Connect with us

Opinion

The New-found Search for Historical Villains

Let’s explore some other notables in American history and see what laurels should be stripped from their legacy. 

Jeff Davidson

Published

on

Some time around 2028, freedom pioneer Harriet Tubman could appear on the $20 bill. In her perilous role as a scout and spy for the U.S. Army during the Civil War, and as an abolitionist and humanitarian, she earned it. She risked re-enslavement at least 19 times in helping others to escape. 

Tubman would replace Andrew Jackson, a favorite target of some people who rail against his slave ownership – perhaps totaling up to 150 people – while ignoring the context. Nearly everyone in Jackson’s environment was racist at the time. What’s more, Jackson championed the Indian Removal Act that displaced nearly 46,000 Creeks, Chickasaws, Cherokees, Seminoles, and Choctaws from their ancestral lands. Because he ascended to the presidency, perhaps it is time for him to vanish from our currency.

Villains as Viewed the Future

Nearly everyone has transgressed to some extent, so perhaps the vital issue is, “At what point does the transgression overcome the good?” Or put more positively, “At what point does the good a person has done outweigh the misdeeds?” Suppose that Hispanics working in America today as house cleaners, maids, nannies, gardeners, and lawn keepers, 200 years from now, are regarded as having been exploited. 

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

What if 200 years from now, whatever deeds that Hispanic domestic exploiters otherwise accomplished, are looked upon with disdain. This is not fair you say? “You don’t understand the context.” “We gave them employment, and we helped their families to prosper. It was all for the good.” Tell that to future ‘progressives.’

Besides Andrew Jackson, who else should be defamed? Let’s explore some other notables in American history and see what laurels should be stripped from their legacy. 

I Have A Thesis Dream

Martin Luther King, Jr. plagiarized vast sections of his doctoral thesis, as has been well documented by major liberal newspapers and even by the institution that honored him with his doctorate. Boston University has admitted knowledge of the transgression, that MLK plagiarized large portions of his doctoral dissertation and that the university had knowledge of such plagiarism at the time. 

Yet, the decision was made to award him a doctorate. After all, he was an otherwise brilliant, promising student, and Boston University was pleased to have had him in its program.

One hundred percent of other students in graduate school programs found to have plagiarized vast portions of their doctoral dissertations would be expelled from the respective programs: No doctorate, no graduation, no honors, in fact deep dishonor. 

Bye Bye, So Long

Is it not appropriate to relieve Martin Luther King, Jr., posthumously, of the legions of awards and distinctions bestowed upon them? Virtually every major metro area has a Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Scores and scores of schools are named after him, not to mention community centers, libraries, and other civic and social institutions. Numerous scholarships are named after him. 

Indeed, MLK is revered as the foremost civil rights leader of our time: America celebrates his birthday in January, as a federal holiday, while stripping Abraham Lincoln and George Washington of such distinction, in favor of the little-acknowledged “President’s Day.”

Can someone who cheated his way to academic distinction be allowed, posthumously, to retain such honors? Once again, “Not fair,” you say, to put MLK under the spotlight posthumously. Surely his brilliance was evident to everyone, and he made a distinct and positive impact on our culture.

Transgressions Abound

Great men are not always good men and the corollary is true for women as well. If we’re embarking on a witch hunt of the famous men and women in history, and then defaming them when we find something heinous, or merely unpalatable, we might have no one left.

John F. Kennedy’s transgressions are legion. Besides being a serial philanderer, his constant patronage of prostitutes put him in the path of extortionists. He also initiated sex with White House interns (as young as 18) on numerous occasions. A former JFK intern, Mimi Alford, among many others, has documented his unforgivable behavior.

Nevertheless JFK’s likeness remains on our 50¢ piece and the so-named Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts sits un-mired on the Potomac River in Washington. The so-named JFK Airport in New York, JFK Federal buildings, schools, libraries, awards, and distinctions all named after him remain intact.

Mostly Good?

“Wait,” you say. According to many people JFK was a force for good. Is that so? During his time, and even today, according to many people, Andrew Jackson was a force for good, otherwise he would not have become the standard bearer on the $20 bill in the first place.

What about Edward Kennedy? He was negligent in the suffocation death of Mary Jo Kopechne. Forensic evidence, suppressed at the time, reveals that she suffocated slowly; she did not drown. Kennedy had time to save her, but waited an astounding nine hours before reporting the incident to the Edgartown authorities. 

In 2009, A non-profit educational institution and museum was named for him: the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the U.S. Senate. Years before Mary Jo, Edward Kennedy was concerned about his athletic eligibility at Harvard for the coming year. He arranged to have a friend sit in for him to take a Spanish language final examination. 

The ploy failed, and, unlike Martin Luther King, Jr., Kennedy was expelled. Nothing stopped a majority of voters in Massachusetts from continually re-electing him and enabling him to become the fourth longest serving senator in United States history, a tenure of nearly 47 years, ending with his death.

Undeserving and Honored

If you’re steadfast in outing historical figures who are undeserving of posthumous accolades, consider J. Edgar Hoover. He became a life-long career criminal who, by the way, incessantly hounded Martin Luther King, Jr.

Hoover kept his post intact for decades by extorting one U.S. President after another. After all the revelations of Hoover’s lifelong propensity to break the laws that he was entrusted to enforce, why is the FBI building still named after him? If you can answer that one, we can get back to Andrew Jackson.

News

Stephanie Grisham Makes Wild Claims About ‘Secret Meetings’ Ahead of Jan. 6th

The clear-headed among us will recognize this nothing-burger for what it is, however.

Published

on

Not everything is a spy novel, or a Hollywood blockbuster.  Not every little political machination in our nation is some sort of clandestine and seismic event.  This is something that we all must remember during the hyperbole-laden headline-mongering that the January 6th committee is looking to drum up.

The group’s very existence appears to be hinged on the idea that Donald Trump is a wannabe dictator of some sort who tried to take over America 12 months and 2 weeks ago.  They appear ready to figuratively die on this hill, and they have no qualms with taking the absence of knowledge and fashioning it into something sinister – much like the conspiracy theorists that they love to deride so much.

For instance, there are now headlines swirling around the mainstream media that tell of “secret meetings” that Trump was having just ahead of the attack on the Capitol – the subject and substance of which is undeniably unknown.

Yet still, these are presented as insidious incidents that somehow prove something that they’ve been looking to prove for a long time…despite our complete lack of knowledge regarding the actual facts of the matter.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham told the House committee investigating the Capitol riot that former President Donald Trump had secret meetings in his residence in the days running up to January 6, The Guardian reported.

Two sources told The Guardian that she told the committee that Trump held the meetings, and that only a few of his aides were aware of them.

She said she was not sure exactly who attended but identified Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and the White House chief usher Timothy Harleth, as two people who scheduled and directed participants to the meetings, The Guardian reported.

The infotainment industry’s sources claim that Grisham’s testimony was “more significant” than expected, but there is nothing unusual about the sitting US President having meetings in which not every single solitary person in the White House is included.

Nonetheless, Grisham’s nothing-burger continues to gain traction in the media.

Not everything is a spy novel, or a Hollywood blockbuster.  Not every little political machination in our nation is some sort of clandestine and seismic event.  This is something that we all must remember during the hyperbole-laden headline-mongering that the January 6th committee is looking to drum up. The group’s very existence appears to be hinged on the idea that Donald Trump is a wannabe dictator of some sort who tried to take over America 12 months and 2 weeks ago.  They appear ready to figuratively die on this hill, and they have no qualms with taking the absence of knowledge and fashioning it into something sinister – much like the conspiracy theorists that they love to deride so much. For instance, there are now headlines swirling around the mainstream media that tell of “secret meetings” that Trump was having just ahead of the attack on the Capitol – the subject and substance of which is undeniably unknown. Yet still, these are presented as insidious incidents that somehow prove something that they’ve been looking to prove for a long time…despite our complete lack of knowledge regarding the actual facts of the matter. Former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham told the House committee investigating the Capitol riot that former President Donald Trump had secret meetings in his residence in the days running up to January 6, The Guardian reported. Two sources told The Guardian that she told the committee that Trump held the meetings, and that only a few of his aides were aware of them. She said she was not sure exactly who attended but identified Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and the White House chief usher Timothy Harleth, as two people who scheduled and directed participants to the meetings, The Guardian reported. The infotainment industry’s sources claim that…

Continue Reading

Opinion

In Marathon Presser, Biden Offers Grim Assessment of Russia-Ukraine Situation

And he was harshly rebuked by Ukraine in the process.

Published

on

On Wednesday, US President Joe Biden set out to prove to the nation that he is not the “Sleepy Joe” that Donald Trump so ruthlessly mocked on the campaign trail, enduring a nearly two-hour press conference that appeared, for all intents and purposes, to be a simple PR stunt.

Biden’s answers to the press’s questions were a bit off at times, with even CNN running articles on Thursday detailing the numerous factual errors that he made.

But, on the subject of Ukraine, the Commander in Chief had a bleak warning.

President Joe Biden said Wednesday he thinks Russia will invade Ukraine and warned President Vladimir Putin that his country would pay a “dear price” in lives lost and a possible cutoff from the global banking system if it does.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Biden, speaking at a news conference to mark his one-year anniversary in office, also said a “minor incursion” by Russia would elicit a lesser response. He later sought to clarify that he was referring to a non-military action, such as a cyberattack, that would be met with a similar reciprocal response, and that if Russian forces cross the Ukrainian border, killing Ukrainian fighters, “that changes everything.”

But the comments also hinted at the challenge of keeping the United States and its NATO allies united in their response to Russia. In explaining the minor incursion remark, he said “it’s very important that we keep everyone in NATO on the same page.”

The statement was almost immediately lambasted by Ukrainian officials, who reminded the President that there is “no such thing as a minor incursion”.

 

On Wednesday, US President Joe Biden set out to prove to the nation that he is not the “Sleepy Joe” that Donald Trump so ruthlessly mocked on the campaign trail, enduring a nearly two-hour press conference that appeared, for all intents and purposes, to be a simple PR stunt. Biden’s answers to the press’s questions were a bit off at times, with even CNN running articles on Thursday detailing the numerous factual errors that he made. But, on the subject of Ukraine, the Commander in Chief had a bleak warning. President Joe Biden said Wednesday he thinks Russia will invade Ukraine and warned President Vladimir Putin that his country would pay a “dear price” in lives lost and a possible cutoff from the global banking system if it does. Biden, speaking at a news conference to mark his one-year anniversary in office, also said a “minor incursion” by Russia would elicit a lesser response. He later sought to clarify that he was referring to a non-military action, such as a cyberattack, that would be met with a similar reciprocal response, and that if Russian forces cross the Ukrainian border, killing Ukrainian fighters, “that changes everything.” But the comments also hinted at the challenge of keeping the United States and its NATO allies united in their response to Russia. In explaining the minor incursion remark, he said “it’s very important that we keep everyone in NATO on the same page.” The statement was almost immediately lambasted by Ukrainian officials, who reminded the President that there is “no such thing as a minor incursion”.  

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week