theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer

Friday, July 3, 2020

Revolutionary Spirit of Individual LIBERTY with MINIMAL Government Embraced America in 1776


This image provided by the National Archives shows the 19th century engraving "Drafting the Declaration of Independence in 1776, 1859" by Alonzo Chappel which depicts of the the committee chosen to draft a declaration of independence. The five members are, from left, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Philip Livingston and Roger Sherman. One of the nation’s founding fathers -- but never president -- Franklin was born to a soapmaker and earned his wealth as printer, publisher and inventor. (Alonzo Chappel/National Archives via AP)


 Andrew P. Napolitano

“Government requires make-believe. Make believe that the king is divine, make believe that he can do no wrong or make believe that the voice of the people is the voice of God. Make believe that the people have a voice or make believe that the representatives of the people are the people. Make believe that governors are the servants of the people. Make believe that all men are created equal or make believe that they are not.” — Edmund S. Morgan (1916-2013)
In the summer of 1776, revolution was in the air. Congress was meeting in Philadelphia, and it was impatient. Bloody skirmishes between Colonial militias and British troops were upsetting the countryside. More British troops were on their way. Congress sensed it needed to do something. It wanted to vote for secession from Great Britain, and it needed a compelling document setting forth the reasons for doing so.
Historians have estimated from reading letters, pamphlets, sermons, essays, newspaper editorials and speeches from that era that only about one-third of the colonists favored using force to secede. But that one-third whipped the winds of change.

 At hand was the decision to revolt and to make an understandable argument in its support. Congress represented the radicals who wanted the British government gone. Neither the one-third of the public that wanted it to stay nor the one-third that didn’t care had a voice in Philadelphia.

In the late spring of the year of revolution, Congress appointed a committee of five to compose a document stating the reasons for leaving the mother country. One was Thomas Jefferson, and he was assigned the task by the other four of drafting the document. He wrote four drafts, the final of which the committee presented to Congress.
Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 2, 1776. It was dated July 4th and not fully signed until later that summer. The vote was unanimous. The word went forth to the 13 colonies that they were now free and independent.
The word also went forth to the king — whom the British people believed was divinely chosen to rule over them — who interpreted the Declaration as an act of treason and an invitation to war.
The Declaration’s essence is that all persons have equal natural rights that no government can take away by legislation or command. Those rights can be used freely to pursue and defend life, liberty and happiness. Those rights can also be used to consent or not to consent to a government. And the only legitimate role of government is to protect the rights of those who consented.
This theory, which Jefferson crafted, was the most radical theory of government at the time. No king, no ruler, no edicts crushing personal freedom — just a popular government born in the consent of the governed and limited to protecting their rights.
The government would not come about, of course, until the bloody war was completed. In reality, the real revolution was completed by July 4, 1776, because it was a revolution of minds more than of government. The colonists were not trying to kill the king — as the French would soon do — they just wanted him gone.
Ah, but the revolution of men’s minds — the idea that the government was not legitimate unless consented to and limited, that individual personal freedom, not government power, is the default position; all of this was stirred up by the radicals, articulated by Jefferson, embraced by Congress, achieved by blood and acquiesced by the king — was as much a change for our forebears as was the violence against the British.
They were free. The revolutionary spirit of maximum individual liberty and minimum government embraced and personified America in July 1776.
Where did it go?
Today, we have government — at the local, state and federal levels — that claims authority to right any wrong, regulate any behavior, tax any event and transfer any wealth so long as it can find public support.  
What once was a government that needed the consent of the governed not only to exist but also to do anything is now one that requires of us its permission to do nearly everything. What once were liberties guaranteed are now liberties mocked.
How is it that men and women take oaths to uphold the liberties that the Founders risked all to achieve and then enter office and ignore them? If I can legally refuse health care, why can’t I legally take the chance of exercising my rights to travel and assemble whether that exposes me to contagion or not? Is not among the freedoms Jefferson wrote about the freedom to take chances?
Are laws written to preserve liberty or to enforce order? Is the concept of the consent of the governed real or is it make-believe? Does liberty expand in each generation or does it shrink?  
Does the government really believe that our liberties are natural and it lacks legitimacy without our individual consent? Has any living person actually consented to the government we now have or is the belief that we have consented to the government merely a myth?
When Jefferson and his buddies revolted from the king, they, too, engaged in a little myth. They coined a popular phrase that they didn’t really mean but caught fire with the colonists: “Taxation without representation is tyranny.”
They didn’t mean it, because they didn’t really want to send representatives to Parliament. They wanted their own small government, and they wanted it here. But the colonists were sick of taxes imposed by London aristocrats.
Are all men created equal or are they not? Does the government have our consent or does it not? Are our liberties natural to our existence or are they not?

City Hall ‘DEMORALIZED’ by de Blasio as Staffers JUMP SHIP

City Hall ‘demoralized’ by de Blasio as staffers jump ship
Bill de Blasio. Shutterstock


Julia Marsh and Nolan Hicks

City Hall employees have been “demoralized” by Mayor Bill de Blasio’s refusal to listen to his staff, leading to bungled administration responses to what are arguably the biggest issues of our time — the coronavirus pandemic and the George Floyd protests, sources told The Post.
“A lot of the office is pretty demoralized,” a source said.
“Were it not for the fact that it’s hard to guarantee a paycheck right now, I think a lot more people would be headed for the exits,” the source added, referring to the sudden joint departures of two longtime senior advisers.
Press Secretary Freddi Goldstein and Communications Director Wiley Norvell, who have a combined 13 years with Hizzoner, both said Wednesday they are stepping down but not moving on to other jobs.
Wiley Norvell, CIty Hall Communications Director, and Freddi Goldstein, the Mayor's Press Secretary are seen in a photo tweeted July 1, 2020. Norvell and Goldstein are leaving their posts.
Wiley Norvell, City Hall communications director, right, and Freddi Goldstein, the mayor’s press secretaryTwitter
“In a situation like right now with COVID, with the George Floyd protests, his style has to be especially grating [to staffers],” the source explained, noting de Blasio is “especially bullheaded,” and “convinced of his own best way to handle things.”
The Post reported this spring that de Blasio was micromanaging the city’s coronavirus response and ignoring the advice of health experts who work for him.
“People feel like they can’t do their jobs and can’t voice their opinions, even internally,” said a City Hall insider.
“He often perceives internal disagreements as potentially undermining or coming from people incapable of seeing the bigger picture.”
“It’s left people frustrated and exhausted,” the insider said.
Added to that, staff who thought they’d gone to work for a progressive mayor were dismayed when de Blasio backed use-of-force by the NYPD during the demonstrations last month. Current and former employees wrote open letters to the mayor expressing their disappointment and even marched across the Brooklyn Bridge in an unprecedented public display of disgust with the mayor they serve.
Enlarge ImagePeaceful Black Lives Matter protesters march against police brutality and across the Brooklyn Bridge towards Foley Square following a vigil attended by Terrence Floyd, George Floyd's Brother, on June 2, 2020.
Peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters march against police brutality and across the Brooklyn Bridge towards Foley Square following a vigil attended by Terrence Floyd, George Floyd’s Brother, on June 2, 2020.Taidgh Barron
Another source said Goldstein, who was promoted to press secretary in April 2019 after serving more junior roles in the administration, “is fed up” with her boss.
“I know she’s totally burnt out and that she’s over him and she’s over all of it.
“She’s not taking a new job so that tells you all you need to know,” that source said.
Rebecca Katz, a former de Blasio confidante, slammed the mayor at the time for hitting his favorite Brooklyn gym in March just hours before the governor closed the state’s fitness facilities because of the pandemic.
“No current or former staff member should be asked to defend this. The Mayor’s actions today are inexcusable and reckless,” Katz tweeted at the time.
Goldstein was left to try to explain the head-scratching move, telling The Post in a statement in March, “The YMCA has been a huge part of his and his family’s life…it’s clear that’s about to change and before that, the mayor wanted to visit a place that keeps him grounded one last time.”
Goldstein confirmed to The Post Thursday she’s taking time off after leaving her position next week, but disputed claims that she’s leaving because she’s fed up with the mayor.
She said it’s a “natural time to transition” because “the city is at a turning point, reopening after the crisis.”
“It’s been a long few months, and we’ve both been here a long time,” she said, referring to herself and Norvell.
Norvell did not return a message from The Post about his departure. He also doesn’t have another position lined up.
Enlarge ImageStaten Island Borough President, Jimmy Oddo and Mayor Bill de Blasio attend a press conference about coronavirus on Staten Island on Monday April 20.
Staten Island Borough President, Jimmy Oddo and Mayor Bill de Blasio attend a press conference about coronavirus on Staten Island on Monday April 20.Stefan Jeremiah
Emma Wolfe, de Blasio’s chief of staff, praised Goldstein’s tenure.
“The mayor and the entire team have leaned on Freddi more than ever these past four months. She’s been fierce, effective and good-humored through the toughest days this city has ever faced. There’s nothing but admiration and respect for her amazing service in this crisis,” Wolfe said.
De Blasio hasn’t named Norvell’s replacement but Goldstein’s successor is Bill Neidhardt, the former spokesman for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign.
Remaining staff grumbled that de Blasio chose a white male outsider, instead of a person of color already working for his administration, given his stated commitment to racial inclusion.
Asked during Thursday’s press briefing about his choice to name Neidhardt as his next press secretary, de Blasio said vaguely that the former Sanders spokesman was the right person for the high-profile job given his “particular combination of experiences.”
The mayor also boasted that his is the most diverse administration in the city’s history.

Thursday, July 2, 2020

The United Federation of Teachers Doesn’t Care About SCIENCE — Or KIDS

The United Federation of Teachers doesn’t care about science — or kids
Shutterstock


 Post Editorial Board

“Listen to the science” has been a constant refrain in this pandemic. Now the science is saying, “Reopen the schools” — but New York’s leaders are all too likely to listen to the teachers’ unions instead.
The American Academy of Pediatrics says the academic, mental and physical benefits of in-person school outweigh the coronavirus risks. That is: Continued remote learning will harm children.
Everything so far indicates kids are less likely to get infected and to spread the bug. Meanwhile, the AAP notes, ample evidence shows that school closures this spring seriously set back children’s educations.
That’s why New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts aim to fully reopen schools in the fall. Much of Europe and East Asia have already reopened schools safely.
But some New York teachers fear for their own safety, and their unions will likely prevent a reopening, absent some massive bribe the city can’t afford.
After all, Mayor Bill de Blasio and Chancellor Richard Carranza agreed to a United Federation of Teachers deal covering the shutdowns and remote learning that let teachers do next to nothing.
If you doubt us on that, just ask a UFT member — specifically, Jenny Lombard, a public-school teacher whose son is a student at Brooklyn Tech, one of the city’s top high schools.
As The Post reports, Lombard has written Tech’s leaders to complain that six of her son’s seven teachers delivered zero “face to face” online instruction these last few months, which makes it all but impossible for him to have learned what he should’ve.
Such non-teaching is OK’d by the UFT’s deal with the city that covers teaching during the lockdowns, though Lombard faults Tech’s administrators for winking at it.
And, as she notes, no-show “teaching” will surely harm minority students the most. (Shouldn’t somebody be protesting that?)
But for the United Federation of Teachers and its brethren, it’s never really about the children or the science — but only the unions’ own self-interest.

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

DeBlasio's Brass Knuckle ATTACK Against NYPD


NYPD clash with protesters outside City Hall as NYC votes to cut ...


theodore miraldi

Now that the left has elevated their displeasure with American Culture going from the PC Police to Peaceful Protests, we have now entered Phase-3, Mob Violence, and Destruction. 

Sorry woke people, this methodology has been used around the world and has never delivered the goods. The old Communists and Socialists insisted on State-Owned Business having little to no economies to support the Free Stuff. What could they be thinking?

Ask anyone who has escaped any of these failed countries if you really want to know the truth. They are all around you from nearly every nation in the world. 

So why would people from other Nations risk life and limb to live in a racist nation?

The one obvious point is money. The second is safety and freedom. 

It's almost as though some believe Americans have come to become one of the most wealthy nations giving its citizens a higher standard of living just by wishing it. Truly that's the message the Left promotes throughout the land of Sanctuary Cities.

So goes the Left's promise for the last 3 decades. Promise the poor living below the poverty level in the inner cities of grandiose social programs that are obvious failures, and the new arrivals a land of opportunity. Two distinct groups fighting for the same unskilled jobs. 

Too many poor, too many mouths to feed, too many lies by the Democrats.

I live in a multi-cultural community and see those from every continent and Island in the world realize their dreams of success and freedom. Most if not all obey the law, care about their children's education, and the safety of their families.

So who are the antagonists burning down our communities?

The Democrats and their Faux followers who monetize racism by dividing the rest of us. Just take New York City for example. The city that prides itself on one of the lowest crime metrics in the nation versus the farce of helping the underprivileged, never mind the underachievers. 

Crime has and always will be centered in the poorest neighborhoods, it used to be predominantly in communities with large influxes of immigrants. Not so any longer. The mixture of illegals and generational poverty within the African/American community is now a powder keg igniting violence throughout New York City. 

Facts are facts! 

The two dominant cultures now in New York City are Hispanic and Afro/American. Two factions that display an eternal discourse with anyone not a person of color. Some apparently haven't progressed from tribal warfare, and yet demand perfection.  

The false narrative regarding police violence is just another hyperbole in blowing up exceptions to the rule in the quest for dominance by any means. What can't be accomplished by simpler minds can be forced upon the majority with violence and bullying. We have watched this happen in every major city across the nation. The fusillade of racist threats comes predominantly from people of color. And the Left applauds the Racists and showers them with praise.

For God's sake fix the damn schools, educate the children and create jobs in the poorest neighborhoods. You don't have to be a a rocket scientist to see what's wrong. What's really wrong with NYC are its phony leaders who actually steal from the poor!  

How brave to insult your neighbors for the injustice caused by those long gone. How ingenuous minus the fact and forced censure of the opposition. Makes for a one-sided argument with no real progress. 

As a native New Yorker, my concern for the true welfare of my fellow neighbors has reached critical mass. Under the decay of De Blasio and his 3rd World mentors, our city is suffering from the chaos of corruption. The City Council is riddled with perceived victims with an ax to grind against history and their own self-respect. The welcoming arms of long-standing residents had exacerbated a political narrative of search and destroy. A narrative that comes from nations of people that live in Abject poverty for generations. One must only open their eyes to see its nexus.

Why else would DeBlasio, Cuomo and the Democrats who control our City and State Government wave the White Flag of Surrender?

Who wouldn't want the return of a time when the cop on the beat represented safety and not a White Supremacist? That's what DeBlasio has done for NYC.

Mayor DeBlasio fills his wife's pocket with nearly a Billion Dollars for ThriveNYC to help those with mental illness with little or no results. Yet men and women who actually put their lives on the line to keep New York safe are being demonized daily by socialists and communists.

What we need are more police and fewer mindless politicians. 


The NYPD has long been the head of the spear keeping its residents safe from Criminals on the Streets.  

What EX-SLAVE Frederick Douglass Thought of the Founding Fathers

Speech Cites Slavery's Curse, But Respect For Founders

Frederick Douglass Portrait by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times
Frederick Douglass Portrait by Greg Groesch



Thomas C. Stewart


If statues of Washington and Jefferson are going to be defaced and toppled from their pedestals because they depict slave-owners, I think that it is appropriate on this Fourth of July to ask someone who had actually been a slave to speak on their behalf. So I invoke an 1852 speech by the great civil rights leader Frederick Douglass titled, “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?”
Douglass was an imposing figure, both physically and intellectually. Photographs of him show a man of iron determination, with a leonine head and piercing eyes. A runaway slave, who had been ripped from his mother as an infant and savagely beaten while still a teenager, he was largely self-educated. He was a superb orator, and the topic of his speech was deliberately provocative.
Like the Rev. Martin Luther King a century later, he was challenging Americans to live up to their most sacred principles. Either all men, regardless of race, were created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — or the Declaration of Independence was a hollow mockery, and America itself was a fraud. 
Said Douglass: “The existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity as a base pretense, and your Christianity as a lie. It destroys your moral power abroad; it corrupts your politicians at home. It saps the foundation of religion; it makes your name a hissing, and a byword to a mocking earth. It is the antagonistic force in your government, the only thing that seriously disturbs and endangers your Union.
“It fetters your progress; it is the enemy of improvement, the deadly foe of education; it fosters pride; it breeds insolence; it promotes vice; it shelters crime; it is a curse to the earth that supports it; and yet, you cling to it, as if it were the sheet anchor of all your hopes. Oh, be warned! Be warned! A horrible reptile is coiled up in your nation’s bosom; the venomous creature is nursing at the tender breast of your youthful republic; for the love of God, tear away, and fling from you the hideous monster, and let the weight of twenty millions crush and destroy it forever!”
So if Douglass were here now would he be joining in the mindless destruction that we have witnessed in recent days?
No, he wouldn’t.
We can be sure of that because Douglass began and ended his speech by paying respectful tribute to our nation’s Founders and their legacy.
In his opening words, Douglass insisted that even as an ex-slave he was not “wanting in respect” for the Founding Fathers. “The point from which I am compelled to view them, is not,” he admitted, “certainly the most favorable.” But then he went on to say, “I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory.”
Douglass returned to this theme at the conclusion of his speech, where he found the legacy of the Founders to be cause for optimism: “Notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably, work the downfall of slavery … I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from the Declaration of Independence, the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age.”
Douglass, in short, had understood the full import of what the Founders had said in the Declaration of Independence. Granted, some of the Founders had owned slaves. But in the long run that counted for next to nothing.
By setting forth the revolutionary idea that all men were equal, and were endowed by their Creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Founders were laying the foundation for the anti-slavery movement, the women’s rights movement, the gay liberation movement and the vindication of every other group of persons in America who for some reason or other were relegated to something less than full citizenship. Our present concepts of liberty and equality simply would not exist without the Founders’ vision.
That is why any effort to diminish the Founders can on only end by diminishing ourselves.

EXCLUSIVE: Romney Campaign Veterans Turn on Trump and GOP, Back Biden

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, speaks to media as he arrives for a briefing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, March, 12, 2020, on the coronavirus outbreak. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) **FILE**
Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, speaks to media as he arrives for a briefing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, March, 12, 2020, on the coronavirus outbreak. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) **FILE**


Stephen Dinan

Veterans of Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign are eyeing an alliance with Joseph R. Biden, looking to make a splash in announcing they have turned their backs on the Republican Party this year and will support the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee instead.
Micah Spangler, who was a staffer in southern Florida for the Republican Party during the race, told fellow campaign veterans in emails Friday and over the weekend that he is working with the Biden team “to cultivate a network of Romney alums that want to help elect Joe in November.”
In a separate email to The Washington Times, he said he has received an outpouring of support over the first few days but wouldn’t disclose what motivated him to flip.
“Dozens and dozens of Romney 2012 staffers have ‘signed up’ — and there’s plenty more outreach to do,” he said in the email.
But some Romney campaign folks were indignant at the idea that anyone would leap from Mr. Romney to Mr. Biden, who as vice president was on the ticket in 2012 running against Mr. Romney.
“I wish my former Romney teammates no personal ill-will. But I question the patriotism and wisdom of supporting Joe Biden, who would be a cultural and economic disaster for the country,” said Brett Doster, who was a senior adviser for Mr. Romney’s Florida effort in 2012. “The Biden leftists can’t wait to flush free markets, the Constitution and unborn babies all down the same socialist sewage pipe.”
Andrew M. Bonderud, a lawyer who worked on the Romney campaign in Florida, said he didn’t remember Mr. Spangler but figured he was “probably a bit of an opportunist,” looking to capitalize on the possibility of a Biden victory.
“I think it’s madness,” he said. “I suspect it’s going to have a small audience. Most of the people with whom I worked on the Romney campaign are supporting Trump.”
What the effort does, though, is put Mr. Romney in a tricky spot.
He was the 2012 Republican nominee who lost his bid to unseat President Obama in an election his party thought was winnable.
He won a Senate seat from Utah in 2018 and in February became the first senator in history to vote to convict and remove a president of his own party, siding with Democrats in their impeachment effort.
He has been public about withholding support from President Trump in 2016 and said he wrote in his wife, Ann, on his ballot.
His office didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment, including whether he disavowed the push to use his name to back Mr. Biden.
It’s unlikely the Romney-to-Biden effort will sway self-identified Republicans. Gallup’s latest polling shows the president has 85% approval in his party, though that is down from 92% in early May.
Mr. Romney had 96% support of Republicans in Gallup’s final survey before the 2012 election.
A more likely target for the Romney flippers are independents or any voters who identified as Republican a decade ago but no longer do.
It’s rare, but not unheard of, for a sitting member of Congress to support the opposing party’s nominee.
Sen. Zell Miller, Georgia Democrat, did so in 2004 and even spoke at the Republican National Convention to endorse President George W. Bush.
Some of Mr. Romney’s top political advisers reached by The Times said they hadn’t been contacted by the pro-Biden effort.
Mr. Trump has run hot and cold on Mr. Romney, mocking him for his 2012 loss, backing him for his 2018 Senate run and labeling him a “loser” as Mr. Romney’s criticism intensified this year.
The Biden campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Mr. Spangler is now director of advocacy at the United Nations Association.
During the 2012 campaign, the Republican Party of Florida paid him as part of the joint victory effort, beginning in July. He earned $2,500 a month, according to Federal Election Commission spending records.
The Washington Times asked him what spurred his turn away from the Republican Party and whether it was related to Mr. Trump, but he did not respond to those questions. Instead, he celebrated the reaction he said he has received.
“At first, I honestly wasn’t sure what sort of responses (if any) I’d receive but over the last 72 hours, there’s been an outpouring of support across all sectors of the campaign,” he wrote.

University of Wisconsin Students Say Abraham Lincoln Statue at Madison Campus Must Come Down

Some students of color feel the figure should be removed from campus despite Lincoln ending slavery in the U.S.

Some students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison are calling for a statue of Abraham Lincoln on campus to be removed. 


Louis Casiano

Some University of Wisconsin students are pushing for a statue of Abraham Lincoln to be removed from the Madison campus over his treatment of indigenous groups and black people.
The Black Student Union and the Student Inclusion Coalition, both student organizations, called for the statue's removal in early June, despite Lincoln ending slavery in the United States.
The Black Student Union argues Lincoln's legacy also includes several actions that harmed people of color. He ordered the largest mass execution in U.S. history -- 38 Dakota men by hanging -- and signed the Homestead Act, which gave settlers land forcibly taken from Native Americans, the Wisconsin State Journal reported.
Some students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison are calling for a statue of Abraham Lincoln on campus to be removed. 
Some students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison are calling for a statue of Abraham Lincoln on campus to be removed.  (Google Maps)
“For him to be at the top of Bascom [Hill] as a powerful placement on our campus, it’s a single-handed symbol of white supremacy,” Black Student Union president Nalah McWhorter told the outlet.
Opponents, including UW-Madison Chancellor Rebecca Blank, have voiced concerns about how far the targeting of historical figures can go. In a statement to the newspaper, she acknowledged Lincoln's complex legacy.
“However, when the totality of his tenure is considered, Lincoln is widely acknowledged as one of our greatest presidents, having issued the Emancipation Proclamation, persuaded Congress to adopt the 13th Amendment ending slavery and preserved the Union during the Civil War ... I believe that Abraham Lincoln’s legacy should not be erased but examined, that it should be both celebrated and critiqued," Blank said.
The backlash against statues and monuments of controversial figures has intensified in the weeks following the death of George Floyd amid a racial reckoning across the country.
Some statues have been toppled and others have been vandalized. President Trump has excoriated vandals and pressed for jail terms for anyone caught desecrating public memorials. Last week, he signed an executive order to protect such properties.
Another statue of Lincoln featuring him with a shackled, kneeling African-American in Washington D.C., has also drawn scorn from activists. Critics say the Emancipation Memorial communicates the black man's subservience.
Fox News' Jack Durschlag contributed to this report.