You’ll rarely hear them admit it, but many on the left regret electing Joe Biden. That doesn’t mean they would have rather had a Republican in the presidency, but it does mean that Biden was a compromise that is continuing to bite them in the rear.
Yesterday, that happened again after the current president decided it’d be a good idea to essentially hit on a girl that couldn’t have been any more than 6 or 7 years old. RedState reported on the incident when it happened.
Here’s the video.
There are pictures of the girl online — which I’ll forgo — because it doesn’t really add anything to the story to plaster her face everywhere. But suffice it to say, Biden’s comment about looking her 19 and her crossing her legs was not only maximum cringe, but it pegged up the creepy meters. That is not the kind of thing you say to a young girl, much less when you are president and giving a speech at a Memorial Day ceremony.
But because everything is stupid, instead of condemning Biden, the left desperately scraped for a distraction and they found in by trending #CreepyTrump. At one point, over 20,000 tweets were using the hashtag. You know, because Trump has a history of sniffing young girls’ hair and commenting on their looks…oh wait, no, he doesn’t.
They’ve got nothing. The left are saddled with a dementia-ridden old man who can’t stop hitting on pre-pubescent girls — and that makes them very angry. Because they can’t simply admit they made a mistake; they deflect by talking about the bad orange man. It’s so transparent, but it does not change the facts on the ground.
Biden is not well, and if Trump had made a comment like that toward a young girl, it would have headlined CNN for a week. Biden gets a pass because of his political party, but he shouldn’t get a pass from honest people who see this for what it is. I don’t know if this guy is a predator or if it’s just the fact that his senility is showing through — but what I do know is that this is not normal
Authorities frequently met last summer’s riots with a diffident response. National Guard troops remained in their barracks, and police often stood by as looting, arson, and property destruction took place in cities ranging from New York and Chicago to Seattle and Minneapolis.
While political leaders deserve much of the blame, in some cases, the police themselvesgenuflected to left-wing protesters, endorsing their cause and reinforcing the protesters’ claimed moral superiority to the broader society.
The New Way
Such responses by police and authorities are rooted in the fear that a heavy-handed response will cause more violence. This might be called the “blow off steam” approach to controlling civil disturbances. Under this theory, a heavy-handed police response to community violence—with armored vehicles, riot shields, tear gas, and the like—makes matters worse, playing into the larger narrative of police brutality.
This approach is also rooted in the idea that the rioters have legitimate grievances, that ordinary free speech is inadequate for their concerns, and that riots are an expression of understandable anger and emotion. In other words, if you let protesters cathartically break a few things and burn down a few stores, their passions will burn out and things will return to normal. As Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blakesaid rather infamously during the 2014 riots in her city, “We also gave those who ‘wish to destroy’ space to do that as well.”
The new “blow off steam” approach gained currency rather suddenly. We saw hints of it in 2014, when police stood by as stores were robbed and police cars were burned in Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri. In 2020, the same scenario played out nationwide, asdocumented by American Greatness’ own Pedro Gonzalez.
More recently, certainTrump advisors told Trump not to speak out against last summer’s violence following the death of George Floyd, lest he make things worse. Governorsrefused offers of federal assistance. When Trump ordered troops into D.C. to address rioting adjacent to the White House, a number of retired military generals condemned his actions.
Worse, certain active-duty officers resisted Trump’s orders, by, for example,disarming the National Guard.
The Old Way
The “blow off steam” strategy stands in stark contrast to the old approach to riot control. To use another homespun expression, “Give ‘em an inch, and they’ll take a mile.” It used to be widely understood that violent agitators and riots need to be dealt with swiftly and aggressively or the disorder will acquire a life of its own.
Former OSS operative Rex Applegate literally wrote the book on riots. His extensive experience in World War II and the twilight struggles of the Cold War informed the definitive manual on riot control used by many police departments in the 1960s and ’70s. “A widespread public disturbance which is not immediately suppressed but instead is permitted to grow,” Applegate wrote, “becomes a threat to the effective functioning of legally organized government. Violent and uncontrolled mob action destroys public morale and confidence in police and military forces. Loss of life, property, and other deleterious side effects always accompany mob violence.”
Riots exploit a dangerous reality: law and order rely on voluntary compliance and the perceived certainty of punishment. If even a smallish number of the population actively resists law enforcement, order can break down quickly. People on the margins realize during these windows of lawlessness thatcrime will pay. The riotous behavior of one’s peers makes this antisocial behavior seem more acceptable and more plausible.
While the 1960s were a time of rioting and disorder, it would be hard to attribute this to a weak response by law enforcement. Perhaps the most representative example was Mayor Daley’s “shoot to maim” orders in response to rioting in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic National Convention. The riots didn’t last much longer after that.
Taking rioting and other disturbances seriously is similar to the “Broken Windows” theory of policing, which emphasizes the vital relationship of seemingly minor offenses such as graffiti and vandalism to more serious violent crimes. The theory teaches that the latter is fueled by the perception of community indifference to the former. New York City’s use of this strategy in the 1990s and 2000s under Mayor Rudy Giuliani iswidely credited with the successful reduction of violent crime prior to the recent crime explosion under the left-leaning Bill de Blasio.
Both approaches have a certain facial plausibility. It is easy to recount times where aggressive police responses foster new grievances, whether it be Northern Ireland’s Bloody Sunday or the Kent State shootings.
But saying police can go too far in keeping law and order is distinct from the “let them blow off steam” approachlately popular. In general, riots appear opportunistic and somewhat random. They only get off the ground after they first achieve some momentum. Under the new policing strategies, small disturbances that can be more easily controlled are permitted to rage out of control. As a result, riots appear to be more common and more destructive and, worst of all, more accepted by political leaders.
Law and Legitimacy
In the decade after the social turmoil of the 1960s, the country suffered under an extended period of criminal violence. One salient explanation was that the disorder and perceived immunity during the riots of the 1960semboldened the criminal element. They realized there is safety in numbers. And some got a taste of the anarchic freedom unleashed by the disorder that traveled alongside the anti-Vietnam War and civil rights movements.
Another factor prevailed then and now. If law and order benefit from voluntary compliance, such compliance also benefits from perceptions of legitimacy. The behavior of others and perceived community norms are akey influence on behavior.
In the wake of the civil rights movement more than a half-century ago, and more emphatically in the critical race theory of today, the right of the government to impose law and order is in question. Critics deem the society as a whole illegitimate in both cases because of its alleged endemic racism. Moreover, in both instances society’s leadershave endorsed this criticism, losing their nerve and their self-confidence to insist on compliance with the law.
Justice increasingly is refracted through an ideological and racial lens, focused on “who, whom” more than the underlying behavior. Thus, authorities have implicitly permitted violent riots for black liberation and against regular law enforcement, while the mostly white lawbreaking involving last year’s election protest at the Capitol is freely compared to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and treated accordingly.
One interpretation of the “racial equity” talk of recent years is that the broader society—what critics would call “white” society—is illegitimate because it is racist. If it is racist and illegitimate, so are its laws and institutions. Thus, for a white society to enforce laws against black lawbreakers (and their white “allies”) is not just, but a perpetuation of injustice.
In short, the “blow off steam” approach is not a matter of police tactics. It implicates the more fundamental question of whether a white majority society is allowed to make laws and enforce them against racial minorities. For the Left, the answer is a resounding, “No.”
As with the election of Barack Obama, the Left finds itself surprised by its own success. It is both in charge of society’s major institutions and also highly critical of them. This orientation is not sustainable, as it undermines the most basic functions of government and the expectations of the majority: order, protection of property, and safety. Without seeing themselves as stewards and fellow citizens of the same country with the same shared fate, they will not be able to govern, and certainly will not be able to govern well.
Like the leftist French and Bolshevik Revolutions, the people in charge soon may realize they have unleashed a monster they cannot control, having undermined the habits of compliance and myths of legitimacy on which law and order depend. Thesustained rise in violent crime following last year’s summer of rioting suggests this unhappy but entirely predictable result is already upon us.
Prior to being shot in the head this week by four brothers in a melee at a wild party, Sasha Johnson, of the British chapter of Black Lives Matter, had big plans for whites.
Johnson had been “calling for a ‘racial offenders register’ that would see those guilty of ‘microaggressions’ banned from living in multicultural communities and prevented from working in certain industries.”
“If you live in a majority-colored neighborhood you shouldn’t reside there because you’re a risk to those people—just like if a sex offender lived next to a school he would be a risk to those children,” she fulminated.
Johnson’s call for a “racial offenders register” for whites is a perfectly pragmatic application of the critical race theory rot.
And while critical race theory (CRT) was made-in-America—it has, like many a destructive American creed, been energetically exported around the world. British agitators are certainly improving upon the plans hatched for whites by their brothers-in-arms stateside.
To wit, Johnson had once pinned a tweet to her profile which read, “The white man will not be our equal, but our slave. History is changing. No justice, no peace #BLM.”
Believe Johnson and her ilk, for they are deadly serious—and deadly.
Stateside, there have been some gains in working to outlaw the CRT poison percolating throughout American schools. Tennessee has led the way. Other states have introduced measures to ban or curb anti-white propaganda peddled by the nation’s eager pedagogues.
Alas, the intellectual means of production remain firmly under the control of progressives. As part of the lucrative “racial-industrial-complex” (a Jack Kerwick coinage), critical race theory enjoys muscular advocates.
Its adversaries, however, are weak and flaccid.
I’ve watched scores on Fox News “argue” against the critical race theory agitprop in education. There’s nothing but humbug from the channel’s holy men and women. Their arguments against the CRT scourge are characterized by a white-out of whites.
Nobody will utter the words “anti-white,” or articulate the “anti-white” essence of critical race theory. CRT is always euphemized as things other than a hatred of whites and a resolve to blacken them. Always.
Weatherize the Kids from Anti-Whiteness
White kids are critical race theory’s innocent targets in schools. Yet not one of the anointed critics of the critical-race bile has stated the obvious: while white kids are brow-beaten; black and brown kids are buoyed by critical race theory; they come up smelling like roses and punching like knock-out game champions.
Not one of critical race theory’s conscientious objectors has said that the true victims of the critical race miseducation are white kids, as they are the sole repository of hate and aggression in this critical-race blitzkrieg.
Instead, it’s “critical race theory is bad for education. Our kids score last in the developed world. Kids are being reduced to their immutable characteristics. Critical race theory violates the promise of America. It divides us. Martin Luther King Jr. would’ve opposed critical race theory.” Blah blah blah. I lost a few IQ points listening to that drivel.
Amid the February collapse of the electrical power grid in Texas, we spoke of vital infrastructure that had been neither weatherized nor winterized in anticipation of harsh winter storms.
Wake up. Weatherize your kids against this anti-white hatred.
Start with ending the socialism escapism, once and for all. Quit intoning like automatons that critical race theory is about socialism or Marxism. CRT is about and against whites.
In particular, unlike critical race theory, Marxism offers a class-based analysis—it fingers social class as the primary source of conflict in society.
CRT’s True Boogeyman: ‘White Supremacy’
Critical race theory, conversely, focuses exclusively on race as the source of all oppression. Not on any race, mind you, but on the white race, or on “white supremacy.”
Honest demons that they are, critical race theory sophisticates generally rejectthe term racism in favor of “white supremacy as a conceptual framework for understanding race-based oppression,” as Charles W. Mills, a CRT “scholar,” readily concedes.
It is conservatives who cling to the comfortable “racism” generality to describe the thrust of critical race theory. They’re the only dazed and confused sorts to bewail CRT’s un-American, diffuse, generic racism.
Strictly speaking, critical race theory is not even traditionally racist; it’s exclusively anti-white. It is pro all races other than white.
Unlike their conservative adversaries, critical race theorists admit as much. These odious individuals use “white supremacy” to describe white existence. Irrespective of lives well-lived, to the critical race boosters, whites are on the wrong side of creation.
As opposed to Marxists, then, critical race theorists identify race, the white race specifically, as the “primary contradiction in society.”
It’s Dhimmitude, Dummy
Socialism is most certainly not central in the BLM list of values; socialism hardly rates a mention in the larger scheme of priming whites for dhimmitude—reeducating, intimidating, and subjugating whites qua whites.
That truth, very plainly, is the albino elephant in the room.
Critical race theory’s central project is to make whites accept dhimmitude, not socialism. (If the practitioners of anti-whiteness, who already practice capitalism as consumers and producers in a market economy, were converted to theoretical capitalism—would their anti-whiteness dissipate? Naturally not.)
If you imagined dhimmitude means life as a second-class citizen—you were dead wrong.
“Dhimmitude,” according to Jihad Watch, “is the Islamic manifestation of the barbaric practice of extracting benefit or pleasure from someone whose life is already forfeit.”
Differently put, white lives matter less.
If anything, for its failure to finger whites for all the ills of society, Marxism is viewed as incompatible with critical race theory by CRT’s leading sophisticates, as observed by a critic, Marxist scholar Mike Cole. (“Critical Race Theory and Education: A Marxist Response.”)
It’s as simple as all that: For conflict in society, Marxism fingers social class; critical race theory saddles whites. Deal with it. Denial is a deadly defense mechanism.
Article by Peter Barry Chowka in The American Thinker
One year after the death of George Floyd, the psy-ops have triumphed
A
lot was made last week about Tuesday May 25th being the first
anniversary of George Floyd's death while in police custody. For me, the
most graphic indication of the impact of Floyd’s death and its
year-long over-the-top aftermath was provided by the photograph and
videos of George Floyd’s relatives last Tuesday outside the White House
after they met with President Biden and Vice President Harris. Right in
front of the White House, family members and their attorney had their
clenched fists raised and pumping in the air in a radical black power
salute reminiscent of the Marxist Black Panthers of the late 1960s.
I
know a bit about the Black Panthers, having been around back then.
Coincidentally on Tuesday night – as part of its tribute to George Floyd
featuring a day of black-themed films – the Turner Classic Movies
television channel premiered a short, award-winning (of course)
documentary filmed in 1968, titled Black Panthers.
It was produced by a sympathetic French film crew at a demonstration in
Oakland, Calif. in support of Huey P. Newton, the Black Panther leader
who was awaiting trial for killing a police officer.
In the film, Newton and his fellow Panthers are portrayed as the proud Marxists
that they were. They and their flock are seen reading and quoting
Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book of revolutionary sayings. They are
unabashed in their praise of Marxist regimes like Red China, Cuba, and
even North Korea.
The
difference between then and now is that in 1968 these violent
revolutionaries represented a small fringe. Today, their radical
successors are in control, essentially running the White House and the
Democrat party.
The
death of George Floyd while in police custody was the second in a
one-two punch in 2020 that essentially remade the country overnight. The
first wave was the Covid-19 Plandemic, which is finally being exposed
as a witting release by Communist China if not a cleverly-designed
bioweapon. Less than three months later, last Memorial Day, the death of
Floyd was captured on video – and quickly, thanks to social media, it
went around the world. You couldn’t have designed two more effective
PsyOps.
The
ginned up response to the Floyd video catapulted the Marxist agenda of
Black Lives Matter to the top tier of national policy. It has now been
almost completely embraced by corporate America, academia, K-12 public
and private education, popular culture, sports, the Democrats – almost
everything. It has helped to divide this country along racial lines
unlike anything since the Civil War.
It also brought to the fore Critical Race Theory,
which had previously been largely confined to leftist-controlled
academia. CRT has now come to dominate national policy. Here are several
examples.
I recently reported here
on how the Medical Establishment has come together around the concept
of racism being the most serious health problem. This nonsense is being
enshrined into national policy by the woke Biden Administration. And not
only in health care.
On May 26, the NY Post reported
about a significant portion of the $200 million that has been allocated
to public schools for Covid relief. One part of the program funds
interventions that “respond to students’ academic, social and emotional
needs” — including the disruption of “whiteness” and the propagation of
critical race theory.
An incredibly detailed, 53-page document sent to schools around the country, Ed Covid-19 Handbook, spells out the new requirements that schools need to follow. Two excerpts:
“Require a commitment to learning from students, families and educators who disrupt Whiteness and other forms of oppression.”
Offer
“free, antiracist therapy for White educators and support staff,” and
“free, radical self/collective care and therapy for educators and
support staff of color.”
Even
though Derek Chauvin, the first police officer to be charged in the
death of George Floyd, was convicted on all counts, that outcome has not
satisfied Black Lives Matter and many Democrat politicians. Do you
think they will ever be satisfied?
The
short answer is No. The Black Marxist radicals and their handlers, the
oligarchs of Big Tech, the George Soros’s, the Democrats, Obama, et al
are now pushing all the way to final victory. They see the destination
of their 100-year Long March finally in sight – and they’re not going to
stop now.
Yesterday (May 29) was the anniversary of the publication of an article I wrote for American Thinker
four days after George Floyd's death. It was titled “George Floyd’s
preliminary autopsy raises the question: Was this another rush to
judgement?” The article cited the autopsy that concluded that he may
have died from a drug overdose and not anything the police did to him.
The reaction to that article – from elements on the conservative right –
spoke volumes.
I had obtained a copy of the arrest warrant for Derek Chauvin. I wrote:
The
brief mention of the autopsy suggests that the case against Chauvin,
and possibly his three colleagues assuming they too will eventually be
charged, for being totally responsible for the death of Floyd may not be as cut and dried as previously thought.
As
I wrote: “Asphyxiation was not the cause of George Floyd's death,
according to his autopsy.” We later learned that George Floyd had at
least four times the lethal dose of illegal drugs in his system when he
was placed under arrest.
One
year ago, people from left, right, and center were all in agreement
that George Floyd had been killed by Derek Chauvin. The video “evidence”
was unassailable. A trial would not really be needed. For simply
raising the issue of the autopsy, I was pilloried by former supporters
on the conservative right. The concept of a defendant like Chauvin being
innocent until proven guilty? Fuggedaboutit! All you needed to know
about the case was contained in the 9-minute cell phone video.
A worthy piece of accurate, independent, untainted analysis in this respect is a compelling 24-minute video by George Parry, Who Killed George Floyd?
The
recent trial of Derek Chauvin for the death of George Floyd was a
kangaroo court – the triumph of mob rule. Harvard law school professor
emeritus Alan Dershowitz, a liberal Democrat, observed that the trial
should have been moved out of Minneapolis, which was under constant
threat of violence and intimidation from the mob. Meanwhile, the city
–which has defunded its police department -- paid Floyd’s family over $27 million
on March 13, 2021 for his death. This “largest pretrial civil rights
settlement ever,” according to the Floyd family’s attorney, was
announced prior to the trial of Derek Chauvin, further tainting the jury
pool.
On May 15, American Thinker published an article
“Floyd Defendant Accuses State of 'Prosecutorial Misconduct.'” One of
the former cops who has yet to be tried is alleging that the physician
who performed the autopsy on George Floyd was essentially coerced into
changing his findings when he testified at Chauvin’s trial – to make it
seem like Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s neck or his shoulder was a primary
cause of Mr. Floyd’s sudden death.
I
have been asked repeatedly during the past year if there is a thread
that ties Covid-19, George Floyd's death, and the manipulation of these
crises (real or manufactured) together to advance a specific political
outcome.
Short
answer: YES. Longer answer: Are you serious? Both the Chinese Communist
Party’s Covid-19 Plandemic and the manipulation of the news about
George Floyd’s death are the one-two punches aimed at the take down of
the United States of America. You couldn’t have designed two more
effective PsyOps to transform the country virtually overnight – one
right after the other.
The
proof is in the reality today. I advise skeptics to look around. Do you
even recognize the country anymore? Ultimately, both of these PsyOps
not only transformed America – they effectively took out the only thing
standing in the way of the Marxist Left that might have prevented or
delayed their total victory: President Donald J Trump.
Crime-Loving Liberals Keep Chasing Patriots Out of Military and Law Enforcement
I have to wonder who is in charge when I see patriotic Americans
purged from law enforcement and military service. Former Space Force
Commander Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier was fired for speaking out against
Marxism and the racism that is Critical Race Theory.
In an interview with Sean Hannity,
Lohmeier, stated the secretary of the Department of Defense (DOD)
called for an “extremism down day” and sent a guidance memorandum to all
military service members in February.
“There were videos being sent out to every base, service member, that
we were asked to watch in preparation for our extremism down days and
discussions on race in which we were taught that the country was evil,
that it was founded in 1619 and not 1776, and that whites are inherently
evil,” Lohmeier explained to Hannity.
These videos were sent from the very top of the Biden administration.
Lohmeier was soon fired for speaking out against the Critical race
Theory being propagated by the DOD as well as Marxism. Isn’t Marxism a
reason we HAVE a military?
Even pro-2nd Amendment cops are suddenly fair game. Alabama state
rep. and captain with the Mobile County Sheriffs Department, Shane
Stringer, was fired from his law enforcement post when he supported a
bill regarding constitutional carry.
In regards to the firing of Stringer, Sheriff’s Department
spokesperson, Lori Myles said, “Sheriff Sam Cochran made the decision
Wednesday, May 12, because of different political views held by his
administration,” to AL.com
Stringer sent a news release where he said he was, “proud to stand in
defense of the Second Amendment gun rights of Alabamians despite being
fired by Mobile Sheriff Sam Cochran for his position on the issue. The
Second Amendment gun rights of Alabamians are under attack from a
liberal federal government that is out of control and even from some
factions right here at home.” Stringer continued, “After dedicating my
life and career to law enforcement, losing a job because I stand in
support of Alabama gun owners is certainly surprising, but nothing will
discourage me from defending the constitutional guarantees promised to
all of us as American citizens.”
Some cops cant even have secret opinions. Norfolk, VA police Lt.
William Kelly was recently fired for making an anonymous $25 donation to
Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense fund. He added a note that read,
“God bless. Thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You’ve done nothing wrong.”
However, Norfolk’s Chief Boone doesn’t think his officers should have an opinion, nor the right to express it. Even anonymously.
“A police department cannot do its job when the public loses trust
with those whose duty is to serve and protect them,” Chief Boone said in
a statement announcing Kelly’s firing. “We do not want perceptions of
any individual officer to undermine the relations between the Norfolk
Police Department and the community.”
Never mind opinions, Cops can’t even be funny. Bellevue, ID Deputy
Marshal Nate Silvester was fired for his viral Tik Tok video of him
pretending to call Lebron James for help. Bellevue mayor Ned Burns
claimed Silvester was fired, not for the video, but for repeated
violations, though he did not specify what the violations were. Mr.
Silvester has since been offered jobs in other municipalities.
So soldiers and cops can’t have a public opinion, a private opinion, a
sense of humor or a desire to speak out against racism or Marxism. Yet
more reasons to not join law enforcement
or the military. Perhaps we need another weekend to remember the
soldiers and police officers we’ve lost to political correctness.
‘Heels up’ Harris took outsourcing to new levels of economic advocacy today directly from the White House. This might be the first time a U.S. Vice President has ever asked U.S. companies not to invest in their own nation and instead to invest their money in Central America. Spreading the wealth as a direct point of advocacy, and putting America last.
WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Senate has voted against creating a January 6th commission to investigate the Capitol riots. As a result, it would seem the events of that day will forever remain shrouded in complete darkness and mystery.
"Yes, there were millions of people there that day, in addition to hundreds of journalists. Plus, we have the entire FBI tracking down these evil criminals and we did a full investigation during Trump's impeachment," said Senator Chuck Schumer, "but we really have no idea what happened or what led to this horrific attack on our democracy."
"Now, I guess we'll never know," he added as a single tear rolled down his cheek.
According to experts, no one really knows what happened on January 6th, and spending millions of dollars on an independent commission was the only way for us to really know.
"It's a shame," said one Democrat leader in congress. "Someone incited these riots, but nobody knows who. And now the racist insurrectionist Republicans are making sure we'll never know. If only someone would have recorded the events on a cell phone or something."
Republicans have offered a compromise to Democrats, proposing instead an independent commission into the events of January 7th.
