Top 10 Progressive Icons to Tear Down for Their Racism

If the Left ever decides to be consistent in its impulse to cancel,

 here are some suggestions for cleaning their own house.

by Dewitt Clinton for American Greatness

It’s rare that the Left ever manages to be consistent in its application of its rules, especially those concerned with its favorite new pastime, canceling. But occasionally, it makes noises that sound like calls for consistency, like the time leftists canceled Woodrow Wilson . . . at Princeton, of all places. 

Generally, however, the leftist portrait of the past is one of alleged right-wing terror, with brave and mighty liberals stepping in to advance the cause of peace, justice, and equality as the march of history demands. It turns out, however, that history is more complicated than any of that. What happens when history, as the Left tells it, eclipses even those liberals?

Herewith are the top 10 left-wing icons that need to be toppled according to their own logic:

10) Senator William J. Fulbright. The man for whom the Fulbright Scholarships are named, and a mentor of Bill Clinton, was a Dixiecrat. Fulbright was, among other things, an active participant in the effort to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act. How can any person of color receive such a scholarship without being triggered? Clearly, these scholarships need to be renamed. 

9) W.E.B. DuBois. DuBois was a serious scholar and intellectual, as well as a founder of the NAACP. Like so many Progressives in the early 20th century, however, he subscribed to eugenics, and embraced some truly awful ideas. “The Negro has not been breeding for an object; therefore, he must begin to train and breed for brains, for efficiency, for beauty,” he wrote.

8) Margaret Sanger. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was also close to the eugenics movement. She even spoke to a Ku Klux Klan meeting in the 1930s. Sanger is, in fact, already starting to be canceled. One New York City clinic already has taken her name down.

7) Cesar Chavez. Chavez was an advocate of workers in California, particularly Hispanic workers in agriculture. For that reason, he often opposed illegal immigration. Illegal immigration, he realized, was bad for workers who already were working in the United States. California, therefore, should cancel its Cesar Chavez holiday and remove any statues to him that exist.

6) James, Duke of York. The future James II of England, and the brother of King Charles II, was one of the founders of the Royal Africa Company, the company that brought England into the slave trade. Clearly his name is a trigger. New York, New York. New York State, New York City, the New York Times all need to change their names.

5) Karl Marx. Marx is perhaps the lefty philosopher of lefty philosophers. He was also a racist, harboring, like so many other intellectuals in the 19th century, deeply racist views. Perhaps DuBois’ reading Marx is one of the things that led him astray?

4) Che Guevara. Who’s more hip than Che? His iconic image still makes Progressives swoon. Yet he, too, was a racist and a homophobe with an abiding love for violence and bloodshed. Clearly, his image has to be removed from countless shirts, buttons, posters, and statues.

3) Barack Obama. Sure Obama was a Progressive icon who pushed through certain left-wing priorities as president. But he also paved the way for the election of Trump. More important for the purposes of this list, he fostered a boys’ club atmosphere in the White House that made female staff uncomfortable. Moreover, he casually mocked disabled people in his everyday conversation. Such a man is no one’s hero in our woke moment.

2) Lin-Manuel Miranda. With the popular success of “Hamilton” on Broadway, Lin-Manuel Miranda has become a living Progressive icon. He was a regular performer at the Obama White House. How left-wing is he? He’s a huge fan of Oscar Lopez Rivera, a leader of a Puerto Rican terrorist group that murdered several New Yorkers. When Obama pardoned Rivera at the end of his presidency, Miranda promised him a special showing of “Hamilton” in Chicago. Yet Miranda has failed to follow through on his lefty priorities. Apparently his new play, “In the Heights,” has people of color in mostly background roles. And the people of color in his cast are, like Miranda himself, light skinned. Clearly, Miranda has to be given more than a warning for such heresy.

1) Joe Biden. He’s in the Oval Office now, but for many many years he was a Democratic senator from what had been a border state. In fact, one can easily view Biden as the last Dixiecrat. When he was campaigning for president in 1987, before he had to quit the campaign in disgrace when he was caught plagiarizing British leader Neil Kinnock, Biden bragged about his Delaware connection. Campaigning in Alabama, he said that they should vote for him because Delaware was on the South’s side in the war. If that isn’t worthy of cancellation, what is?

⸛

X22, Christian Patriot News, and more-Oct 3rd

 

It's another week, folks! Here's tonight's news:

🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/ohio-rino-governor-dewine-state-leaders-consider-redistricting-map-favors-pelosi-jeopardizes-jim-jordans-seat/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/baby-roe-v-wade-case-never-aborted-just-came-publicly/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/mostly-peaceful-protest-george-floyd-statue-vandalized-new-york/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/watch-jon-voight-fellow-americans-will-never-allow-force-evil-knock-constitution/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/pathetic-white-house-dubs-love-joe-chant-video-congressional-ballgame-appearance-make-biden-seem-popular/

National Divorce Is Expensive, But It's Worth Every Penny

written by Dave Reaboi at Late Republic Nonsense

For the last several years, I’ve been among a handful of commentators (along with good friends Michael Malice, Jesse Kelly, Michael Anton, and others) talking about the possibility or desirability of National Divorce, the political separation of Blue and Red America—or, to get more specific and inflammatory, the breakup or dissolution of the United States. 

This week, my friend Karol Markowicz has written a typically thoughtful piece on the subject at the New York Post and concludes that, as much as many people long for some kind of separation that would solve the many real problems of America’s current disunion, it’s not a solution that’s currently feasible. 

As with any breakup or divorce, even if we had a popular consensus for a National Divorce in principle, there are all kinds of details—and massive, very thorny ones, like who gets which territories, populations, industries or nuclear weapons caches—that could cause tumultuous and potentially violent negotiations. All these points of contention are very real and shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand; they’re not going anywhere. The seriousness of these issues and their daunting solutions are meant to prove that the breakup of the United States will always be an impossibility.

But that’s not right. National Divorce or some other, more tragic and chaotic outcome won’t be impossible forever. Despite heaping dollops of patriotic propaganda—which, admittedly, is essential to maintenance of the citizens’ faith in the regime—one day, the United States will end. History teaches us that regimes, like all human creations, rise and fall—and world-bestriding empires fall harder, faster, and more surely than that. Admitting this is a possibility isn’t as accurate as understanding it as a certainty; yes, the timeline is hazy, but it’s coming.

And, as one approaches the crisis and contempt between Americans builds beyond what is currently imaginable, those thorny points of contention—heretofore enough to reduce National Divorce to a laugh-line—become real objects of debate and deliberative thought. There is a price, for example, at which the hard work of pulling oil from the ground in a place is so prohibitively expensive, even discussing it seems foolish. However, when circumstances change—maybe global supply wanes and prices rise dramatically—areas believed to be too costly for drilling suddenly become feasible.

It’s interesting that those with the strongest objections to National Divorce today seem to base their (admittedly legitimate) worry about those horrific split-up scenarios rather than make a principled, Lincolnesque argument about the insolubility of the Union. Of course, appeals to Boomer Patriotism still exist, but I’m not sure if that kind of thing gets very many people going anymore. As that generation recedes from its long reign over the nation’s political and cultural life—to be replaced by a more combative cohort weaned on civilizational exhaustion and a sense of impending collapse—we’ll see even less. 

I think this says a lot about where we are, “what time it is,” and how nearly all of us who follow political and social life here in America have a kind of understanding that there’s no way back from our state of disunion. While there might be small valves—like presidential or congressional elections—to temporarily alleviate some of the pressure and sense of impending conflict, the issues on which we disagree are too profound and foundational to ever just recede into the background.

In Closing of the American Mind, Allan Bloom made a very elegant and convincing case that, above other forces in human life, ideas matter most. I’ve thought about Bloom a lot as I’ve spent the last several years writing, tweeting and speaking about the big things tearing America apart. As I’ve argued, the differences between Red and Blue America are far deeper than any issues we interact with on the surface; they’re essentially pre-political—at least in the sense of very temporal, issues-based, hot-button nonsense we consider “politics” today. 

The political philosophers, however, would say that the issues dividing us are absolutely political, in the original and most elemental sense: we have in America today what are, essentially, two competing, radically different and mutually exclusive conceptions of the Good, of justice, and of the proper role of the state in its interactions with its citizens. 

Over the last decade especially, we’ve seen how these conceptions expand with great intensity and speed into areas that were once relatively apolitical and would’ve perplexed our grandparents, like the reality of human biology or its malleability according to ideology (via the trans issue). As time goes on, even more of reality itself will become a battleground. 

If we disagree on these big things—which will necessarily manifest in every political issue, large or small—what strong force could possibly re-unite us? Or, to ask a question that’s perhaps more pertinent—maybe not today or tomorrow, but soon: what force could keep us from coming apart?

The most perceptive observers of America have known that this was always a perilous position for a large, multi-ethnic, ideological (or “propositional”) constitutional state. As time goes on, and the ideology on which the legitimacy of the state rests necessarily changes or becomes contentious between large segments of the population, what’s left around which the great majority of citizens can rally? 

Not ethnicity or religion; these are two strong identity conceptions that have the power to unite people in smaller, less diverse states. Not patriotism emerging from a reverence for the nation’s history and heroic founding story, either. The Left has worked with great zeal to undermine all of these things because it wants to unite Americans under nothing but its own ideology. The 1619 Project is only the most successful, high-profile effort to undermine the legitimacy—and, even more importantly, the virtue and goodness—of the American regime and its Founding. It, along with related cults like Critical Race Theory, forms the political ethos that has thoroughly consumed Blue America.

As the late Angelo Codevilla wrote, these differences amount to nothing less than a “cold civil war,” and the primary role of the responsible statesman is to prevent it from going “hot.” Codevilla’s answer was federalism—but the great man was wise enough to know that, by itself, our old conception of federalism was no longer a reasonable or viable answer. 

For more than a century, Progressives have dedicated themselves to abolishing the legitimacy of federalism, and then reconstituting the federal government and the courts in order to make its application and practice all but impossible. Over time, as their fanaticism grew, the Left’s position hardened, from the mere undesirability of local differences and state sovereignty to the illegitimacy, unjustness, and unfathomable evil of such an arrangement.

In order to return to a time of relative public consensus on these things, one side must impose its will on the other. While Red America isn’t really interested in imposing its will on Blue America, it’s clear that the reverse is emphatically not true.

In a famous 1964 speech, Ronald Reagan said about last century’s Cold War, “there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace, and you can have it in the next second: surrender.” This might be the unstated solution proffered by mainstream right commentariat, but is this the best we can do?

Because it’s just over the horizon of what we can imagine from our vantage point, National Divorce isn’t at all an immediate action plan--or, at least, I don’t see it as such. Rather, it is a rhetorical strategy to prepare the ground for crucial discussions about what comes next in America, as the country grows even more divided, bitter, and angry.

More than anything else, it is a reminder for Red America to think about economic and cultural autonomy for itself, and what it would take to get there.

Autonomy for Red America is of crucial importance, regardless of the status of political or real separation. It is the ability for Americans to be self-sufficient from the financial, educational and cultural institutions that are hostile to its beliefs and way of life, and make reconciliation increasingly impossible.

What Joebama Democrats Have Wrought…

by Melquíades via threadreader

I've spent substantial time in the Pacific throughout my naval career and I can tell with near certainty that we won't fire a shot to defend Taiwan. Here's what that means for America's role in the world. 

Hint: It's gonna change. A lot. 

We have troops and ships stationed around the world, but our strategic focus is directed overwhelmingly toward China. As for the Navy, nearly everything we do in training, acquisition, and tactics revolves around the PRC. 

We've built a force designed almost exclusively for a single fight precipitated by a single event: China's invasion of Taiwan. But when that day comes - and it's coming - we won't fight the war we're built to fight. There simply is no looming conflict with China. 

Three days ago, President Biden said, "I cannot and I will not ask our troops to fight on endlessly in another — in another country’s civil war, taking casualties, suffering life-shattering injuries, leaving families broken by grief and loss." 

That language in his justification of what's playing out in Afghanistan is important. Why? Because that's how nearly every American will perceive the PRC/Taiwan conflict: "another country's civil war." 

China took notice. Within hours they'd started using our abandonment of Afghanistan to the Taliban to taunt Taiwan, assuring them that the US can't be relied upon to defend them when China makes its move. 

And they're right. We simply do not have the moral or political will to fight in what most will view as a domestic dispute on the other side of the world. They're especially right because China is, shall we say, not the Taliban. 

Over 20 years we spent $2 trillion and lost 2,500 troops in Afghanistan. We'll lose twice that number when China sinks our first aircraft carrier before it gets within 500 miles of Taiwan. And the casualties won't stop there. That's not a price Americans are willing to pay. 

Sure, it'll be Taiwan's 9/11 (and far worse), but the crisis will lack a single galvanizing trauma for Americans to muster the courage and willingness to sacrifice required to even attempt a defense of Taiwan. 

And for all their grit and endurance, the Taliban never had the cyber warfare capabilities to potentially shut down our power grid, disrupt our communications, and halt or compromise our food, water, and fuel supplies that China possesses. 

China is a legitimate peer adversary. They've craftily stolen the best of our technologies - civilian and military - for decades and invested enormously in domestic production. They have everything we have. 

We'd also be fighting them on their turf. Taiwan lies only a hundred miles from the Chinese coast, well within range of innumerable missiles on par with ours. They also have 2.8 million troops (a force 10x the size of ours) ready to be brought across the Strait. 

As for motivation, what we'll see as a distant spat among cousins they view as the only scratch to their biggest itch. They consider Taiwan's independence a constant slap in the face, an old wound that can only be healed by recovering the "breakaway province." 

Long story short: "Free Taiwan" only makes sense if you mean "Taiwan is free for the taking." China can have it whenever it wants and they have a golden opportunity while we're domestically fractured, internationally reviled, and entirely preoccupied elsewhere. 

So why does it matter? It matters because we've made promises of defense not just to Taiwan but to Korea, Japan, and other vulnerable Asian partners and allies. When the bill comes due and we refuse to pay, don't expect the status quo to hold up. 

The only reason the Army is in Korea and the Navy is in Japan is to defend them against Chinese aggression. These countries already begrudgingly tolerate our presence and all the disruption it brings because we've promised to defend them. 

When we prove that our promises in Asia won't be kept, there's no reason to keep us around. Soon our promises in Europe will be questioned, too, particularly considering the Obama administration simply watched Russia seize parts of Crimea. 

Taiwan will likely be the final act in the era of America's global dominance. I don't here make a value judgement on that new reality, but we need to start thinking about it now. The US will no longer be able to set and enforce global policy. 

Oh, and here's the funniest part: we won't even be able to muster condemnation from the UN Security Council. China is a permanent member and has veto power, so the sternly worded letter will have to come from elsewhere. 

The world is about to change into something we haven't seen since WWII. The century of relative peace and stability America's strength brought the world is ending, and it ends the moment China moves on Taiwan. No one is stopping them. Welcome to the new world. 

Living in Another Time and Place

We must replace the rulebook the other side discarded long ago, 

but to which we still irrationally cling.

by Max Morton for American Greatness

General Mark Milley, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was called last week to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee over allegations he colluded with a senior Chinese military general to undermine the Trump Administration, and for his role in the botched withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan in August.

Headlines across legacy and social media platforms described the sternly worded calls from senators like Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) for both Milley and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to resign for their unprecedented dereliction of duty and Milley’s rank insubordination. “Have you no shame?” was the tenor of Senator Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) provocative question to Milley: “Why haven’t you resigned?” 

Plenty of Americans are dismayed at the actions of both Milley and Austin and find it difficult to come to terms with what they’ve witnessed over the past several months: Austin and Milley’s critical race theory cheerleading, fantastical mole-hunts for mythical white supremacists within the ranks, and now apparent dereliction of duty and treason. It is almost too much to process. 

One could be forgiven for thinking that the last few weeks are right out of an episode of “The Man in the High Castle,” where we Americans have unknowingly slipped between alternate parallel realities. After all, in normal America, generals are supposed to win wars, fight for the welfare of their soldiers, and accept responsibility for their failures. 

Almost everyone knows the story of the Battle of Mogadishu that is depicted in “Black Hawk Down.” The 1993 daylight-raid-gone-bad was part of a Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) mission by Task Force Ranger to capture or kill a Somali warlord who was interfering in America’s interests in the region. President Clinton scrubbed the mission after a raid by Task Force Ranger resulted in 19 American deaths and over 1,000 dead and wounded Somali militiamen. 

What a lot of people don’t know, or don’t remember, is that the commander of JSOC and Task Force Ranger was U.S. Army Major General Bill Garrison, a fast-tracking, well-liked, and professional Army officer. Following the failed raid, Garrison penned a letter to Clinton accepting full responsibility for the failure of Task Force Ranger’s mission. Although there were plenty of individuals, both military and civilian, who played a role in the disastrous outcome of that raid, it was Garrison who stood up and took the blame. He was the commander, a major general, and an honorable and experienced warrior who cared about his soldiers—of course he would publicly accept responsibility. His courage and honor in doing so cost him his career, and he retired not long thereafter. 

Contrast the example of Garrison with that of our current batch of general officers and Defense Department political appointees. Who among them has accepted responsibility for the utter failure that was America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan? Who in the entire national security establishment has been held accountable for the 20 years of intelligence and operational planning failures in Afghanistan or the fraudulent Doha negotiations which empowered a murderous Taliban and their al Qaeda allies with a new, militarily stronger, Islamic Emirate? No one. 

Between our unfortunate expedition in Somalia and our failure in Afghanistan, we see a disconnect in accountability. The real problem here is that in Garrison’s case, he was a competent, honorable, and courageous officer whose resignation was truly a loss for America. The current batch of finger-pointing generals and national security bureaucrats are neither competent nor honorable, certainly not courageous, and America would be better off without the lot of them. Amazingly, shouting “have you no shame” in the halls of Congress doesn’t make them want to resign or give up their prized sinecures.

How did we get to the point where the worst among us are now leading us? It is because we, as a nation, failed to hold our elected officials accountable for the state of our government and its institutions. Why did we fail in this regard? Because we assumed our military’s generals and civilian leaders were all Bill Garrisons. But we don’t live in that world anymore.

Living in The Wrong Construct

A construct is a model devised on the basis of observation, designed to relate what is observed to some theoretical framework. Let’s define the term theoretical framework to mean our system of governance and society. Our understanding is that America is a constitutional republic, founded in democratic principles, with a representative government by and for the people. We have been told—or have at some point assumed—that our bureaucratic officials work for the good of the nation and are accountable to the people via our elected representatives. We were led to believe that our originally designed system of checks and balances was a guard against the tyranny that tempts human kind. All of this was true . . . at some point. In other words, this was once a valid American construct. 

Pedro Gonzalez, a frequent contributor to American Greatness, wrote in his essay “Middle America’s Road to Power,” “a fundamental problem with conservatism is that it reflexively seeks to conserve institutions that either don’t exist anymore, or which have been perverted to become hostile to the right.” Gonzalez’s words are the perfect description of the problem of an obsolete construct.

Traditional America is mired in an obsolete construct due to our failure to observe certain substantial changes in our political and cultural environment.  Processing these types of changes is difficult for most people. 

For example, many Trump supporters were unquestioning advocates of law enforcement and created elaborate conspiracy theories about white-hat operatives working within the FBI and Justice Department to save Trump—all while the FBI was actively framing Trump officials, lying under oath to Congress, falsifying FISA warrants, and generally acting like a corrupt secret police outfit. The Department of Justice, responsible for oversight of the FBI, merely ran out the clock on Trump. Trump supporters’ 4D political chess theories of the period were merely a symptom of cognitive dissonance. They couldn’t process the fact that something so foundational to their belief system (the integrity of federal law enforcement) had so significantly changed. 

Many in conservative and traditional America are still dealing with this cognitive dissonance over a variety of questions, making their political efforts to right the American ship ineffective and at times comical. They are still arguing and debating “the facts” thinking the other side will listen or care about them and that, this time, they’re going to change minds. Some, still yearning for the old bipartisanship, can’t see that in the construct of present-day America, classical liberalism is dead.

To deal with the dilemmas we now face, we must transport ourselves out of our obsolete construct and into the reality of the moment. We must see the world for what it truly is. We must know both our enemy and ourselves, where we are and where we are going. 

We can no longer sit in front of a screen and complain that the other side is not playing by a rulebook they discarded long ago, but to which we still irrationally cling. Instead, we should determine what we stand for, what we want our future to look like, and plot a course to that future understanding, anticipating the resistance we will face along that path. Our road to victory starts when we can see that truth, join with our fellow like-minded citizens and face forward towards the imminent struggle ahead.

⸸

Social Injustice: Teacher Training Employs 'Privilege Pie' and 'Pyramid of White Supremacy'

Alex Parker reporting for RedState

In Washington state, they’re transforming teachers.

You’ve heard the phrase “as American as apple pie;” might it one day rather reference a baked dish of privilege?

Such is the type of food for thought educators in the west were recently served.

As reported by DefendingEd.org, an anonymous teacher has provided information concerning the Tumwater School District’s schooling of teachers.

Hence, apply the word “alleged” to all of the below.

The source claims those overseeing young skulls of mush were shown a Privilege Pie chart.

Participants colored what applied to them.

Points of privilege were thus:

• White
• 18-64
• No Disability
• U.S.-Born
• Heterosexual
• Christian
• Upper/Middle Class
• Cisgender Male

 

The teacher recalls:

“The school district hired a lady as a consultant to train some teachers and then those teachers provided the training to us during our early release time. I was so upset because we have so much to do and I would really prefer to use that time to design effective instruction or communicate with families. Instead, I’m sitting there for 2 hours learning about how I am privileged because of my skin color and about micro-aggressions. Part of the training was a pie chart —the more we colored in, the more privileged we were. The less color you had on the pie chart, the less privileged you were. We were asked to examine our privilege.”

Soil for debate was rendered infertile:

“Because everyone was terrified to contribute to the discussion we were supposed to be having, lest we offend someone with one of the many micro-aggressions we had just learned about, the room was awkwardly silent for most of the time. The thing is, we started with these norms about respect of others’ views, etc., but we all knew darn well that if anyone like me shared their views on it, we would be shunned.”

According to material obtained by Parents Defending Education, the instruction announced, “We’re white, we’re interested. How do we get started?”

Among one slide’s itemized activities were “discussions of white privilege,” “examining implicit bias,” and “equity team.”

The difference between Traditional Justice and Restorative Justice was also made clear.

Traditional Justice
Justice directed at offender, victim ignored

Restorative Justice
Offender, victim and school all have direct roles in justice process

Perhaps most interesting was the Pyramid of White Supremacy.

At the tippy-top: Genocide, Mass Murder.

Below that:

• Violence
• Calls for Violence
• Discrimination
• Veiled Racism
• Minimization
• Indifference

“Minimization” components of said supremacy include denial of white privilege, “Why can’t we all just get along?” “Not all white people…” and “We all belong to the human race.”

“Indifference” examples are avoiding confrontation with racist family members and remaining apolitical.

“Veiled Racism” counts for white supremacy the following ways:

• paternalism
• claiming reverse racism
• cultural appropriation
• colorblindness

Tumwater is certainly not the only offerer of such ideas.

As for colorblindness being immoral, even Cartoon Network is on board:

In some ways, virtue has been turned on its head. What once was hailed as righteous is now something to be shamed and cast out.

As I covered last month, amid staff training, Google employed white supremacy pyramids as well.

Among implicated genocidal ingredients: Ben Shapiro and Donald Trump.

As for education in general, the ubiquity of news stories calling to KKK-ish calamity leads me to wonder if academics much exist anymore.

If teaching is so concerned with gender and white supremacy, is there a lot left for what school was designed to actually teach?

How about English and math?

These days, it seems instead of sentences being diagrammed, white racism is.

And the primary thing being divided…is us.

Hopefully, kids are still learning to think and to thrive — despite the threat of mass murder.

⸸

If Politics Are Downstream From Pop Culture, Then What is FJB Telling Democrats

Andrew Breitbart famously said that politics was downstream from pop culture.  Andrew’s ability to engage any audience that generally didn’t care about politics, while displaying the Machiavellian manipulators in a way that was brutally effective, made him an enemy to those who avoid sunlight.

What we are seeing amid college football games, and recently any venue where a large audience is assembling, is really quite remarkable.  The cultural shift within the modern political sphere was triggered by Donald Trump; his election was the biggest middle finger to the elites, and ultimately the scale of his support amid a global population that was disenfranchised is why they needed to eliminate him.

The leftist Marxist’s have power.  However, their unquenchable lust for power, specifically showcased in their COVID-19 reaction, has put them in a place where they are in power but losing the cultural argument.

Free people can only tolerate and internalize so much frustration before it starts to come out. Specifically, because frustration is now palpable anger, the sense that screams freedom has become snarky, raw, unapologetic and now often vulgar.

Yeah, it’s a weird thing to find alignment with vulgarity, but when your life and liberty is on the line… well, you fight like the third monkey on the ramp to Noah’s ark – and you appreciate anyone that stands beside you.

If  “F**k Joe Biden” bothers you, don’t watch this (salty language):

Oh, there’s more….

It’s growing….

It only took a whistle….

.

.

Leftists Promise More Chaos In Response To Disorder

Democrats and leftists care more about foreigners and criminals 

than they do about law-abiding citizens.

by Paul Bradford for American Greatness

The FBI’s 2020 crime report paints a dismal picture of America. The agency recorded the highest-ever murder spike last year, with a 30 percent increase in homicides over the previous year. Overall, America in 2020 endured nearly 5,000 murders. The murder wave affected most major cities and drove a 5 percent increase in violent crime overall. 

The bloody rampage hasn’t ended this year, with the murder rate expected to exceed last year’s high. One of the worst aspects about this crime wave is that many of the murders remain unsolved. Philadelphia’s homicide clearance rate stands at a meager 47 percent, Chicago’s 2020 rate was 44.5 percent, and St. Louis’ 2020 rate was 36 percent. 

It’s a bleak picture that should inspire greater support for law and order. But leftists are taking the opposite message. They still insist there is no real spike in violence and that any rise in murders can be blamed on police. No matter how ugly the landscape gets or how obvious it is that leftist policies have spiraled out of control, the Left will maintain course. In the face of crises, leftists will insist their policies just need to be tried harder. 

This is apparent when it comes to crime. We’re often greeted with headlines such as this from NBC: “‘Overall crime decreased in 2020’ in the U.S., report finds.” That report was compiled by a left-wing think tank, yet it still received coverage as an unvarnished fact. The NBC reporters smugly declare that there is scant evidence for a “crime wave,” but they do make this one important caveat: “The study shows that homicides went up last year, but it found the category to be an outlier.” Just an outlier! The families of murder victims will be thrilled to know that jaywalking went down significantly, so the crime problem isn’t anything to worry about. It’s just the minor crime of murder that’s increasing, no biggie.

The denial of a crime wave fortifies leftist beliefs that what is most important is criminal justice reform and defunding the police. We will somehow have safer cities with more criminals and fewer cops on the streets. Even those who admit that America is experiencing a crime wave insist we must carry on with the crusade against law and order. 

Conservative-in-name-only David French recently pleaded with his NeverTrump readers that we must resist the urge to crack down on criminals. French, at least, concedes we should have police, but says we cannot lock up criminals for too long because incarceration is racist and harms the criminals themselves. “Vengeance is unjust,” French says.

Urban liberals are also stating their preference for more crime and disorder at the ballot box. A proud socialist won the Democratic Party’s primary for the Buffalo mayoralty on a platform of defunding the police and providing greater leniency for criminals. Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner won his party’s primary by a large margin to secure reelection, even though experts believe his light-on-crime policies have turned the city into a hellhole. It’s not just liberal reporters and commentators who think less enforcement is the answer to crime.

This same strategy applies to the border crisis. Month after month we see record-breaking numbers of illegal aliens crossing over. We just witnessed 30,000 mostly Haitian migrants cross over into America in broad daylight, believing they would be granted asylum. Thousands more are expected to make the same journey and there’s no sign the Biden Administration wants to do anything to stop this ongoing flood.

The images of thousands of Haitian migrants nonchalantly crossing the Rio Grande to enter America should’ve shaken up the administration and pushed them to do something about this problem. Instead, the administration made it harder for Border Patrol to do its job. After video emerged of Border Patrol agents confronting migrants while on horseback, the entire Democratic-Media Complex shrieked. These images evoked slavery, as Kamala Harris asserted. Representative Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said it was even worse than slavery. Joe Biden vowed to make Border Patrol pay for doing their jobs. Other condemnations by Democrats and pundits were similar in their nuance and level-headedness. 

But it wasn’t just mere rhetoric Democrats spouted. They also sought to change policy. Even though the Biden Administration faces a border crisis caused in part by lax enforcement standards, officials decided to make the Border Patrol’s job more difficult by banning the use of horses. These four-legged creatures are too hateful to be seen on the border. Now Border Patrol agents can only corral migrants while on their own two legs. 

Biden’s liberal allies are also putting more pressure on the administration to let these migrants stay. They want one of the few immigration enforcement mechanisms still in place, Title 42, to be eliminated so future migrants can’t be deported promptly. This would encourage more illegal immigrants to come on the premise they can get their foot in the door without getting deported. Many leftists cried foul over Biden deporting any Haitians at all, with the administration’s envoy to the beleaguered Caribbean state resigning in disgust at this basic level of law enforcement.

No flood of migrants will ever convince Democrats to give up on open borders. It will just convince them to escalate and argue more aggressively for open borders. The same goes with their response to the crime wave. The rising body count somehow justifies a greater commitment to criminal justice reform.

If nothing else, Democrats are at least consistent in their contempt for order. Unfortunately, they are not consistent about the safety and sovereignty of the American people. They care vastly more about foreigners and criminals than they do about law-abiding citizens. No matter how bad the situation gets in our country, the Left will never lose sight of their true priorities—and those priorities do not involve us. 

⸘