraq and Syria.

The president also said the United States is uniquely positioned to rally other countries to solve global problems, highlighting his work in forging a nuclear deal with Iran, opening a new era of relations with Cuba, pressing for a global accord reached in Paris to combat climate change and efforts to stop the spread of Ebola.

Republicans, too, used the occasion to contrast their agenda and their values with those of the sitting president, and to offer their own, far more negative assessment of his tenure.

“The president’s record has often fallen far short of his soaring words,” Gov. Nikki R. Haley of South Carolina said in her official response, delivered immediately after Mr. Obama’s. “As he enters his final year in office, many Americans are still feeling the squeeze of an economy too weak to raise income levels.”

“Even worse,” she added, “we are facing the most dangerous terrorist threat our nation has seen since September 11th, and this president appears either unwilling or unable to deal with it.”

“If we held the White House,” Ms. Haley said, taxes would be lower, spending slowed and the military strengthened.

“We would make international agreements that were celebrated in Israel and protested in Iran, not the other way around,” she said, referring to the international agreement Mr. Obama pressed for that lifts sanctions on Iran in exchange for restrictions to its nuclear ability

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Iran Seizes Two U.S. Navy Vessels, 10 American Sailors

Associated Press

by ADELLE NAZARIAN & JORDAN SCHACHTEL12 Jan 2016381

The Islamic Republic of Iran seized two U.S. Navy vessels while they were navigating the Persian Gulf on Tuesday, detaining the ships and ten American sailors near Iran’s Farsi Island, the Pentagon said.

Farsi Island is home to an Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) military base.

It has been confirmed that the boats were captured by the IRGC, whose leaders are aligned with the regime’s hardliners and have expressed staunch opposition to the now-historic nuclear deal.

Key here: Iran’s Fars News agency says US sailors picked up by Revolutionary Guard Corps, from hardline camp & v. opposed to nuclear deal

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) January 12, 2016


Iran’s state-controlled Fars New Agencyreported that one of the 10 sailors who have been detained is a woman. They also noted in their article that each of the boats is equipped with three 50 caliber machine guns. The IRGC has also confiscated GPS equipment from the vessels.

Iran media says Revolutionary Guard navy confiscated GPS equipment belonging to 10 US sailors it has arrested, “our border was crossed.”

— Thomas Erdbrink (@ThomasErdbrink) January 12, 2016


Senior U.S. officials told news outlets it is unclear if the ships strayed into Iranian waters before Tehran’s navy captured the vessels. Iran claims the U.S. ships illegally entered Iranian territory.

Secretary of State John Kerry has called Tehran hoping to secure the sailors’ immediate release, according to reports, which state Iran has agreed to let them go “within hours.”

At the same time Kerry was said to be on the phone with Iranian officials, his Twitter account posted the following:

.@HHigginbottom and @ABlinken take part in @WhiteHouse’s#BigBlockOfCheeseDay tomorrow. Send them your toughest #foreignpolicyquestions.

— John Kerry (@JohnKerry) January 12, 2016


Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook told AP Tuesday that the U.S. Navy ships were in transit between Kuwait and Bahrain when they lost contact with their base of communications.

“We have been in contact with Iran and have received assurances that the crew and vessels will be returned promptly,” Cookstated.

Iran has assured the U.S. of the sailors’ “safety and well-being” and “will promptly continue their journey,” a senior White House official told Fox News.

However, a report by the Tasnim News Agency only makes reference to release of the ships’ crew. In fact, the report twice makes a point to suggest that the boat’s occupants would be released, indicating a divergence from statements issued by the White House. Furthermore, the article in the Fars News Agency does not indicate the crew’s imminent release and even makes reference to repeated calls from U.S. officials for the release of prisoners that are currently being held in Iranian prisons.

Officials also indicated that, contrary to suggestions of an imminent release, the crew could be spending the night in captivity.

Official tells @barbarastarrcnn the U.S. sailors may be spending the night in Iran https://t.co/DudzVAnlrOhttps://t.co/4hoJGjSrH3

— The Situation Room (@CNNSitRoom)January 12, 2016


Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) appeared on MSNBC Tuesday afternoon, telling the far-left news network she hopes the issue will be resolved before the President’s State of the Union address.

“Hopefully this will be resolved, and it won’t be an issue that we’re talking about in a couple of hours,” she said.

Separately, U.S. Representatives Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI) and Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) have invited the sister and brother-in-law of Amir Hekmati, an American who is being held hostage in an Iranian prison, as their guests for President Obama’s State of the Union Address.

They said in a bipartisan press release:

Today marks the 1,596th day of Amir Hekmati’s unjust imprisonment in Iran on charges fabricated out of whole cloth.

The House of Representatives has been adamant that we must secure his release.  To draw attention to Amir’s plight, his sister Sarah Hekmati (guest of Rep. Dan Kildee) and her husband Dr. Ramy Kurdi (guest of Rep. Matt Salmon) will be, by agreement of the whole house, seated together tonight at the President’s State of the Union address to Congress.

“It is our hope that bringing renewed national attention to Amir’s imprisonment will not only keep him in the nation’s prayers, but renew our diplomatic efforts to secure his release.


Update 5:45 PM ET: The U.S. sailors will be held hostage “through Wednesday,” senior defense officials tell The Daily Beast.

Read More Stories About:

National SecurityIranMiddle EastJohn Kerryunited statesnuclear dealnavy,GulfFars NewsTasnim News Agency

Bulldozing Monuments and the War on American History

Getty Images

by JARRETT STEPMAN11 Jan 20161032

Editor’s Note: The following is a debate with Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation over the New Orleans City Council’s December 17, 2015 decision to remove four monuments relating to the Confederacy. Read Sandefur’s article here.

On December 17, the New Orleans City Council voted to remove four Confederate statues from the city, using obscure “nuisance” laws to strip these over 100-year-old historic monuments from their places of display. Mayor Mitch Landrieu said it was a “courageous decision to turn a page on our divisive past and chart the course for a more inclusive future.” Of course, the plan to remove the statues is itself divisive as a number of preservation organizations havefiled lawsuits to save the monuments.

The New Orleans statues to be removed are of General Robert E. Lee, General P.G.T. Beauregard, and Confederate President Jefferson Davis. The city will also remove an “obelisk dedicated to the Battle of Liberty Place” according to CNN. The Lee andBeauregard statues are on the National Register of Historic Places.

The most controversial of the monuments on the chopping block is the Battle of Liberty Place monument—dedicated to a Democratic white supremacist paramilitary group that fought the state and federal government during Reconstruction. But an adjacent commemoration was constructed in 1974, which states, “Although the ‘battle of Liberty Place’ and this monument are important parts of the New Orleans history, the sentiments in favor of white supremacy expressed thereon are contrary to the philosophy and beliefs of present-day New Orleans.”

There are times when it is acceptable for monuments to come down: Americans tore apart a statue of King George III during the Revolution, Lenin and Stalin statues were destroyed after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and most Americans today remember the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue during the second Iraq War. These were all revolutionary events in which an old regime was entirely replaced by a new one, a clean break with the past.

However, the war on Confederate monuments is part of the most recent effort by national activist groups to strip elements of American history deemed offensive and not in line with their current, ever-evolving political agenda. They wish to do more than create a new political order, and insist that the only way for the U.S. to move forward is by entirely erasing the past.

The anti-Confederate monument activists are not just setting their sights on the Confederacy, but American history as a whole—deep down they make little distinction between the Confederate founders and the Founding Fathers of the United States. There are plenty of reasons for critics–both contemporary and modern–to attack the Confederacy, especially theideas that were at its cornerstone. Yet neither the ideas nor the personal character of the monuments’ likenesses are particularly relevant in this crusade. All that matters is that they are currently politically incorrect.

Those who argue to remove the Lee and Davis statues, for instance, claim that the two illustrious men were traitors and not even from New Orleans, so the statues are inappropriate on those grounds. However, this is clearly not their real standard. The statue of Andrew Jackson is next on next on the agenda, yet Jackson saved New Orleans from British capture during the War of 1812 and was one of the staunchest unionists, known for his famous phrase, “Our federal union, it must be preserved!” He had deep ties to New Orleans and was the furthest thing from being a secessionist. But Jackson owned slaves and killed Indians in war, so he must be purged alongside Jefferson Davis. Similar arguments can be made about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and a never ending list of now unacceptable historical figures.

America doesn’t need a whitewashing of history, it needs a renewed commitment to the leaders and inspiring people, heralded and unheralded, who made this country what it is today–and an understanding of those who may have caused it harm. New monuments and reinterpretations of the past will undoubtedly arise, but this should not necessitate the bulldozing of priceless and irreplaceable works of art.

The current efforts to fundamentally transform history are fueled by people who believe America has been rotten since day one and want nothing less than total political and cultural revolution. It would be a travesty and a foreboding sign for America’s future if there is no attempt to preserve these monuments against the push of a temporary majority or—more accurately—an incredibly vocal and insistent minority.

In the last few years alone, leftist activists have been relentless and often successful in their pursuit of dismantling this country’s past in an attempt to recreate the nation in their own image. Amongst many other examples they have attempted to remove:Alexander Hamilton from the $10 bill, Andrew Jackson from the $20 billAndrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson from annual Democrat Party dinners, President William McKinley’s name from Mount McKinley, and even progressive forefather Woodrow Wilson’s name from Princeton University. And perhaps most disturbing of all is the effort to dig up Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife from their graves in a park in Memphis, Tennessee. Even the dead are not allowed to rest.

For the modern Robespierres there is simply no difference between the ideas of Thomas Jefferson who wrote that “all men are created equal” and Confederate founders such as Alexander Stephens who claimed that “our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.”

Backers of the movement to eradicate the Confederate monuments in New Orleans claim it is an attempt to bring unity to the to the now mostly-black community, yet it does the exact opposite. As Ian Tuttle wrotein National Review, “The Left’s Confederate-eradication frenzy is not meant to promote healing or encourage dialogue but to enforce conformity,” he continued. “…the goal of folding up the Confederate battle flag — or discarding a bust or renaming a school — is not to facilitate racial unity by minimizing the visibility of potentially hurtful displays. The goal is to impose a uniform ideological perspective on dissenters.”

When this agenda is stoked and accepted, monuments will increasingly face a permanent and revolving ideological test, subjected to destruction after sudden shifts in power and minor changes in the cultural milieu.

New Orleans suffers with rapidly climbing murder and crime rates, some of the worst roads for a major city in the United States, unsafe drinking water, and sky-high levels of debt. It is only now starting to build an effective system of education based around school choice, after scoring among the worst in the country for generations. Is the crusade to remove the monuments going to change any of this or fix racial tensions? No. And it will come at a great additional cost.

A city that struggles to fill potholes should perhaps be focused more on the immediate problems at hand than demolishing century old statues. As Ellen Carmichael noted inNational Review, “One New Orleanian said he spoke with a contractor who said that the cost to remove just the statue — without its foundation — and store it for a single month would top $1 million. This could instead be used to pay for the salaries for 228 new police officers during that same period.”

If Americans continue to back down to the relentless attempts to erase our history—essentially everything that falls outside of the constantly shifting and increasingly narrow band of ideas acceptable to the modern intellectual left—there will not be merely fewer statues of Robert E. Lee and old Confederates. There will be little of this country’s history and ideas left to protect, reflect on, and uphold. We will live in an intellectual and moral wasteland in which the only views deemed acceptable to express or examine come from the loudest and most indignant purveyors of social justice haunting college campuses.

Read More Stories About:

Big GovernmentAmerican history,ConfederacyAndrew JacksonNew Orleans,Thomas JeffersonJefferson DavisFounding FathersRobert E. LeeAlexander Hamilton,George WashingtonConfederate monuments

Watch: Ann Coulter, Liz Mair Face Off Over Donald Trump on MSNBC



by JEFF POOR12 Jan 20160

Monday on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” conservative columnist Ann Coulter and Republican strategist Liz Mair debated the merits of the candidacy of Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump and the eligibility of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to be president of the United States.

Partial transcript as follows:

MAIR: In 2013, you were out there saying Ted Cruz was a natural-born citizen and eligible to run for office. People can check my Twitter feed, I retweeted your tweet from 2013 today.

COULTER: I changed my mind.

MAIR: Well you were right the first time … Ann also said that Mitt Romney was the “perfect” and best Republican candidate.

COULTER: He was, there was no Trump back then.

MAIR: And she kissed Chris Christie’s backside up the wazoo.

COULTER: Until he went bad on immigration.

MAIR: This is not. Yeah–

COULTER: In fact, my ideal ticket is Trump-Romney. That’s what I’m really hoping for. That’s the dynamite combo.

MAIR: And that’s the proof right there that you are in no way conservative, and in no way interested in conservative policy.


Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart TV2016 Presidential RaceDonald TrumpTed CruzChris MatthewsAnn CoulterLiz MairHardball