‘Harmful Content’

 

‘Harmful Content’: National Archives Slaps Warning on Constitution, Other Founding Documents
Matt Rourke

I almost wish this was one of those clickbait headline stories, over which you roll your eyes after “clicking,” only to realize you’ve once again fallen victim to “over-selling” and “under-delivering.” It’s not. It’s legit.

Being the compassionate federal government agency it is, the NARA decided to caution readers before they access digital copies of the (pick one, or more: “troubling,” “offensive,” “dangerous,” “racist,” et al.) apparently controversial documents. So, a “Potentially Harmful Content” alert now appears above the NARA entire online catalog. It reads as follows. Emphasis, mine.

The Catalog and web pages of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) provide access to many millions of descriptions and digital copies of the permanent records of the United States federal government.

The Catalog and web pages contain some content that may be harmful or difficult to view. NARA’s records span the history of the United States, and it is our charge to preserve and make available these historical records.

As a result, some of the materials presented here may reflect outdated, biased, offensive, and possibly violent views and opinions. In addition, some of the materials may relate to violent or graphic events and are preserved for their historical significance.

The National Archives is committed to working with staff, communities, and peer institutions to assess and update descriptions that are harmful and to establish standards and policies to prevent future harmful language in staff-generated descriptions.

As my colleague Nick Arama reported in June, the National Archives’ “racism task force” claimed that the Archives’ rotunda, which houses the Founding Documents, is an example of “structural racism.” Can’t make it up, don’t have to.

Our friend Kurt Schlicter took a shot at the insanity, at the time.

Sarcasm aside, this is Orwellian, “Animal Farm” barn wall stuff, gang.

The Founding Documents of the United States of America are now subject to a nameless, faceless, federal government bureaucracy that not only believes it has the constitutional right to determine — working with staff, communities, and peer institutions (likeminded bots) — to decide what constitutes offensive, outdated, biased, offensive, and possibly violent views and opinions — and as a result, to establish standards and policies to prevent future harmful languages, but also that is qualified to do so.

Based on self-assessment — and the assessment of others, no less.

That is profound. Worse, it is a perfect example of the “How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time” principle. The Democrat Party can never get — take — enough. The Left never sleeps. It is never satisfied. Call it whatever you want — leftism, socialism, communism, whatever; the principle remains the same.

The Left goes after what it wants incrementally, knowing full-well it can’t get what it really wants, all at once — just like “we” can’t eat an elephant in one bite.

The Left is not stupid. It is insidious and it cannot be reasoned with. Left-wingers are impervious to facts, data, history, logic, and common sense. They might sometimes pretend to understand, agree, or compromise on any one or more of those factors, but they generally lie their asses off while doing so (see: Joe Biden), including, sometimes, lying to themselves. But the difference between the Left and us? They quickly revert to form — even if they’ve lied to themselves — and get back to the business of eating that elephant.

Meanwhile, we’re likely satisfied, relieved, elated, whatever the case might be, that we were able to extract an agreement or compromise from our ideological enemies, so we move on to the next hill — foolishly taking our ey off the prior hill. Until, sometimes, it’s too late when we realize it.

Check out my previous “fun” piece, if you haven’t already done so:

Teacher Caught Radicalizing His Classroom

‘I Have 180 Days to Turn Them into Revolutionaries’:

‘I Have 180 Days to Turn Them into Revolutionaries': Teacher Caught Radicalizing His Classroom

Source: Project Veritas/Screenshot

Our public schools have been overrun by radical academics who are driving the massive social and cultural change that’s occurring in our society. Educators, inspired by former President Barack Obama, have been fundamentally transforming our nation from the comfort of their classrooms.

The latest evidence came courtesy of Project Veritas, a non-profit journalism organization that exposes corruption and dishonesty in public and private institutions.

Project Veritas captured Advanced Placement government teacher Gabriel Gipe on an undercover video boasting about his intention to turn your kids into Communist revolutionaries.

“I have 180 days to turn them [students] into revolutionaries…Scare the f*ck out of them,” said Gipe, a teacher at Inderkum High School in Sacramento, Calif.

“I have an Antifa flag on my [classroom] wall and a student complained about that — he said it made him feel uncomfortable. Well, this [Antifa flag] is meant to make fascists feel uncomfortable, so if you feel uncomfortable, I don’t really know what to tell you. Maybe you shouldn’t be aligning with the values that this [Antifa flag] is antithetical to,” he told Project Veritas.

The teacher also keeps tabs on the political leanings of his students. over the years his students have gone even further to the left.

His goal is not to teach Advanced Placement Government. His goal is to replace our government and fundamentally transform America.

“What can we do now to root out this culture that keeps perpetuating hyper-individualism, hyper-competitiveness, capitalist exploitation and consolidation of wealth…I do think that it’s important to understand that as an extension of an economic revolution, they [Chinese Communist Party] were changing the base, and then they went to change the superstructure. You cannot change one without the other. You can’t have cultural shifts without the economic shift, and vice versa,” he said.

And he’s not the only teacher at Inderkum High School who has turned his classroom into a Communist training camp.

“There are three other teachers in my department that I did my credential program with — and they’re rad. They’re great people. They’re definitely on the same page,” he said.

Folks, I’ve been warning about this for years — unless we root out the anti-American, anti-Christian radicals inside our classrooms – we will not have meaningful change in America.

One more note – when Project Veritas confronted Sacramento school officials — they were the ones thrown out of the building.

Biden Claims About Retreat

Fact-Checking 9 Major Biden Claims About Retreat From Afghanistan

President Joe Biden walks into the State Dining Room on Tuesday before delivering remarks on the end of the war in Afghanistan. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Throughout the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, which began in mid-August and wrapped up just before midnight Tuesday in that nation’s capital, President Joe Biden made many comments that later proved to be inaccurate.

After 20 years in Afghanistan, the last U.S. military personnel departed, leaving the Taliban to take over completely following Biden’s Aug. 31 deadline.

The Taliban is a political and military organization of Islamist extremists that gave shelter to Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda terrorist network as they planned the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America.

The Taliban still has links to other terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda and the Haqqani network. However, the Taliban is opposed to ISIS-K, or ISIS-Khorasan, which claimed credit for the terrorist attack Thursday outside the Kabul airport that killed 13 U.S. service members.

Here are nine of the key points on Afghanistan made by the president that turned out to be inaccurate.

1. Trump ‘Made a Deal’ With Taliban

Biden repeatedly said that he was bound by the February 2020 agreement between the Trump administration and the Taliban that the U.S. would exit Afghanistan. Many Republicans are among those who criticized the Trump deal with the Taliban.

Biden said again Tuesday that when he came into office, the Taliban was in the strongest position it had been in since 2001 because of a deal with the Trump administration specifying that the U.S. would pull out by May 1.

“The previous administration’s agreement said that if we stuck to the May 1 deadline that we had signed on to leave by, the Taliban wouldn’t attack any American forces, but if we stay, all bets were off,” Biden said during his national address from the State Dining Room of the White House, adding:

So, we were left with a simple decision, either follow through the commitment made by the last administration and leave Afghanistan or say we weren’t leaving and commit another tens of thousands more troops going back to war. That was the choice, the real choice.

During his brief press conference last Thursday after the terrorist attack at the Kabul airport, Biden, responding to Fox News reporter Peter Doocy, said he bears responsibility.

But he also blamed his predecessor, Donald Trump.

“You know as well as I do that the former president made a deal with the Taliban that he would get all of the American forces out of Afghanistan by May 1,” Biden said. “In return … he was given a commitment that the Taliban would continue to attack others, but would not attack any American forces. Remember that?”

Biden has said before that the Trump agreement bound him, with no choice either than to exit or to send in thousands of troops for a new round of combat.

“There was only the cold reality of either following through on the agreement to withdraw our forces or escalating the conflict and sending thousands more American troops back into combat in Afghanistan, lurching into the third decade of conflict,” the president said.

However, in an ABC News interview Aug. 18, Biden suggested that it didn’t matter what Trump had done.

ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos asked Biden: “So would you have withdrawn troops like this even if President Trump had not made that deal with the Taliban?”

Biden responded that he wanted out of Afghanistan.

“I would’ve tried to figure out how to withdraw those troops, yes, because look, George: There is no good time to leave Afghanistan. Fifteen years ago would’ve been a problem, 15 years from now. The basic choice is, am I going to send your sons and your daughters to war in Afghanistan in perpetuity?”

During his remarks Tuesday, Biden said his entire national security team was unanimous on how to pull out:

The decision to end the military lift operations at Kabul airport was based on a unanimous recommendation of my civilian and military advisers, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all the service chiefs, and the commanders in the field. Their recommendation was that the safest way to secure the passage of the remaining Americans and others out of the country was not to continue 6,000 troops on the ground in harm’s way in Kabul, but rather to get them out through nonmilitary means.

However, The New York Times reported that Biden’s own military leadership, including Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advised him that keeping a force of 3,000 to 4,500 troops—along with drones and close air support—could allow Afghan security forces to continue holding off the Taliban.

In the four-page deal that the Trump administration signed with the Taliban in February 2020, the United States agreed to withdraw all troops by May 1, 2021, and to lift sanctions. In return, the Taliban committed not to attack departing American troops or let terrorist groups use Afghanistan as a base to attack the U.S.

The Afghanistan Study Group, a bipartisan, congressionally chartered panel led by a former Joint Chiefs chairman, retired Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, issued a final report this past February that suggested extending the May 1 exit and seeking better conditions before pulling out.

In 2014, the Obama-Biden administration had opted to declare the combat mission over as the U.S. military worked to train the Afghan army and played a counterterrorism role.

During the Trump administration, the U.S.-backed Afghan government “controlled most of the country’s territory,” James Carafano, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, wrote in August.

The United States was spending less per year in Afghanistan than it previously spent in a week during peak combat periods, Carafano wrote, adding:

Trump was negotiating with the Taliban, but there was nothing wrong with that. The negotiations were conditions-based, and Trump made clear the Taliban would be held accountable for its actions.

Moreover, Trump’s team made sure that if, in the end, the Taliban proved untrustworthy, the remaining U.S. force had been sized and scoped to present a serious deterrent to the Taliban and be sufficient to protect U.S. interests.

2. ‘More Quickly Than We Had Anticipated’

The U.S. government didn’t see the chaos coming, Biden has said.

“The truth is: This did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated,” Biden said Aug. 16.

Pressed during the ABC News interview on why his administration didn’t have a more deliberate and strategic plan for the exit, even if the withdrawal was inevitable, Biden responded that the Taliban’s rapid pace of advance was unexpected.

Taliban control of Afghanistan was expected to be more likely by the end of the year, the president said.

“No. 1, as you know, the intelligence community did not say back in June or July that, in fact, this was going to collapse like it did. No. 1,” Biden told Stephanopoulos in the ABC News interview.

Stephanopoulos then asked: “They thought the Taliban would take over, but not this quickly?”

Biden affirmed: “But not this quickly. Not even close.”

Various news accounts, however, suggest that this isn’t true.

U.S. intelligence agencies reportedly warned as early as April that the Taliban would take over Afghanistan quickly.

An urgent “confidential dissent channel” signed by 23 officials of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul warned July 13 that Afghanistan would fall quickly to the Taliban if the Biden administration  followed through with the Aug. 31 troop withdrawal, The Wall Street Journal first reported.

The Journal separately reported that Biden’s top generals and diplomats all warned him of potential perils of the withdrawal, including that it could lead to a Taliban takeover and to attacks on American soldiers and diplomats.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., normally no critic of Biden, said Aug. 24 that this was not an intelligence failure but a military planning failure.

3. ‘90% of Americans … Able to Leave’

Since March, Biden said in his address to the nation Tuesday afternoon, his administration had reached out 19 times to Americans in Afghanistan to warn them to leave the country.

“Our Operation Allied Rescue ended up getting more than 5,500 Americans out,” Biden said.

He added: “Now we believe about 100 to 200 Americans remain in Afghanistan with some intention to leave.”

Biden noted that the administration also evacuated U.S. Embassy staff and their families, totaling about 2,500, along with thousands of Afghan translators, interpreters, and others who assisted the United States.

Biden said most Americans still in Afghanistan are dual citizens who at one point wanted to stay.

“The bottom line is 90% of Americans in Afghanistan who wanted to leave were able to leave,” Biden said. “For those remaining Americans, there is no deadline. We remain committed to getting them out if they want to come out.”

During the ABC News interview Aug. 18, Stephanopoulos asked Biden: “Are you committed to making sure that the troops stay until every American who wants to be out is out?”

Biden answered: “Yes, yes.”

He later added: “If there are American citizens left, we’re going to stay until we get them all out.”

In a press conference Aug. 20 at the White House, Biden said: “Let me be clear. Any American who wants to come home, we will get you home.”

However, he added: “I cannot promise what the final outcome will be.”

As of the completed evacuation Monday, Marine Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command, said that 6,000 Americans were flown out.

However, it has been widely reported that 10,000 to 15,000 Americans remained in the country as of mid-August, according to The Washington Post. A later analysis by the Post determined that the 15,000 number was “very rough,” and that 6,000 was more likely.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the State Department would work to identify any remaining Americans who want to return home.

During the evacuation, Biden asserted that Americans were not having trouble leaving Afghanistan.

“We know of no circumstance where American citizens are—carrying an American passport—are trying to get through to the airport,” Biden said. He added: “We’ve made an agreement with the Taliban. Thus far, they’ve allowed them to go through.”

However, Pentagon officials said the Taliban was stopping Americans from entering the Kabul airport.

According to a Reuters report, American citizens at one point had to be loaded onto three Chinook helicopters at the Baron Hotel, located near the airport, since they were unable to reach the airport gates.

During the evacuation, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul issued an alert stating: “The U.S. government cannot ensure safe passage to the airport due to large crowds and security concerns, gates may open or close without notice. Please use your best judgment and attempt to enter the airport at any gate that is open.”

One American in Afghanistan, David Fox, told ABC News that he and his wife and son were trapped in Kabul because they couldn’t get past the gates at the airport. Fox said that Marines told him it wasn’t safe.

4. ‘Afghan Forces Not Willing to Fight’

During his address to the nation Tuesday afternoon, Biden repeated that Afghanistan’s military and political leaders folded.

“We were ready when the Afghan security forces, after two decades of fighting for their country and losing thousands of their own, did not hold on as long as anyone expected,” Biden said. “We were ready when they, when the people of Afghanistan, watched their own government collapse and their own president flee amidst the corruption and malfeasance, handing over the country to their enemy, the Taliban.”

As he has before, the president asserted that the U.S.-trained Afghan army wouldn’t stand and fight against the Taliban.

“American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and dying in a war that Afghan forces are not willing to fight for themselves,” Biden said Aug. 16. He added: “We gave them every chance to determine their own future. What we could not provide them was the will to fight for that future. … It is wrong to order American troops to step up when Afghanistan’s own armed forces would not.”

However, since the fighting began, about 69,000 soldiers of the Afghan army have been killed, the BBC reported. The Afghan army stopped combat operations after the U.S. military pulled away air and logistics support in withdrawing 18,000 security contractors, The New York Times reported.

Military leaders reportedly advised Biden that keeping 2,500 U.S. troops would sustain the Afghan army.

“Afghanistan’s political leaders gave up and fled the country,” Biden said Aug. 16.

The president’s reference apparently was directed primarily at Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, a former U.S. academic in office since September 2014, who left the country before the Taliban entered the capital of Kabul.

However, as BBC reported, other Afghan political leaders stayed and made public statements. Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai, appearing in a video with family members, asked Afghan government forces and the Taliban to protect civilians.

Former Afghanistan Vice President Amrullah Saleh also remained, as did political leaders such as Ahmad Shah Massoud Jr., son of former anti-Soviet military leader and politician Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was assassinated two days before the 9/11 attacks.

The BBC also reported that Massoud and other political leaders are forming an anti-Taliban resistance coalition.

The British Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee chairman, Tom Tugendhat, himself a former British army officer in Afghanistan who fought with Afghan soldiers, criticized Biden’s dismissive view of the Afghan army.

“To see their commander in chief call into question the courage of men I fought with, to claim that they ran, is shameful,” Tugendhat said. “Those who have not fought for the colors they fly should be careful about criticizing those who have.”

5. ‘No Question of Our Credibility’

During an Aug. 20 press conference, Biden said: “I have seen no question of our credibility from our allies around the world. Matter of fact, the exact opposite I’ve got.”

But leaders from one of the most reliable U.S. allies have been outspoken.

“When the United States decides emphatically to withdraw in a way that they have, clearly we’re going to have to manage the consequences,” British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said.

Johnson’s was among the more diplomatic points as most of the related criticism has come from Britain.

Former British Prime Minister Theresa May asked what the hasty withdrawal does to America’s reputation on the world stage.

“What does it say about NATO if we are entirely dependent on a unilateral decision taken by the United States?” May asked, adding: “Did we feel we just had to follow the United States and hope that on a wing and a prayer it’d be all right on the night?”

In a mocking reference to a Biden slogan after becoming president, British Parliament Defense Committee Chairman Tobias Ellwood asked: “Whatever happened to ‘America is back’?”

The criticism spread in other parts of Europe.

Josep Borrell, vice president of the European Commission, called the situation in Afghanistan a “catastrophe” during a virtual session of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Borrell reportedly warned Blinken beforehand that pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan at this stage risked putting the Taliban in charge, posing a direct threat to European security.

In Germany, Armin Laschet—the top candidate to succeed Chancellor Angela Merkel—said: “This is the greatest debacle that NATO has seen since its foundation, and it is an epochal change that we are facing.”

In June, Biden told allies that he would maintain enough of a security presence in Afghanistan to ensure that they could continue operating in Kabul, Bloomberg News reported.

6. ‘Al-Qaeda Gone’ 

Biden again said Tuesday that the original U.S. mission is finished, as he has in recent weeks.

“What interest do we have in Afghanistan at this point, with al-Qaeda gone?” Biden said Aug. 20.

But according to a United Nations Security Council report, al-Qaeda still has a base inat least 15 of 34 Afghan provinces, Reuters reported.

Defense Department spokesman John Kirby said Thursday that “we know that al-Qaeda is a presence—as well as ISIS—in Afghanistan, and we’ve talked about that for quite some time.”

“What we believe,” Kirby added, “is that there isn’t a presence that is significant enough to merit a threat to our homeland as there was back on 9/11, 20 years ago.”

7. ‘Bagram Not Much Value Added’

Biden blamed his military advisers for the decision to abandon Bagram Airfield, a strategically located military base many times larger than the Kabul airport to the south.

“They concluded—the military—that Bagram was not much value added, that it was much wiser to focus on Kabul [airport] and so, I followed that recommendation,” Biden told reporters Aug. 26.

However, a president generally determines the constraints under which the military draws up operational plans, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board noted.

Bagram, a large, fortified military base, is about 40 miles from the small, one-runway airport in Kabul. The U.S. exited the base overnight in early July without informing the Afghan military and U.S. allies.

Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Aug. 18 that securing Bagram took “a significant level of military effort.” Milley added: “Our task given to us at that time, our task was to protect the embassy in order for the embassy personnel to continue to function.”

The Associated Press, in a report on the U.S. abandonment of the air base, quoted an Afghan soldier as saying of the Americans: “They lost all the goodwill of 20 years by leaving the way they did, in the night, without telling the Afghan soldiers who were outside patrolling the area.”

8. ‘Lose Thousands of Americans’

In making the case for pulling out completely, Biden asked about Afghanistan during the ABC News interview: “Are we going to continue to lose thousands of Americans to injury and death to try to unite that country?”

The last U.S. combat death had been in February 2020, just ahead of the Trump-Taliban agreement. Although the reason for that lack of casualties may have been because the agreement was in place, the number of combat deaths still was shrinking.

A total of 94 U.S. military deaths occurred in Afghanistan from 2015 up to the point of the evacuation in August, BBC reported. That compares with 1,897 U.S. military killed in action over the duration of the war. Another 415 soldiers died in nonhostile circumstances before the U.S. withdrawal began.

A total of about 20,000 soldiers were wounded in Afghanistan since the U.S. and NATO allies invaded in October 2001.

The terrorist attack last week by ISIS-K added another 13 deaths among U.S. service members under fire.

9. Evolution on ‘Nation Building’

Biden also tackled the concept of “nation building” in his remarks Tuesday afternoon at the White House.

“This decision about Afghanistan is not just about Afghanistan. It’s about ending an era of major military operations to remake other countries,” Biden said, adding:

Nation building, trying to create a democratic, cohesive, and united Afghanistan—something that has never been done over many centuries of Afghan’s history. Moving on from that mindset and large-scale troop deployments will make us stronger and more effective and safer at home.

In previous remarks, Biden said: “Our mission in Afghanistan was never supposed to have been nation building.”

The president said Aug. 16 that the U.S. goal in going into Afghanistan had “always been preventing a terrorist attack on [the] American homeland” and was “never supposed to be creating a unified, centralized democracy.”

Although nation building and the mission in Afghanistan may be a legitimate policy debate that divides Democrats and Republicans, Biden’s use of “always” doesn’t line up with his comments soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America, or his comments in early 2003.

“Our hope is that we will see a relatively stable government in Afghanistan, one that does not harbor terrorists, is acceptable to the major players in the region, represents the ethnic makeup of the country and provides the foundation for future reconstruction of that country,” Sen. Joe Biden, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Oct. 22, 2001, as the U.S. invaded Afghanistan.

During a committee meeting in February 2003, the Delaware Democrat again directly defended nation building, asking what the alternative was.

“The alternative to nation building is chaos, a chaos that churns out bloodthirsty warlords, drug traffickers and terrorists,” Biden said.

Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.

Failed Wars and Destructive Policies

Experts Deliver Failed Wars and Destructive Policies

Experts Deliver Failed Wars and Destructive Policies

Source: AP Photo

In the past few decades, there have been several undeniable trends.  First, the power of government at all levels, from all three branches, has increased dramatically. Simultaneously, the quality of life for ordinary Americans, especially those living in cities, has decreased significantly.

Thus, as ordinary citizens have ceded more power and control to government “experts” the living conditions in our country have deteriorated considerably. The American “dream” of upward mobility and a better standard of living than the previous generation is now impossible for many young couples. Our country’s working-class citizens are finding it more difficult to survive economically. These are the people who follow the law, pay their taxes, and raise their families the right way.

While the value of the dollar and buying power for Americans has declined, violent crime has increased. One reason is that the so-called “experts” were granted the power to empty mental institutions. Many of the people who previously received treatment in a hospital setting with trained medical personnel are now living on the streets of our country.

In New Orleans and many other cities, most of the homeless population are suffering from mental illness. The result is that innocent people are being harmed. Serious crimes such as shoving a person in front of a train, setting fire to a building, or engaging in a stabbing spree on a shopping avenue are being committed by homeless people on a regular basis.

The result of the Vietnam War was tragic as our embassy fell in Saigon and the communist dictatorship exacted their revenge on those who had assisted our military. Despite our involvement, a communist government secured control of the entire country. American interests were not protected, even though our country paid a tremendous price and made a huge sacrifice.

Incredibly, these lessons were not learned. Several decades later, the same folly has been repeated in Afghanistan. Over twenty years, our government spent an astronomical $2 trillion on the war. Sadly, 2,400 of our brave men and women serving in the military were killed in Afghanistan. In this war, our cause was to fight radical Islamic terrorism, instead of communism. Our fatal mistake was to venture from destroying terrorist camps to “nation building.” This enterprise was doomed to failure from the beginning.

We can’t incarcerate all these criminals for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest problems is that government “experts” have made prisons incredibly expensive. The so-called “experts” also invented a “solution” to the crime problem, early release and parole.  These programs produce disastrous results. How many times have we heard of a paroled criminal committing another heinous crime such as murder?

Sadly, our government’s idiocy doesn’t stop there.  It includes transferring large amounts of tax dollars to young teenage girls who have babies. If a young mother has three children before she turns 18 years-old, the government will supply her with even more money, as well as a free phone, an apartment, and other benefits.

The result?  The rate of out of wedlock births has skyrocketed, compared to the proportion in previous generations. Unfortunately, many of these children will be raised in homes without a father. Children who have no male role model at home are more likely to commit crime as they find their inspiration from the wrong element “on the street.”

America was built by people who embraced the timeless virtues that all wealthy, stable and productive societies must follow.  These include the rule of law, hard work, eligious faith, and legal protection for the institution of the nuclear family.

In their hubris and stupidity, our government “leaders” have rejected these timeless virtues.  They have also squandered the abundance and security these values produced.

So now Americans must act and fire the government “experts.” It is imperative to proceed before all our cherished institutions fail. These institutions not only include the family unit and our criminal justice system, but also our electric grid and our food supply chain. These systems cannot function without societal rules and a legal system that enforces them.

No American should take our way of life for granted. It is constantly being threatened by enemies all over the world. However, we also need to realize the threats on the home front as well. Government policies that are supposedly enlightened can be destructive to what Americans hold dear. If concerned Americans want to hold on to prized traditions, it’s time for the “silent majority” to start getting more involved in the political arena. The stakes could not be any higher.

In the past few decades, there have been several undeniable trends.  First, the power of government at all levels, from all three branches, has increased dramatically. Simultaneously, the quality of life for ordinary Americans, especially those living in cities, has decreased significantly.

Thus, as ordinary citizens have ceded more power and control to government “experts” the living conditions in our country have deteriorated considerably. The American “dream” of upward mobility and a better standard of living than the previous generation is now impossible for many young couples. Our country’s working-class citizens are finding it more difficult to survive economically. These are the people who follow the law, pay their taxes, and raise their families the right way.

While the value of the dollar and buying power for Americans has declined, violent crime has increased. One reason is that the so-called “experts” were granted the power to empty mental institutions. Many of the people who previously received treatment in a hospital setting with trained medical personnel are now living on the streets of our country.

In New Orleans and many other cities, most of the homeless population are suffering from mental illness. The result is that innocent people are being harmed. Serious crimes such as shoving a person in front of a train, setting fire to a building, or engaging in a stabbing spree on a shopping avenue are being committed by homeless people on a regular basis.

Phony experts have created severe problems beyond domestic economic issues. In the 1960’s, during the Lyndon Johnson administration, Americans allowed our government to wage an undeclared war in Vietnam that had no clear purpose or strategy, other than to stop the advance of communism.  As a result, over 58,000 young American heroes died, and countless others were wounded and crippled.  The cost of this eleven-year war was astronomical. Imagine how those funds could have been used to rebuild American roads and bridges.

The result of the Vietnam War was tragic as our embassy fell in Saigon and the communist dictatorship exacted their revenge on those who had assisted our military. Despite our involvement, a communist government secured control of the entire country. American interests were not protected, even though our country paid a tremendous price and made a huge sacrifice.

Incredibly, these lessons were not learned. Several decades later, the same folly has been repeated in Afghanistan. Over twenty years, our government spent an astronomical $2 trillion on the war. Sadly, 2,400 of our brave men and women serving in the military were killed in Afghanistan. In this war, our cause was to fight radical Islamic terrorism, instead of communism. Our fatal mistake was to venture from destroying terrorist camps to “nation building.” This enterprise was doomed to failure from the beginning.

We can’t incarcerate all these criminals for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest problems is that government “experts” have made prisons incredibly expensive. The so-called “experts” also invented a “solution” to the crime problem, early release and parole.  These programs produce disastrous results. How many times have we heard of a paroled criminal committing another heinous crime such as murder?

Sadly, our government’s idiocy doesn’t stop there.  It includes transferring large amounts of tax dollars to young teenage girls who have babies. If a young mother has three children before she turns 18 years-old, the government will supply her with even more money, as well as a free phone, an apartment, and other benefits.

The result?  The rate of out of wedlock births has skyrocketed, compared to the proportion in previous generations. Unfortunately, many of these children will be raised in homes without a father. Children who have no male role model at home are more likely to commit crime as they find their inspiration from the wrong element “on the street.”

America was built by people who embraced the timeless virtues that all wealthy, stable and productive societies must follow.  These include the rule of law, hard work, religious faith, and legal protection for the institution of the nuclear family.

In their hubris and stupidity, our government “leaders” have rejected these timeless virtues.  They have also squandered the abundance and security these values produced.

So now Americans must act and fire the government “experts.” It is imperative to proceed before all our cherished institutions fail. These institutions not only include the family unit and our criminal justice system, but also our electric grid and our food supply chain. These systems cannot function without societal rules and a legal system that enforces them.

No American should take our way of life for granted. It is constantly being threatened by enemies all over the world. However, we also need to realize the threats on the home front as well. Government policies that are supposedly enlightened can be destructive to what Americans hold dear. If concerned Americans want to hold on to prized traditions, it’s time for the “silent majority” to start getting more involved in the political arena. The stakes could not be any higher.

Obsessed COVID Media

Attention Florida-Obsessed COVID Media: Let’s Cross the Country and Check on a Democrat-Run State

AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee

The unspoken secret about reports concerning Florida’s bad COVID numbers — they are in line with many states.

The state of Florida, and Governor Ron DeSantis, have been at the forefront of the press and media headlines for months now. The current spike in cases, a result of the pernicious Delta variant of the COVID-19 virus has been especially active coming out of the summer months. The challenges being experienced have been blared in the press, blame has been cast about, and every accusation has been leveled to gain political points.

Hospitalizations could peak over the course of next week. They’re higher than ever before. Hospitals are full and have been for several weeks. That isn’t going to change any time soon. “This is the exact place that we were trying to avoid, with 1,200 hospitalizations, and nearly all hospital systems feeling overwhelmed or having to postpone or cancel other types of care. This is what we were trying to avoid. We are in that crisis,” said Dr. Peter Graven

Very serious reports, to be sure, but there is a hidden secret in this from the press. They are barely reporting on it. What I mean is that the above information is not being covered nationally, as this report is from a local newspaper. The reason is those were details not from Florida, but from the state of Oregon. Yes, cue record scratch on the soundtrack.

This would be the time to ask ourselves a rhetorical: Why is there not a repetitive sounding of an alarm about what is happening in that state? It becomes obvious very quickly — politics. The news industry, which constantly strives to say we should not politicize the pandemic, seems awfully apathetic about the grave and serious conditions taking place in Oregon.

How is it that a state across the map is also experiencing similar results of the surge? How do you explain that with all the charges aimed at Ron DeSantis about his lax policies that another state taking all of the proper and approved actions deliver the same results? And why is there this dichotomy in the reporting?

AP/Reuters Feed Library

When it comes to vaccinations Florida and Oregon sport similarities. First-dose numbers are nearly identical (64.4% in Florida, 64.5% in Oregon), and the doses-per 100 people are similar as well (Florida 117.5, to Oregon 118.92). In fact, Oregon is slightly better with fully vaccinated residents — just over 5% better. All of which did nothing to curtail the spread and now inundates Oregon hospitals.

Now take that figure and couple it with the state regulations they have in place. Governor Kate Brown has required vaccines for healthcare workers, teachers, and government employees. She is also instituting a stricter masking policy, becoming the first state to reinstitute a full outdoor mask policy. That involves everyone 5 years of age and older, and includes those who are vaccinated.

Look how states in various parts of the country all experienced an almost uniform spike in cases, despite varying policies between them.

There is no better illustration that the country is enduring this wave — and it is not at the hands of select GOP governors — than the state of Hawaii. Democrat-run, adhering to strict COVID policies, and geographically socially distanced from those infectious Republicans, and yet the state is experiencing a Delta rise in cases that mirrors much of the country.

Noteworthy that — like Oregon — there is barely anything heard about the island state. Once again, the press narrative they are driving about politicians fueling this new outbreak gets undone by what the press is not reporting.

Ivermectin And HCQ

Attacks On Ivermectin And HCQ Are Textbook ‘Alinsky’

Attacks On Ivermectin And HCQ Are Textbook ‘Alinsky’

In this March 31, 2020 file photo pharmacist Amanda Frank reaches for a bottle of Hydroxychloroquine at the Medicine Shoppe in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. (Mark Moran/The Citizens’ Voice via AP, file)

Back during the spring of 2020, in the earliest dark days of the Wuhan “pandemic,” astute data analysts noticed a significant pattern that might offer hope of stemming the threat posed by the disease. While the virus was rampant and spreading rapidly throughout the world’s most advanced cultures, it was not nearly as prolific in the third world, particularly in subtropical and tropical regions where Malaria is widespread. It didn’t take them long to establish a strong causal relation between usage of the anti-parasitic drug Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and a resistance to contracting the virus, as well as rapid, nearly miraculous cures of those who had been infected.

These findings were proclaimed with great expectations of relief and appreciation from the medical community and governing officials who were being daily confronted by massive and increasing deaths, along with the devastation of entire national economies worldwide. To the amazement of every intellectually honest observer, the reaction of those in authority was precisely the opposite, and to a monstrous degree.

In every leftist Democrat dominated jurisdiction across America, authorities were not merely disparaging and dismissive of the effects of HCQ, they were openly venomous and hostile, to the point of actively suppressing its use, and threatening legal action against any medical professional who dared prescribe it. On cue, the leftist Fake News crowd immediately jumped on board, parroting the attacks in a coordinated effort to denigrate any mention of HCQ and the stunning results being reported by doctors worldwide.

Every effort was made to instill fear and mistrust of the drug, despite it being easily and safely used for seven decades with no acute side effects. Meanwhile, leftist Democrat Governors Cuomo of New York, Inslee of Washington and Whitmer of Michigan instituted abhorrent policies that senselessly increased Covid fatalities. Official actions were taken to intensify the spread of the disease, resulting in literally thousands of fully preventable new infections and deaths, with the most worthwhile treatment regimen being forbidden. Clearly, somebody in a powerful position stood to benefit from the “pandemic” crisis, and did not want the upheaval, suffering and death to end.

Amazingly and despicably, it’s all happening again! As Real America has grown tired of the excessive and medically worthless masks and lockdowns, people are doing their utmost to return to a sense of normality. New calls for restrictions on personal liberty no longer resonate with Americans. The latest lockdown efforts are ostensibly being ordered as a consequence of the dreaded “Delta Variant” (a supposed mutation of the virus that is as selective in its victims as the Obama/Biden DOJ). And the ultimate onslaught is now the leftist/statist demands that Americans submit themselves and their children to multiple vaccine injections of dubious “effectiveness.” But this is all ringing completely hollow. The pro-vax crowd has zero credibility left, given their abysmal track record of alarmism and hypocrisy during the past 20 months.

Moreover, at this crucial impasse, another miracle drug, Ivermectin has surfaced and is showing great promise in treating Covid cases. Much like HCQ, Ivermectin is time tested, widely available, and safe/easy to use. It is also establishing a strong track record of success against the virus. So of course the leftists are once again on the attack!

Predictably, their tactics are textbook Alinsky. Given that the drug is to readily available, and leftists are wary of the “hair-trigger” mood of Americans who have grown thoroughly enraged by their lawless actions of the past year and a half, they aren’t as aggressive or directly confrontational in their efforts to ban usage of Ivermectin. Yet they still clearly intend to disparage and suppress it, in the hope that many will remain unaware of its amazing effectiveness.

Once again however, with even a little effort and observance, it becomes apparent that leftists are tipping their hand. Derisive reports of Ivermectin, universally mocking it as “horse medicine” have been far too extensive, immediate, and universal to not be orchestrated and agenda driven. When the entire leftist Fake News world uses the exact same phraseology, it is clear that somebody has delivered them talking points which they parrot mindlessly and dutifully. And of course their premise is as baseless as it is contemptible.

If Ivermectin can be derided as “horse medicine” then so can penicillin and a host of other medications that are well known for their healing powers in humans, but have also been widely administered by veterinarians to treat their feline, canine, and equine patients. And in the case of Ivermectin, its incredible benefits to humanity in fighting infectious diseases resulted in it receiving the Nobel Prize in 2015. It was the first pharmaceutical to be awarded on that basis since 1952! Somehow, this is something the leftist Fake News crowd never mentions.

Instead, in typical leftist propagandist fashion, the Associated Press bogusly reported on August 23 that 70% of calls to the Mississippi Poison Control Center involved Ivermectin. When called out on their totally misleading story, the AP recanted. But while some presume this to be a “black eye” for the AP, the ruse ultimately worked. The amount of coverage given to the original alarmist rant vastly eclipses their quiet retraction. And whenever the original hyped and fraudulent “report” shows up on social media, you can be sure those leftie “fact checkers” will somehow entirely overlook it. Mission accomplished.

Add this to the total lunacy and concocted hysteria that now surrounds every aspect of the “pandemic,” and the situation just keeps getting more absurd by the day. The vaccinated are ostensibly contracting the disease from the unvaccinated. Meanwhile, the many widespread incidents of severe adverse reactions to the vaccines, including sudden deaths, are making the rounds through every avenue of communication in America except the leftist “mainstream” Fake News.

In light of all this, it has become impossible to trust those who insist we must trust the vaccines. Every conceivable reason is being speculated as to their real purpose, other than halting the spread of the virus, which they clearly are not accomplishing. Statistically, those who got the shot are reaping no benefits of immunity. Whether this is all part of some extremely sinister medical motive, or a dubious scam to institute domestic “passports” to further monitor/control the movement and behavior of citizens, one thing has become inescapably clear. None of what we are witnessing is about public health or safety.

The loudest proponents of blind compliance and submission to the system have destroyed their credibility. If they ever had even the slightest genuine concern for the well-being of their fellow citizens, they would all have been loudly trumpeting the beneficial effects of HCQ and Ivermectin.


Christopher G. Adamo is a lifelong conservative from the American Heartland. He has been involved in grassroots and state-level politics for years. His recently released book Rules for Defeating Radicals, subtitled Countering the Alinsky Strategy in Politics and Culture, is the “Go To” guide for effectively overcoming the dirty tricks of the political left. It is available at Amazon.

Rating: 5.0/5. From 23 votes.

Richmond’s Monument Avenue

Lee statue on Richmond’s Monument Avenue will be removed Wednesday morning

Preparations for the removal of the Lee statue will begin on Tuesday evening.

The Monument Avenue statue of Robert E. Lee, a symbol of Confederate glorification that became the epicenter of calls for racial justice in Richmond, will be removed from its pedestal Wednesday morning.

The 60-foot-tall bronze statue of the Confederate general atop a horse will be removed in pieces 131 years after it was first erected.

The administration of Gov. Ralph Northam announced Monday that preparations will begin Tuesday evening, when crews will install protective fencing along Monument Avenue and Allen Street. The statue itself will be removed Wednesday morning. On Thursday, crews will remove the plaques at the base of the statue and replace a time capsule believed to be at the site.

The Lee statue is the last Confederate icon along Richmond’s Monument Avenue to be removed.

In Richmond, the former capital of the Confederacy, the removals have signaled the rejection of Confederate glorification — a movement that sought to perpetuate discrimination against Black people while denying that a key impetus for the Civil War was the defense of slavery.

“Virginia’s largest monument to the Confederate insurrection will come down this week,” Northam said in a statement Monday. “This is an important step in showing who we are and what we value as a Commonwealth.”

Northam had called for the removal of the Lee statue in June 2020, but two legal challenges asserting that the state was trying to operate outside its powers had presented a roadblock.

Last week, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled unanimously to dismiss both lawsuits, clearing the way for the Lee statue’s removal.

The granite pedestal on which it sits, which bears paint and graffiti from Richmond’s protests against police brutality and systemic racism, will remain in place for now.

“The statue will be placed in secure storage at a state-owned facility until a decision is made as to its disposition,” the administration said in a news release.
Lee is the only Confederate statue along the city’s Monument Avenue that belongs to the state.

In July 2020, Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney led the removal of other Confederate statues on Monument Avenue that were controlled by the city. The city removed statues of Gens. Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson and J.E.B. Stuart as well as naval commander Matthew Fontaine Maury. Protesters pulled down the statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis the month before.

“Richmond is no longer the capital of the Confederacy. We are a diverse, open, and welcoming city, and our symbols need to reflect this reality,” Stoney said in a statement Monday.

Logistics

The state is planning to designate a public viewing area for pedestrians at Monument Avenue and Stuart Circle. The area will open at 8 a.m. Wednesday and Thursday, and access will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.

The public also can watch the removal through a livestream on the governor’s Facebook and Twitter accounts.

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT

Starting on Tuesday at 6 p.m., the state will close many of the roads surrounding the statue; they’ll remain closed until the removal work is done.

The closures include Monument Avenue between North Meadow and Lombardy streets; North Allen Avenue between Park Avenue and West Broad Street; and West Grace Street between North Meadow and Lombardy streets.

Also, there will be no parking allowed on some roads near the statue during the same period. West Broad Street and Park Avenue will both be closed to parking between North Meadow and Lombardy streets, and there will also be no parking on both North Meadow Street and Lombardy Street between Park Avenue and West Broad Street.

Marxist Nature of Black Lives Matter

Exposed in New Book

 width=

Mike Gonzalez, author of “BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution,” says the Black Lives Matter organization played a role in the 2020 riots across America. Pictured: Rioters set buildings on fire in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Aug. 23 after a police officer shot a black man there.

America has spent years fighting communism outside its borders, but now a Marxist threat is growing from within the country, Heritage Foundation senior fellow Mike Gonzalez says.

Gonzalez, author of “BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution,” says the Black Lives Matter organization has encouraged Americans, especially young people, to embrace communist ideology.

In 2020, there “were 633 riots … according to the U.S. Crisis Monitor run out of Princeton [University], and 95% of those riots in which we know the identity of the perpetrator … Black Lives Matter members were included,” Gonzalez says.

Through his book, Gonzalez hopes to “open people’s eyes” to the true nature of Black Lives Matter.

Gonzalez joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss the book and why he’s standing against the communist influences in our culture today.

Also on today’s show, we read your letters to the editor and share a good news story about a New Jersey community that is going above and beyond to make sure all returning military personnel receive the welcome and thank you they deserve.

Listen to the podcast below or read the lightly edited transcript.

Virginia Allen: I am so pleased to be joined by Heritage Foundation senior fellow Mike Gonzalez. Mike is the author of the brand new book “BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution.” Mike, the book is out today, congratulations.

Mike Gonzalez: Thank you, Virginia. Yes, I’m very happy.

Allen: You really didn’t mince words with the title of this book: “BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution.” That’s pretty straightforward. But I do want to begin with defining some terms. What exactly do you mean by “new Marxist revolution”?

Gonzalez: When we talk about Marxists, we’re talking about communists. They have tried to take over America for many decades, for many centuries, really. They have always seen America as a rich country, the world leader, at least since World War I. They want to see us as a top target, but they failed miserably.

In all the years as a Soviet Union, they tried to infiltrate us or tried to influence Americans and they failed. This time through Black Lives Matter—and I can get into why—Marxism and Marxist communists have come very close, the closest they’ve ever come, to changing our way of life and that is what is happening right now.

Allen: I found it really fascinating that as you’re going through the book, you’re explaining that very thing, this changing culture and how the Black Lives Matter organization has an agenda. You actually started the book by talking about Frederick Douglass. That fascinated me. Why did you feel the need to give that historical perspective and talk about a figure like Frederick Douglass before diving into this larger conversation about Black Lives Matter?

Gonzalez: Yeah, Chapter 1 starts with Frederick Douglass, the introduction obviously starts with Jan. 6. I explain my understanding of Jan. 6, but I start the book proper on Frederick Douglass because Frederick Douglass really is the best known abolitionist in U.S. history. He was a man of noble character. He was a man of courage. I started with his fight with a sadistic master to whom he had been loaned and how he said he became a man by beating this man who owned them on loan.

I started with him because throughout his life, he was anti-socialist. I describe in the book a meeting in which he spoke and there was a socialist. One of the quirky, weird, odd things about communists and socialists, by the way, [Karl] Marx and [Friedrich] Engels never established a difference between socialism and communism, but they used the terms interchangeably. The socialist speaking with Frederick Douglass really was not putting an emphasis on the abolition of slavery. He was putting an emphasis on the abolition of wage labor.

Communists believed that wage labor—in other words, what we all do—is a continuation of slavery, which is crazy, just as communism is crazy. Frederick Douglass could not stand that this man was saying these things.

To Frederick Douglass, abolition was about one thing: It was about ending slavery, ending this blight upon our country. To communists, abolition is a completely separate thing. They want to abolish the family, the state, and all the institutions. In 1848, when this meeting takes place, Frederick Douglass understood that what we needed to abolish was slavery.

Allen: Yeah. That historical context is so critical for this broader conversation. I loved in the introduction, you really clearly lay out the mission for the book. You say, “This book exists to fill the void in public awareness.” You go on to say, “If journalists will not report on the real nature of the Black Lives Matter organizations and their leaders and if the federal government cannot gather information on First Amendment-protected activities, this book will attempt to correct the record and analyze all the aspects of what transpired in 2020, as well as the historical forces that led up to those events.”

So what then is that real nature of the Black Lives Matter organization and their leaders?

Gonzalez: First of all, I want to make it very clear that I agree with demand on the federal government not being able to collect information on First Amendment-protected activities. I’m saddened by the fact that journalists did not vet, in fact, refuse to vet and did not cover the Black Lives Matter movement.

They covered for them. They de-emphasize or deny the Marxism of their founders—Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi, and also Melina Abdullah—even though they themselves are quite open about it and make videos saying, “Yeah, I’m a Marxist and I’ve being trained as a Marxist.”

They say this all the time and journalists, when they report on it—which is very, very seldom—they say, I think I quote a PolitiFact fact check, in which he said, “Well, Marxism these days, it’s really considering life through an economic lens.”

No, it isn’t. Marxism is what it is, what it says it is. It’s communism. It is getting rid of the market economy, getting rid of capitalism, which Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi, and Patrisse Cullors say they want to do. They want to get rid of free markets. They want to get rid of our ability to own property and sell that property or sell our labor for a wage. They don’t even like our system of representative democracy.

Opal Tometi has been very praiseful of the Chavismo in Venezuela. She was photographed with Nicolas Maduro. She believes in this type of direct democracy, which is not a democracy at all. It’s just a dictatorship of one party.

So this is what they want to do. They want to abolish the family. In fact, the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation had it on their website that they wanted to really make deep changes to the family system.

I wrote about it with my colleague, Andrew Olivastro, in a piece that was read by over a million people. Within a month, they did what all Stalinists do: They airbrushed that out of their website. All of a sudden that was gone, except that it is in other parts of the literature. They cannot hide this. They want to abolish the American way of life. This is what they’re about.

They hide themselves behind a very good slogan: “Black lives matter.” Who could be against that? If you don’t think that black lives matter, I don’t even want to talk to you. They hide themselves. If they call themselves “Red Ideas Matter,” it would be much more representative of who they are, but of course, like all communists, they hide themselves behind these noble sentiments, like black lives matter.

Allen: That’s really helpful context, Mike. I know you talk about the fact that, for so long, and during the Cold War, America was fighting the Soviet Union and we were fighting communism from afar, but now what we see is that we’re fighting it within our own borders, we’re fighting it from within.

Talk a little bit about how the organization Black Lives Matter is responsible. Are they responsible? Should we blame them for what we see now in this new interest that we see young people having in socialism and in new fascination with communism? Is Black Lives Matter really to blame for that?

Gonzalez: Yeah, let me put it together. First of all, it’s a really sad irony that as we celebrate this year, the 30th anniversary of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, that we’re seeing communist ideas gain such currency in our system.

We spent all these resources, all this time and energy and lives fighting socialism, fighting communism, fighting what [former President Ronald] Reagan called the “evil empire,” the Soviet Union, which was finally dissolved on Christmas Day 1991. The significance of the day is underlining the noble and moral character of our crusade against communism.

It is because of what happened in 2020, the year of turmoil and the riots. There were 633 riots, by the way, at least according to the U.S. Crisis Monitor run out of Princeton. And 95% of those riots in which we know the identity of the perpetrator, Black Lives Matter members were included.

It is because of this that critical race theory all of a sudden jumps the university walls and enters K-12 in full force. We’re seeing as a result of last year, our classrooms completely change and teachers. It was happening before, but it really enters into full force.

We see also critical race theory entering the military, the houses of worship. And corporate America has completely surrendered to this ideology. Sports and every aspect of our lives is because of this. It is because of what happened last year.

The manipulation of the tragedy of George Floyd’s death, which is a tragedy, the manipulation of this into making people believe the leaders of all our key institutions that we are systemically racist and that our criminal justice system is systemically racist—they threw in the towel and accepted all of this.

And we’re telling our soldiers to read critical race theory texts, which say that the Constitution is illegitimate. These are people who volunteered to defend the Constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic, and yet, we’re telling them to read Kendi and all these other writers, Ibram X. Kendi, who say the Constitution is an illegitimate document.

This is happening because of the year of unrest that we had the riots and demonstrations, the upheaval, that people want to forget. Nobody wants to talk about it, but we cannot forget what we had after May 2020 for many, many, many months. I’ve written the book just to shine a light on this and say, “We cannot give in.”

In fact, you’ve seen resistance from the American people. I’ve crossed the country and speak to groups from coast to coast and I get hundreds of people, I’m not that electrifying a speaker, and people turn out because they demand information about critical race theory. They want to know what’s going on. They want to have it explained to them.

The resistance is now coming from the grassroots. The American people are standing up and saying, “No, I don’t want these things taught to my children. I don’t want to be trained and go through these reeducation camps at my place of work.” This is a form of workplace harassment, so they’re fighting against what Verizon is trying to do, what American Express is trying to do, and even The Salvation Army has these training programs.

Allen: Well, Mike, I really appreciate the research that you have done on critical race theory. You really are the expert at Heritage on that subject. I encourage all of our listeners, if you want to read Mike’s pieces on this, you can check him out on The Heritage Foundation website.

Mike, you mentioned the riots last year that obviously took the nation by storm and really changed so much in our country. I was fascinated that in the book, you mentioned how Antifa in some ways became a distraction from Black Lives Matter. I was really, really interested in that point. Talk a little bit about that.

Gonzalez: I say that in a way to castigate politicians. Politicians from both parties are not courageous or as courageous as they should be. They don’t want to talk about Black Lives Matter because black lives matter, because of the slogan. They are very shy to talk about these organizations, which are distinct from the concept.

Antifa, which is a much more white phenomenon, these are anarchists. They’re violent anarchists. As I see it, they don’t have a thought-out academic discipline, like Black Lives Matter has critical race theory behind it. They’re all practitioners of critical race theory. Antifa doesn’t have that. Antifa is anarchism and it’s just pure violence, almost for the sake of violence. I think they have goals like overthrowing the state, but they don’t have a well-thought-out program.

Black Lives Matter has bills in Congress. Black Lives Matter has a curriculum that is being taught in many of our children’s schools already. Black Lives Matter has a foreign policy. They came out and supported the communist government of Cuba. As the communist government was rounding up protesters, beating them up, and putting them into prison through kangaroo trials, BLM came out and supported them. BLM came out in support against Israel as Israel was fighting the terrorist group Hamas earlier this year.

So Black Lives Matter has a foreign policy and it has a gazillion dollars. They raised $10 million—well, no, sorry, they raised $100 million last year. It has all these assets that Antifa does not have.

Allen: You mentioned the money and you have a whole chapter in the book specifically titled “Following the Money,” what did you discover as you looked at the money coming into and out of the Black Lives Matter organization?

Gonzalez: There are all these corporations that have gone woke. There are many reasons being given why.

Vivek Ramaswamy, a colleague, he does a lot of [anti-critical race theory] work, has another book out in which he talks about how this is really easy for the CEOs to go woke. This is costless to them, but we’re seeing all these foundations raising money.

A lot of times, as I point out in the chapter devoted to this, these foundations have links, longstanding links, to Marxist groups, such as the Sandinistas. One of these groups is a [pro-People’s Republic of China], pro-Maoism group in San Francisco, the Chinese Progressive Association, which is the financial sponsor of two of the Black Lives Matter affiliates.

The Chinese Progressive Association in San Francisco was founded to support the People’s Republic of China against mainland China, against Taiwan. It was founded in the ’70s for that reason.

Allen: In your writing of this book, in the research that you’ve done on the Black Lives Matter organization and critical race theory, ultimately, in your assessment, what’s the end goal for Black Lives Matter? What are they aiming for? You say that they have public policy, they have bills in Congress. What’s their end-all, be-all?

Gonzalez: Their goal is what Alicia Garza said … in 2019, when she was visiting a group of Maine leftists. She said, “What we want to do is dismantle the organizing principle of society.” She said that, and that’s what they want. They want to dismantle the way we’re organized. They want to dismantle the American system.

They say that we’re systemically, structurally, institutionally racist, because they want to pull out all the institutions and want to change all the institutions, all the structures in the very system of America. That is their goal and they hide behind this good slogan that black lives do matter in order to pursue the complete overhaul of the United States.

Look, we have problems, problems that we need to solve, obviously, but we’re still the fairest, most prosperous country in the world where real human flourishing can take place. That’s the reason why people fall from airplanes out of the sky to come to this country, and there’s no line of people leaving to get out.

There’s a very, very long line of people coming to get in because they see, they understand that America is the land of hope for the working man and woman of the world, of any race. These are people coming of all races. If we were a racist country, systemically racist country, we wouldn’t have so many people of all races wanting to come in here and succeeding here and thank God for that.

Allen: This might be a naive question, but why? You’re saying that they want to fundamentally change America, they want to unravel the traditional structure of the family, of capitalism. Why?

Gonzalez: Well, on the family itself, it was Marx and Engels who put that in “The Communist Manifesto” of 1848 that they wanted to “abolish the family.”

I don’t think anyone embraces evil qua evil. I think that they do believe that this is an oppressive system. Critical race theorists, just like critical legal theorists, just like critical theorists in the 1930s and ’20s, believe that the West has a superstructure that is oppressive. They admit that capitalism produces the goods, but they say that’s what’s bad about capitalism, because it produces material well-being and that it perpetuates a very oppressive system.

They are crazy, and I’m not a psychologist, but you have to believe that Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi, and Melina Abdullah believe that we live in an oppressive society. Obviously, they haven’t traveled, or they haven’t traveled extensively outside of the U.S.

I have lived in at least seven countries, at least a year, as a foreign correspondent. I lived in Kabul for a month. And I can tell you that compared to the rest of the world, not only are we not oppressive, but we’re pretty, pretty good.

Allen: Where do we go from here then and what is really your hope as readers read the book, what do you want them to take from it?

Gonzalez: I want to open people’s eyes. I want to convince people who are either ambivalent about Black Lives Matter or actually believe that this is a noble endeavor and noble organizations, as a concept, of course it’s noble, but as organizations, no they’re not. And I want to convince people of that.

I also want to stiffen up the resolve of the American people that, no, we shouldn’t allow this here. The American people are exceptionally attached to liberty. We have always been. This is something that has been remarked upon by social scientists and foreign visitors for centuries—G. K. Chesterton and before him, Alexis de Tocqueville and Herbert Marcuse, who hated it.

I want the people who already are suspicious of the BLM organizations to stiffen their spine against this and make sure that this does not take hold. I also want to reach out to people who do believe that these are good organizations, who have been misinformed, who have been manipulated into believing that we live in an oppressive system with systemic racism.

Allen: So critical. Well, the book is “BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution.” You can get it on Amazon. Mike, final words, anything you’d like to add before I let you go?

Gonzalez: Yes. As I said, America, I don’t want to pretend that we do not have our faults. No system ever is going to be perfect on earth because it’s dealing with flawed individuals, right? Man is flawed, but this is a good country. I traveled the country, I go everywhere. Americans are good people. We have a good system. So before we think about completely overhauling and pulling out the foundations, we should really think hard: Is this really what we want to do?

Allen: Critical. “BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution,” get it on Amazon. Mike, thank you so much for being here.

Gonzalez: Thank you, Virginia.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

Left’s Future Election Hopes

Lefty Commentator Just Threw Cold Water Over the Left’s Future Election Hopes

Lefty Commentator Just Threw Cold Water Over the Left’s Future Election Hopes

Source: AP Photo/Kathy Willens

Better yet, it’s a progressive political scientist who torched this narrative about the 2020 census and a permanent Democratic majority. Ruy Teixeira of the Center for American Progress is one of those people who talked about this theory of an emerging Democratic majority but has also said that his works has been glossed over and misrepresented by fellow liberals.

In a post on Medium, Teixeira just wrecks the Left’s hopes and dreams for future political dominance here. Namely that the big dip in white voters could be due to the race question in the survey that was tweaked in 2010 and could’ve caused confusion. He notes that because of that, America is probably whiter than the Left thinks. Second, white voters who vote is higher than their percentage of the overall population. The same cannot be said for nonwhites.

He then moves onto college-educated whites, the most insufferable people on the planet. It’s because of these people that Biden won. It wasn’t due to a spike in black voters or Hispanic voters, not even women can claim credit that they saved America from Trump. It was because of the most isolated, snobby, and privileged whites in America. The people who have narratives about race in this country that simply do not mirror reality in any way, shape, or form. It’s an academic exercise for them. It’s why nonwhites, blacks especially, are veering towards the GOP. The ‘defund the police’ antics are a white college-educated liberal invention. The term ‘Latinx’ for Hispanics is totally a white liberal invention—no one uses it. In short, these people are from Mars, which is why they alienate everyone, including traditional Democratic voter blocs that are simply not as ideological as these folks on everything, especially the issue of racial resentment. Also, even though they might vote Democratic a lot—blacks and Hispanics do not, and never have identified as ‘liberal’ in their political orientation. Speaking to people in the ‘college faculty lexicon’ will not work—and then they denigrate those who don’t agree with them.

Oh, and Teixeira notes these clowns are sticking around for a long time in Democratic circles. Going woke is not a recipe for success.

When it comes to Hispanic voters, it’s still not good news for Democrats and their demography is supremacy narrative. It’s the fastest-growing voter bloc. It has been for years, but as Teixeira has noted, among others, turnout is an issue. Yet, those who did swung towards Trump in 2020—big league:

As the Census documents, the biggest single driver of the increased nonwhite population is the growth of the Hispanic population. They are by far the largest group within the Census-designated nonwhite population (19 percent vs. 12 percent for blacks). While their representation among voters considerably lags their representation in the overall population, it is fair to say that voting trends among this group will decisively shape voting trends among nonwhites in the future since their share of voters will continue to increase while black voter share is expected to remain roughly constant.

And these Hispanic voting trends have not been favorable for the Democrats. According to Catalist, in 2020 Latinos had an amazingly large 16 point margin shift toward Trump. Among Latinos, Cubans did have the largest shifts toward Trump (26 points), but those of Mexican origin also had a 12 point shift and even Puerto Ricans moved toward Trump by 18 points. Moreover, Latino shifts toward Trump were widely dispersed geographically. Hispanic shifts toward Trump were not confined to Florida (28 points) and Texas (18 points) but also included states like Nevada (16 points), Pennsylvania (12 points), Arizona (10 points) and Georgia (8 points).

These reduced margins are why, despite Hispanics’ increased vote share in 2020, their contribution to Democrats’ improved national margin in this election was actually negative—that is, they made a negative one point contribution to Biden’s vote margin relative to Clinton’s in 2016.

In this context, it is interesting to note that the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement did not rate very highly among Hispanics. In the national exit poll, Hispanic voters were split close to evenly about BLM, 47 percent unfavorable to 49 percent favorable. This significantly trails not just black voters, but also white college graduates, who rated BLM 61 percent favorable to 35 percent unfavorable.

Consistent with this, Latino voters evinced little sympathy with the more radical demands that came to be associated with BLM. In VSG data, despite showing support for some specific policing reforms, Hispanics opposed defunding the police, decreasing the size of police forces and the scope of their work and reparations for the descendants of slaves by 2:1 or more.

An important thing to remember about the Hispanic population is that they are heavily oriented toward upward mobility and see themselves as being able to benefit from available opportunities to attain that.

“They are also patriotic,” added Teixeira noting “they would rather be a citizen of the United States than any other country in the world and by 35 points said they were proud of the way American democracy works.”

This does not bode well for Democrats who are all-in on hating America, white people, and denigrating this nation as irredeemably racist. Again, going woke isn’t a recipe for national success.

And then there’s the class issue which is appearing to be more of the determining factor concerning why Democrats will most likely fail at dominating national elections in the future. The working-class vote, both white and nonwhite, seems primed to frustrate Democrats:

But the focus on Democrats’ white working class problem, which is now widely understood, has obscured the problems Democrats have been developing with the nonwhite working class. While nonwhite voters as a whole moved toward the GOP in the 2020 election, working class nonwhites moved more sharply toward Trump than college nonwhites (12 margin points vs. 7 points, based on Catalist’s two party vote data). Surprisingly, working class nonwhite women actually moved more toward Trump (14 points) than working class nonwhite men (9 points).

It is particularly striking to note that since 2012, running against Trump twice, Democrats have lost 18 points off of their margin among nonwhite working class voters. That obviously undercuts the Democrat-friendly effects of rising racial diversity. This is underscored by the under-appreciated fact that working class voters still vastly outnumber college-educated voters. Among whites, working class voters were a bit over three-fifths of the vote. But among nonwhites, the working class contingent was a full two thirds of voters in 2020.

Hispanic working class voters were particularly likely to shift to the Republicans in 2020. Pew validated voter data show a 30 point shift toward the GOP relative to 2018 (2016 not available), more than twice the 14 point shift among college Hispanics. And in terms of support levels, the Pew data indicate that working class Hispanics gave Trump a remarkable 41 percent of their vote in 2020. This is especially noteworthy since the Hispanic vote is the most heavily working class nonwhite vote, pushing 80 percent working class according to Pew.

All this suggests trends among working class nonwhites will likely determine the future of the nonwhite vote—and therefore what benefit, if any, Democrats will derive from the race-ethnic trends identified by the Census.

He closed with a brief mentioning that the Democrats’ dispersion of its base is not efficient at all. They simply dominate areas that have already been in Democratic hands for years. What good is a massive spike in new Democratic voters if they already live in the San Francisco Bay area? We all know California is going blue, whereas the Trump coalition is probably one of the most efficiently dispersed in recent memory. Trump voters live, by and large, in areas where elections are determined which makes it lethal. And if nonwhite working-class voters, coupled with the white working-class that’s already abandoned the Democratic Party, swing towards the GOP—a lot of losing and woke tears are going to flow. Of course, things can change. The Democrats might get off the ‘woke’ wagon and focus on an agenda that—shocker—is popular with voters. Defunding the police and bailing out the most privileged with their college debt isn’t any of those things. It also highlights how shallow liberal thinking is when it comes to race since it’s apparent that many, if not all, think that a nonwhite American is a slam-dunk voter for the Democratic Party and liberal agenda items. It’s not.

Teixeira shot a warning flare with this post, adding that it’s “clear that the Democrats’ efforts to build and sustain a majority electoral coalition are not guaranteed in any way by the race-ethnic trends detailed in the Census data.”

Sit down, liberals. You’ve won nothing.

FP

 
 

 Don’t Be A Butthead

What weak manipulated minds don’t want to know”

Must See

Mission StatementAdsThe DJT storeCovid-19 NewsGreat VideosFunny StuffBest InfographsToday In HistoryAndy Rooney Historic PhotosBest MemesWeb Masters Page

Realzies Research

The Tytler CycleThe ConstitutionDunning KrugerGreat AwakningGlobal Mental HealthPresidents and Contagious DiseaseHow Pelosi Made MillionsBay of PigsSpanish FluFDR's Last VPFall of SaigonMedia helped CastroReason's For WarCognitive BiasesConservative WordsPandemic PanoplyCulture WarsAntifaNarcissistMasks?Unholy AllianceSolutions 2020Enemy #1 ChinaThe Corrupters The BidensBrainwashed GenerationBLM-Antifa SupportersThose Were The Days

Conservative News

Drudge ReportHot AirThe BlazeInsta punditBreitbartGateway PunditLucianneDaily CallerRight ScoopBad BlueFree RepublicWeasel ZippersDoug RossTwitchyRubin ReportRevolver NewsNew York Post Gateway Pundit Conserve Daily

Conservative Columnists

Geller ReportTownhallReal Clear PoliticsFront Page MagazineNational ReviewPJ MediaWall Street JournalAmerican ThinkerWash DC TribuneDaily CallerCity JournalHuman EventsAmerican SpectatorJewish World ReviewWND.comNew DiscoursesNational ReviewThe FederalistAnswer

Infographic of the Day

The Buffett Indicator at All-Time Highs: Is This Cause for Concern?
 
 
The Buffett Indicator - Stock Market Value to GDP

Buffett Indicator at All-Time Highs: A Cause for Concern?

In 2001, Warren Buffett famously described the stock market capitalization-to-GDP ratio as “the best single measure of where valuations stand at any given moment.” This ratio, now commonly known as the Buffett Indicator, compares the size of the stock market to that of the economy. A high ratio indicates an overvalued market—and as of February 11, 2021, the ratio has reached all-time highs, indicating that the U.S. stock market is currently strongly overvalued. Today’s graphic by Current Market Valuation (CMV) provides an overview of how the Buffett Indicator has changed since 1950. We’ll also explain how the ratio is calculated, and why things might not be as dire as seem.

The Buffet Indicator, Explained

Before diving into the data, let’s cover the basics—what is the Buffett Indicator, and how is its value calculated? The Buffett Indicator is a ratio used by investors to gauge whether the market is undervalued, fair valued, or overvalued. The ratio is measured by dividing the collective value of a country’s stock market by the nation’s GDP.

Measuring Total Value

CMV used the Wilshire 5000 index, along with data from the Federal Reserve for historical data, to measure the collective value of the U.S. stock market. Here’s a look at the nation’s composite market value since 1950: US Market Value since 1950 As the chart indicates, the market’s experienced steady growth since 2010. And as of February 11, 2021, its total value sits at $49.5T.

Measuring GDP

For the data on GDP since 1950, CMV dipped into the archives from the US Government’s Bureau of Economic Analysis: US GDP since 1950 While the Bureau’s data is published quarterly, it doesn’t provide the latest figures. So to find Q1 2021 GDP, CMV used data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, and came up with an annualized GDP of $21.7T.

The Ratio

According to Warren Buffett, “if the ratio approaches 200%…you are playing with fire.” The Buffett Indicator since 1950 And with the current U.S. ratio sitting at 228%—about 88% higher than historical averages, it certainly looks like things are heating up.

Will History Repeat Itself?

As the popular investing expression goes, the trend is your friend. And historically, the Buffett Indicator has predicted several of America’s most devastating economic downturns. Here’s a look at some historical moments in the U.S. stock market, and where the Buffett Indicator was valued at the time:
Date Event Buffett Indicator Value (+/- Trendline)
October 1987 Black Monday Fairly Valued -13%
March 2000 Dotcom Bubble Strongly Overvalued +71%
December 2007 Pre-Financial Crisis Fairly Valued +18%
March 2009 Financial Crisis Bottom Undervalued -46%
February 2020 COVID-19 Overvalued +49%
February 2021 Today Strongly Overvalued +88%
As the table shows, the ratio spiked during the dotcom bubble, and was relatively high in the months leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. But does that mean we should take the ratio’s current spike as a warning for a market crash in the near future? According to some experts, we might not need to sound the alarms just yet. Why are some investors so confident in the current market? One main factor is low interest rates, which are expected to stay low for the foreseeable future. When interest rates are low, borrowing money becomes cheaper, and future real earnings are theoretically worth more, which can have a positive impact on the stock market. And low interest rates mean smaller returns for low-risk assets like bonds, which lowers investor demand and ultimately boosts stock prices further. Meaning that, as long as interest rates are at record lows, the Buffett Indicator will likely stay high. However, history has been known to repeat itself. So, while we might not need to fasten our seatbelts just yet, this historically high ratio is certainly worth paying attention to.

Image result for satire

Journalists Cheer As Jen Psaki Announces The Gulags Will Be Run By A Woman Of Color

 
The announcement came as a result of an unscripted moment when a reporter relayed to Psaki a question from a concerned citizen back home, “What is President Biden doing for my small business?” Psaki didn’t miss a beat showing how clearly prepared she was for such a hard-hitting question. “First and foremost, Joe Biden nominated a woman of color to run the forced labor camps, what many experts in this administration are referring to affectionately as the gulags.” The journalists began hooting, hollering, clapping, and erupting into chants of “Four More Years” when Psaki’s announcement dropped that dissidents and undesirables accused of wrongthink would be sent to forced labor camps run by a woman of color. At publishing time, children being kept in immigration detention centers were reportedly “glad” to hear news that I.C.E. may be folded into the progressive new gulag system.