The other morning on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Steve Scully was entertaining calls from angry Democrats decrying President Trump's movement to undo previous presidents' orders that declared thousands of acres of land as national monuments making them off limits to developers. Here's an article about that proposal: Trump orders review of national monuments, vows to ‘end these abuses and return control to the people’.
Democrats calling into C-SPAN were livid. But it's ironic that many of those same Democrats would probably cheer the removal of a monument to a historic figure who has fallen out of favor with the left.
Let's expand the theory. Why not let local governments decide whether an unpopular statue needs to stay or leave? If they decide it should go, instead of knocking it down, they could put it up for rent. The highest bidder could rent the statue for 10 years, leave it where it is, or take it wherever they want, so long as they promise to relinquish it intact in ten years. That would be a much better use of George Soros' money than hiring mobs to commit mayhem.
Meanwhile, on the subject of offensive statues, ya gotta love this: Concerned Citizens Demand Removal of Offensive Statue That Glorifies an Alleged Rapist. Spoiler alert: It's a statue of Bill Clinton. (Heh heh.)
Comments