ALL of these usurpers must be removed from ALL of our National Government buildings and positions. NOW.
Article by Mike Miller in RedState
'Harmful Content': National Archives Slaps Warning on Constitution, Other Founding Documents
I almost wish this was one of those clickbait headline stories, over which you roll your eyes after “clicking,” only to realize you’ve once again fallen victim to “over-selling” and “under-delivering.” It’s not. It’s legit.
The National Archives and Records Association (NARA) recently determined that America’s Founding Documents — which include the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and other significant historical documents — might be “harmful or difficult” for some users to view.
National Archives Slaps ‘Harmful Content’ Warning On Constitution, All Other Founding Documentshttps://t.co/lJluPgianK
— The Federalist (@FDRLST) September 8, 2021
Being the compassionate federal government agency it is, the NARA decided to caution readers before they access digital copies of the (pick one, or more: “troubling,” “offensive,” “dangerous,” “racist,” et al.) apparently controversial documents. So, a “Potentially Harmful Content” alert now appears above the NARA entire online catalog. It reads as follows. Emphasis, mine.
The Catalog and web pages of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) provide access to many millions of descriptions and digital copies of the permanent records of the United States federal government.
The Catalog and web pages contain some content that may be harmful or difficult to view. NARA’s records span the history of the United States, and it is our charge to preserve and make available these historical records.
As a result, some of the materials presented here may reflect outdated, biased, offensive, and possibly violent views and opinions. In addition, some of the materials may relate to violent or graphic events and are preserved for their historical significance.
The National Archives is committed to working with staff, communities, and peer institutions to assess and update descriptions that are harmful and to establish standards and policies to prevent future harmful language in staff-generated descriptions.
Here are a few specifics, as compiled by The Federalist:
- reflect racist, sexist, ableist, misogynistic/misogynoir, and xenophobic opinions and attitudes;
- be discriminatory towards or exclude diverse views on sexuality, gender, religion, and more;
- include graphic content of historical events such as violent death, medical procedures, crime, wars/terrorist acts, natural disasters and more;
- demonstrate bias and exclusion in institutional collecting and digitization policies.
Incidentally, you ever wonder what part of “We the People, or Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is so harmful, offensive, xenophobic, or worse — my fellow “white supremacist, “systemically racist,” “insurrectionist” friends? Me, neither. Other than what our leftist friends tell us, 24×7, that is. Oh, well.
— Devil Horse (@DevilHorseCSA) September 8, 2021
Yep, that oughta do it. Wait — I almost forgot.
As my colleague Nick Arama reported in June, the National Archives’ “racism task force” claimed that the Archives’ rotunda, which houses the Founding Documents, is an example of “structural racism.” Can’t make it up, don’t have to.
Our friend Kurt Schlicter took a shot at the insanity, at the time.
Stop making my books come true.
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) June 27, 2021
National Archives' racism task force says own Rotunda example of 'structural racism,' knocks Founding Fathers | Fox News https://t.co/3HWcsuTMoZ
Sarcasm aside, this is Orwellian, “Animal Farm” barn wall stuff, gang.
The Founding Documents of the United States of America are now subject to a nameless, faceless, federal government bureaucracy that not only believes it has the constitutional right to determine — working with staff, communities, and peer institutions (likeminded bots) — to decide what constitutes offensive, outdated, biased, offensive, and possibly violent views and opinions — and as a result, to establish standards and policies to prevent future harmful languages, but also that is qualified to do so.
Based on self-assessment — and the assessment of others, no less.
That is profound. Worse, it is a perfect example of the “How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time” principle. The Democrat Party can never get — take — enough. The Left never sleeps. It is never satisfied. Call it whatever you want — leftism, socialism, communism, whatever; the principle remains the same.
The Left goes after what it wants incrementally, knowing full-well it can’t get what it really wants, all at once — just like “we” can’t eat an elephant in one bite.
But nibbling away — I prefer to think of it as the metastasis of a slowly advancing cancerous tumor — works. And has worked, throughout the history of mankind. It has succeeded where attempting to take too big of a bite has failed. And make no mistake: those liberals we call “idiots,” dumbasses,” and worse? They know it works — far better than most of us do.
The Left is not stupid. It is insidious and it cannot be reasoned with. Left-wingers are impervious to facts, data, history, logic, and common sense. They might sometimes pretend to understand, agree, or compromise on any one or more of those factors, but they generally lie their asses off while doing so (see: Joe Biden), including, sometimes, lying to themselves. But the difference between the Left and us? They quickly revert to form — even if they’ve lied to themselves — and get back to the business of eating that elephant.
Meanwhile, we’re likely satisfied, relieved, elated, whatever the case might be, that we were able to extract an agreement or compromise from our ideological enemies, so we move on to the next hill — foolishly taking our ey off the prior hill. Until, sometimes, it’s too late when we realize it.
