Wednesday, September 2, 2020

September 2, 2020 Washington, DC wants to 'memory hole' American history By Andrea Widburg

 

American Thinker

Washington, DC wants to 'memory hole' American history

One of the things that totalitarians do is erase history to ensure that there are no historic facts that might conflict with their present policies or utopian plans for the future.  That ideology lives on in Washington, D.C., where its leftist mayor, Muriel Bowser, convened a committee to comb through D.C. for signs of racism.

The committee has now recommended that Washington, D.C. erase every name from the city associated with its past.  President Trump, with remarkable prescience, warned that this would happen.  Americans need to rise and stop this totalitarian impulse immediately.

When most people remember the Charlottesville riots of August 2017, they think one of two things.  If they're either leftists or senile Joe Biden, they believe that Donald Trump praised white supremacists.  If they're informed, intelligent people, they know that this is a hoax and that Trump specifically said he "condemned totally" neo-Nazis and white nationalists.  (Fortunately, most Americans have learned that the left is lying.)

At the same time, Trump had some important words about the leftist impulse to delete history:

Many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. So this week it's Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You really have to ask yourself, where does it stop?


America's leftists immediately mocked Trump over his concerns.  John Oliver represents that mindset:

"I'll tell you where it stops," Oliver replied during an episode of his weekly show. "Somewhere! Any time someone asks, where does it stop, the answer's always ... somewhere. You might let your kid have Twizzlers, but not inject black tar heroin. You don't just go, 'Well, after the Twizzlers, where does it stop?'"

Oliver's nastiness notwithstanding, leftists always give in to their inner totalitarians.  In the Soviet Union, following the Great Purge that saw Stalin execute as many as 750,000 people who threatened his power, Stalin followed up by erasing all records of those people.  The most famous photograph is the one showing Stalin with Nikolai Yezhov, whose image Stalin's apparatchiks erased after his execution:

In George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, which he wrote after seeing communism at work, his protagonist, Winston Smith, worked in the "Ministry of Truth."  His job was to place in the "memory holes" (which led to incinerators) all documents that contradicted Big Brother's present political and social positions.

In keeping with this mindset, Mayor Bowser formed a committee to determine what institutions in the city should be renamed, given informational placards, or removed entirely to erase references to any historic person who was associated with slaves or discrimination, no matter how unrelated that association was to the reason for the person's fame.  The committee came up with a doozy of a list:

The committee said in its report that it considered whether the honorees owned enslaved people or supported the institution of slavery, whether they created laws and policies that disadvantaged women and minorities, whether they belonged to "any supremacist organization," and whether they discriminated against marginalized groups in a way that would violate D.C. law.

Those who violated delicate 21st-century sensibilities included Andrew Jackson, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Woodrow Wilson, John Tyler, Alexander Graham Bell, and even Benjamin Franklin.

If you're wondering, Bell supported eugenics because he thought white people should have more children.  He disapproved of doing anything to stop other races from having children.  Franklin thought it was a mistake to introduce African slaves, whom he referred to as "blacks and tawnys," arguing that it was enough to have "the lovely white and red."  Knowing Franklin, this was an abolitionist argument, not a racial one.

I can see the future now.  We can rename the Washington Monument the Obama Tower.  Or the Jefferson Memorial, after the statue is removed, can honor Al Sharpton for his contributions (ahem) to racial harmony.

Because leftists always live in an imperfect present, based upon an evil past, while looking to a glorious future, they lack any wisdom or perception.  For those who lived in the 18th and early 19th centuries, abolition was a new and slowly growing concept grounded in Christian doctrine (something else leftists hate).  Slavery was the norm and had been since the dawn of mankind.  These men were bounded by the values of the times.

The only person on that list who ought to have known better because norms had changed was Woodrow Wilson, a progressive Democrat.  Wilson was the president who took an integrated federal workforce, one in which blacks could rise in status, and deliberately segregated it, reducing blacks to solely menial tasks. 

Fortunately, Donald Trump is still in the White House, and his administration pushed back hard against this revisionist madness: "President Donald J. Trump believes these places should be preserved, not torn down; respected, not hated; and passed on for generations to come."

Bowser is backing down for now.  But the left never stops.  It continually pushes, forcing incremental change until it's won its entire point.  Or as the saying goes, give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.  That's never more correct than when gathering the energy to fight against every leftist initiative, no matter how small or crazy.

Image: The Washington Monument at Sunset by Adampdx09, CC BY-SA 4.0.




September 2, 2020 Pushing back against Biden's claim that Trump caused the violence By Andrea Widburg

 


American Thinker

Pushing back against Biden's claim that Trump caused the violence

On Monday, the Democrat party released Joe Biden from the basement, hustled him up to Pittsburgh, had him read a Teleprompter, waved farewell to journalists who weren't allowed to speak, and tucked him up again in his basement bed.  The speech that Biden read was, quite possibly, the most dishonest speech ever given during an American political campaign.  A conservative Christian website put together a video pushing back against Biden's lies, and that video has rightly gone viral.

Just to recap, on May 25, 2020, police officers in Minneapolis caught up with George Floyd, whom a storekeeper had accused of passing counterfeit bills.  An officer's body cam showed that Floyd, an ex-felon with a violent history, was extremely high.  He was agitated, noncompliant, foaming at the mouth, and complaining that he couldn't breathe.

After all four officers were unable to get Floyd into their car, they concluded, based upon their police training, that he was suffering from excited delirium, a condition dangerous to both the person afflicted and the police officers.  The Minneapolis police training manual instructs police officers who make this call to place the suspect prone on the ground with a knee to his back to keep him safe and still, so that's what the officers did.  They then called for an ambulance.

Someone recorded Floyd on the ground, under the officer's knee, continuing to complain, as he had when he was still sitting in his car, that he couldn't breathe.  Floyd eventually became silent and turned out to have died.  The initial autopsy report was unequivocal: Floyd had a fatal amount of fentanyl in his system, as well as dangerous amounts of other drugs piled onto an obese body suffering from acute heart disease.  The verdict: Floyd died of a self-inflicted drug overdose.

For the left, though, facts are irrelevant.  The narrative is what matters.  Within one day, Black Lives Matter had organized massive protests in Minneapolis, which it soon trashed by destroying over 1,500 businesses (mostly in black neighborhoods).  The riots spread across America.  BLM activists and Antifa destroyed statues, sprayed ugly graffiti everywhere, smashed windows, looted shops, and killed people who got in their way.


In Seattle, the mob set up a murderous autonomous zone.  Chicago's downtown has been repeatedly trashed.  Portland's been the site of downtown warfare for three solid months.  Most recently, little Kenosha, Wisconsin was turned into a war zone after police were forced to shoot a violent rape suspect who fought them, had a knife, resisted being tased, and reached into a car for an unknown but potentially lethal reason.

In every case, the mob violence comes with demands to defund the police, cries of systemic racism, unbridled hatred for Donald Trump and his supporters, demands for the overthrow of the federal government, anti-white racism, and demands for redistribution of wealth.  In other words, it's a leftist package deal.

For a long time, the Democrat establishment supported what was going on.  Democrats did this explicitly, with actual words of support, or implicitly by downplaying or denying the violence.  At the Democrat National Convention, no one at the convention said a single word about the daily riots.

Sometime last week, though, the polling changed, and word got out to Democrats that Americans don't like seeing their cities go up in flames and their black neighborhoods (and businesses) destroyed.  Don Lemon finally said it: "The rioting has to stop.  Chris, as you know, and I know, it's showing up in the polling.  It's showing up in focus groups."

That advice led to Biden's Pittsburgh demagoguery, during which he shamelessly blamed all of the violence on President Trump's rhetoric and right-wing militia groups.  In the entire speech, Biden never once said either "Black Lives Matter" or "Antifa."  (You can read more about Biden's speech here or watch Tucker Carlson here or here.)

Biden's claim that violence in America is Trump's fault is a perfect example of the institutional narcissism that characterizes leftists.  In their world, they can commit any offense with impunity.  It's violence only if someone defends against their attacks:


And now, finally, here's that must-see video I promised.  To keep Americans from falling prey to the Democrats' memory hole, Caldron Pool put together just a little reminder of the Democrats' demand for and support of violence, not just in 2020, but for years:

Angelo M. Codevilla, in his review of Michael Anton's chilling The Stakes: America at the Point of No Return, says Anton argues that:

Trump, imperfect as he is, is like a finger in a dike that, if removed, would loose a deluge. Anton describes how the Democratic Party-led complex of public-private power has been transforming our free, decent, and prosperous country into its opposite — and how it's going to do to the rest of America what it has already largely accomplished in California.

These are not your daddy's Kennedy Democrats.  These are people who will do anything for complete control over your lives: they have abandoned the rule of law, they spit on the Constitution, they willingly destroy the economy to win elections, and they revel in violence.  They are Jacobins and Bolsheviks, and we need to have an overwhelming voter turnout on November 3 to defeat them.

Image: Nancy Pelosi begs for violence, screen grab from a shareable video.




September 2, 2020 Trump should challenge Biden and Harris to denounce California's Proposition 16 By Allan J. Favish

 

American Thinker

Trump should challenge Biden and Harris to denounce California's Proposition 16

President Donald Trump should immediately begin using a California ballot proposition as a springboard for making the evil of racial discrimination and preferences a part of his national campaign. In doing so, Trump should invoke Martin Luther King, Jr.'s heroic campaign for civil rights.

Trump honored King on July 3, 2020 when he issued an executive order to establish the National Garden of American Heroes, which Trump described as "a vast outdoor park that will feature the statues of the greatest Americans to ever live," including King.

On the California ballot this fall is the Democrat-backed Proposition 16, which will remove anti–racial discrimination language from the California Constitution. The present language that the Democrats want to remove is in Article 1, Section 31 of the California Constitution and states:

The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

This language was put into the state Constitution by the voters of California who approved Proposition 209 in 1996. The "No on Proposition 16" campaign puts this language front and center on its website as it explains that the proponents of Proposition 16 want to remove this language. The "Yes on Proposition 16" website deceptively never quotes this language, which Proposition 16 will remove from the state Constitution.

In his famous speech on August 28, 1963, King said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." 

Consistent with that dream, King never publicly advocated for the establishment of racial preferences in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. Instead, apparently aware of the inherent divisiveness of all racial preferences, King advocated for the establishment of nonracial economic class-based preferences.

King wrote:

I am proposing, therefore, that, just as we granted a GI Bill of Rights to war veterans, America launch a broad-based and gigantic Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged, our veterans of the long siege of denial. ... While Negroes form the vast majority of America's disadvantaged, there are millions of white poor who would also benefit from such a bill. (Martin Luther King, Jr., "Why We Can't Wait," pages 137–138, published by Mentor [Penguin Books, New York, 1963].)

An interview with King was published in the January 1965 issue of Playboy magazine in which King again discussed his nonracial Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged:

I do not intend that this program of economic aid should apply only to the Negro: it should benefit the disadvantaged of all races. ... [S]uch a bill for the disadvantaged and impoverished could enable them to buy homes without cash, at lower and easier repayment terms. They could negotiate loans from banks to launch businesses. They could receive, as did ex-GIs, special points to place them ahead in competition for civil service jobs. ... And together with these rights, a favorable social climate could be created to encourage the preferential employment of the disadvantaged, as was the case for so many years with veterans. During those years, it might be noted, there was no appreciable resentment of the preferential treatment being given to the special group. ... We must develop a Federal program of public works, retraining and jobs for all--so that none, white or black, will have cause to feel threatened. ... Black and white, we will all be harmed unless something grand and imaginative is done. The unemployed, poverty-stricken white man must be made to realize that he is in the very same boat with the Negro. (Playboy, pages 74–76 [January 1965])

No matter where Trump campaigns, he should challenge Democrat candidates Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to denounce the California Democrats' attempt to give the California state government the power to discriminate and grant preferential treatment on the basis of race in state hiring, state contracting, and admissions to state schools and colleges.

Trump should use the opportunity to remind people that the words of a law or a state or federal Constitution are not enough to guarantee a prohibition on racial discrimination and racial preferences.  In the 1979 decision in Steelworkers v. Weber, five justices of the United States Supreme Court interpreted the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which King fought so hard to get enacted.  The five justices interpreted this language from the act:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training.

The five justices ruled that despite this language, it was legal for Kaiser Steel and the United Steelworkers Union to jointly select workers for a training program in a manner that gave a racial preference to black applicants.

Trump should remind voters that he will do his best to nominate people to be judges and justices who interpret laws and constitutional provisions honestly, unlike what the five justices did in Steelworkers v. Weber.

The Democrats have turned King's dream into a nightmare.  Trump should alert the electorate that the Democrats want this nightmare for the entire country, and it is he, not Biden and Harris, who honors King's dream.

Allan J. Favish is an attorney in Los Angeles.  His website is allanfavish.com.  James Fernald and Mr. Favish have co-authored a book about what might happen if the government ran Disneyland, entitled Fireworks! If the Government Ran the Fairest Kingdom of Them All (A Very Unauthorized Fantasy).

Image credit: RareFacts, via shareable YouTube, screen shot, processed with FotoSketcher.




Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *