Al Sharpton Targets The Jefferson Memorial

[HARDCORE]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2676...-matthew-vadum

Sharpton Targets The Jefferson Memorial

The Left’s Cultural Revolution accelerates.

August 18, 2017 Matthew Vadum


Racial arsonist Al Sharpton is demanding the federal government shut down the historic Jefferson Memorial in the nation’s capital because the long-dead president honored by the monument owned slaves.

Thomas Jefferson, America’s third president, the man who wrote the justly revered Declaration of Independence, is also the man who penned this noble sentence: "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Perhaps he was thinking of future Al Sharptons when he wrote it.

Boiled down, this is a case where one of the most important, heroic, inspirational, intellectually robust, accomplished, and beloved figures in American history is under assault by one of the most repulsive, cowardly, sociopathic, intellectually deficient, unaccomplished, and despised figures in American history.

It was President John F. Kennedy who said at a White House dinner honoring a cohort of Nobel Prize winners from across the Western hemisphere:

I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.

“Someone once said that Thomas Jefferson was a gentleman of 32 who could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, and dance the minuet,” Kennedy said April 29, 1962.

No one has ever said anything similar about the dullard Sharpton, a vicious left-wing community organizer who, through his hate-filled racist and anti-Semitic rants, has gotten people killed.

That anyone would care what a racial-hoax-generating charlatan thinks of Jefferson’s legacy is a revealing and sad commentary on the profound damage that eight long years of Barack Obama’s racial agitations inflicted on America. Sharpton himself is a living example of this ugliness and depravity; recall that President Obama made the vile so-called community leader a trusted confidant and brought his friends, the pro-cop-killer leaders of Black Lives Matter, to the White House as honored guests.

Black Lives Matter is cheerleading the destruction of the republic. In light of recent events, Black Lives Matter Chicago is effectively demanding the repeal of the First Amendment. “After WWII, Germany outlawed the Nazis, their symbols, salutes & their flags. All confederate flags & statue, & groups should be illegal,” the group tweeted.

Minutes later it added, "The fact that the Confederate flag & statues permeate the south is evidence that white supremacy was never overthrown in the United States."

Except maybe for the abolition of slavery, Jim Crow, and the advent of civil rights laws. Oops.

But this desire to settle scores by shutting down the Jefferson Memorial is part of the Maoist-style cultural revolution unleashed by the Left in the Obama era and amplified exponentially in the Trump era. Every day or so there is a new fake, race-related outrage amplified by the dishonest mainstream media and cheered on by the resurgent left-wing fascist movement known as antifa, which has been embraced in recent days by the so-called conservatives at National Review and Weekly Standard, as well as by Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Marco Rubio. Tearing down statues has suddenly become fashionable and plenty of establishment Republicans and conservatives are apparently fine with the mayhem.

They are aligning themselves with people like Al Sharpton who told CBS host Charlie Rose: “When you look at the fact that public monuments are supported by public funds you’re asking me to subsidize the insult of my family.”

“I would repeat that the public should not be paying to uphold somebody who has had that kind of background,” Sharpton said. “You have private museums, you have other things that you may want to do there.”

Jefferson “had slaves and children with his slaves,” he continued. “And it does matter.”

Well, it doesn’t matter as much as Sharpton suggests and the claim Jefferson fathered children by a female slave or slaves may not even be true. The story started circulating in the form of a political attack on Jefferson. DNA testing in recent years has revealed that Jefferson, or any of two dozen of his male relatives, may have fathered the children of Sally Hemings, a slave he owned.

Nor should the fact that someone in the past owned slaves when it was lawful and socially acceptable necessarily invalidate all of the person’s accomplishments. Slavery, which everyone today – except for parts of the Muslim world and perhaps a handful of spots elsewhere – acknowledges is a horrible, inhumane institution, used to be a well-accepted fact of life essentially everywhere in the world. At the time, slaves were property, after all; owners could more or less do what they wanted with them, no matter what we think of the institution today.

This does not excuse what we now consider to be bad behavior from the past but it does place it in its proper context. Jefferson, whether he turned a single slave he owned into a concubine, helped to lay the foundation for its eventual abolition in the United States. Lamenting the scourge of slavery, Jefferson famously wrote, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just[.]”
When the Thirteen Colonies decided to break away from the British Empire, their leaders believed the new nation had to be as large and powerful as possible to survive, even if that meant allowing slavery in some of the new states. The Framers of the Constitution were largely opposed, and even embarrassed by slavery, which helps to explain why the Constitution forbade the importation of slaves after 1808 and did not even mention slaves or slavery. The compromise that allowed slaves to count as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of congressional apportionment wasn’t intended as an insult to the enslaved blacks, as Sharpton and other leftist demagogues routinely assert. It was inserted in the document to limit the voting power of the slave states in the hope that slavery could one day be abolished, or at least limited.

“One cannot question the genuineness of Jefferson’s liberal dreams,” historian David Brion Davis has written. “He was one of the first statesmen in any part of the world to advocate concrete measures for restricting and eradicating Negro slavery.”

So Jefferson embodies the contradictions of the American founding itself. When we condemn him, we condemn this great experiment in self-government we call the United States of America.

We can still respect and admire Jefferson even if he slept with a slave in his household, an allegation that has not been proven.

Something that Sharpton fails to grasp, or may be choosing to ignore, is that applying the ideas or moral standards of today to a bygone age is a very dangerous game that some call presentism. It is a recipe for disaster and it reflects the Whig view of history, a laughable school of thought that holds that progress toward enlightenment and other good things is constant and inevitable. Another way of putting is, things have never been better than they are today and each day things get better. It is not easily reconciled with the onset of the Dark Ages that followed the collapse of the violent but civilizing Roman Empire.

(One of the best explications of the icon-smashing, anti-Jefferson position is a piece, “Thomas Jefferson: Radical and Racist,” penned by Irish writer Conor Cruise O’Brien in 1996. Whether Sharpton has, or even could, read it, is unclear.)

And if the statue of Jefferson in his memorial is toppled as Sharpton demands, what happens next?

The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with slave labor. By Sharpton’s logic, they too must be torn down.

If the same principle is applied consistently, everything associated with slave-owning presidents will have to come down.

A lot of pages will have to be ripped out of American history textbooks, faces painted out of historic works of art, and statues melted down or pulverized. The creators of PhotoShop will make a mint.

A quarter of the nation’s presidents will suddenly become unpersons.

Twelve (or 13 if you count James Buchanan – see below) of the nation’s 45 presidents owned slaves, and eight of them owned slaves while president. (Actually, there have only been 44 individuals who served as president – Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, served two nonconsecutive terms.)

Those who owned slaves while president were George Washington, Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James K. Polk, and Zachary Taylor. Those who owned slaves but not while serving as president are Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Andrew Johnson, and Ulysses S. Grant.

James Buchanan is a special case. In his home state of Pennsylvania, slavery was illegal. It could be said that he was not a slave owner de jure but was one de facto. While thinking about running for higher office, it donned on him that his sister’s ownership of two slaves in the then-slave state of Virginia could hurt him politically so he purchased them and made them indentured servants, bound to him for a fixed period of time. Historians Gary B. Nash and Jean R. Soderlund say many free blacks of the era lived in a sort of “twilight zone between slavery and freedom” in the Keystone State.

Tearing down statues of presidents that modern-day Americans may not even have heard of – thanks to the union-dominated public education system – benefits no one except maybe for demolition companies, the occasional real estate developer, and direct-mail firms servicing Democrats.

No good can come of it.

[Boats]

Pledge of Allegiance Fast Facts
CNN Library - 4-24-17
RE: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/us/ple...cts/index.html

'Under God' faces new scrutiny

Facts:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

During the Pledge, proper etiquette requires military personnel in uniform to salute, while other citizens place their right hand on their heart. Men should remove their hats during the pledge.

There was confusion about who wrote the pledge, James B. Upham or Francis Bellamy, both editors at "The Youth's Companion," but Bellamy is now acknowledged as the author.

History:

September 18, 1892 - The pledge is published for the first time in the juvenile magazine "The Youth's Companion." The pledge is written to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the discovery of America.

1924 - The words "the flag of the United States of America" put in place of "my Flag." The pledge was originally written - "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

1942 - The pledge is recognized by the US government.

1943 - In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court rules that requiring a person to say the pledge is violating the first and fourteenth amendments. Jehovah's Witnesses challenged the the West Virginia Board of Education's requirement that students salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance or be expelled. The Jehovah's Witnesses argued that this was against their religious beliefs.

1954 - President Dwight D. Eisenhower asks Congress to add "under God" to the pledge. Congress adds the phrase.

1998 - Michael Newdow files suit against the school board of Broward County, Florida to get the phrase "under God" removed from the pledge. Newdow argues this is a violation of the First Amendment and that that his daughter should not be subjected to the pledge at school. The suit is dismissed for lack of standing because Newdow's daughter is not in school yet.

2000 - Newdow files a lawsuit against Elk Grove Unified School District in California arguing that making students listen to the words "under God," even if they are not reciting them, is a violation of the First Amendment. The case makes it to the Supreme Court in 2004, where it is dismissed for lack of standing, because Newdow does not have full custody of his daughter.

2005 - Newdow and several parents in the Sacramento, California, area file a new lawsuit, seeking to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. In March 2010, Newdow loses when the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals rules that the pledge does not represent a government endorsement of religion, prohibited by the Constitution.

October 5, 2012 - Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signs legislation requiring public school students be provided the opportunity to recite the Pledge of Allegiance each school day. However, students can't be forced to say the pledge.

May 9, 2014 - The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts rules that the Pledge of Allegiance does not discriminate against atheists, saying that the words "under God" represent a patriotic, not a religious, exercise.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
RE: https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship...states-america

Oath

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Note: In certain circumstances there can be a modification or waiver of the Oath of Allegiance. Read Chapter 5 of A Guide to Naturalization for more information.

The principles embodied in the Oath are codified in Section 337(a) in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which provides that all applicants shall take an oath that incorporates the substance of the following:

1. Support the Constitution;

2. Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;

3. Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

4. Bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and

5. A. Bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
or
B. Perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when
required by the law; or
C. Perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the
law.

The language of the current Oath is found in the Code of Federal Regulations Section
337.1 and is closely based upon the statutory elements in Section 337(a) of the INA.

History

Throughout our nation's history, foreign-born men and women have come to the United States, taken the Oath of Allegiance to become naturalized citizens, and contributed greatly to their new communities and country. The Oath of Allegiance has led to American citizenship for more than 220 years.

Since the first naturalization law in 1790, applicants for naturalization have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. Five years later the Naturalization Act of 1795 required an applicant to declare an intention (commitment) to become a U.S. citizen before filing a Petition for Naturalization. In the declaration of intention the applicant would indicate his understanding that upon naturalization he would take an oath of allegiance to the United States and renounce (give up) any allegiance to a foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty. Applicants born with a hereditary title also had to renounce their title or order of nobility.

Prior to 1906, naturalization courts had little or no guidance on how to apply or administer the law. The law did not include an exact text for the oath. It stated only that an applicant:

"...shall...declare, on oath...that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty; and, particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court."

Before 1906, there were as many as 5,000 courts with naturalization jurisdiction. Each court could develop its own procedures for administering the oath. Some courts simply documented that applicants swore an oath. Other courts chose to write and print their own text for the oath, which the applicant would read at the final hearing.

In 1905 a Presidential Commission on Naturalization studied naturalization in the United States. They found that U.S. naturalization courts lacked uniformity. They recommended classifying and summarizing naturalization laws into a code (re-codification), the creation of a federal agency to oversee naturalization procedures, and standard forms for all U.S. naturalizations, including a form for the oath of allegiance.

The Basic Naturalization Act of 1906 implemented many of the Commission's recommendations, but did not mandate a separate form for the oath of allegiance. Instead, the new Declaration of Intention form and Petition for Naturalization form included some of the substance of the oath. At the final hearing the applicant still recited a spoken oath adapted from the law. In 1906 the Basic Naturalization Act also added the section of the oath requiring new citizens to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

An official standard text for the oath of allegiance did not appear in the regulations until 1929. The regulation said that before a naturalization certificate could be issued, the applicant should take the following oath in court:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, State, or sovereignty, and particularly to __________ of who (which) I have heretofore been a subject (or citizen); that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion: So help me God. In acknowledgment whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.

This regulation introduced a signed oath with standardized language. There was still no separate, federal form for the oath. It was most likely printed on the back of the application form.

The Immigration Act of September 23, 1950, added text to the oath of allegiance about bearing arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; and performing noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law. Prior to 1946, the Supreme Court had ruled that the language in the oath about supporting and defending the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies implied a promise to bear arms. This was challenged in the court case of Girouard v. U.S. (328 U.S. 61). The Court ruled that the oath of allegiance did not imply a promise to bear arms. A refusal to bear arms was justified on the basis of religious training and beliefs. Under current law, an applicant opposed to bearing arms or performing noncombatant service because of his or her religious training and beliefs is exempt from taking the full oath of allegiance.

The section of the oath of allegiance about performing work of national importance under civilian direction was added by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and is the last major addition to the oath of allegiance as it appears today.

Last Reviewed/Updated: 06/25/2014