Category Archives: Politics

The Sickness Represented by Leftist Mask Obedience

Posted on by
1

Leftists LOVE wearing masks. They insist they’re doing it for others–not for themselves. But that’s absurd. If masks really help, they’re available to all who wish to protect themselves. All leftists become hostile (even violent) when they see someone not wearing a mask. “I’m protecting you. So you should protect me back.” But the very idea of a mask is SELF-preservation. The leftist is not smart enough to grasp this obvious fact. And the leftist isn’t honest enough to admit that his real motive for mask-wearing is SHOWING OFF. “Look at me. I have virtue.” Leftists wish to be seen as self-sacrificers, because they think self-sacrifice is the epitome of virtue. It’s all so SICK.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Rules for Revolutionaries in the 21st Century

Posted on by
Reply

Since George Floyd’s death, events seem to be spiraling out of control. For weeks, Americans were bombarded, almost on a daily basis, with reports of large protests in major cities, accompanied by rioting, looting, burning, assaults, and even murders.

Observing these events unfold, average U.S. citizens, watching TV from the purported safety of their home, might be bewildered by these transformative events, the purpose of which is nothing less than a “re-imagining” of America. To better understand exactly what is happening, let’s take a cue from my 21st Century Revolutionary Handbook. There are ten rules to explain what the radical left is planning.

#1: Inertia is fatal to a revolutionary movement.

The overtures of the late 60s movement are eerily similar to what is happening today. The problem for leftists was that, back then, the revolution centered around the anti-Vietnam War Movement. Once peace came, the revolution’s impetus died out. The 2008 Occupy Wall St Movement had the zeal, but cold winter months in New York were not conducive to this type of protest.

The lesson: choose your cause carefully. Today’s cause célèbre is “systemic racism” and its offshoots. Racism can be recycled perpetually. Recently, for example, the Mayor of Louisville, Kentucky, declared racism to be a public health crisis.

#2: Do not identify your ideology by name, nor state exactly what you will do after you are in power. Speak only in vague generalities and use simple two- or three-word phrases the public can identify with.

Terms such as “Socialist,” “Communist” or “Marxist” generally have a negative connotation and, while millennials like them, the population at large does not. Do not look to antagonize ordinary Americans more than is necessary. The revolution will need its army of “useful idiots” for the future.

Instead, use terms such as “progressive” or “social justice warrior” to describe yourself. These are far less threatening to the average American. Fidel Castro initially identified himself as a “humanist.” Only after he felt secure in his new position did he announce to the world: “I am a Marxist Leninist.”

#3: The revolution must get control over mass media and the education system.

Truth is defined by whatever the revolution says it is, and anyone who dares speak out is immediately silenced. Only information advancing the revolutionary cause may be heard and taught. Once the revolution gains control over mass media, it controls all the information that is disseminated, and once the revolution gains control over the education system, it controls the future.

#4: All the apparatus of the state: the ministries, civil service, justice system, military, and law enforcement must be brought under control.

This rule is simple. Whatever the revolution cannot control could eventually be used against it. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all dealt with the problem of possible anti-revolutionary activists through purges aimed at crushing all potential opposition, which extended even to family members. Stalin allegedly remarked that it was fine if innocents were punished along with the guilty, because “that sends an even stronger message.”

#5: All vestiges of the old must be destroyed in order to build the new. This includes all history, traditions, culture, and iconography that cannot be made to conform to the new ideals.

“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, 1984

In the late 1950s, Mao unleashed the cultural revolution on China. It repudiated what Mao called the “four olds”: old ideas, customs, habits, and culture. Estimates vary as to the number of people killed but it was most certainly in the millions. Coming as it did after the disastrous policies of the “Great Leap Forward,” China was left an economic and cultural wasteland.

#6: Conventional ideas about religion and family are anathema to a revolutionary movement.

Absolute loyalty to the revolution must come first; this extends to one’s family. Children are encouraged to inform on their parents if they hear anything that can be interpreted as “counter-revolutionary. Organized religion must also go. The revolution cannot have loyalty to God supersede loyalty to the state.

#7: The revolution can only succeed in times of extreme economic, political, and social unrest.

This is an important point. A generally content, gainfully employed, and prosperous populace is not likely to support a revolutionary movement aimed at overthrowing the government, party, or individual that has provided these benefits. For the revolution to be successful, the population must be brought low and kept in a state of abject misery. Years ago, former White House Chief of Staff and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel stated: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Activist/actress Jane Fonda brought this up when she noted: “COVID is God’s gift to the left.”

#8: Ultimate victory in the revolution will go to that segment of the revolutionary body that is the best organized, best financed, and most ideologically dedicated.

A revolutionary movement can be composed of many divergent groups, each of which has a peeve with the central government. In our country we have, among others, minorities, LGBTQ, and feminists all rubbing shoulders with liberals, socialists, anarchists, globalists, Islamists, and hardcore Marxist revolutionaries. The last group is the best organized and funded. They are completely devoted to the “righteousness” of their ideology and even have their own para-military group – Antifa. Their goal is the complete destruction of the American political and economic system.

#9: You don’t need a majority to force your will on an entire population.

Most people assume that any revolution must have popular support to succeed. This may have been true in some cases, but not all. The Bolsheviks swept into power in Russia in Nov 1917 with a simple slogan: “Peace, Land, Bread.” Although one cannot be certain of the precise number of hardcore committed Communists among the masses of disaffected citizenry, it would have been comparatively small. The Nazis, for their part, never got more than 38% of the popular vote.

#10: After victory, the revolution will turn in directions not initially anticipated.

In addition to exacting revenge on their opponents, revolutions usually turn on many of the very people who were their most ardent supporters. One only must look at Hitler’s “Night of the Long Knives,” Stalin’s “Gulag Archipeligo, and Mao’s “Cultural Revolution, for examples.

Some of the above rules already apply to America; others will soon. There is no doubt that as a society we have made enormous strides in the last half-century, yet we are still struggling to come to grips with our past.

Sixty years ago, electing an African-American with the unlikely name of Barack Hussein Obama to the highest office of the land would have been impossible. The same is true about the minorities and women now seated in the House, Senate, and even Vice President-elect’s position.

Do we now throw all that away and adopt the failed economic and political system of our former Cold War adversaries? I hope not.

There is no perfect economic or political system, but there are systems that generally work better for more people than others. As imperfect as it is, capitalism works better than communism. Capitalist systems encourage innovation, individualism, personal responsibility, and independence.

Marxist systems mandate conformity of ideas, thought, belief, and speech. As always, they admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-charges, and in the final analysis, double down on their ideology. Whatever our many problems, allowing the left to implement the Rules for Revolutionaries, overthrowing our entire system, is not the answer.

As for the revolution itself, George Bernard Shaw stated it best when he wrote: ”Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny; they have only shifted it to another shoulder.”

Caren Besner is a retired teacher who has written articles published by American Thinker, Sun-Sentinel, Dr Swier, News With Views, The Front Page, The Published Reporter, Washington Examiner, The Algemeiner, Jewish Journal, Independent Sentinel, Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva, San Diego Jewish World, The Times of Israel, The Moderate Voice, IsraPost, The Jewish Voice, Joo Tube, The Florida Veteran, and others.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/01/twentyfirst_century_rules_for_revolutionaries.html#ixzz6jAJQs3qp
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/01/twentyfirst_century_rules_for_revolutionaries.html#ixzz6jAJ9W4n6
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Statement From Parler

Posted on by
Reply

Sunday (tomorrow) at midnight Amazon will be shutting off all of our servers in an attempt to completely remove free speech off the internet. There is the possibility Parler will be unavailable on the internet for up to a week as we rebuild from scratch. We prepared for events like this by never relying on amazons proprietary infrastructure and building bare metal products.

We will try our best to move to a new provider right now as we have many competing for our business, however Amazon, Google and Apple purposefully did this as a coordinated effort knowing our options would be limited and knowing this would inflict the most damage right as President Trump was banned from the tech companies.

This was a coordinated attack by the tech giants to kill competition in the market place. We were too successful too fast. You can expect the war on competition and free speech to continue, but don’t count us out.

The Wisdom of Ayn Rand on Moral Cowardice

Posted on by
Reply

Moral cowardice is fear of upholding the good because it is good, and fear of opposing the evil because it is evil.

Moral cowardice is the necessary consequence of discarding morality as inconsequential. It is the common symptom of all intellectual appeasers. The image of the brute is the symbol of an appeaser’s belief in the supremacy of evil, which means—not in conscious terms, but in terms of his quaking, cringing, blinding panic—that when his mind judges a thing to be evil, his emotions proclaim its power, and the more evil, the more powerful.

Twitter is the Enemy of the American People

Posted on by
Reply

On Oct. 18, 2020, Twitter banned the account of Dr. Scott Atlas for defending President Donald Trump’s position on mask mandates. In his tweet, he cited scientific studies, and the tweet contained absolutely no false information.

Also in October, Twitter banned the account of The New York Post for accurately reporting on a story about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Today we know these were just the first salvos in this evil company’s assault on American liberty.

For all its talk about safety, community, and the health of discourse, we see today that Twitter acts in favor of one interest and one interest alone: its own, even when it means destabilizing the American people. On Friday, the company permanently banned Trump from its platform and began a purge of conservative voices.

They claim this is needed to protect America from a coup. That is a farcical lie. They did it because their political enemies such as Trump and Sen. Josh Hawley are now out of power, and they mean to keep it way.

As a private company, Twitter is free to do as it pleases. And I am free to call them what they are: a shill for communist China that seeks the destruction of America.

Do you doubt that? Then explain why Iran can call for Jews to be killed on Twitter’s platform and China can spread propaganda about how rounding up Uyghur men and forced sterilization of Uyghur women is actually good, but Donald Trump can’t tweet. It is evil. And anyone defending Jack Dorsey’s death machine is complicit.

We live in two Americas right now. In Republican-led Florida and Texas, economies are open, people go to restaurants and movies, small businesses can prosper. In Democrat-led New York and California, lockdowns are crushing the people. They are not allowed to gather in person, only on big tech platforms. Guess which outcome Twitter prefers?

Now compare the effects of COVID on these two Americas. There is no rational way to argue that the lockdowns led to better results.

I want to put this as clearly as possible. Twitter attempted and largely succeeded in silencing dissent to policies that were against its own interests. They don’t care about the suicides, overdoses, missed cancer screenings, or poverty caused by these actions, they only care about money and power. Blood is dripping from Jack Dorsey’s hands across the globe and here at home as he counts his billions.

Feckless Democrats and faux conservatives applaud or look the other way at Twitter’s actions because it serves their purposes; the poor, blind fools have no idea that they will be next. This has nothing to do with the Constitution, or laws, this has to do with Dorsey being a liar who orchestrates mass disinformation campaigns on the American people. Twitter’s safety guidelines have nothing to do with safety, they have to do with profit.

I am not writing here about Section 230, or legislative approaches to rein in Big Tech. That can come later. I am writing to make it clear that Twitter has played a central role in destroying Americans’ lives through lockdowns, lying to them about Hunter Biden to win an election, and enabling the world’s most brutal regime to practice genocide in peace.

Twitter doesn’t want to serve you; it wants to rule you. And it is well on its way.

Now Big Tech is seeking to deplatform Twitter’s competitor, Parler. Politicians and journalists are cheering for censorship and suggesting that cable operators should ban conservative news outlets. You see, these people know what is good for you and what isn’t. They just want to protect you from dangerous information. To them, you are a child and they are your parents, the only difference being that you pay them an allowance.

Now we Americans have no choice. Now we must convene our secret meetings in person, far from the peering eyes of Big Tech and its Chinese overlords, for whom it will do anything.

Consider the fact that in many places in America meetings are literally illegal right now. Everything changed on Friday. The cards all stare up at us from the table now. Twitter’s goal is to create for our children an America our parents would not recognize.

Twitter is the enemy of freedom, the enemy of liberty, and the enemy of the American people. It must be treated as such.

David Marcus, The Federalist

The Truth About January 6th, and Where We Go from Here

Posted on by
Reply

According to a left-wing propaganda narrative that you can read in the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and similar outlets, the violence in Congress that occurred in the afternoon of January 6 was the culmination of a long series of outrages by President Donald Trump. When he lost the November election to Joe Biden, he could not accept his loss. He kept making baseless claims that he had won the election and accused Biden supporters of using fake ballots and rigged voting machines to inflate the totals for Biden. He kept filing lawsuits to get parts of the verdict overturned, but the courts rejected all his claims. He thought he still had a chance on January 6, when the electoral votes are counted in Congress. He wanted Vice President Mike Pence to violate the Constitution. Although Pence has the purely ceremonial role of presiding over the joint session, he wanted Pence to toss out slates of electors who opposed him, or at least send them back to the states for recertification. Pence refused to violate the Constitution. When Trump found out about it, he was so angry that he incited part of a rally supporting him to storm Congress and shut down the session. Because of him, several people were killed. He is a sore loser who should be removed from office immediately and sent to prison for sedition as well.

Every word of this narrative is false. Let’s take one item out of chronological order, because it has gotten so much attention. It’s alleged that Trump became enraged at Pence because Pence wouldn’t violate the Constitution. In fact, there is a good case that what Trump was asking Pence to do was perfectly legitimate. As John Yoo and Robert Delahunty pointed out in an article in the American on October 19,

We suggest that the Vice President’s role is not the merely ministerial one of opening the ballots and then handing them over (to whom?) to be counted. Though the 12th Amendment describes the counting in the passive voice, the language seems to envisage a single, continuous process in which the Vice President both opens and counts the votes.

The check on error or fraud in the count is that the Vice President’s activities are to be done publicly, “in the presence” of Congress. And if “counting” the electors’ votes is the Vice President’s responsibility, then the inextricably intertwined responsibility for judging the validity of those votes must also be his.

If that reading is correct, then the Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional. Congress cannot use legislation to dictate how any individual branch of government is to perform its unique duties: Congress could not prescribe how future Senates should conduct an impeachment trial, for example. Similarly, we think the better reading is that Vice President Pence would decide between competing slates of electors chosen by state legislators and governors, or decide whether to count votes that remain in litigation.

Yoo is a controversial person, but there’s no doubt he is a constitutional law scholar in good standing.

Well, you might say, what right did Trump have to blow up on Pence just because Pence disagreed with his understanding of the Constitution? The answer to that is simple. Pence had assured Trump that he accepted his claim that there were irregularities in the voting. He said at a rally in Georgia on January 4, just two days before the count, that the case for widespread election fraud would be made to the American people when Congress meets this week to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s victory over President Trump.

“We’ve all got our doubts about the last election. I share the concerns of millions of Americans about voting irregularities,” Pence said at an indoor congregation at Rock Springs Church in Milner, Ga., in support of Republican Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue in runoff elections there.

Pence, who by law will be tasked with declaring a winner of the Electoral College vote, seemed to leave open the possibility that Trump could still remain in power for a second term.

“Come this Wednesday,” he said, referring to the impending certification of election results, “we’ll have our day in Congress. We’ll hear the evidence.”

The election was in fact stolen from him. It’s easy to hack voting machines, such as those made by Dominion, to change vote totals. When I say this, I’m not relying on a source the Left will dismiss as fantasies from conspiracy-theory nuts. According to a story published by NBC News last year,

It was an assurance designed to bolster public confidence in the way America votes: Voting machines “are not connected to the internet.”

Then Acting Undersecretary for Cybersecurity and Communications at the Department of Homeland Security Jeanette Manfra said those words in 2017, testifying before Congress while she was responsible for the security of the nation’s voting system.

So many government officials like Manfra have said the same thing over the last few years that it is commonly accepted as gospel by most Americans. Behind it is the notion that if voting systems are not online, hackers will have a harder time compromising them.

“We’ve all got our doubts about the last election. I share the concerns of millions of Americans about voting irregularities,” Pence said at an indoor congregation at Rock Springs Church in Milner, Ga., in support of Republican Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue in runoff elections there.
It Takes a Revolution:…Klayman Esq., LarryBest Price: $13.01Buy New $12.74(as of 06:53 EST – Details)

Pence, who by law will be tasked with declaring a winner of the Electoral College vote, seemed to leave open the possibility that Trump could still remain in power for a second term.

“Come this Wednesday,” he said, referring to the impending certification of election results, “we’ll have our day in Congress. We’ll hear the evidence.”

The election was in fact stolen from him. It’s easy to hack voting machines, such as those made by Dominion, to change vote totals. When I say this, I’m not relying on a source the Left will dismiss as fantasies from conspiracy-theory nuts. According to a story published by NBC News last year,

It was an assurance designed to bolster public confidence in the way America votes: Voting machines “are not connected to the internet.”

Then Acting Undersecretary for Cybersecurity and Communications at the Department of Homeland Security Jeanette Manfra said those words in 2017, testifying before Congress while she was responsible for the security of the nation’s voting system.

So many government officials like Manfra have said the same thing over the last few years that it is commonly accepted as gospel by most Americans. Behind it is the notion that if voting systems are not online, hackers will have a harder time compromising them.

“We’ve all got our doubts about the last election. I share the concerns of millions of Americans about voting irregularities,” Pence said at an indoor congregation at Rock Springs Church in Milner, Ga., in support of Republican Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue in runoff elections there.
It Takes a Revolution:…Klayman Esq., LarryBest Price: $13.01Buy New $12.74(as of 06:53 EST – Details)

Pence, who by law will be tasked with declaring a winner of the Electoral College vote, seemed to leave open the possibility that Trump could still remain in power for a second term.

“Come this Wednesday,” he said, referring to the impending certification of election results, “we’ll have our day in Congress. We’ll hear the evidence.”

The election was in fact stolen from him. It’s easy to hack voting machines, such as those made by Dominion, to change vote totals. When I say this, I’m not relying on a source the Left will dismiss as fantasies from conspiracy-theory nuts. According to a story published by NBC News last year,

It was an assurance designed to bolster public confidence in the way America votes: Voting machines “are not connected to the internet.”

Then Acting Undersecretary for Cybersecurity and Communications at the Department of Homeland Security Jeanette Manfra said those words in 2017, testifying before Congress while she was responsible for the security of the nation’s voting system.

So many government officials like Manfra have said the same thing over the last few years that it is commonly accepted as gospel by most Americans. Behind it is the notion that if voting systems are not online, hackers will have a harder time compromising them.

But that is an overstatement, according to a team of 10 independent cybersecurity experts who specialize in voting systems and elections. While the voting machines themselves are not designed to be online, the larger voting systems in many states end up there, putting the voting process at risk.

That team of election security experts say[s] that last summer, they discovered some systems are, in fact, online.

over 35 [voting systems] had been left online and we’re still continuing to find more,” Kevin Skoglund, a senior technical advisor at the election security advocacy group National Election Defense Coalition, told NBC News.

“We kept hearing from election officials that voting machines were never on the internet,” he said. “And we knew that wasn’t true. And so we set out to try and find the voting machines to see if we could find them on the internet, and especially the back-end systems that voting machines in the precinct were connecting to to report their results.” …

The three largest voting manufacturing companies—Election Systems &Software, Dominion Voting Systems and Hart InterCivic—have acknowledged they all put modems in some of their tabulators and scanners. The reason? So that unofficial election results can more quickly be relayed to the public. Those modems connect to cell phone networks, which, in turn, are connected to the internet.

Trump has every right to be suspicious. Shouldn’t there be a full and impartial investigation by recognized experts of whether fraud occurred? If the Biden camp thinks the election was fair and honest, shouldn’t they have welcomed a full investigation? But of course they didn’t. And this type of fraud is just one of many others, such as truckloads of Biden ballots arriving after it looked like Trump was winning, in just the right numbers to give Biden the victory.

When we look at Trump’s complaints, we need to bear one vital fact in mind. As Mike Davis noted in New Left Review, November–December 2020, p. 5, “Biden eked out a slim victory, in some states only by microscopic margins, that won him 306 electoral votes, the same as Trump four years ago. A mere 256,000 vote in five key states purchased 73 of those votes.” This is why Trump is right: because just a few votes could change the outcome, and because there was a lot of apparent fraud, a full investigation was needed.

But, some people might say, this doesn’t excuse Trump. Didn’t he incite people at a rally to invade the sacred halls of Congress? Well, in the first place, the halls of Congress aren’t “sacred”. They belong to the people. And Trump didn’t incite violence. Not at all. He wanted a peaceful protest, and this is what he got, aside from a few antifa activists who crashed the protest. They had been bused into Washington earlier.

According to in the American Thinker published on January 7,

January 6th’s events are being seized on as a game-changer, leading to calls to invoke the 25th Amendment; calls to impeach and remove President Trump; and efforts to discredit Trump, his supporters, and conservatism. It has distracted attention from issues around the legitimacy of voting procedures in several key states and guaranteed the Electoral College vote just before 4 A.M. that ratified Joe Biden’s and Kamala Harris’s inauguration as president and vice president.

Applying the classic legal question ‘cui bono?’ (‘who benefits?’), it is clear that Democrats, anti-Trump establishment Republicans, the leftist media, and TDS-sufferers all are victorious.

Disturbing video available (for now) on Twitter shows Capitol Police allowing demonstrators to enter the Capitol grounds. . . Elsewhere at the Capitol, the police sent out to hold a perimeter were unable to hold off mobs.

Why was the United States Capitol left so vulnerable?

After the demonstrators were led in, a policeman killed a young woman at point-blank range. The police and Secret Service ended the session of Congress, not the peaceful demonstrators. To give themselves cover, they imported a few Antifa agitators.

Why did they do this? I suggest they did this for a reason, which will become clear if we ask, What was going on just before the demonstration? The members of Congress were about to hear a debate on the objections raised against the votes in the swing states. The American people would have been able to hear the evidence for themselves. This had to be stopped. By stopping the session for about six hours, the debate was shifted to the very late evening hours of January 6 and early morning hours of January 7, when very few people were watching. Besides, all the attention was now on the protest rather than the fraudulent voting.

What can be done now? President Trump should not urge us all to “come together.” Instead, he should support secession. States and communities that support Trump are too far apart from supporters of the Biden-Harris BLM camorra to live in a united country. “Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14 [Douay-Rheims Bible])

Lew Rockwell, at Lewrockwell.com

Silence Will Be The Next Hate Crime

Posted on by
Reply

Attacking so-called “hate speech” has proven an effective Trojan horse technique by BLM and Antifa social justice warriors, who have incorporated Critical Race Theory (CRT) into their pernicious plans to dismantle the Constitution. After all, who wants to defend hate speech? But connecting the jurisprudential dots reveals that the whiter-than-snow “cause” of inner-city black suffering is the battering ram to bypass the very liberties that nurtured the abolitionist and Civil Rights movements. Might this chaos extend even to the point of criminalizing silence as hate speech?

CRT does not hide its plans. Quoting Audre Lorde, BLM brazenly declares:

For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.

Note that “genuine change” means attacking good police, burning black businesses, and physically assaulting people whose ideas you don’t wish to hear. Actions speak louder than words: “genuine change” means destruction, not healing; hate, not love; dictatorship.

United States Supreme Court precedents hold that Nazis rightfully assemble on state land, and the KKK has a right to preach its hate on public streets. These are classic liberal court cases, a product of the once-tolerant left. Yet today’s far left says the First Amendment is an instrument of oppression, not liberty:

CRT scholars have critiqued many of the assumptions that they believe constitute the ideology of the First Amendment[.] … [I]nstead of helping to achieve healthy and robust debate, the First Amendment actually serves to preserve the inequities of the status quo; there can be no such thing as an objective or content neutral interpretation in law[.] … [S]ome speech should be viewed in terms of the harm it causes, rather than all speech being valued on the basis of it being speech; and there is no “equality” in “freedom” of speech.

This slippery slope eviscerates the First Amendment: the issue in Skokie was whether government may ban speech by Nazis that Jews (including actual Holocaust survivors) found deeply traumatizing. The Court held that “feelings” are not a standard to proscribe speech.

CRT “scholars” seek to splice a host-killing new gene into America’s constitutional DNA, to alter that standard of “speech that incites violence” to “speech that makes snowflakes melt.” If speech is “viewed in terms of the harm it causes,” what harms are inflicted to others’ Constitutional liberties if their speech is prohibited because of the potential subjective insult to the hearer — as with, say, Confederate flags, or religious scriptures, or the misapplication of evolving pronouns? Next up are “microaggressions” and the crime of silence.

The left abuses the very free speech protections it seeks to destroy, telling others their “silence is violence” (silence as hate speech!). Meanwhile, BLM and Antifa employ violence-inciting speech that is not protected by existing law (see, e.g., Brandenburg: speech is not protected if it is “likely … to incite imminent lawless action”). In fact, Facebook has censored conservative free speech that would be shielded under existing precedent while advancing unprotected incitement-to-violence speech by BLM and Antifa. Here is revealed the “brave new speech world” of CRT.

Critical Race Theorists wish to eviscerate the Constitution and replace it with…something undefined:

Unlike traditional civil rights … critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law[.] … Only aggressive, color-conscious efforts to change the way things are will do much to ameliorate misery[.] … [H]ate speech, which targets mainly minorities, gays, lesbians, and other outsiders, is almost always tolerated, while speech that offends the interests of empowered groups finds a ready exception in First Amendment law.

But this is patently false. Consider the now-common “R” word — “racist” — employed routinely by the left to attack “empowered groups,” who have no “ready exception” as defense. No evidence necessary. Destroying character and attacking someone at the deepest level. Isn’t that hate speech?

Some say wishing someone Merry Christmas is “devastating“ hate speech, but excoriating opponents as racist is fair game. This is CRT in practice, just as it is socialism in practice: “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.”

Vermont’s capital city spearheaded a “Black Lives Matter” mural which was painted on the street with almost no notice, at state expense, under the initiative of a sole councilor. When a group of citizens sought to add a “Liberty and Justice for All” statement and American flag, these public officials exhibited CRT in action:

Citing a legal opinion obtained from the city’s attorney, [Mayor] Watson said the council could comfortably deny [the] request, suggesting the Black Lives Matter mural it permitted to proceed could be viewed as “government speech” — negating the First Amendment argument advanced[.] … Watson said she believed it would be inappropriate to paint the image of the American flag on a city street.

Thinking themselves untouchable through their “government speech” contrivance, these public officials openly condemned any “government speech” other than theirs:

I’m not against the concept of “liberty and justice for all,” I think it’s a great aspirational statement, but right now it’s a farce in America[.] … It’s maybe something to aspire to, but until we can recognize that Black lives matter, I don’t think “liberty and justice for all’ is alive and well in America.”

Our laws call this “content discrimination.” But the principles of our Constitution are a farce to Councilor Casey:

I don’t think there’s any center with racism[.] … I’m not interested in meeting somebody in the center, as a sign of unity, if they don’t believe Black Lives Matter[.]

That’s right — it’s his way or the highway (only you can’t paint on his federal highway turf for his personal expression of “government speech”).

A 2017 poll revealed that 71% of Americans “believe that political correctness has done more to silence important discussions our society needs to have. … [Twenty-eight percent] instead believe that political correctness has done more to help people avoid offending others.” Connor Casey’s dictatorial political correctness intrudes itself unconstitutionally to “avoid offending others,” while he spews ignorant and offensive speech while sitting as an elected official.

With free speech, such fatuous edicts will die the death of all vain elitist imaginings. Foreshadowing today’s dispute, Justice Douglas opined in Brandenberg (quoting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Gitlow v. New York):

If, in the long run, the beliefs expressed in proletarian dictatorship are destined to be accepted by the dominant forces of the community, the only meaning of free speech is that they should be given their chance and have their way.

That is, the Critical Race Theorists and BLM should dominate America, if their ideas hold sway in the free exchange of ideas. Their toxic ideology cannot withstand even cavalier scrutiny, though, which is why dissent is verboten.

Critical Race Theory and BLM activists depend on silencing opposition in order to install their “social-warrior dictatorship.” These ideologies demand that their voices be paramount, displacing anachronistic concepts of universal liberty and equality as unachievable and intolerable, so that they can “beat the master at his own game” — use the freedoms Americans prize against them. Voices (faiths?) that disagree will be silenced as hateful. White silence is targeted as evidence of imputed racism, itself violent hate speech that must be criminally sanctioned, or elicit reeducation.

Welcome to Amerika.

Do not go quietly into that dark night…

John Klar, American Thinker

Of Course President Trump Should NOT Attend Biden’s “Inauguration”

Posted on by
Reply

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., called the Jan. 20 [Joe Biden inaugural] event “an important tradition that demonstrates the peaceful transfer of power to our people and to the world.”

Good grief!

President Trump should NOT attend Joe Biden’s Inauguration. IT WAS NOT A LEGITIMATE ELECTION. Even if it were, the things the “victors” of the election promise to do will eviscerate the Bill of Rights and freedom as Americans have always known it. The fraudulent victors are promising mile-high taxes, unlimited government lockdowns, life-throttling controls on energy production, nationalization of the banking industry, stacking of the Supreme Court to ensure a one-sided majority forever, Soviet-style medicine, gun confiscation and eradication of free speech. And these are just for starters.

On what PLANET do people like this moronic Republican Senator reside? Is he ethically hollow inside? Or just plain stupid? That goes for virtually all Republicans, aside from Rand Paul and a couple of others.

It would be CRAZY and irrational for Donald Trump to attend Joe Biden’s inauguration. It would be like going to the victory party of Hitler’s Nazi Germany government, had the German National Socialists defeated the Allies, rather than lost, back in 1945.

Rick Scott’s version of Republican Party virtue-signaling shows how that deservedly defunct party HAS NO COMPREHENSION WHATSOEVER OF ANY PRINCIPLES — least of all the principles they used to claim to stand for, i.e., the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

It’s getting more stunning by the hour…no, by the minute. And not in a good way.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

No, It is Not Trump’s Fault

Posted on by
Reply

Many Americans have reached a boiling point and the media now wants you to believe this is all due to President Trump and his rhetoric. They want to shame this President and all who support him. They want you to focus on this one occurrence at the Capital on Wednesday and forget about everything leading up to this event. Do not let them :

  • Academia has been indoctrinating our children to be Marxist radicals, to hate themselves and this country, to believe we are whatever gender we choose, to worship our planet not God – and that is not Trump’s fault.
  • Democrat politicians have knowingly started false hearings and an impeachment, wasted millions of tax payer dollars, lied to the American public, called Republicans ‘Nazis’ based on false narratives – and that is not Trump’s fault.
  • China knowingly allowed a deadly virus to be released throughout the world while they locked down all of their domestic flights to protect their people – and that’s not Trump’s fault.
  • Scientific/Medical ‘experts’ recommended no face masks and then mandatory face masks, to not take hydroxychloroquine and then to take hydroxychloroquine, to lockdown society without regard to the effects to our psyche / health / economy – and that is not Trump’s fault.
  • State Governors and mayors created ‘mandates’ no longer allowing people to go to church, bars and restaurants, weddings, funerals, vacations, or celebrate holidays with family – and that is not Trump’s fault.
  • Democratic influenced Social Media giants have stopped our free speech online by deciding for Americans what is true and what is false, who can speak online and who can’t, debunking stories harmful to their liberal allies only to retract after the damage is done – and that is not Trump’s fault.
  • The cancel culture and Hollywood elite has ruined many lives by shaming people who do not believe as they do, act as they do, or support who they do – and that is not Trump’s fault.
  • BLM / Antifa burning down businesses, causing injuries and death, terrorizing communities while getting bailed out of jail by liberal politicians and the liberal elite – and that is not Trump’s fault.
  • The media has been sitting on disparaging stories regarding Joe Biden’s family, they’ve praised unruly protests by democrats that have destroyed innocent lives, they only report on stories that follow the narratives they want the public to believe – and that is not Trump’s fault.
  • The DOJ and ‘deep state’ have held back information that is damning to individuals in the Democrat party and their family members while falsely investigating the President – and that is not Trump’s fault.
  • And now, the votes of millions of Americans have been stripped away and their voices have been stifled by politically corrupt individuals – and that is definitely not Trump’s fault.

Yes, many Americans have reached a boiling point but it is not President Trump’s fault. This President has exposed the deep corruption within our country and the people who our currently blaming him for our anger are part of this corruption he exposed. They are the ones who should be ashamed – they are the ones ruining this country. We have been gaslighted for far too long. Do not let them continue with their false narratives.

The Wisdom of Ayn Rand on The Founding Fathers

Posted on by
Reply

The basic premise of the Founding Fathers was man’s right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: man’s right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; and that the political implementation of this right is a society where men deal with one another as traders, by voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.

The Founding Fathers were neither passive, death-worshipping mystics nor mindless, power-seeking looters; as a political group, they were a phenomenon unprecedented in history: they were thinkers who were also men of action. They had rejected the soul-body dichotomy, with its two corollaries: the impotence of man’s mind and the damnation of this earth; they had rejected the doctrine of suffering as man’s metaphysical fate, they proclaimed man’s right to the pursuit of happiness and were determined to establish on earth the conditions required for man’s proper existence, by the “unaided” power of their intellect.

In the modern world, under the influence of the pervasive new climate, a succession of thinkers developed a new conception of the nature of government. The most important of these men and the one with the greatest influence on America was John Locke. The political philosophy Locke bequeathed to the Founding Fathers is what gave rise to the new nation’s distinctive institutions. That political philosophy is the social implementation of the Aristotelian spirit.

Throughout history the state had been regarded, implicitly or explicitly, as the ruler of the individual—as a sovereign authority (with or without supernatural mandate), an authority logically antecedent to the citizen and to which he must submit. The Founding Fathers challenged this primordial notion. They started with the premise of the primacy and sovereignty of the individual. The individual, they held, logically precedes the group or the institution of government. Whether or not any social organization exists, each man possesses certain individual rights. And “among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”—or, in the words of a New Hampshire state document, “among which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness.”

The genius of the Founding Fathers was their ability not only to grasp the revolutionary ideas of the period, but to devise a means of implementing those ideas in practice, a means of translating them from the realm of philosophic abstraction into that of sociopolitical reality. By defining in detail the division of powers within the government and the ruling procedures, including the brilliant mechanism of checks and balances, they established a system whose operation and integrity were independent, so far as possible, of the moral character of any of its temporary officials—a system impervious, so far as possible, to subversion by an aspiring dictator or by the public mood of the moment.

The heroism of the Founding Fathers was that they recognized an unprecedented opportunity, the chance to create a country of individual liberty for the first time in history—and that they staked everything on their judgment: the new nation and their own “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.”

“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

Jefferson—and the other Founding Fathers—meant it. They did not confine their efforts to the battle against theocracy and monarchy; they fought, on the same grounds, invoking the same principle of individual rights—against democracy, i.e., the system of unlimited majority rule. They recognized that the cause of freedom is not advanced by the multiplication of despots, and they did not propose to substitute the tyranny of a mob for that of a handful of autocrats . . . .

When the framers of the American republic spoke of “the people,” they did not mean a collectivist organism one part of which was authorized to consume the rest. They meant a sum of individuals, each of whom—whether strong or weak, rich or poor—retains his inviolate guarantee of individual rights.

The political philosophy of America’s Founding Fathers is so thoroughly buried under decades of statist misrepresentations on one side and empty lip-service on the other, that it has to be re-discovered, not ritualistically repeated. It has to be rescued from the shameful barnacles of platitudes now hiding it. It has to be expanded—because it was only a magnificent beginning, not a completed job, it was only a political philosophy without a full philosophical and moral foundation, which the “conservatives” cannot provide.