The student government at the University of Wisconsin-Madison voted unanimously in favor of removing the campus’ Abraham Lincoln statue.
According to Campus Reform, students introduced a resolution to the student council which advocated for the removal and replacement of the school’s Lincoln statue because it “serve[s] as remnants of this school’s history of white supremacy.”
The resolution states, “In order to create an inclusive and safe environment for all students, campus fixtures with racist remnants should be reevaluated and then removed and/or replaced based on inputs from BIPOC [Black Indigenous People of Color] students.”
It also calls for a “permanent funding structure” for student groups centered around “predominantly marginalized groups.”
Thankfully, the university leadership hasn’t been completely engulfed in today’s woke cancel culture, and told Campus Reform that the statue will not be removed.
Nonetheless, the vote elicited a range of opinions amongst students.
Evan Karabas, A UW-Madison senior said that Lincoln’s statue was a “cherished symbol” and he didn’t want to see it removed.
“The statue has been a cherished symbol on campus for generations. Many would agree that the most significant part of President Lincoln’s legacy was securing freedom for the slaves, and we should celebrate that as a proud moment in our country’s history,” he said.
The main sponsor of the resolution, Crystal Zhao said Lincoln’s presence makes students feel uncomfortable.
“…Abraham Lincoln is a representation of ethnic cleansing of indigenous folks and the fact that UW-Madison stands on stolen land. Many students do not feel comfortable seeing him every day when we used to walk to classes. And his presence on Bascom shows that UW-Madison does not care about the ‘shared future’ plan we have with Ho-Chuck people and other first nations.”
If these students actually believe a statue of one of the greatest American presidents of all time is offensive and makes people feel “unsafe,” they are in for a rude awakening when they eventually leave their woke collegiate bubbles and enter the real world.
A WHOPPING 56% of Americans Say They are Better off Today (Mid-Pandemic) than Under Obama-Biden
Gallup's most recent survey found a majority of voters said they are better off now than they were four years ago, while 32% said they are worse off
A recent Gallup survey found that a whopping 56 percent of Americans say they are better off now under President Trump–in the middle of a pandemic–than they were four years ago when President Obama was in office.
During his presidential campaign in 1980, Ronald Reagan asked Americans, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” Since then, this question has served as a key standard that sitting presidents running for reelection have been held to.
Gallup’s most recent survey found a clear majority of registered voters (56%) saying they are better off now than they were four years ago, while 32% said they are worse off.
The Gallup Poll has just come out with the incredible finding that 56% of you say that you are better off today, during a pandemic, than you were four years ago (OBiden). Highest number on record! Pretty amazing!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 9, 2020
Gallup compared the 56 percent number to 2012, during the Obama-Biden Administration when just 45 percent of Americans could say they felt they were better off. In 2004, 47 percent of Americans said they were better off and in 1992, that number was at 38 percent.
President Trump responded to the news, writing on Twitter, “The Gallup Poll has just come out with the incredible finding that 56% of you say that you are better off today, during a pandemic, than you were four years ago (Biden). The highest number on record! Pretty amazing!”
New York Times’ B.S. 1619 Project Named to “Top Ten Works of Journalism of the Decade”
The New York Times’ anti-American, revisionist history project, known as the “1619 Project” has been named to the “Top Ten Works of Journalism of the Decade”
The New York Times’ anti-American, revisionist history project, known as the “1619 Project” has been named to the “Top Ten Works of Journalism of the Decade” by New York University’s Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute.
As 1619 Project is named a Top Work of Journalism of the Decade, @nhannahjones accepts "on behalf of the 40 million descendants of American slavery," and says project "aimed to take a story that has been treated as an asterisk in the American story and force it into the center."
— NYU Journalism (@nyu_journalism) October 14, 2020
The “1619 Project,” wrongly claimed the United States was founded in 1619—the year that slaves arrived in Jamestown, Virginia—instead of 1776 when the nation officially declared its independence. The project also claimed the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery.
The project’s lead essay, by Nikole Hannah-Jones, won the Pulitzer Prize even though its claim about the Revolution and slavery was regarded even by left-wing scholars as false, forcing the Times to make corrections and add an editor’s note.
Hannah-Jones later tried to claim the purpose of the “1619 Project” was not, in fact, to claim that America’s true founding was the arrival of slavery. Ironically, that appears to be what earned her a place on New York University’s top ten list.
On October 6, 21 members of the National Association of Scholars urged the Pulitzer Prize Board to revoke its award to Hannah-Jones:
We call on the Pulitzer Prize Board to rescind the 2020 Prize for Commentary awarded to Nikole Hannah-Jones for her lead essay in “The 1619 Project.” That essay was entitled, “Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written.” But it turns out the article itself was false when written, making a large claim that protecting the institution of slavery was a primary motive for the American Revolution, a claim for which there is simply no evidence.