We are the drain the swamp people

One of our goals is to present commentary of note, bringing to your attention items we found compelling in our reading of conservative sites and to provide whatever additional attention we could bring to them.  We also try to impart any local political news or spin that might be referenced to those articles or that exist on there own given our largely in-state readership.

However life intercedes and we have less predictable time to do so.  And so while we will try to be as productive as possible our own commentaries may be intermittent.  But to avoid any day to day voids we will continue to at least forward a meme or two or three . . . of the day on topics of interest.

So continue to “tune in ” in daily. Here are a  couple to start the process.  For the record we do not necessarily agree with every “fact” intonation, nuance or implication but the ones we post have sufficient elements of “veritas” we think worthy, evocative, or just for their “in your face” response to liberals.”  If we can ridicule  the left we will.   Enjoy

0

0

They had it right

Which Republicans have found their tongue to support him?

From Gary Bauer writing today at American Values   Bold our emphasis. Image not in original

Shocking Shooting Spree

The carnage on America’s big city streets this weekend was shocking. InChicago, at least 101 people were shot. Fourteen people, including five children, were killed. The vast majority of the victims were black and the vast majority of the shooters were black.

There will be no protests calling attention to the plight of any of these victims. 

Instead of celebrating fathers, what happened in Chicago this weekend was in part the result of years of fatherlessness. And there’s nothing but a collective yawn from the media. Do black lives matter in Chicago?

Meanwhile, the progressive left, which claims it wants to bring us all together, spent the weekend tearing down more American memorials and statues.

As we reported, New York City recently disbanded its undercover crime unit. Last week was the first week without that unit patrolling the Big Apple. Over the weekend, at least 19 people were shot and one man was killed.

In the apple of the left’s eye, the Seattle “Utopia” known as CHAZ/CHOP, three people were shot this weekend, and one person was killed. When police arrived to provide assistance, they were pelted with bricks and bottles. You may recall that the mayor of Seattle wasn’t concerned about CHAZ, calling it the site of “a summer of love.”

Who could have guessed that if you call police officers “racists,” fire and suspend them without due process and harass their families, you would end up with mass retirements and unsafe streets? 

Meanwhile, I have not heard one leading elected liberal condemn the violence that is plaguing some of our urban centers.

More Monuments Attacked

The progressive barbarians continued their onslaught against America’s historic memorials over the weekend. Far too many American politicians are too cowardly to stand up against them. Here’s the latest.

• • Statues of President Ulysses Grant, perhaps the Union Army’s most famous general, and Francis Scott Key, author of the Star Spangled Banner, were torn down in San Francisco over the weekend.
  • Now a statue of Theodore Roosevelt outside of New York City’s Museum of Natural History is being removed by officials who apparently believe if you can’t beat a mob, join them. 

Once again, we see that the left isn’t going to stop at taking down statues of Confederate generals. All of the things being done by the “deface, defund, destroy” progressives and the cowardly politicians who enable them are guaranteed to drive Americans apart. 

Dividing America

While there is violence in the streets and attacks on American monuments, some elements of the left insist that they just want to unite the country. Well what is the evidence that the progressive movement wants to bring us together? 

The number one tactic that they have embraced, popularized by Colin Kaepernick, was taking a knee during the national anthem. Can anyone explain how disrespecting the flag and national anthem is a strategy that brings us together? It is guaranteed to be deeply offensive to veterans, their families and every patriot.

Our flag and national anthem are unifying symbols. But Colin Kaepernick was very clear that unity was the furthest thing from his mindwhen he said, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

Martin Luther King understood that his enemy was not America. He never attacked our country. He never attacked the founding fathers. He never attacked our founding documents. In fact, he pointed to them as the source of his argument for equality.

If you want to bring Americans together, why would you insist that whole swaths of America kneel or kiss the boots of the radicals attacking American history and its most sacred symbols? How does that bring America together? 

How does the idea of reparations, taking money from people who had nothing to do with slavery and giving it to people who have never been held in slavery, bring us together? In what world does using the force of government to mandate such a massive transfer of wealth bring us together?

0

0

BLM / ANTIFA rioting  & the COVID nonsense

0

0

Clearly religious institutions have been co-opted and are part of the problem

The bulk of the cancel culture, Antifa, BLM are made up of children, at least in terms of  psychological maturity however many with gray hair.  Their hallmark is constant tantrums.  Not really warriors for the most part,  just spoiled manipulators, tantrumists would be our made-up word to describe them.  Oh to be sure there are some assassins among them, even willing mass murderers, and cells of them would play out their bloody destructive furor long after others get bored with them. And, just as a goat can kick over a lantern and burn the barn down, so can they, ignorant little savages that they are, burn the country down.

However agitated and “acting out”, they are led by a network of especially evil manipulative purposeful people who thought they had the game wrapped up with Hillary Clinton and are now demonically pissed off.   “They” are in the process of claiming as many heads as possible in an effort to purify and intimidate. It is especially true in academia where it all started. They must maintain effective control there and any breach or demurral to the party line cannot be tolerated, and will be dealt with harshly.

Here is a report from LifeSite News that is intended to be chilling  — by reporters and perpetrators!  The last paragraph which we set in bold is the background reason why a simple objective justice seeking comment by a priest/campus chaplain was not tolerated.  he was not one of the certain cloth. The powers that be at the MIT and in the Diocese were no doubt grinding an axe for him for a long time.  That the Diocese would not stand behind him indicates it is not a religious institution but one of leftist political hacks, leftist politics being the religion adhered to and insisted on.

MIT Catholic chaplain booted after questioning popular narrative of George Floyd’s death  

Fr. Daniel Patrick Moloney said that people have ‘framed this as an act of racism,’ adding that ‘we don’t know’ if the killing was actually motivated by racism.

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts, June 19, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A Catholic priest was forced to leave his position as chaplain at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) after sending an email to campus Catholics questioning whether the death of George Floyd was the result of racism.  

Fr. Daniel Patrick Moloney, a priest for the Archdiocese of Boston, had been the Catholic chaplain at MIT since 2015.  

“In the wake of George Floyd’s death, most people in the country have framed this as an act of racism. I don’t think we know that. Many people have claimed that racism is a major problem in police forces. I don’t think we know that,” wrote Fr. Maloney, according to a report by The Boston Globe. 

In the same June 7 email, Fr. Moloney also questioned Floyd’s character, saying that while Floyd shouldn’t have been killed by the police officer, “he had not lived a virtuous life.” 

After members of MIT’s Catholic community, troubled by Fr. Moloney’s remarks, reached out to campus and Archdiocesan authorities, the Archdiocese of Boston moved swiftly, asking Fr. Moloney to resign on June 9.    

“The personal opinions echoed in his comments regarding the murder of George Floyd do not reflect the positions of the Archdiocese and are not consistent with the positions detailed in the recently issued statement of Cardinal Seán O’Malley,” asserted a statement issued by the Archdiocese.  

The Archdiocese condemned Fr. Moloney’s intellectual curiosity and honesty, writing: “While Fr. Moloney’s comments should not reflect on the entirety of his priestly ministry, they nonetheless were wrong and by his resignation he accepts the hurt they have caused.”     

“The message from Father Moloney was deeply disturbing,” wrote Suzy M. Nelson, a vice president and dean for student life in a statement.  

“Those who wrote me and other senior leaders were outraged, and many felt alienated and abandoned by their faith,” continued Nelson. “By devaluing and disparaging George Floyd’s character, Father Moloney’s message failed to acknowledge the dignity of each human being and the devastating impact of systemic racism — especially within the criminal justice system — on African Americans, people of African descent, and communities of color.”

“Moreover, his message dismissed the need for urgent action and change in America,” added Nelson.     

Nelson said that MIT would “engage the Archdiocese in nominating a Catholic chaplain whose views and ministry are consistent with the Institute’s values of inclusion, respect, and dignity for all community members as well as the values proclaimed by the Church’s leadership.” 

Professor Anthony Esolen defended Fr. Moloney, asking, “Exactly WHAT did he say that was not TRUE?”

“We do not know that Floyd’s killer was motivated by racism. How the hell can we know that?” wondered Esolen in an online comment. “And it does not appear that Floyd lived a virtuous life. What exactly was not TRUE?”  

“Why was this email message so controversial?” asked Phil Lawler, founder of Catholic World News and news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org. “Because Father Moloney questioned the popular narrative.”

“The chaplain didn’t say that Floyd’s death was not prompted by racism. He simply remarked that the evidence is not conclusive,” wrote Lawler. “For that he was banished from the campus. For that he was given a public reprimand by his own archdiocese, which announced to the world that his statements ‘were wrong.’”

“Now imagine that a Catholic chaplain on some other campus had issued a statement questioning the Real Presence or the Virgin Birth. Or — this will be a good deal easier — imagine a chaplain who welcomed the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Would he be forced to resign? Would the archdiocese issue an immediate public correction?” wondered Lawler. 

Others called the Archdiocese’s response an act of “calumny and slander” that requires a “sincere public apology.” 

Some followed the Archbishop’s dismissal of Fr. Moloney to its logical conclusion:

“Just like good men will leave (or never join) the police force if they feel the higher-ups won’t back them, so too good men will flee from a priestly vocation when they see how priests are treated for simply expressing a legitimate opinion,” tweeted Catholic author Eric Sammons, citing Fr. Moloney’s dismissal as MIT’s chaplain. 

Just like good men will leave (or never join) the police force if they feel the higher-ups won’t back them, so too good men will flee from a priestly vocation when they see how priests are treated for simply expressing a legitimate opinion.

Case in point: pic.twitter.com/CrzgCqPTuO

— Eric Sammons (@EricRSammons) June 19, 2020

“Can you imagine recommending a young man become a priest and turn his life over to these wicked, cowardly, apostate bishops?” tweeted Catholic writer and commentator John Zmirak in response.  

Can you imagine recommending a young man become a priest and turn his life over to these wicked, cowardly, apostate bishops?

— John Zmirak (@JZmirak) June 19, 2020

‘Justice-only politics’ and ‘cancel culture’ 

“I regret what happened, I regret it was misunderstood, I regret that became difficult for me to be a voice for Christ on campus,” Moloney told The Boston Globe. “The whole thing went down in a way that I wish were otherwise. … I didn’t want to hurt anybody.”

In a lengthy blog entry, also posted on June 7, Fr. Moloney wrote that the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost produced “a miraculous level of unity, in which everyone lived in harmony, ‘with one heart and one mind (lit. ‘soul’).’ This sort of unity is available to us, if through the Holy Spirit we set aside the sin that divides us.”  

Fr. Moloney continued, identifying the dangers entailed in what he calls “justice-only politics” and “cancel” culture:  

In my book Mercy, I talk about how a great part of the difference between Christian thinking and secular thinking about politics comes down to mercy, to how we respond to injustices. The mistake of what I call “justice-only politics” is to have well-developed ideas about how things ought to be (aka justice), but no concept of mercy, no real thought about what to do when circumstances and/or people get in the way of their idea of justice.

I think the national reaction to the killing of George Floyd reveals something like this. Some people think that the right thing to do is to enact reforms of the police; others think that the right thing to do is to kill the police and bomb the precinct. Some people think that nonviolent protests are an appropriate response; others think that injustice justifies robbing the local Target. Some people are satisfied when the bad cops are arrested, prosecuted, and convicted; others want to overthrow the government. Some are just so upset that they don’t know what to do. All agree that something deeply wrong happened to George Floyd, but our consensus stops there, at the level of justice.

Mercy is the virtue that comes into play when things go wrong. Once we decide that something is unjust, we still have to decide what is the right thing to do. Do we “cancel” the unjust persons, breaking solidarity with them and removing them from society? Do we send them to the guillotine? Or do we try to make things better? In an interesting Trinitarian statement, Jesus commands his disciples to “be merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). So justice-only politics, or any politics without solidarity for the offender and the sinner, is not a Christian option.

He concluded: 

There are no spiritual shortcuts. To conquer racism requires a conversion to holiness, and a willingness to spread grace and charity to hardened hearts. Only through baptism into Christ’s Ascension can any fallen human being participate in the inner charity of the Trinity. Let us ask the Holy Spirit to transform our lives.

According to his biography which is still available at the MIT website, Fr. Moloney has a doctorate in Philosophy from Notre Dame, a bachelor’s degree in religious studies from Yale University, and a Bachelor’s of Sacred Theology from the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, graduating magna cum laude.  

Fr. Moloney has been a lecturer on religion, politics, and American constitutional law in the Department of Politics at Princeton University, where he was affiliated with the university’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, and was a Senior Policy Analyst at the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, where he studied policy issues affecting family, religion, marriage and culture civil society in America.

He is the author of the book Mercy: What Every Catholic Should Know (Ignatius Press, 2020).

Interesting if tangential reading:

10 Crazy Things That Happened When Mao Ruled China – Listverse

0

0

SCOTUS Employment law ruling far more significant than DACA ruling (see Bauer article below) and non-action on gun rights this week. 

Senator Lee rebukes Gorsuch reasoning (see Perkins article below)

Textualism, a concept of statutory construction championed by Justice Scalia, (RIP) is perverted by Justice Gorsuch to justify imparting meaning to words that were understood narrowly, in legislation that would never have passed had a present day expansive interpretation been the understanding. Gorsuch was incredibly dishonest, warped.  We knew about the constitutional perversions of  Roberts and the rest but now Gorsuch’s propensity for cross-dressing in liberal robes is apparent.

Articles of note from Jessica Prol Smith at The Federalist and Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins

The Supreme Court Just Turned A Law To Protect Women Into A Weapon Against Them

It’s laughable to argue that anyone who wrote — or read — the Civil Rights Act of 1964 understood ‘sex’ to mean anything other than male or female.

DACA Disappointment    –  Gary Bauer 6/18/20

John Roberts strikes again. I am loath to include the word “Justice” in his title at this point because his rulings increasingly have little to do with justice.

Today, Roberts once again sided with the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc to prevent President Trump from ending Barack Obama’s quasi-amnesty program for some illegal immigrants. In a 5-to-4 opinion, Roberts ruled that Trump’s order repealing Obama’s order was “arbitrary and capricious [and] in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).”

Obama’s original order was “arbitrary and capricious.” And Obama essentially said so himself on multiple occasions when he initially resisted radical demands to unilaterally amend our immigration laws. But, as we know, he ultimately did so believing it would benefit him politically during a difficult reelection campaign.

The silver lining is that the majority’s opinion is a narrow ruling in that it was only a process decision that avoided larger constitutional issues. Roberts wrote: “We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. . . The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the [Department of Homeland Security] followed in [repealing DACA].”

So the Trump Administration can try again to find some justification that will pass muster with John Roberts.

As you may recall, Roberts used this same twisted logic to prevent the Trump Administration from putting a citizenship question on census forms. He’s essentially telling the administration, “Yeah, you CAN do that, but not THAT way.”

But the effect is the same: He’s using process arguments to give liberals a big victory while allowing fundamental principles to fall by the wayside.

Rep. Jim Jordan blasted today’s decision, saying:

“By ruling that President Trump cannot terminate DACA in the same manner that President Obama used to start it, the Court’s decision creates two standards of executive power: One for President Obama and another for President Trump.”

Holding the Court in Contempt   Tony Perkins at Family Research Council

At a time when Congress is lucky to scrape together an 11-percent confidence rating, a majority of Americans have expressed an unusual level of faith in our justices. Maybe they still believe SCOTUS is above the political fray. But trust in the court may become increasingly difficult after Monday’s “legislative” decision by six justices to redefine the meaning of biological sex.

The Supreme Court wasn’t built to write laws — so it shouldn’t be any surprise that they’re lousy at it. Justice Neil Gorsuch himself said the court would make rotten legislators, and then, to everyone’s surprise, set about proving it. Together with five other activists, he didn’t just decide to ignore the plain text of the law when he ruled men could be women — he ignored the plain facts of humanity. And, as far as Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and others are concerned, set America’s future down a path of absolute chaos.

“Justice Gorsuch took a meat cleaver to the issue of how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should apply to LGBT individuals,” Senator Lee argued on “Washington Watch.” And because of that, he says, Congress is going to have to “figure out how to clean up the mess.” And it’s a big one. “The biggest problem,” he insisted, “was that he made a legislative determination. He effectively rewrote the law. And when you rewrite the law through a judicial opinion, that’s a very crude way to operate. It’s not precise and it leaves… all sorts of questions [especially for] for religious institutions… completely [unanswered].”

And the justices knew it. The majority was quite clear that all of these other issues their ruling created would have to wait for another day. “Unfortunately,” Senator Lee shook his head, “what that really means is we’re going to leave that for a lot of other days… I’m convinced that not only my children, but my grandchildren’s generation will still not see the end of litigation resulting from the Bostock decision. Because when you take this kind of cleaver to federal law, it’s going to take not just years, but decades to iron out all the details. And there are going to be some real heartbreaking stories in the wake of it.”

How Gorsuch, a man who calls himself a textualist, could even arrive at such a conclusion is astounding. His whole logic, Lee said, is “tortured.” And now the American people are the ones who have to live with the pain. Like Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who gave a floor speech for the ages on the need for conservatives to rise up and refuse to take this, Senator Lee hopes this is an aberration for Gorsuch. But either way, Republicans in particular have to “go beyond just taking [nominees] at their word… We cannot take chances anymore. There’s too much on the line.”

When these vacancies occur, we can’t just take the establishment’s word for it. We need to know from the nominees’ record that they will not remake the law in their own image. If that makes the appointment controversial, so be it. Otherwise, as Senator Hawley told me on Tuesday, what’s the point in even passing laws? “I mean, we may as well just let the justices tell us what they think should be the right policy in any given case.”

In the meantime, plenty of liberals in Congress are hoping to move forward with laws — dangerous ones like H.R. 5 that build on the court’s extremism. A parade of smug Democrats took turns on the Senate floor this morning demanding that Congress steamroll religious freedom even more by passing the Equality Act, which would mean an end to conscience rights, girls’ sports, privacy, women’s shelters, free speech, parental authority, autonomy in hiring and firing, and mandate for things like transgender surgery and treatment coverage and taxpayer-funded abortion.

“It’s one of the favorite tricks of the Left is to come up with legislation that has a title that… doesn’t sound at all menacing… Equality Act sounds nice until you stop and examine what it would actually do… The fact that this would openly threaten religious institutions and individuals throughout America who dare have divergent views, who dare act in conformity to their religious beliefs. This would end up having a punishing effect on them. To say nothing of what it would do to women’s athletics, what it would do to girls’ and women’s locker rooms, and restrooms in colleges and in public places. [It’s] scary.”

In the aftermath of the court’s legislating, a lot of people are asking: Why do we need Congress? Hopefully, in stopping horrible ideas like the Equality Act, we’re about to find out.

0

0

AKA The Left

The “wokesters” have been celebrated, coddled, pampered, enabled, “welfared”, otherwise financed, institutionally affirmed,  “privileged” for decades all on the backs of taxpayers in a country that has produced more wealth and freedom for the greatest number the planet has ever seen.  This country’s poorest 10% has more per capita wealth and “privilege” in the form of  freedom and economic security than most of the rest of the planet. One of their biggest lies, they learned somewhere that you have to tell a big one,  is that this wealth was the result of a slave system and racism. The wokesters understanding of economic systems, and for that matter human nature, is appallingly ignorant for those that insist they have the insight to run the country for the benefit of all.  (more commentary below video)

The video above was linked to during a discussion on a community board normally dedicated to neighbor helping neighbor rather than politics. It got off on a tangent when the CEO *of the “board” felt it necessary to preen herself before us and lecture the “hood’ subsequent to the “Floyd” occasioned rioting in this and other communities.

The discussion should be self explanatory from here.  Names have been redacted/replaced (editorialized) with the exception of our contribution. Certainly the discussion could be continued and  we would prefer doing it here as the particular topics change rapidly on such usually (to our understanding) non-political “neighborhood” boards.

Person (male, probably white — we recognize that the term person is a sexist moniker)

Open Letter Replying To Sarah Friar, Nextdoor CEO

Dear Nextdoor App Neighbors,

June 14, 2020

Dear Nextdoor Neighbors,

You recently received a letter from Sarah Friar, the CEO of Nextdoor. Two key parts of what she wrote are:

“Systemic racism in our nation will not be solved overnight.”

“Let me say unequivocally: Racism has no place on Next-door.”

I would like to make some comments about Sarah’s two points above.

First, I was raised in a Christian home with two God-loving parents. We attended church most Sundays. I attended confirmation to learn the basic tenets of my Christian faith. From that I learned many things, but the key things were:

1. To love God above all things. To love God with all my heart and with all my soul.
2. To love others as God loves me, and as a corollary to treat others as I would want to be treated.
3. All people are made in the image of God. Therefore, all people have strengths that they need to find and bring to the community in which they live to help other people.
4. They can tell we are Christians by our love and how we treat other people. This means that we need to put what we learned into action to help others.

Second, as a child I grew up in a neighborhood where I was surrounded by a diversity of people. To me diversity was just a part of the people with whom I went to school, went to church, participated in sports, attended school and played in my neighborhood. We were all people that belonged to a particular city in a particular state in the United States of America. That was the only division that I knew about growing up.

I was very lucky to be a person growing up with two parents that loved me and cared for me without question and a church that cared for me as well. Both taught me about the love of God, about how we are all made in the image of God, about how to treat our neighbor, and that we all have talents to share with others in our lives.

I know that not all children are as fortunate as I was going up. If I have “privilege” it is because my parents and my church taught me to make the most of the talents I have. I am saddened to see children growing up without two loving and caring parents. I am saddened to see children growing up without a church to teach them the things I learned, of which only the key items are listed above.

As you can guess, I feel these two things, loving and caring parents and a loving and caring church are two of the most important things we can share with our youth today.

As to there being “systemic (at the root or through the root of society) racism” I disagree. As I said above I believe all people are children of God and in our Declaration of Independence it says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [people] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

We need to stop putting people in categories. We are all people living in one city in one state in one country—the United States of America. We are not black, yellow, red, brown, etc. We are one people in the United States of America. We are not men or women. We are one people in the United States of America. We are not straight, gay, transgender or any other gender identity—we are one people in the United States of America.

As for racism I hear that term so much every day that I think everyone has forgotten what it means—“prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.” Now that you have heard my views on the United States of America, I can truly say that I do not harbor these feelings against other people in their city in their state in the United States of America or around the world. People are not inherently (systemically) racist. They are taught racism.

I will stand with my brothers and sisters in Bettendorf and the surrounding communities to get back to civility, sharing the skills and resources we have with others, being truthful, doing to others what we would want them to do to us and just plain treating others as equals. We will put away all the hatred, violence, political posturing, cheating and malevolence. That is the best gift that anyone could give to a brother or sister in our city in our state in the United States of America.

Respectfully submitted,

Wokester 1 (male, privileged in more ways than he will admit) responds to Person

Just because you don’t experience systemic racism in your own privileged life doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. You are not an expert on the experiences of other people. I would… See more

Wokester 2 (female, privileged in more ways than she will admit) responds to Person

What in the white privilege did I just read? 🙄

(V’PAC note: the eye roll emoji is probably also tattooed on her forehead to symbolize her wokeness)

Wokester 1  responds again to Person

And maybe you shouldn’t quote a document written primarily by slave owners in a manifesto arguing that systemic racism is imaginary.

Person responds to Wokester 1 calling him by his first name

xxxx Perhaps you need to recognize that we have all sinned, including our founders, and fallen short of the glory of God. However, we have been saved by God’s grace whether you want that grace or not. It is your choice. I am not responsible for what has happened in the past. I was not even on this earth to make a difference. Last year I had the opportunity to walk through the Dachau Concentration Camp in Germany. It was a very humbling experience. The committee that preserves the concentration camps in Germany are very specific in their instructions to future generations–“do not forget what happened here.” If people are busy defacing and destroying our national symbols in the United States of America that show the good and the bad, we then forget what that history has to teach us. And by forgetting that history we are doomed to repeat it. Where in the Declaration of Independence is the reference to systemic racism? I think I missed that lesson in history.

Wokester 1  responds again to Person

I’m not sure why you presume that I need to hear you quote scripture at me, but since you brought it up, white supremacy and the failure to prevent it are both sins. You are not responsible for the sins of your ancestors, but an unwillingness to acknowledge that their sins have led to systemic racism makes you complicit in that system. It sounds like you are also upset over monuments to racist confederate leaders being taken down, too, so I’ll address it. I, too, have spent considerable time in Germany; while it is true that concentration camps remain today to remind us about the atrocities committed there, I did notice a fairly obvious lack of monuments to dead Nazi officials. By that same token, Civil War battlegrounds and former plantations are protected sites in the US and are valuable educational resources. We don’t need statues glorifying confederate generals to learn from their hatred. And finally, I didn’t say the Declaration of Independence contained references to systemic racism (you could look to the three-fifths compromise in the Constitution for that); I was pointing out that as noble as the words of its authors appear to be, there is hypricosy even there. They spoke about liberty for all, but failed to apply those bold ideas to everyone. Systemic racism exists, regardless of what you want to believe. I am merely suggesting that you practice a bit of empathy and listen to those affected by it instead of those who never will be.

Wokester 3 (male, probably white responds

The “system” enables, it doesn’t suppress.

Wokester 4 (female) responds to Person

where in the Constitution is the reference to systemic racism? Try starting with the 3/5 of a person part. Start there.

Wokester 3  responds to Person

Wow. Was a poll tax on voting enabling? Was owning another person enabling to the “property”. Was / is segregation enabling? C’mon man. That’s intentional ignorance.
2 days ago

Another Privileged Person (APP) responds

We are talking about the present. The past happened, good or bad, and there have been changes to rectify those issues. The fact that you live like those problems remain today, prevents us from moving forward.

Wokester 3 responds (probably intended for APP)

The fact that you believe that in the present none of the officially sanctioned systemic racism of the past continues in new form today is disturbing. It is the same biases,racism and flaunting of privilege, just in 21st century form.

I live very much in the present but the legal abolishment of slavery, for example, has not solved the underlying issues you seem to blithely choose to ignore.

APP responds with link to video embedded above

Yours Truly weighs in

Here I was looking for some tradesman recommendations and I see that the CEO of this community board claims some special standing to lecture the good citizens of this community. Who or what does she think we are? Another member responds defending against the broad strokes the illustrious CEO implied and her his remarks are castigated by what I interpret as a couple of oh so pure “wokesters”.

I do not know where to start with the eye roll response and the “woke” follow-on comment. A couple paragraphs will not be adequate to unpack and challenge the impugning of the community/country.

Slavery is an evil concept that is color blind. This country had slavery before white Europeans landed, indeed I am not sure of any populated continental exception –not Asia, not Africa, not North or South America. The indigenous practiced it and sold their own into it or captured others for it. The evil was everywhere, singling out America is one of the ignorant aspects of the wokesters.

That the Declaration Independence, the “manifesto” referred to was written by imperfect people, sinners, is not a revelation to any Christian but what ought to be appreciated and heralded is that “manifesto”spoke to all people and the operating document of the nation which the “manifesto'” founded, the US Constitution, provided for the abolition of the slave trade at its inception and that was before England. The US was early on in setting the wheels in motion to end slavery.

Whites in this country largely fought a war to end its practice. Regrettably a political party – the Democrat Party – fought to maintain its vestiges long after they lost the war – and the association of so many of the race wokesters with that party is stunning. The other part of the woke movement — the admitted socialists — are so anti-slavery they would make Americans, all races, slaves to the state, while hoping they will be in charge of course.

This white guy and my friends of color over the years doubtfully need lectures from a CEO of a digitized cork-board about how to get along and be fair to one another. Like (initial respondent) , that was instilled in us as part of our Western culture, Judeo-Christian derived upbringing. But I am an aged white guy so I can only be made to conform and any comment disparaged or ignored by the woke crowd extolling the riots and reparations. But let this be notice that you wokesters are welcome to expiate all you want for your sins but don’t bring the rest of us into your self-flagellation.

And then there is the irrationality of using Mr. Floyd’s death as a cause celeb for injustice when the wheels of justice, bringing any criminal wrongdoing by the police toward him, are in motion and by any standard aggressive. (We will see if it is to the detriment of justice). To use his death where justice is being served to perpetrate so many injustices and wrongful deaths on the communities experiencing the riots and destruction is evil. Support for it, or excuse making for it , kowtowing to it exposes the dullness of character of the woke.

Assuming that the woke crowd believes they already know all they need to know I will leave the folks wandering onto this board for a household tip, those not subject to or impressed by the preening by the wokesters, with this reference to an instructive article about the ridiculousness of the fury of the woke. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/anonymous-berkeley-professor-shreds-blm-injustice-narrative-damning-stats-and-logic

Wokestere 1 responds to Yours Truly

I was referring to Mr. Reagan’s original post as a “manifesto,” not the Declaration of Independence.

Wokester 4 probably responds to Yours Truly

Why are you so troubled with residents of the USA finally awakening to the idea that we do not have to perpetuate such abhorrent treatment of fellow humans?

Just because the U.S. may not be alone in enslaving others, racism and keeping a knee on the neck of “the other”, why do you take issue with being “woke” enough to end it on our soil? Why not start here?

You make it sound as if we should throw up our hands because “everybody” has done it and it’s a near impossible abhorrence to end so don’t even think about trying. This slavery, racism, bigotry are baked in, so just leave it alone?

That’s thinking small and reeks of someone enjoying their privilege and desperately clinging to it.

Wokester 5 (female, responds to Person and or  Yours Truly

I think you are expressing an idealism that we wish existed for all. In reality, unfortunately it does not

Wokester 4 responds to Yours truly

Let me suggest that you over simplify the meaning of “privilege” being discussed today. You seem to end it at economics. Dig deeper.

Going back to things the way they were even three weeks ago means that “privilege” is never shared equally and the true issue merely gets conveniently buried again. The way “privilege” always allows over those without said privilege.
2 days ago

And so the thread ended.  Readers of V’PAC will see that the wokestrs engage to a greater extent but it should be noted that as for  approval ratings indicated by “up-marks” the conservative views carried at least twice as many. There is a message there just not sure what.

*She is a CEO in that I presume the board is monetized through advertising revenue associated with the reach of the site. Personally we are not inclined to link via the site.

0

0

These are all excellent but not without a few demurrals, or adds we would impart here and there:  From The Federalist and Townhall

Research Finds Lockdowns Are Far Worse For Health And Lives Than Coronavirus 

Why aren’t the epidemiological models used to justify the lockdowns also accounting for the grave public health risks of prolonged closures?

How Our Anti-American Education System Made Riots Inevitable

Rioting social justice warriors are remaking the world as they see fit, consistent with what they’ve been taught from K-12 to the highest echelons of learning.  . . .

Left brain-left brain, left brain behind reasoning

SCOTUS’s Transgender Ruling Firebombs The Constitution

The ruling will lead to a tsunami of polarizing court cases and further degradation of Americans’ natural rights to free speech, to free association, and to worshipping God as their consciences require.   . . .

Supreme Court Validates LGBT Protections On Grounds LGBT Activists Reject

The recent SCOTUS decision seems like an LGBT victory, but not so fast. By linking the rights of gay and transgender people to sex, the left has bound itself to whatever definition ‘sex’ takes on.

The Deadly Art of Lying by Omission 

You can tell a lie by saying something patently false.  Or you can lie by omission, which can be just as dishonest.

“Fatal police shootings impervious to protests,” said the Washington Post front page headline last Tuesday. “Nearly 1,000 killed every year despite nationwide push for justice reform.”

The article feeds the narrative of excessive, racially motivated police violence by omitting a crucial factor:  the incidence of crime. It leaves the impression that police routinely shoot people, especially blacks, for no apparent reason.

There is one outburst of candor, buried inside: “The overwhelming majority of people killed are armed. Nearly half of all people fatally shot by police are white. Most of these shootings draw little or no attention beyond a news story.”  No kidding.    . . . .

Two Supreme Court Justices Shred Their Counterparts for Failing to Protect the Second Amendment 

“The text of the Second Amendment protects ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.’ We have stated that this ‘fundamental righ[t]’ is ‘necessary to our system of ordered liberty.’ Yet, in several jurisdictions throughout the country, law-abiding citizens have been barred from exercising the fundamental right to bear arms because they cannot show that they have a ‘justifiable need’ or ‘good reason’ for doing so,” Thomas wrote.

“One would think that such an onerous burden on a fundamental right would warrant this Court’s review. This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights,” he wrote. “And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion. But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way.”

How To Get Your High Schooler A College Degree At No Or Low Cost

With dual enrollment, high schoolers can be introduced to college-level material to fulfill course expectations while living at home and with a class load paced to that student’s ability.

V’PAC —

Most liberal arts curricula could be “delivered” and at much cost savings via the Internet. College costs could be much reduced if only essential ‘in person and lab related , practicums, etc were the focus. Community colleges are underfunded, the university concept should be much altered.

0

0

“Mad Dog’s” leash held by big-government deep-state

One sort of exception, Mad Dog James Mattis, essentially fired by both Obama and Trump, picks the deep state as his focus of allegiance.  Media will bankroll his appearances as long as he is critical of Trump.

This collection of insightful articles about Trump’s military critics are from The Federalist and American Thinker. The first two authored by Andrea Widburg, an informative and  prolific writer at AT.   Bold our emphasis.

There’s a cancer amongst the pensioners of the Pentagon

Colin Powell, who hasn’t voted for a Republican in the last 16 years, excited the mainstream media when he announced that he was again going to vote for a Democrat.  Powell is a joke, and probably a high-level leaker, so he deserves to be ignored.  However, he represents something more serious, which is retired admirals and generals using the goodwill they earned serving in the military in service to the Deep State.

Whatever respect I had for Powell died when I learned that he was one of the loudest voices telling Bush Sr. to pull out of the First Gulf War, allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in power and therefore contributing indirectly to the Iraq War.  I’ve also long suspected that he was the main source for Bob Woodward’s nasty Plan of Attack, which painted Bush as a dummy and Powell as a prescient saint.

The problem, though, isn’t Powell, who’s yesterday’s news.  It’s the long list of retired military officers attacking Trump, most of whom escaped Obama’s firing of almost 200 military officers. 

Those firings had the smell of a purge about them, especially considering Obama’s vision for the U.S. military.  His practical, strategic, and tactical demands on the military (e.g., draw-downs, aiding America’s enemies, unduly restrictive rules of engagement) and his extensive efforts to turn our military into a social justice experiment (e.g., women in combat, so-called transgenders in the military, etc.), hinted that his decisions about officers were not primarily aimed at ensuring that our military was the best, most honorable fighting machine in the world.  Obama had other goals in mind.

The most touted anti-Trump statement came from William H. McRaven, the admiral (now retired), who oversaw the Osama bin Laden mission.  It was under McRaven that Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind 9/11, got a private, respectful burial at sea, one that ensured “that bin Laden’s body was be handled in accordance with Muslim traditions[.]”  How nice.

McRaven took to the pages of the New York Times last October to launch a fiery attack against Trump for announcing that he was going to pull U.S. troops out of Syria.  To McRaven, that made Trump such a disastrous president that he should be removed — “the sooner, the better.”  Language like that has the smell of a military coup about it.  Oh, and Trump did pull out those U.S. troops, saving lives.  He also ordered a hit on Qassem Soleimani, saving more lives. 

General Barry McCaffrey (ret.), a Clinton White House holdover, is also an anti-Trump hysteric.  When Trump announced that he didn’t want to have the federal government (and American taxpayers) pay for the New York Times and Washington Post, McCaffrey called it a “watershed moment in national history,” and said Trump was Mussolini:

The White House Trump statement telling the entire Federal Government to terminate subscriptions to the NYT and Wash Post is a watershed moment in national history. No room for HUMOROUS media coverage. This is deadly serious. This is Mussolini.
— Barry R McCaffrey (@mccaffreyr3) October 25, 2019

Can you imagine being led into battle by a man so easily given to hysterical exaggeration?

To understand the nonsense from the next Deep State military official, a little context is necessary.  Last year, Trump ordered special forces to kill Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, whom Obama had released from Camp Bucca in 2009.  Baghdadi, an ISIS leader, was responsible for tens of thousands of deaths and was a sexual sadist, among other things.  Trump, understanding that Arabs are a shame-based culture, made sure the world knew that Baghdadi was not a hero or a martyr at the end, but was a miserable coward, whining and crying, frightened of a dog, and hiding behind a child.

Obama’s Joint Chiefs vice chair, Admiral James Winnefeld (ret.), was appalled that Trump treated a sadistic mass murderer with so little respect.  According to Winnefeld, Trump should have shown that human piece of trash the “respect that is due under Islam.”  (Now do you know why Winnefeld and Obama got along?)

And of course, there’s James Mattis, who got the treatment he deserved from Marine captain John M. Dowd (ret.).

Democrats are undoubtedly planning on using all these NeverTrump Democrats to support Biden.  The media will troop these retired officers out in their snazzy uniforms and make much of their service.  When they do so, it’s up to you to remember who these men are and what they value.

We can honor them for their service, but we need to recognize that this does not make them intelligent or even decent men.  Just think of John McCain, an arrogant military officer; an incredibly brave POW; and a vicious, petty, disloyal RINO politician.

One retired Marine isn’t putting up with Mattis’s nonsense 

• Ret. Marine general James Mattis, who served as Trump’s defense secretary, resigned over a year ago but has apparently been nursing a grudge since then.  Last week, he took to the pages of the left-wing Atlantic magazine to air that grievance.
• Mattis revealed a small mind.  His facts were wrong and his arguments foolish and simplistic.  The Democrat media, of course, celebrated the article despite its fundamental flaws.  Retired Marine captain John M. Dowd, however, decided that he wasn’t going to sit there and take that nonsense, so he struck back.  What he wrote is red meat for conservatives and Trump-supporters.
• To understand what Mattis wrote for the Atlantic, you have to know that while he does love the Marines, he’s a leftist at heart.  He supports the global warming agenda, is hostile to Israel, shied away from fights with the mullahs, wanted so-called transgenders in the military, wouldn’t leave Afghanistan, and ultimately quit because he wanted to keep U.S. troops in Syria (reminder: the disaster leftists predicted for Trump’s pullout never materialized).

• If you need more evidence that Mattis is a leftist politician, he hung out with limousine leftists:
• Jeff Bezos threw a party at his newly renovated Washington DC home last night.

Yes, Lauren Sanchez was there.

Also in attendance:

Ivanka Trump

Jared Kushner

Kellyanne Conway

Bill Gates

Mitt Romney

Jim Mattis https://t.co/2MrqWiiKi4
• — Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) January 26, 2020

• It came as no surprise to those who understand the real Mattis, rather than the propaganda version, that he was smarting at his inability to drive Trump into the arms of the Deep State and is worried that Trump will be re-elected.  That’s why he decided to use the Atlantic to denounce Trump as a threat to the Constitution.  So he authored an insanely stupid manifesto.
• The manifesto opens with Mattis calling looted stores, burning cities, and dead police officers “a small number of lawbreakers.”  He ignores the fact that Trump has done nothing to stop the protesters from having their say and has, in fact, completely respected federalism by leaving the states to handle matters, warning only that if chaos threatens, he has the legal authority to step in and will do so.
• Mattis’s little lecture about using the military carefully is redundant.  Trump knows and has already acted consistently with this knowledge.
• Mattis blathers on about Trump fostering disunity, ignoring that leftists have played “resistance” theater since Trump’s election.  Mattis seemingly missed the inauguration day marches, the spying, the Russia hoax, the Kavanaugh slander, the Ukraine hoax, Pelosi ripping up Trump’s State of the Union speech, etc.  The attacks have never stopped, but Trump has still managed to focus on the American people’s welfare.
• As if to prove that he now hangs out only with leftists, Mattis concludes with Trump’s walk across the park to a historic church that “peaceful protesters” had tried to burn to the ground.  To Mattis, this was an abuse of presidential power.  Sigh.  If the lunkheaded former general expanded his friendship circle, he’d know that the park service had no contact with Trump and was fighting back against protesters pelting officers with dangerous projectiles.
• Mattis may also be part of yet another, broader resistance attempt.  There’s a rumor afoot that Anderson Cooper is planning to attack Trump through a town hall with leftist military men who hate him:

CNN person w/ direct knowledge: @andersoncooper has been planning a town hall for months w/ Gary Cohn, Jim Mattis, John Kelly & McMaster to air in September. They will make stuff up & say that Trump is unfit for office. Mattis & Kelly signed on. Cohn & HR on the fence.
• — Arthur Schwartz (@ArthurSchwartz) June 5, 2020

• Cooper doesn’t understand that conservatives will not be impressed.  They really hate leftist officers, for they understand that these men are political panderers, the lowest of the low.
• Still, military men have each other’s backs, so until a couple of days ago, there was no pushback from people who ought to recognize Mattis for the Benedict Arnold he is.  Finally, though, retired Marine captain John M. Dowd, a former Marine Corps judge advocate and a Trump attorney, had enough.  He wrote a letter aimed directly at Mattis’s honor.
• Dowd’s letter is savage.  You can tell that it was written in a white-hot passion.  He talks about Obama’s forcing divisions on the country, about the revolting attacks Democrats have launched at Trump every day, and about Trump’s prison reform being better for the black community than anything Obama did.  Then he goes in for the kill, directly castigating Mattis for being too much of a political coward to take out Qassem Soleimani, even as the Iranian general was killing American troops all over the Middle East.  It’s a mean letter, and Mattis deserves every word of it.
• I thought this letter from respected retired Marine and Super Star lawyer, John Dowd, would be of interest to the American People. Read it! pic.twitter.com/I5tjysckZh
• — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 4, 2020

• Jim:
• I slept on your statement and woke up appalled and upset. You lost me. Never dreamed you would let a bunch of hack politicians use your good name and reputation – earned with the blood and guts of young Marines.
• You did what you said you would – engage in this discourse. Marines keep their word.
• The phony protesters near Lafayette park were not peaceful and are not real. They are terrorists using idle hate-filled students to burn and destroy. They were abusing and disrespecting the police when the police were preparing the area for the 1900 curfew. Jim, this is the new nihilism. See Dan Henninger in WSJ today.
• Marines support the police in harm’s way.
• Did you forget that President Bush used active duty Marines to quell the riots in LA? President Trump has countless cities and some snowflake governors and mayors wetting themselves in the use of force to protect innocent lives and property. The AG of Massachusetts thinks burning property is good protest. Three more policemen were stabbed and shot in NYC last night.
• Think about it. Should he be upset about the obvious failure of leadership? Where are you Jim?
• Marines go to the fight.
• No one divided this country more than Obama. He abandoned our black brothers and sisters. He gave guns to the cartels. He  apologized for our precious sacrifice and generosity overseas. You remember, he fired you.
• President Trump has done more to help our minority brothers and sisters in three years than anyone in the last fifty. Ask the black pastors. Ask the leaders of the black colleges and universities. He got them funded. Ask them about the prison reform which ended the draconian sentences imposed on young black men by the laws enacted by Biden and his hacks. You need to bone up on your homework and stop listening to Uncle Leon.
• I understand, you had to stick to the assigned narrative which did not include three years of corrupt investigations and evidence to destroy the President, his office, and his lawful free election. Nancy has no tolerance for dissent in the ranks – including those with stars.
• You said nothing of the ugly, hate filled, disgraceful comments of Pelosi, Schumer, Perez and other Democrat hacks defaming the President and his office. You said nothing of the unlawful sanctuary cities and the unlawful release of hoodlums. You said nothing of the resistance movement to paralyze our courts and our government operations. You said nothing of the obstruction and subversion of our immigration laws. You said nothing of MS-13 killers and the drug cartels who own huge sections of our major cities. Jim, do you thin that hateful rhetoric and those corrupt actions were inspiring and unifying? Do you think the DI’s at Parris Island would find such behavior as unifying?
• Maybe, your problem, is a lot deeper. Perhaps you ought to explain how and why you (and John Allen), as CG Central Command, did not engage and take out Iranian Major General Soleimani who roamed the Middle East and wreaked havoc and death of our American boys with his infamous IEDs?
• Why did it take President Trump to have the instincts and balls to take him out (of course over the objection of the geniuses in the Pentagon)?
• Looks like the Persian mullahs were a one horse sleigh and Trump nailed the horse . . . forever. It has been quiet ever since. Perhaps, your anger is borne of embarrassment for your own failure as the leader of Central Command. Did you applaud when the President recognized the central problem in the middle east? Did you applaud the President when he wanted to save American lives by bringing them home in one piece?
John M Dowd

No, West Point Grads Don’t Need To Learn Anything From The Resistance

The contradiction between their virtue-signaling platitudes and what they say reveals the hypocrisy of these ‘concerned’ graduates of West Point.

By John Lucas and James R. McDonough at The Federalist

Last Thursday, a group of West Point graduates calling themselves “Concerned Members of the Long Gray Line” published an open letter attacking, without directly naming, President Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (West Point class of 1986), and several other members of the class of ’86 who have served in the current presidential administration. The letter was coyly framed as advice to this year’s class of West Point graduates, but it’s clear the intent is to generate negative news coverage of their political opponents. It worked.

CNN and other media outlets gleefully republished excerpts of the letter, happy to portray Pompeo and the other West Pointers in the administration as deceitful, oath-breaking toadies who have made a “Faustian bargain and endeavor to please their commanders and advance their careers” at the expense of troops in combat.

The letter’s clear message is that Pompeo and the other West Pointers in the Trump administration are dishonorable deplorables who have failed to uphold West Point’s motto of “Duty, Honor, Country,” not to mention their oath of office and the Constitution. The “Concerned Members” would have us know that by making their “Faustian bargain,” these failed fellow graduates “prize loyalty to individuals over the ideals expressed in the Constitution.”

The American people should not be duped. This is utter nonsense. It is both false and not representative of West Point graduates. Make no mistake about it: although ostensibly addressed to the graduating class of 2020, the ultimate target of this political screed is not them, or even Pompeo or his West Point classmates. It is the current commander in chief.

Although the signers attempt to portray themselves as pure and motivated by only altruistic motives of “Duty, Honor, Country,” their letter is part of a dishonest and hypocritical effort most likely intended to promote the “Resistance.”

These People Don’t Represent West Point

Who are these “Concerned Members”? With approximately 500 supposed signatories as of the time the letter was published (less than 1 percent of living West Point graduates, according to data from a source at West Point’s Association of Graduates), this article will not try to characterize each person. But we know something about many of them. Some are Democrat politicians. Some are self-styled members of “the Resistance.” At least one was booted out of the Army early.

Some are blatant hypocrites. We know that because while proclaiming their courage and what they say is their “lifetime commitment is to the enduring responsibility expressed in the Cadet Prayer: ‘to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong,’” they were too cowardly to sign the letter. Fifty-nine identified themselves only as “Anonymous.”

Similarly, although their letter clearly is an attack on the president and Pompeo and other accomplished West Point graduates, the authors engage a ruse of their own by not naming their targets, thus attempting to retain a patina of deniability. They are not exactly Horatius at the Bridge.

The Military Is Legitimately Used to Stop Riots
We also know they are not the least bit concerned with the next phrase of the Cadet Prayer that they quote: “never to be content with a half-truth when the whole can be won.” That is because they dishonestly accuse the president of threatening “to use the Army in which you serve as a weapon against fellow Americans engaging in these legitimate protests.” No honest person could join in that calumny.

First, federal troops have been routinely deployed to quell domestic civil unrest and riots, beginning with Shay’s Rebellion in 1786. The reader may well wonder if the “Concerned Members” are equally incensed by President Eisenhower (West Point class of 1915) having deployed the 101st Airborne when the governor of Arkansas and white supremist mobs sought to block black children from attending Little Rock’s Central High School in 1957.

Second, and fundamentally, the inflammatory assertion that threatening to use federal troops against innocent and “legitimate protests” is a falsehood. As we know, the administration considered deploying troops to protect American citizens and their property, not from “peaceful protestors,” but from mobs that were killing, beating, burning, and looting. This mayhem and insurrection occurred while numerous elected “leaders” stood idly by or actively excused and encouraged their orgy of destruction.
The inclusion of this falsehood in the letter also casts a dark shadow over the authors’ proclamation, “We will not tolerate those who ‘lie, cheat or steal.’” Indeed, the contradiction between their virtue-signaling platitudes and what they say reveals the “Concerned Members’” hypocrisy.

This Isn’t Advice, It’s Propaganda
The “Concerned Members’” presumptiveness in thinking that it is necessary for them to supplant the four years’ of ethical and leadership training at West Point is sorely misplaced. Could the signatories really believe that in the past four years, West Point, this hallowed institution—with all its historical traditions, strong leadership, and ethical underpinnings—failed to get that essential point across to the newly minted lieutenants in the class of 2020? Do these young officers really require a reminder from the Resistance that they have taken an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and that they must not betray that oath by selling their souls to the devil?

The answer to that is apparent. The letter reveals itself as propaganda. It is not a necessary letter to newly minted lieutenants about to take up the burden of faithfully performing their duty of accomplishing the assigned missions and of defending honorable subordinates.

Instead, it is a political statement, another in a string of engineered statements presuming all is wrong with America save for the dedicated few who view themselves as keepers of the flame and resisters of the unworthy deplorables now serving in positions of great responsibility in government.

Such a letter does not serve well those to whom it is ostensibly addressed. The new officers from the West Point Class of 2020 can be trusted to do their duty well, to face the daily challenges they are bound to meet in war and peace, and to know the difference between right and wrong. They will serve our country well, as West Point graduates have done for more than 200 years, despite this self-serving and unnecessary letter.

John Lucas is a practicing attorney in Tennessee who has successfully argued before the U. S. Supreme Court. Before entering law school at the University of Texas, he served in the Army Special Forces as an enlisted man and then graduated from the U. S. Military Academy at West Point in 1969. He is an Army Ranger and fought in Vietnam as an infantry platoon leader. Col. (Ret.) James R. McDonough is a West Point graduate, class of 1969. He is the author of the book “Platoon Leader,” a memoir of small unit leadership in combat in Vietnam that is studied at West Point and in ROTC today and since its publication in 1985.

0

0

Posted at the recommendation of HP, this excellent  Zerohedge promulgated item speaks truth to the cancel culture/politically correct/moral preening/ fascistic — dominant leftist academia and media establishment about their actual illiberal grossly political bias and  intellectual vacuity.

By the way in an update at zerohedge a response by the Berkley History Histrionics Department confirms the validity of the understandably anonymous Berkeley professors criticisms. Note our annotations in parenthesis to their response

An anonymous letter has been circulating, purportedly written by a @UCBHistory professor. We have no evidence that this letter was written by a History faculty member.

(that would follow from the “anonymous” concept

We condemn this letter: it goes against our values as a department and our commitment to equity and inclusion.

— UC Berkeley History (@UCBHistory) June 13, 2020

(they condemn it without any rebuttal and end the discussion wrapping themselves in a claim of equity and inclusion (just not for Ms/Mr Anonymous)

Excellent letter to be long referred to as an indictment of so much of current academia and political correctness. Bold emphasis in the original. Images not.

UC Berkeley History Professor’s Open Letter Against BLM, Police Brutality and Cultural Orthodoxy

Dear profs X, Y, Z

I am one of your colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley. I have met you both personally but do not know you closely, and am contacting you anonymously, with apologies. I am worried that writing this email publicly might lead to me losing my job, and likely all future jobs in my field.

In your recent departmental emails you mentioned our pledge to diversity, but I am increasingly alarmed by the absence of diversity of opinion on the topic of the recent protests and our community response to them.

In the extended links and resources you provided, I could not find a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative narrative to explain the under-representation of black individuals in academia or their over-representation in the criminal justice system. The explanation provided in your documentation, to the near exclusion of all others, is univariate: the problems of the black community are caused by whites, or, when whites are not physically present, by the infiltration of white supremacy and white systemic racism into American brains, souls, and institutions.

Many cogent objections to this thesis have been raised by sober voices, including from within the black community itself, such as Thomas Sowell and Wilfred Reilly. These people are not racists or ‘Uncle Toms’. They are intelligent scholars who reject a narrative that strips black people of agency and systematically externalizes the problems of the black community onto outsiders. Their view is entirely absent from the departmental and UCB-wide communiques.

The claim that the difficulties that the black community faces are entirely causally explained by exogenous factors in the form of white systemic racism, white supremacy, and other forms of white discrimination remains a problematic hypothesis that should be vigorously challenged by historians. Instead, it is being treated as an axiomatic and actionable truth without serious consideration of its profound flaws, or its worrying implication of total black impotence. This hypothesis is transforming our institution and our culture, without any space for dissent outside of a tightly policed, narrow discourse.

A counternarrative exists. If you have time, please consider examining some of the documents I attach at the end of this email. Overwhelmingly, the reasoning provided by BLM and allies is either primarily anecdotal (as in the case with the bulk of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ undeniably moving article) or it is transparently motivated. As an example of the latter problem, consider the proportion of black incarcerated Americans. This proportion is often used to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However, if we use the precise same methodology, we would have to conclude that the criminal justice system is even more anti-male than it is anti-black.

Would we characterize criminal justice as a systemically misandrist conspiracy against innocent American men? I hope you see that this type of reasoning is flawed, and requires a significant suspension of our rational faculties. Black people are not incarcerated at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict. This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries.

And yet, I see my department uncritically reproducing a narrative that diminishes black agency in favor of a white-centric explanation that appeals to the department’s apparent desire to shoulder the ‘white man’s burden’ and to promote a narrative of white guilt.

If we claim that the criminal justice system is white-supremacist, why is it that Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans? This is a funny sort of white supremacy. Even Jewish Americans are incarcerated less than gentile whites. I think it’s fair to say that your average white supremacist disapproves of Jews. And yet, these alleged white supremacists incarcerate gentiles at vastly higher rates than Jews. None of this is addressed in your literature. None of this is explained, beyond hand-waving and ad hominems. “Those are racist dogwhistles”. “The model minority myth is white supremacist”. “Only fascists talk about black-on-black crime”, ad nauseam.

These types of statements do not amount to counterarguments: they are simply arbitrary offensive classifications, intended to silence and oppress discourse. Any serious historian will recognize these for the silencing orthodoxy tactics they are, common to suppressive regimes, doctrines, and religions throughout time and space. They are intended to crush real diversity and permanently exile the culture of robust criticism from our department.

Increasingly, we are being called upon to comply and subscribe to BLM’s problematic view of history, and the department is being presented as unified on the matter. In particular, ethnic minorities are being aggressively marshaled into a single position. Any apparent unity is surely a function of the fact that dissent could almost certainly lead to expulsion or cancellation for those of us in a precarious position, which is no small number.

I personally don’t dare speak out against the BLM narrative, and with this barrage of alleged unity being mass-produced by the administration, tenured professoriat, the UC administration, corporate America, and the media, the punishment for dissent is a clear danger at a time of widespread economic vulnerability. I am certain that if my name were attached to this email, I would lose my job and all future jobs, even though I believe in and can justify every word I type.

The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people. There are virtually no marches for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence requires explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is.

No discussion is permitted for nonblack victims of black violence, who proportionally outnumber black victims of nonblack violence. This is especially bitter in the Bay Area, where Asian victimization by black assailants has reached epidemic proportions, to the point that the SF police chief has advised Asians to stop hanging good-luck charms on their doors, as this attracts the attention of (overwhelmingly black) home invaders. Home invaders like George Floyd. For this actual, lived, physically experienced reality of violence in the USA, there are no marches, no tearful emails from departmental heads, no support from McDonald’s and Wal-Mart. For the History department, our silence is not a mere abrogation of our duty to shed light on the truth: it is a rejection of it.

The claim that black intraracial violence is the product of redlining, slavery, and other injustices is a largely historical claim. It is for historians, therefore, to explain why Japanese internment or the massacre of European Jewry hasn’t led to equivalent rates of dysfunction and low SES performance among Japanese and Jewish Americans respectively. Arab Americans have been viciously demonized since 9/11, as have Chinese Americans more recently. However, both groups outperform white Americans on nearly all SES indices – as do Nigerian Americans, who incidentally have black skin. It is for historians to point out and discuss these anomalies. However, no real discussion is possible in the current climate at our department. The explanation is provided to us, disagreement with it is racist, and the job of historians is to further explore additional ways in which the explanation is additionally correct. This is a mockery of the historical profession.

Most troublingly, our department appears to have been entirely captured by the interests of the Democratic National Convention, and the Democratic Party more broadly. To explain what I mean, consider what happens if you choose to donate to Black Lives Matter, an organization UCB History has explicitly promoted in its recent mailers. All donations to the official BLM website are immediately redirected to ActBlue Charities, an organization primarily concerned with bankrolling election campaigns for Democrat candidates. Donating to BLM today is to indirectly donate to Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign. This is grotesque given the fact that the American cities with the worst rates of black-on-black violence and police-on-black violence are overwhelmingly Democrat-run. Minneapolis itself has been entirely in the hands of Democrats for over five decades; the ‘systemic racism’ there was built by successive Democrat administrations.

The patronizing and condescending attitudes of Democrat leaders towards the black community, exemplified by nearly every Biden statement on the black race, all but guarantee a perpetual state of misery, resentment, poverty, and the attendant grievance politics which are simultaneously annihilating American political discourse and black lives. And yet, donating to BLM is bankrolling the election campaigns of men like Mayor Frey, who saw their cities devolve into violence. This is a grotesque capture of a good-faith movement for necessary police reform, and of our department, by a political party. Even worse, there are virtually no avenues for dissent in academic circles. I refuse to serve the Party, and so should you.

The total alliance of major corporations involved in human exploitation with BLM should be a warning flag to us, and yet this damning evidence goes unnoticed, purposefully ignored, or perversely celebrated. We are the useful idiots of the wealthiest classes, carrying water for Jeff Bezos and other actual, real, modern-day slavers. Starbucks, an organisation using literal black slaves in its coffee plantation suppliers, is in favor of BLM. Sony, an organisation using cobalt mined by yet more literal black slaves, many of whom are children, is in favor of BLM. And so, apparently, are we. The absence of counter-narrative enables this obscenity. Fiat lux, indeed.

There also exists a large constituency of what can only be called ‘race hustlers’: hucksters of all colors who benefit from stoking the fires of racial conflict to secure administrative jobs, charity management positions, academic jobs and advancement, or personal political entrepreneurship.

Given the direction our history department appears to be taking far from any commitment to truth, we can regard ourselves as a formative training institution for this brand of snake-oil salespeople. Their activities are corrosive, demolishing any hope at harmonious racial coexistence in our nation and colonizing our political and institutional life. Many of their voices are unironically segregationist.

MLK would likely be called an Uncle Tom if he spoke on our campus today. We are training leaders who intend, explicitly, to destroy one of the only truly successful ethnically diverse societies in modern history. As the PRC, an ethnonationalist and aggressively racially chauvinist national polity with null immigration and no concept of jus solis increasingly presents itself as the global political alternative to the US, I ask you: Is this wise? Are we really doing the right thing?

As a final point, our university and department has made multiple statements celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd. Floyd was a multiple felon who once held a pregnant black woman at gunpoint. He broke into her home with a gang of men and pointed a gun at her pregnant stomach. He terrorized the women in his community. He sired and abandoned multiple children, playing no part in their support or upbringing, failing one of the most basic tests of decency for a human being. He was a drug-addict and sometime drug-dealer, a swindler who preyed upon his honest and hard-working neighbors.

And yet, the regents of UC and the historians of the UCB History department are celebrating this violent criminal, elevating his name to virtual sainthood. A man who hurt women. A man who hurt black women. With the full collaboration of the UCB history department, corporate America, most mainstream media outlets, and some of the wealthiest and most privileged opinion-shaping elites of the USA, he has become a culture hero, buried in a golden casket, his (recognized) family showered with gifts and praise. Americans are being socially pressured into kneeling for this violent, abusive misogynist. A generation of black men are being coerced into identifying with George Floyd, the absolute worst specimen of our race and species.

I’m ashamed of my department. I would say that I’m ashamed of both of you, but perhaps you agree with me, and are simply afraid, as I am, of the backlash of speaking the truth. It’s hard to know what kneeling means, when you have to kneel to keep your job.

It shouldn’t affect the strength of my argument above, but for the record, I write as a person of color. My family have been personally victimized by men like Floyd. We are aware of the condescending depredations of the Democrat party against our race. The humiliating assumption that we are too stupid to do STEM, that we need special help and lower requirements to get ahead in life, is richly familiar to us. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn’t be easier to deal with open fascists, who at least would be straightforward in calling me a subhuman, and who are unlikely to share my race.

The ever-present soft bigotry of low expectations and the permanent claim that the solutions to the plight of my people rest exclusively on the goodwill of whites rather than on our own hard work is psychologically devastating. No other group in America is systematically demoralized in this way by its alleged allies. A whole generation of black children are being taught that only by begging and weeping and screaming will they get handouts from guilt-ridden whites.

No message will more surely devastate their futures, especially if whites run out of guilt, or indeed if America runs out of whites. If this had been done to Japanese Americans, or Jewish Americans, or Chinese Americans, then Chinatown and Japantown would surely be no different to the roughest parts of Baltimore and East St. Louis today. The History department of UCB is now an integral institutional promulgator of a destructive and denigrating fallacy about the black race.

I hope you appreciate the frustration behind this message. I do not support BLM. I do not support the Democrat grievance agenda and the Party’s uncontested capture of our department. I do not support the Party co-opting my race, as Biden recently did in his disturbing interview, claiming that voting Democrat and being black are isomorphic. I condemn the manner of George Floyd’s death and join you in calling for greater police accountability and police reform. However, I will not pretend that George Floyd was anything other than a violent misogynist, a brutal man who met a predictably brutal end.

I also want to protect the practice of history. Cleo is no grovelling handmaiden to politicians and corporations. Like us, she is free.

/end

0

0