WashPost Parrots DNC Climate Council Chair: Virus ‘Inextricably Linked’ to Climate Change

The Washington Post is pushing leftist talking points on climate change as Democrats prepare to formally nominate former Vice President Joe Biden for president.
Post energy and environmental policy reporter Dino Grandoni wrote a climate change story headlined, “The Energy 202: Democrats seek to spotlight climate change at convention despite coronavirus crisis.” He continued that “Democrats will try to bring climate change to the fore during the party’s unconventional convention starting this week.” He whined, however, that “it remains to be seen how much the issue of rising temperatures will break through when the country is in the throes of the coronavirus pandemic.” Naturally, he tried to tie the two issues together.
Grandoni noted the percentage drop among registered voters who saw climate change as a “‘very important’” issue. He pivoted to editorialize the alleged comments of the leftist chair of the Democratic National Committee climate council Michelle Regalado Deatrick to connect the coronavirus to climate change, with no quotation:
But Michelle Regalado Deatrick, chair of the climate council, said the coronavirus is inextricably linked to environmental degradation, noting that preliminary studies show air pollution is making the respiratory disease caused by the virus more lethal,” [emphasis added].
It was only after this puffy editorializing that Grandoni actually quoted Deatrick: “‘The pandemic puts a greater emphasis on climate change and environmental justice.’” 
One of the sub-headlines in the piece was riddled with climate change fear-mongering: “Some DNC members are planning events emphasizing what they see as another existential crisis.”
Fox News contributor and founder of JunkScience.com Steve Milloy blasted The Post for pushing this propaganda on Twitter: “Climate communists say anything. #FakeNews media parrots it. Zombie followers eat it up.”
Well said.
 

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

As Protest Violence Mounts, Rep. Ayanna Pressley Recklessly Calls for More ‘Unrest in the Streets’

When discussing a march or large agglomeration of people aimed at putting social or political pressure on some faction of society or government, Merriam-Webster has significantly different definitions for these two nouns: Protest: the act of objecting or a gesture of disapproval … especially: a usually organized public demonstration of disapproval. Unrest: a situation in which many…

The post As Protest Violence Mounts, Rep. Ayanna Pressley Recklessly Calls for More ‘Unrest in the Streets’ appeared first on The Western Journal.

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com

GRAPHIC: Portland #BlackLivesMatter May Have Killed A Man Last Night…

And no, I am NOT being colorful. They very likely may have killed a man. You have been warned. This is the moment immediately before. The mob assaults him and makes him sit in the ground while they search his belongings. When he stands up, they brutally beat him. #PortlandRiots #antifa #BlackLivesMatter Video by @livesmattershow […]

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us

STUDY: 150 TIMES More Negative News on Trump than Biden

As the pandemic grinds on, the Big Three broadcast evening newscasts are among the highest rated programs on television today — and that means millions of viewers are witnessing the most biased presidential campaign coverage in modern media history.
I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it.
A new MRC analysis of all evening news coverage of President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in June and July found these networks chose to aim most of their attention and nearly all of their negative coverage on Trump, so Biden escaped any scrutiny of his left-wing policy positions, past job performance or character.
From June 1 through July 31, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts focused 512 minutes of airtime on the President, or nine times more than the 58 minutes allotted to Biden. (This excludes coverage of the Trump administration in general when not associated with the President himself.) This is an even wider gap than the spring, when Trump received seven times more coverage than Biden (523 minutes vs. 75 minutes).
The extra airtime devoted to Trump consisted almost entirely of anchors and reporters criticizing the President. During these two months, our analysts documented 668 evaluative statements about the President, 95 percent of which (634) were negative, vs. a mere five percent (34) that were positive. Using the same methodology (fully described at the end of this article), we found very few evaluative statements about Joe Biden — just a dozen, two-thirds of which (67%) were positive.
Do the math, and viewers heard 150 TIMES more negative comments about Trump than Biden. That’s not news reporting — that’s a negative advertising campaign in action.
If you consider the evening newscasts a reliable gauge of the liberal media at large (cable news, big newspapers, etc.), it means Biden has enjoyed an army of so-called journalists conducting a massive negative information campaign against his opponent, while he is sheltered from any scrutiny. Controversies from the spring, such as allegations from former staffer Tara Reade that he sexually assaulted her in the 1990s, completely disappeared from his evening news coverage in June and July.
Biden’s various policy proposals — which by his own admission would take his administration farther to the Left than the very liberal Obama administration — received a meager 5 minutes, 22 seconds of airtime, not one second of which included any critical analysis from any journalist.
 
 
There were no labels of Biden as “progressive,” “left-wing,” or even “liberal” on any of these newscasts, either; reporters also neglected to tell viewers how much the Democrat would raise taxes if he were elected (spoiler: more than $4 trillion).
Biden’s plan for $700 billion more federal spending (what he called “investments”), announced July 9, received a scant 40 seconds of evening news airtime (25 seconds on ABC, 15 seconds on CBS, nothing on NBC). When he outlined his massively expensive ($2 trillion) plan to combat climate change on July 14, it received six seconds, all of it on CBS.
If the networks weren’t scrutinizing Biden’s policies or his character, what accounted for his 58 minutes of airtime? Conveniently for the candidate, a plurality of it (23.5 minutes, or 40%) consisted of showcasing his near-daily criticisms of Trump. Conversely, only 88 seconds of Trump’s 512 minutes of airtime consisted of relaying his criticisms of Biden (a minuscule 0.25%).
Another 14 percent of Biden’s coverage (roughly eight minutes) consisted of reporters assessing where Biden stood in the race vs. Trump. These so-called “horse race” judgments — assessments of each candidates standing or prospects in the campaign — are not included in our good press/bad press score, but those comments showed a wide tilt as well: We tallied 51 such statements about the Biden campaign, 96% of which (49) were positive; for Trump, 75 of 80 horse race judgments were negative (94%).
No presidential candidate — not even Barack Obama in 2008 — has ever been on the receiving end of such a wide array of media favors. (While Obama received highly positive coverage, there was no massive media effort to destroy his GOP opponent, Senator John McCain.) While the former Vice President sits snugly in his basement before his nomination later this week, the entire liberal “news” media complex have spent the summer on the attack against his opponent, even as they refuse to report anything negative about Biden himself.
++++++
Methodology: For this report, MRC analysts reviewed every mention of President Trump and former Vice President Biden from June 1 through July 31, including weekends, on ABC’s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News. To determine the spin of news coverage, our analysts tallied all explicitly evaluative statements about Trump or Biden from either reporters, anchors or non-partisan sources such as experts or voters. Evaluations from partisan sources, as well as neutral statements, were not included.
As we did in 2016, we also separated personal evaluations of each candidate from statements about their prospects in the campaign horse race (i.e., standings in the polls, chances to win, etc.). While such comments can have an effect on voters (creating a bandwagon effect for those seen as winning, or demoralizing the supports of those portrayed as losing), they are not “good press” or “bad press” as understood by media scholars as far back as Michael Robinson’s groundbreaking research on the 1980 presidential campaign.
 
 

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Fact Check: Obama-Biden Removed At Least 14,000 Mailboxes


CLAIM: President Donald Trump is trying to rig the 2020 election by removing mailboxes so people can’t vote by mail.

VERDICT: FALSE. The removal — and replacement — of mailboxes is a constant part of U.S. Postal Service operations.

Democrats are trying to claim that President Trump is crippling the U.S. Postal Service because he opposes universal vote by mail, and that the removal of mailboxes in several locations throughout the country is evidence of that evil intention.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for president, gave credence to that conspiracy theory on Saturday: “I wonder if you’re outside trying to hold down your mailboxes. They’re going around literally with tractor trailers picking up mailboxes. You oughta go online and check out what they’re doing in Oregon. I mean, it’s bizarre!” he said.

But there is nothing nefarious about removing mailboxes: Biden did it himself.

More specifically, the Obama-Biden administration removed 14,000 mailboxes over the five fiscal years ending in 2017, according to the U.S. Postal Service Inspector General.

More were likely removed before that. In 2009, cost-cutting was urgent at the postal service, with the postmaster general considering reducing delivery to five or even three days per week.

As the Blaze and others noted, mailboxes are removed from locations where they are underutilized, and either retired or relocated elsewhere.

U.S. Postal Service spokesperson Kimberly Frum, told The Hill:

“It is a fluid process and figures can vary from day-to-day,” Frum said. “Historically, mail boxes have been removed for lack of use and installed in growth areas.”

“When a collection box consistently receives very small amounts of mail for months on end, it costs the Postal Service money in fuel and workhours for letter carriers to drive to the mailbox and collect the mail. Removing the box is simply good business sense in that respect. It is important to note that anyone with a residential or business mailbox can use it as a vehicle to send outgoing mail.”

The claim that removing mailboxes is somehow an attempt to steal the election is nothing more than a conspiracy theory, as Breitbart News noted — one that is being pushed by Democrats to motivate voters, and excuse a possible 2020 defeat.

In any case, the U.S. Postal Service has halted the removal of mailboxes until after the election, to avoid controversy.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His new book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

WATCH: Portland Rioters Drag Man from Car and Beat Him Senseless


A motorist was dragged from his car, forced to the ground, and beaten unconscious by Portland rioters on Sunday night, as lawlessness continues to reign with no law enforcement in sight.

The incident was reported and shared by Andy Ngo, editor at-large of the Post Millennial. The scenes are graphic.

WATCH: (NSFW)

Ngo then shared a tweet of the moments immediately preceding the assault, where the driver can be seen apparently trying to explain how and why his vehicle crashed. He is then made to sit while others search his vehicle. After trying to get up, the man is violently shoved to the ground.

Then, while the man sat on the ground apparently texting on his phone, one of the rioters who had initially confronted him ran up from behind and kicked him in the side of the head, rendering him unconscious.

Shouts of support for Black Lives Matter can be heard as other rioters began examining the man. A woman can be heard shouting multiple times to call 911 as the man lay bleeding on the street.  Police did not arrive on the scene until after the crash and the violence had already occurred. When the police began attempting to tow away the man’s vehicle, the crowd started accusing them of “protecting white supremacists.”

Portland is entering its 81st consecutive day of riots as demonstrators have moved beyond attacking federal courthouses and have now entered into residential areas. The condition of the man who was knocked unconscious is unknown.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

The USPS Just Filed A Patent For A Blockchain-Based Secure-Voting System

The USPS Just Filed A Patent For A Blockchain-Based Secure-Voting System

Tyler Durden

Mon, 08/17/2020 – 13:20

It looks like the United States Post Office is getting in the business of voting.

It has recently been unearthed that he USPS filed for a patent on February 7, 2020 for a "Secure Voting System" that uses a blockchain access layer. Obviously, this could be one of the strongest signals of a welcome adaptation to blockchain by the U.S. government since blockchain was thrust on the map by Bitcoin.

"A voting system can use the security of blockchain and the mail to provide a reliable voting system," the patent application says. "A registered voter receives a computer readable code in the mail and confirms identity and confirms correct ballot information in an election. The system separates voter identification and votes to ensure vote anonymity, and stores votes on a distributed ledger in a blockchain."

The "United States Postal Service" is listed as the applicant on the application.

"Voters generally wish to be able to vote for elected officials or on other issues in a manner that is convenient and secure," the application says. "Further, those holding elections wish to be able to ensure that election results have not been tampered with and that the results actually correspond to the votes that were cast. In some embodiments, a blockchain allows the tracking of the various types of necessary data in a way that is secure and allows others to easily confirm that data has not been altered."

Equally as interesting as the patent itself is the fact that the application was filed before the coronavirus had wreaked total havoc on the country and long before the idea of mail in voting was being tossed around by pundits and the mainstream media on the daily. 

Brian Roemmele pointed the discovery out on Twitter:

via ZeroHedge News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.zerohedge.com/fullrss2.xml

“Ghost Town”: Shocking Dystopian Video Of NYC Shows An Abandoned And Boarded Up 5th Avenue

"Ghost Town": Shocking Dystopian Video Of NYC Shows An Abandoned And Boarded Up 5th Avenue

Tyler Durden

Sat, 08/15/2020 – 12:50

De Blasio’s New York has finally hit an all-time low: the once bustling city is now on the verge of looking like a demilitarized zone. Between the pandemic and the riots in the city, iconic 5th Avenue now looks more like a dystopian nightmare in a recently shot video posted to Twitter.

The video follows a car driving down a deserted 5th Avenue, with almost all of the area’s high end stores boarded up and shut down. There are few people seen on what is usually a busy street. 

"Look at everything. Everything’s boarded up. Even the hotel. Boarded up," the video’s narrator, who is obviously fed up with how the city looks, says.

He continues: "This is all Manhattan, boarded up. Have you ever seen Manhattan look like this? The media will not report this."

"Everything boarded up. They don’t want to show this to you people because they’re afraid. Saks 5th Avenue – boarded up from end to end. They put up barbed wire. Everywhere you see boards, windows are gone. Look at New York City – what happened," he says. 

The video runs over 2 minutes and shows dozens of boarded up businesses. You can watch it here:

The video was originally posted as a response to another Tweet that seems to tell the developing tale about DeBlasio’s New York:

via ZeroHedge News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.zerohedge.com/fullrss2.xml

Barack Obama is meddling in the upcoming election


Barack Obama was never a traditional American president. After all, he was the only president ever to come to the White House manifestly disliking and being embarrassed by the country he was elected to lead. With that as a background, maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that he’s publicly meddling in the upcoming election in a way that even Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton didn’t try. (Former Republican presidents have more graciously stayed out of the fray.)

Both of Obama’s lines of attack are serious. First, he’s explicitly saying that Trump is trying to throw the election by putting his managerial skills to work to address a postal system that is in complete disarray. Second, he’s attacking his own former Vice President, who is now waiting in the wings to be officially crowned as the Democrat party’s presidential candidate.

The United States Post Office is a mess. In 2018, the Post Office had a net loss of $3.91 billion. In 2019, the net loss had more than doubled, reaching a staggering $8.81 billion. Even considering the claim that some of that money was a result of bookkeeping changes, the net loss was still almost $2 billion greater than in 2018.

Thanks to the Wuhan virus, 2020 is promising to be the worst year ever. At the end of April, the Post Office said that its first-quarter losses were already $4.5 billion. In the second quarter, the Post Office lost another $2.2 billion. It is a barely functional institution.

Nevertheless, Democrats are insisting that, come November, all voting in America must be done via the U.S. Mail, with states mailing ballots to every registered voter and the voters mailing them back. Others have pointed out that this will be a disaster, so I won’t belabor the point. It’s enough to say that the possibilities of fraud on a hitherto unknown scale are enormous. Moreover, with the Postal union just having endorsed Joe Biden, if Trump voters are forced to vote by mail, they’ll have a reasonable fear that their ballots will never get counted.

Donald Trump, looking at this mess, decided to do what he’s done for decades: Install new management to make a business better. This isn’t just his avocation; it’s also his constitutional job.

In June, Trump appointed Louis DeJoy, an experienced businessman, as his Postmaster General. DeJoy immediately set about trying to slow the financial bleeding. Democrats, of course, complained. Things really went “postal,” though, on August 7, when DeJoy reassigned or removed 23 senior postal officials. Management shuffles are a logical step to take when an organization is dysfunctional.

In our politicized age, this was going to be a hot potato under any circumstances. Still, Obama, who should be staying out of things, turned it into a nuclear potato by accusing Trump of deliberately sabotaging the election:

Barack Obama slammed President Donald Trump for trying to ‘actively kneecap’ the postal service to disenfranchise voters.

Obama did not say Trump’s name but did refer to the ‘president’ in his interview on the podcast of David Plouffe, his former campaign manager, in some of his harshest, direct criticism of Trump to date.

‘What we’ve seen in a way that is unique to modern political history is a President who is explicit in trying to discourage people from voting,’ Obama said. ‘What we’ve never seen before is a President say, ‘I’m going to try to actively kneecap the postal service to encourage voting and I will be explicit about the reason I’m doing it.’’ 

‘That’s sort of unheard of,’ he added. 

Ironically, Obama meddled on the same day that Dr. Fauci finally admitted that, if people could shop, they could also do in-person voting.

But that wasn’t the end of Obama’s meddling. There was a leak on Friday (that Obama might have planted) that Obama is unhappy with Biden’s candidacy:

[A] number of anonymously sourced quotes from Obama leaked out throughout the 2020 Biden campaign where the former president allegedly expressed doubts about his former running mates’ fitness for office.

“Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f–k things up,” one Democrat who spoke to the former president recalled him saying.

When lamenting his own diminishing relationship with the current Democratic electorate, particularly in Iowa, Obama reportedly told one 2020 candidate: “And you know who really doesn’t have it? Joe Biden.”

It sounds to me as if, with Kamala Harris now in place in the campaign, Obama is attempting to remove Biden from the picture entirely. Obama was never really going to let a senile man head the Democrat party ticket, and he may now be getting his ducks in a row to ease Biden out.

Put simply, Russia couldn’t have done a better job at interfering with a presidential election than Obama has done. Four years ago, his interference was covert and illegal. This year, it’s overt and disgusting.

Image: Obama and Biden, by Obama White House; U.S. Government work, public domain.

Barack Obama was never a traditional American president. After all, he was the only president ever to come to the White House manifestly disliking and being embarrassed by the country he was elected to lead. With that as a background, maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that he’s publicly meddling in the upcoming election in a way that even Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton didn’t try. (Former Republican presidents have more graciously stayed out of the fray.)

Both of Obama’s lines of attack are serious. First, he’s explicitly saying that Trump is trying to throw the election by putting his managerial skills to work to address a postal system that is in complete disarray. Second, he’s attacking his own former Vice President, who is now waiting in the wings to be officially crowned as the Democrat party’s presidential candidate.

The United States Post Office is a mess. In 2018, the Post Office had a net loss of $3.91 billion. In 2019, the net loss had more than doubled, reaching a staggering $8.81 billion. Even considering the claim that some of that money was a result of bookkeeping changes, the net loss was still almost $2 billion greater than in 2018.

Thanks to the Wuhan virus, 2020 is promising to be the worst year ever. At the end of April, the Post Office said that its first-quarter losses were already $4.5 billion. In the second quarter, the Post Office lost another $2.2 billion. It is a barely functional institution.

Nevertheless, Democrats are insisting that, come November, all voting in America must be done via the U.S. Mail, with states mailing ballots to every registered voter and the voters mailing them back. Others have pointed out that this will be a disaster, so I won’t belabor the point. It’s enough to say that the possibilities of fraud on a hitherto unknown scale are enormous. Moreover, with the Postal union just having endorsed Joe Biden, if Trump voters are forced to vote by mail, they’ll have a reasonable fear that their ballots will never get counted.

Donald Trump, looking at this mess, decided to do what he’s done for decades: Install new management to make a business better. This isn’t just his avocation; it’s also his constitutional job.

In June, Trump appointed Louis DeJoy, an experienced businessman, as his Postmaster General. DeJoy immediately set about trying to slow the financial bleeding. Democrats, of course, complained. Things really went “postal,” though, on August 7, when DeJoy reassigned or removed 23 senior postal officials. Management shuffles are a logical step to take when an organization is dysfunctional.

In our politicized age, this was going to be a hot potato under any circumstances. Still, Obama, who should be staying out of things, turned it into a nuclear potato by accusing Trump of deliberately sabotaging the election:

Barack Obama slammed President Donald Trump for trying to ‘actively kneecap’ the postal service to disenfranchise voters.

Obama did not say Trump’s name but did refer to the ‘president’ in his interview on the podcast of David Plouffe, his former campaign manager, in some of his harshest, direct criticism of Trump to date.

‘What we’ve seen in a way that is unique to modern political history is a President who is explicit in trying to discourage people from voting,’ Obama said. ‘What we’ve never seen before is a President say, ‘I’m going to try to actively kneecap the postal service to encourage voting and I will be explicit about the reason I’m doing it.’’ 

‘That’s sort of unheard of,’ he added. 

Ironically, Obama meddled on the same day that Dr. Fauci finally admitted that, if people could shop, they could also do in-person voting.

But that wasn’t the end of Obama’s meddling. There was a leak on Friday (that Obama might have planted) that Obama is unhappy with Biden’s candidacy:

[A] number of anonymously sourced quotes from Obama leaked out throughout the 2020 Biden campaign where the former president allegedly expressed doubts about his former running mates’ fitness for office.

“Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f–k things up,” one Democrat who spoke to the former president recalled him saying.

When lamenting his own diminishing relationship with the current Democratic electorate, particularly in Iowa, Obama reportedly told one 2020 candidate: “And you know who really doesn’t have it? Joe Biden.”

It sounds to me as if, with Kamala Harris now in place in the campaign, Obama is attempting to remove Biden from the picture entirely. Obama was never really going to let a senile man head the Democrat party ticket, and he may now be getting his ducks in a row to ease Biden out.

Put simply, Russia couldn’t have done a better job at interfering with a presidential election than Obama has done. Four years ago, his interference was covert and illegal. This year, it’s overt and disgusting.

Image: Obama and Biden, by Obama White House; U.S. Government work, public domain.

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

America’s (Current) Suicide Attempt


It’s tempting to look on current events as unprecedented, with divisions as deep as at any time since the Civil War.  An antidote to this ahistorical view is to read (or re-read) historian Paul Johnson’s 1983 Modern Times — especially the chapters titled “American’s Suicide Attempt” and “The Collective Seventies.” Moreover, what we are experiencing now, as a renewed suicide attempt gains traction, can be seen as a direct result of those policies and the misconceptions that produced them.   As Johnson sees it, a good part of the suicide attempt stemmed from the Vietnam War and the attempt by another Johnson, President Lyndon Johnson, to eradicate poverty.  

As historian Johnson sees it, President Johnson believed in the boundless capacity of the American economy to deliver.  While President Kennedy found it difficult to educate congress in his social spending ideas, to honor his memory, in the wake of his assassination in 1963, Johnson was able to pass bills to fund “The Great Society.”

 Johnson writes:

The danger of the kind of welfare state Johnson was creating was that it pushed people out of the productive economy permanently and made them dependents of the state.   Poverty increased when families split up, either by old people living apart or by divorce.   Legislation often promoted these processes.

Fast forward: the once stable black family has suffered the most. By 2018, 66 percent of black families were headed by single mothers, as were 33 percent of white families.

President Johnson also believed that education was a miracle cure.  In the golden years of expansion, new colleges were opening at the rate of one a week.  But historian Johnson reports that amassing big new groups of students led to a 49-point decline in verbal and 32-point decline in math skills in the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores.  

Fast forwarding, we find that all the money poured into education and the efforts to make the tests “culturally neutral” did nothing to close the gap in group performance on SAT scores.  Asians stubbornly outperformed, especially in math skills, and African Americans underperformed.   So what is the current “solution”?  Abolish the tests.

Paul Johnson asserts that the well-intentioned expansion of higher education had the unintended effect of fueling student violence. In 1964’s “freedom summer” the governor of California had to call in the riot police due to student violence at Berkeley.  The next year, 25,000 students invaded Washington to protest against the Vietnam War.  In 1968, the National Student Association claimed there were 221 major demonstrations at universities in America.   At the Chicago Democratic Convention in August, students fought a pitched battle with 11,900 of Mayor Daley’s police, 7,500 of the Illinois National Guard, and 1000 FBI and Secret Service agents.

In 2020, student discontent is further fueled by student debt, now about $1.56 trillion.  Increasingly, as prospects for graduates (and those who fail to graduate) ever paying off this debt — while also being able to afford marriage and raising a family — shrink, the “solution” most often offered is “Cancel the debt.”  In other words, shift the burden to the taxpayer.

The attempt by successive presidents to obtain justice for American blacks  also produced unintended effects. Johnson reports that while in the 1950s and early 1960s, Federal power had been used to protect blacks from white violence, the initiative in violence shifted to the blacks.  Johnson cites as the turning point the night of 10 May 1962, in Birmingham, Alabama.   There was a black riot, with police forced onto the defensive and white shops demolished: “Let the whole f*cking city burn,” shouted a mob leader, “This’ll show the white motherfuckers!” (Sixty years later, the rhetoric has not changed.)

To quote Johnson: “The first really big and ugly black riots broke out in Harlem and Brooklyn in 18 July 1964, only two weeks after the epoch-making Civil Rights Act was passed.   The violence spread to Rochester in New York State, to Jersey City, Paterson, and Elizabeth in New Jersey, to Dixmoor in Chicago, and Philadelphia.   In August 1965 the Watts riots in Los Angeles lasted six days, involved 15,000 National Guardsmen, killed thirty-four, injured 856 and destroyed $200 million of property…   The riots in Detroit on 24-28 July 1967 were among the most serious in American history, killing forty-three people and forcing a distraught President Johnson to move in the 18th Airborne Corps of paratroopers, whose commander said he entered a city ‘saturated with fear’.” 

What has changed fifty years later is the identification of many Democratic politicians with the rioters leading to calls (and action) to defund the police rather than punish the attackers and looters.  Traveling from city to city,   journalist Michael Tracey has documented the large-scale destruction: “From large metro areas like Chicago and Minneapolis/St. Paul, to small and mid-sized cities like Fort Wayne, Indiana and Green Bay, Wisconsin, the number of boarded up, damaged or destroyed buildings I have personally observed — commercial, civic, and residential — is staggering.”

When equal opportunity did not  rapidly produce equal results, starting in the 1970s, Johnson notes, government began to mandate that private companies receiving government funds or contacts had to employ races by quota and “…the rights of women, homosexuals, the handicapped and many other collective entities were interpreted by the courts as enforceable against powerful institutions, such as business or government.” The result, says Johnson, “A growing proportion of business resources and executive time was devoted to responding to litigation: in the 1970s, America had four times as many lawyers per capita as West Germany, twenty times as many as Japan.”

While the shutdown of the economy in response to COVID-19 has driven “climate change” from the headlines, the rise of the environmental movement may yet prove to be the most devastating legacy of America’s earlier “suicide attempt.”  Johnson reports that the ‘Conservation Congress’ of 1968 passed a series of gigantic acts to impose “Ecotopia” on American business.  

Johnson writes: “By 1976 it was calculated that compliance with the new [environmental] regulations was costing business $63 billion a year, plus a further $3 billion to the taxpayer to maintain the government regulatory agencies.   Total costs rose to over $100 billion by 1979.”

Fast forward to 2020, when activists want to replace all fossil fuel by renewable energy.  The cost of this is in the stratosphere.  Moreover, as critics have pointed out to the disinterest of the mainstream media, the net effect will be to damage the environment.  One such knowledgeable critic, Paul Driessen notes: “Just one electric car or backup-power battery weighs 1,000 pounds and requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of various ores…. The true costs of “green” energy are staggering.”

Will this second suicide attempt be more successful than the first? In many ways this round dwarfs what Paul Johnson describes. White America in that earlier era did not hate itself.  In the 1960s and 70s one could not imagine  elementary school children in one of the wealthiest counties in the United States (Lower Merion outside Philadelphia), as part of its “cultural proficiency” curriculum,  being assigned books claiming white people who relate to police officers are “complicit in racism.” An indignant parent (to whose complaint the school board did not even deign to reply) told the Washington Free Beacon: “This book teaches kids not only to defy parents but to hate themselves…”

America’s suicide attempt has been both cultural and economic.  If we do not reverse course, America will be neither a land of opportunity nor a land of freedom. 

Victor Davis Hanson offers as a best-case scenario;   “There will be a counterrevolution because without one there is not much of America left.”

It’s tempting to look on current events as unprecedented, with divisions as deep as at any time since the Civil War.  An antidote to this ahistorical view is to read (or re-read) historian Paul Johnson’s 1983 Modern Times — especially the chapters titled “American’s Suicide Attempt” and “The Collective Seventies.” Moreover, what we are experiencing now, as a renewed suicide attempt gains traction, can be seen as a direct result of those policies and the misconceptions that produced them.   As Johnson sees it, a good part of the suicide attempt stemmed from the Vietnam War and the attempt by another Johnson, President Lyndon Johnson, to eradicate poverty.  

As historian Johnson sees it, President Johnson believed in the boundless capacity of the American economy to deliver.  While President Kennedy found it difficult to educate congress in his social spending ideas, to honor his memory, in the wake of his assassination in 1963, Johnson was able to pass bills to fund “The Great Society.”

 Johnson writes:

The danger of the kind of welfare state Johnson was creating was that it pushed people out of the productive economy permanently and made them dependents of the state.   Poverty increased when families split up, either by old people living apart or by divorce.   Legislation often promoted these processes.

Fast forward: the once stable black family has suffered the most. By 2018, 66 percent of black families were headed by single mothers, as were 33 percent of white families.

President Johnson also believed that education was a miracle cure.  In the golden years of expansion, new colleges were opening at the rate of one a week.  But historian Johnson reports that amassing big new groups of students led to a 49-point decline in verbal and 32-point decline in math skills in the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores.  

Fast forwarding, we find that all the money poured into education and the efforts to make the tests “culturally neutral” did nothing to close the gap in group performance on SAT scores.  Asians stubbornly outperformed, especially in math skills, and African Americans underperformed.   So what is the current “solution”?  Abolish the tests.

Paul Johnson asserts that the well-intentioned expansion of higher education had the unintended effect of fueling student violence. In 1964’s “freedom summer” the governor of California had to call in the riot police due to student violence at Berkeley.  The next year, 25,000 students invaded Washington to protest against the Vietnam War.  In 1968, the National Student Association claimed there were 221 major demonstrations at universities in America.   At the Chicago Democratic Convention in August, students fought a pitched battle with 11,900 of Mayor Daley’s police, 7,500 of the Illinois National Guard, and 1000 FBI and Secret Service agents.

In 2020, student discontent is further fueled by student debt, now about $1.56 trillion.  Increasingly, as prospects for graduates (and those who fail to graduate) ever paying off this debt — while also being able to afford marriage and raising a family — shrink, the “solution” most often offered is “Cancel the debt.”  In other words, shift the burden to the taxpayer.

The attempt by successive presidents to obtain justice for American blacks  also produced unintended effects. Johnson reports that while in the 1950s and early 1960s, Federal power had been used to protect blacks from white violence, the initiative in violence shifted to the blacks.  Johnson cites as the turning point the night of 10 May 1962, in Birmingham, Alabama.   There was a black riot, with police forced onto the defensive and white shops demolished: “Let the whole f*cking city burn,” shouted a mob leader, “This’ll show the white motherfuckers!” (Sixty years later, the rhetoric has not changed.)

To quote Johnson: “The first really big and ugly black riots broke out in Harlem and Brooklyn in 18 July 1964, only two weeks after the epoch-making Civil Rights Act was passed.   The violence spread to Rochester in New York State, to Jersey City, Paterson, and Elizabeth in New Jersey, to Dixmoor in Chicago, and Philadelphia.   In August 1965 the Watts riots in Los Angeles lasted six days, involved 15,000 National Guardsmen, killed thirty-four, injured 856 and destroyed $200 million of property…   The riots in Detroit on 24-28 July 1967 were among the most serious in American history, killing forty-three people and forcing a distraught President Johnson to move in the 18th Airborne Corps of paratroopers, whose commander said he entered a city ‘saturated with fear’.” 

What has changed fifty years later is the identification of many Democratic politicians with the rioters leading to calls (and action) to defund the police rather than punish the attackers and looters.  Traveling from city to city,   journalist Michael Tracey has documented the large-scale destruction: “From large metro areas like Chicago and Minneapolis/St. Paul, to small and mid-sized cities like Fort Wayne, Indiana and Green Bay, Wisconsin, the number of boarded up, damaged or destroyed buildings I have personally observed — commercial, civic, and residential — is staggering.”

When equal opportunity did not  rapidly produce equal results, starting in the 1970s, Johnson notes, government began to mandate that private companies receiving government funds or contacts had to employ races by quota and “…the rights of women, homosexuals, the handicapped and many other collective entities were interpreted by the courts as enforceable against powerful institutions, such as business or government.” The result, says Johnson, “A growing proportion of business resources and executive time was devoted to responding to litigation: in the 1970s, America had four times as many lawyers per capita as West Germany, twenty times as many as Japan.”

While the shutdown of the economy in response to COVID-19 has driven “climate change” from the headlines, the rise of the environmental movement may yet prove to be the most devastating legacy of America’s earlier “suicide attempt.”  Johnson reports that the ‘Conservation Congress’ of 1968 passed a series of gigantic acts to impose “Ecotopia” on American business.  

Johnson writes: “By 1976 it was calculated that compliance with the new [environmental] regulations was costing business $63 billion a year, plus a further $3 billion to the taxpayer to maintain the government regulatory agencies.   Total costs rose to over $100 billion by 1979.”

Fast forward to 2020, when activists want to replace all fossil fuel by renewable energy.  The cost of this is in the stratosphere.  Moreover, as critics have pointed out to the disinterest of the mainstream media, the net effect will be to damage the environment.  One such knowledgeable critic, Paul Driessen notes: “Just one electric car or backup-power battery weighs 1,000 pounds and requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of various ores…. The true costs of “green” energy are staggering.”

Will this second suicide attempt be more successful than the first? In many ways this round dwarfs what Paul Johnson describes. White America in that earlier era did not hate itself.  In the 1960s and 70s one could not imagine  elementary school children in one of the wealthiest counties in the United States (Lower Merion outside Philadelphia), as part of its “cultural proficiency” curriculum,  being assigned books claiming white people who relate to police officers are “complicit in racism.” An indignant parent (to whose complaint the school board did not even deign to reply) told the Washington Free Beacon: “This book teaches kids not only to defy parents but to hate themselves…”

America’s suicide attempt has been both cultural and economic.  If we do not reverse course, America will be neither a land of opportunity nor a land of freedom. 

Victor Davis Hanson offers as a best-case scenario;   “There will be a counterrevolution because without one there is not much of America left.”

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/