Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


Recommended Posts

Will Churchill's Statue Be Next to Fall
By Patrick J. Buchanan

June 12, 2020



On Gen. George Washington’s orders, the Declaration of Independence, signed in Philadelphia, was read aloud to his army. On hearing it, the troops marched to Bowling Green, decapitated and pulled down the statue of George III, and sent the remnants to be melted down into musket balls.

It was a revolutionary act, a symbolic statement. These once-loyal American subjects were now rebels and no longer owed allegiance to the king. They would fight to end his rule in America.

During the recent demonstrations and disorders here, similar acts had about them an aspect of societal rebellion and a repudiation of a heritage.

In Richmond, Virginia, a statue of Christopher Columbus, who generations of American children were raised to revere as the intrepid Italian explorer who discovered the New World, was pulled down and thrown into a lake.

In Boston, the Columbus statue was beheaded.

In a half-dozen states, statues of Confederate generals and soldiers were pulled down. Gov. Ralph Northam promises to remove the huge statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson from their century-old places of honor on Richmond’s Monument Avenue.

In Philadelphia, the statue of fabled Italian American cop, police commissioner and mayor, Frank Rizzo, was desecrated and hauled away.

Retired Gen. David Petraeus has written to urge that all army bases bearing the names of Confederate generals, such as Forts Benning, Bragg and Hood, be renamed. Robert E. Lee, who is everywhere at West Point, says Petraeus, was a U.S. soldier who “committed treason.”

Nancy Pelosi wants 11 statues, including those of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, and Sen. and U.S. Vice President John Calhoun, removed from the Capitol.

The purge of historical figures has spread to Europe.giant statue of King Leopold II in Brussels, who was enriched by the brutalitarian plundering of his Congo colony, has been taken down.

In Bristol, England, a statue of Edward Colston, philanthropist and patron of the city but also a slave trader, was thrown into the harbor.

At Oxford, students are moving to take down the statue of Cecil Rhodes, the archimperialist and founding father of Rhodesia who created as his legacy the Rhodes scholarships for British and American students.

Resumes of all the once-admired great men who discovered, explored and colonized the New World, as well as all those who created and first led the United States, are being investigated to determine how egregiously these men violated the egalitarian and democratist dogmas of modernity.

The list of malefactors seems impressive.

Who are we talking about?

Nearly half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were slave owners. So, too, were five of our first seven presidents and two of the four men on Mount Rushmore.

George Washington won the war for independence. Thomas Jefferson doubled the size of the nation with the Louisiana Purchase. Andrew Jackson saved the nation from defeat by the British at the Battle of New Orleans and seized Florida. James Polk took us to war with Mexico and relieved it of what is now the American Southwest and California.

All four of these nation-builder presidents were slave owners.

The systematic dishonoring and disgracing of men once revered has only just begun. But it represents a spreading revolution in thought and belief about the origins and history of America.

How far is this going?

During the London protests in solidarity with Black Lives Matter, there was painted on the Parliament Square statue of Winston Churchill, who historians voted “the greatest man of the 20th century” for his role in leading Britain against Nazi Germany, the word “racist.” The mob wanted Churchill’s statue down.

And was Churchill a racist?

Surely, he was an archimperialist, a lifelong defender of the British Empire who believed in the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon race and its right to rule what poet Rudyard Kipling called “the lesser breeds without the law.”

Churchill disparaged people of color whom the British ruled, from the Caribbean to Africa, to the Middle and Near East, to South Asia and the Far East, in terms that would instantly end the career of any American or British politician who used them today.

Historian Andrew Roberts writes of Churchill that he was a “white … supremacist (who) thought in terms of race to a degree that was remarkable even by the standards of his own time. He spoke of certain races with a virulent Anglo-Saxon triumphalism.”

Many Americans, especially among the young, view the history of the European exploration, the colonization of the New World, and the creation of Western empires not with pride but with shame and guilt. And they want to make expiation by canceling out all the honors accorded such men, be it in statues or the names of cities, towns, parks and streets.

And their numbers and militancy are growing. The left has the bit in its teeth and is dragging the panicked elites along.

How this ends without permanent division in the country escapes me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Minneapolis Police Department 3rd precinct overrun by rioters on May 28, 2020
July 2020

Excusing Black Violence

In the last weekend of May, I was horrified and astonished that my hometown and current residence of Minneapolis became the locus of a wave of violent rioting, fires, and property destruction that soon spread to the rest of America and throughout the Western world.

I’m in my forties now and living relatively safely in the suburbs, but in my adventurous twenties I had lived in some of the grittier parts of Minneapolis that I was now seeing burnt to the ground. After having moved away and spending years in New York and Washington, D.C., I often remembered fondly the residential neighborhoods of South Minneapolis. These locales have green, fenced-in yards and leafy avenues but are still walking distance of the good food and drinks in the urban center. Cramped in my Manhattan apartment, I would tell friends that I would come back and retire to “The Shire.” That was my nickname for the cozy provinciality of those Minneapolis residential districts, which happen to be just a short walk from the site where George Floyd would die.

The Shire has been scourged. I read with alarm over the weekend police scanner transcripts reporting that rioters armed with clubs and pipes were spotted roaming through these neighborhoods after being dispersed from Lake Street by the National Guard. Then, I watched videos of Minneapolis police and National Guard troops marching down those residential streets, firing pepper balls at the residents who broke curfew to gawk at the military procession from their porches.

I confess that as a Midwesterner, I had entertained the smug idea that race relations in Minnesota weren’t as bad as they were in the rest of the country—certainly not as bad as in Ferguson, Missouri, or Baltimore. We’re just nicer to each other up here, you see. Certainly the progressive leftists in charge of the city and state governments, as obnoxious as they are, never missed an opportunity to be as solicitous and accommodating as possible to the state’s aggrieved people of color.

I guess that didn’t count for much. Neither did Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey’s display of tears on the podium over Floyd’s death; the Third Precinct police station that he ordered abandoned was burned just the same. Nor did Minnesota Governor Tim Walz move the hearts of the mob when he called the ashes of the burned buildings, “symbolic of decades and generations of pain, of anguish unheard.”

The next day, Frey and Walz and the compliant local media suggested that, rather than being a spontaneous expression of valid black anger, the riots were driven by right-wing extremists and white supremacists. Given the hundreds of hours of riot video of mostly black youths interspersed with black-clad white leftists in Antifa regalia, and nary a hint of anything that looked like a white supremacist, this pivot was brazen even for the progressive leftists in charge of the city.

But there were more surprises still. As my city was still burning, and the fires were spreading across the nation, so-called conservatives from the Washington establishment began releasing their own statements designed to pander to the rioters. “It’s important to understand that the death of George Floyd was personal and painful for many,” wrote Nikki Haley, former Trump administration UN ambassador and Republican governor of South Carolina. “In order to heal, it needs to be personal and painful for everyone.” Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio said the rioting “isn’t just about Mr. Floyd. It’s also about years of unaddressed injustice.” Former Trump administration Secretary of Defense Gen. James Mattis denounced his former boss as divisive and a danger to the Constitution, writing that “‘Equal Justice Under Law’…is precisely what protestors are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind.”

This depiction of principled motives and righteous grievance motivating the riots coming from our supposed leaders on the right is so delusional that we should pause and wonder. Department stores, liquor stores, clothing, jewelry, and footwear retailers looted by mobs of mostly black youths, smashing and grabbing—and we are supposed to believe that this is a political statement, rather than a basic breakdown of law and order.

Meanwhile, I strongly suspect that neither the opportunists on the left nor the panderers on the right really care anything about the death of George Floyd. If they did, where are the outrage and virtue-signaling tweets after a retired black policeman in St. Louis was murdered trying to defend a store? Not to mention four more police shot in that city, and another in Las Vegas on life support after taking a rioter’s bullet to the head?

For that matter, in 2017, an unarmed white woman named Justine Damond was fatally shot in Minneapolis by a black Somali cop named Mohamed Noor. There was no violent looting while the mourners of Damond patiently awaited justice. Nor was there rioting earlier that year when a mentally handicapped white boy was kidnapped and tortured in the suburbs of Chicago by four black thugs, who shouted epithets directed at “Trump” and “white people” as they beat him. Nor were any fires set last year when a white man resting outside Minneapolis’s Target Field suffered an unprovoked, random assault from a dozen or so black people. After being beaten down, several of the assaulters jumped on his ribcage with both feet, stripped him of his pants, and smashed heavy flowerpots down on him. One person rode over him on a bicycle. This incident hardly registered a blip on the consciousness of Minneapolis, let alone for the nation or the rest of the world.

“If white people rioted every time a black man killed them, we’d never have any peace,” proclaimed a tweet that circulated widely during these latest Minneapolis riots, apparently wrongly attributed to retired professional boxer Mike Tyson. A Tyson spokesman later told Reuters that the former heavyweight champion didn't write it. That's a shame. It would have been to his credit if had. Tyson was rescued from a life of juvenile delinquency, raised like a son, and trained to superstardom by his white, Italian-American coach, Cus D'Amato.

boxer Deontay Wilder (YouTube)It reminds me of the outburst another black heavyweight boxer of the current era, Deontay Wilder, expressed in 2018. A multi-millionaire with multiple homes, Wilder complained that he and his people were still oppressed. “If anybody don’t understand that, then God be with them—go look up their history. Don’t everybody believe in Google?…You know we’ve been fighting 400 [years] and still fighting ‘til this day!” Wilder shouted at an interviewer.

That in a nutshell is a narrative that, once imbibed, can be used to excuse or ignore any kind of violent action against a white person by a “person of color” as a justified punishment.

Never mind that throughout history every ethnicity has been enslaved or oppressed at one time or another, or that whites were also enslaved by the millions in Europe and most recently in the North African slave trade—which continued even after the U.S. Emancipation Proclamation.

Never mind that there is no “systemic racism” in America anymore—at least not toward blacks, who now are given preferential treatment by our educational and corporate hiring systems. Rich and famous black people are everywhere in the media, sporting, and entertainment worlds, and have occupied the highest positions in government.

Never mind that statistics show blacks are not disproportionately shot by police above other races, given that they disproportionately commit more violent crime.

What is most bizarre and disconcerting about this situation is that most people of all races in the U.S. are rightly afraid to talk honestly about these issues and to challenge the narrative of black grievance that is used to justify violence against them.

We live in a multiracial society. If we are going to live together in peace, we need to have the courage to say that everyone is held to the same standard, and no one gets a free pass because of past wrongs.

(The 11th paragraph of this article was corrected to reflect that a widely circulated tweet about the riots was misattributed to former boxer Mike Tyson.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Education Is Offensive and Racist and so is America

Paul Craig Roberts

Years of teaching blacks to have grievances against white people for things that happened centuries ago have come to fruition. Rioting and looting are not enough, the violent thugs and ignorant woke creatures are pulling down historic monuments in public parks and defacing public buildings while police and public authorities stand down.

In Richmond, Virginia, a statue eight feet tall of Christopher Columbus in a public park has just been pulled down and rolled into a lake by a group of thugs.  Why?  “Columbus represents genocide.”  What the barbarians mean is that by discovering America, Columbus exposed the inhabitants to invasion from abroad, which is what the US has been undergoing since 1965. 

Who hasn’t suffered invasions?  Why of all the countless invasions in history is European entry into the new world so upsetting.  Columbus wasn’t looking to invade any country.  He was testing a theory and hoping to find a shorter route to the spice trade.

Any number of Confederate memorials are being pulled down.  Not even Robert E. Lee will be spared.  Are public authorities  so stupid that they do not understand that their acquiescence to lawlessness and destruction of property lets the genie out of the bottle?  

The new word for racist is white.  By definition a white person is a racist.  The two words are synonyms.  Every stature of every white person is a statue of a racist and can be pulled down. The Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee has amended the defense bill to require the US military to rename bases named after anyone who served under the Confederate flag. They don’t understand that as white is a synonym for racist, all whites, including Union officers, are racists. All US military bases will have to be named after blacks or it will be racist.  Grant and Lee were both white and served together fighting for American empire in the war against people of color in Mexico. The only difference between Grant and Lee is that in addition to fighting for American empire against Mexico, Grant also fought for American empire against the South. 

History is also being pulled down.  Future historians will be perplexed to find no signs of the racism on which the NY Times says America was founded.  

Ignorance is everywhere. RT describes Columbus as “another notorious figure in the history of slavery.”  What!? The year 1492 was long before the black Kindgom of Dahomey created the black slave trade and long before there were any colonies needing a labor force.  But facts no longer matter.  Truth is whatever is emotionally satisfying.

America is said to be a superpower, but its inhabitants collapse in excruciating pain over a mere word. The pain felt by mental and emotional weaklings is so severe that it has caused universities to overthrow academic freedom.  At UCLA, once a university and now a propaganda ministry, a faculty member is under investigation for reading Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” to the class he teaches.  The letter (April 16, 1963) was King’s reply to black pastors who expressed their concern to him about his arrival as an outsider to their community to stir up confrontation when they were working to negotiate the achievement of the same goals peaceably. King’s answer was that confrontation sharpens the issue and will aid their negotiations. Creating a crisis, King told the pastors, fosters tension and forces a community to deal with the issue.

What did the professor do wrong by reading King’s own explanation of his strategy?  The professor is in trouble because King in his letter used the word “****” and in reading King’s letter to the class, the professor read the word “****.”  OhMyGod, a white man said “****.”

Oh, the hurt, the offense!  University administrators have denounced the professor. To keep the controversy going students are urged to come forward with complaints. A town hall will be held to outline future next steps. 

Think about this for a minute. According to reports “numerous students plead (sic ) with Professor Ajax Peris to not use the n word.”  But it was King, not Peris, who used the n word. What is the message here?  Does it mean that a white person cannot read out loud Martin Luther King’s letter?  If the professor wanted students to be aware of the letter, would he have to bring in a black guest lecturer to read the letter?  Would the professor still be accused of insensitivity if he gave  Martin Luther King’s letter to the students as a reading assignment?  Does it mean that King himself committed an offense by using the n word?

The professor also showed the class a documentary about lynching. The documentary had graphic descriptions that distressed and angered the students.  Do we have here the plight of what sounds like a leftwing professor trying to rile up blacks against whites and finding that he cannot succeed because the necessary words and images cause them paroxysms of pain?

In our oh-so-sensitive-times, no one is concerned about giving offense to Southerners.  White Republican senators are leading the charge to rename military bases. Not to be outdone, black members of the House want to remove what they call Confederate statues from the vicinity of the Capitol as part of the protest against police violence in Minneapolis. They are having a fit over Jefferson Davis, who for 3 or 4 years of his life was president of the Confederate States of America. Much more of Davis’ life was spent serving the United States of America as a military officer, a US Senator and as US Secretary of War (they were more honest in those days; today they call it “defense”).  Davis was a West Point graduate. As an officer in the US Army he fought for the US empire in the Mexican-American war. It was Davis who led the sucessful charge on the La Teneria fort in the Battle of Monterrey.  He was married to the daughter of US President Zachary Taylor. He argued against secession.  These are the reasons that there is a statue of him.

Davis, like Robert E. Lee, and so many others from Southern states spent their life in service to the United States. They rallied to the Confederacy only because Lincoln invaded their states.  People are so ignorant today, especially those who go around shouting “racist,” that they are unaware that in those days people regarded their home state as their country.  The US Constitution gave governing power to the states, reserving to the states all powers not ennumerated to the federal government.  All of this was changed by Lincoln’s war which consolidated power in Washington and eventually turned largely independent states into vassals of Washington.

Robert E. Lee, a West Point Graduate, spent his life in the US military fighting wars for the US empire. He served as Superintendent of the United States Military Academy. He was so highly regarded that he was offered a Union command in Lincoln’s war. Lee’s response was that as a Virginian, he could not lead an army to invade his country.  If the US was going to invade Virginia, he would have to resign his commission in the US Army.

An ignorant person once wrote in CounterPunch that Lee had 200 slaves.  Lee had no plantation. He spent his life fighting against Indians and Mexicans for the American empire. It did not occur to the peabrain at CounterPunch what a person fighting Indians on the frontier and Mexicans in Mexico would do with 200 slaves.  But as I have often observed, it you are out to demonize someone—Trump, Putin, or Lee—you say whatever does the job.

Lee had to take a leave from the US army for 2 years in order to settle his father-in-law’s estate, which had land holdings and slaves on one side of the ledger and massive debts on the other. The aim was to emancipate the slaves. Knowing that, some slaves pushed it before it could be done. They were punished, and ever since it has been used to blacken Lee who had fiduciary duties.

The current line is that Confederate memorials “pay tribute to white supremacy and slavery,” as the most ignorant Barbara Lee (D, CA) put it.  So, according to a person regarded by people in California of sufficient intelligence and integrity to represent them in Washington, a Southerner who resists the invasion of his country is a white supremacist.

As has been proven so many times, the so-called “Civil War” was fought over economics, not slavery. Lincoln himself intended to send the blacks back to Africa, judging them unfit to live among white people.  Lincoln said over and over that the war was fought to preserve the Union. He gave assurances to the South that they could have slaves as long as they stayed in the Union and paid the tariff. Historians have researched the letters and diaries of participants on both sides of the war and found that soldiers were not fighting for or against slavery. The North was fighting for the Union, and the South was fighting because the South was invaded.  There is a famous book in which the contents of the wartime letters and diaries are recorded.

Yet the real documented history has been replaced with a false made-up history that serves the sole purpose of creating dissention and hatred in a vulnerable and fragile multicultural society.  

As I recently wrote using Richard Weaver’s title, ideas have consequences. The stand downs of police and public authorities while criminals loot and destroy are consequences of the false history that has been created for the United States. 

The United States is a Tower of Babel from which white people should flee. The state of collapse is advanced. With mayors and governors refusing to protect property from black looters, President Trump threatened to call out the US military.  His own Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, and his own Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Mark Milley, quickly informed the US military that their duty was to the Constitution, not to the President. The two made a show of this to undercut President Trump and to present him as a tyrant for trying to fulfill his constitutional obligation to protect private property and the lives of citizens.  Apparently, both Esper and Milley are too **** to understand that it is a constitutional duty to protect property.

Trump is not Establishment, but his government is. Trump is a President surrounded by his enemies. Trump attempted to be a president of the people, but the Establishment will not permit it.  Trump will be the last president who attempts to represent the American people.  All future presidents will have learned the lesson in advance. An American president serves the ruling elite and no one else.  The elite have worked long and hard to acquire a divided population that cannot unite against them.  They have succeeded. 

Article printed from PaulCraigRoberts.org: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org
Posted By pcr3 On June 12, 2020 @ 6:37 am In Articles & Columns
Link to post
Share on other sites


Enlarge Image




Never Trumpers are always wrong: Devine

June 14, 2020 | 10:43pm

Donald Trump
Donald Trump
NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images

President Trump gave an inspirational speech at West Point on Saturday, pitched at the Class of 2020, which will carry the burden of seeing the country through this turning point in its history.

Not that you would know much about the speech because the usual suspects — including formerly respected military leaders — decided yet again to rain on the president’s parade, drowning out a unifying message with their latest creative iteration of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

For them, no crisis is so serious that it can’t be grafted onto their psycho-narrative that Bad Orange Man is to blame for everything that has ever gone wrong in America.

Democrats are despicable in their mendacity, race-baiting and incitement of violence, but they have the excuse of trying to win an election.

It’s Never Trumpers who deserve the most scorn, especially the inadequates from the Lincoln Project. With anarchy on the streets and China on the warpath, they empower America’s enemies. We must never forget their treachery. They claim to be conservatives, yet they do everything they can to ensure America falls into socialist hands in November.

They style themselves as defenders of the traditional GOP, yet they endorse Joe Biden, with his problematic moral history, and promise to disarm Americans.

The Lincoln Project is the brainchild of embittered former GOP grifters who failed to anticipate the Trump phenomenon and were not talented enough to overcome their miscalculation.

Trump derangement is the only occupation open to their washed-up careers, so they are doomed forever to tilt at windmills.

Out of respect to Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, it’s best not to examine too closely the hangups of her husband, Lincoln Project co-founder George Conway, other than to point out the cruelty of a husband constantly excoriating his wife’s boss in public. You wouldn’t do that to your worst enemy.

But his behavior sums up the character of those who claim they are campaigning against Trump on character grounds.

Psychological projection is the hallmark of the Trump-deranged. Deeply unhappy, they pour their self-hatred into the president like adolescents raging against an absent father.

In the past three months, the Lincoln Project has released three virulently anti-Trump videos, blaming him for the pandemic, accusing him of treason, racism and white supremacy.

“If we have another four years like this, will there even be an America?”

They also ran a saccharine TV ad endorsing Biden in Wisconsin and Michigan: “A record of service . . . a bipartisan leader . . . the man for the moment . . . strength and character . . . he’ll unify this nation again.”

In the past few days, George Conway and pals have called into question the president’s health and sanity because he walked tentatively down a slippery ramp, accused him of endangering the lives of supporters by holding rallies, called his followers “plague-bearers,” celebrated his declining poll numbers and crowed about a story that North Korea “might do something provocative this fall to punish Trump.”

In a podcast, Conway described the president as a “psychopath” with “no morals, no conscience, no capacity for remorse, no fundamental beliefs,” “no human being with a conscience or a soul,” a “soulless man with a broken mind,” “conscienceless, remorseless, appears to be a human being but isn’t” and wearing “orange make up and poufed hair.”

Amid this tumbling stream of invective, he gratuitously quoted “my wife.” Yep, he has a problem.

Everything that’s bad for America these Never Trumpers treat with undisguised glee as a weapon to bash the president they loathe.

Their super PAC has collected $2.6 million to target white college-educated suburban voters in swing states who voted for Trump in 2016, and to target Republicans facing tough election battles, even Trump-skeptic Maine Sen. Susan Collins.

They give succor to fellow Never Trumpers, including some retired military leaders, who are ramping up the rhetoric as the election draws near. Most recently, disgruntled former Defense Secretary James Mattis suggested Trump was employing “Nazi” tactics to divide the country.

And on the eve of Trump’s West Point commencement address to the class of 2020, a group of political alumni wrote to the graduates a hysterical open letter excoriating Trump, saying he “threatened to use the Army in which you serve as a weapon against fellow Americans engaging in these legitimate protests.”

Yet past presidents have deployed military personnel without the threat of mutiny, including during the 1992 LA riots.

So rancid and hyperbolic is this abuse that it probably will end up helping Trump electorally even as it damages the country.

On Saturday, by contrast, the president upheld American patriotism to the applause of West Point’s newly minted second lieutenants.

“The survival of America and the endurance of civilization itself depends on the men and women just like each of you,” he said.

“It depends on people who love their country with all their heart and energy and soul. It depends on citizens who build, sustain, nurture, and defend institutions like this one.”

“What has historically made America unique is the durability of its institutions against the passions and prejudices of the moment.”

Compare these sentiments to the bile of Never Trumpers and you see the treachery of people who hate the president more than they love their country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, spence said:

jake, topbilled anybody been in hospital and comp broke, even blocking me from good ol tcm    please send a test

your post came across on my computer loud and clear ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jakeem said:

Everyone is so sick of winning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s a double standard from pols and the media with protests and coronavirus

By Post Editorial Board

June 15, 2020 | 10:19pm | Updated

Page 1 of the NY Post

Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s threat to shut Gotham back down is garbage, and he knows it. How can he, or Mayor Bill de Blasio, justify penalizing anyone for drinking or dining in the streets, when they all but cheer people protesting?

“We have received 25,000 complaints of reopening violations,” Cuomo tweeted on Sunday, mainly from Manhattan and the Hamptons.

“Lots of violations of social distancing, parties in the street, restaurants and bars ignoring laws.”

“Enforce the law or there will be state action,” the governor warned.

“Bars or restaurants that violate the law can lose their liquor license.”

Cuomo bragged that he personally called some businesses he saw on the news to chastise them. Hmm. How about the organizers of the hundreds of people who marched through the city, gathered in parks, lay down in Times Square? Did he show such concern?

As for yanking the licenses of bars and restaurants that attract the misbehaving crowds: De Blasio won’t order the police to arrest anyone for violating the guidelines — not after the first weeks of lockdown, when that resulted in “racially disproportionate” arrest numbers. So how is a bar owner supposed to achieve what the cops can’t?

Especially, again, given protests that see far riskier behavior — larger and more-packed crowds of complete strangers shouting at the top of their lungs.

De Blasio had been warning that the protests could spread the virus, but after finding himself under attack from his left, he’s again flipped: Over the weekend, he spoke at one demonstration — maskless.

'Do your job': Gov. Cuomo urges de Blasio amid lack of NYC social distancing
Plus, City Hall has told its hundreds of new contact tracers not to ask people who test positive for the virus if they recently protested.

That’s just willful blindness — and an evident effort to conceal the demonstrations’ role in any COVID-19 spike. This when growing evidence suggests that crowded “superspreader” events may explain up to 80 percent of all cases.

Of course, the national media have been largely silent over the protests’ potential health impact — even as they’re having fits over President Trump’s plan to hold a rally June 20.

“‘Extraordinarily dangerous’: Trump rally draws grave concerns from top health officials,” blared an NBC News headline on Sunday. Yet its piece on the Brooklyn protests — which didn’t even mention the pandemic once — had a headline with a markedly different tone: “Rally for Black trans lives draws packed crowd to Brooklyn Museum plaza.”

The obvious distinction is that reporters and editors see the protests as speech they support — and Trump rallies as anything but.

Our liberal politicians publicly lean the same way, so they focus on people having a good time drinking rather than those riding on the moral high of protest.

Meanwhile, the city is welding playground gates closed to keep out children — who barely register as COVID-19 cases, let alone transmit it significantly.

For all the talk of being guided by “the science,” our decision-makers are actually ignoring the science as they play favorites.

The double standard is obvious, and erodes the trust of the public who admirably adhered to this era-changing lockdown. Why believe anything the governor, the mayor or the media tell you when they set one rule for certain people and one rule for others?

Cuomo can order new lockdowns if he likes, but the public isn’t going to obey.


  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chronicles Magazine of American Culture
June 15, 2020

Tucker Versus Woke Mickey

T-Mobile and ABC, owned by Disney Company, will stop advertising on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show in view of his scandalous comments on the Black Lives Matter movement.

Or so I’ve just learned. On Saturday, the news host referred to the protests as “Black Lives Matter riot.” Carlson also asked why he was “required to be upset” about George Floyd's death, as he isn’t from Minneapolis. The comment came on June 1 after Nikki Haley, former UN ambassador, called for collective grieving.

Although such a move should not surprise us in an age of rigorously enforced political correctness, there are two aspects of this situation that warrant attention. First, for those of us who may wonder why the TV channel that is supposed to be conservative so rarely is, funding may be part of the answer. A failure to grieve sufficiently in public over George Floyd's slaying and the lack of the required respect for Haley, our liberal Republican (dare I say, neoconservative) former Ambassador to the UN, may deprive this Fox News celebrity of sponsorship for his program. No patron by contrast is likely to abandon Fox after listening to a host, like Chris Wallace, or a guest, like former National Review editor Jonah Goldberg, deplore white racism and lambast Donald Trump.

Tucker is different. He has turned off leftist sponsors despite arduous efforts at neutralizing opposition. This man of the populist right reminds listeners almost ritualistically that he believes in Martin Luther King’s vision of a colorblind society (assuming that King consistently believed that), and he fills his program with black and gay guests, some of whom he goes out of his way to flatter. Tucker also cautiously avoids bringing on his show any guest who could be linked however distantly to the Old Right. The exception was immigration hawk and conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, whom he no longer has on his program. But apparently these precautions were not enough. It was inevitable that Tucker would eventually say something in his daring monologues that would offend Fox’s leftist benefactors. And he has taken enough chances to have made that fateful indiscretion inevitable.

Second, like many other corporations and foundations that began under conservative auspices, Disney has moved in a direction that would have appalled its iconic founder. Just last week Disney gave 5 million dollars to far left groups to advance “social justice.” This outburst of politically correct madness would have driven the company's founder up the wall. Walt Disney was a longtime conservative Republican (after having voted for FDR in 1936) and a willing supporter of Joseph McCarthy’s investigation of Communist subversion. He would not have been happy with those who have taken over his entertainment industry.

Disney produced the first movie I ever saw, Song of the South, in 1946. The music, especially Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah, imprinted itself on my memory, and for days after viewing the movie I went around humming its most famous melody. The movie’s star was black actor, James Baskett, who played the legendary Uncle Remus, a onetime slave who remained on what had been a plantation, as a handyman and friend to the young. That may have been my first exposure to black people, and though Rotten Tomatoes insists that I should have been offended by the “racial stereotyping” in the film and though it later drew furious protests from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, I was drawn irresistibly to the grandfatherly Uncle Remus.

I’m still trying to figure out why Song of the South, which has been removed even as a DVD, should be more offensive to politically correct gatekeepers than say, all those movies that show blacks cursing at each other and engaging in violent acts. Perhaps I’ll have to spend time in a re-education camp to understand this.

Years after seeing the movie, I read the Uncle Remus tales, the work of the Southern humorist and journalist Joel Chandler Harris (1848-1908). Harris collected his stories from conversations with Southern blacks, many former slaves, and he did this to preserve the culture of those he interviewed, while pursuing what he thought were closer relations between the races. Apparently, Harris didn’t understand that by the standards of those who applaud movies in which blacks are shown as behaving brutally he was being racially insensitive. Although watching and hearing the black Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction curse and shoot his way through a three-hour film is politically correct, observing the almost Christlike Uncle Remus instructing the young is racism gone amok.

But let me not carp too much. The Disney production of Beauty and the Beast in 2017 has been widely praised in the press for its “diversity.” The producers went out of their way to fill roles with homosexuals. Although some reviewers complained that the movie had still not overcome “gender roles,” it may be unfair to demand any more at this point from the woke Disney board.

[Image by freshwater2006 / CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia] 


Link to post
Share on other sites


American Greatness

 American Greatness

No, Trump Didn’t Radicalize the Left
Our current crisis speaks as much to the failures of the old-guard conservative movement, particularly neoconservatives, as it validates the triumph of the Left.

By Julie Kelly • June 15, 2020

Anew poll offers grim but realistic news about America: One-third of our fellow countrymen, including 40 percent of Republicans, say we are on the verge of a civil war. It is a dangerous time—terrifying for parents of children of any age—as the radical Left’s 50-year incursion into every American institution finally is reaping long-sought dividends with the full cooperation of the country’s academic, corporate, and media leadership as well as the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee for president.

Political observers on the NeverTrump Right, however, have analyzed the moment and identified the culprit for the widespread mayhem and destruction: Donald Trump.

Of course.

Always eager to play the role of useful idiot, NeverTrump is blaming the president—not lawless loons on the Left or their powerful guardians occupying executive mansions and mayoral offices and C-suites across the country—for our current state of brinkmanship.

“[Trump’s] spirit of authoritarianism creates a sense of perpetual crisis among his opponents, uniting left-wingers and liberals despite their differences,” wrote Ross Douthat in the New York Times over the weekend. “His spirit of chaos, the sense that nothing is planned or under control, turns moderates and normies against him. And finally, his spirit of incompetence means that conservatives get far less out of his administration than they would from a genuine imperial president, a man of iron rather than of pasteboard.”

Now, imagine witnessing not only the rampage of the past few weeks but also all that has been unleashed over the last several years and tagging Trump as the authoritarian, chaotic, and incompetent one. (Before his diatribe against the president, Douthat admitted his “dire predictions” about Trump’s presidency have been wrong for three years in a row.)

Incinerated urban neighborhoods, defaced monuments, shattered storefronts, and a bizarre breakaway “zone” in downtown Seattle are the result of Donald Trump’s . . . what exactly? His mean tweets? His legitimate criticism of Black Lives Matter and Colin Kaepernick? His defense of the flag and the Constitution? Trump’s blunt pledge to protect the foundations of our democracy, the same bearings the Left is successfully dismantling one riot at a time?

Douthat’s analysis isn’t just the default position of NeverTrump, a groveling sort of cosplay that pleases Times readers so Douthat can keep his gig as the Trump-hating “conservative” on the Grey Lady’s opinion page. It’s something worse than that. Douthat actually gives a pass to the most dangerous foe America has faced in decades, an internal enemy far more menacing than Russian Facebook memes or a criminal North Korean dictator. Further, his assessment defies fact and reality; the Left’s accelerated rise, as Douthat undoubtedly knows but chooses to ignore, predates Donald Trump.

Douthat isn’t alone in his misdirected finger-pointing: Jonah Goldberg, cofounder of a newsletter called The Dispatch, agreed. “Many of us saw [fast-radicalizing Left] even earlier, but Trump and his apologists . . . are utterly oblivious to, or unconcerned by, the fact they are making conservatism less appealing and respectable everyday [sic].”

Yes, that’s the real problem right now—conservatives are not respectable. Not out-of-control anarchists and their accomplices in the House Democratic Caucus.

Rod Dreher, a columnist for The American Conservative, called Douthat’s column “superb.”

Writing for Commentary, Noah Rothman also jumped on the Blame Trump bandwagon. Inaccurately claiming Biden “rejects” radicalism, Rothman insists, “Trump has so bungled the moment that he can’t serve as a pole in the debate. He is polarizing & divisive. His bizarre behavior has left the conservative movement all but defenseless in the face of an onslaught of radicalism.”

There is a reason, of course, that people like Goldberg and Douthat want to believe Donald Trump has made conservatism unappealing and defenseless—that the Bad Orange Man in the White House is why Democrats literally are taking a knee in the Capitol in subservience to the radical Left. It’s because they, not Trump, actually are to blame.

In fact, our current crisis speaks as much to the failures of the old-guard conservative movement, particularly neoconservatives, as it validates the triumph of the Left.

The pre-Trump Republican Party prioritized nation-building abroad at the expense of nation-building at home. Republican leaders, including presidents and presidential candidates, insisted that we “take the fight” against America’s enemies to some faraway land without realizing there already was a fight here and it was far more destabilizing than a faction of terrorists in Fallujah. (Or perhaps they did realize it and just didn’t have the guts to do what was necessary to counterpunch?)

Pre-Trump Republican Party establishment turned a blind eye to the consequences of their failed wars and disastrous trade pacts and “compassionate conservative” immigration policies. Oh sure, they gave lip service to welfare reform and deficit reduction, but it’s sort of hard to cut the debt when Republicans commit trillions in U.S. tax dollars to unsuccessfully spread democracy in undemocratic hellholes around the world. Every bit of political capital was squandered.

All the while, the Left laughed at the fecklessness of the pre-Trump Republican Party and “conservative” movement, confident that the likes of Paul Ryan, George W. Bush, and John McCain were impotent opponents. Pre-Trump Republicans had no plan to halt the Left’s stranglehold on academia; the kids they didn’t send to fight in the Middle East were brainwashed on college campuses in the Midwest and elsewhere without a peep of dissent from Republicans in Congress or the White House. The national news media, and now social media, act as the near-monopolistic organ to spread leftist propaganda while silencing dissent. To this day, NeverTrump “conservatives” reject any use of federal power to stop it.

Corporations and business interests that openly discriminate against conservative viewpoints still receive federal subsidies and tax benefits without question. The nation’s most powerful law enforcement and intelligence agencies can target innocent Republicans and these same prostrated “conservatives” will justify it as a credible attempt to save the country from imaginary Russian agents.

No one embodies the scourge of the pre-Trump Republican Party more than Senator Mitt Romney (R-Utah), a pathetic sycophant once considered a racist, sexist pig by the Left when he ran against Barack Obama—and who last week attended a Black Lives Matter protest organized by the same forces that once tried to destroy him.

Romney’s antics prove Douthat and company wrong—and Trump supporters right. The notion, as Douthat later argued, that a “center-right” president such as Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or John Kasich would have achieved the same policy goals and political victories as Trump without the ruckus is pure fantasy. The ruckus wouldn’t have been necessary precisely because they would have caved.

Does Douthat really think a President Jeb Bush would have stuck by Brett Kavanaugh? Would a President Marco Rubio have survived a special counsel investigation or a concocted impeachment trial without submitting to whatever demands the Left would have made of him?

If John Kasich were president, he already would have signed a Green New Deal-lite and a compromise open-borders bill along with higher tax rates. Any Republican president not named Trump would have surrendered to the Leftist mob. The war wouldn’t be on the horizon; it would be over. Surrender without a fight.

Donald Trump and the reconfigured Republican Party didn’t accelerate the rise of the radical Left. What we’re enduring is the result of decades of neglect by the pre-Trump Republican Party. Their cowardice has rendered conservatives nearly powerless in what likely amounts to a now unavoidable civil war with the Left. And millions of conservatives view Trump—not the lily-livered flops of failed Conservative Inc.—as their best, and only, hope for victory.

But once again, NeverTrump fingers the wrong enemy while bracing for another defeat. At least they have landed on the one thing they are reliably good at.


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCOTUS’s Transgender Ruling Firebombs The Constitution

The ruling will lead to a tsunami of polarizing court cases and further degradation of Americans' natural rights to free speech, to free association, and to worshipping God as their consciences require.

In Monday’s ruling inserting “gender identity” into the word “sex” in a 1964 employment law, the U.S. Supreme Court called a man a woman, possibly leading to eventually forcing everyone else to do so also. The ruling will lead to a tsunami of polarizing court cases and further degradation of Americans’ natural rights to free speech, to free association, and to worshipping God as their consciences require. All this in the name of “equality,” a word that has become a totalitarian weapon.

The 6-3 majority included Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, appointed by Republican President Donald Trump. These presidents promised voters their justices would uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, and were elected in significant part based on these now-broken promises.

This decision is a disgrace to these bedrocks of Western civilization, our nation built upon them, the voters who vote for them, and to these men’s honor. President Trump ran promising judges who wouldn’t murder America, and Gorsuch just gave him and everyone who voted for him a giant middle finger. The court’s newfound weakness will also be exploited and explored by leftist legal agitators whose goal is the destruction of the American system.

“There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation,” writes Justice Samuel Alito in a dissent Justice Clarence Thomas joined. “…A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.”

Open ‘Sex,’ Insert Queer Theory
“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids,” Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. Alito torches this argument in numerous ways. Here’s just one:

At oral argument, the attorney representing the employees, a prominent professor of constitutional law, was asked if there would be discrimination because of sex if an employer with a blanket policy against hiring gays, lesbians, and transgender individuals implemented that policy without knowing the biological sex of any job applicants. Her candid answer was that this would ‘not’ be sex discrimination. And she was right.

“Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result… [But] [w]hen the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest,” Gorsuch asininely claims: You simply rewrite the “express terms of the statute” as a majority of justices please, just as the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade, and reason your way backwards into a politically predetermined conclusion no matter the meanings of the words Congress thought they were writing into law. “Sex” therefore transforms into “sexual orientation and gender identity,” concepts unknown when the 1964 law was passed.

“The precedents set here will have major implications… This will mean that legislators actually won’t know what they are voting to pass—because words might change cultural meaning dramatically between the time of passage and some future court case,” writes Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

Courts are not supposed to legislate because citizens cannot consent to legislation imposed by courts, and have no direct means for altering Supreme Court decisions like we can alter laws through our  elected representatives. When courts legislate, they disenfranchise the people. They invalidate our votes, our God-given natural right to rule ourselves. By adding words to statute that Congress did not put there, and has repeatedly and explicitly refused to add, these judges are destroying our Constitution, our way of life, the people’s sovereignty, and thus our human dignity.

Making War on Real Rights With Fake Ones
This is a salient example of what Christopher Caldwell calls the United States’ second constitution, which is at war with its first: the identity politics laws and regulations passed largely since the 1960s in the name of “antidiscrimination.”

“Just as assuming that two parallel lines can meet overturns the whole of Euclidean geometry, eliminating freedom of association from the U.S. Constitution changed everything,” Caldwell writes in “Age of Entitlement.” At the time, it wasn’t obvious how “extra rights” could destroy natural rights. But it is now.

As Alito notes, the Supreme Court’s addition of “gender identity” to protected employment classes may cause lawsuits claiming “that the failure to use [transgender people’s] preferred pronoun violates one of the federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination. The Court’s decision may also pressure employers to suppress any statements by employees expressing disapproval of same-sex relationships and sex reassignment procedures.”

In other words, “antidiscrimination” and free speech cannot coexist. Neither can legal identity privileges coexist with freedom of association: “if a religious school teaches that sex outside marriage and sex reassignment procedures are immoral, the message may be lost if the school employs a teacher who is in a same-sex relationship or has undergone or is undergoing sex reassignment. Yet today’s decision may lead to Title VII claims by such teachers and applicants for employment,” writes Alito.

Given all that has happened after Obergefell v. Hodges, which we were vociferously told was ridiculous to forecast — transgenderism immediately going mainstream, pushing religion inside the closet LGBT people were vacating, limiting people’s ability to freely express their faith and ideas, forcing education institutions to promote LGBT politics and behavior — it’s naive to think such scenarios will not quickly become reality as a result of this court decision.

Get Ready for Years of Legal Battles
This decision also cements public schools’ status as social enforcers and subsidizers of far-left politics, as they can have no potential legal defense against a teacher switching genders in front of students, putting boys in girls’ locker rooms and sports, or teaching preschoolers that Heather can have two or even three mommies. Queer theory is now reigning U.S. employment law. This means it must also dominate all institutions of higher education that are not explicitly religious, both public and private.

Religious schools and homeschooling now offer the only potential safe haven to parents who don’t want their children indoctrinated to believe it’s awesome to amputate healthy **** and breasts. Even those options are under threat, and it will take oodles of litigation to work out the details.

Rod Dreher has more on this: “John Bursch of Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented one of the losing plaintiffs in one of the SCOTUS cases, …points out that religious liberty is still very much in play, and will be at issue in future cases. But what SCOTUS has done today is to redefine ‘sex’ to include ‘sexual orientation and gender identity.’ Because of that, he said, ‘there is no end in sight to that kind of litigation.'”

This is litigation LGBT activists are very well-prepared, motivated, and well-financed to pursue. Given Republican politicians’ history of cravenly sacrificing Americans’ constitutional rights to gaslighting from identity politics agitators who don’t vote for Republicans, most notably when Vice President Mike Pence was governor of Indiana, we’d all better redirect any donation from Republican campaigns to legal protection like ADF and The Becket Fund.

We Need Lots More than Judges From Republicans
This is a time to redouble pressure on Republicans to stop helping Democrats shred the Constitution and Americans’ natural rights, withdrawing support from them if they do not. This decision makes Congress irrelevant, unless they decide to make themselves relevant again by eliminating the underlying law on which this decision is based.

The last century of abdicating their responsibilities when in power shows Republicans are not keen on defending our rights. They’d prefer to give rousing speeches about our rights at conventions like CPAC while scapegoating our continued loss of these rights on the judges and the bureaucracy they’re supposed to oversee. That needs to end, and for it to end, all constitutional hypocrites need to be made uncomfortable until they do the right thing.

We must learn how to be effective in expressing our ideas. People need to frequently contact their representatives about this issue, and get on the email lists of state and national groups working on this issue — like Mass Resistance, the Hands Across the Aisle Coalition, the Americian Family Association, Family Research Council, 4thWaveNow, and Transgender Trend — to read up on this issue and take action on bills.

All elected officials and candidates need to start being asked in public, on videos immediately posted to social media, why they aren’t doing anything to keep naked men from getting access to naked girls in showers, bathrooms, and locker rooms. Republicans need to be asked how they can tell us to vote for them “because judges” when their Supreme Court nominees just passed an LGBT version of Roe v. Wade that will lead to teaching preschoolers the confusing, anti-science lie that “boys can have girl brains.”

They need to be asked on camera whether they support the Constitution’s unconditional guarantees of freedom of association, freedom of speech, and the freedom to worship, and if not, how they can take an oath of office swearing fealty to that Constitution. They should be asked how they can justify not voting to eliminate Title VII now that the Supreme Court has made it a Trojan horse for forcing lingerie shops to hire men to fit women’s bras and female beauticians to wax a man’s genitals. They should be asked what effective steps they are taking to ensure that taxpayer dollars do not finance **** mutilation, and that medical and therapeutic professionals lose their licenses if they mutilate the healthy bodies of underage boys and girls.

They should also be asked these questions in private from major donors, and primaried out of office when they answer the wrong way. Campaign donors’ businesses should be boycotted if they do not withdraw support for Republicans who can’t tell the difference between a man and a woman.

Fighting this may not work. That two-thirds of our nation’s highest court clearly despise the Constitution and the way of life it protects, and which it is their sole job to defend, may be yet another indication that the United States we know and love is heading into a dark night of oblivion, like all empires before it. If that is the case, however, I’m going down fighting as hard as I can.

Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Her newest ebooks are"Classic Books for Young Children" and "32 Classic Games You Can Play Anywhere." @JoyPullmann is also the author of "The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids," from Encounter Books.
Photo Franz Jantzen, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States / Wikimedia

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
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...