White Leftists and Black Savages UNITE; Gather to DUMP AMERICA FOR THEIR FASCIST RULE!

 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, POLICING, RACE

THE LATEST ANTI-POLICE FRAUD

In Columbus, Ohio, police got a 911 call about a potential murder in progress: “On one of the calls, a frantic young woman is heard begging an emergency operator to send an officer to an address on the east side of Columbus on Tuesday afternoon.” Officers responded to the call and found a young woman in the process of stabbing another woman with a knife:

One of the police officers tried to get the aggressor’s attention and, failing that, shot her. His actions may have saved the intended victim’s life, but his own life has probably been ruined forever. Here is a video of the incident. It unfolded faster than I can follow, and the officer is a good shot:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/2403426.html

The would-be stabber was 16 years old. Her name was Ma’Khia Bryant. This attempted murderer is the new poster child for purported police brutality. The Biden administration is fully on board with this theme, no matter how poorly it applies to an incident where the police officer likely saved the real victim’s life. The appalling Jen Psaki irrationally characterized this incident as one of “police violence” and “racism and implicit bias,” even though the woman whom the officer saved was black:https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=powerlineUS&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1384918061875187712&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Farchives%2F2021%2F04%2Fthe-latest-anti-police-fraud.php&sessionId=cef45df788ab97e45421e9b9215e51d5b86b824d&siteScreenName=powerlineUS&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ff2e7cf%3A1618526400629&width=550px

We all know where this is going. The would-be murderer Ma’Khia Bryant will be lionized with fulsome tributes. Her relatives will become multi-millionaires. The intended victim may side with her would-be murderer; there is plenty of money to go around.

Already some liberals on Twitter have said that knife fights among teenage black girls are perfectly normal, even when only one of the combatants has a knife, and law enforcement should stay out of them. The endless corruption of race hustling will continue, and as always, poor blacks will be the ones who suffer the most as police forces across the country pull back lest they be accused of “racism” if they try to do their jobs.

America Being INVADED FROM WITHIN!

IndoctriNation: No. 1 U.S. High School Pushes Racist Activism On Students

Parents got zero prior notice to submit opt-out forms or review curriculum before students were told to watch videos claiming ‘white culture’ includes ‘individualism’ and ‘objectivity.’

By Asra Q. Nomani at the Federalist:

FAIRFAX COUNTY, Va. — Late last month, Suparna Dutta’s son, a student at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, started sending his mother distressing videos from a mandatory lesson straight out of controversial critical race theory — all in the name of “socio-emotional learning.”

The lesson centered a Netflix film, “13th,” with controversial activist and Communist Party member Angela Davis and a biased narrative about policing in the United States. While all discrimination must be eliminated in policing, the film has this odd takeaway: “Criminals are constitutionally deprived of freedom.”

Also unsettling, the PowerPoint slides had the distinct bright yellow three stripes that are the official brand of Black Lives Matter, the multimillion-dollar global enterprise. The slides included a key BLM mantra, “Racism as a structure,” with the menacing oversized finger of a white man over a cowering young black man.

For about 36 minutes, teachers lectured the students—who are about 70 percent Asian, 10 percent black, Hispanic, and multiracial, and 20 percent white—about the critical race theory concept of “intersectionality” and called out the mostly minority students of color for their alleged “racism,” stating without any evidence: “At T.J., the lack of diversity and informed students has perpetuated microaggressions and casual racism.”

In a videotaped message accompanying the  lesson, Anant Das, an alumnus from the local activist TJ Alumni Action Group, scolded the students for salsa dancing at an international night celebration, which he called cultural “appropriation.” Teachers also led a bizarre discussion on “what stereotypes might you have about your own culture.” They pushed activism, stating: “Ways to address racism can include being upfront and vocal or pushing for social change through your own actions.”https://91ea96aaad3df2596260b5df02c1e2c8.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

The “Extra Resources” included a reference to “Black Lives Matter,” with a link to the official website for the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation.

The “Black Lives Matter” link in the slide takes students straight to BlackLivesMatter.com, with snappy invitations: “Join the Global Movement” and a sign up for “periodic text messages from Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation.” With just one click, T.J. students were directed to the political ambitions of the Black Lives Matter PAC, with its list of 2020 election endorsements, including specific politicians, including a specific school board member, Shayla Adams-Stafford, in nearby Prince George’s County, Md.

Enraged, parents, including me, questioned the school’s activist principal, Ann Bonitatibus. She wrote to the T.J. Parent Teacher Student Association president claiming, “There is no critical race theory training with students.” She deflected responsibility for the teaching, calling it “a project initiated and created by students for students.”https://91ea96aaad3df2596260b5df02c1e2c8.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

But 200-plus pages of internal school emails, disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal that on Aug. 19, 2020, Bonitatibus sent the T.J. “Equity Team,” including two assistant principals, a message that she had met with student government leaders about a plan to show the “13th” documentary in summer 2021, along with a conversation on “anti-racism.” She wrote, “I shared with them that their idea doesn’t necessarily need to wait until next school year. There could be a way to think about their proposal or a variation of it for this year.”

Over the next seven months, the T.J. principal, two assistant principals, the director of student services, at least three teachers, several counselors, and a Fairfax County Public Schools “equity” officer directly edited, wrote, and reviewed all of the content for the lesson, masked as “socio-emotional learning.”

One set of stakeholders never consulted: parents. That’s why I helped start a new organization, Parents Defending Education, fighting indoctrination in K-12 schools, so we could file FOIA requests like the one I sent Fairfax County Public Schools, revealing the complicity of the principal, teachers, and staff in creating the ideological lesson that our students got.

Meanwhile, over the past school year, we faced a superintendent, school board, and principal leading a crusade to racially alter the school’s demographics, with the school district abandoning the school’s merit-based, race-blind test in December to gerrymander the admissions process so fewer Asians and more black and Hispanic students would make the cut to attend the advanced math and science school.

The stealth lesson underscores several serious issues vexing schools today and the future of America. It reveals how school officials circumvent parents as they move aggressively to indoctrinate students in K-12 schools from neighboring Loudoun County, Va., to California.

It also serves as a cautionary tale on how how important it is that parents assert three rights most districts promise to secure: the right to inspect curriculum, spelled out in Fairfax County, for example, under “Policies and Regulations 3002-3011,”; the right to opt-out students from certain teachings, including on topics “sensitive in nature”; and the right to have “controversial issues” discussed “impartially and objectively,” a point spelled out in Fairfax County under Regulation 3280.4.

Contradicting these promises, the “Extra Resources” in the lesson also included a link to the organization Showing Up for Racial Justice, which believes “none of us can be free until we end white supremacy.” It featured on the homepage a very problematic and reductionist page, “The Characteristics of White Supremacy Culture.”

This displayed “a list of characteristics of white supremacy culture,” including “perfectionism,” a “sense of urgency,” “defensiveness,” “worship of the written word” like memos, “either/or thinking,” “power hoarding,” “individualism,” “objectivity” and—finally, a very disturbing notion to present to K-12 students—“right to comfort.”

The final bullet point led to a shocking video, “On Solidarity with the Black Lives Matter Movement” by a first-generation Korean-American, Kaiti Yoo. She flashed the image of a Time magazine cover with smiling young students beside the headline, “Those Asian-American Whiz Kids,” as she waxed on about learning to “justify our existence through our work, our grades, our accomplishments.”

Yoo’s video laid out a central narrative of critical race theory ideologues like Ibram Kendi and 1619 Project lead Nikole Hannah-Jones, who argue blacks and Asians “don’t experience this country in the same way” because Asians didn’t come to the United States as slaves. It laid out the guilt trip thrust on Asians from critical race theory activists to support radical black goals as the only way to support “justice.” The same theme was present in T.J. lesson materials such as the slide below.

At 30 seconds, the film featured an image of the American flag with a sign in front of it that reads, “The American Dream is Over.” It’s a biased, problematic, and shame-based video for anyone pursuing the “American Dream” without blind support for the BLM movement. It’s wildly inappropriate, unhealthy, and potentially emotionally damaging to thrust on students at a mostly Asian school caught in a race war of the principal’s making.

The next “socio-emotional learning” blocks will be April 21, May 5, May 21, and June 2, according to staff. Back home, Dutta sent a dispatch to the principal. She had one remedy for the indoctrination: the principal’s immediate resignation. Her subject line: “Dereliction of duty.”

https://www.youtube.com/embed/oZlFtYXl4IY?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparentA former Wall Street Journal reporter, Asra Nomani is vice president of strategy and investigations at Parents Defending Education, an organization empowering parent advocates and investigating indoctrination in K-12 schools. She writes a regular newsletter, Asra Investigates, with breaking news and analysis on the frontlines of culture and politics.

Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis FASCIST DEMS ON THE ROLL BURNING, SABOTAGING, OWNING THE COURT

How anarchists captured Portland

Left-wing rioters are burning the city to the ground — while the police do nothing

BY BRET WEINSTEIN at the Post:

On the face of it, Petunia’s bakery in Portland epitomises everything progressive about the city. Its pies and pastries are wheat-free, look pretty on Instagram and, more importantly, taste delicious.

But take a moment to read the sign on the shop’s window as you enter, and it soon becomes clear that Petunia’s has been drawn into a far darker chapter of the Portland story; one that tells of a city in free fall due to an almost accidental anarchist takeover, where residents have as much to fear staying home as going out and even the most harmless of shops is liable to have its windows smashed in.

The sign is Petunia’s special take on a Portlandian phenomenon that my wife Heather has come to call a “don’t-hurt-me wall” — a now-widespread attempt by local business owners to make anarchists think twice before vandalising their shop or café.

“We are a small, women and locally owned business,” Petunia’s sign pleads. “We are struggling like so many of us in this hard time, and love our community. Please don’t cause us any damage.” Welcome to Portland; the progressive dream that has turned into a nightmare.

When Heather and I moved to the city three years ago, after being spectacularly driven from our jobs at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, there was little to suggest that municipal embrace of anarchy was on the horizon. We considered moving to more than a dozen cities across the US, Canada and Europe — but in the end Portland won. With the city’s proximity to nature and world-class food culture, it seemed to provide the perfect balance. And then suddenly last summer, with the confluence of the George Floyd protests and the Presidential election, Portland came unmoored.

For what it’s worth, Petunia’s “don’t-hurt-me wall” is more explicit than your average Portland business. It has, for example, resisted the urge to simply and loudly proclaim that BLACK LIVES MATTER, presumably because its owners know that Portland is entirely composed of people who already agree with this obvious decree — including the police.

But its attempt to reason with the anarchists — by highlighting how it is a struggling small business, locally owned and run entirely by women — speaks volumes about day-to-day life in my home city, where negotiating with vandals has become an essential skill. Indeed, Portland is full of signs in windows and on lawns pleading with anarchists to move on and hurt someone else. These residents know they cannot depend on the police to either prevent crimes or arrest those who commit them, and who can’t manage to come together and face down a small but violent mob of misanthropes.

The streets of downtown Portland, once a bustling home to independent boutiques, are now lined with boarded-over windows and closed businesses. No neighbourhood is secure from the current wave of terror; the breaking of shop fronts, arson and harassment of sleeping citizens in their homes are all commonplace.

Rioting has occurred like clockwork, and often anarchist “direct actions” are announced in advance, so the police are never taken by surprise. And yet the city’s officers, under the command of our cartoonishly liberal mayor (who is also our police-commissioner), have stood by and — night after night — allowed the city to descend into chaos. Last September, rioters even targeted the Mayor’s own apartment building, breaking in and setting a fire in the lobby. The Mayor’s response? To announce that he was moving out of the building to keep his neighbours safe, a move any competent parent would recognise invites more terror. The anarchists have gained a strange kind of control over the city in their fight against Nazis and white supremacists they appear to have conjured in a quest to give their anger meaning.

America may be being torn apart by the tension between Democrats and Republicans, but that is not what afflicts Portland. The problem in Portland, as in so many the cities along the West Coast, is that the progressives have fully defeated conservatives, and without any opposing political force, their liberalism has become unhinged.

Anarchism has deep roots in the Pacific Northwest, but until 2020 it largely persisted on the fringe — they would blockade the federal ICE facility, or take over an occasional intersection, harass drivers and direct traffic. This, of course, caused them to be regarded by most Portland citizens as an irritant.

But that all changed last summer when, during the Black Lives Matter protests, the city’s anarchists discovered that, so long as they shouted certain slogans, citizens who once grudgingly tolerated them would now cheer them on with gusto. Suddenly, the absurd claim that “All Cops Are Bastards” became a mainstream belief, and “Abolish the Police” went from being a threat to a policy proposal.

Of course, all reasonable people understand that black people have faced oppression in North America since their ancestors were brutally imported as slaves. Liberals can be justly proud of our role in fighting this evil, from abolition to the civil rights movement and beyond. But as the current situation in Portland demonstrates, “the right side of history” has now been ceded by voices of reason on the Left to extremists who deliberately conflate a demand for racial justice with a desire to burn civilisation to the ground.

And this has put those of us who consider ourselves “of the Left” in a dangerous predicament. I am not a gun enthusiast. I never wanted to own guns, but I do — for the same reason I would if I lived in a war zone. The civil authority has abandoned the law-abiding citizens of Portland, and in so doing it has created a new Wild West in which we are each responsible for protecting ourselves from bands of roving bandits.

Sometimes, their threat is purely symbolic, as when they topple public monuments. In these situations, the city responds by helpfully removing the offending statue. But in other cases, these habitual rioters attempt to exert power, both directly and indirectly, over their fellow citizens. Graffiti in downtown Portland calls for the killing of local journalist, Andy Ngo, who continues to report on Antifa violence regardless. Having failed to intimidate Ngo, the rioters succeeded in shutting down Powell’s Books for several days when Ngo’s book went on sale.

Knowing the store would not be protected by police, Powell’s had already decided the book would only be sold online. Yet the unsatisfied rioters forced Powell’s to suspend operation, and the city for its part offered no defence of free speech, or of a free press, or of Portland’s iconic bookstore or of Andy Ngo, a citizen of Portland being openly threatened with murder. The city has also allowed rioters to march freely through residential neighbourhoods, where they intimidate sleeping residents by chanting “wake up, motherfucker, wake up”, shine spotlights into people’s windows and harass anyone who comes out to face them.

So long as rioters claim to fight for the oppressed, they appear to have carte blanche. If they decide they don’t like this article, if they come to my house to menace my family as they have done to Andy Ngo, Mayor Wheeler and countless anonymous citizens of Portland, will the police intercede? I honestly don’t know.

The truth is, I rarely see any evidence of even basic law enforcement here in Portland. The police are extremely slow to respond to emergency calls. The citizens and businesses have, over the last year, been left to fend for themselves against criminals thinly cloaked in progressive slogans. And given the way the Mayor and City Council have undercut the police and allowed them to be demonised by the anarchists, it is easy to understand their reluctance — they are doing a difficult job, under a microscope, where only their mistakes count.

And this is the great tragedy of Portland. As people flee New York, San Francisco, Seattle and Los Angeles, Portland has everything it needs to pick up the slack and be the next booming metropolis — everything, that is, except the political will to resist following those once great cities into a self-inflicted, depressive spiral.

Instead of capitalising on those cities’s errors, Portland is making them too, and in even more spectacular form. The combination of runaway taxes and a municipal authority that sides with criminals, against working people, is sealing the city’s fate. And the needless, coming collapse will fall disproportionately on the most precariously positioned.

Portland, ultimately, is a great city headed in the wrong direction. As Heather and I watch it fall to pieces, we can’t help but feel we have seen this happen before. Portland’s meltdown is, after all, eerily similar to the collapse of Evergreen. A city’s hapless mayor hamstringing the police at the behest of a woke mob that claims to see racists around every corner; it’s uncannily similar to what we saw in 2017.

And the result will be the same, albeit at much greater scale, with much higher stakes. Once again we are left with the question: Can anything be done? And once again, I fear that the answer is no.

WHAT SUPREME COURT?

Supreme Court’s failures are putting America on a path to tyranny

By Clifford C. Nichols at American Thinker:

Rarely do the generation experiencing the actual events and decisions that lead to their nation’s demise fully appreciate the enormity of their oversight until sometime after their culture’s destruction has been rendered incurable.  Largely, it is not due so much to their negligence as it is to most of them being too preoccupied with simply living and making a living.

Perhaps that would explain why, in just the first four months of 2021, the Supreme Court issued four decisions — or, perhaps better viewed as non-decisions — that should have caused all legitimately patriotic Americans to be alarmed and called to action…but did not seem to. 

Only a few weeks ago, without offering any substantive explanation, the Court summarily refused to even look at — much less seriously consider — any of the evidence of the 2020 election irregularities offered by attorney Sidney Powell and others.  Evidently, the Supreme Court of the United States of America was not interested in doing what it could — and should — to let America know decisively whether or not its presidential election had been shamelessly stolen by those now in power.

Why would they not do this?

Perhaps the answer is best revealed by the fact that, at the same time, the Court was also apparently too busy to halt a New York prosecutor from obtaining former president Trump’s tax returns.  The practical effect was for SCOTUS to give that prosecutor an assist with his unconstitutional effort to search for any crime that might make President Trump’s ouster from office permanent.

Clearly, these two SCOTUS decisions alone evidence the fact that the agenda of the justices has become politically driven.

It doesn’t end there. 

Two weeks later, the Supreme Court — again without explanation — summarily refused to reverse the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ denial of Judicial Watch’s request that it be allowed to take the deposition of a member of this country’s ruling political elite — Hillary Rodham Clinton.  At the end of the day, Judicial Watch was only asking the Supreme Court to uphold the rule of law by finding that all Americans — including elites like Hillary Clinton — are to be treated equally under the law.  Instead, the Supreme Court unfortunately — and inexplicably — declined the opportunity to do even this.  

Then this week, SCOTUS put the final nail in the coffin containing the GOP’s 2020 election disputes with its denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari in Bognet v. Dagraffenreid.  Again, it refused to rule on whether a state’s courts are qualified or not under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution to modify that state’s presidential election laws.  In short, whether Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution by usurping the state Legislature’s authority to extend the time allowed for counting mail-in ballots is apparently not an issue worthy of this SCOTUS’s time.

From such glaring displays of indefensible Supreme Court inaction, the following incontrovertible truths have been set out in plain view before the nation’s very eyes:  

1. The Supreme Court today is thoroughly politicized…and thus corrupt.

2. In America, the rule of law is now dead.

3. Worse yet, by these decisions, America’s Supreme Court has put on open display its utter disregard — and absolute contempt — for whatever the American people may think about the future unavailability of equal justice in a nation that once promised that such justice would be available to all.  

Such truths should be cause for greater alarm for the American people than even the now almost Orwellian silence of John Durham.  Consider the following recent words of attorney Sidney Powell:

The Supreme Court’s failure to date to address the massive election fraud and multiple constitutional violations that wrought a coup of the presidency of the greatest country in world history completes the implosion of each of our three branches of government into the rubble of a sinkhole of corruption.  It is an absolute tragedy for the rule of law, the future of the Republic, and all freedom-loving people around the world.

She is not overstating the matter in the least.  An American government unleashed from the constraints set in place by the rule of law can be headed in only one direction: toward some form of centralized dictatorship limited only by the whims of those in power — i.e., a tyranny.

A tyranny is a state that, for instance, would order its people to accommodate its importation of a new class of indentured slaves that it is encouraging to enter across the borders of this country, which it has opened simultaneously to endeavoring to seize the weapons of anybody already here — i.e., patriotic citizens — who might object.  And all while, the state uses an imagined pretense — e.g., a fraudulently hyped pandemic — to terminate the rights of those patriotic Americans to engage in commerce, speak freely, and even freely assemble to peacefully protest or even worship.  It’s a place where unquestioned obedience is expected and dissent from any of the state’s propaganda narratives is silenced, censored, shadowbanned, and de-platformed.  

Sound familiar?  It should.  It is where America is today. 

All of us — both conservatives and liberals — would do well to take off our government-mandated masks long enough to read out loud and seriously reflect upon the following words of a woman — Ayn Rand — who knew more than just a little about how to identify a tyranny:  

When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — You may know that your society is doomed.

We’re left to ask: does America still have the option of reversing course, or, in its march toward some form of tyranny, has it already put the Rubicon in its rearview mirror?  

After all, how is a nation supposed to lawfully remedy the corrupt silence of a politicized Supreme Court from which there is no readily apparent peaceful means for appeal? 

Clifford C. Nichols is an attorney and author of A Barrister’s Tales.  He may be contacted regarding this editorial at http://www.cliffordnichols.com/contact.

Image via Flickr, Public Domain.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.

But Today’s Americans “EDUCATED” under age 35, Don’t Even Know WHAT HISTORY IS!

 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at PowerLine:

A HISTORY TO BE PROUD OF

The Biden administration and Democrats all over the country now promulgate the charge that “systemic racism” permeates our country and that this racism is woven into our founding documents. Earlier this week, for example, St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter quoted from the Supreme Court’s ignominious Dred Scott case to make the point. Democrats have essentially taken up the mantle of Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott. They approve of Taney’s teaching regarding the meaning of the Declaration and the Constitution.

We fought a great Civil War that derived from the debate over this teaching. It resulted in the adoption of the Civil War amendments to the Constitution and other civil rights laws. Yet ignorance rules the day. In this post I want to collect just a few resources for interested readers.

By contrast with the Democrat orthodoxy trashing the United States, we note that the United States is alone in the history of the world in its foundation on the principle of equal rights. We are proud of our founding documents and our history. We dispute the contentions of Taney et al. as self-evident lies.

In the 1980’s Supreme Court Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall undertook the resurrection of the old Taney argument with a focus on the Constitution. Harry Jaffa took up the argument in “Original intent and the American soul.” Jaffa wrote (I have added paragraphing in the interest of readability):

In 1987 Justice Thurgood Marshall refused to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution because, he said, it was a racist document that enshrined slavery. Quoting Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), he said that the original Constitution regarded black people “as so far inferior that they had no rights that white people were bound to respect.” It is this view of the Constitution that has justified liberals, in their own minds, in rewriting the Constitution to conform to their own opinions of what it ought to be….

The original Constitution, and hence original intent jurisprudence, can only be defended if one distinguishes the principles of the Constitution from the compromises of the Constitution. The framers made concessions to slavery because they believed that the Constitution would not be ratified without them.

Had the Constitution not been ratified, slavery would have been in a far stronger position. Instead, the new Constitution created a government strong enough to deal with slavery when the crisis finally came. Moreover, the future of the Union as a guardian of the cause of human freedom throughout the world depended upon this distinction between the Constitution’s principles and its compromises.

But the Constitution itself does not make this distinction. Although it guarantees to every state of the Union a republican form of government, it does not say what the principles of this form are. These principles are spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, which the United States Code lists as the first of the Organic Laws of the United States.

Twice a year in “Remembering Mr. Lincoln” we publish the heart of Abraham Lincoln’s great speech of July 10, 1858 explicating the meaning of the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln’s explication remains incomparable.

Lincoln expressly addressed Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott in his speech on the decision (I have broken the excerpt below into paragraphs in the interest of readability):

Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites.

Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another. And this is the staple argument of both the Chief Justice and the Senator, for doing this obvious violence to the plain unmistakable language of the Declaration.

I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity.

They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal-equal in “certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This they said, and this meant.

They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.

They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.

The assertion that “all men are created equal” was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, nor for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism.

They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.

The nut is cracking, but the point remains.

Lincoln explored the thinking of the Founders on slavery in his Cooper Union speech of 1860. Harold Holzer’s Lincoln at Cooper Union takes up the story of that speech. Holzer’s book was reviewed by Allen Guelzo in the Claremont Review of Books in “Lincoln’s audition.” Holzer et al. subsequently persuaded Sam Waterston to provide a reading of the speech at Cooper Union (video below, beginning at about 15:00 with the introduction of Lincoln).

Frederick Douglass’s relationship with Lincoln also bears on the subject. I can’t do justice to it here, but I refer readers to Douglass’s 1876 “Oration in memory of Abraham Lincoln.”

Tom West’s Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins of America is an invaluable resource. Tom takes up the question of slavery in chapter 1 at pages 1-37. By contrast with Tom, the Democrats are vindicating Dred Scott. Sick, sick, sick.

Also valuable is Richard Cox’s Four Pillars of Constitutionalism: The Organic Laws of the United States. Cox’s long introduction takes up more than half the book and is historical in nature. Following Jaffa, Cox shows that the foundational documents of the United States are the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation, The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and the Constitution.

Under Article 6, the Northwest Ordinance prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory. Why would they do that?

My interest in the subject was triggered by reading Harry Jaffa’s Crisis of the House Divided some 50 years ago. It’s the great book on the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Dems’ Fascist Claims Trumpees Killed Sicknick Was, OF COURSE, A LIE…. That’s How Dems Operate Today!

Glenn Greenwald on what the truth about Officer Sicknick’s death says about the media

JOHN SEXTON Apr 20, 2021 at HotAir:

We learned yesterday that Officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes. The significance of that admission was not just for Sicknick’s immediate family, some of whom already seem to have known he didn’t die from an attack with a fire extinguisher. The real significance was the way in which this undercut the media’s confident framing of his death as a victim of the Jan. 6 riot. Yesterday, Glenn Greenwald took this occasion to point out how this lie got going and why the media desperately wanted it to be true:

So The New York Times on January 8 published an emotionally gut-wrenching but complete fiction that never had any evidence — that Officer Sicknick’s skull was savagely bashed in with a fire extinguisher by a pro-Trump mob until he died — and, just like the now-discredited Russian bounty story also unveiled by that same paper, cable outlets and other media platforms repeated this lie over and over in the most emotionally manipulative way possible.

…the gruesome story of Sicknick’s “murder” was too valuable to allow any questioning. It was weaponized over and over to depict the pro-Trump mob not as just violent but barbaric and murderous, because if Sicknick weren’t murdered by them, then nobody was (without Sicknick, the only ones killed were four pro-Trump supporters: two who died of a heart attack, one from an amphetamine overdose, and the other, Ashli Babbitt, who was shot point blank in the neck by Capitol Police despite being unarmed). So crucial was this fairy tale about Sicknick that it made its way into the official record of President Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate, and they had Joe Biden himself recite from the script, even as clear facts mounted proving it was untrue.

The partisan motivation for this to be true was so overwhelming that doubt about it was treated as a kind of heresy. The media’s progressive voices worked as the equivalent of Hockey goons to punish anyone who dared to say different.

https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2021/04/20/glenn-greenwald-on-what-the-truth-about-officer-sicknicks-death-says-about-the-media-n384565

LOONY TUNE Prez Biden Charms THE DEMS FASCIST VICTORY IN MINNESOTA

Biden: We Can’t Let “I Can’t Breathe” Die With George Floyd, “We Have To Keep Hearing Those Words”

 Posted By Ian Schwartz at realclearpolitics

President Biden and Vice President Harris spoke after a jury convicted former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin of murder and manslaughter in George Floyd’s death.

“‘I can’t breathe.’ Those were George Floyd’s last words,” Biden said. “We can’t let those words die with him. We have to keep hearing those words. We must not turn away. We can’t turn away.”

That WATERS of the Dem’s Top Fascist Show

Why Maxine Waters Wanted a Mistrial for Derek Chauvin

By Sally Zelikovsky at American Thinker:

When Maxine Waters called for people in the streets of Minnesota to be more active and confrontational if Derek Chauvin were to be acquitted, like many, I thought she had handed a gift to the defense on appeal.   In some ways, she did.  We all heard Judge Cahill describe her behavior as abhorrent, and, while he didn’t think her remarks mattered in terms of the evidence and jury deliberations, he was unequivocal that her actions likely provided the defense with the basis for a mistrial at the appellate level and could well result in the case being thrown out.  Why, if that’s what he thought, didn’t the judge declare a mistrial himself? 

Some might say it’s because he didn’t want to try the case again, but I think he didn’t want to be “that guy” responsible for letting Chauvin off the hook and reaping the wrath of a good part of the country that had long promised to burn it all down.  Why bear that burden himself and potentially subject his family to violence when it’s so much easier to pass the buck to the appellate court?

We also have to question why someone as politically experienced as Maxine Waters would so brazenly deliver a message of incitement, knowing the optics and, more importantly, that her words and conduct would only serve the interests of the defense in claiming that this was textbook intimidation of both judge and jury.  Why would a ruthless, calculating, lifelong professional left-wing s—kicker like Waters knowingly cross state lines to, if not incite, certainly agitate for continued unrest on America’s streets?

Because without an acquittal or a mistrial — either of which would have unquestionably given rise to increased violence — Rep. Waters and most Democrats actually want the bedlam to continue.  After all,  racializing everything by pointing fingers at the straw men of white supremacy; white privilege; and the conveniently invisible and unmeasurable systemic, structural, and internalized variants of racism is the bread and butter of the Democrats.  Without it, they have no raison d’être. 

Had Maxine kept her mouth shut, a simple conviction without a strong basis for a mistrial on appeal would cut short the mayhem in the streets.  A pause in the bedlam is not good for the left, whose entire existence and justification is predicated on being the party of racializing everything — especially relationships between black communities and white cops.  On the other hand, a conviction accompanied by overt threats of violence reeking of jury intimidation, from a political figure, keeps alive the likelihood of a mistrial on appeal and could extend the rioting all the way to the 2022 elections.  This is a tempting insurance policy that would allow the Democrats to continue to foment racial division and milk dry other white cop–black victim scenarios until their goals are reached of defunding the police, reimagining the criminal justice system, getting rid of police and replacing them with civilian security, eliminating bail, unleashing untold numbers of violent criminals back onto the streets, and disarming the public so they cannot protect their families. 

We like to think our justice system is fair, and usually it is — indeed, some believe that a guilty verdict on all three counts by a jury that was 50% white, presided over by a white judge, with several white prosecutors and a white defense attorney, is all the proof needed that “our system of justice works.”  That’s a legitimate assessment of our criminal justice system and one I’d like to embrace.  But you can equally argue that, if Chauvin was indeed guilty of one or more counts, there are aspects of how this trial was conducted that cast considerable doubt on whether it was fair and impartial.  The right verdict by a tainted process is as bad as a wrong verdict justly rendered.

Now that Chauvin has been found guilty, he will undoubtedly appeal, and a mistrial could be his fate, but not only because of Maxine’s incitement.  Even President Biden inappropriately weighed in while the jury was deliberating, hoping for a guilty verdict.  Since they weren’t sequestered, it is possible that the jurors heard these comments and were influenced by them — something that should have been asked of them to preserve the record for appeal.

During the jury selection process, the city of Minneapolis settled with the Floyd family for $27 million, sending a powerful message to the newly impaneled jury that guilt was a foregone conclusion.  The defense’s motion to sequester the jury, precisely to prevent this kind of influence on the jury and exposure to the press, was denied by Judge Cahill — a critical mistake in my opinion.  He also (astoundingly) denied the defense’s motion to change the venue and move the trial to a different jurisdiction to ensure an impartial jury and fair trial.  With unrelenting riots and protests in Minneapolis, and every major political figure from Governor Walz and A.G. Ellison on down to local mayors convicting  Chauvin in the court of public opinion, how could there possibly be a fair and impartial trial in Minnesota? 

Other forms of intimidation and influence on jurors include ongoing riots by BLM and Antifa activists and clearly biased media reports throughout the trial; the drive-by shooting of two National Guardsmen directly after Waters’s statement; the delivery of a severed pig’s head and smeared blood on the former abode of a defense witness in the style of The Godfather, in which the severed head of a treasured horse was placed in Jack Woltz’s bed, sending the clear message that the Corleones meant business and he’d better watch his step; even the tracking down and harassment of a paramedic who donated $10 to Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense, by ABC reporter Jason Nguyen to allegedly “get his side of the story” — all of this could have intimidated any juror who saw it.  Nguyen also doxxed the paramedic on social media.  Like the pig’s head, the messaging is clear: if you stand with Floyd or Rittenhouse, you are being watched, and the next head might be yours.

This is the ugly underbelly of jury tampering and intimidation.  And it’s effective.  The judge and those twelve jurors knew that any verdict short of guilty could result in untold deaths and property damage from riots, as well as threats to their families.  No matter how devoted to their constitutional duty, it is tough to remain strong in the face of such jackboot tactics.

But the verdict wasn’t enough for many black activists, politicians, journalists, and pundits.  It isn’t enough that Derek Chauvin will spend the rest of his life in jail, if the inmates let him live.  Since racism is an invisible force that exists despite any evidence of its existence, these activists and their leaders in the Democrat Party aren’t going to rest until they, to quote New York BLM leader Hank Newsom, “burn it all down.”  And according to Auntie Maxine, they “mean business.”  They want the riots.  They want the hate and division.  They want to destroy white America and will deconstruct all of America in the process, in order to recreate a new America in their image — cleansed of white history, white culture, and white people.  I‘m devastated to have to say that, but at this point, can there be any doubt?

This is “revenge racism” — payback for hundreds of years of oppression.  Payback against whites who had nothing to do with our tainted history, who never did anything racist, and even whose ancestors had nothing to do with our history.  To quote again from The Godfather, it’s best served cold.  Nothing we are experiencing is an accident.  And while it all feels intensely hot, it is a cold and calculated series of events and policies designed to rend our country from the inside out.

I have no doubt that Maxine and the Democrats wanted a mistrial to justify continued violence.  Since they didn’t get it, the lure of a mistrial on appeal will provide them with months, possibly even years of racializing, dividing, and destroying.  They will continue to unleash criminals on helpless innocents of all colors, with no aid or comfort on the way, and no ability to defend themselves, and they will not rest until they blow up this shining city on a hill…and turn it into a hellhole.

ABOUT THAT THROUGHLY CORRUPT VERDICT THAT A POLICE OFFICER MURDERED DRUGGED CRIMINAL, 6’6”, 265 LB VIOLENT MAN…

BY SCOTT JOHNSON at PowerLine:

THE CHAUVIN VERDICT

The jury rendered guilty verdicts on all three charges against former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin a few minutes ago. The charges were brought in an atmosphere of mob justice on May 29 and June 3, within days of the death of George Floyd this past May 25. He will be sentenced on the second-degree murder charge that was the most serious of the three.

Chauvin was repeatedly declared guilty of murder by Governor Tim “tear down this” Walz, Attorney General and former Nation of Islam race hustler Keith Ellison in press conferences broadcast statewide in the immediate aftermath of Floyd’s death. Walz called another press conference for the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul to do it again yesterday as the Chauvin jury retired to deliberate of course we had the invaluable contribution of Mad Maxine Waters to add to the mix as well. Mad Maxine demanded a conviction of Chauvin on first degree murder, a charge which the prosecutors had somehow failed to bring.

The courthouse where the trial occurred visibly manifested the atmosphere. The 24-story courthouse building was ringed with bricks and razor wire in advance of the trial. Soldiers and law enforcement authorities have protected the building over the past six weeks.

But for the trial the building was essentially closed for reasons of security. Any reasonable observer might question whether Derek Chauvin could receive, or did receive, a fair trial in Hennepin County. I certainly do. In his order denying Chauvin’s motion for a change of venue, Judge Cahill acknowledged the problem but deemed it irremediable by a change of venue. I doubt that too, but the defense more or less left it there.

I watched the trial from jury selection through the verdicts today. I gave my assessment of the case in advance of the verdicts on Sunday in “Random thoughts on the Chauvin trial.” I won’t repeat them here.

Contrary to my understanding of the case before trial and my predisposition to support law enforcement, I thought the prosecution introduced powerful evidence against Chauvin and that the defense case was thin and weak. Indeed, the defense argument that CO poisoning from the squad car’s exhaust contributed to Floyd’s death proved to be an exploding cigar of an argument, just to take one small example. That’s the way I saw it anyway. God save us from the clowns, cowards, and opportunists seeking to turn this case to their own uses.