ROOTS OF BLACK COMMUNISM: Blacks were Labeled ‘Uncle Toms’ When They Turned Against Their Soviet Slave Masters

The history of blacks, and a “utopian vision” of society, did not start with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) organization’s Communist roots. Rather it started in the 1920s when the Soviet Union recognized the value of organizing the black community to fight against “economic and political inequalities.” Thus began the Soviet infiltration of the black community and its churches.

This Soviet movement has morphed into the current BLM’s plan, via anarchy, riots and tyranny, to divide Americans on the basis of race, color and creed. It has become the core of the Democrat Party’s platform of “social justice” using all means available, including violence.

Roots of Black Communism

According to the Black Communism website:

The early 1920s saw an increased membership of African Americans in the Communist Party USA because it was a space for black intellectuals to convey dissatisfaction with economic and political inequalities. It strengthened other civic organizations, such as Langston Hughes’s League of Struggle for Negro Rights, and established forums where black intellectuals could air their concerns, such as the John Reed Club, to “win writers and artists to the revolution.”

The history of black Communists dates back to the  1930s when men like U.S. Communist Party leader Pettis Perry became a member of the International Labor Defense (ILD), the legal arm of the American Communist Party in 1932.

According to Black Past:

He [Perry] overcame his lack of formal education by memorizing Party speeches and resolutions and reading The Communist Manifesto, as well as works by Vladimir Lenin and W.E.B. DuBois.

According to Wikepedia:

The International Labor Defense was a legal advocacy organization established in 1925 in the United States as the American section of the Comintern’s International Red Aid network.

[ … ]

In the spring of 1922 “Big Bill” Haywood, former Wobbly leader turned bail-jumper and defector to Soviet Russia, made a proposal in Moscow to establish a new entity dedicated to the legal defense of political prisoners in the United States, given its level of activity. Representatives of the Communist Party of Poland in Soviet Russia had a similar need, and sought organized support for their jailed comrades in Poland. The Russian Society of Old Bolsheviks and Former Political Exiles and Prisoners, a group whose members had previously raised funds for the support of political prisoners in Tsarist times, acted upon these suggestions late in the summer of 1922. They passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a new international organization for the legal and economic support of left-wing political prisoners.

Black Communists and Their Soviet Slave Masters

Many black Communists saw that they were being used and turned against their Soviet Slave Masters. One of these was Manning Johnson. Manning Johnson published a book in May, 1958 titled “Color, Communism, And Common Sense.”  Manning Johnson wrote:

Ten years I labored in the cause of Communism. I was a dedicated “comrade.” All my talents and efforts were zealously used to bring about the triumph of Communism in America and throughout the world. To me, the end of capitalism would mark the beginning of an interminable period of plenty, peace, prosperity and universal comradeship. All racial and class differences and conflicts would end forever after the liquidation of the capitalists, their government and their supporters. A world union of Soviet States under the hegemony of Russia would free and lead mankind on to Utopia.

[ … ]

My zeal, training, both theoretical and practical, combined with loyalty and willingness to sacrifice, changed me from a novice into a dedicated red—a professional revolutionist. Consequently, I climbed rapidly to the National Committee, the highest governing body of the Communist Party in America.

Being an idealist, I was sold this “bill of goods” by a Negro graduate of the Lenin Institute in Moscow.

Johnson continues:

I saw communism in all its naked cruelty, ruthlessness and utter contempt of Christian attributes and passions. And, too, I saw the low value placed upon human life, the total lack of respect for the dignity of man, the betrayal of trust, the terror of the Secret Police and the bloody hand of the assassin, during and since, those fateful years when I embraced communism.

In Chapter 2 SUBVERTING NEGRO CHURCHES Johnson wrote:

A large number of Negro ministers are all for the Communists. Some are prominent and influential; others are “run of the mill.” They in common believe that beating the racial drums is a short cut to prominence, money and the realization of personal ambitions even if the Negro masses are left prostrate and bleeding—expendables in the mad scramble for power.

Abner W. Berry, columnist in The Daily Worker, official organ of the Communist Party, recently praised these ministers as fulfilling their “historic role,” i.e., delivering the Negro into the hands of the Communists. Neither his pen nor his lips had such praise prior to the 1934-35 period. Then the Moscow line was clear.

The resolution on the Negro Question stated:

In the work among the Negroes, special attention should be paid to the role played by the churches and preachers who are acting on behalf of American imperialism. The Party must conduct a continuous and carefully worked out campaign among the Negro masses, sharpened primarily against the preachers and the churchmen, who are the agents of the oppressors of the Negro race.

All the instructions from Moscow at the time ordered reds to “combat the influence of the church” because the church, “by offering to the Negro worker and peasant for the miseries they are enduring in this world, compensation in heaven, are befogging the minds of the Negro workers and peasants, making them a helpless prey to capitalism and imperialism.”

From the Black Panther Party to Black Lives Matter – Communists One and All

The Black Panther Party (BPP) was founded on socialist/Communist principles and black nationalism. The Black Panther Party, originally the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, was a revolutionary socialist political organization founded by Marxist college students Bobby Seale and Huey Newton in October 1966 in Oakland, California. These same goals apply to Black Lives Matter. The leaders of BLM, like their fore bearers are Marxists.

As the BPP was founded by Marxists so to is BLM!

YoungRippa59 posted the below video titled BLM founder admits they are trained Marxists.

In a June 25, 2020 New York Post article titled Black Lives Matter co-founder describes herself as ‘trained Marxist’ Yaron Steinbuch wrote:

Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists” – making clear their movement’s ideological foundation, according to a report.

Cullors, 36, was the protégé of Eric Mann, former agitator of the Weather Underground domestic terror organization, and spent years absorbing the Marxist-Leninist ideology that shaped her worldview, Breitbart News reported.

CONCLUSION

As Manning Johnson wrote:

Stirring up race and class conflict is the basis of all discussion of the Communist Party’s work in the South. The evil genius, Stalin, and the other megalomaniacal leaders in Moscow ordered the use of all racial, economic and social differences, no matter how small or insignificant, to start local fires of discontent, conflict and revolt. “Who could tell which of these issues could start a general conflagration” that would sweep across the former Confederate States from Maryland to Texas?

This race and class conflict is now called “intersectionality.” It is being used by BLM, Antifa and the Democrat Party to divide and conquer America on the streets of cities such as Portland, Detroit, Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and even in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Manning Johnson understood what was happening during his time as a leader of CPUSA, “To sink their claws in, subvert and use the Negro people, Moscow must have loyal, dedicated, trained Negro professional revolutionists who can easily be manipulated, that is, made to follow the Party line.”

The end justifies the means for those members of BLM, who are clearly following the Communist, and Democrat, “Party line.”

©All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: We All Need to Get Up to Speed on the Color Revolution, a Diabolical Tactic to Destroy Trump

PODCAST: The Left’s War on the Filibuster

Listen to Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) explain how Democrats are trying to kill the filibuster in the U.S. Senate, which would pave the way for a far-left legislative agenda for years to come.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Russia’s Quiet Persecution of Religion

Facebook Attaches an Asterisk to Free Speech

Historic Israeli Peace Agreements A Breath of Fresh Air for Middle East

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

FAU Poll: Trump Gains on Biden in Florida, Making Key Battleground State a Dead Heat

BOCA RATON, Fla. /PRNewswire/ — After falling behind Democratic nominee Joe Biden in May, U.S. President Donald Trump has surged back into a virtual dead heat in the battleground Sunshine State, according to a statewide survey of registered Florida voters by the Florida Atlantic University Business and Economics Polling Initiative  (FAU BEPI).

Biden holds a 49 percent to 46 percent lead, with 5 percent undecided, but those undecideds are breaking for Trump 4:1, resulting in a statistical tie at 50 percent for each candidate.

Trump led Biden in FAU’s March poll, 51 percent to 49 percent, but Biden gained a 53 percent to 47 percent advantage in May.

Among Trump voters, 72 percent said they are extremely excited for the election, while 60 percent of Biden supporters expressed the same sentiment.

Many analysts believe Trump must win Florida to regain the White House in November.

Florida continues to be too close to call, but the enthusiasm still favors President Trump, and that could be the difference,” said Kevin Wagner, Ph.D., a professor of political science at FAU and a research fellow of the Initiative. “With only 5 percent of the voters undecided, this election is less about persuasion and more about turnout.”

The economy was the top issue for voters surveyed at 37 percent, with the coronavirus second (17 percent) and healthcare third (14 percent). Racism/equality ranked fourth at 10 percent, just ahead of foreign policy (9 percent). No other issue eclipsed 5 percent.

“The economy is still the No. 1 issue for voters, so that might explain why Trump has seen a bounce-back in the state,” said Monica Escaleras, Ph.D., director of FAU BEPI in the College of Business.

The economy is the top issue for 60 percent of Republicans and 37 percent for Independents. But it received top billing for just 15 percent of Democrats, with 27 percent saying the coronavirus was the most important issue.

Trump’s approval rating has improved in his new home state since May, with 47 percent of respondents approving of his job performance, up from 43 percent.

The survey of 631 registered Florida voters, conducted Sept. 11-12, has a margin of error of +/- 3.8 percentage points. Data was collected using both an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system of landlines and cell phones and an online panel.

SOURCE: Florida Atlantic University Business and Economics Polling Initiative

©All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

TRUMP EFFECT: Incomes Hit Record High and Poverty Reached Record Low in 2019

There is no one on G-d’s green earth better equipped to get us right back than the great man who delivered these momentous gains.

NEW: Incomes hit record high and poverty reached record low in 2019

American households saw their best economic gains in half a century last year under President Trump, according to a report this week from the Census Bureau.And with the President’s pro-growth, pro-worker policies in action, this standard can be achieved again as America safely reopens from the Coronavirus pandemic.

Median household income grew by a stunning $4,400 in 2019, resulting in an all-time record of $68,700. This 6.8 percent one-year increase is the largest gain on record for median income growth.

The poverty rate plunged to an all-time low of 10.5 percent, as well. Between 2018 and 2019 alone, over 4 million Americans were lifted out of poverty, and the child poverty

Minority groups including African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans saw the largest gains in income, while poverty rates fell to a record low for every race and ethnic group in 2019.

Black Americans, for example, saw a 7.9 percent median income increase and a poverty rate that fell below 20 percent for the first time in history.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted this historic progress in 2020. Nevertheless, America today is witnessing the fastest recovery from any economic crisis in history. Thanks to the strong fundamentals of the Trump Economy, the monthly jobs report has met or exceeded economist expectations for four months in a row.

The new Census report confirms what we know to be true: With the right agenda for blue-collar and middle-class workers, there’s no limit to America’s economic greatness!


HAVE A TIP WE SHOULD KNOW? YOUR ANONYMITY IS NEVER COMPROMISED. EMAIL TIPS@THEGELLERREPORT.COM


RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrat Michigan Secretary of State Misprints Trump Ticket on Ballots for Troops

Pelosi’s House Majority PAC submits antisemitic direct-mail ads against Jewish Republican candidate in NJ-3

Nearly 2/3s of US young adults unaware 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust, BLAME Jews for Holocaust

Communist China Group Funding Black Lives Matter-Linked Organization

Panthers Spanish-Language Announcer Fired Over Trump Support

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Democrats’ War on Blacks

When hearing talk of Democrats’ war on blacks, some may think of the 92 percent of black homicide victims murdered by other blacks mainly in Democrat-run cities. Others may ponder the 300,000 black babies killed yearly in the womb with the approval, sometimes tacit, sometimes more overt, of many white liberals. Yet there’s another front in this war, one more recently opened and far more insidious.

When President Trump early this month ordered an end to mandatory “Critical Race Theory” (CRT) training in the federal bureaucracy — which sometimes involved compelling white male employees to write letters of apology to “marginalized” people — he was, predictably, called a “racist.” But if ending this destructive program is “racism,” well, then whatever racism is, we need more of it.

The CRT “training’s” anti-white nature is obvious. As Heritage Foundation fellow Christopher Rufo wrote last month, reporting on the CRT indoctrination at Sandia National Laboratories, the trainers insisted “that white males must ‘work hard to understand’ their ‘white privilege,’ ‘male privilege,’ and ‘heterosexual privilege.’”

Of course, such privilege exists like unicorns do. But insofar as blacks and other non-whites will believe it does and that they’re (perhaps fatally) disadvantaged, we should ask: How does making people more hopeless and bitter improve their prospects for success?

“Acting White”

It gets far, far worse, however. The trainers also claimed that “rugged individualism,” “a can-do attitude,” “hard work” and “striving towards success” reflected “white male culture,” which they said leads to “lowered quality of life at work and home, reduced life expectancy, unproductive relationships, and high stress.” I guess slacker bums who can’t put food on the table (when they have a table) have no stress.

But this Loser 101 indoctrination isn’t limited to Sandia or even the bowels of federal buildings. It’s in schools (and corporations) as well, where teachers are being told that hard work, planning for the future and punctuality are “white norms.” Try telling that to Asian-descent Americans, who, apparently, are just like white people — only more so.

(One race theory activist, Glenn Singleton, does tell them that, saying that Asian-descent Americans are a “majority” group because of their “white” habits. Honorary white people, I guess.)

Ironically, this is the very attitude black educators lamented, and combated, just a generation ago. Back then it was slacker, criminally inclined black youths (usually driven by jealously, mind you) accusing their higher achieving peers of “acting white.” This was universally recognized as destructive social pressure that militated against the embrace of success-breeding habits. Now the attitude has been lent the respectable veneer of educational theory and the endorsement of academic authorities.

This does violence to an already struggling black underclass. It’s man’s nature to glom on to convenient excuses, and American blacks have long been fed a diet of low expectations for performance and high expectations for copping out. Now pseudo-intellectual social engineers are exacerbating the problem.

Consider race-theory-demeaned punctuality. The saying goes that “80 percent of success is just showing up”; I’ll add that 90 percent of success is showing up on time. Yet as black writer T.J. Holmes lamented in 2014, failure to do so characterizes the black community.

In “It’s Time to Quit Operating on CP [Colored People’s] Time,” Holmes writes that our “challenges with starting or arriving on time are often dismissed with humorous complacency.” “You know how we are,” is what he hears from other blacks. “But this week,” he wrote, “CPT totally stopped being funny to me.”

After relating instances in which he’d been bitten by CPT, he stated, “This hurts to admit, but I often pause when considering doing business with black people or black companies, based on my experiences.”

Now, will activists call this black man a “racist”? They’ll more likely brand him an Uncle Tom. No amount of name-calling alters reality, however, which is this: We can institute all the affirmative action, quotas and set asides we want, but the last 50 years have proven that the wider society’s indulgence cannot compensate for a community’s fundamental virtue deficits. The pork barrel can keep people on a certain plantation, though.

Of course, as we’ll often hear regarding social ills, “It all starts at home.” It’s well known, too, that fatherlessness/family dissolution plagues the black community today, with 72 percent of black children born out of wedlock.

Now the Democrat Left aims to worsen this problem, too, with Black Lives Matter openly stating that one of its goals is to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement.” In this structure’s place, BLM wants blacks to care for each other, as it writes, “collectively.”

A popular race-hustler notion, the aforementioned Glenn Singleton called “collectivism” a black norm while BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors admitted “We are trained Marxists” (collectivists) in a 2015 video. And in pushing socialism on blacks, they are in a way working toward equal outcomes — for the vast majority of the 100 million souls thus far murdered by Marxist governments have been white or Asian.

The notion that blacks somehow require a different economic/moral framework (collectivism) than whites do gets at a truth: The CRT’s largely unrecognized philosophical foundation (philoso-babble, really) would have to be the relativism sweeping our time. The idea is that, as Louis Farrakhan put it, “A White Man’s Heaven Is a Black Man’s Hell” (I believe Hitler expressed a similar sentiment, by the way); that whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, women, etc. all have different “needs.”

The truth, however, is precisely the opposite. As Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson has put it, the black community’s problem is “immorality.” Often called sin, this is a universal plaguing everyone and causes most human woes. Now, the remedy for immorality is, obviously, morality. To be specific, if morality came in a jar, on the ingredients label would be virtues.

These are “good moral habits,” examples being hope, honesty, charity, fortitude, justice, temperance, prudence, chastity, patience, kindness, humility and love. Another virtue is diligence, which relates to punctuality and industriousness. Yet another is forgiveness, which forestalls the bitterness and hatred that can cause a person to focus on tearing society down instead of building himself up.

The point, however, is that virtues aren’t “white” or black, Hispanic or Asian, male or female.

They are divine.

They’re also universals. All people need them to live happy, prosperous, moral lives — there are no exceptions.

Anyone counseling against virtue — as the race activists do — is the worst enemy a people could have. In fact, this is why Rev. Peterson called BLM “worse than the Ku Klux Klan”: It’s doubtful that even the most clever white supremacist would think to, or could, convince blacks that virtue is vice.

But Democrat-enabling, and enabled, organizations — teachers’ unions, BLM, academia, etc. — are doing just that. And why? Well, since poor, dependent people vote Democrat by wide margins, a cynic could think that the Democrats would want to make the poor and dependent class as large as possible.

What’s for sure is that virtuous people rarely support leftists. So if I were an amoral modern Democrat lusting after power, I’d peddle vice, too.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab or Parler (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Historic Middle East Peace Deal the ‘Abraham Accords’ Signed at the White House!

History was made today at the White House as leaders from Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain met with President Trump and signed the Abraham Accords, which will normalize diplomatic relations between Israel and the two Arab nations.

Before this summer, only two peace deals involving Israel had been negotiated in the last 72 years, with the most recent coming in 1994. During the past month alone, President Trump has helped broker two such agreements.

“Today the world sees that [these nations] are choosing cooperation over conflict, friendship over enmity, prosperity over poverty, and hope over despair,” President Trump said.

They are choosing a future in which Arabs and Israelis, Muslims, Jews, and Christians can live together, pray together, and dream together.”

The first steps between Israel and both Bahrain and the UAE are an exchange of embassies and ambassadors, as well as the start of direct commercial flights between countries.

Each leader spoke today about the significance of the Abraham Accords in the pursuit of enduring peace in the Middle East:

  • “This day is a pivot of history. It heralds a new dawn of peace,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said.
  • “Peace requires courage, and shaping the future requires knowledge,” Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates said. “We have come today to tell the world that this is our approach.”
  • “Today is a truly historic occasion—a moment of hope and opportunity for all the peoples of the Middle East,” Abdullatif bin Rashid Al-Zayani of Bahrain said.

When President Trump took office, the Middle East was fraught with turmoil. Today, a geopolitical transformation is underway. As more and more Arab countries begin to establish direct ties with Israel, the region’s prospects for peace, economic growth, technological innovation, and opportunities for young people will only improve.

“The people of the Middle East will no longer allow hatred of Israel to be fomented as an excuse for radicalism or extremism,” President Trump said.

The failed foreign policy approaches of the past only served to stoke division, empower bad actors, and permit violence to spread across the Middle East. The signing of the Abraham Accords today begins a new, brighter chapter that rewards true peace.

Earlier this month, President Trump also announced a historic economic agreement between Serbia and Kosovo. That deal led to a pledge from Serbia to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, while Kosovo has agreed to mutual recognition with Israel.

In other words, President Trump’s bold, creative diplomacy gets real-world results. The ISIS caliphate is destroyed, trust is being restored with America’s allies, extremists are being sidelined, and American troops are coming home from never-ending wars.

“After decades of division and conflict, we mark the dawn of a new Middle East,” President Trump said.

©White House. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Virologist Dr. Li Meng Yan ‘Chinese Intentionally Created This Virus’

RELATED ARTICLE: Chinese Whistleblower to Tucker Carlson: Coronavirus Was Man-Made And Released Intentionally

EDITORS NOTE: These videos posted by on the Vlad Tepes Blog are republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

WATCH: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris refers to a “Harris-Biden Administration”

And so did she:

Joe Biden And Kamala Harris Make Freudian Slips, Accidentally Referring To A ‘Harris Administration’

Vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris spoke of a “Harris administration,” while discussing economic plans during a virtual roundtable Saturday.

By Ecita Duffy, the Federalist, September 15, 2020:

“A Harris administration, together with Joe Biden as the president of the United States,” she said before correcting what many are calling a “Freudian slip.”

With worries about Biden’s mental agility, many people wonder if a potential Biden administration would really be Biden’s. The Federalist Staff Writer, Tristan Justice, theorized that Biden will be “a vehicle for the left’s cultural revolution,” if he becomes president.

Angela Davis, a prominent communist, anti-Semite and former Black Panther, stated Biden could be “effectively pressured,” into promoting the agenda of the radical left in pursuit of a complete societal transformation overthrowing existing norms into a new world order.

As Justice notes, “Biden has already showcased a willingness to conform to the woke revolution,” through his agenda which is  “the most radical progressive platform of any modern Democratic candidate in recent history.”

On par with Biden’s radical agenda, Harris has proven to be a solid member of the far left. As Federalist Managing Editor Joshua Lawson writes, Harris is far from a moderate, as the corporate media likes to portray her. Harris also has the most progressive voting record in the Senate.

“Her positions form an agenda nearly entirely in lock-step with the radical leftist ideology that has taken over the Democratic Party,” Lawson writes.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Twitter Suspends Account Of Chinese Scientist Who Published Paper Alleging Covid Was Created In Wuhan Lab

GUT-WRENCHING Video: *GRAPHIC* Muslim SLUGS Random Swedish Woman in Broad Daylight In Series of Horrific Beatings

Chancellor Merkel: Jews Don’t Feel Safe in Germany

Serbia designates Hezballah in its entirety as terror group

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Joe Biden’s Catholic Problem?

The CatholicVote published the below video titled Joe Biden’s Catholic Problem? with the following commentary:

Only God knows Joe Biden’s heart, but we can all know his policy positions.

Here’s where Joe Biden disagrees with Pope Francis, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

©CatholicVote. All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Taking a Newspaper to Task

It is no secret the main stream media has turned to the Left and actively supports liberal causes. As such, trying to get a conservative comment printed is next to impossible. This was one of the key reasons why I cancelled my subscription to the Tampa Bay Times a couple of years ago and started the Tampa Bay Conservatives web site. Enough is enough.

I am obviously not alone in this regard as I know many conservatives angered by the press. To illustrate, of the people in our Tampa Bay Trump Club, I have yet to meet anyone who subscribes to the Tampa Bay Times. It is simply loathed by conservatives and labeled “Fake News.” I also see this in other newspapers in Democrat-controlled urban strongholds where they pander to the Left, such as Portland, Seattle, Chicago, New York, etc.

I have offered suggestions for “Confronting the News Media,” including picketing and boycotting, but one of the most effective means to protest the media is simply the printed word which, unfortunately, few people use to express their displeasure.

Enter Larry Marlin, an old friend and conservative from Bryan, Texas (near College Station and Texas A & M University). For quite some time, Larry subscribed to the local newspaper, The Bryan-College Station Eagle. However, he began to notice a shift in the editorial slant of the paper and brought it to the attention of the Editor there. Unfortunately, the liberal slant went from bad to worse. Finally, he could stand it no more and wrote the following letter recently to the newspaper which I found particularly interesting:

Dear Editorial Board:

Since August 10th, I have kept copies of your newspaper and reviewed them for bias. As you may recall, you printed a letter I wrote saying most of “The Eagle” bias comes from your Associated Press articles. I later wrote a letter saying I had been mistaken and your paper was rife with bias. The second letter was based on material you printed after being “woke” by BLM and the rest of the “protesters.” You did not print that letter. I did say I was not a member of the “cancel culture” and, rather than cancel my subscription, I would see if your paper made any effort to reduce bias.

I have reviewed each issue since 8/10. You have not improved. If anything, you have gotten worse. During the period 8/10 through 9/4 you have printed 28 left wing editorials and 9 right wing ones. In editorial cartoons you did better with 5 right wing and 3 left wing. Concerning the cartoons, it is interesting that several days after Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s hypocritical visit to get her hair washed, you finally printed something about it in a cartoon relegated to the bottom of the editorial page. Other than that, as near as I can tell, you completely ignored the story.

Of course, your AP articles continue to be overwhelmingly left wing. I have not seen any indication of an attempt on your part to reduce this left wing bias. I doubt you have contacted AP concerning their outrageously dishonest presentations of the news. I don’t have time to list all the left-biased articles by AP. I would mention Steve People’s articles about the Democrat convention compared to his articles about the Republican convention — day and night.

Anyway, I will be cancelling my subscription. I just can’t imagine you will ever change. Should you surprise me and decide to make needed changes such as blasting AP, hiring a few conservatives, balancing your editorials, writing more unifying local editorials, or anything else please let me know. I might resubscribe.

Sincerely,
Lawrence P. Marlin*
Sep 4, 2020

What I liked about this letter is that it wasn’t ranting and raving, but rather, a matter-of-fact dissertation as to why someone was unsubscribing. If I was the Editor, I would consider it carefully and not dismiss it out of hand as it represents a legitimate concern of a reader. If Larry’s data is correct, the Editor should now realize his slip is showing and should take steps to correct it before all of his conservative readers abandon him. The reality though is, as a supporter of the far-Left, the Editor couldn’t care less and is willing to sacrifice readership to preserve the Left’s dogma. This is essentially no different than the attitude of the mayors of Democrat controlled cities where their citizen’s lives and businesses are threatened. This, of course, is reckless behavior and speaks volumes of their priorities of choosing Democrat policies over the safety and well-being of their citizens.

Larry’s letter also happens to make a handy template for writing your own letter to other newspapers. For those of you who have difficulty penning a Letter to the Editor, simply copy Larry’s letter, update it with data specific to your area and send it in (preferably by e-mail). If enough people complain of the unfair tactics of the press, the better the chances of getting some honest news reporting. To do nothing is to surrender to the press.

I’ll leave it with you.

(* Letter written with the permission of the author)

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – Also, I have a NEW book, “Before You Vote: Know How Your Government Works”, What American youth should know about government, available in Printed, PDF and eBook form. This is the perfect gift for youth!

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

VIDEO: BLM’s Leftist Agenda Has Little to Do With Black Lives

The The Heritage Foundation posted the following video titled BLM’s Leftist Agenda Has Little to Do With Black Lives on its YouTube channel.

WATCH:

The Heritage Foundation states:

Many good intentioned Americans have updated their social media status and purchased products to show support for #BlackLIvesMatter. But do they really know the radical leanings of the official organization? We take you along to meet the self proclaimed marxist founders of Black Lives Matter and unpack some of their extreme leftist views.

Please follow The Heritage Foundation on YouTube: https://bit.ly/2otKliy … Follow The Heritage Foundation on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/heritagefoun… Follow The Heritage Foundation on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Heritage … Follow The Heritage Foundation on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/heritagefou…

©All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEETS:

PODCAST: Far Left Similar to Communist Movement, Former Student Radical Says

Disconcerting similarities exist between the modern progressive left and the communist movement. Take it from someone who knows.

Tony Salinski, once a student radical and now an expert on communist ideology, identified as a communist for several years during the Vietnam War era. Salinski joins the podcast to explain why he was drawn to communism as a youth and to identify similarities between communism and socialism.

Also on today’s show, we read your letters to the editor and share a good news story about a school principal who is using his skill as a barber to mentor his students.

Listen to the podcast below or read the lightly edited transcript.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


“The Daily Signal Podcast” is available on Ricochet, Apple PodcastsPippaGoogle Play, and Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!

Virginia Allen: I am joined by professor Tony Salinski, a former student radical in the communist movement. Tony, thank you so much for being here today.

Tony Salinski: You’re welcome. Thank you for having me.

Allen: The topic of communism and socialism is certainly getting a lot of attention in the current political and social climate. And when you were a student, you were a part of the communist movement. Can you just begin by telling us a little bit of your story? How did you come to identify with the communist movement?

Salinski: Well, I was actually for the war. This was back at the time of the Vietnam War. And I started out for the war and, like everybody, debating whether they wanted to enlist or wait until they got they got called, drafted.

And during that time, [President] Lyndon Johnson did a TV special. They call it a special, but he was on TV. He was arguing against the Republicans, who had wanted to get in and get it over with, and get out.

One of the things he said was, “We’re going to stay in there. We’re not going to invade the North. We’re just going to stay in there until we stop them. And it could take 50 years.” I thought to myself, “Fifty years? Fifty years of guys just getting killed to finally just out-kill these guys.” And that started me to think, “This is not for me. I don’t want to do this.”

Push comes to shove later. I was looking into means of getting out legally of the draft and went to a meeting house, where a number of different groups were present. And one of them was a communist group.

I was interviewed briefly by the people sponsoring the event. And they asked me if I would have fought in World War II, and I said, “Well, yeah. Absolutely.” And they said, “OK, that’s not what we’re looking for. We’re looking for people who wouldn’t fight at all.” And they motioned me over to the communists, and I went over and gathered some information.

Later, I just sort of drifted into them. The resistance was going because there was no other resistance. There was no resistance to what the communists were saying anywhere on the media. There was no Rush Limbaugh. And I was a blue-collar kid and didn’t know anything about “Firing Line” or William F. Buckley or anything like that.

So there was no counter to what the communists were putting out about the war in Vietnam. And I got convinced that it was illegal and that it was immoral. And … one thing led to another. …

I was in a rock band at that time. And that was the big draw that drew the communists to me. We were doing pretty well and getting good audience responses around the city of Pittsburgh. And eventually we started doing some shows for them. And one thing led to another and I was involved.

They asked me, probably on three separate occasions, to join the party. And I told him the same thing every time, I said, “Nixon’s got a list, an enemies list, and I don’t want to be on that list. But I can work with you and help you out, as we go here, without being a member of the party itself.”

And we came to that agreement and they stayed with that. And from then on, it was just a matter of just going to the events that they put on and helping them with this and that, and the other thing, and bringing the band.

Allen: I find that interesting. You didn’t join the party, but you were in the movement for a number of years, in the communist movement. What was so appealing about the communist movement to you, that kept you in it, that kept you saying, “I’ll support you all. And I’ll be a part of what you’re doing”?

Salinski: Basically the idea that they were doing something. They were active. They knew what their motives were. They knew that they wanted out of the war. And I agreed with that, at first.

They were organized. They could bring out a crowd like nobody’s business. It was amazing to see how they were able to put a lot of people together, to come out and make their point.

But I was never fully into the idea of destroying the United States of America. That was a problem for me from Day One. And they got around that by saying, “We don’t want to destroy the United States. We simply want to improve it.” And I bought it. I was 19 years old, 18 years old, at the time, and I bought it.

But that was it. Ideologically, I didn’t get really aware ideologically until near the end. And things started to become clearer and clearer and clearer. And I realized that from the very beginning, everything they had said was in one way or another a lie. And I just finally couldn’t stand that.

I kept confronting them, asking them, “What about this? What about that?” And I kept getting variations on the same answer. “You’re just not ready for the whole story yet.” And I, being 19 years old, I knew everything, anyway. I thought, “Well, yeah, I am ready for the whole story. Why don’t you just tell me?” But it just kept going on and on and on like that. And finally, I just dropped away.

Allen: They were almost kind of teasing you along, giving you little bits of information, but never totally upfront and candid, it sounds like, about, really, what ultimately their mission was.

Salinski: Right. And they did that to everyone, except the people who walked up and said, “I want to join the Communist Party USA.” Those people got moved to the head of the line, so to speak, but the rest of us were just drifting in varying degrees of commitment, varying degrees of understanding. And yeah, they sort of reeled us in gradually.

Allen: So fast-forward to today. And what do you know of the communist movement’s activity today? I mean, some of the unrest that we’re seeing in the streets, can we directly link that back to communism?

Salinski: Well, when I got out of the movement, … I didn’t want any parts of any of it. My wife at the time said, “If you’re drafted, are you going to go to Canada?” I said, “No, if I’m drafted, I’m going to go to Vietnam.” OK? I had just gotten sick of the whole thing. And after getting away from it for a little while, … I got into the Democratic Party.

I was … semi-active as a Democrat and paid attention to all the news and everything like that. And I realized, “Wait a minute, these people are the communists on slow motion. They’re active. It’s the same thing. What they want is the same thing. They just don’t want to do it as fast.”

The communists, they were in the process at that time of switching from Leninist tactics in the street, in-your-face revolution, to Gramsci. And the idea of a gradual movement into a revolutionary pattern that wasn’t in your face wasn’t on the street.

… That really put me off because I just wanted to get it over with and get things straightened out, as they said.

But yeah, from the Democratic Party then, I’m moving on and watching these people. And what happened was, … it took a very short time, a year or so, before I just started watching them, watching everything they were doing.

I felt strange because my dad used to always say, “Oh, that’s communist.” I’d say, “Oh, dad, yeah. I know there’s a communist under your bed.” Well, there was, they were everywhere. And whether they call themselves communists or not, they were, in my estimation, communists because the goals were the same. The tactics were a little different, but the goals were the same.

One of the last things that they did that really pushed me away was they come up to us one day on the street. And this had come down from, not an activist, an agent, actually, a KGB agent, who had been identified to me on the streets several times. He was, I guess, code named Andre.

Andre had passed on this information that we were going to completely change our tactics. And I said, “What are we going to do?” “Well, you’re going to stop calling yourselves communists.” I said, “Really? Well, what are we going to call ourselves?” “We’re going to call ourselves liberals, progressives, socialists, anything but communists.”

Allen: Wow.

Salinski: So from that point on, if you identified yourself as a liberal, I just said, “Okay, check one communist. Progressive, check another as communist.” And what I’m seeing today, in my mind, validates that.

Allen: Wow.

Salinski: Well, Antifa is and Black Lives Matter is more a return to Leninist tactics. They’re out in the street, obviously burning things down, and pushing people around, and so on and so forth.

But the main communist movement is behind them and is still chugging along with their idea of … moving the country gradually over the past, what is now 50 years since this all happened. I’m watching it. Never, never stop moving to the left. It’s always moving left.

Allen: So walk us through how exactly the Communist Party does go about enticing people. I mean, how have they essentially infiltrated the left to where we are seeing this kind of radical takeover and this radical progressivism push forward, that is very different from what I think the left used to look like?

Salinski: Well, their motive has been all along to identify areas that certain groups, certain constituencies, and when it gets down to it, certain individuals, like myself, are interested in.

They had a gold mine there during Vietnam because they had a war that nobody wanted to get into. And they used that to pull people in. But whatever it is, housing, jobs, anything that they can name that a group is interested in, they will use, even if they’re counter to each other. …

They’re promising one group this, promising the other group that, and this and that cancel each other out. But as long as those two groups don’t figure that out, they’re drawing people in.

Allen: In your own experience, how open and honest are communists actually about their goals?

Salinski: Depends on where you are in the program. Up at the top, yeah, they’re free and easy with talking about what they want to do, destroying the United States, as we know it. And then ultimately destroying all nations, and all boundaries and borders. But below the top level, it’s just what you’re given to know, what you’re supposed to know, and you move on from there.

But the word “honest” and the word “communist” should never be used together in a sentence because they’re not honest.

Allen: Interesting. You have explained, during previous presentations, that the Communist Party really sees themselves as being at war when they’re spreading their ideology. Can you just explain that a little bit more, what you mean by that?

Salinski: Well, yeah. And this was early on too, I didn’t get this late in the program, this was upfront. “We are at war.” Now, I didn’t tumble to all that that meant, but the phraseology was, “We’re at war. And that means anything goes.”

Marx said that the definition of morality is that which advances the revolution. And I found that to be true with them. That’s what morality is. …

One of the things that really frustrates me, when I’m dealing with people who are not real knowledgeable about this stuff, is that idea that they think we’re playing by the same rules that we’ve always played by.

There’s a Democratic Party, there’s a Republican Party, everybody’s agreed on the fundamental principles of right and wrong, but that’s not where the communists are.

They are at war. They are going to do anything, anything it takes to win. There’s no ground for agreement or crossing the aisle or any of that stuff. It’s just, they’re going to take advantage of every situation that offers itself. And they’re going to use that situation to win. It’s the end justifies the means, in every case.

Allen: Well, I find it fascinating that you say that because I think increasingly in the nation, that’s what we’re seeing. You’ve been through things like cancel culture, that there’s no room for disagreement or difference.

Salinski: Right.

Allen: And we’ve seen, sadly, this real interest among young people in socialism. In your opinion, what separates socialism and communism? Does one naturally kind of deteriorate into the other?

Salinski: Well, I agree with Lenin, the end, the result of all socialism is communism. There are arbitrary demarcations drawn along the historical line, but they’re arbitrary and … the moment they can be pushed aside, the moment they can be disposed with, they’re going to be disposed with.

This is an argument I have with so many people in our own movement, “Oh, well, he’s not really a communist.” No, not yet, but he’s headed there.

There’s a difference between their conception of economics, and communism is an economic system in the end. They believe in what’s called a closed economic system. There’s X amount of dollars, or whatever we want to refer to the resources as, and that’s it. You have to move that around to people in the fairest possible way, ideally, absolute equality.

But capitalism is based on an open economic system. You don’t have enough wealth? Well, go create some. And that’s what we do. … I learned that in college, that was long, long, past the communist phase of my life.

But when I learned that, it became crystal clear to me why some people are drawn to communism or socialism or any ism that says it’s going to share the money. Well, yeah, because there’s only so much, and if you have too much, then I have too little. But that’s not reality. I mean, wealth is always being created.

Allen: You mentioned in college, that was where your capitalist views kind of were cemented. And that’s wonderful, that for you that was your experience. But I do find that sad, that today, we see the exact opposite, that young people go to college and they are somewhat radicalized. They are introduced to socialist and communist ideas. And maybe that capitalist background that they grew up with is kind of lost to the wayside.

What do you think is the responsibility of educators, parents, mentors, to actually be speaking to the younger generation, honestly, about the realities of socialism and communism?

Salinski: Well, I think that their responsibility is to go there and do that and open up that conversation. But at this point, you’re going to lose … Well, even back then, it was the case. But now, it’s even more the case. You’re going to risk losing your sons and daughters because they’re bought into it.

And I should add that I was not educated in capitalism in college. I drew that from the opposite of … Everything they said was bad, I thought, “Well, that sounds pretty good to me. That actually doesn’t sound bad at all.”

So it was not that they were out there promoting capitalism at that time. I just drew that from what they were promoting. Because I had already been there, I had seen the whole communist thing up close, and thought, “Yeah, yeah, yeah. That’s not true. What you’re saying there won’t work out.”

And certain times you could speak that out and say, “Well, my experience is this,” and you’d get support. And other times, you just learn to keep your mouth shut, if you want to get that grade and get out, where you can do some real damage, which I did.

Allen: Yeah.

Salinski: I ended up teaching college, and in my classroom they got the truth. You know when I say they got the truth, they got both sides, they got a fair treatment of communism and a fair treatment of capitalism.

I have to tell you, once it’s laid out like that, I used to finish the course with just a little … Well, other things that they had to do. But one of their tasks at the end of the course was to write me a two-page paper on what they thought of the material in the course, regarding communism and capitalism, and 90% of them plus went for capitalism when they realized what the difference was.

Allen: Well, I think, unfortunately, few college students today have a professor like you that will clearly lay out both sides.

So are there any resources that you would recommend for young people who, they’re in college, they’re facing, essentially, being indoctrinated with these ideas and they just want to hear both sides of the argument. Are there certain books that you would recommend or individuals, maybe, to look up on YouTube?

Salinski: … First of all, the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, they should become familiar with that. And the history behind it, that in itself is quite a task, but they need to do that. But writing’s more directly concerned with it.

What started me off was W. Graham Sumner. I don’t know if you ever heard of Sumner, but he was an anti-socialist back in, I think he died in 1910 or something like that, in 1912. So he was in the Progressive Era and he was noted as an anti-progressive, but he frequently got onto outing socialism and just laid out the differences.

Salinski: Let’s see, [Antonio] Gramsci, or not Gramsci. Well, they should read Gramsci. They should read something of Gramsci because that tells them what they’re hooked up in now. They should read “Rules for Radicals,” if they haven’t already. Which is, again, a Marxist source, but it lays out what they’re being asked to do and why.

Any of the writings from [The Heritage Foundation]. OK? Any of the writings from people like Pat Buchanan, back in the ’90s, especially. There’s a lot of material out there. They have to look it up though.

Allen: Absolutely. How can our listeners follow your work?

Salinski: Through ACAT, mostly. And I do some things around here. I’m doing a speech on the 29th about communism. Well, it was originally in a library, but then this coronavirus came along and shut the library thing down. So they’ve moved it across the alleyway to a church over there.

You could look me up online. I’m trying to think of whether most of my talks are still up there. I know we took a lot of them down, but they have a way of getting back up there. So you could just look up my name and see what comes out in that, but always through ACAT, Anticommunist Action Team. That’s where I’ll be.

Allen: Great. Thank you. So that’s the Anticommunist Action Team.

Salinski: Yeah.

Allen: We’ll be sure to link that in the show notes today. Tony, thank you. We just really appreciate your time and you coming on and talking about your own personal experience, really fascinating.

Salinski: Well, thank you very much for having me.

COLUMN BY

Virginia Allen

Virginia Allen is a news producer for The Daily Signal. She is the co-host of The Daily Signal Podcast and Problematic Women. Send an email to Virginia. Twitter: @Virginia_Allen5

RELATED ARTICLES:

Looking Back: Combating Tyranny, Waste, and Economic Devastation of ‘Green’ Agenda With Free Enterprise

The State of Race in America Today and Yesterday

ICYMI: 10 Examples of Defensive Gun Use Underscore Second Amendment’s True Purpose


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Political Elite Value Their Own Safety, NOT YOURS

The hypocrisy of the pampered political elite on the topic of personal safety is reaching breathtaking new levels. No longer content to merely deprive the citizenry of the means with which to defend themselves, politicians in some jurisdictions are depriving residents of police protection as well. All the while, these contemptible figures have shown a keen interest in making arrangements to secure their own safety.

Anti-gun political actors have always ignored the logical implications of their own policies. Hillary Clinton travels with a bevy of bodyguards, as did Democrat mega-donor and NRA opponent Harvey Weinstein. According to a 1986 account from United Press International one of Sen. Ted Kennedy’s (D-Mass.) private bodyguards was arrested “when he arrived at the Capitol with two submachine guns and ammunition.”

On June 26, the Minneapolis City Council voted unanimously to advance a measure to disband the Minneapolis Police Department. The move to defund the police received significant criticism from leaders of the communities that most rely on the police department. Being charitable, the left-leaning Minneapolis Star Tribune described the city council’s proposal as “not well thought out.

However, city council members have little to fear from the sweeping overhaul of law enforcement. On June 30, the Star Tribune reported that at the same time council members were working to defund the police, city taxpayers spent $63,000 on private security for three council members. In a July 1 editorial, the paper noted, “We do hope that council members fully consider the implications… Residents and businesses also face threats that can be mitigated by the presence of licensed, armed officers.” The item went on to note, “The debate in Minneapolis and elsewhere should not be about taking security from some but providing it persuasively to all.”

According to the Star Tribune, one of the officials to benefit from private security is City Council Vice President Andrea Jenkins. In June 2019, Jenkins advocated for further security at city hall after she was “shaken” by a group of protesters during a council meeting. The paper reported that “Jenkins said the city could put security guards at several entry points in the building.” The paper went on to quote Jenkins as complaining about a purported lack of gun control.

Another private security beneficiary was Ward 9 Council Member Alondra Cano. In August 2019, Cano took to Twitter to demand new gun controls, including measures “to remove certain guns from the market.”

The third politician to benefit at taxpayer expense was Ward 4 Council Member Phillipe Cunningham. As a candidate in 2017, Cunningham spoke at a gun control event put on by the anti-gun group Protect Minnesota.

This conspicuous display of hypocrisy was not limited to the Mill City.

In early June, Seattle politicians ceded several city blocks to dissidents in what came to be called the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), and later the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP). Private property owners and residents inside the area were abandoned by the city. A statement from attorneys who have filed a lawsuit against the city on behalf of those affected explained that “For more than two weeks, and with the full knowledge and participation of the City, our clients’ neighborhood and properties have been blocked, barricaded, occupied, and vandalized.” During the occupation, the area experienced several shootings, including one that resulted in the death of a 16-year-old and the wounding of a 14-year-old.

At the outset, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan appeared to have little issue with the burgeoning autonomous zone. Addressing the area, the mayor opined that Seattle may experience a “summer of love.” When President Donald Trump took to Twitter to criticize the experiment in lawlessness, Durkan responded “Don’t be afraid of Democracy.” Of course, it is unlikely many Emerald City voters thought they were signing off on such an anarchic project last time they went to the polling booths.

With the several shootings, pressure began to grow for Seattle to regain control of the autonomous zone. However, decisive action didn’t come until after the Durkan’s personal security was threatened.

On June 28, Socialist Alternative Seattle City Council Member Kshama Sawant joined a protest outside Durkan’s fashionable multi-million-dollar home. Unconcerned with the lives and property of those inside CHAZ, Durkan took great umbrage to the protesters in her neighborhood.

The mayor issued a letter to the city council demanding an investigation into Sawant. Durkan complained that by leading a protest to her home, Sawant had shown a “reckless disregard of the safety of my family and children.” Durkan went on to whine that “at that rally, [Sawant’s] followers vandalized my home by spray-painting obscenities.”

Less than 72 hours after Durkan’s home was targeted, the city cleared CHAZ.

Much like the well-protected Minneapolis council members, Durkan has also advocated to restrict residents’ right to self-defense. In May 2018, Durkan proposed city gun control legislation to restrict Seattle residents’ ability to store firearms in a manner by which they can quickly access them for self-defense.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has also proven herself unwilling or incapable of upholding the law in her city.

In early August, Chicago’s magnificent mile shopping district was looted. For many business owners it was the second time in three months that their stores and livelihoods were attacked. According to data from the Chicago police, shooting incidents in July in the city were up 75 percent over July 2019. Murders were up 139 percent over the same time period.

When pressed on the dire state of her city, Lightfoot has been quick to deflect blame onto Second Amendment rights rather than accept any responsibility for the the visible devolution of civil authority.

However, Lightfoot has gone to great lengths to ensure her personal safety. The city has constructed what some locals are referring to “Fort Lori” around the mayor’s entire neighborhood. According to the Chicago Tribune, “[t]he Chicago Police Department has effectively banned protesters from demonstrating on Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s block in the Logan Square neighborhood, ordering officers to arrest anyone who refuses to leave.” The paper also noted that a city directive “did not distinguish between the peaceful protesters Lightfoot regularly says she supports and those who might intend to be destructive.”

Making perfectly clear that she values her safety far more than that of average Chicagoans, Lightfoot defiantly lectured the press, “[t]his is a different time like no other and I’m not going to make any excuses for the fact that, given the threats that I personally receive, given the threats to my home and my family, I’m going to do everything I can to make sure that they are protected.”

Through their actions, these politicians have made clear that they are willing to sacrifice the safety of their constituents, but are unwilling to compromise their personal safety in the process. Such a flagrant breach of the social contract forfeits whatever perceived moral authority they may have claimed in order to control how their constituents provide for their own defense.

RELATED ARTICLE: 5 Reasons Why Violent Radicals Feel Empowered

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

New Reporting Shows Kenosha Riots Hit Minority Communities Hardest

Callous disregard of property rights creates long-term instability that scares away business investment and reduces economic opportunity.


On August 23, the police shooting of an African American man named Jacob Blake sparked national unrest yet again, in a pattern that has become all too common. Blake survived the shooting, and the incident was murky—not a clear-cut injustice. Yet rioting and looting broke out in Kenosha, Wisconsin, nonetheless.

Now, as the dust settles and locals begin to sort through the rubble, the scale of the destruction that rocked the city after Blake’s shooting is becoming clear.

At least 56 businesses were damaged or destroyed by looting or arson, according to the Wall Street Journal. Current assessments report more than $50 million in damage.

“The destruction has left shop owners in one of Kenosha’s oldest business districts grappling with why their businesses became casualties of the destruction that has followed protests against racism and police brutality, and whether they will have the money to rebuild and stay in the neighborhood,” the Journal reports. “While Kenosha’s population is 79.5% white and 11.5% Black, according to census data, locals say the Uptown neighborhood is one of the city’s most diverse areas, with a majority of minority-owned businesses.”

It appears that in Kenosha, just as in Minneapolis and Chicago, the fallout from rioting and looting will disproportionately harm minority communities.

“I always think that people have the right to protest—to peacefully protest—but this goes beyond that,” La Estrella Supermarket owner Abel Alejo said. “They were destroying the neighborhoods that they want to protect.”

Even a local Black Lives Matter leader denounced this destruction, saying “We’re not into doing anything to damage our community… it waters down our message.”

This damage is significant, but defenders will no doubt seek to downplay it, explaining that “businesses have insurance.” Yet the damage goes beyond cold cash. There is also the enormous human and emotional toll involved in having your property destroyed and having to pick up the pieces that even a premium insurance plan can’t account for. What’s more, lost income and unpaid labor inevitably await any entrepreneur victimized by vandalism.

Plus, many small businesses don’t have insurance or are underinsured. They will have to bear the costs themselves.

Ultimately, the destruction in Kenosha and its disproportionate impact on urban, minority communities reminds us of a timeless lesson: Property rights are the fundamental basis of a market economy. Yet, despite how critics often portray them, property rights are not simply a matter of protecting the wealthy and big corporations. The protection of private property is what ensures immigrants, minorities, and poor people are not derailed on their climb up the economic ladder in pursuit of the American dream.

Moreover, the protection of property rights uplifts everyone by setting the stage for long-term economic success that benefits all. It is the engine of our prosperity and is integral to freedom.

Nobel laureate economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek once wrote that, “The system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not.” Similarly, the economist Thomas Sowell has said that property rights, “belong legally to individuals, but their real function is social, to benefit vast numbers of people who do not themselves exercise these rights.”

What this means is quite simple: Callous disregard of property rights creates long-term instability that scares away business investment and reduces economic opportunity. Often, this manifests itself in the form of lower property values, higher insurance rates passed on to consumers, reduced tax revenue, and fewer jobs in an area.

You don’t have to just take my word for it. Studies examining the long-term economic impact of the 1960s Civil Rights Era riots and the 1990s Los Angeles Rodney King riots document these exact effects.

So, when looters descend on urban communities like Kenosha in a wave of destruction, even liberal supporters of criminal justice reform shouldn’t fall for the narrative that rioting is harmless, justified, or helpful. The evidence is clear. “Social justice” agitators who cross the line past peaceful protest and engage in violent vandalism are only sabotaging the same minority communities they claim to care about.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo is a libertarian-conservative journalist and the Eugene S. Thorpe Writing Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

On the 19th Anniversary of 9/11, Biden and Harris blithely ignore the findings – and warnings – of the 9/11 Commission.

Today, even as we remember the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, America finds itself under attack by anarchists and Radical Leftists and violent criminals who have been released under the guise of “bail reform” and to protect criminals from COVID-19 while they commit murders, rapes, robberies and other violent crimes.

Certainly there is no shortage of news reports about acts of extreme violence carried out across the United States primarily in cities run by Leftist Radicals literally following the old dictum of news reporting, “If it bleeds, it leads.”

However, the threat of terrorism continues but has been all but ignored by the media and by our politicians.

Consider that New York’s disgusting mayor, de Blasio attempted to block the reading of the names of the victims of the terror attacks of 9/11 and the lighting of the twin spotlights, a practice that has been ongoing since September 11, 2001, purportedly out of concerns of the COVID-19 virus, a concern that he ignored during massive violent demonstrations in NYC, the city that was the most heavily impacted by those attacks.

On August 14, 2020 The Miami Herald reported, ‘This is a disgrace.’ Outrage after 9/11 light show canceled over COVID-19 concerns.

Additionally, for the first time, Americans who were born after the attacks of 9/11 will be voting. Furthermore, many of our schools are failing to teach their students about the attacks of 9/11 or the ongoing threat of terrorism posed by radical Islamists. Indeed, who could ever forget the outrageous description of the 9/11 terror attacks by Rep. Ilhan Omar when she said that on that day, “Some people did something”? On September 11, 2019 Fox News reported on this: “Ilhan Omar slammed on 9/11 anniversary by victim’s son after ‘some people did something’ quote.”

Furthermore, “Sanctuary” policies implemented by radical political “leaders” act in opposition to the findings of the 9/11 Commission and undermine national security and public safety for our entire nation.

The official report, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel, included this paragraph:

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

In the upcoming Presidential debates all of the candidates for the Presidency and the Vice Presidency should be asked, “Have you read The 9/11 Commission Report and the companion report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel?”

However, I doubt that this vital question will be asked of those who aspire to be our next Commander-in Chief.

Clearly Presidential candidate Joe Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris have not learned the lessons that the terror attacks of 9/11 should have taught us. They have proposed to gut immigration law enforcement and provide providing lawful status to unknown millions of illegal aliens.

There would be absolutely no way to interview these individuals who entered the U.S. surreptitiously. There would be no way to conduct field investigations to determine the truthfulness of the information that they would provide in their applications for legalization.

This ignores that the 9/11 Commission identified immigration fraud as the key method of entry and embedding used by terrorists determined to launch deadly attacks in the United States. This was the focus of my article, “Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill.

These two excerpts from the afore-noted report 9/11 and Terrorist Travel addressed the nexus between terrorism and immigration fraud:

Page 46 and 47 of this report noted:

Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.

This paragraph is found on page 98:

Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.

I have testified before numerous hearings conducted by various House and Senate committees and subcommittees on various aspects of the immigration crisis, most often about that nexus between immigration and terrorism, public safety and national security.

Back on May 5, 2005 the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims conducted a hearing on the topic, New ”Dual Missions” Of The Immigration Enforcement Agencies. I testified at that hearing.

What was particularly striking about this hearing was that the Chairman of that subcommittee, John Hostettler, a Republican, challenged the way that the George W. Bush administration created the Department of Homeland Security in violation of the enabling legislation, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA). He noted the following in his prepared testimony: “Failure to adhere to the statutory framework established by HSA has produced immigration enforcement incoherence that undermines the immigration enforcement mission central to DHS, and undermines the security of our Nation’s borders and citizens.”

His testimony also noted:

The 9/11 terrorists all came to the United States without weapons or contraband—Added customs enforcement would not have stopped 9/11 from happening. What might have foiled al Qaeda’s plan was additional immigration focus, vetting and enforcement. And so what is needed is recognition that, one, immigration is a very important national security issue that cannot take a back seat to customs or agriculture. Two, immigration is a very complex issue, and immigration enforcement agencies need experts in immigration enforcement. And three, the leadership of our immigration agencies should be shielded from political pressures to act in a way which could compromise the Nation’s security.

Hostettler’s courageous criticism of the Bush administration demonstrates that until the election of President Trump, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans really wanted to address the multiple failures of the Immigration system as I wrote in an earlier article, “Sanctuary Country – Immigration failures by design.”

Biden’s plan to create a massive amnesty program for what he claims would be 11 million illegal aliens but would actually involve a multiple of that already huge number.

Immigration fraud would permeate such a massive amnesty program where the hapless adjudication officers could not keep up with the onslaught of applications.

Earlier this year I addressed the magnitude of such a massive immigration amnesty program in my article, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should be Renamed the “Overwhelm America Act” in which I noted that a number of universities have estimated that there are at least 25 million illegal aliens in the United States. I would suggest that even that number is much smaller than the true number of such aliens.

The major fact being ignored by everyone, however is that if those aliens were to be granted legal status, they would automatically have the absolute right to immediately petition to have all of their spouses and minor children to be admitted into the United States as lawful immigrants.

Imagine if, on average all of these legalized aliens have 3 or 4 minor children back home. The number is likely to be even higher. All of them would have an absolute right to join their newly legalized parents in the United States.

Thus we would really be looking at an influx of unknown tens of millions of additional alien children who would be enrolled in our schools and, in a short period of time, would join the labor pool.  The economics of this, coupled with the impact on housing, critical infrastructure, hospitals, and other such factors would cause America to implode. We could be looking at the legal immigration of one hundred million such immigrants — literally overnight — who would overwhelm our schools, critical infrastructure and do irreparable harm to Americans.

Every person in America has an environmental footprint. Those who immigrate to America not only need a place to sleep but food, water, electricity, transportation, healthcare and other necessities.

For all of the breast-beating by the Left about “sustainability,” the Biden plan would dump tens of millions of lawful immigrant workers into our labor pool, displacing American workers and suppressing wages.

So much for Biden’s “promise” that if elected he would help American workers get better-paying  jobs!

Biden’s “promises” are actually threats aimed at the lives and livelihoods of Americans during a particular treacherous and difficult era.

Facts are indeed stubborn things!

©Michael Cutler. All rights reserved.