Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
JakeHolman

M A G A >> WINNING! WINNING! WINNING!

Recommended Posts

Signs Point to a 'V'-Shaped Recovery for U.S. Economy

Andy Puzder, FOX News July 3, 2020

The early economic signs indicate that we may already be in a “V”-shaped recovery — or at the very least a strong checkmark-shaped recovery — as we cautiously emerge from the coronavirus shutdown.
As Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Jay Powell admitted earlier this week, we have experienced a welcome “bounce back in economic activity,” and “have done so sooner than expected.” The economic data from the past two months make the point.

The May jobs report gave us the first indication that the post-pandemic rebound would be something special, revealing that employers had created a record-shattering 2.5 million jobs in a single month, beating economists' expectations for a loss of around 9 million jobs.

Most economists anticipated that the trend would continue, but few foresaw just how stellar the June jobs report turned out to be. Last month, the country gained a mind-boggling 4.8 million new jobs, blowing past consensus expectations of around 3.7 million. As an added bonus, last month’s total was revised upward by nearly 200,000 jobs, bring the two-month gain to 7.5 million jobs.

Even though the labor force participation rate rose sharply, meaning more people began looking for work, the nationwide unemployment rate nonetheless plummeted in June by more than two full percentage points, falling from 13.3 percent to 11.1 percent, also beating economists’ expectations of a 0.8 of a percentage point decrease to 12.5 percent.

Those are some incredible numbers! But what else were we seeing in the economy?

In May, retail sales increased by a record 17.7 percent, soundly beating economists’ expectations of around 8.4 percent. This increase in retail sales — following three months of declines — bodes well for a return to positive economic growth. Consumer spending accounts for about two-thirds of our economic output, and retail sales account for about a quarter of consumer spending.

New home sales, a leading indicator of housing market health, were up 16.6 percent in May, beating economists’ expectations of a 1.9 percent increase — with many economists having forecasted negative sales in May.

The renaissance is taking place across the board as state and local officials roll back their lockdown orders.

The National Association of Realtors recently reported that its index of pending home sales, a forward-looking indicator based on contract signings, rebounded by a record-setting 44.3 percent in May, driving the index to 99.6, the highest month-over-month gain since its inception in January 2001.

So how about June? It’s obviously early, but we have some data in addition to the jobs numbers.

Manufacturing, which represents about 11 percent of the U.S. economy, saw a big positive jump in June for the second straight month. The Institute for Supply Manufacturing survey showed that 52.6 percent of companies said their businesses are growing, up from 43.1 percent in May. That’s the best score since April of 2019 — and, of course, it beat economists’ expectations of 49.5 percent.

Consumers saw the writing on the wall in June even if the economists missed it — again. The Conference Board, a New York-based research organization, said that its Consumer Confidence Index rose to 98.1 in June from 85.9 in May, the biggest jump since 2011 and beating economists’ expectations of 90.5.

Not wanting to miss out on all the positivity, the stock markets — which are forward-looking — closed up nearly 20 percent for the quarter ending June 30, their best quarterly percentage increase since 1998.

The renaissance is taking place across the board as state and local officials roll back their lockdown orders, though the gains are naturally being led by industries that were hit hardest by the pandemic, including leisure and hospitality (2.1 million new jobs), retail (740,000 new jobs), education and health services (568,000 new jobs), and manufacturing (356,000 new jobs).

There are plenty of lockdown orders still in place all over the country, meaning we’ve got ample potential for additional growth just by continuing to responsibly return to normal, even if we occasionally need to douse the embers of the pandemic here and there.

This unprecedented “V”-shaped recovery is exactly what President Trump predicted at the height of the COVID-19 downturn. Based on his track record of presiding over record-setting economic prosperity before the foreign pandemic reached our shores, I’ve always had confidence in the president’s ability to guide us through this crisis.

Now that the bounce-back has begun, I’m excited to see how his pro-growth economic agenda of middle-income tax cuts, targeted deregulation and genuinely free trade will fuel our national resurgence.

The “V”-shaped economic recovery has only just begun, and while there may be some coronavirus flare-ups along the way that force us to slow things down, we’ll have nothing to worry about as long as we keep President Trump’s pro-growth economic policies in place.

 
 
 
717514612995088888
 
James Dean Yes GIF
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- PaulCraigRoberts.org - https://www.paulcraigroberts.org -

Hi White Person, You Are Cancelled

Posted By pcr3 On July 3, 2020 @ 11:47 am In Guest Contributions | Comments Disabled

Tucker Carlson Explains to White Americans that Their Demise Is Underway

Many Americans have been indoctrinated that they are guilty for being white. These lost souls won’t be able to understand what Tucker Carlson is telling them. These insouciant **** Americans doom all of us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxxHV5vu1Mo [1] 

 
Share this page
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
- PaulCraigRoberts.org - https://www.paulcraigroberts.org -

The Fourth Estate Has Murdered America

Posted By pcr3 On July 1, 2020 @ 9:59 am In Articles & Columns | Comments Disabled

The Fourth Estate Has Murdered America

Paul Craig Roberts

The “news service” of multi-billionaire Bloomberg echoes the New York Times lie that Russia paid the Taliban to kill US occupying troops:

“Lawmakers from both U.S. political parties demanded President Donald Trump hold Russia accountable over allegations it offered cash bounties for the killing of American troops. Trump has denied reports by several major news organizations that he was briefed on the matter; he has not demanded an investigation of the allegations; and he has yet to even threaten Moscow with retaliation should the reporting be confirmed. Trump’s lack of action has reignited concerns that the Republican is more interested in maintaining cordial relations with Vladimir Putin than defending American interests—including its troops.”

Notice all the innuendos in this dishonest report:  “Trump has denied,” “he has not demanded an investigation,” “he has yet to even threaten moscow,” ‘Trump’s lack of action,” “more interested in cordial relations with putin than defending American troops.”

The claim iitself is so absurd that it indicates the media regard Americans as completely stupid. The US and Taliban have been killing each other since October 2001 when the Cheney/Bush regime illegally attacked Afghanistan. For 19 years the Taliban has known who its enemy is and does not need Russian bribes to kill US occupiers.

To me, it is extraordinary that the New York Times and the proprietor of Bloomberg News are so devoid of integrity that they make up out of thin air false allegations for the sole purpose of convincing Americans that their president is a Russian agent more concerned with getting along with Putin than protecting US soldiers.  This latest lie from NYTimes/Bloomberg is an effort to resurrect the Russiagate hoax. 

Here is what happened. Some Democrat or anti-Trump member of the military/security complex planted a lie on the New York Times.  The NY Times knew it was a lie, did not investigate, and quickly published the lie for which the NY Times had no evidence.  Indeed, it is possible that the NY Times simply made up the story itself.

Once the lie is published, the rest of the presstitutes, such as Bloomberg, quickly spread the lie. Democrat and even Republican politicians start agitating for explanations and investigations of why Trump took no action against Russia.  

The Department of Defense issues a statement that there is “no corroborating evidence” to support the New York Times’ fake news.  But the Democrats, presstitutes and liberal pundits dismiss the DOD statement as covering up for President Trump.  Once again an obvious lie is being turned into a proven fact.  

The New York Times is supposed to be a newspaper, “the paper of record,” and Bloomberg is supposed to be a news service.  But both are propagandists dispensing lies in order to help the American Establishment get rid of Trump who represents the working class.  In American politics, representing the working class is no longer permissible. 

The liberals, the progressives, and the left are the actual forces aligned against America.  They are far more dangerous to ordinary Americans than are North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia. They are dangerous to all races that comprise the US Tower of Babel, because they are bringing America down in a spasm of disinformation and hate. 

 
Share this page

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alternate text

"If we look to the history of other nations, ancient or modern, we find no example of a growth so rapid, so gigantic, of a people so prosperous and happy."

 

JAMES MONROE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US Is Collapsing Under Attack

By Paul Craig Roberts

PaulCraigRoberts.org

The US is under attack not only by the Covid virus but also by ideas that have deracinated a significant percentage of white people from their culture and history. It is an indication of end times when the self-inflicted death of a felon strung out on a fatal overdose of an opioid can result in the loss of confidence by public authorities leaving them unable to defend property and public monuments from rioters and looters.  Organizations that are pillars of Western civilization have collapsed into guilt and contrition over a drug overdose death. 

Those leading the attack on Western Civilization can only be encouraged by the abundant signs of collapsing confidence among white people who have sided with forces of destruction against law and order.  Such weakness will encourage further attacks.

Race relations in the US, never good due to the self-hating white liberals who preach race hatred of whites to blacks and guilt to whites, have taken a terrible blow from the misrepresentation of George Floyd’s death from the dangerous opioid fentanyl.

George Floyd’s death, attributed falsely to police murder, was due, according to the medical examiner’s report, which the media has ignored, to his medical preconditions plus an overdose of fentanyl.  The entire episode has been misrepresented. The police did not call medics because they had choked Floyd to death. The police restraining Floyd called for medical help, because they seem to have recognized that Floyd was undergoing Excited Delirium Syndrome (EXD) and was in danger of his life. Floyd was being restrained in order to keep him still.  You can read about fentanyl’s effect on breathing ability and heart function here.

Note especially this paragraph: 

“Can you overdose on fentanyl?

Yes, a person can overdose on fentanyl. An overdose occurs when a drug produces serious adverse effects and life-threatening symptoms. When people overdose on fentanyl, their breathing can slow or stop. This can decrease the amount of oxygen that reaches the brain, a condition called hypoxia. Hypoxia can lead to a coma and permanent brain damage, and even death.”

According to the medical examiner’s report, this is what happened to Floyd.

But the American media has paid no attention to the medical examiner’s report. Neither has either political party.   In an effort to discredit the medical examiner’s report, eleven politicized physicans published rhetoric devoid of any evidence—essentially an act of mud-throwing at the medical examiner—in Scientific American, which raises questions about how scientific Scientific American is.  But the media leading the charge of “murder by police racism” knows better than to bring the medical evidence into the picture. The only “autopsy report” the media mentions is a nonexistent “independent autopsy” that consists merely of assertions in behalf of a civil suit.

Knee on neck is a restraint technique that is part of police training.  Floyd was a large powerful man.  As his blood work proves, he was over-dosed on a dangerous killer opioid and other drugs.  He and the officer wrongly accused of killing him had been bouncers together in the same night club.  Blows or pressure on the side of the neck do not affect breathing. It is blows to the throat that affect breathing and can be deadly. 

But the fentanyl Floyd was on does stop breathing when over-dosed.

Although the fatal dose can vary, Floyd had about three times the dose considered fatal when you include the other two drugs he was on.  In the police conversations, the officer seems to say he is concerned about Floyd’s condition and is keeping him immobile until the medics get there.

All of this has been intentionally misrepresented by the media and all the pundits, most of whom are too ignorant of anatomy to know that the air passage is not on the side of the neck. More likely they have no regard for truth whatsoever.  If the media had any interest in truth, how did Russiagate get launched?

Paul-Craig-Roberts2.pngThe United States is a country without a media. There is no Fourth Estate, only a propaganda ministry that feeds lies into the consciousness, what little there is, of insouociant Americans, a people who have failed themselves and their country by refusing to make the effort to be informed and to hold the media accountable for its lies and misrepresentations.

There is no second or “independent” autopsy report of Floyd’s death. The alleged “independent autopsy” is merely a hired opinion based on the homicide misinterpretation of the video, not on an examination, for a profitable law suit on behalf of Floyd’s “family.”  As Floyd has children from different women, it is unclear who his family is. 

What is clear is that white liberals are determined to dispossess white Americans of confidence and respect for their history. To understand what happens to a people whose confidence collapses under racial attack, read The Camp of the Saints.  A reader has provided this free online link to a PDF of the book.

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random House. Visit his website.

Copyright © Paul Craig Roberts

Previous article by Paul Craig Roberts: Seattle’s ‘Summer of Love’ Spoiled by Murder,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Congress, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Trump tweets Catholic author’s warning that ‘there is a war against Christianity’

With his tweet, the President appears to endorse the view that our current tumults come from an undermining of the Christian roots of American society.
Fri Jul 3, 2020 - 10:15 am EST
 
Featured Image
 
U.S. President Donald Trump arrives at a campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma on June 20, 2020.
 
July 3, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – On July 2, only hours after Dr. Taylor Marshall had given an interview to the U.S. cable network One America News (OAN) about the current crisis in America, President Donald Trump sent out a tweet highlighting the Catholic author’s warning. “Dr. Taylor Marshall, author. 'There Is A War On Christianity'. @OANN,” Trump tweeted. Marshall had pointed out that the current attacks on symbols and statues are finally not only about a presidential candidate, but about attacking our Christian civilization.
 
With his tweet, the President of the United States appears to endorse Dr. Marshall's viewpoint that what is finally at stake in our current tulmults is a full undermining of the roots of American society, Christianity.

Yesterday, Marshall told Jack Posobiec of OAN that, “with these riots and these hate groups” it is not just about George Washington and other political figures, but “they are now attacking Christian symbols, signs, crosses, statues.” “We are really in a war over the heart of civilization,” the Thomist scholar and author of multiple books continued, and that civilization emerged “from Christianity.”

“The goodness that we have experienced,” Marshall went on to say, “in our nation emerged from a Christian culture. And these atheists, these socialists, these Marxists, they know that and they are attacking it.”

Here, we might remember, that it was the founder of Marxism, Karl Marx himself, who had once stated that “religion is the opium of the people,” and Communist countries have always suppressed Christianity.

Dr. Marshall described to Posobiec how only in recent days, there have been Catholic statues decapitated, the St. Louis statue in St. Louis assaulted, and two statues of St. Junipero Serra removed. Serra, however, “was a great champion for the rights of the Indigenous,” explained the book author. And at the time of St. Louis, in the 13th century, “there were no inter-continental slave trades.”

“They are taking the debates and controversies of our time and they are imputing them into these men who come before us so that they can erase Christian memory, erase Christian civilization,” the author added in the interview that now has been endorsed by President Trump. “They are actually going after what we believe in our hearts,” Marshall added.

This Catholic author, who runs his own Youtube channel, also endorsed President Trump for re-election when he told Posobiec that even though Trump is trailing in the polls, “I think people are realizing that 'I don't want to live in an America that is chaotic. I want the rule of law.’” Marshall holds that the U.S. can cherish what is good in its country and history, while purging evils, such as abortion, as it has done in the past in cases such as with slavery. “As a nation,” he explained, “we have been able to – often through blood –  repent and to change our ways.” 

While he admits that “Trump is not perfect,” he adds that “none of us is perfect,” nor previous Presidents or even Catholic saints, and explains that “we can work together, not to burn everything that's America to the ground. We can simply fix what is wrong and cherish what has been good and wholesome in our history.”

In a comment to LifeSite on the president’s tweet, Marshall said that “people are realizing that we have shifted from a political battle to a spiritual battle.” He also explicitly drew a link to the recent presidential endorsement of an open letter by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò to President Trump:

“It’s no longer merely 'Left Vs Right' but people are realizing that it’s become 'Christ vs Satan' as foretold in Genesis 3:15. I did an interview with Jack Posobiec of OANN on this topic and I was pleased and honored that President Trump not only watched the interview but tweeted and quoted me on this matter. It shows that the spiritual struggle that Archbishop Viganò warned the President about is now becoming mainstream.”

Dr. Marshall, in his comments, also referred back to a book that he had written last year on the very same topic: “One year ago I wrote Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within [see here a chapter and book review as published by LifeSite] and I was called a conspiracy theorist back then. But now people realize that our society (Church and State) are truly infiltrated from within. This is not a conspiracy. It’s become our daily reality. We have seen the masks fall off both in the American demonstrations but also at the Amazon Synod and within the Vatican itself. President Trump is right to note 'There is a war against Christianity'. We must pray, do penance and seek Christ to win this war.”

On June 6, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the Italian prelate and former papal nuncio to the United States, had published an open letter to President Trump, in which he commented on the current crisis in the U.S. but also in the world: “In recent months we have been witnessing the formation of two opposing sides that I would call Biblical: the children of light and the children of darkness. The children of light constitute the most conspicuous part of humanity, while the children of darkness represent an absolute minority,” the prelate told President Trump. He identifies those dark forces as being part of the “deep state which you wisely oppose and which is fiercely waging war against you in these days – have decided to show their cards, so to speak, by now revealing their plans.”

Archbishop Viganò also added that “the riots in these days were provoked by those who, seeing that the virus is inevitably fading and that the social alarm of the pandemic is waning, necessarily have had to provoke civil disturbances.” He sees that the goal behind these disturbances is to avoid President Trump's re-election.

But the Italian prelate – similar to what Dr. Marshall is saying – also pointed to a Masonic background of much of today's disturbances when he wrote that “we learn once again that hidden behind these acts of vandalism and violence there are those who hope to profit from the dissolution of the social order so as to build a world without freedom: Solve et Coagula, as the Masonic adage teaches.”

The archbishop praised the President's acts in defense of the life of unborn babies and drew a parallel to the situation in the Catholic Church, in which he also sees a sort of a “deep state” among the leadership. Archbishop Viganò concluded his open letter with his assurance of his prayers: “Mr. President, my prayer is constantly turned to the beloved American nation, where I had the privilege and honor of being sent by Pope Benedict XVI as Apostolic Nuncio.”

Only a few days later, President Trump retweeted this very open letter and said that he was “honored” by this “incredible letter,” inviting “everyone, religious or not,” to read it.

Thus, Trump's endorsement of Dr. Marshall's interview is the second time in the recent past that the President is aligning himself with those voices among Catholics that, though in a minority, are determined to fight for the authentic and true Catholic Faith within the Church and for a Christian civilization at large, against the globalist and Marxist social engineers who are out to wage a “war against Christianity,” in the words of Dr. Marshall.ald Trump, Taylor Marshall

 
LifeSiteNews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Franklin's Admonition

 
COMMENTARY
July 04, 2020
“A republic, if you can keep it.” 

That was Ben Franklin’s famous response when asked, as the Constitutional Convention ended in 1787, what sort of government the delegates had crafted.

Time was, I thought Franklin's answer droll. But as July 4, 2020, comes into view, I wonder. A republic depends on the rule of law. The rule of law has been having a hard time of it lately. So: Can we keep it? 

I have never been tempted to equate the equality celebrated by the Declaration of Independence with egalitarianism. The philosopher Harvey Mansfield was obviously correct, I believe, when he spoke of the “self-evident half-truth that all men are created equal.” 

Differences in talent, disposition, family situation, and plain dumb luck inevitably result in differences in achievement. As James Madison put it in Federalist 10, the rights of property originate in “diversity in the faculties of men.” Protecting those faculties, he said, “is the first object of government.” 

Hence the conclusion that the “self-evident truth that all men are created equal” is, from one perspective, really a “half-truth.” If you are smarter, stronger, richer, or more beautiful or virtuous than I, there is an important sense in which we are not equal. 

But what about the sense in which we are equal? That sense is embodied in the virtues of disinterestedness and impartiality, the unbiased discernment of truth. It is symbolized, for example, by the statue of Justice adorning our courthouses, blindfolded, and holding a scale to declare her allegiance to law, not men. It is implicit in Martin Luther King Jr.’s observation that what matters is not the color of our skin but the content of our character. 

The entire premise of “Black Lives Matter” is antithetical to the aspirations of equality in King’s hopeful sense. Indeed, with its angry codicil that asserting “All Lives Matter” is impermissible, the BLM movement is an inversion of King’s message, just as it is an affront to the ideal of impartiality on which the rule of law depends.

But the attack on that ideal long predates the BLM movement. It is woven deeply into the culture of repudiation that fueled the radicalism of the 1960s and undermined the humanistic tradition that, once upon a time, our universities existed to foster and hand down.

The cultural critic Christopher Lasch diagnosed it with great clarity. “A misplaced compassion,” he wrote in his posthumously published book, “The Revolt of the Elites,” “degrades both the victims, who are reduced to objects of pity, and their would-be benefactors, who find it easier to pity their fellow citizens than to hold them up to impersonal standards, attainment of which would entitle them to respect.” 

Lasch, old-fashioned liberal that he was, understood that embracing democracy does not entail a debasement of standards. Equality, rightly understood, requires a respect for impartial canons of achievement.

This insight lay at the center of Matthew Arnold’s “Culture and Anarchy.” “Culture,” as Arnold regarded it, “does not try to teach down to the level of inferior classes; . . . It seeks to do away with classes; to make the best that has been thought and known in the world current everywhere.” Hence it is, Arnold wrote, that “the men of culture are the true apostles of equality. The great men of culture are those who have had a passion for diffusing, for making prevail, for carrying from one end of society to the other, the best knowledge, the best ideas of their time.”  

Today, of course, the contention that some ideas are better than others—let alone that some deserve to be called “the best”—is rejected as an elitist crime against “diversity.”

The cult, the ideology of diversity—what we have baptized as “identity politics,” which represents the systematic rejection of everything connected with impartiality and objective, impersonal standards—is the enabling presupposition of the destructive cauldron of racialist obsession in which our society is now marinating.

The irony, as Allan Bloom understood, is that our current intolerance is the perverted progeny of the primary liberal value of openness. It used to be, Bloom noted in “The Closing of the American Mind,” that openness was “the virtue that permitted us to seek the good by using reason. It now means accepting everything and denying reason’s power. The unrestrained and thoughtless pursuit of openness … has rendered openness meaningless.” 

If you doubt this, tune in to the evening news and listen to fancy people explain why destroying someone else’s property is not violence, while keeping one’s own counsel and refusing to join the mob in ritual **** of denunciation and self-abasement is violence.

“A republic, if you can keep it.” What I once thought of as a quaint, half tongue-in-cheek caution, I now see as an earnest admonition. July 4 commemorates not only America’s independence from Great Britain, but also its assumption among the powers of the earth of a form of government dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Our society’s recent descent into tribalism is sharply at odds with that experiment in aspiration. It’s time we grew up and embraced the wisdom of our Founders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Founders Meant to Keep Government Out of the Church, Not God Out of the Government

Photo credit: Getty

Photo credit: Getty

 

CBN-Logo-black.svg
By CBN News
Contributor

July 3, 2020
By Paul Strand

The 4th of July makes us think of our independence and freedoms. But when our Founders came up with the First Amendment, were they trying to keep government free from religion? Or religion free from government?  

These days, the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” has come to mean keeping God or His believers from having a big effect on government and public life. But that’s far, far from what the Founding Fathers were thinking of when they were separating church and state.

FEAR OF AN ALL-POWERFUL STATE CHURCH WED TO THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT

They were afraid of what so many of the Old World countries had: a religion established by the state as its one true religion, that would tyrannically rule over the faith and conscience of every citizen.

As the Providence Forum’s Peter Lillback put it, “They recognized having a monolithic church was a dangerous thing.”  That’s because it made the king not only their physical sovereign but also their all-powerful spiritual ruler.

Before the Pilgrims fled England, Wallbuilders’ David Barton recalled, “The Pilgrims’ pastor was executed because he made the statement that Jesus Christ is head of the church. And the monarch said, ‘oh no, I’m the head of the church. You’re dead.’”

WOULDN’T ALLOW A CHURCH OF AMERICA LIKE THE BRITS HAD THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Knowing of such terror and tyranny, AmericanMinute.com historian William Federer explained how the Founders felt: “Their big fear was the federal government was going to follow the blueprint of every country in Europe and pick one national denomination.”

So what they meant by saying in the First Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” was that the federal government was banned from creating – or “establishing” – a national religion with the national government wedded to it.

“They didn’t want to have a national, established Church of America like you have the Church of England, forcing people to believe something that they didn’t believe in,” said Jerry Newcombe, host of the radio program “Vocal Point”

“What they said was, ‘We don’t want a state church here. Consciously, therefore, they were separating the church from government,” Lillback said.

But that was strictly to protect the churches and each believer’s faith and conscience from the government.

ALL ABOUT PROTECTING EACH AMERICAN’S CONSCIENCE AND FREEDOM TO BELIEVE

Not only did the First Amendment say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but it also said, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

“What they wanted was the freedom that we have in the Bible: the rights of conscience,” Barton said. “And they didn’t want the state telling us how we could or couldn’t practice our faith.”

Lillback said the Founders keeping government control away from faith meant, “Each of us has a right to be who we are before God. It has been well said and it’s a classic statement of religious liberty that man is not free unless he is free on the inside.  We have to have the freedom to believe what we believe. That’s what the First Amendment protects.”

‘GOD: HE’S ON BOTH SIDES OF THE WALL’

And that’s what Christian historian Eddie Hyatt explained Thomas Jefferson was talking about when he wrote the letter that first used the famous “wall of separation” phrase to a group of worried Baptists.

“He said that the First Amendment had erected a wall of separation that would protect them from any intrusion of the government,” Hyatt stated. “In Jefferson’s mind, the wall of separation was a uni-directional wall, put there to keep the government out of the church; not to keep the influence of the church out of the government.”

There was no antipathy towards the Lord in all of this, Lillback insisted, saying, “But the idea of God: He’s on both sides of the wall. And He’s welcome there. And He should be.”

THE GOVERNMENT IS REACHING OVER THAT WALL, BOSSING AROUND PEOPLE OF FAITH

But today, there’s been a complete flip.

Lillback said, “Those who once believed in this really high and impregnable wall of church and state, we now see the government reaching over that wall and saying, ‘but don’t preach that text of scripture.’”  

Barton added, “All of a sudden the government’s regulating religious activities, which is what Jefferson said they would not do because of separation of church and state.”

Hyatt lamented, “The Founders would be so distressed to see how that statement has been turned on its head.”

As Newcombe explained, “They absolutely did not mean the separation of God and government, which is what’s often being practiced today.”

NO ONE ‘UNDER GOVERNMENT,’ BUT EACH ONE ‘UNDER GOD’

Lillback encourages Americans to remember what the nation’s Founders intended.

“This is a theistic government. So God was not separated from government,” he insisted. “So any interpretation of the First Amendment that takes God out of government is turning the whole story on its head. Rather it was taking a formal state church out of the equation, leaving it up to each individual. But all, as we still say, ‘under God.’ That was the view of our Founders.”

They believed a nation based on liberty could only stay free if its citizens were godly people. As Barton pointed out, believers in God have their eyes on eternity, and it makes them practice self-control.  

KNOWING YOU’LL ANSWER TO GOD MAKES YOU GOVERN YOURSELF

“When you’re God-conscious, you realize, ‘ya know, I’m going to have to answer to Him for what I do,’ and it limits my bad behavior,” Barton stated.

Newcombe added, “That’s something the Founders believed very strongly: that we’re going to be accountable before God.”

Hyatt said of those Founders, “They knew that they were creating a nation for a free people, but also for a virtuous people who would govern themselves from within.”

You need very little police power if people, because of conscience, will police themselves.

GREEN BEAN CONTROL LAWS?

“Self-control is what you need,” Barton explained. “We can pass all the control laws we want. But unless you control the heart, you’ll never control behavior. I mean, I can kill somebody with a can of green beans. What are we going to do?  Pass green bean control laws if somebody does that? No. It’s on the inside.”

And the Founders knew to keep America true and free, they also needed the perfect law of a loving, all-wise God.

As Lillback put it, “There was a clear understanding that the government needed to have an ultimate check and balance, even beyond the people that ran it and their elections. And that is the transcendent law of God.  And so that is why when we look at our Declaration of Independence, there are four references to Deity.”

Going through the Declaration, Lillback laid them out: “‘We’re endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.’ The laws of God and nature. And it tells us there’s an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world. And, finally, a dependence on the Providence of God. Four references to Deity.”

NOT GODLESS AT ALL

But then came the US Constitution, which some say is a godless document because God isn’t mentioned in it. As soon as they were done with it, though, the Founders called for a day of Thanksgiving to God.

“They were not thinking ‘let’s get rid of God’,” Lillback stated. “They said ‘we have been given now a new Constitution, and now amendments that give us our freedoms. And where do we turn? We turn to heaven and thank God for this’.”

“Now, if their intent was to get rid of God from government, boy did they miss their point,” Lillback said.  “Because they turned around and thanked Him for everything that they had. It shows the utter historical absurdity of ‘the godless Constitution’.”

CONSTITUTION’S LAST WORDS REFERENCE CHRIST

And God isn’t really absent from the Constitution or its authors’ lives.

“They are not godless,” Lillback insisted. “They are people who at the very end of their work said ‘In the year of our Lord, 1787.’  The very last words in the Constitution are a reference to Jesus Christ.”

He concluded, “It’s no surprise then that the ultimate motto is We are One Nation Under God.”

 

Parler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American Greatness

US President Donald Trump arrives for the Independence Day events at Mount Rushmore National Memorial in Keystone, South Dakota, July 3, 2020. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP)

 

A Magnificent Speech

Looking back on the 2020 election, historians will say the Mt. Rushmore speech was the moment that Donald Trump won reelection.

By Roger Kimball  July 4, 2020

 

Donald Trump did not mention Lincoln’s First Inaugural address in his speech commemorating the spirit of American Independence at Mount Rushmore on Friday night. But the president’s speech—perhaps his most forceful and eloquent to date—vibrated with the same energy and existential commitment that fired Lincoln in March 1861. 

Lincoln came to office at a time of crisis. His election had precipitated the secession of seven Southern states. His inaugural address was both a plea for conciliation and unity as well as a warning that violence would be stopped with force. “We are not enemies, but friends,” Lincoln said

Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Donald Trump issued a kindred invitation to unity in the midst of conflict. The signing of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia in July 1776 was a world-historical event. It represented, the president rightly said, “the culmination of thousands of years of Western Civilization—and the triumph not only of spirit, but of wisdom, philosophy, and reason.” At the center of the triumph was the animating possession of liberty, made possible by the unanimous affirmation of the principles Thomas Jefferson articulated in the Declaration: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .” 

The president’s speech was a passionate celebration of American freedom and American greatness—a greatness, he noted, that was embodied by the sublime majesty of the heads of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt sculpted into the granite pinnacle of Mt. Rushmore. 

But just as Lincoln spoke on the eve of civil war, so Donald Trump spoke in the midst of widespread and organized violence against the emblems and the spirit of the American promise. “[T]here is,” he warned, “a growing danger that threatens every blessing our ancestors fought, struggled, and bled to secure.”

Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children. Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials, and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities. Many of these people have no idea why they are doing this, but some know exactly what they are doing. They think the American people are weak and soft and submissive. But no, the American people are strong and proud, and they will not allow our country, and all of its values, history, and culture, to be taken from them.

I might just say “Amen!” and be done with it. But the president was not content with generalities. He sees deeply into the nature and the source of the forces besieging our country, and he is refreshingly forthright and specific about describing the malady and outlining his intended response. 

The president was especially strong in challenging what is perhaps the most obnoxious manifestation of our petulant antinomianism—that species of politically correct intolerance that has come to be called “cancel culture.” In essence, cancel culture is the malignant inversion of liberalism’s defining virtues, openness and tolerance. It is born of historical ignorance and a stunning lack of empathy—an ironic fact, since one of the chief premises of cancel culture is its own supposed superior sensitivity. 

In fact, the emotional payload of cancel culture is not more sensitive than its accommodating alternative, just more narcissistic. It operates by proxy, filing claims for redress on behalf of a ghostly population of abstractions: “indigenous peoples,” slaves of yesteryear, and on and on in an endless litany of complaint. 

What is not at all abstract, however, are the effects of cancel culture. As the president noted, it is wielded as a weapon, “driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees.” In a word, cancel culture is “the very definition of totalitarianism” and is “completely alien to our culture and our values.” It should have “absolutely no place in the United States of America.” And here is where his speech took on a steely seriousness. “This attack on our liberty must be stopped,” he said, “and it will be stopped.” 

In short, the president has promised to cancel cancel culture. Is that a contradiction, a violation of the spirit of tolerance he has promised to uphold? No. 

The enemies of civilization routinely use and abuse its freedoms in order to destroy it. Candid men understand this and act to prevent it. As G. K. Chesterton put it, “There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped.”

The alarming thing about the spirit of cancel culture, and the thing that makes its violence and intolerance different from similar interdictions in the 1960s and 1970s, is that the toxin of woke intolerance has insinuated itself deeply into the tissues of our society, not just the universities—petri dishes for all sort of malevolence—but even grade schools. It has infected not just the coddled elite that, safely insulated itself, has always loved playing at radicalism, but also mainstream corporate culture. The president accurately diagnosed the extent of the malady and its true goal:

 

In our schools, our newsrooms—even our corporate boardrooms—there is a new far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance. If you do not speak its language, perform its rituals, recite its mantras, and follow its commandments, then you will be censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted and punished. Make no mistake: this left-wing Cultural Revolution is designed to overthrow the American Revolution. In so doing, they would destroy the very civilization that rescued billions from poverty, disease, violence and hunger, and that lifted humanity to new heights of achievement, discovery, and progress.

Remember this the next time you see a mob come for a statue of Christopher Columbus or George Washington or Teddy Roosevelt, or, indeed, of Robert E. Lee. What they are coming for is our history—who we are. 

The Left, the president rightly noted, are “determined to tear down every statue, symbol, and memory of our national heritage.” And just as Lincoln warned that violence would be met with force, so Donald Trump put the world on notice that he means business. “I am deploying federal law enforcement,” he noted, “to protect our monuments, arrest the rioters, and prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law. I am pleased to report that yesterday, federal agents arrested the suspected ringleader of the attack on the statue of Andrew Jackson in Washington, D.C.—and hundreds more have been arrested.” The penalty for many of these destructive anarchist acts is 10 years in prison. Making an example of some of these miscreants will have a clarifying effect, not unlike that ascribed by Dr. Johnson to the prospect of hanging in a fortnight

The Mt. Rushmore speech was so good because it spoke half-forgotten home truths in an atmosphere of excited confusion and discontentment. 

We know that all of our most pathological cities have been run as Democratic monopolies for decades. Donald Trump had the temerity to point this out. We know that our public schools are increasingly factories of left-wing, anti-American indoctrination. The president had the temerity to point that out as well. The narrative is that Trump is a crude and bumbling ignoramus, but can you imagine Joe Biden or any other Democrat in office today having the moral courage and clarity of mind to say this:

The violent mayhem we have seen in the streets of cities run by liberals, is the predictable result of years of extreme indoctrination and bias in education, journalism and other cultural institutions. Against every law of society and nature, our children are taught in school to hate their own country—and to believe that the men and women who built it, were not heroes, but villains. The radicals’ view of American History is a web of lies—all perspective is removed, every virtue is obscured, every motive is twisted, every fact is distorted, and every flaw is magnified until the history is purged and the record is disfigured beyond all recognition. 

There were many other great moments in the Mt. Rushmore speech. I especially liked what the president had to say about that popular tool of moral blackmail, “social justice.” 

“The radical ideology attacking our country advances under the banner of Social Justice,” he said. “But in truth, it would demolish both justice and society. It would transform justice into an instrument of division and vengeance, and it would turn our free and inclusive society into a place of repression, domination, and exclusion.” That is as good as anything Friedrich Hayek said about that portmanteau instrument of intimidation and meritless virtue signaling. 

I also liked what he said about our government’s first obligation—“to care for its own citizens first”—what he said about free speech—“We want free and open debate, not speech codes or cancel culture”—and what he said about law enforcement and the second amendment—eager support for both. 

Finally, I liked what he said about equality. 

“We believe in equal opportunity, equal justice, and equal treatment for citizens of every race, background, religion, and creed. Every child, of every color—born and unborn—is made in the holy image of God.” Again, can you imagine any Democrat saying that—any of it? It has often been pointed out that black lives do not matter to the Black Lives Matter movement, which is really just a gigantic machine for hoovering up money from left-wing donors and despoiling the institutions and emblems of our civilization. 

It is a sad irony indeed that Black Lives Matter is explicitly dedicated to the destruction of the nuclear family—it’s part of their mission statement—since the ruination of the black family, actively abetted by the Democrats’ welfare policies, is largely responsible for the continuing plight of black Americans. 

The gospel of the radicals assailing our society today is a gospel of self-abasement. The president preaches a different message: “We stand tall, we stand proud—and we only kneel to Almighty God.” 

Colin Kaepernick was unavailable for comment.

Looking back on the 2020 election, historians will say that last night’s speech was the moment that Donald Trump won reelection. It was a magnificent speech that will, I predict, take an honored place in the library of great American political addresses. 

American Greatness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chronicles Magazine of American Culture
 
Editorials
 
July 2020

Cultural Radicalism Is the Problem, Not Bolshevism

1600px-Black_lives_matter_2020_1

Socialism is cool again in America, but it’s not your father’s socialism. It is no longer “the rival but the patsy of state capitalism,” as Nathan Pinkoski writes in a penetrating article in Law & Liberty entitled “The Strange Rise of Bourgeois Bolshevism.” The villain of this new socialism “is not the bourgeois but the white heterosexual American Christian male.”

“Self-styled American socialists,” Pinkoski observes, “define socialism not by government control of the economy or by state ownership of the means of production, but rather in terms of an open-ended commitment to equality.” And, in the current cult of victimhood, the “crown of thorns” moves from one designated victim group to the next.

Pinkoski correctly points out that the present focus on socialism has nothing to do with traditional Marxism. Today’s left stresses cultural transformation and the derailment of the nuclear family rather than socioeconomic changes. Economic socialism enters the picture almost as an afterthought, which even a supposedly sworn enemy of capitalism like New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may grasp when she insists that the greatest danger facing us is “fascism.”

Fascism, as she uses the word, is of course code for the failure to push multiculturalism far enough. Until the recent cross-country riots, the elites of the left who pay lip service to multiculturalism, such as CNN’s Jeff Zucker, would not have to worry that Antifa would be coming to confiscate or trash their property. The young activists were too busy beating up old white folks on street corners in Portland.

The culturally radicalized captains of corporate capitalism are in the vanguard of the intersectional left. As a mark of its commitment to the cause, investment bank Goldman Sachs is now forcing all employees to address each other in gender-neutral language. I have no idea how this lunacy represents Marxism or socialism. Pinkoski is correct in suggesting its energy is coming from elsewhere. Where to pinpoint that elsewhere is where I part company with Pinkoski. In my view, there is nothing “bourgeois” about the politics of Goldman-Sachs or The Washington Post because there’s nothing “bourgeois” about its participants.

The capitalism that Pinkoski is describing survived the dissolution of bourgeois civilization, just as European cathedrals and palaces survived the disappearance of monarchs and aristocrats. Just because someone is a stockbroker or government bureaucrat does not mean they represent the moral, social, and political position of the 19th- or early 20th-century bourgeois. Such a person is earning money and may even have income to spend on frills, but is not a stand-in for the bourgeois as Marx meant that term.

For example, a Jewish accountant or Chinese computer expert who gives money to Elizabeth Warren is not culturally interchangeable with a Presbyterian industrialist of the late 19th century simply because both have some wealth. Neither is Tesla executive Elon Musk, who imitates the behavior of the underclass by impregnating women to whom he is not married and confers weird names on his illegitimate offspring, a member of the same class as Henry Ford or Cornelius Vanderbilt.

In his picture of the bourgeoisie, Pinkoski dwells on members of that class who turned in a radical direction. These “bourgeois Bolsheviks” were supposedly held together by nothing stronger than raw financial interest and individual appetite.

Contrary to Pinkoski’s statement, which we are led to believe is taken from the French historian François Furet, the bourgeoisie most definitely is not a class “defined entirely by economics.” In interwar Italy, France, Spain, and Austria, the bourgeoisie were frequently drawn to fascist movements to save their societies from the Marxist left. Much of the American bourgeoisie rallied to the anti-New Deal right in hopes of preserving an older version of America and staying out of foreign wars.

Cultural and social characteristics, and not just bank balance statements, are highly relevant in determining who does or does not belong to an historic class. The moneyed advocates of gay marriage and transgendered rights do not carry on the traditions of those devout Christians who created industrial and financial wealth in earlier periods. Today, the alliance of American plutocrats with Cultural Marxists should cause no surprise. These wealthy radicals belong to our late modern age, not to an older ruling class. Even the nouveaux riches of the 19th century conformed to the standards of conduct that existed for what the Germans called “the class of property and education.” It was certainly not economics exclusively that determined the status of bourgeois gentlemen and bourgeois ladies, as I argue at length in After Liberalism (1999).

In any case, there were aristocratic defectors, not only bourgeois ones, who went over to the left. Members of the aristocracy supported the French Revolution, and others, who were part of the French Enlightenment, composed anticlerical and anti-monarchist tracts in the 18th century. In Hungary, Count Mihály Károly headed a radically leftist government after World War I that quickly fell to the even more radical Communists. Although Károly came from perhaps the most distinguished Hungarian noble family, his genealogy did not keep him from allying with socialists. In the same vein, Polish aristocrat Felix Dzerzhinsky headed the Soviet secret police, and the Russian noblewoman Alexandra Kollontai was a Marxist revolutionary theorist. No one should think that only the bourgeois have undergone radicalization.

Another questionable assumption in Pinkoski’s attempt to redefine Marxism in the current era is that the black civil rights movement was different in kind from later intersectional politics. Pinkoski complains that in our expanding victim cult we lost “the unique significance of its initial application to Black Americans.” This practice was “instrumentalized” and applied to less and less worthy recipients of victim status.

I beg to differ. The civil rights movement has everything to do with later political and cultural developments. The creation of antidiscrimination agencies at every level of government, the radicalization of the electorate, and the mobilization of progressives for ever-newer crusades against prejudice were all products of the U.S. civil rights movement that achieved landmark results in the 1960s and 1970s. Pinkoski laments that the emphasis on later crusades against discrimination shifted the focus away from the struggle against racism. Despite what he might like to think, black civil rights leaders have happily moved from one crusade to the next.

Certainly, some of their efforts at reform, such as abolishing Jim Crow laws, were in principle justified; and anti-colonialists may have been sometimes correct when they pointed out the abuses of European colonialism. But let us not pretend that we can separate the incidentally beneficial parts of radical transformation from its malign outcomes, and pass the rest off as entirely unintended or a mistake. The black civil rights movement and what it wrought led beyond the 1960s. Those who endorsed the first part of that process quite reasonably connect it to the neverending struggle for radical equality and cultural revolution that we are now experiencing.

[Image by Levin Holtkamp / CC BY-SA via wikimedia, resized]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrat Senator: Founding Fathers And American Heroes Are ‘Dead Traitors’

Democrat Senator: Founding Fathers And American Heroes Are ‘Dead Traitors’

 
JULY 6, 2020 By Jordan Davidson

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) criticized President Trump’s 4th of July speech at Mount Rushmore for focusing on the accomplishments of historical figures. 

“He spent all of his time talking about dead traitors,” Duckworth, a potential Biden vice president pick, told CNN in an interview. 

In his speech, President Trump listed numerous historical figures and celebrities who played a large role in American history. Among those listed were the founding fathers, the presidents of Mount Rushmore, Fredwrick Douglass, Ulysses S. Grant, Martin Luther King, Harriet Tubman, and Elvis Presley. 

“Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children,” President Trump said, as he highlighted the accomplishments of notable Americans. 

“Those who seek to erase our heritage want Americans to forget our pride and our great dignity, so that we can no longer understand ourselves or America’s destiny. In toppling the heroes of 1776, they seek to dissolve the bonds of love and loyalty that we feel for our country, and that we feel for each other. Their goal is not a better America, their goal is the end of America,” he continued. 

A full list of the people mentioned in the speech was published on Twitter by one of President Trump’s campaign staffers. In the tweet, he calls for Duckworth to clarify her statement about “dead traitors.”

“This a list of the men and women President @realDonaldTrump talked about in his speech at Mount Rushmore,” Giancarlo Sopo wrote. “Senator, please do tell the nation, who among them do you consider a ‘dead traitor’?”

 

Duckworth’s “dead traitor” comment was not her only complaint. She also chastised President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence’s COVID-19 response, claiming their task force “failed miserably” and that worry should be centered on other pressing issues rather than “our historical past.”

“He spent more time worried about dead Confederates than he did talking about the 130,000 Americans with COVID-19 or by warning Russia or the bounty they are putting on Americans’ heads,” she said. “His priorities are all wrong here.”

Duckworth, who continuously dodged the interviewer’s question about whether it is okay to pull down George Washington statues, also criticized the location of the Independence Day speech. 

“Remember that the President at Mount Rushmore was standing on ground that was stolen from Native Americans who had actually been given that land during a treaty,” she said.

Tweets from Duckworth’s account show that her position on the historical significance of Mount Rushmore has changed. On July 4, 2015, the senator tweeted a photo of herself and others in festive and patriotic costumes. 

“All dressd up as historic figures.I just coverd myself in Stars&Stripes. Next year I’m going as Mt.Rushmore!” she wrote. 

 

Jordan Davidson is an intern for The Federalist and a recent graduate of Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.
 
Copyright © 2020 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You Know What’s The Ultimate ‘Place Of Privilege’? Living In The USA

By J. Motos Gordon

JULY 6, 2020

You Know What’s The Ultimate ‘Place Of Privilege’? Living In The USA

People who come to this country don't throw around that 'privilege' word as if to highlight some victimhood. They know America is still the shining beacon of hope for all mankind.

From the moment I first saw a helicopter land in the rice fields of my small town in the Philippines when I was a kid, I was captivated. I wanted to fly. I never thought I’d ever get to fly anything but the homemade kites we used to make out of cement bags and bamboo sticks.

Then I got an amazing, life-changing gift: opportunity.

America, the Land of Opportunity

When I was about 10 years old, my mom brought me to the United States. She had come to the U.S. many years before with only about $200 in her pocket when she stepped off the plane. She made a life for herself, and when she was finally able, she brought me. She eventually met my dad, and he later adopted me. It was one of the happiest days of my life.

My mom and dad are amazing people — caring, salt of the earth, hard-working people. Thrift shops and Goodwill stores were our malls when I was younger, and to this day I feel a sense of excitement when I enter one. My parents gardened in the backyard, spent their money frugally, and continued to save for part of that American Dream: their own house.

I hated when my mom forced me to do my English and math with chalk and a chalkboard in our small hallway. With that tough love, she would always say, “When your grandfather was a young man in the Philippines, he helped take care of a farm. Then one day, they took it away. And so, he told me, ‘Go to school. People can take away your clothes and your house and your farm, but they can’t take away your education.’”

Although I never did become a pilot, I did get to fly in some of those planes I dreamed of flying. As the saying goes, sometimes we create our own opportunities. And sometimes, some of us don’t work hard enough to make our dreams a reality, but that’s on me, not the system. Nothing, not opportunity nor education, is ever guaranteed without sacrifice or hard work.

This is America, after all, with better opportunities and freedoms than the place they would leave behind. They are proud, smart, hard-working, and family-loving people. The only difference between them and all Americans is that we are here in the land of opportunity, a land where your success is directly proportional to your effort. A land where freedoms and liberties are enshrined on old parchment papers, and bled for by young men and women.

If You Don’t Want to Be Here, Leave

I can’t help but wonder why statues of the Founding Fathers are being toppled and why people are calling to defund police. I can’t help but wonder why the push for racial parity is being hijacked by some to a dangerous phase where the worth of one race is extolled above others to the point that saying “all lives matter” is now deemed racist.

To those who hate this country, look at all the people who want to come here and become U.S. citizens. This nation is imperfect, but it is still a great country — many would contend it’s the greatest. If America is not a good fit for anyone because it is so horrible, they can leave it and go to another country. No one is stopping them from renouncing their U.S. citizenship and making room for somebody who wants to be here.

If people choose to stay, however, to make America a better place together, let’s exercise “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” enumerated in the Constitution. Let us not put each other down with name-calling, not topple statues, not set fire to neighborhood businesses, not riot and throw frozen water bottles, not loot stores for electronics, and certainly not kill others.

Being an American Is a Privilege

I recently had a discussion with someone who was born in the United States. Our viewpoints differed, and he hinted it may have something to do with my privilege. Excuse me? Let me hint at something.

If you grew up with lights and electricity in your house instead of kerosene lamps and candles just so you could read at night or feel safe, you have privilege.

If you have indoor plumbing instead of having to go outside and hand-pump your water out of the ground, you have privilege.

If you can sit on a porcelain toilet instead of between two bamboo trunks to go to the bathroom, you have privilege.

If you have shoes under your feet instead of flip-flops cobbled together with safety pins because you can’t afford new ones, you have privilege.

If you have more than two or three outfits instead of using the same ones over and over because you can’t afford more, you have privilege.

If you can throw your clothes in a washing machine instead of having to go to the river to hand-wash them, you have privilege.

If you feel safe during storms instead of having to worry about whether your thatched roof will leak again or if the typhoon will sweep away your house and family, you have privilege.

If you can reach into your cupboard for your box of Uncle Ben’s instant rice instead of having to harvest the rice fields, lay out the rice onto the street to dry it under the sun, use the wind to separate the husks from the rice, bag it, and then store it in a warehouse and hope the rats don’t eat it, you have privilege.

If you have a car to get where you need to go instead of having to pack yourself like sardines into an old Jeep with questionable safety, you have privilege.

If you can microwave food or grab Pop Tarts from your kitchen instead of having to dig up potatoes in your yard or steal guava fruits from your neighbor, you have privilege.

If you had an Atari, Nintendo, or Xbox instead of having to carve your own toys from a tree branch or use a Campbell’s soup can to make your own toy car or scrounge for coconut husks around town just so you can play a game, you have privilege.

If you live under an economic system that allows you to work hard, persevere, and be creative to pull yourself out of poverty and rise into your own definition of success instead of toiling with the same amount of blood, sweat, and tears only to be limited by a government filled with corruption and nepotism, you have privilege.

If you live in country where fundamental human rights and liberties are protected by a Constitution with its ingenious system of checks and balances instead of a country where your rights depend on who is in power, you have privilege.

If you live in the United States of America instead of a Third World country, you have privilege.

Make America Better Together

The difference is that people who come to this country don’t throw around that “privilege” word as if to highlight some victimhood. They keep to themselves, work hard and smart, realize how special this country is, believe in the American Dream, and go after it. They’re just happy to be here.

This country has disparities that still need to be addressed, but they are complex, just as complex as the history behind it all. A real, meaningful solution will be equally complex.

We must work together, not by marginalizing or denigrating those with a different point of view. In putting down and belittling the voices of other people, we miss out on the opportunity to talk to one another — and we may very well inadvertently silence those who would have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with us to effect change.

In the end, this is still our country. Despite all its imperfections, America is still the shining beacon of hope for all mankind. Just ask anyone who wants to come here.

We can make it better — not through name-calling, not through riots, not through violence, not through erasing history. But together.

Photo Needpix.com

Copyright © 2020 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Country music legend Charlie Daniels dies at 83

Country Music legend Charlie Daniels, best known for his monster 1979 hit “The Devil Went Down to Georgia,” died Monday of a hemorrhagic stroke. He was 83.


According to a press release from his representatives, the acclaimed Country Music Hall of Fame and Grand Ole Opry member died at Summit Medical Center in Hermitage, Tenn., where doctors determined his cause of death.

Daniels accumulated a slew of accolades and awards during his long career in music, including his induction into the Country Music Hall of Fame, the Musicians Hall of Fame and becoming a member of the Grand Ole Opry. He also won a Dove Award for gospel albums. While The Charlie Daniels Band had numerous hits and remained a staple in Country music radio, his most enduring hit was tale of a young man named Johnny who challenged the devil to a fiddle-playing contest and came away with a viiolin made of gold.

“Few artists have left a more indelible mark on America's musical landscape than Charlie Daniels. An outspoken patriot, beloved mentor, and a true road warrior, Daniels parlayed his passion for music into a multi-platinum career and a platform to support the military, underprivileged children, and others in need,” a statement from Daniels’ representatives reads.

This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.

 

RIP BIG MAN

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...