A Confederate monument in Graham, North Carolina has been an object of contention for some time. Various Marxist groups have targeted the monument and agitated to have it removed. This is a familiar theme that has recurred in various places throughout the South.
A newspaper story today from the Associated Press indicates that the state NAACP has sued to have the monument removed. Elected officials in Alamance County, to their credit, have stood firm thus far against the cultural Marxists demanding removal.
The article proclaims: "The monument stands illegally because the state constitution outlaws government action that denies equal protection, exhibits racial discrimination, and squanders public money.”
Such nebulous claims arouse numerous questions. How then can we justify memorials of various types that might celebrate African-Americans, Native Americans and other minorities? After all, their existence would raise questions about equal protection and discrimination, according to the logic employed in the suit. And they cost money.
Another question is how such a monument magically, suddenly becomes illegal after standing for nearly a century-- and fifty-five years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. How is it that a full century of observers failed to note the illegality of the monument?
The AP reporter who wrote this piece is untroubled with such questions. He did not bother obtaining a different point of view from those groups that support such monuments. Providing balanced reporting was apparently deemed unnecessary. This is, of course, journalistic malpractice.
The NAACP is no longer an organization that seeks to further the legitimate interests of African-Americans. Instead, it seeks to transform the country into something it was never supposed to be. It seeks to turn the country into something truly terrible. But they might potentially succeed with this suit given the nature of the corrupt judiciary.
Interestingly, the article does not state in which court the suit was filed. But if it was filed in our state courts, there is apparently greater potential for the plaintiffs to enjoy the privilege of shopping for the right judge.
Comments