Once again, yesterday's satire is today's demand by angry blacks and their white allies

Angry, hate-filled blacks--and their white allies, including Leftist blogs--are making so many war-urging statements that it's becoming hard to even log them all.

Latest example: An angry black guy named Wilburt Cooper wrote a piece for the leftoid website "Vice" originally titled "Let's blow up Mount Rushmore," in which the author complains that the men commemorated on Rushmore were evil. 

You get a quick sense of where this asshole's head is when you read his description of the inspiring Lincoln memorial in DC:  "...Abe Lincoln squatting on his throne or George Washington's phallus towering over everything in DC."  The author also whined that the president blamed violence on all sides rather than blaming ONLY the folks protesting the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee--a group the Lying Mainstream Media have dutifully, slavishly labelled "white supremacists" in every single article and story.

Well...a few hours after Vice published the piece, its leftist operators appear to have sensed, shall we say, murmurs of disagreement.  So they changed the title from "Let's blow up Mount Rushmore"  to

 "Let's get rid of Mount Rushmore."  

They didn't want to just delete the piece, of course, since they'd lose face with their leftist and black readers.  So as of now, anyway, it's still on their site.

But as everyone knows by now, the internet records stupid shit like this, so if you wanna see evidence of the original "Let's blow up Mount Rushmore" title--and a tweet from Vice showing how proud they were of the original title--click here.

The editors also added an oh-so-fake non-apology at the end of the article.

Editor's note: The headline and URL of this story have been updated. We do not condone violence in any shape or form, and the use of "blow up" in the original headline as a rhetorical device was misguided and insensitive. We apologize for the error.

They say they apologize for "the error."  But of course it wasn't an error.  The site's operators read the article and the headline, and posted it.  It was NOT an error (except tactically).  Stupid, yes, but not an error.

Let's take a look at some other brilliant, precious quotes from this crazed, white-hating son of a bitch:

At the same unhinged press conference in which Donald Trump again blamed both sides for the deadly violence in Charlottesville last weekend, he also painted a picture of a slippery slope where those fighting for the removal of Confederate statues today might be destroying tributes to more mainstream slave-owning icons like George Washington tomorrow.

The president turned out to be utterly prescient on that one, eh?  Cuz a week later your homies at Vice ran "Let's blow up Mount Rushmore."  Wow, Trump predicts your tactics yet again!

I'm not sure there is any American president worthy of being etched into the side of a 60-foot mountain with explosives and jackhammers. I mean, every single [president] has at least been partially complicit in horrific atrocities.

"Complicit in horrific atrocities," eh?  So I'm guessing you believe societies should only build monuments to people who were perfect, right?

Obviously Washington and Thomas Jefferson were remarkable individuals who helped usurp British rule in America... But they also enslaved their fellow man, committing special kinds of inhumane acts that should never be confined to footnotes. 

First is the guy's astonishing but predictable trivialization of the Revolutionary War to six words:  Washington and Jefferson "helped usurp British rule in America."  Wow.  So looks like you hate this country and don't want to be here.  Got it.

In case you weren't sure, this snowflake claims Black Lives Matter "...is actually doing work to make this nation more equitable."

Snowflake considers killing cops to be "Doing work to make this nation more equitable," apparently.

By the same metric, the emperors regime had "great optics," but the snowflake is puzzled that Obama's policies "seem to have done little to heal the wounds of racism in this nation."

Gosh, could that be because the emperor constantly fanned the flames of race hatred?  "Get in their faces," he said.  And surely everyone can understand what a great strategy that is for bringing the races together, right?

It's hard to be critical of a system when that system becomes an article of faith, filled with myths (the cherry tree), deities (Founding Fathers), and notions of salvation (the City on a Hill). It's going to be impossible to improve America if we can't be honest about its origins and its past. Her fruit is born from violence and greed, watered by the blood of my ancestors. 

Snowflake, how many white Americans died in the Revolutionary War?  How many blacks?

How many whites died in the war of 1812?  How many blacks?

How many whites served, and how many died, in the two World Wars?  How many blacks?

So if you enjoy living free in the U.S, you might open your eyes and quit complaining about how unfair life is for ya.

Trump and his white supremacist cohorts believe the reverence some Americans have for these statues is simply respect for history, and that tearing them down is tantamount to ripping pages out of a textbook. But monuments built by the state are not history—they manifestations [sic] of power. They don't tell you who, what, why, or how something happened. Instead, they just inform you who's in control. 

Back in the day there were "history teachers" in the public schools who actually taught the details of things like our War Between the States.  That got thrown out somehow.  I'm sure it was replaced by something more important, like the wonders of being transgender or something.

Erecting [statues to Confederate figures] amounted to power moves by white people who felt threatened. 

That's your theory.  Others believe they were honoring men who fought nobly for a cause--not slavery, but the right of states to secede from the Union.  You and your comrades demand that your theory prevail, to the point that you're not only perfectly willing to pull down the statues you don't like, but you scream that this is the only right thing to do.  And that if anyone should have the temerity to disagree with you, the ONLY possible reason must be that they're racist.  Interesting.

As a young man I was always skeptical of Martin Luther King Jr., in comparison to more radical leaders like Malcolm X. I couldn't help to notice how King was hailed by white people who wanted to avoid hard discussions about race. These people wanted to rely on a flimsy "dream"...

Yes, we can all see why you'd reject MLK's dream--the notion that a person should be judged on the quality of their character.

With the president of the United States basically justifying neo-Nazism...

Wilburt wants you to believe the people who got a permit to protest against the removal of the statue were "neo-Nazis," and that the president made a statement "basically justifying neo-Nazism."  Of course the only statement he can point to to support his utter bullshit is that the president condeming violence "on all sides."  At no time did the president even attempt to "basically justify neo-Nazism."

But we wouldn't expect an angry agitator to tell the truth.  Ever.