The Hemingway Report

Friday, August 14, 2015

University of Texas to Move Jefferson Davis Statue

The Civil War along with slavery never happened. It's just a figment of our imagination.

There are literally hundreds of streets, highways, and avenues named after prominent Confederates. Are we going to change all those too? At what cost? Should any depiction of the founding fathers be removed? After all many of them had slaves.

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

The statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis will be moved to an American history center on campus.

Photo: ERIC GRAY/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Ana Campoy Updated Aug. 13, 2015 6:59 p.m. ET

The University of Texas at Austin on Thursday said it is moving a statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis from its main mall to an American history center on campus, amid a backlash against Confederate symbols in the country.

The decision follows a request from students to remove the statue, which depicts the Confederate leader in a long coat atop a towering pedestal, as well as a review by a special task force that weighed public opinion on the controversial piece.

“While every historical figure leaves a mixed legacy, I believe Jefferson Davis is in a separate category, and that it is not in the university’s best interest to continue commemorating him on our main mall,” university President Gregory Fenves said in a letter to students and faculty. Mr. Fenves said other sculptures on the mall depicting Confederacy figures, including Robert E. Leeand Confederate Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston, will stay where they are.

Officials across the U.S. are struggling to balance conflicting views about Confederate symbols after the killing of nine African-Americans in a Charleston, S.C., church earlier this year. The shooter had espoused racist views, according to family and friends, and was photographed with the Confederate flag.

The Jefferson Davis sculpture at UT-Austin has been vandalized several times since the beginning of the year. After it was marked with a “Black Lives Matter” tag in June, Mr. Fenves said he was convening a task force to explore the future of the statue and the others surrounding it, which were created between 1916 and 1933.

Polls conducted by the task force found that 33% of respondents were in favor of moving the Jefferson Davis statue, while another 33% were in favor of keeping all of the statues in their current position.

“Statutes are meant to celebrate and memorialize the people they depict and putting Jefferson Davis on a pedestal isn’t in line with the university’s core values,” said Rohit Mandalapu, vice president of the university’s student body.

And all it took was 82 years to come to this conclusion? If it wasn't for Charleston it would still be standing.

BTW...Meet Rohit Mandalapu:

We're going to allow this slob to dictate what true American values are?

Terry Ayers, a spokesman for the Descendants of Confederate Veterans, a Texas group that had opposed the removal of the statues, said the organization supports Mr. Fenves’s decision to keep all of them on campus.

“It is vitally important that the University of Texas at Austin preserve and understand its history and help its students and the public learn from it in meaningful ways,” he said in a statement.

Separately, a New Orleans city commission on Thursday recommended removing four monuments related to the Confederacy, including a prominent statue of Lee. The vote is part of a process initiated by Mayor Mitch Landrieuto replace Confederate symbols throughout the city. The city council could decide on the issue as early as September, a city spokesman said.

Killary's Cribs Shock Young People

Video 143

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Kerry says Tehran has not pursued nuke since 2003

See if I got this straight. According to John Kerry they haven't pursued a nuke since 2003. If that's the case what was the point of the Iran deal to begin with? I got it. To lift the sanctions so Iran gets over a hundred billion to spend on terrorism.

How do you explain this?

June 2012

Islamic world must have nuclear weapons, says Iran

Holy Shiite!

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

Secretary of State John Kerry doubled down on the controversial Iran nuclear deal Tuesday, telling lawmakers that there was not a better deal available to negotiators and that since 2003 Iran has not pursued a nuclear bomb to the best of America's knowledge.

Speaking in a moderated discussion on the nuclear deal reached with Iran hosted by Thomson Reuters in New York, Kerry tried to counter Republican claims that a better deal can be reached.

Kerry told the forum that President George W. Bush tried in 2003 and 2008 to get a better deal, but there "is not a better deal to be gotten."

He went on to say that the argument for a better deal would entail the U.S. maintaining or increasing pressure on Iran by threatening foreign governments and businesses with penalties for doing business with Iran, an idea that Kerry slammed as far-fetched.

"Are you kidding?" he said.

Kerry asserted that European countries wouldn't cooperate with U.S. sanctions, and would walk away from separate U.S.-led penalties against Russia if Congress kills the deal.

He also claimed that the dollar would lose its status as the world's reserve currency, and allies wouldn't support U.S. military action against Iran.

Kerry told participants that there was clearly a period in which Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon.

"We found them red-handed with facilities they should not have had, with materials they should not have had," Kerry said.

However, he said that since 2003, Iran has not pursued a weapon to the best knowledge of the U.S. and others.

"They have not pursued a weapon to our best judgment and to the judgment of all our allies, they haven't pursue a weapon, per se, since that period of time," Kerry said.

In terms of the argument for a better deal, Kerry noted that while Iranian leaders issued a fatwah in 2003 that a nuclear weapon should not be pursued, Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) still wants one and has fought against the deal.

"They are opposed to the agreement if that doesn't tell you something," Kerry said.

The One Question Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Isn’t Answering About the Turning Over of Her Server

The Justice Department is going to investigate. Who is the head of the Justice Department? Loretta Lynch... appointed by Barry. Looks like the knife is about to be plunged in Killary's back to make room for Joe.

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

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign announced Tuesday that the Democratic frontrunner would turn over her private home sever to the Justice Department — but there's one question her campaign hasn't answered: why now?

In March, Clinton said in no uncertain terms that she would not hand over her server or allow an independent third party to examine the emails on it.

"The server contains personal communications from my husband and me," Clinton said. "And the server will remain private."

Video 142

Fast forward a few months, and things suddenly changed.

"She directed her team to give her email server that she used during her tenure as Secretary to the Department of Justice, as well as a thumb drive containing copies of her emails already provided to the State Department," campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said Tuesday.

As news broke that Clinton would hand over the server, a U.S. official said that the FBI had seized the Democratic frontrunner's emails.

Merrill's statement, however, did not name that as reason why Clinton had suddenly made the decision.

So what is the reason for the sudden change?

The Clinton campaign did not respond to multiple inquiries seeking comment.