Reparations?

As global wealth grows, the wealth of productive societies expands at lightning speed. Thereby, the material luxury of modernized countries grows at a rate that would have been deemed to be science fiction a few decades ago.

At the same time, the left-behind communities become aware of an exasperating condition. The cadence of their improvement is slow, so the gap widens that separates their attainment from that of the leading creators of progress. This is the case except for when equality through poverty is a chosen policy; the North Koreas stagnate as a matter of principle.

The problem is that some experience only a slow rise of living standards, while other societies rise like rockets. Summing up, whilst for most of the world expectations and performance rise, there are laggards whose frustration grows. The demand that the losers be compensated expresses that sentiment.

As a rule, poverty is not caused by nature. However, its gifts to the lucky few can bankroll easy abundance.

The observant discovers the roots of the discrepancy in wealth in man-made policies that are reflections of culture. Cultures can change, and the national character is not unalterable either. Even if bad policies can be replaced by good measures, the preferred instinctive response to the problem of backwardness tends to favor other remedies. It might be “human nature” or just a learned bad habit, to attribute shortcomings to the machinations of the agents of evil. Jews, capitalist, foreigners, heresy, and inventively imagined conspiracies are ingredients of well-selling snake medicine. These are popular, easily blamed enemies. It is simple to persuade the politically naïve that evil plotters cause the misery of decent folks that they fleece.

In most cases, secular religions arise to organize those convinced of having been robbed and artificially disadvantaged.

Consequently, the modern era’s great “isms,” even if they point to different culprits, concur in one decisive matter. All of them, national socialism, international socialism, fascism, and “Third-Worldism” claim to struggle against the forces of malevolence that collude to impoverish and subjugate mankind.

Once persuaded of this, it follows to the convert that the wicked must be combatted. Since the proof of the crime is the relative wealth of the impostors, this can be done by seizing their means through “nationalization” or outright looting. Those that direct this struggle are steeled by their belief that whatever battles the absolutely vile, becomes thereby a morally pure agent of redemption. Given the traits of the enemy, such a force can neither fail (“history is ours”) nor derail morally.

“History is on our side” and that the “Party/Leader is never wrong,” are cardinal features of modern mass movements. In a totalitarian manner, these intend to break with the past to bring about a “New Order.” These traits include a predatory commitment to redistribute the wealth built up in successful societies. Such an organization requires a strong leadership. It needs to convert its control of the culture into political power to create the “unity” the program presupposes.

We are living in an age in which a “guilt and atonement” culture prevails. It serves to explain missed modernization and the resulting discrepancy in the amount of well-being and rights enjoyed. The alleged victims of systemic disadvantage have become a well-organized and rewarded “profession.” Much of its power comes from lobbyists that are native to successful societies.

This element is often described as “liberal” and it is recruited in the privileged classes that are the cultural critics of those that have created the economics of plenty. Unimpeded by borders, this educated but materially unproductive elite forms one of history’s rare international classes. (The Church and the traditional aristocracy -not Marx’ proletariat- are precursors.)

The left-liberal elite of cultural leaders is attracted to its self-generated ideals and it resents the political power of practical men. Beyond that, the ability to convert the control over ideas into political might is considerable. The sway over the media, education, and of cultural life in general, all translate into an influence that, in practical terms, amount to power. In numerous professions, recognition, careers, and even earning a living, is not possible against the will of the morally empowered. Those active in practical politics can confirm that governing against the entrenched liberal elite is difficult. It will remain so until the “deplorable” common man converts his polite silence into indignant involvement.

The governing record of abstraction-chasing intellectuals has an undistinguished score. This has not inspired a critical revision of pet projects. Here a newly popularized concept to right the wrongs of the past by remodeling the future comes to mind. It is the initially catching, idea of “reparations”. It advocates the paying of compensation for the descendants of those whose ancestors have, according to the past’s practice, suffered wrongs by the present’s standards. At the moment, the project has put slavery in America in its cross-hairs. Expect the idea’s internationalization to follow.

Reparations are an attractive concept. It keeps that status until you examine the details. As a starter, there must be a group that underachieves by the general standards of its society. To make a claim, this condition must be attributable to a past wrong imposed by identifiable groups that can afford to pay.

Several difficulties emerge upon closer examination. Generations might separate the tort from the present. This makes tenuous the relationship of the past’s victims and the persons to be compensated now. The same goes for the nexus between history’s villains and those credited to be their inheritors. What share of the reparations shall burden a person that might have immigrated, as has this writer, in the fifties? How is the benefit of an individual with a victim on the family tree to be calculated if a subsequent ancestor intermarried with the “oppressors”? Is race, or whatever is declared to be one, going to be the sole standard? The rising number of fake claims seeking advantages by claiming victim status contain a warning. Should a Black PhD, or a Spaniard who moved to Mexico and then to the US, to get something? Will members of victim groups need to contribute to repay indigenous peoples such as Aztecs or Mayas? What will be done about women in general? Can one compute and deduct the worth of the advantages extended under Affirmative Action or a promotion in the attempt to meet a quota?

Interesting are the global implications. The world is full of victims whose ancestors might have been oppressors. Can Serbs raise claims against modern-day Turkey? If so, can a demand be made in the name of tens of thousands of Italians and Magyars massacred by Serbs at the end of WW2? How about the obligations of the Mongols that have destroyed Russia and who devastated much of Europe? Do the Greeks, themselves subsequently victims, owe something to Persia? An endless list indicates that compensation might be an attractive principle for the ignorant but totally impractical in the real world of the informed.

Reparations appear to be a well-meaning but unviable tool to correct history’s consequences. Beyond the confusion regarding who should get how much and for what, the concept has a further flaw. The reparations project is a typical proposal that assumes that those who “have” owe that to the ones that “want”. In this case, justice is to take from those that do not deserve their holdings in order to advantage their deprived victims. Operating this redistribution empowers those who can bribe their supporters. This might entrench those in power, but it will hardly create a fair society. Unless prevented by the state, the plucked “haves” – except those that leave for a receptive environment – will recover as they have the skills and the right attitude. Whatever has been syphoned off will discourage economically rational behavior but it will not permanently stifle the able.

Artificially injected wealth is unlikely to create lasting benefits. This is a reason why foreign aid has not triggered self-supporting change. You know the saying “to really help, do not send us fish, give us nets”.  The infusion of money triggers hedonistic consumption and not shrewd investments. Money dispersed by the sprinkler method will generate support while it lasts. A productive and prosperous society leveled at a higher standard will not be among the outcomes. Free lunches can still an appetite. They cannot fill the pantry and recruit cooks. That feature makes them into a merry prelude to famine.

George Handlery

“Americans are so enamored by equality they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in fredom.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

“The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

This piece is being written as voters are going to the polls on election day in the United States. While it has been useful to consider how things might change, possibly for the worse, one must also recognize that much of what happens in the U.S. and in its far-flung empire operates by virtue of its own internal dynamics and rules, something that is often referred to as the “Deep State” or perhaps more accurately as the Establishment.

Witness for example the occasional possibly sincere but unsuccessful White House attempts over the past four years to withdraw or reduce the numbers of U.S. troops embroiled in various armed conflicts worldwide. All of those initiatives have been frustrated or redirected in one way or another and it is not simply a question of bungling by a politically insensitive Donald Trump versus the result that might have been obtained by a more experienced and responsible Democrat. What drives the empire’s engine is essentially bipartisan, even in its own way, apolitical, existing as it does as a form of leaderless shadow government that functions as a community-of-interest rather than a bureaucracy. It is inclusive and reflective of the real centers of power in the country, namely the national security state and Wall Street.

In a recent article Pepe Escobar dispels any expectation that a kinder, gentler foreign policy might emerge from the election. He describes with some alarm how victory by Biden will mean that the national security “Blob” team that wrecked Syria, Yemen, Ukraine and Libya while also assassinating Americans overseas under President Barack Obama will be back. He cites former CIA presidential briefer Ray McGovern who persuasively describes the “Blob” as the MICIMATT (the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex). One might well add the Federal Reserve Bank to that list.

So, the engine keeps chugging on, driven my its own self-interests and completely oblivious to what is going on around it. The irony is that the crisis in confidence that simultaneously is besetting the United States in part reflects a very real, largely self-inflicted decline in America’s place in the world due to insistence that it maintain global hegemony. It comes at a time when the empire is entering into a phase of increasing irrelevancy which many of the key players involved are either unable or unwilling to recognize, no matter what their political affiliation might be. That means that the United States is locked into a pattern of behavior that it is incapable of changing. It is a nation that has become addicted to war for no good reason, and that addiction has brought neither security nor prosperity.

The signs are everywhere. The costs of empire continue to rise while real benefits to be derived from it are elusive. The United States government spends far more on a bloated defense budget than it can afford, adding to an unsustainable national debt that currently exceeds $27 trillion, which is 128% of the country’s entire gross domestic product. The debt will likely increase dramatically if there are any more coronavirus stimulus packages. The nation is becoming hollowed out as a result.

America’s “allies” have inevitably rightly become increasingly disengaged from Washington, reluctant to comply with Washington’s directions and demands, while the developing transition from the dollar as the world’s reserve currency is proceeding and will have catastrophic consequences. When the U.S. Treasury stops being able to print money at will, there will be national insolvency.

In terms of the United States’ interaction with the world, a country that not so long ago was widely respected is now regarded as the principal source of international instability, disliked everywhere but Israel, another rogue nation. And the internal damage inside the U.S. to core values and expectations is also evident, to include increasingly dysfunctional schools that focus on political correctness rather than education, crumbling infrastructure, a broken health care system, and a dying industrial and manufacturing base. Unique among all developed countries, life expectancy among working class Americans is declining.

At the root of it all is what Yale professor Paul Kennedy once described as“imperial overstretch,” which means projection of power in support of global commitments that are not essential to national well-being and bankrupting oneself in the process. The reality is that unless an “imperial” acquisition is done purely for exploitative reasons, as Belgium did in the Congo, having an empire operates at a considerable loss. Napoleon “overstretched” when he invaded Russia and both Russia and Austria-Hungary collapsed as a result of the First World War because the stress of external conflict made their obligations far exceed their resources. Great Britain’s Empire likewise became expendable after World War Two when the costs of maintaining outposts “east of Suez” became much larger than the benefits.

So, there are many good reasons for the United States to retrench and again become a “normal” nation, if that is at all possible, but the fact that no candidate but Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders even suggested that America’s global interventionism might be reconsidered or even reversed is telling. Both were eliminated by the Democratic party establishment. In the case of Gabbard, the executioner was no less than Hillary Clinton. Whoever is the new president, he will inherit the awful conceit that he is the “leader of the free world.” It is past time for a serious discussion of America’s proper place in the world, but that will require completely overturning the country’s Establishment and challenging the “exceptionalism” view that the U.S. must dominate as a “force for good.” Unfortunately, there is no politician anywhere on the horizon who is able and willing to take the lead on such an endeavor.

Philip Giraldi, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest.

It has been said over and over that all the rioting, looting and destruction that has been inflicted upon America in the last six months is due to racism. We have been told repeatedly that America is an irredeemably racist society that discriminates against black people. “Systemic” and “structural” are the terms used to describe the nature of America’s alleged oppressiveness.

The stream of unceasing allegations has been kept up – unsurprisingly – by the political left. One of the recent examples is Michelle Obama who said this of Donald Trump in her pre-election message to the American people:

“So, what the president is doing is, once again, patently false. It’s morally wrong and, yes, it is racist.”

As the rest of them, Michelle Obama is a brazen liar. Donald Trump is not a racist and neither is this country. There is no systemic or structural racism in American society. Quite to the contrary, in America black people enjoy an array of rights and advantages that are unavailable to the rest of the American population and can only be described as Black Privilege. And this privilege is very efficacious indeed.

False Black Power? (Ne…Jason L. RileyBest Price: $8.95Buy New $8.95(as of 10:15 EST – Details)

It is ironic that Michele Obama should play the race card given that she and her husband benefitted so richly from their Black Privilege. To begin with, Barack Obama – a black man – was elected to the highest office in what is a majority white country. He was not elected not only once, but twice – in 2008 and again in 2012. The plurality of the votes that catapulted him to the presidency were cast by white people. The repeated election of a black man to the most prestigious post in American society should blow out of the water any claims of anti-black racism.

But this is not all. The reason why Barack Obama was elected was primarily because of the color of his skin. It would not be unfair to say that Mr. Obama was probably the most under-accomplished candidate to ever become a US President. A junior first-term senator from Illinois, his qualifications for the presidency were virtually nonexistent. By his own admission, his most consequential employment prior to his entry into politics was as a community organizer. As a senator, both on the state and federal level, he had little to show for it. He apparently neither sponsored nor originated any significant laws or initiatives. While a state senator he merely voted “present” on a number of occasions. Apparently being an agitator in the south side of Chicago and a good talker were his major qualification for office.

Such was Obama’s background when he declared his candidacy for the highest office in this land. Were Mr. Obama white, he would have never gotten anywhere close to the Oval Office. Given his obvious lack of experience, a white Obama would have been laughed at the moment he announced his intention to seek the presidency. There can be no question that Obama was elected primarily because he is black. How could – we have to ask – such a thing happen in an allegedly deeply racist country?

If Joe Biden should come out on top in this election, there is a great likelihood – given Biden’s enfeebled state – that within two years Kamala Harris would succeed him as president. Should this happen, it would mean that America would have two black presidents within six years. Both would be “affirmative action” presidents, since Kamala Harris was also chosen to be Biden’s running mate primarily because she is black (the second reason was that she is a far-left woman). Harris was certainly not selected because she is particularly competent or distinguished. In fact, her main talent seems to be bestowing sexual favors upon her political benefactors. But such is the great power of Black Privilege that black men and women can be propelled into the Oval Office despite their lack of accomplishments and qualifications.

Please Stop Helping Us…Riley, Jason L.Best Price: $17.99Buy New $9.50(as of 04:34 EDT – Details)

Black Privilege, however, is not operative only in politics, but in every area of American society. In school admissions, for example, black candidates are blatantly advantaged over candidates of other skin colors, most notably whites and Asians. A couple of months ago, the US Department of Justice found Yale University to be in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws. Apparently at Yale black candidates were ninety percent more likely to be admitted than their white counterparts with roughly comparable credentials. This is nothing but blatant anti-white racism. Yale, of course, was not alone in this. This kind of pro-black racism has been a common practice at institutions of higher learning across the United States. This approach has been adopted in all spheres of American life: standards have been lowered for black people across the board in order to give them advantage over other racial groups.

Nor need we mention pro-black racism in government employment and contracting. Numerous welfare programs operate on an implicitly race-qualification basis, having been designed and tweaked to channel funds especially to blacks. Because of Black Privilege, black criminals receive special consideration in encounters with the police. Despite of what we have been told by leftist demagogues, black felons are treated more leniently than other racial groups. Indeed, black suspects are far less likely to be shot by the police than white suspects. This is not surprising, given the fact that that the use of force against blacks is treated with special severity by review boards and judicial bodies. And this holds true despite that fact that though blacks constitute only 13% of the population, they commit more than 50%  of all violent crimes and murders. The truth is that most violent criminals and troublemakers in American society are black. By lowering the standards of acceptable behavior for blacks and by treating them with undue leniency, American society further encourages black criminality and delinquency… to everyone’s harm.

The demagogues use misleading videos such as the one of George Floyd to assert that black people are routinely harassed and killed by the police. Such claims are simply preposterous. In 2019, fourteen unarmed black men were shot dead in the US by police. Almost all of them posed imminent danger to others at the time they were killed. By way of contrast, several thousand black people were killed by other black people in the same period. The talk of black genocide by the police is just another of the left’s monstrous lies. (By the way, George Floyd was not killed by his arresting cop. He died of a fentanyl overdose.)

White Guilt: How Black…Steele, ShelbyBest Price: $13.13Buy New $10.08(as of 05:01 EDT – Details)

We got to see Black Privilege up close during the recent and ongoing riots. We saw the  videos of thousands of black youths rampaging, stealing and looting stores and businesses while the police just stood by, watching. Most of these criminals will never be brought to justice. They have been able to commit these crimes and get away with them purely because they are black. If white thugs ever attempted to loot and rampage in this fashion, they would be quickly dealt with by law enforcement. They would be shot on sight, as is customarily done in such situations. But the police would never do such a thing to black hoodlums. Such is the power of Black Privilege.

In America black people are being constantly excused and taken off the hook just because they are black. The truth is that there are two standards in this country: one is for blacks who are given preferential treatment and all kinds of advantages, and the other is for everyone else. Blacks get away with things that members of other races never would get away with.

How astonishing, then, that Michelle Obama would complain of racism. With a net worth of over 100 million dollars, the Obamas are richer than 99.9 percent of white people in America. And how did the Obamas amass their immense wealth and power? They have gained it through Black Privilege. Said Michelle Obama in her pre-election missive:

“I want everyone who is still undecided to think about all those folks like me and my ancestors, the millions of folks who look like me and fought and died and toiled as slaves and soldiers and laborers to help build this country.”

Yes, Mrs. Obama, we do think of you when we contemplate the racial situation in this country. What we see, however, is no lowly black slave but a wealthy and powerful woman who has obtained her great fortune on the back of her Black Privilege. If you and your husband were white, you would be just another suburban couple. It is because you are black that you were able to attain to the great heights of power and financial success. You can be sure most people do not like it when a person like you plays the race card like this. Frankly, you look phony.

What a wasted opportunity. A woman like Michelle Obama could have been a true leader for the black community. She could have been an example to those who look up to her – an example of gratitude to the country which provided such ample opportunities for its black citizens. Instead she talks of slaves. Has she not noticed that we have long moved beyond that? After all, slaves are not elected president.

Blackout: How Black Am…Owens, CandaceBuy New $16.73(as of 06:22 EDT – Details)

Here is truth to power for you: never in history has any minority had it as good as blacks have it in America today. Blacks are not only completely equal but enjoy special advantages that are unavailable to the rest of the population. The accusations of discrimination are an egregious lie. Our society has been set aflame on the basis of a complete fiction. Blacks today are rioting and complaining not because they have been discriminated against, but because American society has not been willing to enforce the basic standards of decency, morality and good behavior in the black community. Writing about the prevailing attitude of whites toward blacks, the great black writer Walter Williams makes the same point: “Often, they accept behavior and standards from black people that they would not begin to accept from white people.”

In other words, what we are witnessing is a moral tragedy, not a racist one. This, however, is not the fault of blacks. This situation has been deliberately created by white leftists. The reason for their malevolence is the desire to subvert American society. More than six decades ago, they figured out that they could tear America apart by fomenting racial division and conflict. This they accomplished by destroying the moral fiber of the black community through techniques such the lowering of standards, undue leniency, over-indulgence and fostered dependency on the state. Once you ruin a racial demographic, there will inevitably follow anger, resentment and strife. We are now seeing the results of this subversion.

Vasco Kohlmayer

Biden and Harris are demanding that Twitter take down President Trump’s account (according to Fox Business). Simply delete it. Twitter has not yet complied fully. It’s posting caveats over Trump’s posts, and taking down some individual posts. What happens when Biden and Harris are President? When they demand, as President, that Twitter take down accounts they don’t like, what will the companies do? And when dissidents go and form another platform, can’t the same dictators who commanded Twitter and Facebook do so with the new platform, when and if it becomes a threat to them?

You might think a 6-3 or 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court will protect our free speech. It won’t. The Court will now be stacked with a permanent leftist majority.

I wonder how many Biden voters — the REAL ones, not the manufactured ones — are actually ready for all this. I know a lot of them are just fine with it. But I know some people who voted for Biden who won’t like it when the government eventually exercises its newfound power over them. Because eventually, Biden voters, your big government is coming for YOU, too.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

What is going to ultimately happen with the election? If I knew that I’d be a multiple-time lottery winner living on an island somewhere warm. As I’m sitting in the cold air of Maryland, it’s pretty clear I’m not a soothsayer. But there is one prediction I’m willing to make that I’m pretty confident about: the media truly are the enemy of the people.

Their job, they routinely tell us, is to simply report what is happening in the country and the world. It’s hard to type that line without laughing. 

The last four years they have done the activism the Democratic National Committee couldn’t do – wrap liberal BS in a blanket of objectivity. 

It doesn’t work like it used to, the Internet exists so there are too many different, unobstructed pathways for information to flow through for these leftists to completely prevent the escape of information into the public, but it doesn’t have to work with everyone. It only has to work with just enough.

Whichever way the election turns out, never forget the lies we were told in liberal’s pursuit of power. 

Three years of “RUSSIA,” 4 months of “IMPEACH OVER UKRAINE,” and four solid years of nitpicking, false stories, and insisting the President and Republicans are liars hellbent on trying to kill people. To the casual news consumer, there is no way for that to not have some kind of impact. 

Worse than the obvious “opinion-lies” spun as indifferent observations and truth, there was a more nefarious attempt at manipulation from our “4th estate.” nullCARTOONS | MICHAEL RAMIREZVIEW CARTOON

Polling, they say, is an inexact science. But it’s no more of a science than having a strategy for bingo is a retirement plan. 

Yet, polling has been used to justify a lot of the coverage the media passed off as journalism. The results were in before any votes were cast, we were told. The only question was how big the margin of victory was going to be for Joe Biden.

There wasn’t a liberal establishment poll that came close to the actual results. It’s a testament to the campaigning of President Donald Trump that he won what he did (so far). Not a single “news” organization gave him a snowball’s chance in Hell of doing what he did, and most actively worked against him.

Bogus, wildly inaccurate polls permeated media coverage over the last few months NOT to inform the public, but to influence it. 

Motivation is incredibly important when it comes to voting – why bother showing up to vote if you’ll simply be beating your head against a brick wall? That likely doesn’t play well with you, but to millions of Americans who don’t pay attention to such things it could be a deciding factor whether or not to go through the process and vote.

That’s why polls were so heavily reported – they were an attempt at wish fulfillment. What would the margins have been had these polls not been reported as yet-to-happen truths? There’s no way to know, but to dismiss the idea out of hand is absurd. null

Polling companies and their media benefactors knew what they were doing. RealClearPolitics co-founder and president Tom Bevan listed just how wrong the widely reported New York Times/Siena poll was that simply them being wrong can’t explain it. They “overestimated Biden’s support” in Florida by 6 points, in Iowa by 10, by 9 in Ohio, in Wisconsin it was about 10 too, and Michigan by about 6. 

These aren’t mistakes, they attempt to shape the outcome – why bother to vote, the race is over? 

You’d think this would spell ruin for the polling industry, but it won’t. They’re too valuable of a tool to face consequences for their failures.

There will be a few “think pieces” about how they need to really figure out how they got things so wrong, but the real question is why they insisted they’d gotten them right in the first place. Demographics change, voter patterns change, people move, and sometimes a candidate excites people in ways they hadn’t been before. Donald Trump is that kind of candidate. Only willful ignorance or corruption would cause anyone to ignore that reality, and polls near-universally ignored that reality. 

Recommended2020 LIVE Election Commentary & Resultsnull

But nothing pollsters did caused the media to harp on them, to “sell” them the way they did. They were treated as though the results were carved into stone tablets by a burning bush, not a random sample of 500 people who’d bothered to answer their phones. 

The media knew what they were doing, it was what they were doing all along. Polling “data ” was nothing more than the latest in a string of garbage stories designed explicitly to depress Trump voter turnout. While TV talking heads whined incessantly about “voter suppression,” they were engaged in its more nefarious and effective form. It’s always the people who harp on the “threat to our democracy” who work the hardest to undermine it. 

Whatever ends up happening, never forget what they did here. (And I’m not just talking about the usual suspects. Fox News, with its early and unjustified call of Arizona while dithering on Florida and Texas, is no better than any of the others.) 

Derek Hunter is the host of a free daily podcast (subscribe!), host of a daily radio show on WCBM in Maryland, and author of the book, Outrage, INC., which exposes how liberals use fear and hatred to manipulate the masses. Follow him on Twitter at @DerekAHunter.

The lawyers sink their teeth into what remains of the election between President Donald Trump and Joe Biden and it’s so close that neither concedes. As they prepare to do battle in the courts, America is reminded of what happened 20 years ago:

Those excruciating 35 days of George Bush vs. Al Gore and the high drama of those dangling Florida chads.

What’s different in America between then and now?

Everything.

Just look at the plywood on the downtown storefronts of the big cities for post-election violence.

America has undergone a profound and confusing realignment. But we’ve had difficulty processing it as a people, with journalism becoming infinitely more tribal and partisan and Big Tech putting its news thumb on the scale for the Democrats.

And despite some weepy nostalgia expressed by a few of the squishier pundits longing for a return to “normalcy” — whatever that is — America won’t revert to the centrist reign of the wise men. The center of both political parties collapsed long ago under the sodden weight of the corrupt elites.

The left knows this. Conservatives know this. And no matter how the 2020 elections go, there is no returning to “normalcy.”

All that plywood on glass storefronts in downtown Chicago, New York, Washington, Los Angeles, the boarded-up windows along Rodeo Drive, tell you how much things have changed in the 20 years since Bush and Gore.

That plywood is a declaration of realists. Merchants risk their own money in business. That wood cuts through the political spin offered by liberal Democratic mayors.

Are the mayors really worried about the Knights of Columbus coming downtown to trash and loot if Trump doesn’t prevail? Are they worried about being devoured by suburban Girl Scout troops?

No. They’re worried about the same thing that the merchants are worried about. They’re worried about the left and looters who have engaged in political violence as an expression of force for months. Protests that began as a legitimate, angry reaction to the tragic death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police, soon morphed into something else. They had little to do with Floyd and everything to do with the 2020 presidential campaign.

Forgive me, but I don’t remember the cities furiously boarding up 20 years ago, as Gore’s lawyers faced off with Bush’s lawyers in Florida or governors ordering the National Guard to stand ready. And many of today’s angry woke warriors, including those who’ve thrown frozen water bottles at the heads of cops in those “mostly peaceful” protests, were far too young to remember.

Where were today’s protesters back then, when the Daleys of Chicago lashed a stout stick to Al Gore’s spine, demanding to count the votes in Florida again and again until the votes came out right, like Johnny Rocco wanted in “Key Largo?”

Many were kids. Twenty years ago, they were children watching “Blues Clues” on TV and grabbing orange slices provided by their moms at their soccer games.

Twenty years ago, the Democratic Party still had its share of moderates, who talked about the American Dream of a colorblind society, where merit was rewarded. All that’s changed. The universities have done their work. Now the Democratic Party is ruled by identity politics. And those who dare talk of a colorblind society are denounced as racists to be sent to sensitivity sessions.

Just 20 years ago, the Democratic Party was still the party of the working class, of the little guy, of people who don’t make a living on Zoom. Democrats were the party for those who worked with their hands and stood on their feet and put in their shifts.

Twenty years ago, Republicans were the party of the elite, of Big Corporate, the party of suburban middle managers climbing that ladder to the C suite.

But now, in the realignment that began long before Trump was elected in 2016, Democrats have become the party of Big Tech and of Wall Street. And the technocrats, including federal bureaucrats (and some pundits) aren’t as worried about their paychecks. They meet and work on Zoom. They have the ability to send their kids to private schools that are not on coronavirus lockdowns.

And the old Democratic working class? They’re with Trump. They sent their kids to those endless Republican-backed Middle Eastern wars. They watched as their jobs were outsourced to foreign lands. They grieved as their communities were savaged by opioid addiction.

They were ridiculed by Barack Obama as bitter clingers hanging on to their guns and religion. Hillary Clinton put them into her basket of deplorables.

And now, for wanting their kids back in school, for wanting to be able to work and earn their living, they’re denounced as belonging to a dangerous cult.

All this leaves them no place to go. They’ve been put into a pot, with the lid on and the heat turned up.

Whoever prevails in this election, I’ll consider that man my president and pray he does well. This might be a good time for each of us to step back off the corner, avoid tribal confrontation and remember that on the other side are our brothers and sisters.

No matter who eventually becomes president, those boarded storefronts and the growing blue state revolts against the coronavirus lockdowns tell you this:

America isn’t a rubber band ready to snap back to “normalcy” or what it was just 20 years ago.

Te center is broken. We’re in the time of populism now.

John Kass

During the last days of the 2020 campaign, President Donald Trump was holding four and five rallies a day in battleground states, drawing thousands upon thousands of loyalists to every one.

Waiting for hours, sometimes in the cold, to cheer their champion on, these rallygoers love Trump as few presidents have been loved. This writer cannot recall a president and campaign that brought out so many and such massive crowds of admirers in its closing days.

And who are these cheering, chanting loyalists who have brought their children out with them to see and remember “the great Trump” — in the eyes of our dispossessed elites?

They are people who belong in a “basket of deplorables,” sneered Hillary Clinton: “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic” bigots, and a sub-species of humanity that is “irredeemable.”

Today’s election is an us-versus-them choice unlike any other, for the issues in dispute are broader and deeper than ever before.

And those issues raise questions: No matter who wins, can this nation come together again? And if it cannot — a real possibility — what form will America take as it disintegrates?

Even as voters were mailing in ballots in the millions, stores in our great cities were being boarded up against rioters, looters and arsonists.

Suburban residents, fearful that the urban mobs may one day be coming for them, were stockpiling guns and ammunition.

How divided are we?

The New York Times “Sunday Review” devoted its entire section to Donald Trump, as seen from the eyes of its columnists. On the cover page of the Review ran the headline, “All 15 of our columnists explain what the past four years have cost America, and what’s at stake in this election.”

Each of the 15 trashed Trump from his or her perspective.

Since World War II, America has held elections where the country seemed at sword’s point. Not all were like 1960, where scholar Arthur Schlesinger Jr., felt compelled to write the book, “Kennedy or Nixon: Does It Make Any Difference?”
Schlesinger felt he had to explain that despite the similarity of the candidates, both in their 40s, it made a difference who was elected.

Yet, even after the most divisive elections of the post-war era — 1952 and 1968 — the country pulled back together. President Dwight Eisenhower, from 1952 to 1956, and Richard Nixon, from 1968 to 1972, restored unity to the nation during their first terms by ending the Asian wars into which their predecessors had taken the nation.

New leadership ended the wars and brought the United States together.

The difference today?

Americans are not divided over war. One of Trump’s successes has been to keep us out of new wars, even if he has not yet extracted us from the wars he inherited.

Today, we are divided over ideology, morality, culture, race and history. We are divided over whether America is the great nation we were raised to revere and love or a nation born in great sins and crimes — such as the near annihilation of indigenous peoples and their cultures and the enslavement of hundreds of thousands of Black peoples from Africa.

Are we the nation of 1776 and 1789, or the nation of 1619, whose institutions are still infected with the “systemic racism” of our birth?

In this divided country, at times, Americans seem to detest each other.

Indeed, if the United States did not exist as one nation, would this diverse people ever agree to form a compact to come together, or would we seek to retain our separate identities?

In tearing down the statues of explorers such as Christopher Columbus or the Founding Fathers and their successor presidents, from Andrew Jackson to Abraham Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, the contempt for the country these men helped to bring into being, and for what this country stands for today, is manifest.

A significant slice of America’s young believes that the nation to which they belong was detestable from its birth, and that the Western civilization from which it sprang is not worth saving.

In his farewell address, President Ronald Reagan spoke of the America where he was raised and which he cherished:

“The hope of human freedom — the quest for it, the achievement of it — is the American saga. And I’ve often recalled one group of early settlers making a treacherous crossing of the Atlantic on a small ship when their leader, a minister, noted that perhaps their venture would fail and they would become a byword, a footnote to history. But perhaps, too, with God’s help, they might also found a new world, a city upon a hill, a light unto the nations.”

How many Americans still believe what Reagan believed? How many yet see America as “a city upon a hill, a light unto the nations”?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Here’s what I posted on social media at the start of Election Night, 2020:

All I can say: The Democratic left and its media are capable of anything. Literally ANYTHING. 2020 taught us this. Whatever happens tonight and in the coming days, remember that. There is nothing they will not do for the sake of power, and for the sake of destroying your individual liberty. Nothing. So no matter how much their next outburst of evil shocks me, nothing will surprise me.

Then, hours later:

Well, now we know the Democratic “plan B” (since the Biden landslide didn’t work out): Paralyze the count process in Pennsylvania, and turn it into the “hanging chad” fiasco of 2020. Maybe it will end up in the Supreme Court. The Pennsylvania state government is run by open mobsters. They have done everything they promised they would do: shut down the election, if they can’t seem to win.

How it’s looking to me now, 11pm Eastern on Election night: President Trump can pull this off. He obviously has to win the states he won last time. But he will have to fight for Pennsylvania, like he did impeachment, and he has the capacity to win. Best case, Republicans keep the Senate and we are, sadly, stuck with Nancy Pelosi. This is the best case scenario I see at present. Essentially, it’s status quo–which is NOT sustainable for our country, but may buy us some time and avoid a total civil war. Sad we have reached a point in America where this is the BEST case scenario.

Arizona turned decisively blue because Californians FLED California for its high taxes and socialism. So what do they do? Bring high taxes and socialism not just to Arizona, but the rest of the country. This kind of ignorance and self-destruction is simply not sustainable.

Imagine the sort of PITIFUL LOSER who sits in a car in Wilmington, Delaware, in the middle of the night, hoping to see Joe Biden give a victory speech he can’t credibly deliver because his campaign orchestrated a vote-counting breakdown in Pennsylvania (and, apparently, North Carolina too.)

And finally:

This isn’t the 2000 election. That year, the vote was razor-thin close in the contested state of Florida. This time, in the contested states, President Trump is significantly ahead. The Democrats in those states simply do not wish to concede defeat. They are holding the American republic hostage.

Months ago, leftists claimed mail-in voting would be efficient and honest. Critical thinkers knew it was a lie. Now here we are, on the verge of a Constitutional crisis, thanks to their inability or unwillingness to count the mail-in ballots that support the outcome they don’t desire. Leftists will never admit when they’re wrong. They pile travesty upon travesty, and blame their victims. I told you they are capable of anything. Enough is enough.

It’s all very sad. Just more evidence that politically and, deeper than that, Americans suffer from irreconcilable differences. Millions of us want a divorce.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Our descent to banana republic status has been postponed.  My nightmare scenario was that the Democrats would gain the power to add DC and Puerto Rico as states and pack the Supreme Court with enough new justices to approve anything they want, including limiting firearms to National Guard members, and deciding that whatever they call “hate speech” isn’t protected by the First Amendment. But for that to happen, they need to control the presidency (which may or may not happen), the House (which they appear to retain control of), and the Senate, which it looks like they have lost and therefore will be unable to abolish the filibuster.

With 2 Dem pickups so far in Colorado and Arizona, and one loss in Alabama, it looks like the GOP majority will hold. The re-election races for GOP senators that looked shaky for the GOP in Iowa, Montana, North Carolina, and Maine all look solid. NPR is not giving up on the Dems, but headlines,” Democrats’ Hopes For Senate Majority Fade As GOP Beats Back Challenges.”

Fade to black, they mean. No end to the filibuster, no statehood for DC, and ne expansion of the Supreme Court to engineer a Dem majority.

The Republic is safe, not matter how many votes the Dems manufacture for Biden.

The once and future Majority Leader is happy, too.