Tag Archives: racism

Finding Peace in the Midst of Racism and Identity Politics

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)

There is hope, even in these turbulent times. The spirit of the world is divisive, angry, hateful and racist. Those forces can deeply affect how we view ourselves and those around us. But looking to Jesus brings us clarity, charity and peace.

Increasing racial tensions can quickly resurrect old wounds and cause them to burn with a vengeance. We can find bitterness an easy path to take, but it is one which wounds us even more deeply.

In our broken world, we are all wounded, often deeply, by the differences that divide us. Racism – and other divisive beliefs and attitudes – permeate this world, wounding and dividing us. But we can be at peace – and be peacemakers – in the midst of this turmoil.

Jesus rejected racism and identity politics. In Him, we “are all one” – transcending all racial, class and gender distinctions. Jesus prayed to our Father: “ I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one – I in them and you in me – so that they may be brought to complete unity” (John 17:22-23).

How is that possible? Because we have Christ incarnate in us. The glory Jesus gave us is Himself.

We are a new creation in Jesus Christ, who reconciled us to God and “gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:17-18).

Now, we can have healing in our hearts and in our relationships through Jesus Christ. Jesus can – and will – heal our deepest wounds and soften the hardness of our own hearts.

At the cross, we see other people by the value of His blood. We see people of infinite worth in God’s eyes. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

We all need transformed hearts that are redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ.

It is especially at troubled times like these that we must listen to and talk with one another. In so doing – in extending the grace, love and forgiveness of God to others – we minister to them and bring reconciliation.

Let us not get caught up in the superficial, the outward appearance, but rather look to one another as equals – brothers and sisters of Christ who are all equal at the foot of the cross.

Let us love one another, as God loves us.

Advertisements

Racial Madness

Four blacks kidnapped and tortured a white mentally-challenged man while using “terrible racist statements.” (Torture streamed on Facebook Live!)

racial-madness

The Washington Post suggested it was inconsequential. CNN called it a “hazing.” One CNN panelist actually blamed Trump! NBC argued the thugs were not “truly trying to be criminal.” (Imagine saying that about the abominable Dylann Roof.)

The Chicago police refused to call it a hate crime. When is a hate crime not a hate crime? When its committed by blacks against a white male.

In related news, a university professor tweeted “All I Want for Christmas is White Genocide.” This professor remains employed.

Racial Healing Aborted

Barack Obama promised racial healing in America and racial tensions reached new heights under his presidency.

Despite Obama winning the presidency twice in a majority white nation, the racial grievance industry took control of the national debate. (No, not the KKK; the BLM.)

Phony Black Lives Matter narratives filled the airwaves, Internet, and social media.

Enslaved and energized by identity politics – and rejecting the promises and realities of Martin Luther King’s famous dream – the Black Lives Matter movement employed a range of racial myths to create a constituency and gain power and prestige. (Let’s not forget the money.)

quote-abraham-lincoln-freed-the-black-man-in-many-ways-dr-king-freed-the-white-man-how-did-ronald-reagan-137-80-36

Some of these narratives (e.g., “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”) have been proven totally false, yet they retain a visceral power which overwhelms reason and reality.

From Ferguson to Baltimore and across the nation, Black Lives Matter propaganda has destroyed communities and created chaos.

Riots are called “protests.” Murder is deemed “social justice.”

Root Causes

So-called “white privilege” is the latest bogeyman. But blacks are not victims of a fictitious “institutionalized white racism” or presumed “white privilege.”

Rather, some blacks are victims of a fifty-year-old War on Poverty and a welfare state which has become the new plantation – created by Democrats who treat them as children. The paternalistic state gone awry.

The welfare statenot white racism – has created generational poverty, generational broken homes, and a cultural of dependency justified by allegations that blacks are victims of white racism and the legacy of slavery.

Consequently, perceiving themselves to be victims, many feel entitled to whatever they can get from the government, becoming dependent upon that government. With it, comes rage against the injustices they perceive have been perpetrated against them. And with that comes a culture of irresponsibility.

quote-white-liberals-are-the-most-racist-people-there-are-because-they-put-blacks-in-a-box-benjamin-carson-93-91-53

David French observes, “When you celebrate thugs, you get more thugs.” He laments a “depraved culture” and “breakdown in law and order.”

French concludes: “Our nation’s social fabric is fraying — nowhere more than in Chicago. This is the Left’s city, a foundation of its national power. How many more people have to die before it changes course?”

Contemporary dysfunctional black communities are not rooted in America’s founding. Rather, one need only look to Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and subsequent iterations of the welfare state and the adoption of progressive policies and political correctness to see the development and escalation of dysfunctional pathologies in some black (and a growing number of white) communities.

America No Longer Needs to Apologize for Slavery

My MSNBC Op-Ed (7/2/97), entitled, “America has acknowledged mistakes,” is as relevant today as it was twenty years ago. Here it is:

Kimberle Crenshaw writes about passionate “white opposition” to a formal apology for slavery (neglecting to mention the many blacks who oppose it as well). While citing their objections (in her terms: “personal denial,” “finger pointing,” “traditional historicizing,” and “new-age globalizing”), she fails to refute any of those arguments. She doesn’t even try.

Instead, Crenshaw questions the motives of those opposed to an apology, saying it “reflects a deep unwillingness to desegregate American history and to integrate American self-identity.” Self-flagellation is not my self-identity.

Crenshaw contrasts post-slave, post-apartheid societies with non-slave, non-apartheid ones, failing to note that all societies are at least post-slave and, even today, many societies remain slave societies. (Why is the Left always willing to condemn America but praise our enemies?)

Crenshaw accuses the right of explaining away the black underclass as a result of “inherent characteristics.” Wrong! The right recognizes that the welfare state promotes self-destructive behaviors and the underclass is enslaved to the welfare state. Let’s forget apologies and free the underclass.

Crenshaw desires “historical closure.” Most Americans have experienced “closure” with past slavery. Constantly tearing at the scab only causes the wound to bleed.

Par for the course, Crenshaw criticizes America’s Founding Fathers for expressing the ideals of liberty for all while condoning slavery. No one disputes the divergence of these ideals and their implementation.

Crenshaw insists that whites – and American culture itself – are in a state of denial about slavery (and other historical atrocities). Denial? Our cultural elites positively revel in past American misdeeds (while glossing over our triumphs and glories).

Is Crenshaw really suggesting that Americans are denying historical slavery? Is she subtly suggesting a moral equivalence between this perceived denial and those who deny the Holocaust?

Tragically, while her ancestors may have been enslaved in chains, Crenshaw (and others) have enslaved themselves to the past. She desires “a reopening of American historical memory,” as if anyone could “forget” American slavery. She wants an acknowledgement of America’s “tragic mistakes” but Americans have already acknowledged them.

We are fast approaching a new millennium. Isn’t it time to put the past behind us, to let the wounds heal, to live for the future? Until we do, this schizophrenic identity crisis will only exacerbate the already tumultuous times we are living in.

7 Stages of Trump Recovery

Some worshippers called Donald Trump the Savior of America and of civilization itself.[1] They believed Trump could save the nation from the Establishment[2] and statism[3] which it promotes.

7 Stages of Trump Recovery

Instead, Trump has only sacrificed them on the cross of his own ego.

Trump was never – and never could have been – their or our Savior. Trump has always been a part of the Establishment his followers detest. His entire life is one of self-interest and self-aggrandizement fueled by an unrelenting narcissism.

Yet many who believed in him did so because of, not in spite of, his delusions of grandeur. They were looking for a strong man to save the Republic and, instead, nominated a bully[4] and would-be tyrant.[5]

From the beginning, Trump was destined to lose.[6] A liberal posing as a conservative and running as a Republican could never win against a liberal (or even a socialist) running as a Democrat.[7]

Despite Trump’s daily lies and reversals of policy positions,[8] his support surged among the faithful. Even when it was obvious that Trump was mentally unhinged,[9] his followers persisted. Even though Trump’s core “principles” became “flexible” and “negotiable,”[10] they insisted that Trump would do what they want him to do.

When Trump loses – and he will lose – Trump worshippers will have to reconcile themselves to reality. Some won’t. Some are as obstinate and bullying as Trump. Narcissists don’t know how to repent or how to admit error.

For those who are capable of facing reality and being held accountable, this handy outline was designed just for you:

CpmnMOuXEAEy59t.jpg large

#NeverTrump has proven itself faithful to the core principles upon which America was founded, the very principles espoused and defended by Ted Cruz.[11]

In contrast, #ForeverTrump forever owes a debt to America.

In the end, we will all have to live with the end of the American Experiment.[12]

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Meet Ann Coulter’s Savior” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bM.

[2]               See “CPAC: Brits Seek Independence (and so should we)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eT.

[3]               See “CPAC: Death by a 1,000 Pens” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eV.

[4]               See “Bully Boy Trump” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-df.

[5]               See “Why Brad Thor is #NeverTrump! Litmus test is liberty!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-fb.

[6]               See “Only Trump Can Lose!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dA.

[7]               See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

[8]               See “Coulter Admits Trump is a Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cf.

[9]               See “Coulter Goes Mental Over Her ‘Mental’ Candidate” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-d8.

[10]             See “Coulter Logic (she wants candidate who won’t pursue her agenda)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dQ.

[11]             See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

[12]             See “The End of the American Experiment?” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eZ.

Left Topsy-Turvy on American Revolution and Brexit

As America celebrates another birthday and the British people celebrated their Brexit vote for freedom from tyranny to a supranational bureaucracy, the heart and soul of the American Left again exposed itself as statist and globalist.

American Revolution & Brexit

Exhibit A: Steve Pincus. His recent Washington Post article attempts to paint Brexit supporters and the Republican Party as racist, anti-American xenophobes. In his introductory and subsequent paragraphs, Pincus inextricably links pro-Brexit forces with the agenda and sentiments of American conservatives and Pincus finds them wanting.

His headline asserts, “No, Brexit was not Britain’s ‘Declaration of Independence.’ It was the exact opposite.” Pincus couldn’t be more wrong.

His subheading: “The American founders would revile the pro-‘leave’ camp.” Again, his conclusion is contrary to everything we know about the Founding Fathers.

Nevertheless, Pincus contends, “But they’ve got America’s founding document exactly backward. The original American patriots would be horrified to hear their opus invoked in the service of Brexit.”

Pincus makes two striking, and strikingly wrong, claims.

Open vs. Controlled Borders

Pincus’ first strikingly wrong claim is that our Founders and the Framers of our Constitution, favored open borders. Pincus claims, “The founders called for a government that would allow for free movement of goods and peoples.”

Actually, American colonists sought control over their own borders. They vehemently opposed a power across the Atlantic Ocean determining their fate and enacting laws without their consent and contrary to their wishes.

Pincus cites the Declaration: “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.”

No “open borders” here. What did the Founders actually seek? How do we interpret that portion of the Declaration? By what the Founders did. As noted by Heritage Foundation (emphasis added):

“Congress passed the first ‘uniform Rule of Naturalization’ under the new Constitution in March 1790. It allowed ‘any alien, being a free white person’ and ‘of good character’ who had resided in the United States for two years to become a ‘citizen of the United States’ by taking an oath in court ‘to support the constitution of the United States.’”

The very first Congress actually limited and circumscribed immigration by a clear set of criteria, looking for emigres from the Northwestern European nations which had settled America.

Heritage continues (emphasis added): “Key criteria for citizenship of the Naturalization Act of 1795 remain part of American law. These include (1) five years of (lawful) residence within the United States; (2) a ‘good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States’; (3) the taking of a formal oath to support the Constitution and to renounce any foreign allegiance; and (4) the renunciation of any hereditary titles.”

In contrast to the Founders’ wishes and the law of the land, today illegal aliens celebrate their Mexican holidays while burning the American flag and promoting the overthrow of the American government. Our Founders would have put a stop to this.

Activist vs. Limited Government

Pincus’ second strikingly wrong claim is that our Founders and the Framers of our Constitution favored an activist government. (Hence the subtitle of his new book.[1])

According to Pincus, “America’s founders celebrated the creative potential of the state to promote the general welfare and happiness of the people; they wanted an activist government – one that would intervene in the economy to promote growth.”

To buttress his claim, Pincus cites the Second Continental Congress: “Government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end.”

But what did the crafters of our Republic actually mean by “welfare?” The Founders sought to promote the “general welfare and happiness of the people” by securing liberty! They understood that a free people – being secured in their liberty and able to use their God-given gifts as they deemed best – could, in today’s parlance, “maximize their potential,” strengthen their local communities, and improve the general welfare of the nation.

Our Founding Fathers fought for freedom and limited government to preserve that freedom.

Pincus clearly regards FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights” as superior to, and countermanding, our Founders’ original Bill of Rights. FDR’s progressive economic bill of rights seeks equality of outcome through government force while the Framers of our Constitution, with their political bill of rights, sought to maximize freedom and, thus, equality of opportunity.

Progressives like Pincus agree with President Obama’s assessment that America is fundamentally flawed[2] and, therefore, needs to be fundamentally transformed.[3] The Founders, Framers, and generations of Americans heartily disagree.[4] Middle America seeks to reclaim its heritage,[5] one built upon a Judeo-Christian ethos[6] which cherished liberty.

Similarly, progressives like Pincus, the Obamas, and the Clintons seek to eviscerate nationalism and elevate supranational and global institutions. In doing so, they willfully dismiss, like willing dupes,[7] the nexus between the immigration and terrorism crises.[8]

Progressives follow Hillary Clinton’s It Takes a Village (i.e., big government) when our great nation was founded on the premise that the primary duty of government is the protection of the People at home (law enforcement) and abroad (national defense) – and from government itself (Constitution).

Nationalism vs. Supra-nationalism

At heart, America as a Nation and a People matters little to these progressives who prefer to use American power and ideals against her in pursuit of their own globalist utopian goals.

Pincus equates “English First” pro-Brexit voters with the resurgence of contemporary America Firsters inspired by Donald Trump. To some degree he is correct, yet he regards that as a bad thing.

The heart and core of the Brexit Vote was to liberate the British people from the bureaucratic behemoth of the European Union’s usurpation of national sovereignty[9] and abrogation of the will of the People. Similarly, Middle America seeks its own independence from a draconian federal government[10] which serves its own needs and purposes while thwarting those whom they purportedly serve.

But Pincus again twists the historical record, asserting that late 18th-century Britons wanted the American colonists (legal settlers all) to pay their “fair share,” likening them to illegal aliens in America, today.

In reality, the American colonists – who were all self-supporting and obviously did not rely on a non-existent welfare state for survival – disagreed with the Mother Country and insisted upon, “No taxation without representation.” Our forefathers, like us, preferred a free market system without undue taxation and regulation, the very things Pincus and his lot pursue.

In his tract (and presumably in his forthcoming book as well), Pincus skirts this crucial reality: the majority of the colonists came from Britain and shared legal, linguistic, political, social, cultural, and spiritual similarities with the British realm.

Those brave men and women who gave birth to this great nation were brothers and sisters by blood who forged a new nation by creed. That creed – “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” – is central to our identity as Americans.

Individual rights, not collective rights; equality of opportunity, not of outcome; reverence for God, not for the State.

As Americans, we should celebrate the greatness of America as achieved by the Providence of God through the wisdom of the Founders and we should strive to return to our roots, to restore that vision of “government of the People, by the People, and for the People,” eschewing the liberty-denying statism of the Progressive vision.

Let us reinvigorate the American experiment that it may not perish from the earth.

God bless America!

Endnotes:

[1]              Pincus’ historical revisionism is apparent in the title to his forthcoming book, Heart of the Declaration: The Founders’ Case for an Activist Government.

[2]              See “Obama’s America – Fundamentally Flawed” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-1h.

[3]              See “Flags Depict Obama’s Fundamental Transformation of America and the World” at http://t.co/xjupplSWD1.

[4]              See “American Exceptionalism is in the Eye of the Beholder” at http://t.co/UDFIbFm5hr.

[5]              See “Reclaiming America!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-9V.

[6]              See “CPAC: America’s Christian Heritage Denied” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8E.

[7]              See “Willful Blindness to Reality” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-c9.

[8]              See “Member of European Parliament Links Terrorism with Immigration Crisis” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-e8.

[9]              See “CPAC: Brits Seek Independence (and so should we)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eT.

[10]            See “CPAC: Death by a 1,000 Pens” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eV.

How to Talk to a Bully (if you must)

The Donald (Trump, that is) is at it again. This time he plays the victim of a Vast Right-Wing Establishment Conspiracy. (What other traits does he share with Hillary?[1])

Bully

Someone should tell Trump that exhibiting a persecution complex[2] is not particularly appealing for a presidential candidate.

Piqued at sarcasm and hyperbole from Fox News, which so humorously lampooned Trump’s self-evident habit of demonizing his foes (always in a yuuuge way!), Trump revealed just how thin-skinned he really is.

Even his staunchest ally, Ann Coulter, has proven that she is little more than a humorless ideologue. Coulter’s forte is her lightning-quick wit, which balances Trump’s more thundering and blunt-force-trauma brand of humor.

But Coulter, who has perfected the Orwellian technique[3] of carpet-bombing “enemies of the moment,” often with hyperbole and sarcasm, now seems oblivious to the very types of rhetoric which she employs so effortlessly.

Fox News Press Release

What prompted such fear and loathing from Trump and his surrogates?

Fox News issued this press release:

“We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president – a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.”

What was Coulter’s response to “the press release an allegedly professional news organization?”

“So when Fox issued a smart-ass press release yesterday, Trump walked. He decided to do a charity event for veterans instead – which will have a lot more viewers than any debate sans Trump.”[4]

Chiding Fox for “such a sophomoric attack” in its “trivial and self-important press release,” the queen of snippy soundbites decries its “snippy press release.”

Speaking on MSNBC, Coulter complained about this “shocking” press release, claiming, “monopolies can get arrogant and there does seem to be a little bit of arrogance here.[5]

Talking to a Bully

Speaking of arrogance (which Coulter and Trump have in spades!), when did narcissism become a virtue? Or brash pomposity? Why do we listen to nattering narcissists and blustering blowhards?[6]

Humility is a trait neither Trump nor Coulter possess. Both refuse to “back down” under any circumstances. Both have proudly claimed they have no need of repentance. Both demonize their foes. And both claim to be victims in the aftermath of their own self-generated controversies.

Coulter has claimed to blindly worship her Savior, Donald Trump,[7] and continually extols his courage, love of country, and sense of humor. But Fox’s humor-laden press release is not funny? Perhaps it hit too close to the mark!

Fox News was spot on! If Trump can’t debate conservatives in a conservative-friendly foreign, how can he stand up to tyrants and terrorists at home and abroad? Trump can dish it out but he can’t take it.

The “allegedly professional news organization,” as Coulter put it, said nothing more controversial than Trump has been saying since he announced his candidacy. Trump’s words (like Coulter’s) are designed to provoke. They are provocative for provocation’s sake (and to generate publicity).

Still, Coulter constantly defends herself and Trump, claiming their most outrageous remarks are “just jokes.” For Coulter and Trump, calling people “bimbos” is standard fare.[8]

Mockery is the best way to talk to a bully![9]

Trump – Phony Candidate!

Neither Coulter nor Trump are above lying to achieve their goals: the bogus birther charge is exhibit one.[10]

Trump and Coulter believe that sheer will to powerdevoid of conservative principles – will lead to their victory and America’s salvation. Hubris saves[11] (in their minds)! But America can ill afford yet another big government, crony capitalist RINO.[12]

Coulter credits herself with giving Trump his message[13] and views herself as the Harriet Beecher Stowe to Trump’s Lincoln.[14] But Trump is no Lincoln (or Reagan) and Coulter is no Stowe.

Trump has proven his aversion to Christian character, conduct, and creed. His authoritarian nature, pronouncements, and promises seem devoid of deference to the Constitution that he would have to swear to uphold. (Isn’t one Obama enough?)

Trump’s flawed financial background (how many bankruptcies?) and New York (liberal social and fiscal) Values should give pause to any conservative contemplating a Trump presidency. He is a political opportunist adept at self-promotion.

At best, Trump’s Christian, conservative, and constitutionalist credentials are sparse. Very sparse indeed.

Trump has nothing in common with the Great Emancipator or the Great Communicator.[15] There is no there, there. Accomplished hucksters need not apply!

Update: After his ignominious defeat in Iowa, a chagrined Trump blamed the Iowa voters for his abysmal performance.

Endnotes:

[1]               See “HRC: A Caricature of the Left” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-94.

[2]               See Chapter 6: “I Am Victim, Hear Me Whine,” The Beauty of Conservatism, 2011, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

[3]               See Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, 2014, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

[4]               Ann Coulter, “Trump Is Wise to Walk Out on ‘Trivial,’ ‘Self-Important’ Fox News,” Hollywood Reporter, 1/28/16.

[5]               Ann Coulter, Hardball, MSNBC, 1/27/16.

[6]               See Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[7]               See “Meet Ann Coulter’s Savior” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bM.

[8]               See “Ann Coulter, Bimbo” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bS.

[9]               See “Islamists Fear Cartoons” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-9Z.

[10]             See “Birther Coulter Births More Lies” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bI.

[11]             See Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[12]             See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

[13]             See “Coulter Trumped Up” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7Q.

[14]             See “Coulter’s Know-Nothing American Party” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bP.

[15]             See “Remembering Reagan” at http://t.co/GYAescwhYa.

Left Fixated on Mythical, White, Right-Wing Extremists!

The Left has gone bonkers again, this time over the Oregon rancher standoff.

Mythical

As reported by Infowars (emphasis added):

“Numerous voices are calling for a literal bloodbath in Oregon – and the exercise of unilateral government power to kill the individuals involved, including supporters. It is an armed and highly-charged, but so far peaceful situation that is, nonetheless, rooted firmly in civil disobedience and principle. But that hasn’t stopped opponents from calling for them to be treated like domestic terrorists.”

The Left is incoherently outraged, making spurious racial charges and demonizing whites, conservatives, law enforcement, and the media over alleged racial and political bias in favor of whites and conservatives. (What world do they live in?)

In the Age of Islamic Terrorists, the Left continues to be obsessed with alleged white, right-wing extremists! Why this obsession? Two reasons. One – they are white.[1] Two – they are conservative. But are they extremists? In the mind of the Left, yes. To more rational human beings, no.

Salon Leads the Charge!

Headline: “No happy ending in Oregon: We can’t reward white, right-wing extremists every time they pull a gun and threaten violence”

How is not wantonly killing protesters engaged in legitimate, peaceful, civil disobedience rewarding them? They have a right to protest! (First Amendment: “the right to peaceably assemble.”)

How often do “white, right-wing extremists” “pull a gun and threaten violence?”

The writers at Salon apparently think it is very often.

But, are these justice-seeking ranchers really extremists? And, are they threatening violence? No and no. They are engaged in a peaceful protest, an act of civil disobedience which, if conducted by liberals, would be treated as a noble act of social justice.

Salon’s lead paragraph claimed that the ranchers “are protesting perceived overreach from the federal government.”

Except, of course, the federal overreach is far more than perceived. It is very, very real. The convicted ranchers have already served time for trumped-up charges.

Salon graciously declined to call them “terrorists,” preferring the term “separatists,” because of “the group’s refusal to acknowledge the federal government”

Except, of course, the so-called “separatists” want neither separation nor an emasculated federal government. They want a federal government which operates within the framework of the Constitution.

Salon then compared these white “separatists” “with black protesters and Occupy Wall Street.” Salon claimed that the encampments of “peaceful, unarmed [Occupy Wall Street] protesters” “were brutally dismantled by law enforcement. Police didn’t hesitate to use tear gas, rubber bullets and batons to clear them out.”

Except, of course, Occupy Wall Street activists were far from peaceful and it often took weeks for the government to respond. Indeed, OWS encampments occupied entire parks in the nation’s capital, and other U.S. cities, for months!

Salon also claimed, “Nor was there any hesitation to call in the National Guard on Black Lives Matter protesters in Baltimore. So far, the Malheur occupiers are meeting no such resistance.”

Except, of course, the Baltimore “protesters” were violent rioters and looters committing mayhem while Baltimore authorities actually dillydallied in seeking assistance, choosing instead to give them “space to destroy.” The rioters wanted to purge the city.[2] In contrast, the so-called “separatists” have harmed and threatened no one.

Having made a false equivalence while distorting the facts, Salon then pitched its message:

“This discrepancy is important. Peaceful, left-wing protesters are fair game for state violence. But when armed anti-government zealots seize federal property and promise to defend themselves, law enforcement takes time for tact, maybe even negotiation.”

Salon fabricated so-called “state violence” against allegedly “Peaceful, left-wing protesters.” The actual violence of Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter is uncontestable. Moreover, their violent rhetoric encourages more violence as they call for the assassination of their foes and the burning of cities. Their nihilistic sense of “justice” is the killing of those they hate.

In contrast, the “separatists,” as Salon calls them, are defending themselves from government overreach.

Salon concluded, “more important, we cannot reward white, right-wing extremists every time they pull a gun and threaten violence. And if there is bloodshed, there is real danger it will spread like the Hammonds’ own fire.”

If only Salon had the courage to challenge left-wing movements which really are violent! And what do we make of Leftists who want these “separatists” to be killed? Are Leftists really peaceful and supportive of the rule of law? Or are they selective in the law’s application?

Protester, Separatist, or Terrorist?

At least Salon did not call the ranchers “terrorists!” Others on the Left were not so sanguine.

As pointed out by Tammy Bruce, “No one’s at risk. There’s no one in the vicinity. They happen to have their firearms. That’s their lifestyle.” In contrast, “the 2011 takeover of Wisconsin’s capitol building by union activists resulted in millions of dollars in damages, yet no one considered referring to them as terrorists.” (Did you see the video at the time? Anarchy and wanton destruction!)

Alan Colmes, on the other hand, focused on race and ethnicity, claiming, “If you had Muslims here it would be called domestic terrorism,” apparently believing the white “separatists” should be called “terrorists.” In fact, Islamic terrorism is the terrorism threat endangering Americans today.[3]

The Left continues to be obsessed with the race of individuals,[4] rather than the nature of their actions. If whites or conservatives do it, it must be bad; if minorities or liberals do it, it must be good.

Justified Civil Disobedience

David French made some salient observations. Having analyzed the original court case, French observed, “What emerges is a picture of a federal agency that will use any means necessary, including abusing federal anti-terrorism statutes, to increase government landholdings.” It’s all about a land-grab by the government.

According to the ranchers, in the 1990s, “the government then began a campaign of harassment designed to force the family to sell its land, beginning with barricaded roads and arbitrarily revoked grazing permits and culminating in an absurd anti-terrorism prosecution based largely on two ‘arsons’ that began on private land but spread to the Refuge.”

French added, “There’s a clear argument that the government engaged in an overzealous, vindictive prosecution here. … To the outside observer, it appears the government has attempted to crush private homeowners and destroy their livelihood in a quest for even more land.”

Unlike Leftist protests this decade (think Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, various college campus protests), these ranchers are occupying “a vacant federal building in the middle of nowhere, and there is no reported threat to innocent bystanders.”

Yet, some on the Left want the federal government to crack down on the ranchers with “shoot to kill” orders because they are white conservatives who do not fit the liberal narrative for social justice activists.

French concluded: “Yet now they’re off to prison once again – not because they had to go or because they harmed any other person but because the federal government has pursued them like a pack of wolves. They are victims of an all-too-common injustice. Ranchers and other landowners across the country find themselves chafing under the thumb of an indifferent and even oppressive federal government. Now is the time for peaceful protest. If it gets the public to pay attention, it won’t have been in vain.”

Are these ranchers “right-wing extremists” and “terrorists” as the Left would have you believe? Or are they simply American citizens seeking justice from a tyrannical government through peaceful civil disobedience?

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Guilty of Being White” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-17.

[2]               See “Baltimore ‘Purged’” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8S.

[3]               See “Willful Blindness to Reality” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-c9.

[4]               See “Identity Politics Is the Problem” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-1l.

Race Myths Exposed!

Ben Shapiro provided an excellent analysis of the Baltimore riots and debunked five liberal race myths. Shapiro writes, “But the riots should also demonstrate conclusively that leftist myths about what drives race riots are just that: myths.”

Myths

They are:

  • The “White Police” Myth.
  • The “Evil Police Chief” Myth.
  • The “Evil Mayor” Myth.
  • The “Disproportionate White Power Structure” Myth.
  • The “Not Enough Government” Myth.

Shapiro concludes:

“Modern race riots do not occur because of the supposed white superstructure or a legacy of governmental underservice. They occur because valueless rioters act in valueless ways. Baltimore is evidence that glossing over lack of values with leftist pabulum about social justice doesn’t stop cities from burning.”