America and her freedoms are worth defending, but both are rapidly approaching a critical tipping point.  On November 3^rd, Americans go to the polls to vote for our future and, subject to the election’s outcome, we must be ready to aggressively push against those who would trash this great nation should the radical Democrat Party elite take over the White House and Senate and begin to push an anti-constitutional agenda.

President Donald Trump may not be a perfect candidate but his almost four-year policy record is quite impressive.  President Trump appointed more than 190 mostly strict constitutional constructionists to our federal courts; pushed back at communist Chinese tyrants on a host of critical issues; installed pragmatic immigration policies and built more than 200 miles of wall on our southern border that protects American citizens; and gave us a great economy even after considering the COVID-19 shutdown. 

By comparison the Democrat Party’s presidential candidate, former vice president Joe Biden, is a pawn of the left who appears to have failing mental health given his frequent gaffes, quite apart from his refusal to answer critical questions such as to whether he will pack our Supreme Court, creating a superlegislative body that would destroy our constitutional checks and balances.  Further, Biden’s mixed messages on other policy issues are alarming: he is coy about whether he would undermine our prosperous energy policies by ending fracking; wreck the economy by reversing the Trump tax cuts thus burdening the middle class; promote anti-family policies on homosexuality and abortion; open wide our borders to floods of illegals; embrace socialized medicine which would ruin the world’s best health care system; and perhaps most disconcerting, he refuses to condemn the likes of Marxist-inspired Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA, albeit while failing to condemn the left’s calls to defund the police.

For these reasons I consider the coming election the most important of my lifetime – a true moral tipping point for America.  The Democrat Party establishment and their anti-American sponsors like George Soros, an assortment of other leftist billionaires and Hollywood luminaries would flush our form of government and impose a tyranny on our country not that different from the circumstances that ignited our founding revolution.

Our Founders fought the tyranny of the British crown in the 18^th century to win American independence.  Those early patriots outlined their many grievances in our Declaration of Independence which gave justification for resisting the British tyrant who used the heel of his boot — that nation’s military — to keep the American colonists in check.  Fortunately the ranks of English redcoats weren’t enough to contain freedom-seeking patriots, because our forefathers vigorously resisted, at first through appealing peacefully to the crown for justice and then by mounting armed opposition to win our future. https://lockerdome.com/lad/9371484590420070?pubid=ld-8832-1542&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com&rid=www.americanthinker.com&width=692

I’m not in favor of armed rebellion should the Democrats retake the White House and Senate.  However, as in the 18^th century, some things are worth fighting for.  Our Founders embraced the Bill of Rights to our Constitution, which guaranteed citizen liberties such as free speech, religious liberty, and protection from government overreach as well as the right to bear arms.  Today those liberties are under serious assault by the left and I hope there never comes a time when today’s patriots, those who believe in our founding liberties, must choose between surrendering our rights and the demands of a host of modern tyrants.

Today’s leftists must fail, as did the 18^th-century British tyranny because patriots then and now must confront freedom’s tipping point or else today’s left will destroy our heritage of liberty.  Conditions could deteriorate as they did for millions of souls over past centuries who lived under the oppressive thumb of Soviet Russia and others today that live under the harsh rule communist tyrants in Beijing and the iron fist of socialists in Venezuela or Islamic fascists in Iran.

God-fearing Americans today must not be naïve about what is at stake in the coming election.  You don’t have to like President Trump to vote against the Democrats’ radical agenda.  Leftists are fueling the so-called Democratic Party’s campaign to transform America, and the threat is dangerously real, a true existential ultimatum to our form of government, especially our freedoms.

Under the banner of the Marxist-inspired leftist Democrats, Joe Biden and his phalanx of radical donors and elitist progressives intend to transform this country by packing our courts with leftist ideologues, radicalize every defining American institution (family, education, religion, and economy), trample our freedom of faith and speech and make America a godless society ruled by progressive elites who enshrine big government as the nation’s god, shutter our churches, and confiscate our arms.

Such tyranny if it comes to pass must be opposed with all our might.  We need to stand up, much as our founders Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams who disputed British tyranny with words and then with muskets.  Those forefathers knew America was a special place where liberty, free speech, and faith must prosper and godless elitists and tyrants must fail.  Resisting the oppressor was worth all that our Founders willingly surrendered for the hope of freedom.

True patriots today know that anti-American Marxists are the puppet masters behind the Democrat Party establishment that seeks to transform this nation in the name of “progress.” Their agenda is straight out of the pit of hell.  They threaten our security as seen on America’s streets this summer. They intend to forever change our form of government.  They are ideologically against our God, our liberty, and individualism, and believe they know better than those who gave us a government of checks and balances that has for more than 200 years preserved the best form of self-rule the world has ever known.

These miscreants behind the veil of the Democrat Party are evil progressives, power-crazed and self-deluded.  They are the most dangerous types of radicals who promise to redistribute America’s wealth to their liking and will use the strong arm of government to realize their will — a true Marxist strategy.

Americans who love this country must take stock.  We are at another 1776.  We can either naively embrace a Marxist agenda under the progressive guise of social justice or we can resist first through our votes, our peaceful protests, and then, as a last resort, like our Founders exercise our right to protect ourselves from an over reaching federal government.

God save America and grant wisdom to our present-day Patrick Henrys, Thomas Jeffersons and John Adams, where-ever they may be!

Robert Maginnis is a retired U.S. Army officer and the author of seven books, the most recent is Collision Course: The Fight to Reclaim Our Moral Compass Before It Is Too Late.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/10/give_me_liberty_not_marxism.html#ixzz6axXfwzYJ
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Mary Bucholtz is professor and chairperson of the Linguistics Department at the University of California at Santa Barbara. She declared all white Americans, including herself, to be racists. Indeed, she claims America is suffering a pandemic of white supremacy.

Let’s see now, if white Americans are white supremacist racists, why did they let their white country fill up with people of color and reduce the white percentage of the population from close to 100% to 60% and falling?

Would white racists vote in an immigration law that essentially keeps white people out and fills the country up with black people?

Would white supremacists impose affirmative action against white people in order to elevate blacks?

Would white supremacist racists elect a black president?

Apparently, these questions are too profound for the faculty and administration of the University of California.

You can read the IQ-handicapped Mary Bucholtz’s argument here: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/10/09/i-am-white-therefore-racist-declares-liberal-professor-in-latest-proof-us-academics-fueling-racial-tensions/

Paul Craig Roberts

How about all the damage caused by the China virus and Islamic terror?

“As a nation, we can only truly thrive when every one of us has the opportunity to thrive. Our painful history of slavery has evolved into structural racism and bias built into and permeating throughout our democratic and economic institutions.”

That was California Gov. Gavin Newsom in a September 30 signing statement for Assembly Bill 3121 which “establishes a nine-member task force to inform Californians about slavery and explore ways the state might provide reparations.” For all its faults, California was never part of the Confederacy, and Californians might wonder about a stronger case for reparations from damages caused by the China virus.

Evidence points to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, recipient of funds from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, which banned “gain of function” research in 2014 because of danger that a manipulated virus might be released into the population. The NIH revived the dangerous research in 2017 but kept it secret. The Wuhan Institute was an ideal place to hide gain of function, and Anthony Fauci backed the lab with more than $7 million. Dr. Fauci has been evasive about what, exactly, went on at Wuhan but there can be no dispute about the aftermath.

The China virus claimed more than 200,000 deaths in the United States alone and touched three leaders of G7 nations: President Trump, British prime minister Boris Johnson, and Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, whose wife Sophie tested positive for the coronavirus in March. The economic damages are undeniable: millions unemployed, businesses going bankrupt, mounting debt, and all the social wreckage now on display.

President Trump is on record that this was all “China’s fault,” and China is going to pay “a big price” for what they’ve done to the United States and the world. One U.S. state is already taking measures. In April, Missouri attorney general Eric Schmitt filed a lawsuit charging that Chinese Communist officials are “responsible for the enormous death, suffering, and economic losses they inflicted on the world, including Missourians.”  For Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, the Missouri lawsuit was the problem.

“We launch a series of unknown events that could be very, very dangerous,” said Feinstein in a July 30, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.  “I think this is a huge mistake.” And Feinstein had only praise for China, “as a country that has pulled tens of millions of people out of poverty in a short period of time” and as “a country growing into a respectable nation among other nations. And I deeply believe that. I’ve been to China a number of times. I’ve studied the issues.”

Indeed, as Feinstein told James Areddy of the Wall Street Journal during a 2006 visit to Shanghai, the San Francisco Democrat had been coming to the Communist nation for 31 years. Feinstein compared Tiananmen Square to Kent State, and as Rosemarie Ho reported in The Nation, Democrats in general and Feinstein in particular ignored the Communist crackdown against Hong Kong.

As the San Francisco Chronicle noted, the Chinese spy on Feinstein’s staff for 20 years even attended Chinese Consulate functions for the senator, who has her own version of Hunter Biden. As Ben Weingarten reported in the Federalist in 2018, Feinstein’s husband Richard Blum has “profited handsomely from the greatly expanded China trade she supported.”

None of this has touched off an investigation, which confirms that FBI favors for Democrats go far beyond Hillary Clinton. A party that functions as a cheerleader for China will not seek any reparations from China, or any other entity that has inflicted vast damage on the United States.

On September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists claimed nearly 3,000 American lives and caused billions in damages. If that not a case for reparations, it is hard to know what one would look like. Democrats made no case, and the president formerly known as Barry Soetoro shipped billions in cash to Iran, the major sponsor of terrorism in the world.

President Trump pushed back on terrorism, taking out Iranian master terrorist Soleimani and ISIS boss al-Baghdadi. Democrats were critical of these actions, and their diversionary push for slavery reparations has no merit. Neither does Gov. Newsom’s charge of “structural racism,” which as David Azerrad explains, lacks proof on the historical, legislative, and even the subconscious level.

Meanwhile, old-money Democrats are grooming Gov. Newsom for a presidential run in 2024. Should he succeed, the nation would never get reparations for terrorism or the China virus. On the other hand, the entire nation would soon look like California, whose rapid decline reminds Bill Maher of “Italy in the 70s or something.”  As President Trump says, we’ll have to see what happens.

The nation can only thrive, Gov. Newsom contends, “when every one of us has the opportunity to thrive.” As it happens, the most powerful figure in recent California history is the African American Willie Brown. The thriving assembly speaker set up his girlfriend Kamala Harris in lucrative sinecures and backed her career all the way to candidacy for what she has called a “Harris administration.”

Lloyd Billingsley, Front Page Magazine

Comment: Does this mean reparations for all the ancestors of Union soldiers who fought and died to free the slaves ? A/D

Property rights are one of our three basic natural rights–i.e. life, liberty, and property.  They are universal and transcendent. Ours by birthright, not permission.  

Moreover, property rights are inherent, inborn, congenital.  When it comes to property rights, humans are hard-wired for property rights. Witness, what are one of the first words babies express after mama and dada ?  It’s not ours, and it’s not theirs, and it’s not yours. It’s MINE. 

Even animals are hard-wired as such.  Try taking a bone from your family hound.  Big mistake.

Socialists would be well advised not to waste their time trying to change human nature.  It is an exercise in futility.

The Artful Dilettante

Last June Cambridge University college Gonville and Caius announced that it was taking down a window commemorating Sir Ronald Fisher, the creator of modern statistics. shorturl.at/fuJPS

The window allegedly “gave offense” because Fisher also headed up Cambridge University’s eugenics research program, which has, through accusation and Third Reich genetic experiments, come to be associated with racism. The removed window says nothing about eugenics and depicts a mathematical model that Fisher devised. Nevertheless, newspaper headlines, such as The Guardian’s, described the window as commemorating an eugenicist, not the greatest statistics genius of all time. shorturl.at/acdeO

The Guardian was unable to point out that it was a Cambridge University research program, not Fisher’s. The Guardian also failed to wonder how ignorant BLM thugs had ever heard of R.A. Fisher. Have you ever heard of him? Most likely one of Cambridge’s quota hires had decided to have fun with the white university’s cowardice.

The college administration, of course, fell all over itself to erase the memory of its illustrious member in order to please Black Lives Matter. The college administration said it “is now aware of the views and actions of RA Fisher in a way that was not fully appreciated in 1989” (apparently when the window was installed as one of a series celebrating the college’s famous members) and was taking further steps to stamp out racism at the college.

This is the same university where in the same week a quota hire, Priyamvada Gopal, tweeted “Abolish whiteness,” “White lives don’t matter.” Not only did this not give offense, Cambridge University rushed to her defense and promoted her to the rare position of full professor. shorturl.at/nvQ05

Cambridge is generally ranked as the second most prestigious university in the world, after Oxford. The erasure of a famous statistician and scientist while promoting an anti-white racist lecturer of postcolonial literature tells us all we need to know about the utter collapse of white confidence in the leading white universities of the world.

Statues of white people are everywhere disappearing. Initially it was “racist” Confederate war memorials, but “systemic racism” and “critical race theory” define all white people as racists.

Now the University of Wisconsin is removing the Statue of Abraham Lincoln.

The practice of universities and colleges disavowing their most illustrious members in order to pander to the ignorant thugs of Black Lives Matter But White Lives Don’t has spread to the California Institute of Technology, one of America’s top scientific research and educational institutions. One might have thought that a research and educational education focused on science and engineering, and unencumbered with Black Studies, Feminist studies, Queer studies, Transgender studies, postcolonial literature and the other “studies” in which fact plays no part, would be immune to pandering to anti-white racism. But, sadly, this is not the case. Caltech is about to remove the name of its venerated former president Robert A. Millikan from buildings and programs. You guessed it, Millikan’s offense is that he also dabbled in the “racist” eugenics movement of a century ago. shorturl.at/ptBH0

How did eugenics become “racist”? It certainly wasn’t thought of as racist at the time. It was a liberal movement incorporating the liberal confidence of an ever-improving humanity. Eugenics aimed at reducing human suffering by breeding out disease, disabilities and other undesirable characteristics from the human population and increasing the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable.

To put the “racist” brand on eugenics is itself racist, because it implies that the person calling eugenics “racist” believes that blacks have no desirable characteristics that would improve the human race. How could anyone deny black contributions to popular music and athletics, for example. Black athletes dominate basketball, and the current world champion racing driver is Lewis Hamilton who yesterday (October 11, 2020) in the German Grand Prix tied Michael Schumacher’s record for the most Formula One race wins. In a society such as ours that judges worth by money Hamilton’s annual salary of $54 million puts him in the top ranks of successful people. (Hamilton is half white, half black, but finds it advantageous to identify as black. Obviously, Hamilton does not believe in “white privilege.”)

Just as the British and Americans experimented with eugenics, so did the Germans during the Third Reich, and this is where eugenics’ bad name comes from. Anything associated in any way with National Socialist Germany is beyond the pale, and, of course, the Third Reich has come to represent—along with the Confederate States of America, America’s Founding Fathers, the US Constitution, and European colonialism—racism.

The odd thing about eugenics is that it is the old form that is discredited as “racist,” not the new form which has the same goal. In the original eugenics, selective breeding was the only way to engineer the genetic composition of an individual. Watson and Crick’s discovery of the DNA Double Helix opened up human genetic engineering via direct intervention in genes themselves. Instead of selectively mating people with desirable traits, modern eugenics achieves the result by altering genes. By avoiding procreation, the “racist” aspect somehow disappears.

What it boils down to is that the original eugenics is deemed racist because it lacked the technology of a later discovery. But the goals of both are the same: to reduce human suffering by replacing undesirable characteristics with desirable ones.

One would think that there would be sufficient intelligence at Cambridge University and Caltech to comprehend that if the old eugenics is racist so is the new, and if the new eugenics is not racist, neither is the old. But apparently not.

Do Cambridge and Caltech and Black Lives Matter—the latter being the group that seems to have the most voice on the issue—really want to eliminate the ability of genetic engineering to repair faulty genes associated with illnesses and disabilities? Do Cambridge and Caltech understand that if Fisher and Millikan are racists, so are Watson and Crick as their discovery made eugenics more powerful?

That such simple and obvious questions have not occurred to the high IQs at Cambridge and Caltech illustrates that the ability of white people to think has been shattered by the long assault on white confidence that has culminated in the inability of white people to respect and defend their culture’s accomplishments, or in the case of Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, New York, and elsewhere, an inability to defend their own businesses from looting and burning.

We are witnessing the surrender of Western Civilization to barbarians.

This week, Democrats struggled to explain why Judge Amy Coney Barrett should not be confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court. They trotted out hackneyed arguments, suggesting that some political norm had been broken by a Republican president nominating a judge to be confirmed as a justice by a Republican Senate in an election year. There have been 19 times where a seat became vacant in an election year and both the presidency and Senate were controlled by the same party, resulting in 17 judicial confirmations. They suggested that Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish to leave her seat open until a Democrat takes power represented a sort of binding legal commitment.

And they fumed.

They fumed that Barrett refuses to pledge fealty to their political priorities. They fumed that Barrett has stated that the role of the judiciary is not to achieve moral ends but to enforce the law. They fumed that Barrett had the temerity to state that “courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life,” that “the policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches” and that she has done her utmost to “reach the result required by the law,” whatever her preferences might be.

That’s because, in the view of the political left, the court ought to be merely another weapon in its political arsenal. Conservatives see the judiciary as Alexander Hamilton characterized it in “Federalist No. 78”: as the “least dangerous” branch, capable of “neither force nor will, but merely judgment,” an institution whose legitimacy rests on its unwillingness to “exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT.” Liberals see the court as a super-legislature, designed to act as moral arbiters on behalf of progressive values. That’s why former President Barack Obama stated that judges ought to be selected for the quality of “empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

Critical legal theorists have suggested that conservatives are fibbing — that their view of the judiciary as relegated to judgment alone is merely cover for the reinforcement of their political priorities. But the data suggest otherwise. During the 2019 Supreme Court term, for example, out of some 67 decisions, the four justices appointed by Democrats voted together 51 times; Republican appointees only voted together 37 times. As Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute has pointed out, “it’s the (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg Four that represent a bloc geared toward progressive policy outcomes.” Republican appointees, in other words, are politically heterodox significantly more often than Democratic appointees. That’s because, on a fundamental level, they take their job — and the constitutional separation of powers — seriously.

Democrats do not. That’s why they see as the glories of the Supreme Court those moments in which the Supreme Court seized power on behalf of progressive ideals. Roe v. Wade has become holy writ on the political left, specifically because it robbed the American people of their right to vote on the issue of abortion. Democrats see nothing but glory in Supreme Court justices seizing authority to protect abortion on behalf of defining “one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992). They see nothing but wonder in Supreme Court justices declaring that the judiciary has been delegated enforcement of “a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). They see nothing but cause for celebration in the Supreme Court cramming down on the American people their own sense of our “evolving standards of decency” (Trop v. Dulles, 1958) or the importance of never-before-defined “emanations” and “penumbras” (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965). They want the court to act as an oligarchy.

And they are angry that Barrett’s nomination has moved the court away from that progressive, oligarchic rule. That’s why they’re threatening to pack the court — because they wish to restore that oligarchy to power. And that’s just another reason why, for all the talk about Donald Trump’s threats to core American institutions, he can’t hold a candle to even mainstream Democratic willingness to trash checks and balances on behalf of power.

Ben Shapiro

The Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett provide a fitting warmup act to the presidential election that will follow in a few weeks.

The rancor pouring forth from this confirmation flows from the very deep divide in the nation — conservative versus liberal — that will decide who will be our next president and what kind of nation we will pass on to our children and grandchildren.

Against this background, my organization, Center for Urban Renewal and Education, or UrbanCURE, hosts its annual policy summit in Washington, D.C., where pastors come from all over America and convene to examine public policy and principles that will bring health and wealth to our nation’s most distressed communities.

Our guest speakers include Dr. Jerome Adams, surgeon general of the United States, and Jack Brewer, a former NFL defensive safety who is now a businessman, college professor and vocal conservative Christian.

We will also announce the launch of a new State of Black America project, a partnership between UrbanCURE and prominent conservative policy institute the Claremont Institute.

This will be a new and innovative venture where, for the first time, black American life will be systematically examined and recommendations will be made for how to end the cycle of poverty through the application of conservative principles.

The late Harry V. Jaffa, the great Claremont Institute scholar, noted that the Constitution’s purpose is stated in its preamble — to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

“What is a blessing?” asks Jaffa. It is “what is good in the eyes of God.”

Jaffa also reminds us that, in the closing paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, the signers appealed to “the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions.”

It should be clear that the moral chaos, the rote meaninglessness, that defines what those on the left today conceive to be freedom, has little to do with the vision of freedom of the Christian men and women who founded and built the nation.

It is an unfortunate fluke of history that in the 1960s, the time when the civil rights movement crystalized and black Americans achieved equal treatment politically — what should have long before been achieved morally — was a time of moral unraveling of the country.

Religion and moral principles were increasingly seen as a barrier to freedom, rather than its source.

Prayer was banished from school, abortion on demand legalized.

But the choice of man is not whether to believe. The only choice is what to believe.

As religion was pushed out of the public square, the new religion became government. Government programs were increasingly seen to be the path to salvation, rather than personal commitment to eternal truths.

In 1960, about 25% of the federal budget was payments to individuals. Today, it is 70%.

The popularization of culture that says your life is somebody else’s responsibility deeply hurt the communities that were the weakest in the 1960s: our black communities.

Politicization of our culture is striking a fatal blow, with government debt exceeding the size of our entire economy. Degradation of the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage has torn apart our communities — particularly our at-risk communities.

This is the discussion we will be having with our pastors convening in Washington.

The poor are not poor because the rich are rich.

Those who have achieved much in America should be viewed as examples of what can be achieved in a great, free nation.

Government’s job is to protect our lives and our property.

It is the job of every citizen — of every race and ethnicity — to live properly and responsibly so that each of us can achieve the potential given us by our Creator.

Star Parker, townhall.com

The riots of 2020 are the battlefront of a movement hatched from an alternative history built upon an abstruse foundation of systemic racism and white privilege.  In early summer, they created an apocalyptic spectacle of 23 American cities in flames, burned-out cars, shattered storefronts, unchecked looting, and occupied neighborhoods.  Then events then took a curious turn.

According to the Bridging the Divide Initiative, a Princeton think tank that conducts U.S. protest modeling with a wink and nod to the left, there was a free fall in the number of BLM-associated demonstrations and uprisings from a late-May peak to an October low.  Who or what was responsible for this plunge?

In a recent televised and racially-divisive speech, First Lady emerita Michelle Obama echoed the familiar line that 93 percent of BLM demonstrations were peaceful.  That’s true.  Almost eight thousand demonstrations nationwide between late May and early October have supported the BLM meme.  According to the Armed Conflict Location and Data Event Project (ACLED), a minority were major city demonstrations that culminated in street brawls.  By contrast, the overwhelming  majority were hometown gatherings and parades down main streets by teenage bubblegummers yelling buzzwords and waving homemade placards alongside their empathetic soccer moms.

The former first lady artfully omitted that the remaining 7 percent represented almost 600 violent BLM protests between late May and mid-September.  The better part of those were inner-city, post-George Floyd donnybrooks bunched together from late May to mid-June.  Antifa infested these demonstrations, their familiar black bloc regalia a telltale sign to police that a particular march would devolve into nighttime street brawling.

By late summer, Americans had suffered a bellyful.  Opinion turned dramatically against BLM, particularly among sought-after white independent voters.  Support dropped from 24 to 3 percent in just two months.

CNN anchorman Don Lemon, who has often made light of the mob violence for CNN’s two million primetime viewers, suddenly called for an end to hostilities.  He fretted not over the loss of life, attacks on police officers, or the destruction of small businesses.  Instead, he lamented that it wasn’t polling well for the Biden campaign.

Lemon’s apostasy and reproach was a warning shot to upper-crust Democrats that their reluctance to censure street anarchism was becoming a clear reflection of their support for the violence.  Political and media apologists for BLM and Antifa began to realize that giving comfort to revolutionists was eroding their voter base.  There was no sleight of speech that could whitewash a billion dollars in property destruction, the deaths of more than 30 people, and injuries to 400 police officers.

After an early summer windfall, corporate and individual donations are wilting.  In a panic, BLM has quietly scrubbed their website of Marxist diatribes and distanced themselves from their affiliation to the cop-killing domestic terrorist, Susan Lisa Rosenberg.  Rosenberg first raised hackles in May when she landed on the governing board of BLM’s first financial sponsor, Thousand Currents.  In early July, BLM began to move its donations platform to the unobtrusive Tides Center, burrowing ever deeper into George Soros’ progressive fundraising PACS.

The Trump administration has also been playing a strong hand in putting down the more serious outbreaks.  Offering no quarter by group or ideology, Attorney General William Barr has stood up a task force to target criminal conspiracies and major players behind the disturbances.  No matter what political creed, those arrested for vandalism, arson, looting, or felonious assaults will be fast-tracked for orange jumpsuits.  Sanctions have proven equally effective, as an early spate of statue toppling abruptly ended after the president tacked a ten-year prison term to the offense.

Twenty-something street insurgents may also be suffering from organic fatigue.  The mob is filled with newly minted college grads, turned out of higher education with deep-seated grievances embedded by militant professors revered for their anti-capitalist classroom rants.  The Class of 2020 matriculated into a summer job market destroyed by the pandemic, wiping out even the lowest-paying service occupations.  The most virulent took to the streets.  A few of the horde earned a few dollars as part of Antifa’s mobile phalanx, moving from city to city, gaslighting sympathizers to action and inspiring the local disadvantaged to loot.  Months later, their charge to throw hard objects, break windows, burn trashcans, scream bloody murder, and antagonize cops for days on end in hot protective gear has been both exhausting and increasingly toxic to future career prospects.

If current trends hold, BLM and Antifa will be but a fraction of the hundreds of protests anticipated by year’s end, with most focusing upon state COVID lockdowns, pro-police marches, 2^nd Amendment rallies, a U.S. Supreme Court nomination, and the presidential election outcome.  Their bottle-tossing and incendiary antics may have calmed for the present, but the well-stocked and financed city chapters of BLM, along with their Antifa cohort, will act impulsively when triggered by cop-on-black shootings and adverse judicial outcomes to those events.

Plummeting support, lethargy, and the fear of job-killing arrests and prison may be thinning the BLM ranks of its majority white Democrats.  This is no time for cops to rest on their haunches, however.  If we turn a page in the dog-eared, 60s-era guidebooks on revolutionizing America, we now find ourselves at a flash point.

A half century ago, the granddads and moms of today’s firebrands, frustrated with the failings and risks of street protests, abandoned the Students for a Democratic Society and joined the Weathermen.  Black Panthers ditched their leather coats and berets and became the Black Liberation Army.  An obscure New England-based prison reform movement went underground to form the United Freedom Front.

What followed in the 70s and early 80s put the FBI back on their heels.  It took a decade of rage, thousands of bombings, and 35 dead cops to put it all down with a series of botched federal prosecutions that brought few to justice.  If the past is prologue, the recent arrests in the Wisconsin plot to kidnap the governor offer a first whiff of that transfiguration, with likely more to come from protest groups of all ideological stripes.

Rick Fuentes is a working-class conservative with a Ph.D. who survived four decades in law enforcement.

Image: Stephen Hogan

Help Support American Thinker

In today’s climate of political correctness and economic uncertainty, ad revenue only goes so far to keep an independent voice like AmericanThinker.com going. If you enjoy our articles, please consider supporting us with a direct contribution of as much or as little as you can give. Your donation will ensure that we continue to bring great pieces from our outstanding columnists.

David Crosby in Hot Water Over Eddie Van Halen Tweet

Jill Biden’s Drastic Transformation Is Really Causing a Stir

Gretchen Carlson Says Fox News Host’s Firing Is a ‘Victory’

Officials Reveal the Source of the Debate’s Coronavirus Spread

This is What Melania Trump Eats in a Day

Ex-White House Physician Makes Bold Claim About Biden’s Healthsponsored contentnullabout:blank

Advertisement

FOLLOW US ON

Recent Articles

• What Happened to the Riots?
• Media vs. the People: The War over Pedophilia
• Biden’s Self-serving Lies
• Ten Lessons from a Tumultuous 2020
• The Revolution the US is Experiencing – and What if it Succeeds
• The Diversity Guidebook: How to Politicize Everything
• The Road to Majority: The Faith and Freedom Convention 2020
• Why Some People Take Q-Anon’s Pedophilia Allegations Seriously
• The Week Washington Went Third World
• Hey Wokies! What Doesn’t Kill Me Makes Me Stronger!

Blog Posts

• Nancy Pelosi goes into meltdown on live TV
• Suspicious Dem questions for Amy Coney Barrett suggest a set-up
• 2020’s battleground states are not the ones you think
• It’s ‘pigs flying’ time for CNN viewers and New York Times readers
• NASCAR has become a microcosm of the Democratic Party.
• What is at stake in this election? Freedom, liberty, justice, law and order
• Don’t be fooled: Biden did not say he won’t pack the Court
• The Trump campaign puts out a hard-hitting Second Amendment ad
• Theater of the absurd: China, Russia, Cuba elected to UN’s Human Rights Council
• Vote Trump or go back to the Democrat Matrix
• Liberals back-dooring presidential elections by popular vote is sedition
• Biden’s Titanic ending
• The corruption of language continues
• RIP, Terry Goodkind, who taught great subjects through fantasy
• Obamacare’s costs soar so high, Americans now delaying medical treatment —study

Monthly Archives

• October 2020
• September 2020
• August 2020
• July 2020
• June 2020
• May 2020
• April 2020
• March 2020
• February 2020
• January 2020
• December 2019
• November 2019
• October 2019
• More…

nullnullsponsored contentFROM THE WEBby ZergNet

The Real Reason Why Carrie Ann Inaba Is Wearing Wigs On ‘DWTS’

Why Joe Biden Is Losing Ground in Key Swing States

Valerie Bertinelli’s Emotional Tribute to Eddie Van Halen

What You Should Know About ‘The Boys’ Season 3

Trump Gets Roasted for ‘Dancing’ to This

This Fox News Editor Made a Bold Statement About Donald TrumpAbout Us | Contact | Privacy Policy | RSS Syndication © American Thinker 2020

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/10/what_happened_to_the_riots.html#ixzz6ar9c5gS5
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Democrats call Republicans appointing judges to the courts “packing the court”. When they do the same thing, they don’t call it that. It seems that ACTUALLY packing the court — which means arbitrarily altering the Constitution in order to ensure a permanent majority for your own party — is acceptable, when Democrats do it. (And they won’t even tell you they’re going to do it.) But when Republicans merely do what’s permitted and required of them by the Constitution, when they happen to control both the White House and the Senate, it’s suddenly illegitimate.

These are bad, dishonest and really STUPID people, these Democrats. It comes from only talking to each other. They live in intellectual and psychological echo chambers. They think they’re really sophisticated and bright. They’re really idiots.

Nobody can whine like a leftist. However, it’s not leftist judges who wobble. Look at the Supreme Court. Democrat-appointed judges stick to the party line — now the Communist Party line — without blinking or yielding. Ever. It’s Republicans who sometimes sway — most notably Chief Justice John Roberts, who infamously swayed by upholding Obamacare in a bizarre, self-contradictory decision nobody on either side ever understood.

Democrats don’t care about justice, separation of powers, individual rights, or anything else. They only care about what all Communists care for: Unlimited, unending power.

Michael J. Hurd

Slavery is in the news and on our minds. Any historical figure who participated in the slave economy must be roundly excoriated, condemned, and consigned to oblivion. If such a person happens to be commemorated with a public statue, beware. It must come down—violently and with extreme prejudice. Such figures will not be tolerated—even if they are the Father of the Country or the author of The Declaration of Independence.

But in their condemnation of slavery, the most vociferous social justice warriors ironically, perhaps, champion the same categories they so vigorously condemn. They are, in short, unwilling or unable to extricate themselves from the mentality of slavery. In the process, they perpetuate the psychological structures they claim to abhor. The ongoing pathology of slavery can be seen in two significant ways.

First, the slave economy severed the connection between work and reward. The slave did the work, and the slave-owner reaped the benefits. The injustice is obvious. Significantly, even when slavery was being practiced in America, many observers noted that the institution was harmful to slaves and slave-owners alike. Obviously, slavery degraded and humiliated those in bondage. It broke up families and inflicted untold physical and mental pain. However, in a more subtle way, it degraded the slave-owner as well. It promoted sloth and a false sense of superiority. Such a system could not be anything other than corrupt and corrupting.

But here’s the curious thing: today, radical progressives insist that they be provided an array of free goods and services. They demand free college education, free healthcare, and a guaranteed income even for those who do no work. And now, like the slave-owners of the past, they are showing themselves willing to employ violence and fear to obtain the goods, services, and concessions they demand. One Black Lives Matter activist even described the August looting in Chicago as “reparations.” This represents a remarkable affirmation of the contours of the slave economy: work and reward are severed, one group benefits from the labor of another and uses force to extract the benefits they claim are rightfully theirs. As in times past, this economic structure is morally corrupting of all who participate, especially those who reap economic benefits from the labor of others. For with the economic benefits, they also reap moral injuries: sloth, a sense of entitlement, and a lost opportunity to experience the satisfaction of reward coming as the result of good work.

The notion of group guilt and innocence must be emphatically rejected. Instead, we must affirm the value, dignity, and responsibility of each individual.

The second feature of slave psychology that the progressives refuse to jettison is this: slavery was built around the basic assumption that some groups of people are superior to others. Today, those who embrace identity politics engage in the same patterns of thought. As in the slave economy, superiority and inferiority—today manifested in terms of guilt and innocence—are ascribed to racial groups, but in this new version, the roles are reversed: the descendants of slave-owners—and all whites in general—have ostensibly inherited the inferiority born of guilt, and the descendants of slaves—and all blacks in general—have inherited the superiority of innocence. Individual responsibility is eclipsed by group identity, and because guilt or innocence is inherited, it is for all practical purposes ineradicable—it’s in the DNA. Do public acts of contrition—some of which include kneeling, confession, and begging for forgiveness—assuage the grievances of the descendants of former slaves? Will true forgiveness and reconciliation ever result? At what point will BLM declare that whites have paid an adequate price and that accounts are now balanced? The answer is obvious: never, for to move beyond identity politics would be to abandon the psychology of slavery, and that must not be allowed to happen because it would deprive BLM of its power. BLM survives only by perpetuating the mental and social structures they claim to oppose.

The logic of reparations combines both of the pathological features of the slavery mindset. Those who have done no work will be enriched by those who are compelled to bear the guilt of their ancestors. No good can come of perpetuating the very categories that have caused so much damage.

There are two obvious steps to overcoming this pathology. First, we must make every effort to affirm the connection between work and reward. Rather than succumbing to the social justice mob with its limitless demands of free goods and services paid for by the labor of others, political leaders must focus their attention on the poor and marginalized—the people Christ called “the least of these”—by providing opportunities for meaningful work and the ownership of productive property. When economic reward follows hard work, the social and moral benefits are incalculable. Any economic structures or public policies that obstruct the possibility of ownership or undermine the connection between work and reward must be eliminated. Every effort must be made to ensure that ownership is a viable, desirable, and attainable reality. In short, black property matters.

Second, the notion of group guilt and innocence must be emphatically rejected. Instead, we must affirm the value, dignity, and responsibility of each individual. Guilt and innocence must be clearly and inextricably tied to individual action. Identity politics is the grotesque sibling of slave psychology. Both are morally objectionable for identical reasons. Only when progressives emphatically reject the mental structures of slavery can a truly just system be created.

Mark T. Mitchell, Dean of Academic Affairs, Patrick Henry University