Cool, Calm President Trump Made Mincemeat of Joe Biden

The moment Donald Trump and Joe Biden appeared on the stage, Trump was in control. He looked robust, while Biden appeared frail and slow. Trump’s dominance extended beyond looks. He ably defended his record against attacks from both Biden and the moderator, Kristen Welker. He also politely, but insistently, pressed Biden on his decades of failure, the damage he caused to the black community, and his corrupt dealings with his son, Hunter. It was a rout.

Those expecting Trump to be a bit of a madman, as he was during the first debate, were disappointed. Trump, having achieved his goal during the first debate of forcing Biden to alienate some of his base, no longer needed the madman tactic. This time, Trump was charming, polite, and endlessly upbeat about America’s prospects. Biden, meanwhile, literally said that America was “about to go into a dark winter. A dark winter.”  

As expected, Welker was a biased moderator. To her credit, she asked Biden about China and Ukraine, although she left the topic as quickly as possible. Otherwise, as with Chris Wallace and, during the town hall, Savannah Guthrie, every question that Welker posed to Trump came from a Democrat, not a neutral, position.

Even more irritating than the premise of her questions, though, was Welker’s determination to cut Trump’s rebuttals off immediately while letting Biden answer at length. Indeed, when Trump reminded Biden that Hunter walked out of China with $1.5 billion and started discussing the newly released emails, Welker frantically interrupted Trump to ensure that Biden wouldn’t have to try to answer the question.

Welker also argued constantly with Trump, something she never did with Biden. Candy Crowley apparently set a new standard for moderators getting into it with Republican candidates and we may as well get used to it.

Welker’s bias was par for the course. What distinguished the debate was Biden’s easily disproved lies and Trump’s excellent ripostes.

Biden denied absolutely that he had called Trump xenophobic for closing our border to China.

Joe made it clear he wants to pathologize America permanently as a place of ebbing and flowing lockdowns and government dependency. Trump, however, wants America back on her feet and pointedly said we can’t all live like Joe, either locked in a basement or getting lots of money from unknown sources.

Showing either chutzpah or stupidity, Biden was the first to raise his son’s hard drive, although he did so obliquely. When Welker asked about the recently revealed Russian and Iranian election interference, Biden announced that Trump’s own national security advisor said that Rudy Giuliani, “his buddy,” is a Russian pawn. That was the signal for Trump to hammer Biden about the $3.5 million Hunter received from Russia, the China dealings, and Burisma. For the rest of the debate, Trump never let those subjects go. Trump attacked Biden brutally on the 1994 Crime Bill.

Biden made a bizarre, and historically inaccurate, reference to Hitler when Trump defended the peace that came from a civil relationship with Kim Jong-un:

“Having a good relationship with leaders of other countries is a good thing,” Trump said.  Biden shot back, “That’s like saying we had a good relationship with Hitler before he in fact invaded Europe.” 

Under Godwin’s law, of course, the first person to make false Hitler analogies is losing.

Probably the biggest hit that Biden took, though, was on the subject of energy independence and fracking. Showing how completely he is under the control of the AOC branch of the Democrat party, Joe said that he would close down the oil industry.

Biden also outright lied when he denied that he’d promise to end fracking.

A highlight came when Biden, desperate to get away from Trump pressuring him about Hunter, switched the subject to the pathos of the American family. Trump pulled back the curtain and showed what a sleazy politician’s trick Biden had just used.

Biden knew he was losing. That’s why he made the classic loser’s mistake of checking his watch.

Remember the last candidate who did that during a debate?

Oh! There was one other thing that happened during the debate: Trump said that he thinks Republicans will take the House. That could be Trumpian optimism, or it could be that Trump’s inside polling is telling him something.

Image: A post-debate poll. Twitter screengrab.

$5$10$50Other Comments| Print|sponsored contentFrom the WebPowered by ZergNet

Trump Had Something to Say to Kristen Welker During the Debate

The One Line From Biden That Everyone Will Be Talking About

Ex-Pence Aide Gives Americans A Truly Chilling Warning

AOC Responds to Trump After He Name Drops Her at Debate

Ice Cube May Have Just Done a Complete 360 on Trump

Historian Who Has Called Every Election Names His 2020 Winnersponsored content


Signs of Adult ADHD Might Rattle YouHow Dogs Cry for Help: 3 Warning Signs Your Dog is Crying for HelpMan Cracks Open Rock, Discovers Jaw-dropping TreasureCheck out Jana Kramer’s Incredible Acm Awards Look10 Notorious Americans Who Betrayed Their CountryBizarre Rules Old Hollywood Stars Were Forced to ObeyPennsylvania in a Frenzy : Cannabis Oil Breakthrough Leaves Doctors Speechless‘Modern Family’ Star Posed with a Fan but Didn’t Notice She Was a Bigger StarUlcerative Colitis Symptoms You May Wish You Had Seen SoonerThis Archaeological Discovery Changes What We Thought We Knew About Jesus


How Dogs Cry for Help: 3 Warning Signs Your Dog is Crying for HelpMd: This Lower Blood Suagr Like Crazy! (Try Tonight)One Simple Method Keeps Your Blood Sugar Below 100Top CBD Oil Make Pennsylvania in a Frenzy – Discovery Leaves Doctors SpeechlessTop Plastic Surgeon: if You Have Wrinkles, Do This Before BedTinnitus? when the Ringing Won’t Stop, Do This (It’s Genius)Things Flight Attendants Notice About Passengers in 5 SecondsTips for Talking to Your Doctor About Renal Cell CarcinomaThis Star Was Every Man’s Dream Girl. Try Not to Gasp when You See Her NowNew ED Discovery Amazes Doctors (Try Tonight!)


American Thinker on Facebook
American Thinker on Twitter

Recent Articles

Blog Posts

Monthly Archives

nullnullsponsored contentFROM THE WEBby ZergNet

Stars Whose Looks Changed Drastically in 2020

Radio Host Will Enter Mental Facility After Concerning Show

This Fox News Editor Made a Bold Statement About Donald Trump

Here’s What Cardinal Dolan Had to Say About Amy Coney Barrett

Howard Stern Has a Head-Turning Message For Trump Voters

Jeff Goldblum Lookalike Gets Into Epic Fight in Viral VideoAbout Us | Contact | Privacy Policy | RSS Syndication © American Thinker 2020

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

REPORT: Forty Percent of Americans Have Favorable View of Socialism

The fifth Annual Report on U.S. Attitudes Toward Socialism, Communism, and Collectivism has been released by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOC). The news is not good if these findings are to be looked upon as the direction in which our country is going. Capitalists beware, Socialism is gaining in popularity, especially among the younger generations.

On information gathering, it is described as the following: “The report, polled by internationally recognized research and data firm YouGov, synthesizes data from 2,100 representative U.S. respondents ages 16 and older, and the margin of error is plus or minus 2.32%.”

Socialism is a more favorable term now and the younger generation thinks that President Trump is “the greatest threat to world peace.” Never mind that Trump is the only president in recent memory to not start a war. The Orange Man is bad.

This year’s study showed increased favorability of the term ‘socialism’ (49%) among Gen Z compared to 2019 (40%). Opinions of capitalism declined slightly from 2019 to 2020 among all Americans (58% to 55%), with Gen Z (ages 16-23) slightly up (49% to 52%) and Millennials (ages 24-39) down (50% to 43%). 35% of Millennials and 31% of Gen Z support the gradual elimination of the capitalist system in favor of a more socialist system.

It also showed growing concern for Donald Trump as president, especially among younger generations of Americans, with 34% of Gen Z and 35% of Millennials seeing him as the greatest threat to world peace, up 8% and 7% from 2019, respectively. This sentiment held true regarding his handling of the pandemic as well, with 39% of Gen Z and 32% of Millennials believing Trump is more responsible for COVID-19 becoming a pandemic than Xi Jinping of China. Opinions of America’s inequality grew markedly from 2019 with 68% of Americans thinking that America’s highest earners don’t pay their fair share. Among these Americans, 57% of Gen Z and 60% of Millennials favor a complete change of our economic system away from capitalism — a 14% and 8% increase from 2019, respectively.

Marion Smith, Executive Director of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, says that it “shocks the conscience” to learn that the president is viewed as more of a threat than all the brutal dictators in the world and that four out of ten respondents believe that America is a racist country. She lays the blame on the American school system, as well as the media and popular culture and that is a completely legit conclusion. Anyone who has raised a child in the last 20-30 years knows what she is talking about. American teachers have moved history lessons sharply to the far left’s view of the world, including the history of our own country. One in four Americans wants to eliminate capitalism and embrace socialism. Turn on any primetime television program and the liberal writers are busy promoting everything from social injustice and racial inequality to the LGBTQ agenda. Gen Z and Millennials have been brainwashed from their earliest days. Capitalism is trashed and financial success is looked upon as corrupt. Remember when Obama said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”? It was an off TelePrompter remark. Adlibs reveal what politicians like Obama truly believe. Obama is a good example of one who wishes to lead everyone else into socialist reforms (Obamacare, anyone?) while reaping the rewards of capitalism himself. He is being made fabulously wealthy with his deal with Netflix. When has he “made enough money”?

Here are some key takeaways from the VOC’s report:

40% of Americans have a favorable view of socialism, up from 36% in 2019. Socialist sentiment is increasing among younger generations with Gen Z’s favorability at 49%, up from 40% in 2019.

Over a quarter of Americans (26%) support the gradual elimination of the capitalist system in favor of a more socialist system with a surge in support among younger generations (31% of Gen Z and 35% of Millennials).

18% of Gen Z and 13% of Millennials think communism is a fairer system than capitalism and deserves consideration in America.

30% of Gen Z has a favorable view of Marxism, up 6% from 2019, compared to 27% of Millennials, down 9% from 2019.

Over one-third of Americans (39%) are likely to support a member of the Democratic Socialist party for office with greater support among younger generations (51% of Gen Z and 44% of Millennials). 16% of Gen Z and Millennials are likely to support a member of the Communist party for office.

There is also a decline in how proud Americans are of our country. A June Gallup Poll found that only 20% of adults between the ages of 18 and 29 are “extremely proud to be an American.” That finding is the lowest percentage of any demographic.

Although a majority of adults in the U.S. still say they are “extremely proud” (42%) or “very proud” (21%) to be American, both readings are the lowest they have been since Gallup’s initial measurement in 2001.

At the same time, 15% of Americans say they are “moderately proud,” 12% “only a little proud” and 9% “not at all proud.”

The Gallup finding is the sixth consecutive year it has fallen to a new low in Gallup’s trend. Both the Gallup poll and the VOC’s report began their polling on these topics before the Trump administration, so any liberal finger-pointing solely at Trump is insincere at best, cynical at worst. As I noted above, the decline in American education has been ongoing for at least two decades, perhaps longer. Many teachers are more interested in teaching their own political idealogy (or the idealogy of their union) than actual historical facts and events. Students have been Howard Zinn’d into believing America is not a force for good in the world but a bad actor and that is very unfortunate. The Greatest Generation who fought so bravely for our freedoms is being replaced by a new wave of Americans who think as those they fought against.

The Best Case Yet for Voting Trump

The person who shared this video told me it was the best 17 minutes of his day. I concur. It’s the best, unpretentious yet authentically intellectual argument for reelecting President Trump I have yet heard.

He says Trump would be the worst man for the job of President in most times, but is the only man for the job in these times.

And yes, this is the biggest election since 1860. We are indeed on the verge of a Marxist “woke” revolution that will, if successful, end the magnificent American experiment of 1776 forever. Well worth a listen.

Michael J. Hurd

Living Without Justice

Justice may well be the very first inkling of moral law that blossoms in the human soul. Siblings at a very young age are quick to note discrepancies in parental approbation, quick to recognize any inconsistencies in rewards and punishments, quick to imagine any injustice. As I write this I’m remembering my youngest granddaughter at a mere 18 months of age, tearfully objecting to her sister enjoying a lollypop  — “Julia lolly!” Her sister had saved hers from the night before; Violet had wolfed hers down, so she had no case to prosecute, but she certainly thought she did; her moral conviction was strong.

That sense of moral outrage never leaves us; it is as inherent in the human character as is the love of beauty and the need for affection. Governments exist partly to protect us from outside invaders, but more importantly to dole out justice — to punish those who break both natural and cultural laws. That’s why we have police, why we have codified laws, why we have juries, lawyers, and prisons. Our internal compass demands that evil be held accountable.

Justice is the point at which we homo sapiens connect with God. We were created in His image, and God is perfect Justice, but the Fall, Adam and Eve’s disastrous decision, left us all with a disease of the soul that’s worse than anything COVID can do to the body. Until we agree to accept God’s arrangement for our forgiveness we are out here in a justice-deficient zone, and no amount of law will create even a reasonable facsimile.

Law can, however, keep things semi-manageable, if — and this has turned out to be a big “if” – if those impacted by the laws of the land respect that law. If they don’t  — well, we’re seeing the result and it’s terrifying.

A little over a month ago here in southern Oregon, we started seeing weather predictions calling for a strong windstorm in the valley. This was a big deal because we rarely have wind here. By the time we got to Tuesday of that week, the wind was ripping up the Bear Creek Greenway at 40 miles an hour.  Simultaneously some individuals (officials have found eight combustion sites) set fires along the creek and the wind ripped the fires northward for over 15 miles, destroying in its wake over 2,000 residences and most of two small towns. Four people died in the fires that burned over 3,000 acres of this densely populated little valley. One person has so far been arrested, but we know that BLM/Antifa had a presence here; they had set up camp in our most central public park, but the police kicked them out just days before the fires.  This fire — the Almeda Fire — was the result of a lack of respect for law, for life, for property, and all of us who live here feel a strong and angry need for justice. Not for revenge — that’s different — but for accountability, for wrong to be set right.

A drive through the affected areas brings most people to tears. The devastation makes it clear that we’re in a war; that we’ve been attacked in a guerilla operation that our justice system doesn’t seem able to handle. Our news agencies don’t appear to be all that interested — we hear news about cleanup operations, but nothing about a search for the arsonists.

That’s just one example. Look now at what’s happening with our political situation. My sense of justice is appalled that Joe Biden could possibly be elected president. I’ve been angry about him since he plagiarized that speech decades ago (As a classroom teacher plagiarism is especially offensive.), and now we have a smoking gun on his outrageous, treasonous corruption and half the country just shrugs, makes up yet another Russian collusion lie, and goes on rampaging through our cities like they were the ones being wronged.

My sense of justice is also appalled that good people who were only doing the job they were assigned, have been arrested, charged, and convicted of “crimes” that everyone knew they weren’t guilty of. I’m horrified at what’s happened to Michael Flynn, to Carter Page, to Roger Stone, to George Papadopoulos. There is nothing fair about the way they’ve been treated. If it can happen to them, it can happen to any of us; if there is no justice for them, there is no justice for us.

And there’s nothing just about the way our president is being treated. There is nothing fair about the way the “debates” have been set up, nothing fair about the ridiculous accusations made against Trump — all of which have been debunked, and yet his detractors still bring up Russia and Ukraine as if those manufactured scandals were real. The media’s consistent malfeasance in its reporting on Trump’s policies, accomplishments, and plans for putting America back together again just leave me slack-jawed. The media prevarications about our president prevent justice.

That is because the heart of the idea of justice is truth — absolute truth, above and beyond human frailties. We can’t have justice without truth and this progressive idea that truth is relative, adjustable, disposable, and personal makes justice impossible. District attorneys across this country are refusing to prosecute rioters because those attorneys, who are supposed to be on the side of justice, agree with the perpetrators’ twisted view of truth. You would think that justice needs to be served by punishing those who have destroyed lives and businesses and property, but if untruth rules the day, it will rule over “justice” as well.

If the left, which consistently denies truth, wins in these upcoming elections, we will see the final death throes of both justice and truth. Already, when the Hunter Biden laptop surfaced, we witnessed an almost instantaneous denial not only of the truth but of our right to decide for ourselves. The left censored that information so quickly that they couldn’t possibly have taken the time to research the allegations themselves. They took no time to analyze signatures, watch videos, look at photos, or read the emails. They just clamped down on the story, locked it in a cage hoping that the story would die just as the Benghazi story slipped quietly away, as Hillary’s email scandal dozed off to nothing, as the Russia hoax has gone unpunished.  And perhaps this Biden mess will also fade, but we’d better hope not.

The moral outrage that’s boiling up all over this country is reaching a flashpoint, and whatever this election brings, the lack of truth and justice in our government — the government that’s supposed to be protecting truth and justice — will bring about a conflagration that’s really hard to think about. We must walk a narrow path edged on one side by the Constitution and its limits on government and on the other side by the necessity of cleaning out that government at the local, state, and national level. We can’t break the constitutional limits, but we have to weed out evil that’s sprouted because of the disdain for that Constitution. Our personal, and national, inherent demand for justice must be met, and if it is not, our society is doomed — not just doomed to live without fairness, without protection, without freedom, but a society without those essentials will eventually collapse.

We really can’t live without integrity. Trying to do so makes us crazy — witness the spokespersons for the left; they’re very sick people. We can’t even sustain life without justice, for without it there can be no production, no commerce, no society at all. God had good reason for creating us with a strong hunger for fairness, for fidelity, for justice that is as close as possible to His own.

Deana Chadwell, American Thinker


The project for President Trump — and for whomever plans to follow him in leadership.

Last week Cuba and the People’s Republic of China, both longstanding Communist dictatorships, gained election to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The move should come as no surprise because the UN tilted to Communist states from the start.

In the waning days of World War II, Stalin’s foreign minister Andrei Gromyko suggested U.S. State Department official Alger Hiss as the first UN Secretary General, the first and only time a Soviet leader recommended an American for an international post. Hiss was duly appointed acting Secretary General, so the Communists got the man they wanted.

“The GRU [Soviet military intelligence] considered Hiss to be one of Moscow’s most important spies,” Christina Shelton, author of  Alger Hiss: Why He Chose Treason, told Jamie Glazov in 2012. From his post in the State Department, Hiss enabled Moscow to break codes and tap into American diplomatic traffic.

At the opening UN conference in San Francisco in May-June of 1945, Hiss brought along Stalinist screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, who wrote the speech of  Secretary of State Edward Stettinius. The Secretary of State, who had been under the wing of Hiss and Harry Hopkins, requested an autographed picture of Trumbo, but later denied he ever knew the screenwriter.

Stettinius became U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, first headed by Norwegian Trygve Lie. The newfound UN did nothing to liberate eastern Europe from Soviet control. When Hungarians rebelled in 1956 the UN under Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld, stood by as the Soviet Communists crushed the rebellion, as they did the “Prague Spring” of 1968.

The Soviet Union retained control of eastern Europe and from 1972 to 1981 made gains in southeast Asia, Africa and Central America. The UN Secretary General at the time was Kurt Waldheim, as the New York Times noted, a former Nazi in a sturmtruppen unit that “executed thousands of Yugoslav partisans and civilians and deported thousands of Greek Jews to death camps from 1942 to 1944.” None of that appears in Waldheim’s official UN biography.

As John Barron and Anthony Paul documented in Murder of a Gentle Land: The Untold Story of Communist Genocide in Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge murdered nearly two million people, approximately one-fourth of the population. The Khmer Rouge executed thousands of babies by smashing their heads against a tree and forced prisoners to dig their own graves before killing them with clubs to save bullets. The UN dithered until 1988 before condemning the Khmer Rouge and utterly failed to establish any kind of tribunal for genocide.

From 1974 to 1987 the head of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was Amabou-Mahtar M’Bow of Senegal, a Muslim and co-author of Islam and Muslims in the American Continent. On M’Bow’s watch, UNESCO funded the PLO and violent Marxist movements around the world. UNESCO served as cover for a dozen of the 47 KGB spies expelled by France in 1983.

UNESCO promoted the “New World Information and Communication Order,” a Soviet-style effort to quash free speech and repress journalists. When the French L’Express described M’Bow as a “megalomaniac despot,” the UNESCO boss sued the publication. M’Bow’s excesses prompted U.S. President Ronald Reagan to pull the United States out of UNESCO in 1984.

Communist China has occupied Tibet since the 1950s and the UN looks the other way. Likewise, the United Nations did nothing about China’s Communist dictatorship under Mao Zedong, with an estimated 65 million victims by the worst mass murder of the 20th century, easily surpassing Stalin and Hitler. During the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution, Mao bragged, “we have buried alive 46,000 scholars.”

This genocidal dictatorship now lands on the UN Human Rights Council, along with fellow Communist state Cuba and such reputable upholders of human rights as Bolivia, Venezuela and Pakistan, which sheltered Osama bin Laden.

The United States withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council in 2018 and President Trump stopped funding the World Health Organization, part of the UN and a PRC asset. The United States is the biggest funder of the United Nations but remains its primary target, along with Israel. President Trump should continue his momentum by withdrawing the United States from the UN, now headed by former Portuguese prime minister Antonio Guterres, from 1992 to 1999 vice president of the Socialist International.

Nobody in America ever voted for Guterres, Waldheim or Kurt Waldheim, and the UN was never great. An EXITUN project would not be a departure from the president Trump’s practice to date. The president pulled the United States out of the Iran deal and the Paris climate accords. President Trump nixed NAFTA and replaced it with the USMCA.

In similar style, the president could promote an Alliance of Free States, AFS or “the Allies,” for countries that respect human rights and hold free elections. The others can stay in the UN, which as the late Richard Grenier (The Marrakesh One-Two) used to say, would be better headquartered in Mogadishu.

All told, EXITUN would be a fine project for President Trump and a good test for whoever plans to follow him in leadership.

Lloyd Billingsley

The Vilification of American Women

After watching Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings, Americans should be outraged. The Democrats used it as a political commercial, questioned her integrity, pushed a narrative that she is threatening and radical, attacked her Catholic faith, and even asked her if she ever was arrested for harassment. But even more disturbing is how conservative women, not only Judge Barrett, but many in other professions, have been threatened because of their views. 

Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) recently wrote a book, The Mind of a Conservative Woman. She told American Thinker, “Too many liberals, everyone is merely an economic unit, and every principle is one size fits all. In one of my chapters, I discuss how mainstream media has misrepresented conservative women. They, as with all women, are smart, focused, and want the best for everyone. Yet the press says conservative women’s voices do not deserve to be heard because they are pro-life, pro-military, pro-business, and pro-faith.”

She went on to say, “Conservative women are treated very differently than liberal women.  They do not want them to have a voice, unless they espouse the liberal talking points.” The senator made this clear during the Judiciary hearings, “They attack you (Judge Barrett) for not fitting into the paradigm of the left, because you’re pro-life, pro-family, and pro-religion,” and “It is so discouraging to me to see groups on the left say we want diversity, but let that diversity come from a woman who is on the political right, and their heads explode.”

Apart from Judge Barrett, this also happened to a best-selling fictional suspense author. (The author and book are unnamed because of the negativity she’s received, and she doesn’t want to deal with any additional nasty comments.) She told American Thinker, “I wrote the book as a prediction of what is happening in America today. I wrote in my novel, how the left breaches tolerance only when you agree with them. I wanted to show how these leftist groups spout free speech; yet, they do their best to shut down voices they do not agree with.”

In other words, as Alan Dershowitz said, “free speech for thee, but not for me” The author noted, “There has been a strong vocal minority of readers who have been very negative.  This is the first time I have had a range of reviews. I received an email from someone who was not happy with the book.  She called me arrogant and self-righteous. She even put a quote from the Bible how we should not be judgmental.  But how hypocritical is that? The reaction to this book has been eye-opening. People have even made personal attacks on me because of this story where the heroine was a strong conservative woman.”

American Thinker found some of the reviews and they were outrageous.  To paraphrase, they said how conservatives do not believe in loving thy neighbor, that the police are racist, and how dare the book criticize the left for attempting to destroy the values America was founded on and blast an Antifa-like organization. The reviewer said in reality Antifa is not a movement and all they want to do is oppose fascism.  Of course, they had to blast the heroine as a white woman who has great power and privilege, with no moral compass, because she supported the police for putting their lives on the line and going after the radical hate groups bent on destruction and division.

The response to the novel , as with Senator Blackburn’s book, is yet another exmaple of a woman being attacked for being pro-life, pro-military, pro-police, pro-business, and pro-faith. As the author noted, “it is cancel-culture at its best. My suspense story was intended to show the extremes people can go to if they want to silence the voices they disagree with as well as the danger inherent in today’s society for standing up for conservative principles and values. One woman said that while she agreed with the principles in the book, I was racist. I’m still scratching my head over that one, as this is not a book about race. Her rationale goes like this: I mentioned Rush Limbaugh and Rush Limbaugh is pro-Trump and racist, and since Limbaugh supports Trump — who the reader said is also racist — then I had to be racist too. That’s the sort of convoluted reasoning — and assumptions — I’ve been dealing with. I’ve been reamed for vilifying Antifa, for having a heroine who’s unabashedly pro-life and pro-police. The vast majority of readers have liked the book and rated it highly. But I definitely got a sample of cancel culture with this one, and how people who dare to espouse more traditional values can be demonized.”

Senator Blackburn also told American Thinker how she heard from a conservative businesswoman who was told by her liberal coworkers that she did not deserve to get a recognition award because she was not supportive of women’s rights and equality.  She went on to say, “In my book, there is a chapter where I discuss how the liberals want everybody to spout their talking points even if someone is not in complete agreement. Some of the liberal women’s organizations sent an open letter to all of the newsrooms. It explained how people should talk to a female vice-presidential candidate — basically, what could and could not be said and how to approach them. I fired off a letter to all of the signatories and all of the newsrooms, stating that this treatment should apply to all women. Of course, I got zero response on my letter.”

Whether it involves a businesswoman, a senator, a potential Supreme Court justice, or an author, cancel culture is alive and well.  The Left does not want anyone to highlight conservative women, because their ideals go against the Left’s agenda.  Too bad people cannot look on someone and admire them for their accomplishments. Unfortunately, in today’s society “agree to disagree” is no longer alive and well.

The author writes for American Thinker. She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.

Image: Rachel Malehorn


Ghislaine Maxwell Arrest Unearths Eye-Opening Photo

Ghislaine Maxwell’s Case Just Took a Quick Turn

Christina Anstead Opens Up About How She’s Doing After Her Split

Ex-Pence Aide Gives Americans A Truly Chilling Warning

Trump Walks Out of Interview and Leaves Wild Twitter Rant

The Surprising Comment Michael Keaton Made About Donald Trumpsponsored content


Hair “Root Reactivation” Tip for Thicker, Fuller HairSigns of Adult ADHD Might Rattle YouCheck out Jana Kramer’s Incredible Acm Awards LookNew ED Discovery Amazes Doctors (Try Tonight!)Ulcerative Colitis Symptoms You May Wish You Had Seen Sooner10 Notorious Americans Who Betrayed Their CountryAmericans May Get Rid of Their Cell Phones for VoipOne Simple Method Keeps Your Blood Sugar Below 100Tyrone, Pennsylvania Drivers Are Fuming over New RuleBizarre Rules Old Hollywood Stars Were Forced to Obey


This Bizarre Photo Caused Mayhem, Try Not to Gasp when You See Why aOne Simple Method Keeps Your Blood Sugar Below 100Md: This Lower Blood Suagr Like Crazy! (Try Tonight)Diabetics: Do This Immediately to Lower Blood Sugar (It’s Genius)A Flight Attendant’s Secret. What They Notice About You in Less Than 2 SecondsTop Plastic Surgeon: if You Have Wrinkles, Do This Before BedShe’s 50, but Looks 25. This is What She Does Before Bed (Watch)Top Plastic Surgeon: if You Want to Look 20 Years Younger Do This Before BedQuestions to Ask Your Doctor After a Kidney Cancer DiagnosisRepublicans Get Free Trump Bills And Dems Hate It! (Claim Yours Now!)null



American Thinker on Facebook
American Thinker on Twitter

Recent Articles

Blog Posts

Monthly Archives contentFROM THE WEBby ZergNet

Big Ten Coach Resigns Amid Alarming Allegations

Here’s What Cardinal Dolan Had to Say About Amy Coney Barrett

This Fox News Editor Made a Bold Statement About Donald Trump

Kimberly Guilfoyle’s Transformation Is Causing Quite a Stir

What the McGhee Sextuplets Look Like 10 Years Later

The Real Reason Why Carrie Ann Inaba Is Wearing Wigs On ‘DWTS’About Us | Contact | Privacy Policy | RSS Syndication © American Thinker 2020

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Seven Predictions: How 2020 Comes to an End

I’m posting the following because it actually sounds quite plausible — sadly:

7 Predictions: How 2020 comes to an End

Written by: Daniel Bobinski, M.Ed. is a certified behavioral analyst, best-selling author, corporate trainer, executive coach, and columnist. He’s also a veteran and a self-described Christian Libertarian who believes in the principles of free market capitalism – while standing firmly against crony capitalism.

America is at a crossroads with revolution on our doorstep. On one side are the Patriots; those who seek to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. On the other side are Marxist insurrectionists; those who believe that America is evil and the cause of so many problems in world.

The Marxist-friendly side is pulling for Joe Biden to be ushered into the White House. They don’t call themselves Marxists, but as the saying goes, if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck, it’s a duck.

I’ve been writing since January that the Globalists don’t care if there’s bloodshed in America, and in March I wrote that the Left is waging a scorched-earth war against Trump.

At the risk of sounding like I’m saying, “I told you so,” I told you so.

If you’ve been reading tea leaves from the news lately, you may have already figured out what’s coming at us in the next few months. If so, the following may simply affirm your observations. But I wanted to put this out there so everyone knows what to expect and therefore won’t be surprised.

My seven predictions for how 2020 comes to an end:

Prediction 1: Trump will win the election in a landslide. I know, the media is telling you the polls are tight, but just look around. Trump rallies are packed to the gills while Biden can’t fill the bleachers at a high school football field. Trump supporters hold huge boat parades while we see NONE for Biden. Trump supporters hold freeway caravans around that country that take up all lanes of a freeway, while an attempted caravan for Biden in Las Vegas drew only 30 people. Just like in 2016, pollsters today are making it look like it’s a close race. This is gaslighting – they’re telling you something that runs directly opposite of what your own eyes are telling you, but they’re expecting you to believe what they say.

Prediction 2: On the evening of November 3, Joe Biden will not concede the election, even though the vote will clearly be for Trump. Hillary Clinton has publicly stated that Joe should not concede, so the seed has been planted in our minds to expect this. And, because we’re expecting it, we won’t be shocked by it.

Prediction 3: Massive mail voter fraud will create confusion and Marxists (e.g. Democrats) will insist that “every vote counts.” They know Americans want to be fair so Marxists will play on that. They will cry and wail and plead that every vote needs to get counted, so they’ll ask for sympathy for voters who didn’t follow confusing new election rules about how to cast their mail-in ballots. That will be their story, but many votes will be fraudulent. As they’ve demonstrated on America’s streets, Marxists don’t care about following laws; they care about power.

Prediction 4: Because of massive mail fraud ballots showing up late, election results WILL be delayed. The deceptive Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook and the clearly biased Jack Dorsey at Twitter have already announced they will flag any posts or tweets that claim a victory for Trump. They KNOW Trump will have more than enough votes to win, but as Zuckerberg already told us, we should expect results to take “DAYS OR EVEN WEEKS.” In other words, Facebook and Twitter are well-aware of the planned mail-in voter fraud, and they’re already providing cover for it. The planned vote count confusion will be dragged out as long as possible. The Marxists’ intention is to keep confusion swirling at least until December 14 in hopes that the electoral college won’t be able to identify a winner. Expect ballots to keep showing up out of nowhere.

Prediction 5: If Marxists cannot keep up the façade until December 14, some states will obfuscate the electoral process by choosing not to follow the rules laid out in the 12th Amendment. In fact, both may happen. Either way, by attempting to throw the electoral college into confusion, Marxists (again, the Democrats) will make a push for the electoral college to be eliminated. Believe me when I say you don’t want this. Students of the Constitution know that if the electoral college is eliminated, the Republic will be gone.
Prediction 6: Expect Nancy Pelosi to be acting all patriotic and concerned about the Constitution during the chaos, but rest assured, it’s a passive-aggressive act. She is among the Marxist vanguard in both houses of Congress orchestrating the whole mess. You will also see some Marxist-friendly governors making a lot of noise.

Prediction 7: While Marxists in Congress are messing with the electoral process, Marxists on the streets (Antifa and BLM) will intensify their violence by burning, looting, and murdering even more than what we’ve seen to this point. There’s already a movement that seeks to lay siege to the White House. Not only do the puppet masters want all the street chaos to distract our attention from what’s going on in the electoral process, the street Marxists see this election as their only chance to either grab power or put up with Trump for four more years. The protestors have been trained to instigate violence, and copy-cat wannabes will want to join in. Street Marxists will view these riots as the fight of their lives: it will get intense.

To perpetuate the riots, puppet masters like George Soros will continue pouring money into organizations that fund them. Also remember that Antifa and BLM have threatened to go into the suburbs. Their purpose for doing so is to trigger the Soccer Moms who wants peace at all costs. Marxists will hope that these suburban moms will apply pressure on their elected representatives to give in to the Marxists so the violence will end. Life on American streets will be unpredictable and dangerous.
How does it end?

The Marxists are desperate, so the fighting will be like nothing the country has ever seen before. I predict we’ll see horrific things happening in our cities and on our streets, and traditional media (read: Marxist-friendly media) will be spewing twisted truths and lies about everything listed above. And we can’t forget that social media giants favor the Marxists in this revolution, so they will be squelching debate in whatever ways they can.

The final months of 2020 will be an emotional roller coaster, but in the end, I predict Trump prevails. It’s not going to be pretty, and many who are now thinking life will return to normal after November 3 will be sadly mistaken. They will be wondering what happened to the country they once knew.

Whether the Democrats implode or not after all this happens remains to be seen, but it is my prayer that when the dust settles, all the Marxists plotters and schemers be exposed and truth will be recognized as truth. And then … maybe then … Trump can get on with his promise to drain the entire swamp.

The Dangers of Politicized History

We are now seeing the consequences of 50 years of the Left’s academic malfeasance.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

The New York Times’ “1619 Project,” a “woke” racialist rewrite of American history, is just the latest in the decades-long track record of leftist distortions of history. Like everything else corrupting our culture, its roots lie in Cultural Marxism and its assault on social institutions, especially education, as the means for achieving the Marxist paradise that the proletariat had betrayed by not rising up against their capitalist taskmasters and collectivizing the means of production.

The universities, of course, have been the seed-bed of such propaganda. A seemingly silly spasm of outrage over Israeli movie actress Gal Gadot (pictured above) being cast as Cleopatra illustrates how fake history and “cancel culture”­­­­––their roots in an academic fashion from decades earlier that at the time was dismissed as the typical hijinks of egghead professors––have infected people’s minds with patent nonsense.

The “woke” mob are put out with Gadot and her director, Patty Jenkins, because Gadot is a “bland” and “too pretty” white woman, whereas Cleopatra was Egyptian and hence presumably swarthy and more “exotic” looking. More noxious to critics is that Gadot is an Israeli. Journalist Sameera Khan on Twitter huffed, “shame on you, Gal Gadot. Your country steals Arab land & you’re stealing their movie roles.” The sheer ignorance of this observation is staggering. Christian Egypt didn’t become an Arab nation until 645 A.D. with the Muslim conquest. Today’s Arab Egyptians, then, with the exception of the minority Christian Copts, are the descendants of conquerors, occupiers, and colonizers. So who has a much longer record of “stealing” land?

But assuming Cleopatra was ethnic Egyptian is another historical solecism. She was a Macedonian Greek, descended from Ptolemy, Alexander the Great’s general who in 305 B.C. seized the rich territory of Egypt during the “game of thrones” over Alexander’s conquests after his death. The Ptolemies, as the dynasty is called, adopted much of the ceremony and iconography of the pharaohs in order to make their rule over a culturally, ethnically, religiously, and linguistically different peoples more manageable. But ethnically they were Macedonians, who tended to be fairer even than the southern Greeks, let alone Semites.

As for Cleopatra’s ethnicity, Professor Emeritus of Classics and Archaeology, Duane W. Roller, author of Cleopatra: A Biographywrites on the Oxford University Press blog: “To sum up: it is quite possible that Cleopatra was pure Macedonian Greek. But it is probable that she had some Egyptian blood, although the amount is uncertain. Certainly it was no more than half, and probably less. The best evidence is that she was three-quarters Macedonian Greek and one-quarter Egyptian. There is no room for anything else, certainly not for any black African blood.” In other words, Gal Gadot is more likely to resemble the historical Cleopatra than a modern Arab actress.

Roller’s reference to Cleopatra being black brings us to the academic controversy from several decades ago that illustrates an early example of politicized history that was defended by trying to “cancel” a critic of its manifest errors. In 1987 Martin Bernal published Black Athena, the first of three volumes arguing that ancient Greek culture had “Afroasiatic roots,” as the subtitle had it. The most famous claim derived from Bernal’s book was that ancient Greek civilization was the product of African Egyptians. Thirty years later, an American classicist claimed that one of the book’s purposes was to “effectively combat today’s use of Greece and Rome by white nationalists.” Presumably, the “grandeur that was Greece, and the glory that was Rome” had been hijacked by racist “white supremacists,” who ignored the Classical world’s “Afroasiatic” roots in order to racialize its achievements. The history of Classics comprised a “stolen legacy.”

Bernal’s book became widely known when it was used by Afrocentrism, a movement to correct allegedly racist, Eurocentric history by restoring the role played by peoples of African descent. Much of the work produced is closer to identity politics propaganda than to historical fact––an early example of the same activist history one sees in the “1619 Project.” Also similar is the production of Afrocentric curricula for schools. One can judge the intellectual seriousness of Afrocentrism from a remark by Al Sharpton in a 1994 talk delivered at, horribile dictu, a college: “We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”

Nor can such a comment be dismissed as the vicious rhetoric of a professional race-baiter. But then as now, corporate America, eager as always to cultivate brand loyalty, quickly got on board the Afrocentrism train. Not long after the Afrocentrism controversy, I recall walking through a university history building and noting its hallway walls covered with posters celebrating Black History Month. One depicted Cleopatra sporting a big Afro redolent of Seventies blaxploitation movies. Another showed the Carthaginian Hannibal, a descendant of the Semitic Phoenicians who colonized today’s Tunisia, looking like soul singer Isaac Hayes. The posters had been donated by Anheuser-Busch, brewers of Budweiser. No one seemed concern that fake history was being promoted by the history department of a California State University, with the help of a corporation that wanted to sell more beer to college students.

At the time of Sharpton’s comment the historiographical flaws of Bernal’s thesis had been meticulously laid bare a year earlier by esteemed Wellesley classicist Mary Lefkowitz in her article “Not Out of Africa,” and later in books like Black Athena Revisited (1996) and Not Out of Africa (1997). Her thorough research undercut one of the major arguments of Afrocentrism, that ancient Greek culture was a “stolen legacy” filched from African peoples, a thesis based on egregious mangling of historical facts. For example, at a 1993 lecture at Wellesley by Yosef A.A. Ben-Jochannan, author of the Afrocentric classic Africa: Mother of  Western Civilization, Ben-Jochannan claimed that Aristotle had plagiarized his philosophy from the Library of Alexandria in Ptolemaic Egypt. During the Q&A, Lefkowitz asked Ben-Jochannan how would that have been possible, “when that Library had only been built after his death.”

The subsequent assault on Lefkowitz, documented in her 2008 book History Lessons, was an early example, of today’s “cancel culture,” and taking on the powerful black-identity politics academic lobby with such biting criticism was personally costly for Lefkowitz. Black studies professors and Afrocentric ideologues leveled against her vicious attacks, ranging from being dismissed as an “obscure drudge in the academic backwaters of a Classics department,” by the truly obscure black studies professor Wilson Jeremiah Moses; to the antisemitic smear of Lefkowitz as a “homosexual” and a “hook-nosed, lox-eating . . . so-called Jew,” by Khalid Abdul Muhammad of the Nation of Islam, whose active support of Afrocentrism was welcomed by many black studies professors.

Lefkowitz’s experience in defending history from political propaganda should have alerted both the academy and larger society to what was happening to higher education. But as we see today with the “1619 Project” and the nonsense of “white privilege,” Critical Race Theory, and “systemic racism,” politicized history has entrenched itself in the universities, and escaped from the rotting groves of academe to pollute K-12 curricula with Black Lives Matter and “1619” propaganda. Moreover, such fake history is poisoning our politics with an illiberal “cancel culture” that violates the First Amendment and the long tradition of academic freedom enshrined in the “1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” promulgated by what’s now known as the American Association of Colleges and Universities. Worse yet, federally mandated policies based on ill-written civil rights laws have provided campus ideologues with powerful weapons to intimidate and silence any voice not singing in harmony with the “woke” identity-politics chorus.

What appears to be just another attempt by “woke” activists to bully an industry and indulge its anti-Semitic bigotry against an Israeli actress should not be lightly brushed off as the politically correct hysteria du jour. Nor should we forget the academic scandal from nearly thirty years ago that helped to institutionalize this particular variety of fake history and illiberal assaults on free speech. Today we all can see the consequences of such negligence, as intellectual and professional malfeasance once confined to the university classroom is now fueling violence in our streets and furthering the corruption of our K-12 and university curricula.

The Jesuits used to say, give me the child, and I’ll show you the man. The left has had several generations of our children now for over fifty years, and their men and women are rampaging through our biggest cities, controlling our corporate boards, censoring social media, polluting our culture, demagoguing in our legislatures and courts, and actively working to dismantle the Constitutional order that protects our unalienable rights and political freedom.

It’s time to start seriously reforming our schools.

Like Schools Everywhere, They are Dumbing Down Test Results to Hide Racial Disparities

NAEP’s changes might cause better test results, but they fundamentally alter the meaning of reading comprehension, which would hurt students.

Much like the SAT adding an adversity score and the ACT allowing specific subject retakes, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as the “nation’s report card,” is easing its standards to improve its numbers. As with the SAT and ACT, these changes carry significant implications for the way English is taught in American schools.

This year, the NAEP’s governing board plans to change testing to “optimize the performance of the widest possible population of students in the NAEP Reading Assessment.” To do this, it will first expand the test to include not only reading passages but also applying the reading through creative tasks such as “making a recommendation” or “developing a website.”

Additionally, it will make sure to account “for students’ differential knowledge by providing necessary background knowledge on novel topics and administering short probes to determine test-takers’ knowledge about topics they will read about.” Presumably, this means students will receive an informational video or audio clip on the test that explains a certain topic in each passage.

Finally, the governing board wants to feature “digital forms of text that are dynamic and multimodal and that require navigation as well as comprehension skills.” Thus, in addition to reading texts, students will demonstrate their literacy by clicking on links in a website, opening files, and understanding the basic functions of a web browser.

NAEP Changes Would Destroy Reading Comprehension

While these changes might cause better results, particularly for a generation of students who have grown up in an image-based, computerized environment, they fundamentally change the meaning of reading comprehension. No longer does reading mean translating, imagining, and contextualizing a piece of text. It now means doing other cognitive tasks, such as “navigating,” “developing,” and “recommending” with things that aren’t really text, such as images, videos, and websites.

Furthermore, these additions essentially turn testing into teaching. Mark Bauerlein and David Steiner point this out in their criticism of the NAEP changes. In particular, they believe these efforts remove a key factor in assessing a student’s reading ability: “An effective reading assessment … should reveal the gaps in knowledge among students.” Directly compensating for the differences in background knowledge on the test will prevent the test from revealing the possible deficiencies in English instruction.

Instead of changing the NAEP, Bauerlein and Steiner recommend changing the way reading is taught in class: “Our current mediocre results are a signal that English language arts teachers should focus instruction on the study of content-rich texts.” They argue students in an English class should not only understand and analyze a text, but also learn from it.

They would require teachers to pick texts that broaden their students’ ideas and experiences, which they believe would help students to better connect with any text they might encounter on an assessment. In other words, students need to know more so nothing in a text is so unfamiliar and distant that they cannot even begin to comprehend it.

This is a good suggestion, but on its own, it is incomplete. Asking for an overhaul in the way English is taught by switching from a skill-based model to a content-based model will not happen unless the test changes. Simply, if it isn’t tested, it isn’t taught — and as the San Diego Unified School District demonstrates, if it isn’t taught, it eventually won’t even be graded.

If a test features random texts with random subjects for which teachers cannot really prepare students, there’s little point in trying. It’s much easier and more popular to offer content-light, accessible texts that reinforce student experiences, then blame the standardized tests for being biased and unfair.

Reform the Way We Teach and Test English

Therefore, the tests must also change and start setting a clear goal for English teachers and their students. Instead of end-of-year exams featuring supposedly neutral texts about volcanoes and penguins, they should focus on a set of themes studied that year. As Daniel Willingham points out in his article about how background knowledge plays a role in reading comprehension, “If a child has studied New Zealand, she ought to be good at reading and thinking about passages on New Zealand. Why test her reading with a passage about spiders, or the Titanic?”

Focusing the test on a theme or time-period could better align with traditional or specialized curriculum, which will be a key priority if school choice expands after this year’s election. Students in a classical school could be tested on classic literature, art, traditional math, and history. Students in a STEM academy would be tested on science, technology, engineering, and math. Their background knowledge base wouldn’t hinder their reading comprehension because their curriculum would hone in on this knowledge.

Making tests theme-based would also bring much-needed focus to English curricula, which tend to be a vague mess. As such, these tests would create an equal opportunity for students of different backgrounds and make English more interesting. Besides improving their reading and writing skills, students could learn something identifiable and concrete in their English class.

A move to emphasize content as a means of teaching skills would also transform the role of English teachers. They wouldn’t be the “guide on the side,” helping students condition themselves for the state test. They would instead be a “sage on the stage,” conveying their expertise and directly cultivating their students’ intellectual growth. Instead of helplessly hoping for a set of students who are already good, they would finally have the resources and position to make their students good.

In most schools, reading comprehension is neither taught nor tested properly. Reading well seems mysterious and arbitrary, depending more on students’ background and personal habits than on anything they learn in class. The only way to effectively address the disparity resulting from the NAEP is to dispense with the catch-all reading comprehension tests and curricula. Instead, the NAEP board should pick a theme and assess it, and English teachers should respond by doing the same in their classrooms.

Auguste Mehrat, The Federalist