Enter your keyword

Wednesday, March 03, 2021

Coke Goes Woke and Broke

By On March 03, 2021
“Get woke, go broke”, is a conservative meme about the cost of political correctness that has it the wrong way around. Brands don’t go broke because they get woke, they go woke because they’re going broke, and don’t know how to stop the slow but steady collapse of their business.

The big brands that go woke infuriate conservatives because, like Coke, Gillette, or Nike, they have a storied name that seems entwined with America and the success of capitalism. But it’s those old, familiar brands that go woke because their products and business models are dated. Virtue signaling is their way of adapting to a changing market without really innovating. Behind every big woke brand is a company slowly going broke and with no clue what to do about it.

The wokeness vocabulary joins the thesaurus of corporate buzzwords used by executives trying to hide from their investors that they don’t know what they’re doing. Making headlines for their wokeness changes the conversation from their business model to their politics. Touting a brand as socially responsible evades questions about its financial viability.

Take Coke, please.

Coca-Cola’s global sales fell 28% in the second quarter of 2020 from $10 billion to $7.15 billion. The corporate giant blamed the pandemic which had shuttered movie theaters and bars, and began cutting its small brands while concentrating on its big signature brands.

But Coke was struggling even long before the pandemic.

Despite all the international marketing, North America is still the biggest soda market. And the average American is down to drinking 40 gallons of soda from 50 gallons two decades ago. The shift was driven by the same demographic that tends to go woke, young white urban lefties, who became more likely to drink bottled water. Coke chased them by going into bottled water and vitamin drinks, but also by shifting away from a family brand once associated with Santa.

Santa and the polar bears reflected a Coke that was marketed to children. But fewer parents are comfortable with their children living off soda. That’s why one survey found that the number of children drinking over 3 cans of soda a day fell from 10% to 3.3%. The drop in soda consumption, once again, was heaviest among younger and wealthier urban white lefties.

The economic consequences of young white wealthy lefties dropping soda wasn’t just a sales issue. Wokes are a politically narcissistic demographic that legislates its tastes into law, pursuing the legalization of drugs, and bans on soda. Both drug legalization and soda bans were, as usual, done in the name of oppressed minorities, but had little impact on them.

Legal drugs are too expensive for minorities and the infamous soda taxes don’t work. But the soda industry remembers what happened to tobacco and other lifestyle habits that fell afoul of the cultural values of the new woke ruling class. That’s another reason why it went ‘woke’.

Banning soda from schools and taxing it in stores precedes the class action lawsuits and national legislative activities that would effectively eliminate sodas from the marketplace.

Coke isn’t just virtue signaling to prop up sales in a declining market: it’s also afraid.

And it should be. Bloomberg isn’t just fighting coal and guns, he’s also spending a fortune pushing his soda ban in cities and states around the country. The soda industry has ramped up spending to defend itself against everything from soda taxes to its links to slave labor. But it understands that the real threat is cultural as the new woke ruling class destroys the habits of the old America that it associates with conservative, working class, and flyover country.

That’s why cigarettes are a deadly menace, but pot is a civil rights crusade. The health issues are a pretext for a cultural revolution. And Coke went woke to convince the wealthy young urban lefties to incorporate its signature products into their lives by joining the cultural revolution.

The Left bet that if it could radicalize the children of the wealthy that Corporate America would bend the knee. And that’s exactly what happened. The radicals used their leverage over academia and the entertainment industry to create radical generations. But that radicalism was heavily concentrated among the Ivy League and the children of the elites who would become the corporate leaders and also be the consumers with the most disposable income.

Economics, like politics, proved to be downstream of the culture. Capturing the ecosystem at its base allowed the Left to take over the economy and turn some of the country’s biggest brands into megaphones for its propaganda. But these are corporate brands that have all the qualities of the ossified elites that have always been an easy target for the revolutions of the radicals.

Coke, like the average big woke brand, has a majority share of a declining market. It has limited growth potential within that market. Coca Cola’s fortunes are closely tied to movie theaters, which were in a catastrophic state of decline even before the pandemic, and to McDonald’s.

McDonald’s, like a lot of traditional fast food places, is experiencing its own slow decline. The clown joint, like Coke, tried to reinvent its brand as being about healthy food and leftist politics. Just like Coke, going ‘woke’ hasn’t stopped its decline, or the threat of the cultural Left regulating it out of business to protect minorities from the pernicious threat of its Happy Meals.

When McDonald's brought in its new British CEO Steve Easterbrook, he promised to make it over as a "modern progressive burger company". The company hired Robert Gibbs, Obama's press secretary, to head communications. McDonald's flipped its arches upside down to celebrate International Women’s Day. And then Easterbrook was forced out for allegedly having affairs with three female employees. Meanwhile the decline in foot traffic is still going on.

The Coca Cola Company meanwhile has a British CEO who pledged allegiance at Davos to a "new social contract" and an "economy that works for everyone". He took over from the company's previous Turkish CEO, and the Turkish CEO’s South African predecessor. The head of Coca Cola in North America is a Honduran who came out of its Latin American division.

The other thing about these iconic American brands is that they don't have American leaders.

Coke won’t shut up about social justice and the evils of whiteness because that’s a better conversation than its failed portfolio of new brands, dumping its bottling operations, and its desperate efforts to refocus by launching a thousand different varieties of Coke aimed at the one lefty demographic that holds its future in the palms of its soft white manicured hands.

Otherwise its whole massive distribution network will be used for little more than moving orange juice, vitamin drinks, and milk around as soda and fast food go the way of cigarettes.

Coke is going woke because its future is broke. That’s true of most of the big woke brands. And the closer Coke gets to the cliff, the more hysterical its performative wokeness will become.

‘Wokening’ is a social disease of stale companies with stale brands whose products are overpriced and have fallen out of touch with the needs of many consumers. And the country’s consumer marketplace is dominated by these collapsing giants whose leaders are just marking time and cashing big checks while trying to co-opt the revolution threatening to destroy them.

European monarchs tried to co-opt leftist revolutions because they no longer had confidence in their own roles and had no idea what to do next. Coca Cola and the woke corporate giants share the same decadent sense of decline and their urban elites are selling out their rural base to appeal to the young radical generation to which their children and their social circle belong.

Wokeness is the consequence of a moral and economic brokenness among the nation’s elites. The Left conquered the corrupt infrastructure of a decaying political and economic system. Now it’s using that infrastructure to brainwash and suppress the country’s middle and working classes by lecturing them on their racism, and redefining them as domestic terrorists.

It’s not just Coke that went woke and broke: it’s the entire system that’s going broke.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Tuesday, March 02, 2021

Ivy League ‘Wokes’ are the Biggest Domestic Violent Extremism Threat

By On March 02, 2021
The Democrats and their media have spent the past few months crying about political violence coming from conservatives, calling for gun control, and militarizing the nation’s capital. All of the agonizing about political violence came after a year in which ‘woke’ Black Lives Matter mobs killed, beat, and burned their way across the country in an orgy of ‘mostly peaceful’ violence.

Even the most modest estimates of political woke terror in 2020 place it at 8 dead, over 700 injured, and over $2 billion in damages. And the year could have ended even more bloodily with the Left prepping for mass protests with “bail funds that could be activated in response to mass arrests" and a fund “for the families of anyone killed in violence on or around Election Day."

Months before the election, 41% of Democrats suggested that there would be at least a little justification for violence if President Trump won. Those are numbers the media won’t discuss.

While the media continues to promote a phantom conservative threat, it doesn’t want to look at where the violence is coming from in its own ranks. But it will not surprise anyone who remembers the seventies that Democrat support for violence is coming from the Ivy League.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) free speech survey from 2020 found that the highest level of tolerance for political violence came from Columbia University students. Three-quarters of Columbia students identified themselves as some form of “liberal” while less than 10% would describe themselves as politically conservative.

Meanwhile at Yale, 1 in 5 students were willing to tolerate political violence under some circumstances. These are the future leaders of the country’s public and private institutions.

The college with the most conservative student body, Brigham Young, making up about half the students, also had a student body with the least tolerance for political violence.

While most surveys don't break down support for political violence within a party, the FIRE college survey showed that "students identifying as extremely liberal said violence to stop a speech or event from occurring on campus was 'always' or 'sometimes' acceptable at a rate double than students identifying as extremely conservative."

The identified political demographic with the strongest support for violence was the Left.

The 'wokes' weren't directly represented, but so-called non-binary gender students, an almost certain 'tell' of wokeness, were the most violent with 1 in 10 believing that violence was sometimes or always acceptable, and a third believing that political violence could be justified. Three-quarters of this group identified as some variety of liberal: the highest number.

Support for violence was lowest among the sciences, and highest among interdisciplinary studies and the arts and humanities. This tracks with the percentages of the left-leaning students, 68% for interdisciplinary, 64% among the arts, and only 48% among the sciences.

The groups most likely to be left-wing were the likeliest to find political violence acceptable.

1 in 4 black students and students who identified as LGBTQIA found violence acceptable under some conditions while white and straight students were the least likely to support violence.

While these numbers are bad enough, the levels of support for political violence rose sharply as the election approached as can be seen from general surveys of the country.

Anecdotally it’s not surprising that the Ivy Leagues are more likely to incubate violence, and that the violence is most likely to come from the Left. Conservative groups like the David Horowitz Freedom Center which have been active on campuses were on the front lines of this violence.

But numbers like these provide hard data to back up the anecdotal stories and experiences.

They also aptly sum up the source of the violence in 2020. Some of the worst Black Lives Matter race riots were led by academics and used students as their organizers.

All of these numbers are familiar from previous lefty radical efforts going back generations. 39% of Occupy Wall Street protesters had graduate degrees. Wokeness is an academic disease.

2020’s racial violence, like the political violence of previous years, was an outgrowth of ‘woke’ campus radicalization. And ‘woke’ is just a euphemism for radicalization. To become ‘woke’ is to turn extreme and to see society as a brutal struggle for power between polar moral opposites.

It’s a cultish term for a political cult that reframes extremism as a revelation, and was used by the Nazis who made "Deutschland Erwache!" or "Germany Awake!" into their slogan.

But only 31% of Occupy Wall Street members who were surveyed had expressed support for political violence back then. What was once a shocking statistic appears positively moderate when 41% of Democrats had come to support Election Day violence a decade later.

Support for political violence rises and fades with the political moment. After the Democrats took over the White House and the Senate, their tolerance for political violence suddenly vanished. In a matter of weeks, the party of rioters declared that riots were now seditious insurrections.

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason," an Elizabethan courtier had acidly observed.

Washington D.C. is now under permanently military occupation to stave off riots by the party of riots. The Democrat politicians who painted Black Lives Matter slogans on the street and called federal law enforcement fascists for trying to keep the ‘woke’ mob from burning down the White House and the Church of Presidents are very eager to use the military to suppress protests.

Even if these protests have yet to materialize after over a month of D.C.’s military occupation.

All of it is political theater meant to suppress the same sort of populist backlash to Democrat one-party rule in D.C. that originally built the Tea Party. Meanwhile the ‘wokes’ remain a ticking time bomb. While the average Democrat may no longer see the need to riot and burn, the ‘wokes’ are not about to go back to sleep just because Biden is sleeping in the White House.

The Democrat establishment’s support for violence may be opportunistic, but Ivy League campuses are radicalizing students to support violent revolution regardless of who is in office.

D.C. doesn’t need the National Guard, but Columbia University and Yale just might.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.


Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Monday, March 01, 2021

The Blackout Capital of America Sneers at Texas

By On March 01, 2021
“Texas thought it could go it alone,” Senator Schumer declared on the Lower East Side. “Now Texas is paying the price. I hope they learned a lesson."

But Democrats never learn their lesson. And they’re never expected to learn.

In 2003, New York City’s power went out because of a mistake by an operator in Ohio as part of the second biggest blackout in history which took down the grid in eight states and in Canada.

Texas’ decision to go it alone was a whole lot smarter than tying the fates of eight states and two countries to a control room in Akron. An interstate power grid means that a problem in a whole other state or country that you have no control over can leave you in the dark.

What was Schumer’s response to the 2003 blackout? He blamed President Bush for a “free market” approach of “allowing the states and utility industry to deal with it by themselves”.

Schumer and the Democrats extracted somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million to further integrate the power grid across a quarter of the country and parts of Canada.

In 2012, Hurricane Sandy hit taking out power, leaving hospitals and residents in the dark. The East River power substation’s underground equipment was flooded by a “wall of water”, and the explosion that took out power across a large part of Manhattan could be seen for miles.

The station is located in the Lower East Side: the location of Schumer’s smug taunt to Texas.

You might imagine that after all that, Schumer’s home city and state would have moved the power substation away from the river. And you clearly don’t know New York City.

Instead, $1 billion was invested in a “storm hardening program”. The goal of the program was to make sure that the underground substation located right by the river in an area that regularly experiences hurricanes won’t be flooded because it will now meet current storm surge predictions. The substation was already built to withstand a predicted storm surge of 12.5 feet. Hurricane Sandy’s storm surge hit 14 feet. If another hurricane beats the predictions, then Manhattan will be in the dark again because of an underground power substation by the river.

But, it’s Texas that isn’t “learning its lesson”.

“When I wrote the Sandy bill, $60 billion for New York, we made sure everything was resilient,” Schumer claimed.

How resilient is it?

New York City politicians and media taunting Texas over power failures from the blackout capital of the country (at least the part of it not located in California) is a really poor decision. New York’s power grid goes down if someone sneezes or just looks at it the wrong way.

Last year, New York’s power failure left a quarter of a million in the dark.

Senator Schumer knows because he co-wrote a letter berating Con-Ed, and complaining, "we need to know why so many New Yorkers have been left in the dark, both literally and figuratively—a week after the storm—and get New Yorkers’ power back on ASAP.”

Schumer's letter noted that, "people had been trapped inside of their homes with live downed wires for days."

These letters are an annual tradition in which Schumer and other New York politicians blast Con-Ed, a relic of the corrupt Democrat Tammany Hall era, and then everything goes back to the way that it was before. Only the dumbest Democrat voters are fooled by the display.

Last year, Mayor de Blasio, who can’t even wake up on time, proposed a government takeover of Con-Ed. The Socialist never went through with it, but he would be welcome to try since Con-Ed was originally a network of companies controlled by Democrat officials which robbed the city on such a massive scale that its infrastructure was held back behind the rest of America.

All of these are part of the legacy that New Yorkers owe to Tammany Hall and the Democrats.

The bizarre corrupt shenanigans of the 19th century Democrat gas organizations continue to be a problem because every now and then an explosion happens, like the one that killed 8 people and toppled two buildings in Harlem, because there's a 120-year-old infrastructure of gas pipes under New York City, leaking gas which functions like a ticking time bomb under the streets.

After 120 years, New York still hasn’t learned its lesson about putting Democrats in power.

Con-Ed was formed out of the merger of these companies through a price-fixing agreement. And the occasional blackout, not to mention explosion, is part of the price New Yorkers pay.

New York City’s power grid remains an ongoing national disaster rivaled only by Puerto Rico.

The two years before that witnessed a blackout with an explosion so massive that it turned the sky blue and had Mayor Bill de Blasio's spokesman denying that it was the work of aliens.

Planes were forced to land on emergency power because the airport was blacked out

A year later, New York City celebrated the anniversary of the '77 blackout which kept the city in the dark for days after a lightning storm and led to the worst rioting and looting in the city until the Black Lives Matter riots last year, with yet another blackout.

Blackouts are an annual tradition in the blackout capital of America and no lessons are ever learned. Meanwhile New Yorkers pay on average 35 to 40 percent more than the rest of the country. New York has the 8th most expensive electricity in the country while Texas has the 12th cheapest. And New York residential rates shot up 5 times faster than Texas in just the last year.

That might be defensible if New York City’s power service were at least reliable. It’s not.

Now that Texas suffered major power failures, New York City politicians and media feel entitled to sneer. For the moment, the tiniest moment, the city’s power appears to be in better shape.

Except for the power outages that came with the storm and took down power in Brooklyn.

It’s easy for New York special interests to take cheap shots at Texas because the media may experience blackouts, but it won’t blame New York Democrats for them except for political gain.

Governor Cuomo was praised by the media while the dead filled New York City nursing homes until the left flank of the Democrats decided that it had a shot at replacing him in the next election. And then, suddenly, the media began reporting on the scandal it had covered up.

The Democrats never have to learn any of the lessons from their latest disaster because the only reason the media will ever hold them accountable for any of them is for political gain.

Why bother doing a good job running anything if the only metric that matters is political?

Had Cuomo stayed to the left of AOC, but killed twice as many seniors, he would have been fine. Had President Trump stayed in the White House, Cuomo would have also been safe.

That’s why blackouts in New York and California go politically unpunished, but the media is blaming the Texas power failures on Senator Ted Cruz taking his family to Cancun.

When the snow is cleared away in Texas, New Yorkers will be getting ready for the city’s annual spring and summer blackouts. In ‘21, these will almost certainly be accompanied with riots. But no one in the media will sneer at New Yorkers or Californians huddling in the dark. Unlike sneering at Texans, there’s nothing to be politically gained from such a show of contempt.

New Yorkers won’t learn their lesson. Not even when it’s 120 years in the making.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.


Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Sunday, February 28, 2021

“This Warm Winter, Austinites Can Look Out Their Windows And See Climate Change"

By On February 28, 2021
“This Warm Winter, Austinites Can Look Out Their Windows And See Climate Change,” a headline from Austin’s NPR station read last February.

“Experts say, people should get used to such sights,” the article suggested. It might be a little harder to see those sights from the record-setting snowstorm that just buried Austin.

Even this January, the experts were still touting a warmer winter in Austin. The pivot from warning that global warming was causing a warmer winter to blaming it for the snowstorm came with the snow.

“A Warmer Austin: The Future is Here,” a high-profile story from the Austin-American Statesman declared last February. A Sierra Club organizer pushing green energy warned that "warmer winters" would have a "disproportionate effect" on "low-income people of color."

Now, “low-income people of color” are dying of carbon monoxide poisoning because of a green energy grid with windmills that don’t turn, solar panels that don’t work under snow, and battery power which holds its charge in freezing temperatures about as well as your phone does.

Defying expectations and experts, Austin recorded its lowest temperature in 33 years and its deepest snowfall in 55 years. Warmer winters weren’t the future. The future was plowing through 6 inches of snow in a city that was expecting warmer, not colder weather.

The experts are back to crediting the snowstorm to ‘climate change’. Replacing God with Gaia means that every bit of weather is evidence of man’s sinful industrial nature. But up until last year, the Church of Climate Change had been predicting warmer winters and Democrat policymakers in Austin and in Texas cities controlled by the Democrats had counted on it.

The Texas Observer had cited the National Climate Assessment, which it described as "the result of three years of work by more than 300 government officials, academics and researchers", telling readers to brace for "prolonged droughts" and "warmer winters".

Reports like the Geos Institute's "Hot Enough Yet? The Future of Extreme Weather in Austin, Texas" spread alarmism about the climate of tomorrow. Fear of global warming and expectations of a climate that was hotter and drier helped drive the adoption of green energy.

Solar panels and wind turbines seemed like a good idea for a state that was expected to look more like Arizona. And little effort was made to prepare wind turbines for coping with weather conditions that global warming experts had been telling Texans were a thing of the past.

“By the end of the century, there might be as few as four freezing nights a year in Austin,” was typical of the sort of media pablum that policymakers and many residents had come to absorb.

Why bother planning for snowstorms when the future is going to be warm and snowless?

The snowstorm that hit Austin wouldn’t get a second glance in much of the country. But the difference is that Austin leaders and residents had absorbed the idea that they didn’t need to prepare for snow. They had been told, over and over again that the oracle of science had predicted that winters would be warm and that snow was becoming an artifact of the past.

Why get ready for a snowstorm that ‘science’ has told you will no longer be an issue?

Green Energy isn’t really green. The fundamental shift ushered in by so-called renewables is a move away from ‘brown energy’ and power supplies based on resources that can be mined, to ‘green energy’ which depends on the weather: on sunshine, on wind, and on tides. Weather is a much less reliable basis for an energy grid than coal, gas, nuclear, or any resource fuel.

What happened in Texas isn’t extraordinary. It’s inevitable.

When weather is your energy source, then your power grid depends on the weather. Environmentalists insist that global warming will make the weather more erratic and then propose that the solution is to switch over to power sources that depend on the weather.

That an argument so counterintuitive and self-contradictory could have become the basis for a trillion-dollar industry subsidized by taxpayers is a testament to the madness of the elites.

The Texas storm laid bare the paradoxes of green energy in swaths of white over every road.

The artificial boom of green energy has become another of those bubbles that is too big to fail. The imaginary crisis of global warming requires more subsidies for solar panels and wind turbines. The net effect of injecting more of that ‘green energy’ into a power grid is to make it less reliable and more prone to failure. The experts try to compensate for that with more solar panels and more wind turbines, and more batteries, while extending the grid even wider, so that there are more failure points, less reliable energy, and higher prices for whatever power you get.

This isn’t an accident. It’s a calculated strategy for lowering power usage by raising prices. And meanwhile the experts, the consultants, and the donor class cash in on the green subsidies.

None of this can actually be said out loud.

David Ismay, a California lawyer who had been working as the undersecretary for climate change, was forced to resign after he was caught ranting, "60% of our emissions that need to be reduced come from you, the person on your street, the senior on fixed-income. Right now, there is no bad guy left, at least in Massachusetts, to point the finger at and turn the screws on and now break their will, so they stop emitting. That’s you. We have to break your will.”

Green energy’s higher energy prices break the public’s will to heat and cool their homes, much as higher gas prices break their will to drive to the grocery store, higher car prices make it less likely that the public will buy an SUV instead of a compact car. Don’t think of solar panels, wind turbines, and electric cars as an actual solution, but as a way to break the will of the public.

And enrich the breakers.

After the disaster in Texas, green energy advocates are insisting that the problem wasn’t enough ‘green energy’. What Texas really needed was more solar panels covered by snow and more wind turbines that wouldn’t spin. Not to mention more interdependence with other states.

“The infrastructure failures in Texas are quite literally what happens when you *don’t* pursue a Green New Deal,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez tweeted. This counterintuitive argument is typical of the counterintuitive arguments for most environmentalist and leftist policies.

The defenders of everything from the Soviet Union to police defunding insist that their preferred policy was never implemented in its purest form. The Soviet Union failed to truly eliminate all private property. Crime is only skyrocketing because the police haven’t been fully defunded.

If Texas had switched entirely to solar panels, no amount of snow would have shut it down.

But, as AOC's chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti had said of the Green New Deal, “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

And the economy has been changed by becoming dependent on a green energy bubble.

Millions lost power in Texas, as they had previously lost power in California, because the radicals want to change the economy. It’s about the political climate, not the actual climate.

That’s why environmentalist discourse easily shifts from forecasting a new age of warm winters to endless blizzards. The political prophecies of global warming have little to do with science. And they change as rapidly as the weather does, but they rarely keep up with the weather.

“Is Texas’s Disaster a Harbinger of America’s Future?” an article about Austin declaims.

Yes, but not for any of the reasons inside the article. Environmentalists have trashed America’s industries while promising to replace dirty energy with clean energy. But their energy isn’t clean and their finances are even dirtier. The new emerging green energy grid, funded and championed by Democrats at every level of government, is erratic, expensive, and unreliable.

Worse still, traditional weather forecasting models are being abandoned for political global warming models that forecast huge environmental changes. And that leaves cities, states, and the entire country unprepared when the weather doesn’t follow John Kerry’s memo.

The weather is apolitical. Rain and snow, sunshine and droughts don’t have a manifesto.

The Left politicized weather. Now our weather forecasting models have been rebuilt to follow their political predictions. And they’re becoming as worthless as Soviet agricultural forecasts.

The lesson of Texas is that when you politicize the weather, you won’t see the snow coming.




Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.


Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Thursday, February 25, 2021

Senator With Illegal Alien Child Molester Intern Introduces Biden’s Illegal Alien Amnesty

By On February 25, 2021
"We have 11 million undocumented people living, working and raising families in our communities without legal status," Senator Robert Menendez argued, introducing the Biden illegal alien amnesty bill that he had sponsored. "These are good and decent people."

Menendez, who was tried for, among other things, allegedly taking bribes to help his millionaire Dominican donor obtain visas for his model ‘girlfriends’, knows a lot about immigration.

He also knows quite a bit about the goodness and decency of illegal aliens.

Menendez’s office was caught employing an illegal alien intern who was also a registered sex offender. The intern, Luis Abrahan Sanchez Zavaleta, had come from Peru on a tourist visa which had expired. Luis proved his goodness and decency by molesting an 8-year-old boy.

The South American child molester however was an unpaid intern because there are some jobs, like interning for Senator Menendez, that even American child molesters won’t do.

Luis had repeatedly sexually assaulted an 8-year-old boy. He was charged with "aggravated sexual assault" which under the state criminal code involves "an act of sexual penetration." Since this was New Jersey, a state run by Democrats and the mob, the Menendez intern only received two years probation and was not turned over to ICE until after he tried to apply for Obama’s DACA illegal alien amnesty.

When ICE finally got wind of it and was ready to send the illegal alien child molester back to Peru, its New Jersey agents were told to stand down by the Obama officials running immigration in Washington D.C. because Menedez was up for reelection in two weeks and the Democrats wanted to avoid an arrest that risked “garnering significant congressional and media interest”

Obama officials denied everything and Senator Menendez borrowed Obama’s favorite line, claiming that he had only heard that his office had an illegal alien child molester from the news.

But Menendez whined that employing an illegal alien child molester made amnesty more urgent.

"It does speak volumes about why we need comprehensive immigration reform," Senator Menendez had argued. "I can't know who is here to pursue the American dream versus who is here to do it damage if I cannot get people to come forth out of the shadows."

The shadows being those of his own office which failed to check the sex offender registry. We can deport illegal alien child molesters without offering amnesty to millions of illegals.

Now, Senator Menendez has introduced the illegal alien amnesty bill championed by the Biden administration which would provide amnesty for at least 11 million or as many as 22 million illegal aliens and ensure a rapid pathway to legal status for DACA applicants like Luis.

Menendez has always been passionate about immigration. He was so passionate about it that he ended up being indicted on 8 counts of bribery, for, among other things, helping a millionaire Dominican immigrant donor in his sixties get visas for his twenty-something model “girlfriends”.

According to the indictment, Senator Menedez got “access to an exclusive Dominican resort” and the “use of a Carribean villa”, not to mention $750,000 in cash to Democrats. Then there was a trip to Paris for Menendez with a “woman with whom he had a personal relationship”.

Senator Menendez also "used his position as a United States Senator” to “influence the visa proceedings” for his donor’s “foreign girlfriends", according to the indictment. These girlfriends allegedly included Juliana Lopes Leite, an actress and model from Brazil, on whose behalf Menendez's senior policy advisor told the State Department that he wanted to "advocate unconditionally" and "encourage careful consideration" of her visa application.

While she came to America on a student visa, Menendez met her as his donor's girlfriend.

Then there was Rosiell Polanco Suero, a Dominican model, who, along with her sister, wanted to come to America. Menendez's office sent an email to the Consul General in the Dominican Republic urging him to approve their visas. When their applications were turned down, Menendez applied the screws and the sisters got a call telling them to come in for a second hearing.

“Subj: Two people from the D.R. who wanted visas to visit Dr. Melgen got them. In my view this is only due to the fact that R.M. intervened,” read an email sent to Daniel O’Brien, Menendez’s chief of staff. O’Brien had formerly worked as the chief of staff for Senator Joe Biden.

Finally, there was Svitlana Buchyk, a Urkranian model and actress living in Spain on whose behalf Menendez wrote another letter.

You’ve gotta give Senator Menedez credit for caring about model immigrants.

“Certain elements of the FBI and of our state cannot stand, or even worse, accept that the Latino kid from Union City and Hudson County could grow up to be a United States senator and be honest,” the New Jersey senator declared, blaming his legal misfortunes on racism.

After spending over $5 million on his legal defense, Menendez’s trial ended in a hung jury and he’s now the public face of Biden’s amnesty push while lecturing us about the goodness and decency of illegal aliens. If we won’t agree, then like the FBI and the investigators who put him on trial, we’re also racists who hate a “Latino kid” who has spent 47 years “working” in politics.

Just like Joe Biden.

It’s no wonder that Biden picked another member of the “47 Years in Politics” club to be the public face of his campaign to kill American jobs and eliminate any hope for the future.

Unlike the Latin American and Ukranian “models” eager to come to America and party with Senator Menendez’s donor three times their age, his illegal alien advocacy wouldn’t just harm the domestic prostitution industry, but would steal the jobs and dreams of millions of Americans.

It would also boost domestic crime and potentially enable child molesters like his former intern.

What does it say about the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, Biden’s illegal alien amnesty bill, that it was introduced by Senator Menendez, who had stood trial on bribery charges, and in the House by Rep. Linda Sanchez, whose husband had been indicted over the alleged theft of taxpayer funds?

"I am the daughter of immigrant parents from Mexico. They came to this country and they work hard and they sacrificed every day to provide for me and my brothers and sisters," Rep. Linda Sanchez claimed. "Their story is like the story of so many others."

Like so many others, Rep. Linda Sanchez, and her sister, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, who had run for office by telling her bigoted voters that, “the Vietnamese and the Republicans are… trying to take this seat”, built careers in politics. Linda, who represents a district in California, married the chair of the Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Corporation who was lobbying her colleague.

Linda’s husband allegedly took $800,000 from CMEEC and spent it on trips to the Kentucky Derby and a flight for Linda to Key West, Florida. Sanchez claimed that her Kentucky Derby trip had been okayed by the House Ethics Committee. It’s a story like so many others.

It’s hard to think of two worse rotten hacks to be the public face for Biden’s illegal alien amnesty.

Biden’s illegal alien amnesty will sail through the House, but faces challenges in the Senate. Its champion there will be a politician who was tried for bribery involving abuse of the immigration system and whose child molesting illegal alien intern had been protected from ICE.

Senator Menendez is the perfect man for the job because he’s the epitome of abusing the immigration system. And somewhere in New Jersey are the parents of a boy abused by his intern, an illegal alien who should have been deported long before he could commit his crime.

How many more little boys will be abused by the beneficiaries of Biden’s illegal alien amnesty?





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.


Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Wednesday, February 24, 2021

Verizon Cut Off Donations to Republicans, Partnered With Antisemitic Farrakhan Pal

By On February 24, 2021
Verizon is a $200 billion corporation and Cornel West is the author of “The Ethical Dimensions of Marxist Thought”. Verizon is one of the biggest companies in America, while West claims to hate corporations so much that he taunted Obama as a “Rockefeller Republican in blackface”.

But Verizon’s Yahoo subsidiary is working together with the infamous socialist who had praised Venezulean butcher Hugo Chavez as part of its #YahooAllyshipPledge which vows to connect “diverse creators” with “thought leaders, nonprofits and activists, including Dr. Cornel West.”

West got a doctorate in philosophy for his aforementioned dissertation on the ethical dimensions of an ideology that killed millions of people in which he mentioned “the profound tragedy of the epochal change in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe” and argued that, “Marxist thought becomes even more relevant after the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union.”

Verizon has not publicly stated its position on the relevance of Marxist thought except perhaps through its relationship with the extremist author of multiple works dealing with Marxism.

Recently, Cornel West blamed the Jews for his failure to get tenure at Harvard. Verizon had no comment on that either.

When West wrote that his academic career had been partly concerned with, "defending sophisticated Marxist theory as an indispensable, though by itself inadequate, weapon in the struggle for individuality and democracy", who knew it would be brought to you by Verizon.

As John Perazzo at Discover the Networks documented, West has a very ugly radical history.

Verizon, a massive multinational gobbling up countries and companies until it ended up owning Yahoo, should be everything that West hates. And Cornel West’s Marxist thought, should worry Verizon. But ‘woke’ multinationals can unite with socialists around power and identity politics.

It would be hard to call it fighting racism when West has been one of Farrakhan’s biggest allies, appearing with him at events and defending him against charges of antisemitism.

That's the deranged bigot who had declared at Madison Square Garden that, "The germ of murder is already sewed into the hearts of the Jews in this country" and warned, "If you rise up to try to kill me, then Allah promises you that he will bring on this generation the blood of the righteous. All of you will be killed outright."

"You cannot say, 'Never Again' to god because when he puts you in the oven, 'Never Again' don't mean a thing,” the Nation of Islam leader had ranted.

Cornel West has veered between denouncing antisemitism and blaming Jews for antisemitism.

In Black Anti-Semitism and the Rhetoric of Resentment, an article that West wrote for Michael Lerner's Tikkun, he blamed black antisemitism on, among other things, "the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza... and the visible conservative Jewish opposition to... affirmative action."

It’s doubtful that black antisemitism has anything to do with Israel’s fight against Islamic terrorism. Even the Nation of Islam’s antisemitism predated the rebirth of the Jewish State.

But West has a particular obsession with hating Israel that is all his own.

Cornel West repeatedly falsely accused Israel of killing “Palestinian babies”. In one broadcast, he spoke of, "500 Palestinian babies killed in 50 days" and in another interview blasted, "a right wing government that allows for the killing of 427 precious Palestinian babies."

To paraphrase The Manchurian Candidate, it might have been helpful if West had decided exactly how many “Palestinian babies” the Jews had killed while opposing affirmative action.

These numbers, like “ethical Marxism”, were of course garbage. But that didn’t stop West from pushing them anyway. Or describing Israel’s defense against Hamas as “Jewish racism”.

“The rockets of Hamas indeed are morally wrong and politically ineffective – but these crimes pale in the face of the U.S. supported Israeli slaughters of innocent civilians,” West argued.

Hamas has actually slaughtered innocent civilians, not just with rockets, but with suicide bombers in buses and pizzerias, and with the kidnapping and murder of Jewish teenagers.

But West has never cared about such details when there’s a terrorist regime to support.

West had joined a solidarity tour to Venezuela. "We need this in inner-city America," he had gushed. "Look at all the needs being satisfied." A decade later, the socialist utopia had reduced Venezueleans to eating household pets and running out of gas with which to burn the bodies of the dead. Much of the country fled as the industries were nationalized and the people starved.

Did America’s inner cities really need people waiting half the day for their milk ration?

West had tweeted, "I love that Hugo Chavez has made poverty a major priority", he had met with the brutal tyrant, and had co-signed a letter of support for the socialist tyranny which had urged President Bush to "put an end to U.S. funding of opposition political groups".

As mobs rioted in the street demanding food, Cornel West blamed America’s “ugly” policies toward the socialist dictatorship, rather than conceding that he had been wrong.

Cornel West’s radicalism has never stopped him from being embraced by Democrat presidential campaigns, like those of Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, both of which he eventually dumped for being insufficiently radical, by leading academic institutions and the media, and by major corporations which claim to be opposed to extremism, but not from their own side.

Verizon’s Swedish CEO Hans Vestberg had declared, “we support the right for peaceful protests, we condemn the violence and rioting occurring in the nation's capital”.

Vestberg didn’t mean race riots by Black Lives Matter: a Marxist black supremacist hate group, but the protests over the stolen election. In response to the Black Lives Matter race riots, the Verizon boss had announced that the company was donating $10 million to leftist groups, including Sharpton’s National Action Network, which had played a role in racist violence.

However, after the Capitol protest, Verizon announced that it would be stopping donations to Republicans who had voted to challenge the results of the stolen 2020 presidential election.

Vestberg’s politics are not news. The Verizon boss is a member of the board of governors of the United Nations Foundation alongside Soros figurehead Mark Malloch-Brown, Ted Turner, the Queen of Jordan, and Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former Prime Minister of Norway and former Vice President of the Socialist International, who began an article by quoting Karl Marx.

But Verizon hooking up with Cornel West still marks another ugly moment in the ‘wokening’ of the Fortune 500. And if Corporate America has become more receptive to Socialists and Marxists, the radicals have also become more willing to accept corporate sponsorship.

The Yahoo Allyship Pledge claims that it will use its alliance with the likes of Cornel West to help people "better understand the complex topic of race". West has already laid out his understandings of race in pamphlets like "Toward a Socialist Theory of Racism" which began with "conceptions of racism in the Marxist tradition" and claimed that industrial capitalism was built on slavery and imperialism, while multinational corporate capitalism was somewhat better.

As part of its ‘allyship’, Yahoo’s lifestyle section quotes West on “white privilege”.

Cornel West, whose father was a defense contractor and who has a school named after his mother, whose older brother taught at MIT and worked for IBM, who was accepted to Harvard and then Princeton and Yale, knows something about privilege. Cornel West knew Elizabeth Warren when they were both at Harvard, and knew both Kamala and Buttigieg's fathers.

The elites, whatever race they claim (and in both Warren and Kamala’s case, race has been a fluctuating variable) are part of the same privileged circle. Verizon’s sponsorship is just another link in the iron chains that bind ordinary Americans under an oligarchy of elites whose members act out roles like the oppressor and the oppressed to hide their mutual power in the system.

Cornel West was happy to lend his name to bolster Hugo Chavez’s regime. Now Verizon and its Yahoo subsidiary can benefit from the same branding as Venezuela's brutal socialist tyranny.

Strip away the Marxist didacticism and all that’s left is the power of an oppressive machine that disguises its rule as revolution. Whatever logo is etched on the bottom of the boot on your neck, the owner of the boot will be sure to enlist Cornel West to explain to you why you deserve it.

Preferably, while quoting Karl Marx on behalf of Verizon.

Verizon won’t donate to Republicans who legally challenge elections. But it will work with the author of, “The Ethical Dimensions of Marxist Thought”.

The real business of ‘woke’ corporations and of socialists is a monopoly on power.




Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.


Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Tuesday, February 23, 2021

White People Aren’t Human

By On February 23, 2021
The Nation of Islam may be the largest racist religion in America. It is certainly the most influential with Louis Farrakhan’s original Million Man March drawing some 400,000 racists and allies of the hate group, including a young Barack Obama, who would later be photographed as a senator with the black supremacist leader at a Congressional Black Caucus event.

House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn, the third highest ranking Democrat, and the kingmaker who got Biden the Democrat nomination and the White House, had thanked Farrakhan for, "offering up a number of precepts that we ought to adhere to.”

Clyburn is one of a number of congressional Democrats who have Nation of Islam links.

Despite a history of violent terrorism by the Nation of Islam and its spinoff groups, its racist theology which believes that white people are subhuman devils who will be killed off, and its antisemitism and conspiracy theories, the hate group is also incredibly culturally influential.

Black Nationalist theology, politics and culture are built on the ideas of the Nation of Islam.

Raphael Warnock, the Senate Democrat from Georgia, said, “its voice has been important for the development of black theology.” He neglected to mention that he meant black nationalist theology of the kind trafficked in by Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s mentor, a Farrakhan supporter, and another ally of Warnock’s whose bigotry the Democrat politician had defended.

Culturally, a long list of musicians and other entertainers are fans of the Nation of Islam. The violent racism of Amiri Baraka (“dagger poems in the slimy bellies of the owner-Jews”), (“I got the extermination blues, jew-boys. I got the Hitler syndrome figured”), and (“Rape the white girls. Rape / their fathers. Cut the mothers’ throats”), distilled Nation of Islam theology into poetry.

“Jews double crossers stole our secrets crossed the white desert to spill them,” the former Poet Laureate of New Jersey wrote in The Black Man is Making New Gods. "The fag’s death they gave us on a cross… they give us to worship a dead jew and not ourselves.”

This is a brief summary of the narcissistic black supremacist theology of the Nation of Islam which believes that an evil Jewish mad scientist named Yakub (Jacob) used eugenics to create Europeans, Indians, and Asians from the original black master race after leaving Mecca.

That Baraka is remembered as a respected poet, that his hatefilled rants that would have made Goebbels blanch are taught in academic settings, is a tribute to how black nationalism mainstreamed hatred and the racist theology of the Nation of Islam into academia.

One of the most fundamental beliefs of the Nation of Islam is that white people aren’t human.

Some may remember Malcolm X ranting about white devils, at least until he dropped the NOI, in part over its alliance with the KKK, converted to normative Sunni Islam and was murdered by the Nation of Islam, but treated it as a commentary on segregation and racism in America.

That’s a dangerous mistake.

The Nation of Islam literarily believes that white people are an illegitimate race of devils created by a mad scientist who are “made by nature a liar and a murderer”. That belief is no longer confined to the racist hate group. It spilled into what Warnock misleadingly calls, “black theology” and into the foundational texts of what is even more misleadingly called “antiracism”.

As antiracism has taken off on college campuses and at major corporations, the old NOI belief that white people are not human has become the heart of a new breed of diversity training.

A Middlebury College lecture titled, Facilitate the Demilitarization of White Bodies, argues that, "Whiteness must be demilitarized so that bodies designated as ‘White’ might become human."

Antiracist rhetoric that defines white people as non-human is commonplace in academic settings. For example, a University of St. Thomas course titled, “Becoming Human”, insists that “The only way to “become human” is to confront the legacy of white supremacy”. Its implicitly oppressive message is that people of all races and creeds who don’t define their sense of self through the warped funhouse Marxist mirror of critical race theory are not truly human.

Online antiracist seminars offer white people the ability to “Re-Become Human” by “healing from internalized whiteness”. While antiracism buries its dehumanization of white people and minorities opposed to the toxic racism of critical race theory under a slew of academic jargon and intersectional buzzwords, its underlying worldview is cultish and derived from a racist cult.

The Nation of Islam adopted and inverted racist white supremacist ideas. Its theology is a grabag of random elements looted from Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, along with a Science Fiction racialism assembled in an era when pseudoscientic mythologies had begun to pervade popular culture and breeding a master race through eugenics appeared to be on the horizon.

Antiracism not only doesn’t teach you how not to be racist, but is a bad copy of a bad copy of the KKK, which the Nation of Islam had allied with, and Hitler, whom black nationalists from Marcus Garvey to Louis Farrakhan had admired, run through an academic jargon filter.

Critical race theory is built around black nationalism. That’s why it explicitly rejects Martin Luther King Jr’s call for brotherhood and instead champions racial separatism and original sin. And black nationalism is just a copy of white nationalism complete with a master race and inferior races. The difference between racism and antiracism is that racists don’t deny they’re racist.

The much more fundamental difference between liberal tolerance and leftist antiracism is that the former believed that the core issue was hatred while the latter formulated it as power. That Marxist reading of race was destined to defeat the religious inflection of the old liberalism.

At stake are irreconcilable questions about hate, equality, and the nature of the society we want.

The old civil rights movement argued that we could achieve equality by letting go of hate. Black nationalist movements and their leftist allies found hate uplifting and didn’t want equality. The fusion of tribal racial hatred on one side of the partnership and Marxist reductionism on the other birthed a racist movement dedicated to perpetuating racism while calling itself antiracist.

Antiracism offers both black nationalists and white leftists what they want. Black nationalists receive uncritical affirmations of racial superiority and a license to hate, while white leftists are encouraged to dismantle their civilizations from buildings and statues to language and mores, in the name of combating a concept of whiteness that encompasses thousands of years of history.

The pivot for both sides is an idea copied from white supremacists by black supremacists.

The racist origins of antiracism are why its ideas inescapably manifest as racism. A movement whose guiding lights are racial supremacy and racial inferiority is not going to stop being racist, even if you pack it with academic jargon and then make sure to put “anti” in front of the “racism”.

The only way to pass off antiracism as anything other than racist is by redefining racism.

Antiracism, like every form of racism, distinguishes between justified and unjustified hatreds based on the moral superiority of one group and the moral inferiority of other groups.

Declaring white people to be less than human because they’re racist isn’t antiracism.

It’s still racism.

Nor is it some sophisticated idea processed through academia. It’s an argument put forward a century ago by the Nation of Islam, along with its fantasies about mad scientists creating the moon and white people, while its Shabazz leaders used Africa to breed a superior master race.

Racism is not, as white supremacists and their black supremacist imitators argue, our destiny. Hating other people is a choice that we make. Stopping it doesn’t require training, consultants, or a curriculum. Like any bad behavior, we can choose to stop it any time we want to.

Antiracism doesn’t stop racism. It enables the bad behavior while pretending to be fighting it. It’s the equivalent of giving an alcoholic a bottle of whiskey while labeling it “anti-whiskey”.

Confusing the issue with jargon, or by treating whiteness and blackness as not just races, but social concepts that permeate everything, doesn’t change the racist outcome. And the best evidence of whether an idea is racist is whether spreading it leads to more or less hatred.

Antiracism has made America a lot more racist and racially divided than it was in a long time.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Sunday, February 21, 2021

The Racist Origins of President Trump's Impeachment

By On February 21, 2021
“We are not in favor of giving a vote to the negro, because we believe that he is not fit to enjoy that right,” Senator Allen G. Thurman once said.

These days, even while Democrats topple the statues of Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, two men that Thurman hated, the old dead racist has become the basis for the unconstitutional Democrat campaign to impeach President Trump after leaving office.

Thurman, who was picked by the Democrats as their nominee for Vice President, had played a major role in the sole case of the Senate deciding to impeach a public official after leaving office. The Democrat case for impeaching President Trump rests on that one case.

And on Thurman.

Legal partisans have spent weeks debating whether President Trump can be impeached after leaving office. Every single one of these analyses is heavy on rhetoric and light on precedent.

There’s a very good reason for that.

Impeachment exists to remove officials who are in office. The brilliant legal scholars who argue otherwise might want to put down their law books and check a dictionary. Impeachment shares its origin with the more commonplace word, ‘impede’. The whole point of impeachment is to impede public officials from holding office by using legislators as investigators and courts.

The post-office impeachment arguments remind me of the movie, Gus, where a mule is allowed to play professional football because the referee can’t find anything in the rulebook that says the players can’t be mules. Every argument for impeaching President Trump comes down to the same position that mules can play football because the Constitution never says they can’t.

“It makes no sense whatsoever that the president or any official could commit heinous crimes against our country and then defeat our impeachment powers and avoid the vote on disqualification by simply resigning," Senator Schumer argued.

Like saying, “You can’t fire me, I quit”, that gets the same result.

The purpose of impeachment is removing an official from office. If he quits, then he’s removed. And if he committed “heinous crimes” then a court of law could try him for those offenses.

Democrats are obsessed with removing President Trump from an office he no longer holds, but their only precedent for that is the impeachment of Belknap, Grant’s Secretary of War, who was tried and acquitted by the Senate after leaving office.

“The Senate convened a trial, and voted, as a chamber, that Mr. Belknap could be tried ‘for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office.’ The language is crystal clear, without any ambiguity,” Schumer blotivated. “The history and precedent is clear: the Senate has the power to try former officials.”

Schumer is quoting a resolution by Senator Allen Thurman, who opposed President Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation and campaigned against allowing black people to vote. But that’s just the old Democrat habit of refighting the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. Even while accusing President Trump of sedition, the Democrat cause is wedded to sedition.

The Democrat precedent for impeaching President Trump is a resolution put forward by a Senate Democrat who had opposed the Grant administration because he was a violent racist. Senator Thurman had previously delivered a speech to the Democratic State Convention in West Virginia declaring that Republicans wanted "to put the heel of the negro upon the neck of the white man" with the 14th Amendment.

That’s the Constitutional scholar on whose resolution the Democrat impeachment crusade rests.

If Schumer and the Democrats are going to use Thurman’s resolution as a constitutional precedent, making him the arbiter of what the Framers thought, then they must share his opinion of the 14th Amendment and allowing black people to vote. That would be consistent.

Eight years before the impeachment of Belknap, Thurman was warning that there would be another civil war, leading to "a war of races in the South and the extermination of the negro".

Thurman went on to argue that black people were inferior, couldn’t be allowed to vote, and that they were little more than brutes who would be killed if they kept demanding equal rights.

This is the author of the Democrat precedent for trying President Trump after leaving office.

Senator Thurman’s opposition to President Grant and attempts to smear his administration had everything to do with his racism and support for the Confederacy, rather than the rule of law.

The sole Democrat precedent for post-office impeachment comes from a racist who was threatening the country with a second civil war, and the extermination of black people, and was waging a political war against President Grant because he had defeated the Confederacy.

It’s not just Schumer. The Belknap trial and the Thurman resolution have been widely quoted.

Every time the media trots out a legal expert to explain why President Trump can be impeached, he turns to the Belknap trial and the Thurman resolution as if they were the Constitution.

The legal experts, like Schumer, don’t discuss how the Belknap trial concluded.

There were only enough votes to impeach Secretary of War Belknap in the first place because legislators argued that Belknap had resigned to avoid impeachment. But the Senate acquitted Belknap because its members believed that a former official couldn’t actually be impeached.

Impeachment failed because 23 senators voted, “not guilty for want of jurisdiction.”

Not only did the Belknap trial fail because Schumer was wrong, but the entire premise doesn’t even apply. Had Belknap’s term naturally expired, there would have been no impeachment.

It was only because Belknap had so blatantly resigned to avoid impeachment that his behavior was so provocative that he was illegally impeached to avoid creating a bad example.

When your only real precedent for trying a former president in American history is one case from 1876 of a cabinet official that was highly controversial at the time and ultimately failed, you’re gonna need a whole lot more precedents to actually impeach a former president.

Especially when your only real basis for it is a resolution by a Democrat racist seditionist.

Impeaching elected officials can be political theater or serve a legitimate purpose. Impeaching former officials is never anything except political theater. That’s true of the campaign to paint the Grant administration as corrupt which helped pave the way for a Democrat revival by smearing a generation of Republican officials associated with the Grant administration as crooked thieves.

The ultimate goal of that plot was the restoration of Democrat power and of segregation.

Democrats failed to make their case in actual courts, but holding hearings and an absurd impeachment tainted President Grant and Republicans in the eyes of the American public. Grant would labor, even while dying of cancer, to finish his memoirs, provide for his family and redeem his reputation from the Democrat smear campaigns of Grant Derangement Syndrome.

That’s the playbook that Democrats are following in their campaign against President Trump.

If the Democrats believe that President Trump is actually guilty of committing the crimes for which the Constitution says that can be impeached, "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors", then why not bring them into a court of law?

Democrats and their legal hounds have generated numerous investigations. New York has been drowning in blood while Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance have spent their time inventing new Trump investigations. And those haven’t fared very well.

The US Attorney’s office in Manhattan is done with the “Individual-1” investigation that Democrats had been claiming would “lock up” President Trump. But surely if the Democrats claim to have evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, their allies in the FBI and among federal prosecutors would be happy to see them. Why settle for a mere impeachment and disqualification when the Democrats could finally fulfill their dream of seeing him behind bars?

Especially when they’re almost certain to lose their latest impeachment again in the Senate.

Instead, the Democrats claim that they have evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, but clearly don’t expect these “high crimes and misdemeanors” to be actionable in an actual court.

Courts try people for actual crimes. Impeachments are political proceedings.

Every single presidential impeachment in our history was a political proceeding. The proliferation of impeachments and attempted impeachments in recent American history is a symptom of partisan abuse of legislative powers, not of higher ethical standards.

The Framers of the Constitution wanted impeachment to be taken seriously.

Impeachment was meant to keep the government clean, instead the government is hopelessly dirty, and impeachment has become a tool for making it even dirtier and keeping it dirty.

The Democrats are turning America into Venezuela, endlessly borrowing and spending money that doesn’t exist, while keeping the streets full of soldiers, and using security powers against political opponents, while their Big Tech oligarchy suppresses opposition political speech.

Washington D.C. is full of razor wire and military checkpoints through impeachment. Impeachment may be doomed, but it provides another justification for extending a manufactured state of emergency. And if any violence does take place, that will extend the D.C. occupation.

Even Chief Justice Roberts, no friend of the Trump administration, has refused to preside over what he clearly doesn’t think is a legal presidential impeachment process. The same Democrats who universally voted for an unconstitutional 25th Amendment coup couldn’t care less. When you’ve got troops in the streets and control over the government, the law is what you make of it.

Those are high crimes and misdemeanors. Maybe the impeachers should impeach themselves.






Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Thursday, February 18, 2021

AOC Blamed Trump for Assaults on Elderly Asians; The Attacker was Muslim

By On February 18, 2021
When a video of an assault on a 91-year-old Asian man went viral, the media and civil rights groups were quick to blame President Trump for using the term, “Chinese Virus”.

"We stand with our Asian American & Pacific Islander community against the rising tide of racism and hate crimes that have been stoked to a fever pitch, much of amplified by the actions of our last president," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez tweeted another false accusation.

But when the perpetrator was arrested, he turned out to be Muslim.

Yahya Muslim had allegedly attacked a 60-year-old man and a 55-year-old woman the same day. His arrest told a larger story about why Asian people are really being attacked in Oakland.

Muslim had been convicted of "assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury" in October 14, 2020 and was let off with an "unsentenced term". He had also been convicted of the same charge in 2015 and got off with probation. Had he been locked up, the 91-year-old man he attacked would have been safe. California’s Democrat establishment and its media allies falsely blamed Trump for their own support for criminals like Muslim at the expense of their victims.

Oakland’s Chinatown had suffered over 20 attacks against the elderly and women in two weeks.

The wave of attacks against Asian people in Oakland, like the previous attacks in New York that I documented, are being carried out by minorities with a criminal record, not by conservatives.

The cause of the crisis is a crime wave fueled by Democrat support for career criminals.

California Democrats legalized shoplifting. Some of the videos capture criminals boldly stealing money and property from stores while knowing that nothing is going to happen to them.

And nothing does.

Some of the criminals escalated their attacks from robbing stores to mugging the elderly. And the same Democrat politicians who supported legalizing robbing stores expressed concern.

But when Democrat DAs free criminals as soon as they’re arrested, when they even bother arresting them at all, when someone like Yahya Muslim could be convicted twice of "assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury" without ever serving time, that’s inevitable.

In January, there were 15 murders in Oakland, up from only one murder in January of last year.

The Oakland City Council had voted to create a task force to defund the police department by half. The actual defunding proposal was narrowly voted down with Councilwoman Sheng Thao voting for defunding. A month later, after a murder at a Starbucks, Thao was calling for the police to walk the beat again.

“Let’s commit to shifting at least $25 million from OPD to community programs and services that truly keep us safe,” Councilwoman Nikki Fortunato Bas had argued.

“We need to invest in those other types of safety,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez had argued in favor of police defunding.

How safe does anyone in Chinatown feel?

Biden’s spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, told reporters at a briefing that her boss was very concerned and had signed an executive order protecting Asians. That won’t do much good because Kristen Clarke, Biden’s black nationalist pick to head civil rights at the DOJ, opposed fighting civil rights violations by black perpetrators. That would include Muslim and most of the Oakland attackers.

Before Muslim's arrest, John C. Yang, the head of Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), a leftist group, had been one of the loudest voices blaming President Trump.

The AAJC, like its Jewish counterparts, has worked to sell out the people it claims to represent for leftist causes, supporting Yale's policy of affirmative action discrimination against Asian students, and now opposes police protection for the Asian-American victims of crime.

In response to the wave of attacks, Yang claimed that, "increased police presence isn’t necessarily going to solve the problem" and claimed to be worried "about over-criminalization of communities," calling instead for "community-based solutions, assistance for the victims, assistance for the businesses that are damaged.” Anything except dealing with the criminals.

Meanwhile local business owners are hiring armed guards, forming volunteer patrols, and calling for a larger police presence. The disconnect between what Asian store owners in Oakland actually want and the media’s insistence on quoting Yang amplifies the disconnect.

Chinatown community members have been accused of “anti-blackness” for talking about the violence they’re facing in a city and state that no longer believe in fighting crime.

The problem is not, as Yang claims, “the virus of racism”, but the virus of crime.

In San Francisco, Vicha Ratanapakdee, an 84-year-old Thai man, was murdered in San Francisco by Antoine Watson who shoved him, causing the elderly man to hit his head, and then kept going. The victim's family described it as a racially motivated assault.

Soros DA Chesa Boudin promised them justice. Considering that Boudin's idea of justice is freeing all the criminals, that's not very likely. A local news station reported that 85% of San Francisco residents said that they feel unsafe. Boudin and the pro-crime policies of criminal justice reform, which put criminals ahead of their victims, are a big part of the problem.

Even while CNN, CBS, NBC, and other major media outlets falsely tried to connect President Trump to the attacks, it’s their own political movement that is at fault for the violence.

“The perpetrator in some cases has been African American,” San Francisco Mayor London Breed said. “And as an African American woman, as the mayor of your city, I am here to hold everyone accountable.”

Accountability has become a nebulous social justice term. It’s wormed its way into cancel culture and has been used to describe restorative justice alternatives to the justice system.

The criminals don’t need to be held accountable. They need to be arrested and locked up. It’s the politicians who embraced police defunding and who keep releasing criminals who need to be held accountable for making cities unsafe, and for costing lives by empowering criminals.

What is happening to Asians in Oakland is the same thing that’s been happening to Jews in Brooklyn. The long series of viral videos showing random assaults and muggings against both groups is the result of living under Democrat leaders who have decided that crime and racism by minorities don’t exist and that policing them is racist.

There would be no rash of assaults if the DAs and the police were allowed to do their job.

Democrats love talking about hate crimes, but there’s no ‘hate crime’ without a ‘crime’. Fighting hate without fighting crime leads to lots of press conferences and not a whole lot less.

The social justice activists, reporters, and politicians who jumped on the Oakland assaults tried to blame President Trump, but when the perpetrators turned out to be exactly the same people on whose behalf they had been fighting for years, they quickly backed away from the issue.

Until next time.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez tried to blame President Trump for the attacks on elderly Asians in a city whose politicians did their best to champion police defunding. If she wants someone to blame for the wave of crime against a vulnerable community, she can look in the mirror.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Wednesday, February 17, 2021

No Objectivity Please, We're Leftists

By On February 17, 2021
The American Left has never been this in love with science and the class of experts who claim to dispense it. Any of its obsessions gains a glow of legitimacy when it attaches, “according to science” somewhere in the sentence, usually preceded by “do this” or “if you aren’t.”

And yet there’s a great deal of interest in science in China, but it’s on the way out in America.

STEM is on the social justice chopping block, under siege on and off campus with demands for equity and diversity, that also translate into less science and more social justice. Science is denounced by social justice squads as the work of dead white men and the new leftist ideology rejects the idea that the sum of 2 and 2 consistently add up to anything except systemic racism.

Seattle public schools contend that western math is “used to disenfranchise​ people and communities of color.” A University of Illinois education professor insisted that, "mathematics itself operates as Whiteness."

"Our research papers turn into media releases, books and legislation that reinforce anti-Black narratives. In STEM, we create technologies that affect every part of our society and are routinely weaponized against Black people," Shut Down STEM insisted. “The evidence of systemic racism in science permeates this nation,” Science, the journal, claimed.

The inherent problem with science is that it requires objectivity. And objectivity is the thing that leftists hate for the same reason that any cult does. Objectivity asserts that we can find the truth by stepping back from our beliefs and emotions in any field from journalism to particle physics.

The Left insists that we don’t transcend our biases through objectivity, but subjectivity.

The politically correct way to discover the truth is by understanding your white privilege and deconstructing the history of human civilization, not by searching for evidence or proof.

Truth comes not from objective facts, but from the subjective “lived experiences” of oppressed minorities whose suffering acts as the revelation of truth. This isn’t truth in the scientific sense, but in the religious sense, with minorities as martyrs revealing our sins to us with their suffering.

To be objective, lefties insist is just to deny your prejudices and evade the important work of checking your white privilege in response to the revelation of minority suffering in America.

But if objectivity is impossible, and scientific objectivity is just whiteness and colonialism, then the only legitimate science is one that asserts that leftist beliefs and values are absolutely true. The Soviet Union attempted to police science, upholding Lysenkoism because it offered a vision of science as the Communist hierarchy wanted it to be, rather than as it was, while suppressing Cybernetics because it offered a vision of reality that the Party elite found threatening.

Communist bosses liked the idea of an easily malleable agricultural system, but disliked the notion of robots replacing workers. The actual science was secondary to the ideological biases of ignorant ideologues who were convinced that they already had access to a higher truth.

Sound familiar?

The Cold War pitted Western scientific objectivity against Eastern ideological subjectivity. And objectivity won. It won to such a degree that scientists in Moscow or Shanghai don’t bother consulting ideological texts like Stalin’s articles or Mao’s sayings before doing research.

But, objectivity is dying off in the West.

Accusations of “whiteness” are to American academia what denunciations of reactionary, cosmopolitan, or idealism were to Soviet scientists. These signals serve the same function, warning scientists that they’re treading on ideologically dangerous territory by pursuing the truth.

So why does the Left claim to love science when it hates it and is threatened by it?

Marxism started out as a bastardized impersonation of a pseudo-science. Time and countless revisions hasn’t improved it any. The Left loves the idea of science, as long as it reflects its agendas, and remains subservient to its crackpot ideas. Just leave the objectivity out of it.

The same war rages in journalism.

“American view-from-nowhere, ‘objectivity’-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment. We need to fundamentally reset the norms of our field. The old way must go. We need to rebuild our industry as one that operates from a place of moral clarity,” Wesley Lowery of the New York Times ranted.

Moral clarity is what the Communist apparatchiks also wanted. Their morality and their clarity.

Contrasting moral clarity and objectivity asserts that we can either be moral or search for the truth, but we cannot do both. Moral clarity demands unquestioning allegiance to a belief system. And that belief system must permeate whatever work we do, otherwise our work is immoral.

This quintessentially Communist idea was once relegated in America to certain cultural and academic bywaters, but is now becoming the central requirement for operating in public life.

It’s why corporations have rushed out absurd statements endorsing Black Lives Matter.

Morality, in leftist ideology, comes from politicising everything because the central struggle of humanity, which used to be class, and is currently race, and might, tomorrow, be sexuality, pervades everything in a pseudo-religious struggle for the redemption of mankind.

To be apolitical or objective is to deny the revelation that we must all join the struggle.

What is at stake is more than abstract ideas. The legacy of the Enlightenment divided individual morality from objective truth. Morality became personal and communal, instead of collective, and those beliefs became all the more precious when confronting a universe that did not always reflect them. The reaction to that universe destroyed the faith of some and upheld the faith of others. And some of those who lost their faith used false reason to manufacture another one.

That is where the Left came from. Its ideas sought to fuse together a collective morality and reality by insisting that it had discovered the principles that would make the world into utopia.

The seduction of the pseudo-scientific and pseudo-religious cult of the Left is that it offers theocracy without god. Its followers believe that they are battling for a moral order that is absolutely true, and that submitting to that moral order will resolve the conflicts of theodicy, restoring a moral universe that accords with our moral views. This is the tragic lie of the Left.

The utopian kingdom of heaven never arrives. The worse things get, the more society has to be purged of its evil ways to atone for its social sins. Pre-revolutionary era ideology reduced social failures to a single root cause, but even once the revolution arrives and the root cause of class warfare or racism is done away with, the system begins hunting for someone else to blame.

That is what we are living through now.

In its pseudo-religious and pseudo-scientific folly, the Left believes that suffering, that of its martyrs of class or race, or of the designated oppressors, represents truth. It attacks science by insisting that the suffering of the working class or of trans people of color represents a truth beyond the flawed reasoning of the human mind to which everyone is obligated to kneel.

Truth, it tells us, comes from empathy and guilt, not from stepping away from our emotions.

How we feel about something can represent a moral truth. But what we do about it requires objective reasoning. The Left’s rejection of that reality is why it always ends up failing.

The Left exploits other people’s misery for power and ego. It doesn’t want answers. It wants to transmute idealism into hate, fear, and guilt. That’s why it hates truth. Its bastardization of religion and science is a lie and its prophets and experts never explain their failures.

Objectivity enables a moral society to solve its problems. The Left is at war with objectivity because it doesn’t want those problems solved. Objectivity would take away its power.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Click here to subscribe to my articles. 


Popular

Categories

Follow by Email