|Posted on September 29, 2018 at 11:05 AM||comments (0)|
By Dr. Larry Fedewa (September 29, 2018)
The greatest threat to the long-term security of the United States of America is the $21 trillion (and growing) national debt. There are many possible outcomes of an uncontrolled national debt – none of them good. Gradual outcomes have already begun in the form of efforts to undermine the position of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
The chief force behind this move is China, with serious support of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which, with the support of the Obama administration, invented its Special Drawing Rights (SDR’s) as an alternative to the dollar for international trade.
Further, the new international development bank called BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), an economic coalition representing 41% of the world’s population and 23% of the global Gross National Product (GDP), has pledged to fund a one trillion-dollar development bank to rival the World Bank and the IMF. The rapidly increasing preferred currency of BRICS is the Chinese yuan. BRICS started as an economic coalition for mutual support but has already begun to branch out into nuclear security and similar fields of cooperation.
Some commentators, such as James Rickards, see this and similar efforts as genuine threats to the stability of the dollar. As long as the huge debt keeps growing and the proportion of the world gold supply held by the USA keeps dwindling, the USA stands to continue watching confidence in the dollar decrease apace. That path eventually leads the USA toward becoming a giant Greece or post-WWI Germany.
Conservative support for Donald Trump
One of the first reasons many conservatives supported Donald Trump for President was their expectation that the national debt was one of his main targets in making America great again. So far, there has been no movement in that direction other than his bargaining a lower price for the Jerusalem embassy and some similar economies. So, the question is, Does Mr. Trump have a long-term strategy for eliminating the national debt? Budget hawk Paul Ryan’s leaving his power position as Speaker of the House does not look like a good sign.
The Trump Strategy
There is a school of thought that maintains the following logic:
1) in order to have a chance at reducing federal spending, the USA has to have a thriving economy, because experience shows that a country cannot spend its way out of recession. The Obama administration tried that and contributed to the longest recession in history.
2) But neither can a country starve its way out of recession, because the population will not stand for it.
3) Therefore, the only time spending reductions can be made successfully is when the economy is booming. This was known even in biblical times, as in the story of Joseph and Egypt’s seven years of plenty followed by seven lean years.
4) It is also necessary in these times of international challenges to maintain the USA’s military preeminence in order to guard the peace. Starving the American military as the Obama administration did would work only in a world without enemies as imagined by Obama’s idealists.
5) A strong military and a strong economy are also necessary conditions for prevailing in a contest of wills over radical re-alignment of trading relationships.
6) In order to prepare the country for federal cost-cutting, therefore, these preparations are necessary.
7) Conclusion: We are still in the first stage of the Trump national strategy,
The next step will be a debt reduction phase.
The Cost Cutting Phase
It is clear that the key to reducing the national debt as well as securing the dollar is the so-called entitlements. We have already heard President Trump’s most basic approach to this issue. Namely, he has promised not to rescind the Government promises to those who have contributed all their working lives to Social Security. Speaker Ryan’s formula for dealing with this issue recognizes the Government’s moral obligation to honor its role as custodian of the contributors’ funds, but also saves significant money by gradually adjusting the timing: raising the eligibility age from 62 to a later date (which corresponds to changes in the workforce which have already occurred). There are also other minimally painful adjustments available in areas of other federal and state pension programs, such as, civilian, military and railroad employees. Another area of saving has already begun with the reduction regulations and the corresponding need for enforcement personnel. The key is not really the actual metrics; at this stage the keys are the will to do it and the adequacy of the targets.
I cannot leave this topic without noting another possible advantage that may be emerging in defense of the dollar. That is the steady increase in America’s energy production. In the past, America’s major attractions to the rest of the world have been our nuclear shield and our huge retail markets. Our chief exports have been technology and the corresponding jobs it created.
The energy revolution adds a major new dimension to our export menu. With the investment and legal facilitation of more sources and more refineries, America can emerge from its status as a buyer of energy to a world exporter of energy. The transition holds enormous leverage for America’s international position in reversing the balance of international trade, reversing the outflow of petrodollars, enhancing our defense of Europe, and ultimately raising our cost of living. This monumental change in America’s international position might even influence the longevity of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency – replacing gold as guarantor.
Let’s hope President Trump is on the same wave length!
© 2018, Richfield Press LC. All rights reserved.
|Posted on September 28, 2018 at 12:00 AM||comments (0)|
What about a free-market health care system?
Shrink insurance and government down to size! Patient-centered medical care is possible.
By Dr. Larry Fedewa
The starting point for a discussion of a national health care system should be setting our goals.
American health care should be:
1. High quality, state-of-the-art
2. Available to all
What are the principal obstacles to these goals?
a. The shortage of medical personnel. This shortage has two facets:
not enough medical professionals are produced in the first place, and too many drop out before their time.
There are whole areas of inner cities and rural America, for example, which have no physicians at all. Why? Because our medical schools do not graduate enough doctors to serve the population of the United States. Why not? Lack of intelligent students? Lack of students who are motivated to give their lives in service to their fellow man? Not at all.
The reason is lack of money! Medical education is so lengthy and so costly in this country that very few students can afford to go to medical school. This situation has created a national crisis.
One very good use of taxpayer funds would be to offer medical and nursing school students free tuition, open to all qualified applicants. We do it for the military, why not for doctors and nurses? The cost would be miniscule compared to the Department of Defense or agricultural subsidies.
This policy would have a massive return on public investment. More doctors would increase coverage of the population (perhaps there should be a requirement for a graduate M.D. and R.N. to spend two years in a “no-doctor zone”). More doctors would increase competition for the patient dollar. More could devote themselves to research. New people, new ideas, new openness to change. The quality of care would go up, and the cost would go down – a mantra we have been hearing a lot lately.
This program would also assure continuing support for U.S. medical technology which is already the envy of the world.
b. Inadequate funding
So how do we provide for adequate funding? Where does the $3 trillion we now spend go? The money flow starts with the employers who pay the insurance companies out of profits. It then goes mainly to the vast bureaucracies in the insurance companies which distribute the money, the government which oversees the money, and the hospitals and practitioners who must respond to the companies and the government. Only about one-third of the $1 trillion spent on healthcare gets to the practitioners. So how can this labyrinth be simplified?
1) First, take the employers out of the picture. The added financial and personnel burdens on businesses of paying and accounting for employee health care is a double disaster. It is a drag on the efficiency of the economic system by vastly increasing the cost of starting and staying in a business, and on the healthcare system by removing from individuals the responsibility of seeing to their own health needs.
2) Next, reduce the role of insurance companies. They are not chartered or ordained by God to be judging the value or disvalue of medical procedures. They are supposed to know about money, not cancer! The decisions about medical care and the balancing for costs versus therapies should be in the hands of the patients where they belong. When the ultimate decisions of life and death have been left with the patient, we will have come a long way toward patient-centered medicine. Face it, there is no way for the patient to become the main arbiter of his or her fate unless the patient is the source of the money which runs the system.
3) This free market system would be much better and much cheaper. The individual works for the money; the individual chooses the doctor, makes the final decision as to spending the money, and pays the doctor, hospital, physical therapist, and pharmacist. So where does the individual get the money? From his or her own health savings account with enhanced income from fewer deductions, also from voluntary insurance or cooperative membership, or from family, friends or philanthropic sources. Since the money is the patient’s own, the patient is far more likely to become very cost-conscious – unlike today’s insured patient, who is always spending someone else’s money.
c. Insurance Companies and Government
A patient-centered system also reduces the role of federal and state governments (46.9% of health expenditures, NCHS, 2016). The patient doesn’t need the insurance company or the government. If both the government and the insurance companies were completely eliminated from the system, about two-thirds of the cost of American health care would be gone. Of course, there will always be some need for both, so assume that half of that cost would be gone. At today’s rates, that would be about $1.5 trillion. This is a gross number, but it shows the potential.
1) There is still a place for insurance companies in this system, although dramatically reduced. The most obvious place is for catastrophic insurance. A safety net for when something very expensive happens to someone in the family – or the church, or the credit union, or whatever assembly of people the individual chooses to participate with.
And this brings us to the role of governments.
2) The first federal government act should be to lift all interstate commerce restrictions on insurance companies, so that they are free and invited to offer policies in any or all the states they wish without the necessity of creating a separate bureaucracy for every state they enter.
3) The second federal reform should be the creation of a program for financial aid to qualified students in the medical professions. My suggestion would be a free education in exchange for a period of service in underserved areas of practice as determined by a federal government body, such as, CDC or NIH or HHS.
4) A third federal reform which would dramatically reduce national health care costs is tort reform. Everyone makes mistakes, including medical practitioners and hospitals. It is the federal government’s role to protect both the treatment sector and the patient. But the current practice of unlimited liability has led to “defensive medicine,” that is, exhaustive tests and treatments used far beyond medical purposes. These extras are done to provide a defense against the inevitable lawsuit in case anything goes wrong. This uber caution has become a major cost driver in American medicine. Congress should set reasonable and realistic limits on the monies which can be given to the victims of everything from malfeasance to honest mistakes. No more windfalls for injury lawyers.
d. Universal Coverage
The larger issue is care for the poor and the other underserved members of our nation. The concept of universal care is a noble and worthwhile goal. But socialized medicine is not the only or even the best way to achieve universal care. We have government programs to feed the hungry; to provide health care for the elderly; to protect the innocent. We can provide health care access to the poor and the underserved, whether because of poverty or location. We can also do better than the COBRA coverage for those who lose their jobs, or those who are excluded because of pre-existing conditions.
It is very tempting to design a system in which no government plays a major role. However, the most efficient way to care for the poor would seem to be a State-run program which levies a small per capita fee on each pool of insured to be placed in a designated fund, administered by the State, for the benefit of qualified citizens. A model for such a program might be the Medicaid programs in each State. Another model is the Uninsured Driver programs administered by the states.
We have now discussed the entire healthcare cycle without mentioning Medicare. There is a moral and legal mandate involved in Medicare which does not exist elsewhere. Medicare works reasonably well as a medical insurance system for those who contributed to it all their working lives. The most prudent and honorable way to approach Medicare would seem to be to leave it alone for those to whom commitments were made, even while moving the system slowly toward a patient-centered system for those just starting out, with free choices developed for those in mid-career. The pressure of the free market system we have been describing here will undoubtedly alter and reform Medicare as the new system matures in due course.
So here is what a free market system might look like. It would fulfill all our goals for an American system that is:
2. Available to all in need;
4. Abundant; and
To get there, we need to:
1. increase the supply of medical practitioners,
2. create a patient-centered system by letting the patient spend his or her own money on healthcare;
3. create state-sponsored safety nets for the poor and underserved.
These proposals, of course, seem radical today, even in America’s free market culture. But sometimes the most obvious solution is indeed the best. The fact is that the employer-based system we have today was initiated because the elite of another day considered average Americans too irresponsible to handle their own health and welfare. Not true today.
© 2018 Richfield Press, LC (All rights Reserved.)
|Posted on September 27, 2018 at 11:55 AM||comments (0)|
The New Left in American Colleges
By Dr. Larry Fedewa
Many Americans have been shocked and dismayed by the lawless behavior of students on several campuses protesting conservative speakers, harassing conservative students, and censoring student publications. What is going on? What has happened to the university as the bastion of free speech?
There are two keys to understanding these demonstrations:
1. First, these student protests are flourishing in an environment fostered by the faculties at these institutions; and
2. Second, the faculty preaches dogmas which mark a generational shift in values.
The fundamental analysis therefore must begin with the faculty. Student behavior is primarily an acting out of faculty teaching. Administrators, while generally sympathetic to the students, are caught between angry students and their Boards and other supporters demanding a stop to these outrageous demonstrations.
What is the faculty teaching and why?
An ideology has developed over the past two generations which has several names, such as the New Left, secular humanism and others, as well as several differing versions. The dedication to this ideology on the part of its true believers cannot be overestimated. It is based on a series of high moral convictions which are common to most variations of the new doctrine:
· the absolute equality of ALL human beings, no matter their age, race, gender, physical capacities, religion or social position;
- a central reality of this dogma is the existence of a universal racism in the America;
· the absolute obligation to oppose ALL limitations on human behavior whether religious, civil law, or cultural prejudice;
· to protect and foster government control of all institutions
· any means of furthering these ideals is justified, including physical violence and terrorism, since there is a war against traditionalists for control of society.
These high moral goals motivate the feeling of superiority which is characteristic of the New Left, as well as the ferocity with which they attack their opponents. In the most dedicated adherents of the New Left, there is a religious fervor not unlike that which motivates the radical Islamists. Those who disagree must be defeated at any cost, even at the cost of their destruction. The New Left are not as violent as the Islamic extremists, but there are similarities.
The New Left’s 2008 victory
In 2008, they finally won their long battle for control of the American government. They elected Barack Hussein Obama as President with a Democrat Congress to back him up. It took the Great Recession to do it. But the New Left -- spawned by the crisis of 1968, hardened by 40 years in the wilderness, and preaching an expanded view of human equality, anti-war idealism, anti-business bias, an anti-family and anti-religion world-view – the New Left now finally controlled the federal government of the United States of America.
The New Left’s reaction to the 2016 election of the deplorable Donald Trump
The main reason for the extreme reaction of the New Left to the election of Donald Trump is that they were convinced they had finally won their generational battle with the silent majority. They were so intoxicated by the victories of Barack Obama – especially after he defeated businessman Mitt Romney in 2012 – that LOSING was unthinkable! They had been confident that they now controlled the future of America.
The New Left values dominated, they believed, the new American culture, never again to be denied. The Democrat Party, one of only two major political parties in the United States, had become the vessel of the New Left, and was considered by all the New Left press and pundits to be firmly enthroned as the majority party for the foreseeable future. Their agenda had already skipped over the 2016 election and concentrated on what their next priority, climate change, meant to the world.
Then the deplorable Donald Trump won the presidency! His Republicans won both Houses of Congress, and most of the governorships and state legislatures! The man who had threatened to undue most of what Obama did was now in the position to do it!
How could this happen? Their answer: The New Left had allowed the Old Left to control the Democratic nomination until it was too late. Throughout the campaign that followed, they were continually referred to as “the status quo”, and most gallingly as “the establishment”! That critical mistake, they opined, opened the door to the silent majority – who finally spoke.
Does it mean, they asked, that we are now destined to return to the shadows, that we never really won the hearts and minds of the American people? That America is condemned to live forever in free market capitalism, restricted immigration, a monetary economy, a war-like world? Must we now accept the possibility that all our beliefs about the society and the nature of human beings have been false?
The New Left enclaves: universities, big cities, and the media
In New Left enclaves, such as the universities and the big cities and the media, the outcome of the election just cannot be accepted without a fight. “Send out the students, the activists, the camp followers – TV will cover. Somewhere someone will figure out a way to destroy the opposition, reverse the election, and return the nation to sanity.”
Opposing the university’s New Left
This is what we are up against in the universities and in American society. The only way to regain control of the hearts and minds of our youth is to teach them ourselves the meaning of the Constitution, the value of capitalism limited by laws, and the moral values of our religious heritage. Most of all, it is up to parents, coaches, and clergy to arm our own youth with the understandings to stand up against the faculties who proselytize the doctrines of the New Left in our schools. This begins with local school boards, with student-centered financing of education, with sharpened protections of free speech on our campuses -- especially publicly funded institutions -- and by protection of students who are in effect whistle-blowers on extremist teachers and professors.
All such activities must be conducted with a careful view toward protecting the freedom of speech even of the extremists. That can only be done with a liberal use of freedom of choices by individual students, namely, careful selection of schools and colleges and scrutiny of required courses, and of parents supporting school choice. Persecution of violators, however defined, would simply desecrate the mandates in the American Constitution. Witch hunts are not recommended. We can only fight excesses of freedom by providing more options of freedom.
But fight it we must – or we will lose another generation of young Americans!
© 2018, Richfield Press LC. All rights reserved
|Posted on August 28, 2017 at 7:20 PM||comments (0)|
By Tom Donelson
If you want to know why many blacks want Southern statues removed, review this statistic, the DNA of the average black is only 73% African, the rest mostly white; meaning Southern Slaveholders were rapist. Female slaves were at the mercy of their slave masters and many slave masters took advantage of women they owned.1
David Goldman once asked, “Why hasn't Hollywood ever made a film about Sherman's march through Georgia? This is my favorite moment in American history. He killed very few people (and almost no civilians) but he burnt plantation houses and humiliated the South. As Machiavelli wrote, a man will forgive the murder of his father before the loss of his inheritance. Not Grant, who killed off Lee's army, but rather Sherman--who kept casualties low but the flames high--is hated in the South. That shows what the South really was fighting for, just like their song says: "We are a band of brothers/Native to the soil/Fighting for the property/We gained by honest toil." Sherman might be our greatest military commander of all time, yet we do not celebrate his achievements.” 2 Sherman fought a war against the southern institution of slavery by denying the South the fruits of their peculiar institution.
The Civil War cost 28% of the Southern men military age, so this does explain why many southerners view their statues and memorials sacred. Many southerners see their statues as memorial to the brave who sacrificed their lives in the Civil War but what is missing in this modern context is the cause they fight for. As David Goldman observed. “I can accept the idea that Robert E. Lee was a decent man. Decent men fought for causes even more wicked than the Confederacy. Would the Germans erect a monument to Field Marshal Rommel, a professional soldier murdered by Hitler? Of course not. They are left to mourn their dead in private. America had a different sort of dilemma. We fought the Civil War to preserve the Union, including a South that was only sorry that it lost.”3
Goldman took the view of many Blacks when he wrote, “We allowed the defeated South to console itself with the myth that it fought for "states' rights" or whatever rather than to preserve a vile system of economic (and sometimes sexual) exploitation. Meanwhile the freed slaves had a very bad century between Appomattox and the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Don't expect them to look with understanding on the supposed symbols of "Southern heritage."4
As David Goldman noted, much of Black America is in jeopardy as for every 100 black women of marrying age, there are only 81 black males with the rest either dead or in in jail. 73% of African-American children are born outside of marriage and 60% of Blacks entering college will not graduate within six years.5 There are issues that need to be addressed within our minority communities and certainly, a study of history could aid into dealing with our present circumstances.
The problem with crusade against southern monuments is who leading the parade. Those on the left, including many of the street thugs alt-left don’t really care about symbolism of the Confederate statues but view this a first step toward attacking our founding fathers since many of them were slave holders nor does it help that many of these individuals have no problems with statues of Lenin while decrying Robert E Lee statues. Many of these same leftists are the immoral equivalence of the alt right they oppose.
Andrew McCarthy summed this position when he noted, “What bothers many ordinary Americans is that there is far more uproar over a statue of Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville than over one of Vladimir Lenin in Seattle. What bothers us is that elite opinion’s determination to conceal the presence of anti-fa at last weekend’s bloody debacle — the better to smear the American Right with the alt-right — is just phase one. Inevitably, phases two and three will follow: The presence of leftist radicals is grudgingly admitted but rationalized as a necessary defense against monstrous evil; then, in time, their presence is venerated as exemplary courage against a monstrously evil society.”6
McCarthy makes it clear who he blames for the Charlottesville riots, “This time, though, in Charlottesville, the white supremacists were the instigators. They caused it. They orchestrated this disgusting event, they came ready for the violence they knew they were provoking, and one of them committed a murder. If the roles were reversed, we wouldn’t want to hear a bunch of imbecilic “there’s blame on both sides” moral equivalence. We’d want the most culpable bunch called out and condemned, by name — and without any irrational hedging about phantom “very fine people” who confederate with sociopaths on the latter’s terms.”7 But it doesn’t mean that one can’t condemn the anti-fascist alt-left street thugs. Andrew McCarthy doesn’t buy into that taking down southern memorials will lead to a slippery slope that our founding fathers will be the next on the chopping blocks, “A great deal of Confederate iconography was not commissioned in remembrance of soldierly valor or mawkish depiction of genteel Dixie. It was crafted in defiant 20th-century resistance to the extension of equal rights, dignity, and opportunity to black people. Trump’s ill-informed meanderings about “culture” aside, many people taking offense at the statues have every reason to feel offended because, taken all in all, the reasons why they stand are at least as offensive as the images they convey. Maybe if we grasp that, instead of getting hysterical over it, we can see why the loss of Robert E. Lee shouldn’t threaten Thomas Jefferson. The disappearance of an honorable soldier in a dishonorable cause is not a slippery-slope rationale for casting out the founder who grafted onto America’s soul the conceit that we are all created equal — a solemn declaration of far more enduring consequence than its author’s flaws.” 8
John Hinderaker disagreed, “The people who are tearing down statues of Confederates in the South are barbarians, not notably different from the Taliban fanatics who blow up Buddhas and other historical monuments. Many have noted that if the barbarians want to erase Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis today, it is only a matter of time before they come for George Washington and Thomas Jefferson…We can add Abraham Lincoln to that list. Last night, a bust of Lincoln in Chicago was vandalized, apparently as a political action.”9 Not only have Southern Memorials been targeted but George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and even Theodore Roosevelt have been targeted.
The difference between the Alt-Right and Alt-Left, conservatives have condemned the Alt-right and as Jonah Goldberg noted, “. The alt-right does mainstream conservatism a favor by making it clear they do not want to be part of our movement, they want to be an alternative to it. “We don’t have a starting point with William F. Buckley, we don’t have the same starting point as Richard Lowry and Jonah Goldberg and National Review,” Spencer told Buzzfeed. The alt right is “radically different from George W. Bush, the conservative movement, etc. It really was a notion of an alternative.” This is very helpful for me as a conservative because it underscores the thing I want underscored the most: I have nothing to do with these bigoted tribalists. It’s one of the only things we can agree on.”10 The Alt-Left is also doing the same thing but as Jonah Goldberg noted, “The funny thing is that if you actually read or listen to antifa, or virtually any of the radical groups today or in the past – ANSWER, Black Lives Matter, the Weathermen, the Black Panthers et al. – they make it quite clear that they want to be an alternative to mainstream or “corporate” liberalism. Even peaceful radicals of the Bernie Sanders stripe make that clear. They really are an “alt left” in a meaningful sense because to one extent or another they hate the market system, revile free speech and find common cause with anti-American forces here and abroad. The problem is liberals don’t want to acknowledge it. They love the popular front logic. They celebrate the passion and will of everyone from Occupy Wall Street types to Antifa.”11
The difference between the conservatives and left is that many on the right have long disowned the Alt-right but the liberal movement today are actively supporting their more violent leftist brothers. Powerlineblog.org John Hinderaker observed that New York Times Reporters supported the violent leftist street thugs, “New York Times reporters Thomas Fuller, Alan Feuer and Serge Kovaleski are responsible for this admiring profile of the far-left Brownshirts called antifa: “‘Antifa’ members are ready to literally fight right-wingers….Members of antifa have shown no qualms about using their fists, sticks or canisters of pepper spray to meet an array of right-wing antagonists whom they call a fascist threat to U.S. democracy…Is antifa violent? Well, that depends on what the meaning of “violent” is:“You need violence in order to protect nonviolence,” she said. “That’s what’s very obviously necessary right now… The mere existence of supporters of President Trump is violent, so it is OK to attack them with baseball bats. The Times reporters show no sign of disagreeing with this “reasoning.”12
In another piece, John Hinderaker reported “A group called Patriot Prayer scheduled a rally in Seattle yesterday. Joey Gibson, the group’s leader, said the purpose of the rally was to promote free speech and America. This naturally drew the ire of the Left, and the fascist group called “antifa” planned a counter-demonstration… Debra Heine has a more informative account:
The rally, organized by the conservative group Patriot Prayer, came one day after violent clashes in Charlottesville, Virginia, that left three people dead and dozens injured…Counter-protesters — including antifa, Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), Veterans for Peace, Indivisible Seattle, Black Lives Matter, and the Freedom Socialist Party — marched “in solidarity against hate,” specifically against what they called “the bigotry, racism and violence” of the “far-right” organizers. Solidarity Against Hate counter-protesters waved communist flags, yelled “f*ck America,” squirted police with silly-string, and burned the American flag.” 13 The failure to condemn the Alt-Left fascist can only mean that what left of the traditional liberals and many leftist leaders and politicians not only tolerate this violence but accept it as part of their own tactics. The failure to condemn means the left not only owns these thugs but the result of their violence including when Bernie Sanders supporter James Hodgkinson attempted murder of Republicans that resulted in severely wounding Steve Scalise and others. The left can’t defend or tolerate the alt-left violence and not be held responsible for the results. At least many of us on the right can’t be held for the violence of the Alt-right since we have condemn them and now it is time for those on the left to disown the Alt-left including those in the media.
Which leaves us how to deal with the Southern Memorials. If it would be helpful if the left at least acknowledge that not every southerner who wants to keep the memorials up are bunch of racists and work for consent to remove these symbols and in the process make the case why. It is not too much to ask since many Americans support not removing these symbols and a political debate is needed to ensure all sides are heard and the reason explained. The final aspect is that removing Jefferson Davis is not the same as dealing with George Washington. Davis was the President of an enterprise that at its core was immoral and George Washington ushered into this world along with other founding fathers the greatest document designed to protect individual liberties and principles that have guided our nation for over two centuries. Our founding fathers may have been imperfect but the legacies they left is nation as perfect as humanly possible. If men were angels, we would have perfection but we are not but what founding fathers produced a nation with ideals that proved to be superior as any produced by humans before or since. A war on George Washington or other founding fathers is a war on what made American great. If the left fights that war on our founding principles, then the battle must be fought.