Rasmussen: Voters Doubt Congress Will Address Nation’s Most Important Problems
By Craig Bannister | July 30, 2021 | 1:29pm EDT
U.S. likely voters are largely skeptical that Congress will actually make a serious effort to address the nation’s most important problems, a new Rasmussen survey reveals.
Nearly five times as many believe it’s “not at all likely” (33%) as say it’s that Congress “very likely” (7%) that Congress will “seriously address the most important problems facing our nation,” the survey of 930 likely voters, conducted July 25-26, finds.
While 29% say it’s at least “somewhat” likely Congress will act, more than twice that number (66%) say it’s either “not very” or “not at all likely.”
Voters consider violent crime and inflation to be two of the most pressing problems in the U.S. today, according to a national Rasmussen survey, conducted July 27-28, shows. Fully 85% of voters are “concerned about the problem of violent crime in America, with 60% saying they’re “very concerned.” Likewise, 79% are either very (49%) or somewhat (30%) worried about the threat of inflation.
Meanwhile, just 17% believe that Congress is doing a good or excellent job, while 54% rate Congress’ performance as poor.
Voters’ approval of Congress is down from three months earlier, but poor ratings are typical for the legislative body, Rasmussen notes:
“Those numbers are worse than in April, when 21% gave Congress excellent or good ratings. Historically, positive ratings for Congress have only reached 25% once (in February 2017) in regular surveying by Rasmussen Reports since 2007. Poor findings routinely ran in the 60s and 70s from 2011 through 2014.”
Chris Hedges | How Bankers ROBBED and ENSLAVED America
Chris Hedges | America's RIGGED Justice System
8 Signs That The US Is Heading To 21st Century Great Depression: Prepare Your Self For The Worst!
Bank Meltdown Is Coming As Latest Data Reveals Something Is Terminally Broken In The US Bank System
Shockingly Bad Home Sales Data Derail The Fed's Tapering Plans
Chris Hedges | The HORRIFIC State of the American Empire
Eleven million US families face eviction as CDC moratorium expires
An historic and devastating wave of evictions and foreclosures looms, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) federal eviction moratorium set to expire at the end of this week, on July 31.
With just days to go, there is no indication the Biden administration is going to extend it. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki boasted in a press conference on Friday about vague efforts by the Biden administration to “help people with government-backed mortgages stay in their homes through monthly payment reductions and potential loan modifications.” Noticeably absent was any reference to the end of the moratorium or relief for renters.
At his CNN town hall event on Wednesday, President Biden did not even speak about the housing crisis. Nor did he say anything about it on Friday when he spoke at a campaign rally in Arlington in support of Democrat Terry McAuliffe’s run for governor of Virginia.
Last year exceeded the $10 trillion mark in housing debt for the first time in history, according to the New York Fed’s Household Debt and Credit Report, reaching levels higher than those seen in the third quarter of 2008, which reached just under $10 trillion. This creates the obvious preconditions, paired with job losses, attacks on workers' wages and a new surge in the pandemic, for an immense foreclosure crisis.
ONE THING IS CLEAR ABOUT OBAMA, FOR EIGHT YEARS HE WORKED TO SABOTAGE AMERICA'S BORDERS FOR MORE DEM VOTING ILLEGALS AND DID FUCKING NOTHING FOR BLACK AMERICA!
Dreams from His Stalinist
A Marxist regime and separate black nation within America.
“Frank Marshall Davis, 81, of Honolulu, died Sunday in Honolulu,” read the obituary in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Davis, who passed away on July 26, 1987, “was a renowned black poet and former newspaperman.”
The Kansas State graduate, recipient of a Julius Rosenwald Fellowship in poetry, authored “Black Man’s Verse,” and two other widely anthologized volumes of poetry “reprinted in public schools and college textbooks for general use throughout the United States.” Frank Marshall Davis was managing editor of the Atlanta Daily World, executive editor of the Associated Negro Press, and “taught the history of jazz music at the Abraham Lincoln School” in Chicago. An impressive profile, but there was more to the man.
In Livin’ the Blues: Memoirs of a Black Journalist and Poet, released by the University of Wisconsin Press in 1992, Davis proudly notes his inclusion in Who’s Who in the Midwest and Who’s Who in America. Davis is also candid about joining the Communist Party USA, a white-led party whose members took a loyalty oath to defend the all-white Communist dictatorship of the Soviet Union. Davis joined the Party after the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939, a time when many others left, never to return.
In 1948, the Party shipped Davis from Chicago to Hawaii, not yet a state and a target of Stalin’s post-war expansionism. Frank wrote for Honolulu Record, a publication backed by the CPUSA and the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, headed by Harry Bridges, another Communist and Soviet agent. The CPUSA organization in the islands was formidable but lost the battle when Hawaii became the 50th state on August 21, 1959. The Party kept Frank on location, a decision of great significance.
In 1995, eight years after his death and three years after the publication of his memoirs, Frank showed up in Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, by Barack Obama, formerly known as Barry Soetoro after the Indonesian student, Lolo Soetoro, his mother Ann Dunham married in 1965. As the Dreams author explains, Frank “would read us his poetry whenever we stopped by his house, sharing whiskey with Gramps out of an emptied jelly jar,” and he warns young Barry about women. “They’ll drive you to drink, boy,” Frank would say, “and if you let ‘em, they’ll drive you into your grave.” When Barry heads off to college, Frank gets more serious.
“They’ll train you to manipulate words so they don’t mean anything anymore. They’ll train you to forget what it is that you already know. They’ll train you so good, you’ll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit.” And so on.
In a September 20, 1995 show on Cambridge Municipal Television, the Dreams author talked up the poet Frank Marshall Davis. The audience was not curious about Frank’s prediction that racist America would never let him run anything. As it turned out, Barry got good jobs and gained election to the Illinois state senate and U.S. Senate.
For his part, Frank disappeared from the audio version of Dreams from My Father and did not appear in the author’s The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006. By then, the dreamer had his eyes on the prize. In November, 2008, he proclaimed, “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Five days later, the Hawaiian-born African American became the 44th president of the United States.
Four years later, Frank surfaced again in The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, the Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor by Paul Kengor, professor of political science at Grove City College. As Kengor discovered, Frank earned a place on the FBI’s security index and his political views bore startling similarities to those of the 44th president.
“Davis constantly bashed Wall Street, big oil, profits, GOP tax cuts, the wealthy and ‘millionaires,’” Kengor told Frontpage. “He called for taxpayer funding of ‘universal healthcare’ and ‘public works projects.’ He targeted General Motors. He championed Russian foreign policy, especially at the expense of countries like Poland. I could go on and on. The similarities are chilling.” In a 1946 column, Davis bashed “sacred institutions” and “the American way of life,” which Kengor found similar to Frank’s warning in Dreams from My Father about “equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit.”
Despite the revelations, the president gained a second term and the fundamental transformation he promised would soon be apparent. Americans would not get the health care they wanted, only the care the government wanted them to have. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security would ignore Islamic terrorism and target Americans who retained loyalty to the Constitution, limited government, and their religion.
The president would choose his successor and deploy the FBI and DOJ to keep her in the race (Operation Midyear Exam) and monitor her opponent. When the people voted in Donald Trump, the president deployed the upper reaches of the FBI, DOJ and intelligence community to attack Trump, the Crossfire Hurricane operation. After Trump’s inauguration, Frank Marshall Davis showed up again in Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama, released in May of 2017.
According to author David Garrow, Dreams from My Father, though it mentioned actual people and events, was an historical fiction, not an autobiography or memoir, and the author was a “composite character.” One of the actual characters was Frank Marshall Davis, whose “Communist background plus his kinky exploits made him politically radioactive.” That explained why the Stalinist disappeared from Dreams and failed to show up in The Audacity of Hope.
Frank Marshall Davis makes no appearance in Michelle Obama’s Becoming and is missing from Believer, by “Obama’s Narrator” David Axelrod, and The World As It Is: A Memoir of the Obama White House, by Iran deal promoter Ben Rhodes. Davis is also absent from the composite character’s A Promised Land, released in November, 2020. On the other hand, Davis’ influence is more evident than ever.
The Communist Party USA believed that blacks were not real Americans and as Paul D’Amato noted in the International Socialist Review, “In 1928, the Comintern declared that Blacks in the U.S. constituted a nation, and they called for ‘self-determination in the Black Belt.’ The Black Belt was a swath of territory cutting through the South known for its rich, dark soil, in which rural Blacks at that time were concentrated in large numbers.”
Likewise, in “Communism’s African-American Soviet Republic,” Paul Kengor charted how in 1930 the Communist International (Comintern) called for creation of a Soviet-directed and controlled “Negro Republic” among America’s Southern states. In recent years, the concept of a separate black nation has been making a comeback.
“Actually, I think that it is fairly easily for African-Americans to form a Black nation within the United States,” professor Christian Davenport of the University of Michigan told the Atlanta Black Star in 2016. “There are cults and militias as well as private corporations that do whatever they want behind their closed doors.” The most high-profile militia on the current scene is Black Lives Matter, championed by the composite character president.
For the Marxist BLM, as for the CPUSA, the United States is a racist, imperialist entity that does nothing but oppress blacks. According to BLM, American police officers do nothing but hunt and kill black people. After the death of George Floyd, the composite character said that “to bring about real change, we both have to highlight a problem and make people in power uncomfortable,” code for the violence that BLM inflicted across the nation.
Black Lives Matter supports “Lift Every Voice and Sing” as the “black national anthem.” The National Football League proclaims “we believe Black Lives Matter” and will play the black anthem before NFL games. Joe Biden allows U.S. embassies around the world to fly Black Lives Matter flags and banners. So it’s now official policy.
Under critical race indoctrination now taking place in the schools and the military, Americans are taught that they are racists because of the way they were born, regardless of anything they ever said, did, or believed. All problems of black people are due to the moral lapses of those oppressive people of no color. So if the BLM squads should make any of the pale people uncomfortable by looting their stores, torching their synagogue or church, or attacking them in the street or at home, that’s only what’s necessary “to bring about real change,” the fundamental transformation promised in 2008.
What is going on in 2021 is the dream of Frank Marshall Davis, the black Stalinist who supported a Soviet-ruled “Negro republic” in America. This is what happens when a composite character whose founding narrative is an historical fiction becomes the most powerful man in the world.
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2021/06/anarchy-in-america-racist-divisionist.html
That is why the two paramilitary wings of the Democrat party -- the “white” Antifa and the “black” BLM -- perfectly understand each other. After all, the race is not a problem. The main goal is the revolution (THAT WILL PUT BARACK OBAMA INTO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR LIFE).
Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose younger generation include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama. Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power." Karin McQuillan
We are not far from the time when the U.S. will have a Latino majority and will, regrettably, be a one-party state. Apparently, that is what Democrats want. JAMES DELMONT
Critical Race Theory’s Marxist Roots
And its existential danger to our political freedom and unalienable rights.
Thu Jun 10, 2021
Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
The expanding influence of Critical Race Theory and its Black Live Matter “praxis,” as Marxists call applied theory, has raised concerns about its incoherent pronouncements and illiberal aims. The origins of this ideology is an important question, for CRT has nothing to do with civil rights, or improving black lives or making them “matter.” It’s about increasing its practitioners’ power in our institutions in order to “fundamentally transform” the United States from a country of ordered liberty and limited government, to a “soft” despotic, intrusively regulated technocracy at best, or an illiberal socialist tyranny at worst.
CRT has its roots in Marxism, as one of the founders of BLM has bragged. And, like the Soviet version of Marxism, BLM’s growing influence over our social, educational, political, and corporate institutions––already compromised by a century of progressive ideology, itself a kissing-cousin of Marxism––is an existential danger to the Constitutional safeguards of our political freedom and unalienable rights.
The first Marxist feature is the dubious habit of thought often called the “hermeneutics of suspicion.” This intellectual grift also defines postmodernism in general, and ideological movements like poststructuralism, radical feminism, and postcolonialism, all of which are fellow travelers of Marxism.
This method of analysis assumes that the reality of all social, political, artistic, and other cultural phenomena cannot be known from the public words and actions of social and political institutions, but rather must be found in the deeper, subterranean ideologies of the power elite that runs them. This “ruling class” shapes political and institutional “discourses” and “knowledge regimes”––the “epiphenomena,” as Marxists call them–– in order to benefit their tyrannical, selfish interests by oppressing others, whom they keep imprisoned in a “false consciousness” that hides from them the true agents and causes of their oppression.
Hence for CRT, all the progress in race relations––the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Brown vs. Board of Education, the growth of the black middle class, the elimination of legal segregation, and the increase in black office-holders including the presidency––are mere “epiphenomena” that have not eliminated the underlying “systemic racism.” According to CRT, this occult “racism” keeps racism alive and accounts for all the “disparate impacts” that deny “equity” (i.e. the equality of result) to blacks and other minorities, but benefit and reward “white privilege” and “white supremacy” at the expense of black well-being.
Correcting that “false consciousness,” especially “white fragility,” the denial of white “privilege” and “racism,” explains the efforts to include CRT in school curricula from pre-school to university, and in training programs for employees of corporations and the federal and state government agencies so that they interpret their functions from the CRT perspective. The goal is to expose and reform these institutions’ true oppressive nature that is obscured by their duplicitous, self-serving public claims and motives. Hence the “1619 Project,” which has revolutionized and deformed the discipline of American history from grade school to university.
This retooled Marxism is clearly preposterous, an abstract, jargon-ridden verbal concoction for which there is no empirical or historical evidence or truth. But “truth,” “objectivity,” “reason” and “evidence” for a Marxist are meaningful and true only in terms sanctioned by Marxist ideology, and the sophisticated “woke” whose “consciousness” has been “raised” above the doltish, bourgeois hoi polloi who think, like the chained captives in Plato’s cave, that the shadows dancing on the walls of their politico-social prison are reality.
“Racism” today, then, is not about what it originally meant to the progressive “scientific” racists in the early 20th century––that every member of a lower race is by nature inferior to every member of the superior one. Now “racism” is a function of “white power” and “white privilege,” and its purpose is to shape our culture and political discourse––words like “equality” and “freedom” and “tolerance”–– so that they both camouflage and perpetuate that power. So no oppressed person, meaning any “person of color” defined by superficial physical characteristics, can be “racist.” Only “whites,” who because of those historically oppressive institutions enjoy “white privilege” no matter their social class, are “racists.”
The next offshoot of Marxism informing CRT is Critical Theory, a creation of the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism that transferred the Marxist struggle from the proletarians on the factory floor, to the broader cultural institutions whose false narratives of truth, beauty, and freedom had to be destroyed. Hence the “critical” in CRT. It does not mean a method of reasoning and analysis that brings us closer to the truth, but rather an undermining of America political, social, cultural, and economic norms, structures, and “discourses” in order to expose the supposedly ugly truth of economic and legal oppression fomented by conservatives, traditionalists, and patriots. Or as Marx himself put it, “a weapon” to use against an “enemy, which it wants not to refute but to exterminate.”
Thus the “long march through the institutions” by devotees of Cultural Marxism, most notably in the universities, for higher education teaches not just the next generation of academics, lawyers, and other professionals who form the country’s cognitive elite; but also those who end up in state colleges where they instruct and certify the future teachers in K-12 schools, thus capturing minds when they are young and impressionable. Again, that’s why revising traditional curricula, even more so than controlling opinion magazines, websites, pop culture, or books, is the most important BLM tool for dismantling the bourgeois, capitalist, Judeo-Christian culture that defines Marxism’s most powerful and hated enemy: the American political order comprising liberal democracy, a free-market economy, and individual rights that transcend political power.
Cultural Marxism, then, attacks “false consciousness” as expressed in our political institutions and discourse, especially the Constitution and its unalienable rights like the freedom of speech. The First Amendment is founded on the idea that a “free marketplace of ideas” expressed by many diverse minds, will respect the citizens’ diversity of viewpoints and opinions, as well as provide a greater public stock of ideas for citizens and lawmakers. But an illiberal, totalitarian mentality despises all true diversity, especially that of speech. Possessing the revealed Leftist truth hidden from the “unwoke,” outfits like BLM have declared open war on the First Amendment.
In doing so they are again refurbishing a Marxist idea. Consider Cultural Marxist Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 essay “Repressive Tolerance,” which argued that the protection of free speech thwarts the cause of “social justice.” Hence his conclusion “that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.”
This means an Orwellian redefining of “tolerance” itself, the sine qua non for free speech, in order to liberate its “true” meaning, which of course comes from Marxism: “In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period––a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression.” Any speech that does not advance the Leftist revolution is false and wicked, and should not be tolerated or protected.
From this idea comes the rationalization for the attacks on First Amendment rights that have been going on in universities for decades, but now permeate institutions such as journalism, corporations, publishing, K-12 schools, and even the military. Indeed, some of the top brass in the Pentagon are practicing the “cancel culture” that assaults our unalienable right to speak our minds in the town square, one of those freedoms the military exists to defend.
Critical Race Theory, then, is not some new “higher nonsense” of the sort our universities cook up. It’s the spawn of Marxism and its offshoot Cultural Marxism. It has used ideas like “hermeneutics of suspicion,” “false consciousness,” and “repressive tolerance” to foment racialist division and conflict that they can leverage for more political, social, and cultural power. This has been the modus operandi of Marxism from its beginning, especially in Marxism’s “late phase” when the revolution will not be waged by the industrial proletariat, but by the privileged, affluent tech-oligarchs, corporate boards, media pundits, university faculty and administrators, politicians, think-tank habitues, and federal agencies, all of whom have lost their nerve in the face of a historically, intellectually, and morally incoherent and destructive movement that has littered history with mountains of corpses.
And the old enemy of freedom will win, unless, as Winston Churchill said to Parliament after the Munich debacle, “By a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we rise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”
Is Mass Immigration Killing Two-Party Democracy in the U.S.?.... ISN'T THAT BARACK OBAMA'S AGENDA?
It used to be that legal immigrants would divide their votes once they became citizens. But that was then.
Few seem willing to admit it, but mass immigration appears to be killing democracy in the United States. Two-party democracy withstood the unprecedented mass immigration of the 1870-to-1914 period because the European immigrants tended, for one reason or another, to vote for both parties. That is not true today. In the 19th century, newcomers voted along religious lines to a remarkable degree: Irish Catholics 80 percent Democrat and all Catholics 70 percent Democrat. But after the Civil War, Germans and Scandinavians, heavily Lutheran, voted Republican, as English Canadian and British immigrants did. In the famous turning-point presidential election of 1896, urban working-class immigrants tended to vote Republican, organized by the active and powerful political machines in big cities like New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago. Very few in the mass migration of that day moved to the American South, which remained solidly Democrat. The two-party system survived throughout most of the country as both parties had urban political machines that provided social services to immigrants.
The present massive wave of immigration that began in the 1970s, largely as a result of the extended family clause in the 1965 Kennedy immigration reform bill, has had remarkably different results. The new immigrants are voting overwhelmingly Democrat: Hispanics 2 to 1, Asians about 70 percent (all election figures from the Pew Research Center). The children of Asian immigrants voted 82 percent for Barack Obama in 2008. In addition, black Americans who used to vote Republican now vote 90 percent or more Democrat, as do black immigrants.
California not long ago was a state Republicans could win. Two presidents, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, came from California and major offices such as governor were regularly won by Republicans. Today California is a permanently blue state, with its wealth of electoral votes. Its U.S. senators, governor, and most of its members of Congress are Democrats. Democrats have a supermajority in both houses of the Legislature and have changed the constitution so that party primaries have been banned in favor of “open” primaries in which Republicans are likely not to finish higher than third, thus not making the November ballot. In the last two U.S. Senate races, 2016 and 2018, voters were offered Democrat No. 1 and Democrat No. 2 as choices. Unsurprisingly, Democrats won both elections, and one of the winners, Kamala Harris, is now running for president.
The demographic tidal wave of mostly
Third World immigrants who vote heavily
Democrat is now running legally at a
million a year, an all-time record, and is
turning red states purple and then
blue.
Arizona is going, Colorado and Georgia are going, Virginia is gone, North Carolina is tipping, and Florida is a dead heat but the immigration trends (south-of-the-border Latinos and Puerto Ricans) are against the GOP. Even Texas is drifting leftward as Latinos bid to become a solid majority there. There is the myth, of course — offered by members of the Bush family — that Hispanics will see the light and begin voting like Indiana Republicans. In fact, Hispanics have voted Democrat since 1960, and they went for Obama in 2008 by 67-31 percent and for Hillary Clinton in 2016 by 66-28 percent. So much for the Bush theory. Asians voted 77 percent for Obama in 2012 and 79 percent for Clinton in 2016. So much for the two-party system.
Furthermore, the much-quoted estimate of 11 million undocumented aliens in the U.S. may be woefully short of the truth. A new study by Yale University suggests the true number of illegals is probably in the 20-to-30 million range, more than enough to kill the two-party system at one stroke, if they eventually receive the citizenship amnesty promised by Democrats.
The two-party system in the U.S. has been healthy since 1796, when Thomas Jefferson took on John Adams in the presidential contest. They met again in 1800 in a more famous showdown, by which time the earliest political parties had formed and taken on ideological hues that still exist today. The ideal situation for a healthy democracy and a workable two-party system is a stable population. If the population is stable (and growing slowly), each party has an opportunity to persuade the public of its merits. That opportunity is disappearing quickly because the population is not stable.
We are not far from the time when the U.S. will have a Latino majority and will, regrettably, be a one-party state. Apparently, that is what Democrats want.
James Delmont, author of The Great Liberal Death Wish, has been published in Financial Times, USA Today, the Baltimore Sun, the Weekly Standard, the Saturday Evening Post, the Daily Caller, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the Omaha World-Herald, and other publications. He has taught at the University of Nebraska-Omaha, the University of Minnesota, and other institutions.
According to Attorney General Xavier Becerra, once on Hillary Clinton’s short list as a running mate, more than 10 million illegals reside in California. When the illegals get driver’s licenses, the DMV automatically registers them to vote. More than one million “new” voters were registered by 2018, but Padilla won’t say how many actually voted and refuses to comply with federal probes of voter fraud.
The Democrats give illegals welfare, taxpayer-funded health care, in-state tuition and protect them from deportation through sanctuary laws. In return, the illegals vote for Democrats and the ballot measures the want. The illegals function as the Democrats imported electoral college, canceling the vote of legitimate citizens and legal immigrants, blocking reform and keeping Democrats in power. Maybe that is what Michael Bloomberg had in mind when he called California “a great example for the rest of this country.”
Meanwhile, in 2020, Democrats don’t want the people to select the president. They want their party to remove the president from office, and some never-Trump Republicans will doubtless go along. As President Trump says, we’ll have to see what happens but one thing remains clear.
Under any Democrat running for office, particularly Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, you wouldn’t get what you want. You would get only what the government wants you to have. That was the plan of POTUS 44’s chosen successor, and that’s why Democrats have never accepted the voice of the people in 2016.
Valerie Jarrett: ‘We Should Make It as Easy as Possible to Vote,’ Including Expanded Absentee Ballots
11,580 MSNBC
15 Apr 20203,796
1:37
Appearing Wednesday on MSNBC, former President Barack Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett said the federal government should make it “as easy as possible” for people to vote as Democrats continue to push a vote-by-mail option ahead of the 2020 election.
A partial transcript is as follows:
SUSAN DEL PERCIO: When we last spoke, you were talking about increasing voter enrollment, getting people registered to vote, participation. Now we see that there’s a big drive for registering and voting by mail. How concerned are you that the president is looking to privatize the post office, limit the amount of service that is possible for the post office with all of this effort on mail-in voting?
VALERIE JARRETT: Very concerned, in a word. And I think as, you know, earlier this week, Michelle Obama announced “When We All Vote,” an organization she formed, non-partisan organization, I might add, a call on Congress to ensure that we have the ability to have absentee ballots. We shouldn’t have to choose between our health and exercising our most fundamental right to vote.
I think we should make it as easy as possible for people to vote, and unfortunately, we have seen in history now in our country where states have passed laws, practices have been put in place to suppress the vote. We should be doing just the opposite. Technology is our friend. The ability to do absentee balloting is something we could fund and have in place if we get ready right now.
THE OBAMA MARXIST-MUSLIM BANKSTER-FUNDED THIRD TERM for life:
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/03/obamas-marxism-still-hankering-for.html
"Cold War historian Paul Kengor goes deeply into Obama's communist background in an article in American Spectator, "Our First Red Diaper Baby President," and in an excellent Mark Levin interview. Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose younger generation include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama. Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power." Karin McQuillan
"We know that Obama and his inner circle have set up a war room in his D.C.
home to plan and execute resistance to the Trump administration and his legislative agenda. None of these people care about the American people, or the fact that Trump won the election because millions of people voted for him."
Patricia McCarthy / AMERICAN THINKER.com
Democrats Allow Communists to Infiltrate Their Party Across the Nation
https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/06/obamas-lackey-judge-blakey-hands-obomb.html
“Obama’s new home in Washington has
been described as the “nerve center” of the
anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney
general Eric Holder has said that Obama is
“ready to roll” and has aligned himself with
the “resistance.” Former high-level Obama
campaign staffers now work with a
variety of groups organizing direct action
against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance
School,” for example, features lectures by
former campaign executive Sara El-Amine,
author of the Obama Organizing.”
“Professor Paul Kengor has extensively researched the Chicago communists whose progeny include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama. Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power.”
We are all victims of the Obama cabal’s collusion with Russia – President Trump’s voters and all Americans who believe in our free and fair election process.
BARACK OBAMA: Was he America’s first closet Communist president?
https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/05/karin-mcquilan-barack-obama-and-his.html
Obama choose Communists and Marxists for the highest, most powerful positions in our land, including his closest political advisors, and his head of the CIA. These facts are not in dispute. Most are openly admitted by the people in question, as necessary damage control. Our press chooses not to report them.
Professor Paul Kengor has extensively researched the Chicago communists whose progeny include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama. Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power.
President Obama agrees: Abysmal failure should be rewarded with promotion. He's leaving no shady banking buddy behind. MICHELLE MALKIN
Democrats Allow Communists to Infiltrate Their Party Across the Nation
https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/06/obamas-lackey-judge-blakey-hands-obomb.html
DESTABILIZE AMERICA TO LAY GROUNDS FOR A MUSLIM-STYLE DICTATORSHIP
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/08/seth-barron-obama-and-building-of.html
Katie Pavlich's Latest Books, Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up are available on Amazon
FOR EIGHT YEARS BARACK OBAMA AND ERIC HOLDER SABOTAGED HOMELAND SECURITY TO EASE MORE MEXICANS OVER OUR BORDERS AND INTO OUR JOBS AND VOTING BOOTHS.
OBAMA NEEDED THESE ILLEGALS TO FINISH OFF THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS, WHAT WAS LEFT OF THEM AFTER OBAMA'S CRONY BANKSTERS' PLUNDER.
“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.” Washington Times
THE MAN WHO WOULD BE DICTATOR
Barack Obama’s Russia Connection
https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/06/barack-obamas-russian-connection-who.html
If Obama was a fully recruited agent of Moscow, tasked with giving Russia a significant military advantage over the United States, and economically weakening and socially dividing the nation, how would he have conducted his presidency (or his post-presidency) any differently? TREVOR LOUDON
We are all victims of the Obama cabal’s collusion with Russia – President Trump’s voters and all Americans who believe in our free and fair election process.
The Russian Origins of Black Neo-Marxism
By Gary Gindler
“White” does not mean white. “White” in radical parlance means anyone of any race, creed, nationality, color, sex, or sexual preference who embraces capitalism, free markets, limited government, and American traditional culture and values.”
This philosophical concept belongs to Noel Ignatiev, a white American of Russian origin, who is the ideological founding father of numerous radical black movements in America. The author of this concept was even lucky enough to see his best students -- Black Lives Matter (BLM) -- in action.
Research into the work of this former Harvard
professor finally answered the question of why
BLM proponents are so negative about the
perfectly rational slogan “All Lives Matter.” The
fact is that the “black” in the interpretation of
Ignatiev is a revolutionary Marxist. All those who do not agree with the Left ideology should, according to Ignatiev, be eliminated.
The slogan “All Lives Matter” blurs the concept of the enemy and brings confusion to the minds of revolutionaries. That is why any mention of “All Lives Matter” (or its version in support of the police -- “Blue Lives Matter”) provokes such an acute reaction of the Left.
According to Ignatiev, “black” is not the level of pigment in the skin, but the level of adherence to the Marxist doctrine.
According to this definition, the great American free-market economist Thomas Sowell, although he has quite enough black pigment, is not “black.” The conservative justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Clarence Thomas is not “black” either. According to Ignatiev, many black Americans are not “black” just because they do not want to follow the Marxist dogma.
Noel Ignatiev (1940-2019) was born in America in a family of Jewish immigrants from Russia and was a third-generation communist. Moreover, he was not just a member of the Communist Party of the USA from the age of 17 but belonged to its most radical, ultra-left Marxist-Leninist wing. What was his most outstanding contribution to American philosophy? Here it is:
“Eventually white women can breed out, but my feeling is that if you are a white male, you should kill yourself now. If you are a thoughtful person, with a social consciousness who considers himself white, you will consider suicide.”
It was he, a convinced, uncompromising, and resolute communist, who in 1967 proposed the doctrine of “white privilege.” Not as a racial term, but as a somewhat modified Marxist term of the class struggle. The notorious “eradication of white privileges” is simply the standard Marxist wealth redistribution, expressed in newspeak.
Of course, the primary task for Ignatiev was never the physical extermination of whites. He was talking about the ideological purification of the “whites” from the principles of private property, individualism, and freedom -- all concepts profoundly alien to the Marxists. Supporters of Ignatiev, aiming for socialism in America, have chosen a very peculiar way -- the mass transformation of whites and squeezing out of them of all their “whiteness.” He sees a happy future as an all-American Gulag, where the re-education of “whites” into “blacks” takes place.
In this case, Ignatiev has no doubts about his righteousness:
“The goal of destroying the white race is simply so desirable, it boggles the mind trying to understand how anyone could possibly object to it.”
The showcase kitsch concentration camp CHAZ/Antifastan in Seattle, with its intolerance of dissent, is the pinnacle of the realization of Ignatieff’s ideas.
The kneeling of some American police offices, military personnel, and politicians in front of a crowd of “blacks” (“blacks” from a Marxist point of view, of course) is an acknowledgment of the supremacy of left-wing ideology over the law. This is a recognition of the supremacy of the leftist dogma over the Constitution and the oath.
Kneeling is a confirmation that America is not
suffering from systemic racism but from
systemic neo-Marxism.
Before citing another statement of Ignatiev, let’s consider its antithesis:
“Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead black males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the black race’ is destroyed.”
No, this is not black racism. This is a systematic, canonical, and “ideologically correct” approach to the class struggle, designed to accomplish a dogmatic Marxist wealth redistribution. Why? Because since the 60s, all leftists have known the maxim: “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.”
BLOG EDITOR: BARACK OBAMA HAS OPENLY ADMITTED HE WOULD ACCEPT A THIRD TERM. HIS DIVISIONIST PLATFORM SEEKS TO ACHIEVE THAT.
That is why the two paramilitary wings of the Democrat party -- the “white” Antifa and the “black” BLM -- perfectly understand each other. After all, the race is not a problem. The main goal is the revolution. (By the way, the “white” wing of the stormtroopers was also created by the communist: Soviet agent Ernst Thalmann established Antifa in Germany in 1932.)
BLM stormtroopers are trying to provoke a racial war in America in the hope that it will develop into a civil war -- simply because it is much easier to make a revolution during a war. One of the founders of BLM, Patrisse Cullors, does not hide the fact that BLM members are “trained Marxists” who “read Marx, Lenin, and Mao.”
Of course, the entire Ignatiev’s clink clank is hardly perceived by an unprepared audience. Therefore, for brevity, we formulate the quintessence of Ignatieff’s philosophy in a simplified form: racism is a form of anti-communism (meaning the “white racism,” of course).
Actually, many readers are familiar with such definitions. For example, “Zionism is a form of racism” has been an official UN slogan for many years. Therefore, the militant anti-Semitism of paleocommunist Ignatiev should not surprise anyone. Indeed, according to Ignatiev, it follows that “Zionism is a form of anti-communism.” Moreover, Ignatiev hated Christianity as much as Judaism (he especially hated Christmas and, oddly enough, Christmas trees).
The Race Traitor magazine published a policy article by Ignatiev in 1997 entitled “The Point Is Not To Interpret Whiteness But To Abolish It”:
"When it comes to abolishing the white race, the task is not to win over more whites to oppose “racism”; there are “anti-racists” enough already to do the job. The task is to gather together a minority determined to make it impossible for anyone to be white. It is a strategy of creative provocation.”
Of course, by “minority” here Ignatiev means a group of fiery revolutionaries, and “creative provocation” means riots and vandalism. The analogy with the Russian Bolsheviks here is direct – the lumpenproletariat was used in the communist coup in Russia; in America, Ignatiev proposes to use the lumpenblacks as cannon fodder.
No, not all immigrants from Russia became great Americans, such as Sergei Rachmaninov, Igor Sikorsky, Vladimir Nabokov, Joseph Brodsky, and Ayn Rand. Unfortunately, Russia also offered the arch-communist Noel Ignatiev and the founder of Russian fascism Ivan Ilyin.
That’s where the Democrats, who are looking everywhere for the Russian fingerprints, can come unrolled -- after all, if one believes Democrats, even President Trump is the puppet of the Kremlin. Where is the noble indignation of the leftist press about the “Russian interference in the United States internal affairs”? After all, it was Ignatiev who made titanic efforts to turn American youth into brainless, self-righteous fanatics of a Marxist utopia.
The question, of course, is rhetorical.
Leftists in America -- despite intraspecific ideological competition and the amount of skin pigment -- are not on the American side of the barricades..
Gary Gindler, Ph.D., is a conservative columnist at Gary Gindler Chronicles and the founder of a new science: Politiphysics. Follow him on Twitter and Quodverum
BLM Protesters Storm Beverly Hills Neighborhood: ‘Eat the Rich!’
Police made several arrests after a group of
Black Lives Matter protesters marched
through a Beverly Hills residential
neighborhood Friday night.
“Videos and photographs of the mob flooded social media as they shouted various messages throughout the residential neighborhood and tore down American flags,” the Daily Wire reported.
Human Events Managing Editor Ian Miles Cheong shared footage of protesters shouting “Eat the rich!”:
Black Lives Matter mob shouts “eat the rich” as they march down a residential area in Beverly Hills. They’re coming for your homes.pic.twitter.com/gs5Hszjb7m
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) June 27, 2020
Later, he tweeted a video of protesters in Los Angeles shouting “No justice, no peace! No racist police!” as they tore down an American flag attached to a building:
The Black Lives Matter mob in Los Angeles seized a privately owned American flag in a residential suburb, shredding it and pulling it down. pic.twitter.com/gCffXqZuwZ
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) June 27, 2020
In another video, the protesters in Beverly Hills shouted, “Abolish capitalism now!” while they continued their march through the neighborhood:
A mob of Black Lives Matter activists march through residential neighborhoods in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, chanting “abolish capitalism now.” These same people live off welfare provided by taxpayers.pic.twitter.com/s0w9qNY9ZT
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) June 27, 2020
In an update on its website at 11:40 p.m., the Beverly Hills Police Department (BHPD) said “An unlawful assembly has been declared in the area of Rexford Drive and Carmelita Ave. BHPD remains on scene.”
Saturday morning, the department tweeted that the unlawful assembly was over and arrests had been made:
The unlawful assembly in the area of Rexford Dr & Carmelita Ave has ended with arrests being made. Protesters have now left the City.
— Beverly Hills Police (@BeverlyHillsPD) June 27, 2020
Wednesday, President Trump tweeted that it was sad how government leaders in many states had allowed protesters to tear down statues and monuments:
….the good and the bad. It is important for us to understand and remember, even in turbulent and difficult times, and learn from them. Knowledge comes from the most unusual of places!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 25, 2020
In an executive order issued Friday on protecting America’s memorials and statues, the president said many of the rioters, arsonists, and left-wing extremists who carried out acts against the monuments had identified themselves with ideologies such as Marxism.
He continued:
Anarchists and left-wing extremists have sought to advance a fringe ideology that paints the United States of America as fundamentally unjust and have sought to impose that ideology on Americans through violence and mob intimidation. They have led riots in the streets, burned police vehicles, killed and assaulted government officers as well as business owners defending their property, and even seized an area within one city where law and order gave way to anarchy. During the unrest, innocent citizens also have been harmed and killed.
“My Administration will not allow violent mobs incited by a radical fringe to become the arbiters of the aspects of our history that can be celebrated in public spaces,” the president commented.
“State and local public officials’ abdication of their law enforcement responsibilities in deference to this violent assault must end,” he concluded.
California (BLACK) thieves swarm Louis Vuitton store, steal more than $100,000 in handbags, police say
David Aa
A manhunt was underway in California this week for a "coordinated group" of 11 suspected thieves who ran into a Louis Vuitton store and fled with more than $100,000 in handbags, according to authorities.
Police said the incident occurred around 5:30 p.m. Monday at a shopping center in Palo Alto, about 30 miles south of downtown San Francisco. The group stormed the store, grabbed 36 handbags, and fled the scene, an investigation revealed.
"They exited the store quickly, ran through the mall, and fled in five vehicles prior to police arrival," according to Palo Alto police.
Witnesses described the suspects – who were all wearing face coverings -- as Black males and females, possibly in their late teens or early twenties, police said. The suspects caused no injuries, and no weapons were used during the alleged theft, authorities added.
The suspects' vehicles were described as a gray Lexus sedan, a gray Infinity SUV, a white Audi sedan, a black four-door Hyundai sedan, and a red two-door Honda sedan, witnesses told police.
Surveillance video of the incident will not be released by police, who shared two photos of a suspect on Tuesday. A witness was able to photograph the woman as she fled through the mall carrying some of the stolen handbags, police said.
Authorities were working with regional partners to see if the suspects may be linked to other similar crimes in the area.
Palo Alto police said a similar case occurred at a Neiman Marcus store in the city last month, though the vehicles used in the incident were different, according to FOX 2 of the Bay Area.
During the May 19 theft, a group of at least 10 suspects ran into the open store and made out with 43 handbags, valued at more than $150,000, police said.
Two Black Conservative Women Speak Out about the Democratic Party
By Elise Cooper
Two conservative black American women speak out about their feelings and why the Democrats are not the party for them. Throughout the country, impoverished black neighborhoods have been controlled by Democratic politicians. Education school boards; Democrats; mayors: Democrats; district attorneys: Democrats; police chiefs: Democrats; governors: Democrats; congressional districts: Democrats; and senators: Democrats.
Stacy Washington, a conservative black radio host (listen.stacyontheright.com), is dumbfounded that Biden and many Democrats say nothing but are never questioned about solutions. "At the Breakfast Club he uttered the words 'you ain't black' if they did not vote for him. He essentially claimed ownership of the black vote just because he is a Democrat. Today, black Americans want to know why they should vote for him. He criticizes President Trump but never provides viable alternatives of what he would do. Democrats feel they own the black vote."
Kathy Barnette is the author of the book Nothing to Lose, Everything to Gain and is the Republican candidate for Pennsylvania's 4th District. She echoes the same sentiment as Stacy. "In my book, I wrote how I was like most black people, born into the Democratic Party. It was never a point of conversation, deliberation, or discussion. Time and again, I voted Democratic. I don't remember ever having a thought not to vote that way even though I studied the issues and candidates. But I woke up after growing up in a desperate economic situation. I had a front-row seat on the failed liberal policies that left us exploited and devastated."
What has become important to Kathy is her life experiences. At the age of eighteen, she joined the military, becoming a part of the CID (criminal investigation detachment) unit. She was one of the few people who were not from a law enforcement background and the only black person. "I had heard about police brutality. For me, as a young black girl, after having spent time with these people, I realized the stress and struggles they were under. With all my life experiences, the book written became the journey for me to get off the Democratic plantation."
She is running for Congress because she looks at the black community as a "microcosm of the failed liberal policies. This is what is playing out on the streets today. When you have lived the life I did and the obstacles I have overcome, you make sure not to remain silent. My opponent and Vice President Biden are just feeble puppets. The incumbent I am running against is a political social climber. She got elected on the wave of the 2018 MeToo movement. It was convenient then for her to say it is all about the women, but now it is no longer just 'believe the women, but wait for facts.' Puppets do as they are told what to do. Another example is my opponent's ties to China. Her bike business received 20 million dollars from the Chinese National Party to make bikes there. Yet she speaks of a fair wage. She had taken jobs away from Americans and is paying the Chinese people less than $2."
Stacy told American Thinker, "About 10 to 20% of those living in the inner cities do the crimes. Everyone else is running scared. The liberal policies of reliance on government instead of locally controlled areas are just bad for everyone. Law and order are important."
Kathy believes in the rule of law. She does not understand why people support defunding the police, considering it is those neighborhoods that need more, not less, police protection. "If someone is breaking into my home, trying to accost me, my children, or my husband, and I call 911, will I get a recording of soft music, giving me tips on how to manage my stress? Look at Chicago that recently had 104 shooting incidents. I am very aware that in the inner city it is hard pressed to find any conservative thought, competitive thinking, or political diversity. I talk about it in my book. When liberals are in control, they bring destruction, instability, and violence. Confusion is their middle name. The only remedy is to kick them out of office."
For an example of what is happening, people need to look no farther than the Senate police reform legislation that was recently blocked by the Democrats. Nancy Pelosi said how the Republicans are "trying to get away with murder, actually." Yet she and the Democrats ignore the fact that it was put forward by a Republican black American, Senator Tim Scott. He noted in an email sent out, "These are serious reforms to respond to the serious moment our nation is facing. My [Democratic] colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin, took to the Senate floor to call my efforts to reform policing in our country a "token process." Those words hurt me in my soul. Senator Durbin went on to call my bill a 'half-hearted approach' to police reform. I don't know exactly what Senator Durbin meant, but his rhetoric was out of line and represents a divisive moment for our country. As the only African-American Republican senator, I have been leading efforts for years to reform our police on the issues impacting communities of color all across our country. Democrats like Senator Durbin are more interested in scoring political points."
In the book, Kathy asserts, "Regardless of the party's policies, its agendas, its platform, its moral decline, or the lack of its community responsiveness, the encoded message is that if you're black, you must be a Democrat. To do, think, or say otherwise is to reject your own race. And that is unacceptable." She explained, "White liberals go into black communities to tell them what their issues are. White liberals are allowed to take control of the narrative and vocabulary. Black people should be participating in the discussions. People should wrap their minds around this manipulation."
She told American Thinker that she decided to have her campaign participate in the Black Lives Matter protests. Why? Because she wants to go where the black people are and present some critical thinking. "I was surrounded by liberals. I want to present a different option. The black people, after I was done speaking and talking about my proposal for the Minority Inclusion Act (MIA), gave me nothing but ovations. I will not be bullied into silence. The Democratic goal is not to solve the problems, but to get more power and influence. To make those they are serving more dependent on them. These white liberals will come out of it winning, while the rest of us have boarded up windows and a devasted economy. This is my fear for the black community."
Democrats like Durbin and Pelosi think they know more about what is best for the black community than black Americans like Tim Scott. Kathy was asked if she thought there is racism in this country as put forward by liberal media and politicians. "I think these liberal white liberals will try to come out of it with more power, control, and manipulation of the narrative. They want everything covered through the lens of racism, something I talk about in my book. I do not believe that this country is systematically racist. But as I say in my book, racism still exists. Bigotry is real. Hate is evil. Have I been called the N-word? Yes! I am the children's children of those who were bred for a business strategy, have had their children taken away and sold to the highest bidder, have had to take a literacy test to vote, or forced to live in a particular neighborhood. My great great grandmother was a slave."
She went on to say, "Toppling statues and renaming buildings does absolutely nothing to improve my life. These statues are like markers of where we are and where we were at that level of time. Let it add to the level of understanding. No one is building, but destroying. They should not be destroyed because they serve as a reminder. Markers in time show us where we were, how far we've come, and where we are going."
Kathy wants Americans to understand: "this nation is not perfect or complete, but is moving in the right path. We do have to grow and improve. I love America, my nation, and want to see everyone do well and succeed in life. I am on a mission. My nation that I love is on fire. We need better options. Every time I hear the National Anthem, I cry. We need to see the good, the bad, and the ugly. The Constitution is an amazing document. We need to raise the bar of expectation, to reach above ourselves as our forefathers did. I want to see a better tomorrow with an obligation to live well. This is a nation that is willing to right its wrong."
The author writes for American Thinker. She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles
Ben Shapiro’s Civil War
REVIEW: 'The Authoritarian Moment: How the Left Weaponized America's Institutions Against Dissent'
Today's conservative commentators are greatly indebted to two events that occurred in 2008. The first is the election of Barack Obama. The second is the publication of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.
The book—in which Goldberg argues that fascism is a left-wing ideology fathered by Mussolini and introduced to the Democratic Party by Woodrow Wilson—is provocatively written and well researched. The same can't always be said for the dozens of copycat books it has inspired over the years, which merely apply this now well-worn argument to current trends in American liberalism.
In The Authoritarian Moment, Ben Shapiro takes this format to the extreme. The book, which is billed as an explanation of "How the Left Weaponized America's Institutions Against Dissent," reads more like a "Worst of 2020" monologue, in which Shapiro opines on everything from the George Floyd riots and Dr. Fauci to critical race theory and Shonda Rhimes.
Shapiro offers plenty of examples that illustrate the problem of progressive intolerance. Unfortunately, he offers few suggestions on how to solve this problem. Those he does put forth are vague, often contradictory, and occasionally troubling. The result is a book that sacrifices substance for urgency and potentially makes itself irrelevant in the process.
In his defense, Shapiro probably didn't have a choice. In 2021, most Americans will agree that our dominant institutions—from the federal government and corporations to Hollywood and the media—have a decidedly progressive bent. Authors trying their hand at the "liberal fascism" genre can't just leave it at "actually, lefties are the real authoritarians!" They have to raise the stakes.
Shapiro is very good at this. As mentioned, he packs the book with references to events so recent, it's amazing the ink has even dried on the pages. There's a decent amount of polemic, as in the introduction that tells the reader that "there is no respite: your employer requires your fealty to woke principles … [and] each day you wonder if today will be the day the mob comes for you."
And then, there are The Concepts™. Some authors use clever shorthand to distill complex topics and make it easier for readers to think through their argument. Shapiro does the opposite, in a bid to make self-evident concepts seem weightier than they are.
There’s the "Ultracrepidarian Problem," which refers to experts opining on things they aren't experts in. It often leads to the "Bleedover Effect," where things that should be apolitical are politicized. These concepts are the twin roots of "Science™" and "Journalisming™," which refer to the politicization of—wait for it—science and journalism, respectively.
This technical language and panicked rhetoric aren't enough to compensate for Shapiro's contradictory take on leftism. His confused argument is most clearly on display in the chapter on entertainment.
Shapiro opens by identifying Moonlight‘s 2017 Best Picture victory as the moment when "Hollywood had embraced woke politics as the sine qua non for art." But he goes on to note that this was "merely the culmination of a long-lasting movement in Hollywood to propagandize on behalf of leftism, slap at flyover country, [and] undercut traditional values." Shapiro goes further when he claims that, beginning in the 1920s, "Hollywood both reflected and drove forward America's generalized move toward liberal causes."
So, which is it? Is "leftist authoritarianism" a terrifying new phenomenon or something that has always been with us? Is our "new ruling class" actively working against some patriotic silent majority, or is this merely proof of O’Sullivan's Law: "All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing"?
Shapiro gestures at answers. Some even get names, like "the Cordiality Principle," the idea that the ruling class has taken advantage of conservative politeness to silence dissent. More compelling explanations, like the technological and regulatory elements that drove the rise of cable news and social media, are not given the serious treatment they deserve.
The Authoritarian Moment‘s inconsistent genealogy of leftism is not the book's biggest contradiction. That honor lies with Shapiro's inconsistent take on where the country is headed.
In the book's introduction, Shapiro raises the stakes of leaving leftism unchecked. When individuals can be ostracized for not falling into lockstep with woke pieties, it will be "the end of the republic." Later, he claims that if "woke capital" is allowed to flourish, it will lead to "two separate systems of commerce in the United States" and make it "very difficult to share a country."
For most of the book, Shapiro seems rightly worried about the dissolution or bifurcation of the country, and calls on his readers to combat the disturbing trend toward separation. He assures Americans that "they can't cancel us if we don't let them." He calls on an "intransigent majority" to stand up to the left, to "return [our institutions] back to actual normalcy … and pry open the doors they have welded shut."
And then he just gives up.
In the book's brief, final chapter Shapiro lists "building alternative institutions" among conservatives' best options for combating leftism. Shapiro disclaims that this is not his "preferred outcome," but he believes it "may be the most realistic outcome: two Americas, divided by politics."
It's not entirely clear whether Shapiro thinks Americans don't stand a chance against regnant leftism or simply lack the courage to oppose it. But by the end of the book, his message seems clear: There's no hope of conservatives returning to the mainstream.
The Authoritarian Moment begins like so many books that it seems to emulate but ends with a new kind of rhetoric, one that is increasingly common on the right. At best, Shapiro is preparing his reader for some kind of civil war. At worst, he's encouraging them to push for it.
Herein lies the book's ultimate—and most worrisome—contradiction. Shapiro is right to defend the Republic and the protection of unalienable rights upon which it was built. He is right to oppose authoritarianism and other threats to a nation so conceived and so dedicated.
It is precisely because he is right on these points that he errs in giving intellectual cover to the idea that Americans would be better off if the country splinters more than it already has. It doesn't matter whether the separatist force is coming from the left or the right. When the end result is a divided country, all that matters is we find a way to avoid it.
The Authoritarian Moment: How the Left Weaponized America's Institutions Against Dissent
by Ben Shapiro
Broadside Books, 288 pp., $28.99
The Federalist: Andrew Breitbart Revealed Obama’s Ties to Critical Race Theory 9 Years Ago
Breitbart News founder Andrew Breitbart revealed the links between then-President Barack Obama and Critical Race Theory guru Derrick Bell nine years ago, but the media tried to bury the story, writes Gabe Kaminsky of The Federalist.
Critical Race Theory is the idea that America’s institutions have been “systemically” racist since the Founding in a way that continues to shape society today, despite the progress made since the Civil War and the civil rights movement.
In a story published Thursday at the online conservative outlet, Kaminsky notes the similarity between the way the establishment media attempted to discredit reporting on Critical Race Theory in 2012, and the way it continues to do so:
After Andrew Breitbart indicated at the Conservative Political Action Conference that he had footage to substantiate that President Barack Obama maintained a relationship with a prominent critical race theorist, it led to a news storm.
…
Joel Pollak, the editor-in-chief at the time and now the current Breitbart editor-at-large, was implicitly called racist on CNN by host Soledad O’Brien, a “smear artist” in The New Yorker, and told in The Nation he was unreasonably rebuking “intellectual leaders in a long tradition of calling on America to address racial unfairness.”
…
Pollak told me, “It was like shouting into a dark room in the early years,” noting the difficulty in years past with getting media to adequately focus on CRT. Just as [journalist Christopher] Rufo recently credited himself and others with having “successfully frozen” the left’s CRT into the American psyche, the media in 2012 launched a campaign to instill the idea that Breitbart and the “right-wing radicals” were promoting nonsense.
…
The only difference is that CRT is much more mainstream now than it was then. It’s ubiquitous. And the media is now faced with a reckoning. Can it truly hide something right in front of the people’s eyes like it did last time? Where will it end?
Read Kaminsky’s full article here.
Recently, Media Matters and Salon.com both noted that Breitbart launched the fight against Critical Race Theory in 2012, with Media Matters lamenting that Breitbart’s attack “appears to be working.”
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
No comments:
Post a Comment