Friday, December 25, 2020

Voter Fraud: A Note to Leftists Who Claim that "Not a shred of hard evidence has been produced"


A cranky reader advises me to "let it go," claiming that "There was no voter fraud, Eric. Not a shred of hard evidence has been produced."

Remember George W Bush being lampooned mercilessly for twangs and goofs (real or alleged), such as the way he pronounced "nuclear"? Then came Obama who spoke of the nation's 57 states, mentioned the "Austrian" language, and confused the Malvinas (more about the Falklands below) with the Maldives. 

Oh, that? said the country's — and the planet's — journalists. No big deal… And so those goofs were not, or barely, reported…  Not that I disagree, mind you (that they were/are no big deal). I just think if you refrain from making a big deal about the Maldives (about as far away from the Malvinas on this planet as you can get), then you refrain from making a big deal about "nuclear"; if you make a big deal about Dubya's goofs, then you make an equally big deal about Obama's goofs. It ain't complicated…

I don't think that the filter of the media's double standards is conducive to a neutral and objective citizenry or to their, i.e., to the nation's, well-being…

Leftists claim that "Not a shred of hard evidence has been produced" — this, after the MSM that you read and watch along with the social media companies, like Twitter and Facebook, that you perhaps follow have made a conscious and deliberate decision to refrain from reporting on that very subject; a subject that is remarkably uncontroversial.

It is not Holocaust denial, after all, is it? In that case, refusal to report on that subject makes more sense. No, it is more like saying that Obama made such wonderful speeches; never a single goof in any of them. How do we know? Well, that is what the MSM reported, never mentioning a single goof.

What is also amazing about the Left — not least the  very "objective" and "neutral" "seekers of truth" and "investigative" journalists in the mainstream media that we have been speaking about so far — is their utter lack of a single ounce of curiosity in the matter — simple, human curiosity.

There is absolutely no controversy whatsoever to say that corruption can be found in large cities, and — as I have been repeating on French radio and TV shows this past month or two — it is no more controversial to say that voter fraud exists in Philadelphia and Chicago than to say that it exists in Marseille and Nice (Nice is especially conducive to comparisons with Chicago since the latter's father-son tag team (the Daleys) can be compared to Nice's Médecin family.)

Lately, moreover, it has emerged that the narrative that existed for the Falklands War for 30 to 40 years is false, and that contrary to 1982 media reports — repeated for over three decades — that British soldiers stationed on the island had surrendered almost immediately to Argentina's invaders, they had in fact put up quite a long (and lethal) fight.

Many many years after World War II, it emerged that the British had uncovered the German secret codes, and rather than have the Germans figure that out, Churchill (far from wrongly) let an English city be bombed (Coventry?) instead of warning its inhabitants.

More to the point, perhaps, is Eisenhower's suggestion to his vice-president that Nixon challenge the 1960 election's results; because there had definitely been fraud in Illinois (see Chicago above) and in (LBJ's) Texas.

And yet, both in Europe and in America, we are told from the get-go that no fraud whatsoever took place in 2020; belief in voter fraud is proof of absolute insanity or conspiracy theory and must be dismissed out of hand. As if it were akin to suggesting that the pyramids of Egypt and Mexico were built by ancient extraterrestrials with the help of their spaceships…

And yet: Even with the pyramids, there is no attempt to silence the news… Leading to the question, "What are they scared of?"

Indeed, how can journalists in Paris or New York or even Milwaukee or Atlanta state that no fraud took place in, say, Wisconsin or Georgia? Without any attempt at investigation? And that within a week of the election? In Paris I was interrupted — almost shouted down — by, among others, a historian (!) (see three historical examples above) — all of whom (religiously) repeated the same phrase: "Il n'y a aucune preuve!"

In America, they feel a need to call the charges "baseless" again and again — even in New York Times headlines. There is no way that cheating can have occurred in 2020 and there is no way that the results of the election can be disbelieved. Although that is the exact same accusation that Democrats have been bringing for the past four years. And, indeed, bring every time a Republican emerges as the winner.

2016 was the Republican cheating with help from Russia's leader, 2000 was the Republican cheating with help from Florida's governor, and (way back) 1980 was the Republican cheating with the help of Iran's ayatollahs.

Where are the media reports (rightly) calling (at the time or in the years or decades following) Trump's Russian conspiracy a "baseless" hoax or the so-called Iranian deal with Ronald Reagan "baseless"?

Double standards, Crank. Double standards.

My all-time favorite Tea Party sign featured this message:

"It doesn't matter what this sign says, it will be called racist."

Likewise, it doesn't matter what evidence (or, rather, proof) we come up with.
We will be told that "Not a shred of hard evidence has been produced"… 

Update via Instapundit — Among this week's collection of Powerline memes
is the Journalists' Guide to Reporting on Politicians:



Monday, December 21, 2020

How Would Reagan React to the November Election's Voter Fraud and the Riots of 2020? How About Abe Lincoln?


What would Ronald Reagan say about how Americans should react to the riots of the summer of 2020 and to the November election's innumerable instances of outright voter fraud?

We have the answer to that question, thankfully, thanks to one of his best speeches ever.

In his A Time for Choosing address for the Goldwater Presidential Campaign in 1964, the Gipper said that

there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace — and you can have it in the next second: surrender 

Although the quote about peace is (hardly wrongly) taken in the context (indeed, in its intended context) of the Cold War, people do not realize that the sentiment about surrender and apologizing and submitting does not apply only to a foreign adversary — the communists of the Soviet Union — it also applies to domestic issues (and even within one's family — although when dealing with a wife, wise husbands might do well to learn the phrase "you're right, dear"). 

Indeed, the oath of officeholders is to

support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

In that perspective, we should remember one of Abraham Lincoln's earliest speeches, his 1838 warning against domestic foes. (Strangely, I thought as a teen visiting Walt Disney World in the 1970s, why would that speech be the one that the Imagineers — obviously, long before the Disney Studios became "woke" — chose for their Audio-Animatronic Lincoln in the Hall of Presidents?) 

At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? — Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! — All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Brought forward 180 years, Honest Abe's message becomes, do not seek peace with members of the Democrat Party on basic issues of policy, domestic or otherwise, or regarding their swindle in elections, or concerning the suicide of your Grand Old Party or the suicide of (y)our republic and of (y)our (common) nation.

Needless to say, conservatives who surrender, who submit, and who apologize — from John McCain to Mitt Romney through John Roberts — are lionized in the press. 

Members of the Supreme Court as well as officials from various local stateside Republican Parties, from Wisconsin to Georgia, have surrendered and submitted, for ostensibly good reasons, in their minds — to prevent further riots. And apparently because of, yes, precedent.

Conservative leaders have sought out "peace" with the Democrat Party and with its "dreamers", its drama queens, and its mobs, rioters, and arsonists, and have engaged in virtue signalling, i.e., have striven to appear gentlemanly. Gentlemanly in the eyes of the Democrats, who have not an ounce of reciprocal courtesy to offer to Republicans. 

Indeed, the very fact that the Left commits voter fraud and uses "worse than savage mobs" as a bludgeon to get their way is the very proof of their lack of reciprocal civility that they demand from Republicans. More to the point, it is not the path along which a republic can continue to follow if it wishes to survive rather than committing suicide.

In the Lyceum address, Lincoln goes on to say that

I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts [the courts in the real sense; not the cowardly courts in the Progressive era almost two centuries later]; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny. Accounts of outrages committed by mobs, form the every-day news of the times. They have pervaded the country, from New England to Louisiana

Nay: suicide — of one's party, of one's republic, on one's nation — is not gentlemanly.

To return to Reagan's speech, the one thing I would have added would be the following:

You can have peace in a second — surrender. To make the ignominious taste of surrender palatable, our friends on the Left would rewrite the history of the United States and of the West to make us feel ashamed, to make us the guilty party in all disputes imaginable, and to make us believe that we are the cause of all the evil and all the sins in the world.

Related: Stare Decisis — The Areas that Precedent Is Not Supposed to Include and Be Concerned WithHow Come So Much of What Honest Abe Spoke of 150 Years Ago Seems Relevant Today?

Read the rest of Lincoln's 1838 speech (remember, Honest Abe was only 28 at the time, which says something for not finishing school and educating oneself at home) — especially, as you remember the riots of 2020, the following part:

But you are, perhaps, ready to ask, "What has this to do with the perpetuation of our political institutions?" I answer, it has much to do with it. Its direct consequences are, comparatively speaking, but a small evil; and much of its danger consists, in the proneness of our minds, to regard its direct, as its only consequences. Abstractly considered, the hanging of the gamblers at Vicksburg, was of but little consequence. 

 … But the example in either case, was fearful. —When men take it in their heads to day, to hang gamblers, or burn murderers, they should recollect, that, in the confusion usually attending such transactions, they will be as likely to hang or burn some one who is neither a gambler nor a murderer as one who is; and that, acting upon the example they set, the mob of to-morrow, may, and probably will, hang or burn some of them by the very same mistake. And not only so; the innocent, those who have ever set their faces against violations of law in every shape, alike with the guilty, fall victims to the ravages of mob law; and thus it goes on, step by step, till all the walls erected for the defense of the persons and property of individuals, are trodden down, and disregarded. 

But all this even, is not the full extent of the evil. —By such examples, by instances of the perpetrators of such acts going unpunished, the lawless in spirit, are encouraged to become lawless in practice; and having been used to no restraint, but dread of punishment, they thus become, absolutely unrestrained. —Having ever regarded Government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations; and pray for nothing so much, as its total annihilation. 

While, on the other hand, good men, men who love tranquility, who desire to abide by the laws, and enjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their blood in the defense of their country; seeing their property destroyed; their families insulted, and their lives endangered; their persons injured; and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better; become tired of, and disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection; and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose

Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocractic spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed —I mean the attachment of the People. Whenever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision-stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this Government cannot last

By such things, the feelings of the best citizens will become more or less alienated from it; and thus it will be left without friends, or with too few, and those few too weak, to make their friendship effectual. At such a time and under such circumstances, men of sufficient talent and ambition will not be wanting to seize the opportunity, strike the blow, and overturn that fair fabric, which for the last half century, has been the fondest hope, of the lovers of freedom, throughout the world.

I know the American People are much attached to their Government; —I know they would suffer much for its sake; —I know they would endure evils long and patiently, before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.

Thursday, December 17, 2020

Radio Courtoisie : « Trump doit-il passer à l’action ? »

 
Le 16 décembre 2020, Evelyne Joslain reçoit :
  • Erik Svane, membre du groupe des Républicains à Paris

Thème : « Trump doit-il passer à l’action ? »

Mer.16 déc. de Midi à 13h30: 3è émission à Radio Courtoisie sur la fraude électorale US. TRUMP DOIT-IL PASSER A L'ACTION? Avec Erik Svane, nous évoquerons les vaccins, les juges, la collusion Biden/Chine et les moyens légaux qui restent à Trump. Sans oublier Noël.
Cliquez sur le lien pour entendre l'émission d'une heure et demie… 

Patron d'émission du Libre journal du Nouveau Monde à Radio Courtoisie, Evelyne Joslain est l'auteur d'une poignée de livres sur les États-Unis.




Monday, December 14, 2020

Stare Decisis: The Areas that Precedent Is Not Supposed to Include and Be Concerned With

Precedent ain't a bad thing, we are told; it is even a (very) good thing.

However, what a lot of perfectly good people, in the law field as well as elsewhere and all the way up to the Supreme Court, do not seem to realize is that precedent, or stare decisis, as a legal principle, does not include crime and misdemeanors or, at least, was never intended to.

Crimes and misdemeanors like theft, stealing, and, last but not least, voter fraud…

In other words, precedent does not apply, or should not apply, to allowing Democrats to steal an election…

Related: The World Demands Courage Not Cowardice 

Perhaps the saddest moment in this tragedy was that only two of the justices of the Supreme Court have been willing to offer the moral courage and leadership which the great Lord Mansfield demonstrated in Somerset v. Stewart (1772) when he released a runaway American slave with these words famously attributed to him: “The air of England is too pure for a slave to breathe; let the black go free.”

 … We do not know the full extent of the disaster to the United States and the world which may be unfolding, but Texas v. Pennsylvania (2020) may well one day enjoy equal notoriety with that trigger of the civil war, Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857).

The sad fact is that the rejection by the Supreme Court of the extremely well-argued constitutional case presented by the State of Texas is more likely to be based on a fear of personal consequences, rather than the feeble technicality used to justify this.

This was easier than actually giving Texas and seventeen other states their day in court.

 … seriously implausible results in the crucial background states were achieved by secret counting in the absence of observers or, to use a term used in other countries, “scrutineers.”

This and their subsequent neutralization are positive proof of serious malpractice.

That too many judges have refused to consider, and the mainstream media have dismissed reams of evidence, including vast numbers of affidavits sworn under penalty of perjury, is only a reflection on those courts and on the corruption of the mainstream media.

Unless some of the judges, including the recalcitrant majority on the Supreme Court, begin to behave judicially and a requisite number of Republican representatives do their duty, the result will be that a candidate seriously compromised by the Chinese Communists will become president, something which will cause rejoicing in ruling circles in Beijing but which the United States and the rest of the free world will undoubtedly come to regret.

Above all, the very integrity of the institutions of the United States is, as well as the very exceptionalism of the American foundation and the nation, in issue.

As the State of Texas cogently argued, and which the majority did not have the decency to even hear,

“Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives.”

As it happens, Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule (related article by TaxProf Paul Caron) seems to have figured the psychology out (thanks to Law Professor Glenn Reynolds):



Tuesday, December 08, 2020

Unmentioned About the Voter Fraud Scandal of 2020: Not Only the Presidency Is Affected — Other Races Will Need Revision as Well


I'm surprised that I have not seen the following written anywhere, but maybe it is so obvious that nobody has thought about it or at least thought of mentioning it. 

Needless to say, I — fully — support Donald Trump (and Glenn Reynolds and Ed Driscoll and Stephen Green and Stephen Kruiser and Tyler O'Neil and Sarah Hoyt and Roger Simon and Mark Steyn and Nick Moran and Stacy Lennox, etc etc etc) in their push ('n' pull) to get Georgians to head massively for the voting booths in January for their two Senate races.

Having said that, there is this piece of what may be extremely good news: if Donald Trump manages to pull off his nationwide presidential victory, those races in the Peach state may not as important as it seems today and Control of the Senate May Not Hinge on the Georgia Runoff in January.

Let me explain: What I mean by that is that not only the presidency will be affected if it is decided to throw thousands of bogus votes out, to invalidate Dominion, to discount mail-in votes that arrived after a certain date, etc…

Also affected will be all the other races of November 3, from the third of the Senate to the full House through a number of governorships, not to mention a plethora of local races (mayor, sheriff, etc…). And not just in the last half dozen battleground states remaining — but, theoretically, in many, perhaps in most or in all of the 50 states.

In that case, expect a growing number of recounts (and/or lawsuits) in those other areas as well, and it may turn out that the Republicans may not only have won the House on election night, they might already be in control of the Senate.

In fact, even if Trump were to be declared the loser (God perish the thought), recounts and lawsuits for other races might still go ahead…

But agreed, for the moment all this "winning" is theoretical (even if extremely likely, given Trump's nation-wide popularity); and so, by all means, Georgians, head to the polls in January, and let us all of us keep our hopes high…

THEY SHALL NOT PASS!

In any case:

Thank God that we have a president who is determined to protect our election system; on December 2, 

President Donald Trump delivered a speech that detailed some of the abuse and fraud in the 2020 general election, saying: “As president, I have no higher duty than to defend the laws and the Constitution of the United States. That is why I am determined to protect our election system, which is now under coordinated assault and siege.”
And in Valdosta three days later, The Donald called for landmark election reform

“After we win [the U.S. Senate], we need to pass landmark election reform including voter ID, residency verification, … citizenship confirmation,” he said. “They want to say, ‘He doesn’t have to be a citizen.’ You’ve got to see who’s voting.

“It’s a disgrace that in 2020, no state in America even makes any real attempt to verify that those who cast ballots by mail are eligible and lawfully registered voters. The evidence of fraud is overwhelming.”

Amen.

Monday, December 07, 2020

Why Does Nobody Ever Fret About Scandinavia's — Ghastly — 19th-C Slavery Conditions?


Sporting a Joaquín Sorolla y Bastida painting, my post on Why Does Nobody Ever Fret About Scandinavia's — Ghastly — 19th-C Slavery Conditions? has been printed in the December 2020 issue of the New English Review under the title No Frets About Scandinavia's Slavery Past?

In 1904, a couple who emigrated from Denmark to America in 1856 testified that the reason they did so was because the dirt-poor peasants they were back then did not want their children to grow up in "the same type of slavery" as they had.

Sunday, December 06, 2020

Erik Svane Interviewé sur Radio Télévision Suisse


Le jour après les élections américaines de 2020, Erik Svane était interviewé par Radio Télévision Suisse francophone.

Le discours de Donald Trump [RTS]
Le 12h30, 04.11.2020, 12h32

Le républicain Erik Svane livre son analyse des élections présidentielles américaines

Interview d'Erik Svane, chargé de relations médias pour les Republican Overseas France.

Friday, December 04, 2020

1619: Secular humanistic indoctrination dumbs down children, drives wedges between them and their parents, and has grown increasingly hostile to patriotism and parental authority


A Chicago pastor, reports Caleb Parke of Fox News, who doubles as a member of the 1776 Unites group, Latasha Fields, has written an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
President Trump [has tweeted] that the Education Department is “looking at” whether public schools were teaching the New York Times ’ “1619 Project,” which argues that the U.S. is a corrupt country fundamentally built on slavery. Historians have shown in these pages why this is false and a harmful idea, but there are also reasons for religious Americans to reject this revision of history.

First, as a black American, I believe it is particularly important to break away from the oppressive way of thinking promulgated by the “1619 Project.” Slavery is an appalling part of this nation’s history, and discrimination continues in some forms today. But these flaws do not define the self-correcting spirit of freedom and truth etched into America’s founding documents. They certainly don’t define me as an individual.

My belief in individual choice and personal responsibility is why I oppose programs that create dependence on the government. By subsidizing recklessness and the growing effects of immorality, these programs have subverted, undermined and unraveled the tapestry of thriving and healthy families. Ultimately the successes and failures of the black community come from the choices we make.

The idea that the U.S. is a racist country predates the “1619 Project.” It’s no wonder countless African-Americans—including many of my family and friends—have bought this lie and vote for progressive politicians. But believing that your destiny is determined by factors outside your control, like the color of your skin, is demeaning. Black parents need to oppose false portrayals of history and unite around the shared values that created the U.S.

We must hold ourselves accountable and build communities that teach the next generation how to live meaningful lives. Parents have the ultimate responsibility to train and educate their children. God designed the family as an expression of his spiritual truths, to reflect his image and fulfill a critical role on Earth. It is the mind and will of God for parents to demonstrate morality and a practical way of life—leaving a spiritual inheritance to their offspring. Only parents, not the government, can ensure that this critical knowledge will be carried from generation to generation.

More than 100 years ago Booker T. Washington wrote: 

“There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs—partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.” 

Little has changed since.

“Evaluated honestly, the 1619 Project is a kind of performance art,” Columbia professor John McWhorter argued earlier this year. “Facts, therefore, are less important than attitude. [The project’s Nikole] Hannah-Jones has predictably dismissed serious and comprehensive empirical critiques, as if for Black thinkers, truth is somehow ranked second to fierceness and battle poses.”

Public schools today—like the ones using “1619” in their curriculum—rely on one-size-fits-all secular humanistic indoctrination to dumb down American children and drive wedges between them and their parents. Such secularism has grown increasingly hostile to patriotism and parental authority. Its greatest enemies are true diversity, tolerance and the nuclear family structure. This form of progressive education destroys and distorts God’s order and the fundamental rights of parents and society.

The public school system in Illinois, where I live, is an example of gross negligence in education. The system is failing to instill time-tested values while encouraging social perversion, truancy and violence. The results of this are most apparent in Chicago public schools. Notably today’s education system has excised God. In doing so, it has eliminated order and structure in society. Children memorize letters and numbers but nothing unifies their education other than the pursuit of grades. Meantime, their souls hang in the balance. 

Fourteen years ago the Lord called my husband and me to home-school our four children. Since then we have witnessed American culture’s aggressive decline. We need a Judeo-Christian alternative to government education.

Building better schools and giving parents real educational autonomy is the way to build a better future for this nation’s children and the means to reclaim America’s heritage. We must safeguard our children’s innocence by opposing the false prophets of our day while constructing a viable alternative for them. This project entails returning to our first love, Judeo-Christian values, and our first principles of liberty and justice codified in the Declaration of Independence by imperfect but prescient men.

Remember Julia Hopping's tweet:

RELATED: 1619, Mao, & 9-11: History According to the NYT — Plus, a Remarkable Issue of National Geographic Reveals the Leftists' "Blame America First" Approach to History

• Wilfred Reilly on 1619: quite a few contemporary Black problems have very little to do with slavery

NO MAINSTREAM HISTORIAN CONTACTED FOR THE 1619 PROJECT

• "Out of the Revolution came an anti-slavery ethos, which never disappeared": Pulitzer Prize Winner James McPherson Confirms that No Mainstream Historian Was Contacted by the NYT for Its 1619 History Project

• Gordon Wood: "The Revolution unleashed antislavery sentiments that led to the first abolition movements in the history of the world" — another Pulitzer-Winning Historian Had No Warning about the NYT's 1619 Project

• A Black Political Scientist "didn’t know about the 1619 Project until it came out"; "These people are kind of just making it up as they go"

• Clayborne Carson: Another Black Historian Kept in the Dark About 1619

• If historians did not hear of the NYT's history (sic) plan, chances are great that the 1619 Project was being deliberately kept a tight secret

• Oxford Historian Richard Carwardine: 1619 is “a preposterous and one-dimensional reading of the American past”

• World Socialists: "the 1619 Project is a politically motivated falsification of history" by the New York Times, aka "the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party"

THE NEW YORK TIMES OR THE NEW "WOKE" TIMES?

• Dan Gainor on 1619 and rewriting history: "To the Left elite like the NY Times, there’s no narrative they want to destroy more than American exceptionalism"

• Utterly preposterous claims: The 1619 project is a cynical political ploy, aimed at piercing the heart of the American understanding of justice

From Washington to Grant, not a single American deserves an iota of gratitude, or even understanding, from Nikole Hannah-Jones; however, modern autocrats, if leftist and foreign, aren't "all bad"

• One of the Main Sources for the NYT's 1619 Project Is a Career Communist Propagandist who Defends Stalinism

• A Pulitzer Prize?! Among the 1619 Defenders Is "a Fringe Academic" with "a Fetish for Authoritarian Terror" and "a Soft Spot" for Mugabe, Castro, and Even Stalin

• Influenced by Farrakhan's Nation of Islam?! 1619 Project's History "Expert" Believes the Aztecs' Pyramids Were Built with Help from Africans Who Crossed the Atlantic Prior to the "Barbaric Devils" of Columbus (Whom She Likens to Hitler)

• 1793, 1776, or 1619: Is the New York Times Distinguishable from Teen Vogue? Is It Living in a Parallel Universe? Or Is It Simply Losing Its Mind in an Industry-Wide Nervous Breakdown?

• No longer America's "newspaper of record," the "New Woke Times" is now but a college campus paper, where kids like 1619 writer Nikole Hannah-Jones run the asylum and determine what news is fit to print

• The Departure of Bari Weiss: "Propagandists", Ethical Collapse, and the "New McCarthyism" — "The radical left are running" the New York Times, "and no dissent is tolerated"

• "Full of left-wing sophomoric drivel": The New York Times — already drowning in a fantasy-land of alternately running pro-Soviet Union apologia and their anti-American founding “1619 Project” series — promises to narrow what they view as acceptable opinion even more

• "Deeply Ashamed" of the… New York Times (!),  An Oblivious Founder of the Error-Ridden 1619 Project Uses Words that Have to Be Seen to Be Believed ("We as a News Organization Should Not Be Running Something That Is Offering Misinformation to the Public, Unchecked")

• Allen C Guelzo: The New York Times offers bitterness, fragility, and intellectual corruption—The 1619 Project is not history; it is conspiracy theory

• The 1619 Project is an exercise in religious indoctrination: Ignoring, downplaying, or rewriting the history of 1861 to 1865, the Left and the NYT must minimize, downplay, or ignore the deaths of 620,000 Americans

• 1619: It takes an absurdly blind fanaticism to insist that today’s free and prosperous America is rotten and institutionally oppressive

• The MSM newsrooms and their public shaming terror campaigns — the "bullying campus Marxism" is closer to cult religion than politics: Unceasingly searching out thoughtcrime, the American left has lost its mind

Fake But Accurate: The People Behind the NYT's 1619 Project Make a "Small" Clarification, But Only Begrudgingly and Half-Heartedly, Because Said Mistake Actually Undermines The 1619 Project's Entire Premise


THE REVOLUTION OF THE 1770s
• The Collapse of the Fourth Estate by Peter Wood: No one has been able to identify a single leader, soldier, or supporter of the Revolution who wanted to protect his right to hold slaves (A declaration that slavery is the founding institution of America and the center of everything important in our history is a ground-breaking claim, of the same type as claims that America condones rape culture, that 9/11 was an inside job, that vaccinations cause autism, that the Moon landing was a hoax, or that ancient astronauts built the pyramids)

• Mary Beth Norton:  In 1774, a year before Dunmore's proclamation, Americans had already in fact become independent

• Most of the founders, including Thomas Jefferson, opposed slavery’s continued existence, writes Rick Atkinson, despite the fact that many of them owned slaves

• Leslie Harris: Far from being fought to preserve slavery, the Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies (even the NYT's fact-checker on the 1619 Project disagrees with its "conclusions": "It took 60 more years for the British government to finally end slavery in its Caribbean colonies")

• Sean Wilentz on 1619: the movement in London to abolish the slave trade formed only in 1787, largely inspired by… American (!) antislavery opinion that had arisen in the 1760s and 1770s

• 1619 & Slavery's Fatal Lie: it is more accurate to say that what makes America unique isn't slavery but the effort to abolish it

• 1619 & 1772: Most of the founders, including Jefferson, opposed slavery’s continued existence, despite many of them owning slaves; And Britain would remain the world's foremost slave-trading nation into the nineteenth century

• Wilfred Reilly on 1619: Slavery was legal in Britain in 1776, and it remained so in all overseas British colonies until 1833

• Not 1619 but 1641: In Fact, the American Revolution of 1776 Sought to Avoid the Excesses of the English Revolution Over a Century Earlier

• James Oakes on 1619: "Slavery made the slaveholders rich; But it made the South poor; And it didn’t make the North rich — So the legacy of slavery is poverty, not wealth"

• One of the steps of defeating truth is to destroy evidence of the truth, says Bob Woodson; Because the North's Civil War statues — as well as American history itself — are evidence of America's redemption from slavery, it's important for the Left to remove evidence of the truth

TEACHING GENERATIONS OF KIDS FALSEHOODS ABOUT THE U.S.

• 1619: No wonder this place is crawling with young socialists and America-haters — the utter failure of the U.S. educational system to teach the history of America’s founding

• 1619: Invariably Taking the Progressive Side — The Ratio of Democratic to Republican Voter Registration in History Departments is More than 33 to 1

• Secular humanistic indoctrination dumbs down children, drives wedges between them and their parents, and has grown increasingly hostile to patriotism and parental authority

• Denying the grandeur of the nation’s founding—Wilfred McClay on 1619: "Most of my students are shocked to learn that that slavery is not uniquely American"

Inciting Hate Already in Kindergarten: 1619 "Education" Is Part of Far-Left Indoctrination by People Who Hate America to Kids in College, in School, and Even in Elementary Classes

• "Distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods": Where does the 1619 project state that Africans themselves were central players in the slave trade? That's right: Nowhere

• John Podhoretz on 1619: the idea of reducing US history to the fact that some people owned slaves is a reductio ad absurdum and the definition of bad faith

• The 1619 Africans in Virginia were not ‘enslaved’, a black historian points out; they were indentured servants — just like the majority of European whites were

"Two thirds of the people, white as well as black, who crossed the Atlantic in the first 200 years are indentured servants" notes Dolores Janiewski; "The poor people, black and white, share common interests"

LAST BUT NOT LEAST…

Wondering Why Slavery Persisted for Almost 75 Years After the Founding of the USA? According to Lincoln, the Democrat Party's "Principled" Opposition to "Hate Speech"

• Victoria Bynum on 1619 and a NYT writer's "ignorance of history": "As dehumanizing and brutal as slavery was, the institution was not a giant concentration camp"

• Dennis Prager: The Left Couldn't Care Less About Blacks

• A Prager U Video and a Book, "1620," Take on the 1619 Project

• When was the last time protests in America were marred by police violence? 1970, according to Ann Coulter, who asks "Can we restrict wild generalizations about the police to things that have happened in our lifetimes?" (Compare with, say, China…)

The Secret About Black Lives Matter; In Fact, the Outfit's Name Ought to Be BSD or BAD

• The Real Reason Why Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and the Land O'Lakes Maid Must Vanish

• The Confederate Flag: Another Brick in the Leftwing Activists' (Self-Serving) Demonization of America and Rewriting of History

Who, Exactly, Is It Who Should Apologize for Slavery and Make Reparations? America? The South? The Descendants of the Planters? …

• Anti-Americanism in the Age of the Coronavirus, the NBA, and 1619

Monday, November 30, 2020

A Prager U Video and a Book, "1620," Take on the 1619 Project

In August of 2019, the New York Times published The 1619 Project. Its goal is to redefine the American experiment as rooted not in liberty but in slavery. In this video, Wilfred Reilly, Associate Professor of Political Science at Kentucky State University, responds to The 1619 Project’s major claims.

Prager U brings out a (6-minute) video on the New Woke Times's ludicrous 1619 Project. It is hosted by Wilfred Reilly who has previously written that quite a few contemporary Black problems have very little to do with slavery.

Meanwhile, Peter Wood (the author who joined 20 other signatories from the National Association of Scholars in writing a public letter to the Pulitzer Prize Board, calling on it to rescind the prize it awarded to Nikole Hannah-Jones) is publishes a book, 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project, duly reviewed by at Stanley Kurtz National Review:

I can think of no book more deserving of a review in The New York Times—or less likely to receive one—than Peter Wood’s just-published 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project. More than a powerful refutation, Wood’s 1620 is a withering appraisal and deadpan skewering of the 1619 Project as a cultural phenomenon. That ill-starred journalistic project is the purest and most perfect example of woke. The cultural revolution of 2020 will always rightly be associated with the 1619 Project of The New York Times. Not for nothing did project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones cheerfully embrace the term “1619 riots.”

Many young Americans believe that slavery was a novelty in world history—an exclusively American innovation. That misapprehension is abetted by the 1619 Project. Wood thus begins with a quick tour of New World slavery prior to 1619. Among the indigenous peoples of the Americas, captive enemies were kept for their labor, for the sport of torture, and in a few cases for what Wood calls “almost industrial level” human sacrifice, not to mention cannibalism.

 … Slavery was a world-wide human norm.

What, then, of the slaves brought to Virginia in August of 1619, an act which according to the Times, “inaugurated a barbaric system of chattel slavery that would last for the next 250 years”? The slaves sold at Jamestown in 1619 were likely treated as indentured servants, and would thus have been freed after a number of years. One may eventually have become a plantation owner himself, a Virginia black man with African slaves of his own. This African in early Virginia renamed himself Anthony Johnson and successfully sued one of his white neighbors in a Virginia court. The evidence on the precise status of the Africans who disembarked at Jamestown in 1619 is limited and disputed, but in pointed contrast to The New York Times Wood calmly and fairly assesses the arguments on all sides.

Well, so what? What’s a bit of historic license between friends? Maybe chattel slavery actually began sometime after 1619, but the evidence is imperfect and the symbolism of the earlier date is powerful. By placing the origins of American slavery four hundred years before the present—well before America’s seeming founding in 1776—and by marking that anniversary at the commencement of a presidential campaign deemed by the Times to pivot around the incumbent’s racism, a bold argument could be made to

 

the effect that the inauguration of slavery was America’s “true founding.” That would make American exceptionalism shameful rather than “great.”

As part of his review of the 1619 controversy as it stood through the summer of 2020, Wood gives us a portrait of 1619’s creator, Nikole Hannah-Jones. A woman who styles herself “the Beyoncé of journalism” acts the part of a diva, and more. Treated by the Times, according to Wood, as “exempt from ordinary forms of accountability,” Hannah-Jones didn’t deign to reply to even the most respectful and serious scholarly criticism of her project. 

She booked herself instead into speaking venues where she was greeted as hero, prophet, or genius. And of course, Hannah-Jones was showered with accolades, including the Pulitzer Prize. Rudely putting down critics, falsely denying that she’d said things she had demonstrably said, deleting tweets that showed her in a bad light, the behavior that eventually destroyed Hannah-Jones’s credibility was in evidence well before the final collapse. And it was all encouraged by the Times, which treated Hannah-Jones with kid gloves and ignored her critics until its hand was forced. Even when Times magazine editor Jake Silverstein finally answered a critical letter from twelve historians (not the first such letter), that letter’s text was never printed in the magazine.

Something larger is at stake here. To all appearances, Hannah-Jones is a grown-up “cry-bully.” She embodies the movement of campus snowflake culture into the “real world” (if the Times newsroom can be called that). In the old days, Hannah-Jones might have been dubbed a “spoiled child.” Pampered, self-important, lashing out in fury when challenged, she would appear to be a product of the modern double-standard.

 … White guilt and the consequent double standard are tailor-made to produce the campus cry-bully persona.

 … deep damage had been done—and rightly so—to the journalistic credibility of Hannah-Jones, the 1619 Project, and The New York Times.

So Wood was a key player in the “fall” of the 1619 Project, Hannah-Jones, and the Times. Yet the struggle continues. The events of autumn notwithstanding, the 1619 Projects will still go out to the schools and will continue to serve as a rallying cry for the woke. Meanwhile, Peter Wood’s 1620 will stand as an essential statement for those who refuse to accept woke history and the culture it embodies. Wood’s takedown of the 1619 Project—both its substantive claims and its larger cultural ambitions—goes well beyond anything I can summarize here. His book will be contemplated by future historians as a record of the pushback against the cultural revolution of 2020. I cannot think of a more deserving institution to be on the receiving end of this pickaxe of a book than our erstwhile paper of record. Truly, Peter Wood’s 1620 is a book for our Times.

RELATED: 1619, Mao, & 9-11: History According to the NYT — Plus, a Remarkable Issue of National Geographic Reveals the Leftists' "Blame America First" Approach to History

• Wilfred Reilly on 1619: quite a few contemporary Black problems have very little to do with slavery

NO MAINSTREAM HISTORIAN CONTACTED FOR THE 1619 PROJECT

• "Out of the Revolution came an anti-slavery ethos, which never disappeared": Pulitzer Prize Winner James McPherson Confirms that No Mainstream Historian Was Contacted by the NYT for Its 1619 History Project

• Gordon Wood: "The Revolution unleashed antislavery sentiments that led to the first abolition movements in the history of the world" — another Pulitzer-Winning Historian Had No Warning about the NYT's 1619 Project

• A Black Political Scientist "didn’t know about the 1619 Project until it came out"; "These people are kind of just making it up as they go"

• Clayborne Carson: Another Black Historian Kept in the Dark About 1619

• If historians did not hear of the NYT's history (sic) plan, chances are great that the 1619 Project was being deliberately kept a tight secret

• Oxford Historian Richard Carwardine: 1619 is “a preposterous and one-dimensional reading of the American past”

• World Socialists: "the 1619 Project is a politically motivated falsification of history" by the New York Times, aka "the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party"

THE NEW YORK TIMES OR THE NEW "WOKE" TIMES?

• Dan Gainor on 1619 and rewriting history: "To the Left elite like the NY Times, there’s no narrative they want to destroy more than American exceptionalism"

• Utterly preposterous claims: The 1619 project is a cynical political ploy, aimed at piercing the heart of the American understanding of justice

From Washington to Grant, not a single American deserves an iota of gratitude, or even understanding, from Nikole Hannah-Jones; however, modern autocrats, if leftist and foreign, aren't "all bad"

• One of the Main Sources for the NYT's 1619 Project Is a Career Communist Propagandist who Defends Stalinism

• A Pulitzer Prize?! Among the 1619 Defenders Is "a Fringe Academic" with "a Fetish for Authoritarian Terror" and "a Soft Spot" for Mugabe, Castro, and Even Stalin

• Influenced by Farrakhan's Nation of Islam?! 1619 Project's History "Expert" Believes the Aztecs' Pyramids Were Built with Help from Africans Who Crossed the Atlantic Prior to the "Barbaric Devils" of Columbus (Whom She Likens to Hitler)

• 1793, 1776, or 1619: Is the New York Times Distinguishable from Teen Vogue? Is It Living in a Parallel Universe? Or Is It Simply Losing Its Mind in an Industry-Wide Nervous Breakdown?

• No longer America's "newspaper of record," the "New Woke Times" is now but a college campus paper, where kids like 1619 writer Nikole Hannah-Jones run the asylum and determine what news is fit to print

• The Departure of Bari Weiss: "Propagandists", Ethical Collapse, and the "New McCarthyism" — "The radical left are running" the New York Times, "and no dissent is tolerated"

• "Full of left-wing sophomoric drivel": The New York Times — already drowning in a fantasy-land of alternately running pro-Soviet Union apologia and their anti-American founding “1619 Project” series — promises to narrow what they view as acceptable opinion even more

• "Deeply Ashamed" of the… New York Times (!),  An Oblivious Founder of the Error-Ridden 1619 Project Uses Words that Have to Be Seen to Be Believed ("We as a News Organization Should Not Be Running Something That Is Offering Misinformation to the Public, Unchecked")

• Allen C Guelzo: The New York Times offers bitterness, fragility, and intellectual corruption—The 1619 Project is not history; it is conspiracy theory

• The 1619 Project is an exercise in religious indoctrination: Ignoring, downplaying, or rewriting the history of 1861 to 1865, the Left and the NYT must minimize, downplay, or ignore the deaths of 620,000 Americans

• 1619: It takes an absurdly blind fanaticism to insist that today’s free and prosperous America is rotten and institutionally oppressive

• The MSM newsrooms and their public shaming terror campaigns — the "bullying campus Marxism" is closer to cult religion than politics: Unceasingly searching out thoughtcrime, the American left has lost its mind

Fake But Accurate: The People Behind the NYT's 1619 Project Make a "Small" Clarification, But Only Begrudgingly and Half-Heartedly, Because Said Mistake Actually Undermines The 1619 Project's Entire Premise


THE REVOLUTION OF THE 1770s

• The Collapse of the Fourth Estate by Peter Wood: No one has been able to identify a single leader, soldier, or supporter of the Revolution who wanted to protect his right to hold slaves (A declaration that slavery is the founding institution of America and the center of everything important in our history is a ground-breaking claim, of the same type as claims that America condones rape culture, that 9/11 was an inside job, that vaccinations cause autism, that the Moon landing was a hoax, or that ancient astronauts built the pyramids)

• Mary Beth Norton:  In 1774, a year before Dunmore's proclamation, Americans had already in fact become independent

• Most of the founders, including Thomas Jefferson, opposed slavery’s continued existence, writes Rick Atkinson, despite the fact that many of them owned slaves

• Leslie Harris: Far from being fought to preserve slavery, the Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies (even the NYT's fact-checker on the 1619 Project disagrees with its "conclusions": "It took 60 more years for the British government to finally end slavery in its Caribbean colonies")

• Sean Wilentz on 1619: the movement in London to abolish the slave trade formed only in 1787, largely inspired by… American (!) antislavery opinion that had arisen in the 1760s and 1770s

• 1619 & Slavery's Fatal Lie: it is more accurate to say that what makes America unique isn't slavery but the effort to abolish it

• 1619 & 1772: Most of the founders, including Jefferson, opposed slavery’s continued existence, despite many of them owning slaves; And Britain would remain the world's foremost slave-trading nation into the nineteenth century

• Wilfred Reilly on 1619: Slavery was legal in Britain in 1776, and it remained so in all overseas British colonies until 1833

• Not 1619 but 1641: In Fact, the American Revolution of 1776 Sought to Avoid the Excesses of the English Revolution Over a Century Earlier

• James Oakes on 1619: "Slavery made the slaveholders rich; But it made the South poor; And it didn’t make the North rich — So the legacy of slavery is poverty, not wealth"

• One of the steps of defeating truth is to destroy evidence of the truth, says Bob Woodson; Because the North's Civil War statues — as well as American history itself — are evidence of America's redemption from slavery, it's important for the Left to remove evidence of the truth

TEACHING GENERATIONS OF KIDS FALSEHOODS ABOUT THE U.S.

• 1619: No wonder this place is crawling with young socialists and America-haters — the utter failure of the U.S. educational system to teach the history of America’s founding

• 1619: Invariably Taking the Progressive Side — The Ratio of Democratic to Republican Voter Registration in History Departments is More than 33 to 1

• Secular humanistic indoctrination dumbs down children, drives wedges between them and their parents, and has grown increasingly hostile to patriotism and parental authority

• Denying the grandeur of the nation’s founding—Wilfred McClay on 1619: "Most of my students are shocked to learn that that slavery is not uniquely American"

Inciting Hate Already in Kindergarten: 1619 "Education" Is Part of Far-Left Indoctrination by People Who Hate America to Kids in College, in School, and Even in Elementary Classes

• "Distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods": Where does the 1619 project state that Africans themselves were central players in the slave trade? That's right: Nowhere

• John Podhoretz on 1619: the idea of reducing US history to the fact that some people owned slaves is a reductio ad absurdum and the definition of bad faith

• The 1619 Africans in Virginia were not ‘enslaved’, a black historian points out; they were indentured servants — just like the majority of European whites were

"Two thirds of the people, white as well as black, who crossed the Atlantic in the first 200 years are indentured servants" notes Dolores Janiewski; "The poor people, black and white, share common interests"

LAST BUT NOT LEAST…

Wondering Why Slavery Persisted for Almost 75 Years After the Founding of the USA? According to Lincoln, the Democrat Party's "Principled" Opposition to "Hate Speech"

• Victoria Bynum on 1619 and a NYT writer's "ignorance of history": "As dehumanizing and brutal as slavery was, the institution was not a giant concentration camp"

• Dennis Prager: The Left Couldn't Care Less About Blacks

• A Prager U Video and a Book, "1620," Take on the 1619 Project

• When was the last time protests in America were marred by police violence? 1970, according to Ann Coulter, who asks "Can we restrict wild generalizations about the police to things that have happened in our lifetimes?" (Compare with, say, China…)

The Secret About Black Lives Matter; In Fact, the Outfit's Name Ought to Be BSD or BAD

• The Real Reason Why Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and the Land O'Lakes Maid Must Vanish

• The Confederate Flag: Another Brick in the Leftwing Activists' (Self-Serving) Demonization of America and Rewriting of History

Who, Exactly, Is It Who Should Apologize for Slavery and Make Reparations? America? The South? The Descendants of the Planters? …

• Anti-Americanism in the Age of the Coronavirus, the NBA, and 1619

Thursday, November 26, 2020

Anne-Sophie Hongre sur Radio Courtoisie : Trump peut-il encore gagner ?


Dans le Libre journal de la liberté de penser du 25 novembre 2020 sur Radio CourtoisieAnne-Sophie Hongre-Boyeldieu, assistée d’Anne-Laure Maleyre, reçoit :
  • Evelyne Joslain, essayiste
  • Erik Svane, membre du groupe des Républicains à Paris
  • Jean-Paul Garraud, député européen, ancien magistrat

Thèmes : « Trump peut-il encore gagner ? ;
La loi sur la sécurité globale :
vers plus de pouvoir pour
les forces de l’ordre ou pas ? »

Cliquez sur le lien pour entendre l'émission d'une heure et demie (60 minutes sur les USA, 30 minutes sur la France)…  



Monday, November 23, 2020

Evelyne Joslain sur Radio Courtoisie — Réflexions sur la Tentative de Coup d'État aux Etats-Unis


Le 18 novembre 2020, Evelyne Joslain reçoit :
  • Erik Svane, membre du groupe des Républicains à Paris
  • Guy Millière, politologue, écrivain
  • Georges Clément, président du comité Trump France
  • Daniel Clément, médecin

Thème : « Réflexions sur les enquêtes électorales en cours aux Etats-Unis »

Cliquez sur le lien pour entendre l'émission d'une heure et demie… 

Patron d'émission du Libre journal du Nouveau Monde à Radio Courtoisie, Evelyne Joslain est l'auteur d'une poignée de livres sur les États-Unis.


Wednesday, November 18, 2020

How the Founders Outsmarted the Presidential Election Fraudsters

Who chooses the President of the United States?

asks Gary Gindler. Head over to his blog to get an uplift from reading his post on how The Founders Outsmarted the Presidential Election Fraudsters.

This question is by no means rhetorical.  For example, the mass disinformation media has chosen Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election.  Many people liked this news, but I must disappoint them – the television broadcasters have, according to the U.S. Constitution, nothing to do with who will live in the White House for the next four years.

Maybe the Supreme Court chooses the President? No, the Constitution does not provide for this.  Could it be that the citizens of America choose their President? Following the U.S. Constitution, no.  So, who then chooses the President?

Before answering this question, let us note that, contrary to popular misconception, the President of the United States is not a representative of the American people.  State legislators and governors are representatives of the people, and at the federal level so are the members of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress.  (Currently, senators are also representatives of the people, but before the ratification of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913, they were appointed by state legislators).  So, who does the President of America represent?

The President of the United States of America, according to the Constitution, represents state legislators’ interests and no one else.

 … There is nothing reprehensible in this – after all, the President of America is not the representative of the American people.  He is the representative of state legislators.  

  … Why did the Founding Fathers of the United States give state legislators such unprecedented power? Because most of the Founding Fathers were geniuses with impressive foresight.  They did not know precisely when this would happen, but they knew it would eventually happen: the election’s published results would have nothing to do with how the citizens voted.

This is exactly what happened in 2020.

Of course, there have been falsifications in the counting of votes in America before.  However, in 2020, the Democrats went all-in with a scam, and for the first time in American history, they were close to success.  Actually, they simply had no other choice.  They knew very well that another Trump term would be enough to crush the American left to its core.  (However, even if Trump does not manage to stay in the White House, his departure from politics will be such that the left will not be envied.)

Now, more than a week after the elections, it is already clear what the Trump team is doing.  They are working in two directions.

As Instapundit would say, read the whole thing…