Harsh Reality

Monday, March 30, 2020

Chinese Coronavirus: World's First Disease Requiring Destruction of the Economy as Treatment

As the Chinese coronavirus countermeasures roll on with no end in sight, the most troubling thing is the lack of certainty.

  • Nobody knows when this will end;
  • Additional restrictions are constantly being added;
  • Authority is being asserted from multiple levels with questionable legal validity;
  • The most panicked and hysterical among us appear to be driving the agenda;
  • Worst of all, there is no certainty that martial law was ever necessary, nor is there any guarantee the virus will have less of an impact than if it ran its course like every other strain of coronavirus, the miscellaneous other flu viruses such as the swine flu, bird flu, SARS, MERS or the seasonal flu.

Since we have some degree of certainty about the virus, how it's spread, the incubation period, its symptoms, its course and the treatment for those who develop symptoms, there should be a reasonably definable timetable during which a defined population of people should expect to be mostly clear of risk of infection. By looking back at other, recent influenza virus outbreaks - even over the past few years - there should be even more certainty about when to expect the 'all clear'. The biggest problem with this is none of these draconian measures were taken with previous flu outbreaks. This shutdown of entire nations and economies is unprecedented. So this should be over quicker, right? Who knows?

You may have noticed the dramatic measures implemented in the beginning of this hysteria were just that: The beginning. It started with state and local governments closing schools and government functions. Corporations and businesses jumped on the bandwagon and began cancelling events and ordering employees to work from home. Soon afterward, governors began ordering private businesses to close. Local officials across America immediately jumped in to start issuing their own local orders. After that, public areas were closed, activities having nothing to do with contracting a virus were banned (recreational boating, fishing and diving out on the open ocean is now prohibited in my location). Now we have states and counties setting up roadblocks and prohibiting travel on public, federal highways into their jurisdiction.

On this topic, the airport in the above-referenced county remains open and visitors can still come into the county on airliners, private aircraft or even by boat to one of the hundreds of marinas. As with everything else, the actual effectiveness of the roadblocks is shown to be nothing more than a show. A demonstration to hysterical people that the local officials are "doing something".

And it never seems to stop. The measures everywhere get more strict every day. It's almost as if, since the plague isn't actually causing the gutters to overflow with corpses, there's some mysterious pressure to stay busy every day. And how do you do that? Well, once you get all the measures in place you decided were necessary [and when nothing happens] you think up more measures to implement. And you spend your day communicating the new measure everyone's supposed to take and "meeting with your team to coordinate". Then everyone stands around until someone gets the bright idea: "Hey! Let's add even more safety measures!" And nobody wants to be the one to ask the obvious question about when the plague is supposed to start?

It's like the weather guys all agreeing the worst snow storm in human history is about to bury us in an avalanche of snow. (Because it snowed in China and Italy.) To stick with the snow analogy, we've barely gotten a flake by comparison to other influenza outbreaks.

Another question nobody is asking publicly: If martial law and the intentional destruction of the U.S. economy is necessary to keep the population from getting this virus, why weren't these measures taken with H1N1 (Swine flu)? Why not with HIV/AIDS? Those viruses have been far more deadly than the Chinese coronavirus. It wouldn't have anything to do with political difficulties that would cause for Democrats and their allies in the liberal media, would it? The Swine flu epidemic happened in 2009 while Barack Obama was President and the media was his collective girlfriend. It killed 12,000 Americans, but the media mostly ignored it and wrote articles about how dreamy Obama was. And HIV is the world's first politically correct disease. HIV/AIDS has killed over 600,000 Americans, with about another 15,000 dying from it every year. And all this is to say nothing of the infections and death resulting from seasonal flu, which kills about 60,000 Americans every year.

The hysterical media picking and choosing which viruses should make us all panic and which ones will get you branded a bigot if you try to avoid getting it is causing more people every day to question if this is all nothing more than manipulation.

The timing is certainly suspect, also. Democrats have spent over three years raging like lunatics trying to convince Americans that Donald Trump was a Russian spy. They were giddy, like mean girls mocking the school nerd. Their story fell apart, of course. Then they switched to Russian collusion!!!© They got exposed as fakes on that, too. Then they went all-impeachment-all-the-time in an embarrassing attempt to convince the American people President Trump was going to be removed from office for the latest Democrat investigation, resulting in made-up "crimes". That fell apart a few weeks ago when the President was fully acquitted, the Democrats' game was shown to be a dog and pony show and the President's approval ratings actually rose. When the media began the Chinese coronavirus frenzy, the U.S. economy was roaring, unemployment was continuing to set historic lows and the stock market was poised to smash 30,000. On top of all the great news for the President, the Democrats were in total chaos regarding who in the clown car was going to be their nominee to run against Donald Trump. They've settled on Joe Biden who is...well, not the ideal candidate. Now, the Democrats are back in the game. Riding into the election on the back of Chinese coronavirus.

On a related note, Nancy Pelosi now says she's going to initiate an investigation into President Trump's handling of the coronavirus response. Of course she is. If you recall, when President Trump began addressing the matter in January, he was being vilified by Pelosi and Democrats for refusing to participate in their ridiculous sham "impeachment". Democrats were so outraged, they made up the crime of Obstruction of Congress for his refusing to come to Capitol Hill and fight with them. Those were the exact days the President was proposing measures to combat the spread of coronavirus, such as stopping flights from China, and being shouted down as a racist bigot for doing so. Democrats have switched from accusing him of being a racist hater and doing too much to address the Chinese coronavirus, to now being inhumane and indifferent and not doing enough.

The same media, the same Democrats and the same international characters who've spent 4 years savaging President Trump over anything and everything are the same people now encouraging us all to be hysterical. This flu hysteria has politics written all over it.

The government-enforced compliance with mass hysteria on entire populations and the official banning of any questions regarding the necessity of destroying the world's economy shows globalists are using this flu bug as a sort of nuclear option to stop President Trump and anyone opposing globalism. If not by design, globalists are certainly taking full advantage of this illness to try to cripple their political opponents and advance their own cause.

At the end of the day, this flu virus will run its course and people can protect themselves by washing their hands, avoiding sick people and staying away from the elderly or those with compromised immune systems if you don't feel well or have been around someone showing flu symptoms.

Oh, and ruining the economy. Apparently, this particular flu is the first disease where destruction of the economy is medically required for treatment. How convenient, and timely, for Trump-hating globalists.


Monday, March 16, 2020

Accepting Martial Law Without Hard Facts of What Harm is Being Avoided

As the Coronavirus Panic of 2020 was getting underway, governments started the bidding with school closures and limiting official gatherings. The corporate world then upped the ante by having employees work from home and professional sports leagues banned spectators and then cancelled games altogether.

If you are like most Americans, you continued on with your life, only without sports on TV and with your kids hanging out at home on school days. Bars, restaurants and other gathering places seemed mostly unaffected. Then pressure began mounting to cancel private events such as 5K runs, community festivals and church attendance.


Now states have begun ordering the closure of bars, restaurants and other businesses where people gather in one place and communities are imposing curfews. Over a flu virus.

This is unprecedented in American history. The U.S. economy is being destroyed. Governments are ordering private individuals to stop doing things they have every right to do. The question becomes: On what authority? Oh, the Governors and their officials may cite some rule, but the test will be when these orders get into a court.

What if someone refuses to close his restaurant? What if there is a gathering somewhere with 51 people instead of the maximum 50? Will the police show up? Will restaurant patrons be arrested? The  restaurant owner? Who in that gathering of 51 people will go to jail? And for what? As soon as these rules are challenged in court, the governments will have to admit they are imposing martial law.

Most dangerous is the precedent in all this. At the current pace, COVID-19 is on track to have the same or similar health impact as the other versions of Coronavirus known to medical providers for decades. If martial law is imposed over something that poses only a minor threat to the population, what is to stop politicians from shutting down society over other, deadlier threats? Traffic accidents, heart disease, etc.

What would stop the Governor of New York from declaring a crime emergency and suspending the Constitution to seize firearms?

Democrats could declare a 'climate emergency' and ban driving, jail dissenters and order factories shut down. There is really no limit to the reasons a politician could claim to justify using government force to impose their political views on the population. A population that used to be referred to as 'citizens'.

The glaring hole in all this panic is facts. All of these increasingly draconian measures, of questionable Constitutionality, are being imposed without anyone knowing (or sharing) the actual data on this virus. How many can be expected to be infected? How many might die? What is the expected timeline for this version of Coronavirus to run its course? How is it different from other strains of the virus? We are, as a society, accepting profound limitations on our freedom without any explanation as to what worse harm we are avoiding by allowing the government to impose this control. History shows trusting authorities with this much power does not end well.

We are living in historic times.

Saturday, March 14, 2020

The Left Has America Shut Down. For How Long? And When is Next?


The most interesting phenomenon of this whole Coronavirus panic is the virtual certainty with which it tracks people's political leanings.

You may have noticed your liberal friends on social media are panicky and demanding society grind to a halt until...well, until some undetermined time in the future. The same major media outlets that have been bashing President Trump around-the-clock for over three years have switched gears to stoking panic about how we're all going to die from Coronavirus (and bashing President Trump for it). Democrat politicians are demanding draconian measures be taken to control the population (but not close the borders or re-think their free-for-all immigration policies).

You've likely had a number of events or routine gatherings canceled in your town. If you follow your local social media pages, it's hard to miss that the same whiny liberals bashing and blaming President Trump for everything or going on feminist rants or calling everyone racist are the same people demanding that absolutely everything be canceled. On the other hand, your conservative friends and neighbors are the voices of reason, urging calm and pointing out the relative insignificance of this virus with regard to its mortality rate and other factors.

Here is the 3-step process for every leftist position:

1.) Their own personal opinion is framed as the only moral choice;
2.) They demand public and private leaders enforce their position on everyone, and;
3.) Anyone disagreeing with them is ridiculed and attacked for having bad motives.

So let's apply this process to the Great Coronavirus Panic of 2020.

1.) Leftists are afraid of Coronavirus and portray that fear and terror as the morally responsible reaction;
2.) As a result, liberals are demanding governments and private leaders shut down everything to force their fear on everyone else, claiming it to be in the public's best interest;
3.) Those disagreeing with the left are ridiculed as ignorant and accused of wanting people to die.

Does this sound familiar?

Here in our small town in South Florida we have several active 'community pages' on social media. It is striking to see the exact, same people who spar over political matters, the environment, income inequality, social justice and everything else divided on exactly the same lines on something that is a medical question about public health. One would think something as innocuous as a flu bug would be immune (puns intended) to becoming a political battle. But this demonstrates not only the degree to which leftists inject politics into absolutely everything, but the completely divergent world views we have in America now.

The fundamental worldview of many who describe themselves as 'conservative' is one of personal responsibility. If you have children, you should feed them. Everyone should pay their bills. Everyone should be responsible for their own health and making good choices. If you don't like your station in life, you should work to change it. The law-abiding should not be punished for the acts of criminals.

The worldview of self-described 'liberals', on the other hand, is one of collective responsibility. We, as a nation or a community, are responsible for feeding the children. If someone is not paying their bills, it must be the fault of society or predatory creditors or racism. If anyone is sick or suffering the consequences of poor life choices, it is somehow a failing of us all. Everyone not achieving at the highest level in any way is evidence in itself of inequality and injustice because nobody would intentionally make bad choices. (And any suggestion that someone did make bad choices shows you are privileged, cruel and bigoted.) Criminals should not be singled out for punishment, but everyone's rights should be taken away so criminals won't be able to do bad things.

Two completely different, and incompatible, worldviews.

With the Coronavirus panic, our liberal friends are out in full force. Demanding every event be canceled and everyone be forced to hide in their homes. These are probably the same people hoarding the toilet paper, too.

It's been great to see the number of people telling these panicky idiots that, if they're so afraid of Coronavirus, to not attend these events, but stop ruining everything for everyone. Of course, the busybodies on the left keep trying to frame their terror as concern about the healthcare system being overwhelmed. You see? They have to find a way to project their personal fears, opinions and choices onto everyone else so they can demand they be made mandatory for everyone.

However long you may have observed the curious, irrational behavior of liberals, it remains surprising how detached from reality they are able to become and how forcefully they will demand their personal choices be forced on everyone. An interesting thing to watch for as this situation develops is how the level of pushback shifts. Many of these cancelations and closures are indefinite. The body slam to the economy is incredible. And the threat is questionable. There is nothing like this in American history.

How long will rational people allow American society to be shut down over a theoretical threat or a statistically tiny outbreak of flu? How long will a critical mass of liberals be able to convince corporate leaders, educators and governments at every level to keep things shut? Finally, how long will it be before the left tries this again?

This is about power, not public safety. An important chapter in American history is being written right now.


Tuesday, March 10, 2020

Three Year Obsession with Overthrowing Trump Administration Has Left Democrats in Chaos

The Democratic Party is in chaos.


Party officials are scrambling to restore order, but their frantic maneuvering over the days leading up to and since the Super Tuesday primaries betrays the panic. It is likely too little, too late for the 2020 presidential race, though, and may have dramatic consequences down the ticket.

The chaos was predictable, but it was the result of a gamble by Democrats.

Since George H.W. Bush’s inauguration in 1989, Democrats have been able to destroy Republicans by using their allies in major media to mount 24-hour smear campaigns. George H.W. Bush was hounded mercilessly as a liar after agreeing to liberal demands for massive tax increases and lost his bid for reelection in 1992. George W. Bush was vilified by Democrats and the media in a sustained assault over real (Iraq War) and fake (his alleged fraudulent service with the Texas Air National Guard) scandals and policy blunders until his approval ratings were pushed into the 20s, bottoming out at only 25% in the days before the 2008 election. Having been shocked by Donald Trump’s electoral victory in 2016, Democrats returned to the formula of sustained media attack, outrage and harassment used against GOP Presidents and candidates for 28 years. Even before his inauguration, Democrats began hurling wild accusations that President Trump is a Russian spy, is a racist against blacks, Hispanics and Muslims, colluded with Russia to cheat Hillary, violated campaign finance laws regarding an adult film actress and also with his inauguration committee, violated the Logan Act (for his transition team’s meetings with world leaders), obstructed justice (by replacing Obama appointees with his own), violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution (allegedly profiting from his office) as well as numerous lawsuits against his administration, his businesses and himself, personally as well as physical attacks against his properties and his supporters.

For the first time in over a generation, these Democrat and media “outrage” attacks had no effect. These efforts culminated in the House’s absurd impeachment articles alleging invented crimes created out of thin air and then withheld from the U.S. Senate in an attempt to seize control of the trial for Democrats to ram through a conviction in a chamber where they were the minority. As every other attack, it was purely form over substance. And, as with every other attack on President Trump, yielded no political gain. To leftist’s dismay, the President emerged from their impeachment with higher approval ratings.

After three years of the Trump presidency Democrats have accomplished nothing, having spent their time occupied with figuring out a way to overthrow the administration. Finding themselves in a presidential election year they have no other agenda, no accomplishments and no consensus for a candidate to challenge President Trump in November.

Like someone who waits until his health is failing before trying to start exercising and eating healthy, the Democratic Party is working from behind, flailing around trying to organize a coherent challenge in the general election. After Joe Biden’s victory in South Carolina, the party is attempting to assert control and focus their efforts. Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar suddenly dropped out of the race before Super Tuesday, followed immediately by billionaire Michael Bloomberg and then Elizabeth Warren. All immediately endorsed Joe Biden.

Biden’s sudden strength seems contrived. Just 10 days ago he was perhaps the 4th place candidate in the field and there was talk of his campaign being on life support. Literally within a 48-hour period major media began portraying Biden as the undisputed lion of the party. His win in the South Carolina primary was not a surprise to anyone, and came on the heels of a 4th place finish in Iowa, 5th place in New Hampshire and a distant 2nd place result in Nevada. All this to say nothing of Biden’s numerous gaffes, strange outbursts and dwindling campaign funds.

The all-hands-on-deck consolidation of candidates behind Biden appears to be a coordinated effort to overcome the early dominance by Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who is even stronger this time than his 2016 insurgent candidacy against Hillary Clinton. In a discussion Monday on FoxNews regarding the obvious Democrat maneuvering, former DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile became unhinged at the suggestion the party would favor a particular candidate and spewed profanities on-air at GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel. This despite Brazile herself publishing a book in 2017 revealing the DNC’s behind-the-scenes collusion with Hillary Clinton to defeat Sanders and the Wikileaks revelation Brazile helped the Clinton campaign cheat in a CNN debate against Bernie in 2016. McDaniel and others responded that Brazile’s outburst seems to indicate discussions of a 2020 version of the ‘stop Bernie’ movement is hitting too close to home.

Rush Limbaugh’s assessment last week appears correct, that the Democrat establishment has taken note of Donald Trump’s own insurgent campaign in 2016 and seeks to avoid the fate that befell the ‘Never-Trump’ GOP establishment. Having wasted President Trump’s first term on efforts to overturn the 2016 election, Democrats find themselves with a failed impeachment as their biggest accomplishment. They face a strengthened incumbent President and are engaged in a struggle just to keep control over their own party and the positions of power that come with it.

The Democratic Party is facing the same reckoning with their base the Republicans confronted. Sanders’ base of support and their socialist challenge to the Democrat establishment will have to be dealt with at some point. They can attempt to manage the chaos temporarily, but Sanders’ supporters will not be contained forever. And, as we saw with James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas videos, even leadership in Bernie’s campaign is willing to resort to violence and rioting if cannot win the nomination via the process.

Saturday, March 7, 2020

The Bushes Have Poisoned the Well Forever

Super Tuesday may have marked the end of an era. Pierce Bush, grandson of George H.W. Bush, was crushed in a Texas Congressional primary. A race where he had the advantage of name recognition, the largest war chest and the endorsement of the outgoing incumbent. It's a district in Houston, Texas, where the Bush family name is on one of the largest airports in the world.

People are simply sick of the phony, lying, globalist Bush family, though.

The Bush family dynasty in the GOP, already on life support, received the 'double tap' from the base of a party they dominated for for over three decades.

It shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone who's paid attention to the painfully slow realization of the conservative base that they were used by the Bush family as nothing more than a source of money and votes at election time. Otherwise, the Bush royalty had nothing but contempt for the average Americans they pretended to represent every few years.

George Herbert Walker Bush was a Yale man. An elite Skull & Bones Club member with a chin, voice and mannerisms reminiscent of millionaire Thurston Howell III from Gillgan's Island, only with a more feminine voice. A Yale man born in Massachusetts into a wealthy family of financiers. His father was a U.S. Senator from Connecticut. Bush ran against Ronald Reagan for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination as the establishment favorite. As always, the GOP establishment believed the ridicule from their snobby cocktail party Democrat friends in New York and elsewhere. They were embarrassed by the lunch bucket voters in flyover country who voted in this California cowboy, Ronald Reagan. A man who didn't even go to an Ivy League university! Eureka College?!? In the middle of America? The horror! They pressured Reagan to select Bush as his VP choice, and he fell for it. Arguably, the biggest mistake of Reagan's presidency.

After eight years as Vice President, Bush was nicely situated to run for President, but it was a challenge for Poppy Bush to act like a regular person. His campaign dressed him in flannel shirts, put him on a tractor and had him eat pork rinds. He nearly lost the 1988 election running on a platform of a "kinder, gentler conservatism". This was a slap at Reagan and the party base and a forerunner of Republican politics for the next 28 years. Democrats and liberal media told him how he should be more liberal, the establishment candidate believes it (because he hates the "hillbillies" he has to pander to at election time), tries to act like a sophisticated, slightly less liberal version of the Democrat and then goes down to defeat because voters are disgusted and it appeals to virtually nobody. Bush's campaign saw they were about to be defeated and quickly pivoted to a position of continuing Reagan's policies by claiming electing Bush would be "Reagan's third term". As Mike Dukakis promised to raise everyone's taxes, Bush also made a solemn vow. "Read my lips. No new taxes!" Bush won handily but spent his four years as President stabbing his voters in the back, trying desperately to appease Democrats and the liberal media and breaking his promise on taxes.

Bush's weakness and habit of surrendering sparked an uprising in the GOP. He was challenged in the Republican primary by firebrand Pat Buchanan, a bold rebuke to an incumbent President. In the 1992 general election eclectic billionaire Ross Perot led a populist revolt that siphoned off nearly 1/5 of the total votes, almost all Republican, and handed the Presidency to a Democrat afterthought, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. Clinton made it into the White House with only 43% of the vote and Bush was sent back to Kennebunkport, Maine.

The family was still powerful, though, and managed to get son George W. elected Governor of Texas and other son Jeb Governor of Florida. Each positioned in a major state with lots of electoral votes and seen as a stepping stone to the Presidency. After Clinton's eight years were up, it was George W.'s turn to be President.

Although portrayed as a "conservative" like his dad and the rest of the GOP, he presided over massive spending binges, mostly on the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan. He also pushed the Patriot Act, the Republican version of Obamacare insofar as it was a massive bill that members of Congress admitted they didn't read, was rammed through and signed into law with little scrutiny and contained lots of horrible surprises for the American people. It also had the effect of dramatically increasing the power of the federal government over the American people, effectively treating us all as terrorists and international criminals and stripping away our Constitutional rights. An objective analysis of the George W. Bush presidency leaves no other conclusion than he was just a slightly different version of the Clintons and the rest of the Washington political establishment.

Over the years there was a constant dribble of things that irritated the GOP base about the Bush family.

After portraying himself as the opposite of Bill Clinton and fundraising and campaigning and being beat up by the Clinton machine, Poppy Bush and Clinton - and their wives and families - would often hobnob, socialize and be seen working together on things. Not that being friendly is a bad thing, but they had their supporters at each others' throats and pouring money into their campaigns. Bush and Clinton sat on Boards of Directors together and golfed and laughed and fundraised together. The whole political campaign thing where they distinguished themselves was all just a big act. It was just two flavors of the same corrupt, putrid D.C. establishment.

It also was revealed in the years after losing the 1992 election that Barbara Bush was an abortion supporter, but kept her opinion under wraps to help her husband's election chances. Voters who had backed Bush questioned whether she influenced the elder Bush in policy matters on the subject? He spent two entire campaign cycles promoting himself as a solid pro-life conservative. To find out later he might not have been as strong on the topic as he had acted, and his wife actually was more in line with the Clintons was disappointing to many and it was one more way people felt used by the Bushes.

In 2016, when Hillary Clinton was the presumptive nominee for the Democrats, the GOP establishment expected it was Jeb Bush's turn to assume the leadership of the party and vie for the presidency his father and brother had held. Of course, it didn't go well for Jeb. Despite spending an enormous amount of money, the GOP base was finally tired of the Bush family. Instead of getting behind the party's nominee, the Bush family arrogance and anger was palpable. Their nasty remarks and lack of support was shameful. During eight miserable years of the Obama presidency the Bush family made a point of never criticizing, or even offering any opinion, regarding Obama's policies. They gave a classy-sounding reason that "being president is very difficult, so I'll never criticize a man while he's in that position", or something close to that. People actively opposing Obama's policies felt abandoned by the very people they stood by while they were being vilified by the major media and Democrats.

But the Bush family dropped their classy-sounding moralizing as the GOP base nominated Donald Trump. Both former presidents refused to endorse their own party's candidate in a childish, pathetic temper tantrum. While nobody in the Bush family would utter an unkind word toward the Clintons or the Obama's, citing the dignity with which they held the office of the presidency, they dropped that facade and rudely sniped at President Trump like junior high mean girls in a bathroom. As it turns out, their "dignity" was all just a big lie, too. It was a put-on. An act. They didn't criticize the Clintons' or Obama's policies because they agreed with them and they were BFFs with the Clintons and Obamas. They're all big government globalists. All that high-sounding posturing about being above-it-all was just another Bush family lie to their own supporters.

To top it all off, Poppy Bush revealed in a 2017 book that he actually voted for Hillary Clinton, even though he admitted he didn't know much about Mr. Trump. His son said he left his ballot blank,  refusing to vote for the candidate selected by the very same people who elected him twice to the presidency.

The Republican base always got the vibe the Bushes were disgusted by ordinary Americans and preferred their liberal, big government self-described intellectual friends to the ordinary Americans who make this country work. Their petty, shameful behavior since 2016 confirmed it.

The Bush family back-stabbed their own party's loyal base over and over. They have poisoned the well for people like Pierce Bush, who might be a fine fellow and make a great Congressman, but we won't know because the Republican base isn't going to be fooled again by the elitist phony Bush family.


Tuesday, March 3, 2020

If Tulane's Victory Bell is Removed Over Potential Connections to Slavery, Shouldn't the University Itself Be Shut Down?


Tulane University recently removed the McAlister Victory Bell. A bell used for decades as a part of university sporting events. It is the university's version of a generic item used all across Western Civilization for centuries. University and church bell towers, ships' bells, dinner bells, cow bells, the 'Liberty Bell' in Philadelphia and countless other uses of the item. It's a bell. A big, heavy, sturdy item that makes a loud sound and served as a recognizable rallying point for students to celebrate victories by the Tulane basketball team. The bell was a gift to the university in 1960 by a former Louisiana Governor and Tulane Law School graduate

Recently, though, someone raised the issue of bells being used on Southern farms where slaves worked.

Although every media report regarding the McAlister Victory Bell references its use for slavery, the only hard allegation offered toward that conclusion appears to be the university President's claim that "archives confirmed the bell was made in 1825". Okay. So?

Other than that fact, there are lots of slippery-worded, but unsupported, allegations about how bells (generally speaking) were used on farms (using the loaded word "plantation") and claiming blacks were denied clocks or watches so slave masters could better control them. The latter allegation "supported" by a link to some guy's personal blog from back in 2013 where he has a short, few sentence blog post about bells, accompanied by various pictures of bells. That short, generic, unsupported old blog post is used by the Tulane University official media article as the sole source for their claim about slaves being denied clocks. Again, though: There are no specific allegations about this bell being used in such a setting or for such a purpose or with such motivations. Just that it could have been like that. But maybe not. Nobody knows. Or, if they know, they aren't sharing it in media reports. The Associated Press reports the bell's removal and cites the university's intent to investigate its history. Why? Every media report appears on the surface to be chock full of detailed history about the bell's past. Unless you pay attention to the language and notice they slip back and forth between speaking generally about bells used on plantations and then being horrified by "the history" of this bell.

As far as anyone can tell, there appears to be no evidence this particular bell had anything to do with slavery. As far as anyone knows, this bell could have been a school bell. Or a church bell. Or a bell on a steamboat. Or on a courthouse. Or on a farm that didn't have slaves, for that matter. It doesn't matter to the left. They are offended by it in a general sense, so it must be removed. They will look for something else to be outraged about once this demand is met.

As usual, a university administration is simply afraid and caving in advance of any facts to make sure no angry leftists will do anything to bring negative attention to the university. Unfortunately, he is eager to sacrifice a piece of university history to appease the leftist god of political correctness.

As statues are torn down, longstanding names are stripped from university buildings and programs and universities and communities face a never-ending series of fresh demands from the perpetually outraged left, it will continue until someone has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the bullies. It is extraordinary for so-called leaders to continue erasing our shared history in a never-ending cycle of trying to please an angry mob. A mob that is never placated. They simply agitate and complain until their demands are met, then move on to the next grievance requiring institutional surrender. Ad infinitum.

Not only has the McAlister Victory Bell been torn off its pedestal and hustled off to storage, but images of the bell - popular around campus - have been removed, painted over or otherwise banished to the memory hole. As though it never existed. With nothing more than a statement from the president that the bell's history will be looked into. Sure it will. Our institutions are led by gutless cowards, terrified of having some grievance studies major with an eyebrow ring tweet mean things about him.

Paul Tulane, whose endowment founded the university, specifically directed that only white students were to be admitted. Tulane refused to admit blacks until forced to do so by court order in 1963. By the same rationale advanced by the university to tear out a longstanding piece of campus history because it, or something similar, was used on plantations, doesn't it make sense for the university to shut itself down? With its well-documented foundation in racism against blacks, the university itself should be closed, bulldozed and all reference to its existence be purged in order to be fully "inclusive".