Armstrong Economics Blog/Socialist
Re-Posted Jul 11, 2020 by Martin Armstrong
Politicians are about to be confronted with the harsh reality of their insane lockdowns in Europe. Germany now realizes there is building massive civil unrest and there is no doubt that this New Green World Order is out to end the car industry which is a major industry the will leave the workers without a future. The government is preparing for major civil unrest and out computer has been warning Europe is being pushed into civil war as tourism has been crushed.
Meanwhile, yesterday night demonstrators in Belgrade attacked the Serbian Parliament throwing stones and bottles at the windows of the parliament building. We are looking at serious civil unrest which can lead to revolution insofar as breaking up the EU as they push for this New Green World Order which will destroy the future of so many in Europe. Only elitists view that such a transition is no problem. They underestimate the economic damage and this is the END of perpetually borrowing with no intension of ever repaying any debt.
This year’s Independence Day celebrations were tainted by the poisonous divisiveness of political posturing since it is an election year. But, 2020 is unlike any other election year—it represents a turning point in the history of the United States of America. What exists at the heart of all of the nasty division, which may not be easily seen with all of the anarchists and Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioting across the country, is the core of the battle for the soul of America.
It is likely that America’s legacy further into the 21st century, and possibly its future survival, will be decided from the outcome of this election. That is not an exaggeration. Already anarchists and Marxists are attempting to abort history through tearing down the statues of historical figures. Yet, tearing down the statues represents “symbolic” actions aimed at much bigger targets. Such targeted statues were not only national heroes—heroes of the ending of slavery, heroes who fought to preserve the Union, but also religious symbols—such as tearing down statues of white Jesus, as commentator and BLM advocate Shaun King demanded in June:
“All murals and stained glass windows of white Jesus, and his European mother, and their white friends should also come down,” King wrote in a second tweet. “They are a gross form of white supremacy.”
“Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down,” King wrote on Twitter. “They are a form of white supremacy. Always have been.” — Shaun King (@shaunking) June 22, 2020
So Antifa, a totally militant Marxist organization as James O’Keefe and Project Veritas have verified, and the Black Lives Matter terrorists really have two major targets. One of the targets is the symbols of religion—symbols of faith, and religion itself. The other is the Constitution as described in another of my recent articles. The root of such poison is in Marxist ideology that declares religion as the opiate of the people. Then, by logical extension, if religion is a false “crutch” for people, it must be removed because it harms a Marxist society. Like Nazis, who convinced the German people through sophisticated propaganda that mentally ill people were a drain upon Germany, communist ideology and committed Marxist leaders view religious people in a similar light.
An essential point for committed Socialist/Marxist/Communist leaders is that the concept of religious freedom is harmful to healthy socialist societies because faith represents a fallacious perception of reality. Marxism is basically a God-denying ideology. Its philosophical worldview is that God does not exist; thus, there is no real purpose for religion. If one denies God, Marxists concur that the concept of God-given rights is ridiculous. While condescension towards people of faith may exist within the secular-humanists, such condescension under Socialist governments, and especially under Communist regimes, morphs into legalized persecution and oppression of people of faith and religious groups. It is “systemic intolerance” of faith.
So, for all the people in the United States who think a Marxist revolution could not take place in the U.S., think again. Americans now witness a “sanitized,” made-for-television type of Marxist revolution on American soil. People could think it’s trending toward the 2020 version of “Hunger Games.” Did not the people in the inner cities fear for their lives as the rioters ravaged the streets? Do they not now fear the defunding of the only force that stands between a civil environment and anarchy, chaos, and lawlessness?
Let us ask two simple questions: What is the job of an anarchist? The purpose of most anarchists is to destroy civil stability and government institutions. What do terrorists do? The main purpose of most terrorists is to generate fear and panic within a governmental system in order to generate public confusion, distrust, and division. This is happening right now in the U.S.A. Hardcore Marxist leaders use anarchists and Brown Shirts and other assorted terrorists to manifest fear in the population and destabilize government. Amazingly, some government institutions are already under the influence or control of Socialists and Communists.
This is America 2020. The Brown Shirts have been unleashed upon city streets. A “sanitized” version of a Marxist revolution is under way. It has little to do with an illusion of “systemic racism.” It is about exercising a physical, militant presence to show relative power or political strength. Anarchists and terrorists do what they do according to their purpose unless they are arrested, hindered, or stopped in one way or another. But, what would stop this militant reality show short of physical confrontation or armed combat?
What would stop this “sanitized” Marxist revolution designed to generate widespread public support while destroying the country? Number one: A police presence that is dedicated to protecting all the citizens’ lives is capable of checking unbridled, unlawful activities Americans witness now. And, what are the Antifa and BLM demands? Defund the police? Yes. What are Socialists and Communists embedded in governments calling for? Defund the police? Yes, of course. Defund the police! Does common sense tell intelligent people that this type of solution would ensure the protection of the citizens?
What would stop or hinder actions to promote fear and panic? Number two: A revival of faith in America would penetrate the efforts at provoking divisiveness and terror in the population. What are secular-humanist government officials continuing to dismantle? In “COVID-plagued” America, they are closing churches, hindering attendance at faith-based worship services. Those intolerant of faith even initiate mandated penalties, fines, even arrests for people who openly profess their faith. Yet, how much genuine effort was made to arrest Antifa and BLM rioters? Or, if such terrorists were arrested, how long did they actually stay in jail? The power of faith is a threat to Marxists; it goes a long way in dismantling the politics of fear.
Let us ask a few more questions: Why have there been so many court cases against religious people in recent years? Why have so many people of faith had to go into the secular court system to fight for their God-given rights? If the U.S. government was established to secure the people’s God-given rights, why is there any fight in the first place? Who are the elected officials that are holding on to the self-evident truths today?
Secular humanists, God-denying atheists, and many lost souls truly cannot believe in the fundamental premises of the Declaration of Independence if they do not believe in God. So, for such people who are already in positions of power with state and federal government agencies, where does that leave an adherence to the Declaration? Where does that leave citizens’ God-given rights?—Or the willingness to protect such freedom under the Bill of Rights? It would seem that if the God-given rights of the Founders are no longer tolerated in America, all of the other freedoms that are linked to this self-evident truth, would no longer retain significant authority. All other freedoms hinge on religious freedom.
Yet, there was no expiration date for those God-given, inalienable rights. Inalienable means inseparable from such rights. America just wItnessed representatives of the taxpayers of Seattle “coming to their senses” and realizing they had allowed a criminal element to jeopardize citizens’ God-given rights. Those public figures reversed their thinking and returned dominion to a free people. This action is even more symbolic than the tearing down of statues. It should be an example for all Americans. Citizens who love America need to reaffirm their hold on self-evident truths. God-given rights still exist; they are still protected; and we all need to proclaim we will not let go of these rights that God gave to His children.
The title suggests that there might be something ambiguous about the definition of freedom. Well according to our old friends Merriam and Webster, it is “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.” Sounds about right to me. The freedoms enjoyed by all Americans are – according to our Declaration of Independence – natural rights, inherent to us as human beings, granted to us by Nature or God, and not by the Government, but secured for us by the Government. I’ve emphasized the word to for a reason that will be clear momentarily.
OK what are those rights that I have, my possession of which is characterized by the absence of necessity, coercion or constraint? These are spelled out generally in the Declaration, more specifically in the Constitution – including the Bill of Rights – and in the constitutionally permissible laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. There is no secret here; they include:
There are more of course, but note the common word to. That is not surprising since Webster specifies that a freedom entails a choice or an action – that is, things I choose to do or act upon – which choice or action is free from necessity, coercion or constraint. And so it has been understood – from the time of the American Revolution.
But beginning in the late 1890s, catching fire in the 1910s, and reigniting strongly in the 1930s, 1960s and 2010s, a substantial minority – and increasingly, looking like a majority – of the American people have settled on an alternate definition of the word freedom. If I may be permitted the liberty, I would state the new definition as follows: “the presence of security, comfort or guarantees in state or being.”
Now let us follow on this new definition with an exact parallel to the discussion above following the classic definition. First, the folks who propound the new definition rarely, explicitly discuss the origin or fount for these rights which are to be accorded to all residents of the USA. They – like Mr. Jefferson – hold them to be self-evident; but they scarcely specify their author, originator, source or justification. Self-evidence seems to be enough – although, alas, what is evident to you may be opaque to me.
Well, what are these rights that I should have that will guarantee my well-being by rendering my state more comfortable and secure? They have been spelled out by the presidential founders of progressivism: Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Obama. They include:
Note now that the common word is from rather than to. That is because these freedoms do not pertain to an action or choice, but to a feeling or emotion or an external force on one’s person. As with ‘freedom to,’ there are more than those delineated above, e.g., freedom from illness or freedom from ignorance. And as with the first set of freedoms, these new freedoms are to be secured or guaranteed by the Government. But unlike the first set of freedoms, these are not granted or accorded to us by Nature or God; they are not natural rights in that sense. They are simply rights that just ought to be accorded to all individuals – or more precisely – to all groups living in an advanced society.
By whose authority? By the people themselves since the rights are self-evidently manifest to any enlightened member of society. Moreover, unlike the natural rights in the Founders’ society, the rights in the modern, enlightened society may evolve and change over time. New rights may be discovered; old rights may be discarded. Finally, the people, via their primary vehicle, the Government, determine what the current set of rights are, and then enforce them also via the Government. Thus, a “Living Constitution!” Which of course implies: Obsolescence of the Declaration and Abrogation of the Constitution.
It’s not my purpose here to compare the relative merits of the two systems. Rather it is to ensure that we understand the fundamental difference between the two definitions of freedom, and to allow the reader to ponder the drastic and overwhelming changes that would ensue if we the people discard the first definition and adopt the second. I will examine some of those changes in a future piece.
With the wind at her back following her recent primary victory, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is taking the lead in challenging Israel’s possible extension of sovereignty over certain areas within the West Bank. She authored a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warning that any move by Israel to extend its sovereignty into such areas would jeopardize continued U.S. military aid to the Jewish state. Senator Bernie Sanders signed AOC’s letter along with 11 other Democrat House members, including AOC’s fellow “Squad” members Reps. Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley. Anti-Semitic organizations that back the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS) against Israel are also in AOC’s corner.
“Should the Israeli government continue down this path,” AOC’s letter warns, “we will work to ensure non-recognition of annexed territories as well as pursue legislation that conditions the $3.8 billion in U.S. military funding to Israel to ensure that U.S. taxpayers are not supporting annexation in any way. We will include human rights conditions and the withholding of funds for the offshore procurement of Israeli weapons equal to or exceeding the amount the Israeli government spends annually to fund settlements, as well as the policies and practices that sustain and enable them.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not taken a public position one way or the other on whether she would back legislation advancing AOC’s threat to cut off U.S. military aid to Israel. In any case, if legislation containing AOC’s reckless restrictions were to somehow reach President Trump’s desk, he would surely veto it. However, if Joe Biden is elected this November to replace President Trump and the Democrats end up controlling both the House and Senate, the legislation may well gain momentum and have a much better chance of passage. Biden will then likely sign it.
AOC asserts in her letter that “Israeli annexation of the West Bank is a clear violation of international law.” She added, “Annexation is prohibited by and is a prohibited act of aggression under Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a party.”
The United Nations and most of its member states, including Western European countries, agree with AOC’s simplistic assertions. But just declaring that an action violates “international law” does not make it so, no matter how many times the assertion is repeated. Even the word “annexation,” when used to describe what Israel may decide to do after further internal discussions, is misplaced. The outgoing Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, has used the more accurate phrase “applying sovereignty” to territory where the Jewish people have historical legal claims of their own that are superior to the Palestinians. The West Bank (or Judea and Samaria as Israelis prefer to refer to this territory) does not belong legally to the Palestinians and never has.
International treaties preceding the formation of the UN are still recognized by the UN Charter. This included the 1920 San Remo Conference, which assigned the Mandate for Palestine to the British following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. This Mandate included what is now known as the West Bank within a future homeland envisioned for the Jewish people. This means, as the outgoing Israeli UN Ambassador Danon observed, “the cause for a Jewish state became part of international law,” which carried over to the United Nations. The Palestinian leadership and their enablers reject these historical underpinnings of Israel’s claims, not to mention the Jewish people’s ancient roots in the holy land of Israel.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to look past all this history, the so-called “Arab Higher Committee” forfeited, on the Palestinians’ behalf, the immediate legal recognition of a new independent Arab state for the Palestinians when the Committee rejected the allocation of partitioned land for such new state under the UN General Assembly’s November 1947 Resolution 181. The Palestinian leadership chose instead to join the armies of their neighboring Arab states in an aggressive war to destroy the newly independent Jewish State of Israel that had been established in compliance with Resolution 181. That war ended in an armistice, with Jordan illegally seizing the West Bank during the 1948-49 war, which it occupied illegally for 19 years.
Between 1948 and 1967, there was no attempt to establish an independent sovereign Palestinian state within the seized Jordanian-controlled territory. In fact, the 1964 National Covenant of the Palestine Liberation Organization stated the opposite: “This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.” The PLO declared that the “avowed aim of the organization was to blot out the State of Israel.”
During the 1967 Six Day War, Jordan launched an aggressive attack on Israel. Israel defended itself, which it had the legal right to do under international law, including pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter. To help ensure its future defense against further acts of aggression, Israel took over control of Jordan’s illegally seized lands in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” (emphasis added) Jordan violated Article 2(4) with its illegal seizure and occupation of the West Bank and its attack, 19 years later, upon pre-June 1967 Israel. The collection of Palestinian people living in the West Bank and Gaza did not constitute a legally recognizable “state” in 1967. Persons of Palestinian origin were granted Jordanian citizenship after 1948, which remained the case until at least 1988. When Israel became the only sovereign UN member state in control of any lands in the West Bank after its victory against Jordanian aggression in 1967, Israel had not taken one iota of land belonging legally to any other independent sovereign state.
UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was adopted on November 22, 1967, remains in effect today. Resolution 242 contemplated negotiations amongst the parties to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the assistance of a UN Special Representative, based on the principle of “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”
While Resolution 242 called for the withdrawal of “Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” it pointedly did not demand complete withdrawal from all such territories. Israel has demonstrated on repeated occasions its willingness to negotiate a genuine “peace for land” exchange with the Palestinians. However, Palestinian leaders have rejected successive offers of land for peace, including one in 2008 under which Israel would have withdrawn from virtually all of the West Bank and partitioned Jerusalem on a demographic basis.
Palestinian terrorism against Israel existed prior to the beginning of Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. Since 1967, the Palestinians have continued their acts of terrorism against Israelis living within the lines of pre-June 1967 Israel, aided and abetted by the Iranian regime. The number of cross-border operations reached almost 1,500 in 1968, before there were any extensive Israeli settlements, barriers or checkpoints. After Israel unilaterally withdrew its military personnel and Jewish settlers from Gaza in 2005 and gave the Palestinians a chance to create a completely self-governing entity of their own, Hamas ended up taking control. The terrorists used Gaza as their launching pad for rocket attacks and other terrorist assaults against civilians living inside Israel. Palestinian terrorists also snuck into Israeli cities from the West Bank, conducting suicide bombings, vehicular attacks, shootings and knifings.
Thus, Israel is fully justified in believing that its “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force,” as promised by Resolution 242, would be impossible to realize if it were to revert to the pre-June 1967 lines. The Palestinians’ continued refusal to engage in direct negotiations over the final disposition of border issues leaves Israel no choice but to consider applying formal sovereignty over areas within the West Bank it considers necessary for its defense and to protect Jewish residents living in those areas.
Subsequent UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions purported to impose upon Israel a so-called internationally recognized “border” with an independent Palestinian state based on the pre-June 1967 lines (unless the Palestinians voluntarily agree to make any adjustments). The resolutions also purported to declare East Jerusalem (including Jewish holy sites in the Old City) as the capital of the Palestinian state. The West Bank is not one of the UN-administered trusteeship territories. Nothing in the UN Charter, established international law, or the foundational Security Council Resolution 242 provide any legal authority for such arbitrary drawing of borders by unaccountable UN bodies.
“With history and international law on its side, and given the Palestinians continued unwillingness to negotiate with and recognize Israel as a Jewish state,” outgoing Israeli UN Ambassador Danon declared, “Israel’s government will begin the internal discussion of how to apply sovereignty to our most ancient lands in Judea and Samaria. Those who decry it as ‘annexation’ are doing nothing more than appeasing the Palestinian narrative and making peace ever more elusive. This puts them, to use their words, on the wrong side of history.”
The false “annexation” narrative is being weaponized by Israel’s enemies in the United States and abroad. But Ambassador Danon has indicated that Israel will not yield to outside threats regarding its sovereignty decisions. We can only hope that the traditional bipartisan support for Israel in Congress will not significantly erode, even as friends of Israel such as long-time Congressman Eliot Engel lose to anti-Israel progressives and AOC exerts greater influence as a result.
I stated that a new COVID virus was never properly discovered. Then I was asked: so are countries all over the world pretending the virus is real?
Answer: No, they’re not pretending. “Countries” aren’t doing anything. Government leaders are issuing edicts, on the scientific and medical advice of officials surrounding them. These officials are true believers. They have faith that the COVID virus exists. Why? They’ve been told it exists by their bosses. And so it goes, all the way up the line, in the cult. Bigger and bigger bosses, all of them true believers.
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
Yes, a lab here and a lab there claim they have isolated the new COVID virus. But they have not done a complete STUDY to prove the existence of a new virus.
A complete and coherent study would involve, say, a thousand “epidemic” patients, side by side.
Researchers would make electron microscope photos of tissue samples taken from all the patients—-the photos would be made AFTER these samples have been subjected to proper purification processes, involving a centrifuge and the correct collection of viral material from the centrifuge.
Such a study hasn’t been done, and it won’t be done.
Why? Because there is a great risk from reading the results of a thousand side by side electron microscope photos. If the photos don’t match up, if they don’t all show particles of the same virus, and if those particles aren’t unique—-i.e., never before seen—-then two things happen: the claim that one virus is causing a pandemic collapses; and the claim of discovering a new virus collapses.
THAT’S why the correct study hasn’t been done.
Little anecdotal claims from this lab and that lab don’t amount to a hill of beans. They’re irrelevant.
So what is left? A kernel of nothing—-“the virus exists”—-passed from hand to hand, shared by all, signifying Belief. Reflex Belief.
EVERYTHING that follows, stemming from a false belief in a new virus, is meaningless.
It all goes back to the beginning. That’s where the fabrication was hatched.
Before you say, BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT, read my many previous articles. I account for people getting sick and dying and being falsely labeled COVID. There is no need to invoke a new virus.
A large cult is composed of many layers of foot soldiers, all of whom believe. But when you get to the top, you see a few people who know the truth. They lie about the discovery of a new virus, and they spread that lie to further their own agenda—-in this case, destruction of nations and the ushering in of a fascist technocracy for the planet, a Brave New World.
But, as I say, the main body of the cult, the millions of mask wearers and the distancing people and the doctors and the mayors and the governors and the routine public health officials and so on—-they go on faith. Their god is Fauci, and television, and news.
The scientists who are in the cult believe in their own special procedure of discovering a new virus. They “sequence its genetic structure.” This is their scripture and bible. But the problem is, what kind of sample are they starting with? They say it is a new virus, but this, too, is faith. It could be part of an irrelevant virus, it could be a whole but decaying irrelevant virus, it could be a random piece of genetic material, or cellular debris, or exosomes; whatever. And if this sample is used as the basis of analysis at many labs, they will all come up with the same irrelevant result. To which they will bow down.
A geneticist tried to sell me the results of a single small study, in which a purported COVID-19 virus was injected into mice and caused them to get sick. This, to him, was proof that, indeed, a new dangerous virus had been discovered.
I was dumbfounded, but not too dumbfounded to reply. First of all, the mice had been genetically altered. Why? Usually, that means their immune systems were disabled. In which case, any old germ could make them ill.
Second, the whole purpose of doing animal studies—-as misguided as that practice is—-is to move up the chain of species until you get to animals that most closely resemble humans. Which are apes. Definitely not mice.
And third, even if a virus can make ordinary unaltered mice ill, so what? They still haven’t proved that virus is new—-which is the claim for COVID.
But they try. They keep trying and failing to prove that a new coronavirus exists which is causing a global pandemic.
Cults don’t care. They will announce any claim and back it up with any useless piece of evidence. They’ll go to war on the basis of a claim. In this instance, it turns out to be an economic war against the people of Earth. A psychological war. A war against freedom.
Joe Biden’s campaign is unveiling a ‘Climate Engagement Advisory Council” aimed at mobilizing voters who prioritize climate change and environmental justice. November’s election is a stark contrast between Biden, whose platform goes much further than Obama-era policies, and President Trump, who largely dismisses the problem, and is rolling back his predecessor’s initiatives. 1
Joe Biden has picked Carol Browner as a climate adviser. Browner was the Clinton EPA chief and Obama energy and environment czar.
As President Obama’s climate czar, Browner told lawmakers to embrace the Green New Deal, and later suggested they start by codifying the Obama regulations that President Trump was trying to undo. 2
Browner’s remarks came a few hours after lawmakers unveiled their resolution for the Green New Deal, which would transition the US economy entirely away from fossil fuels within ten years while simultaneously providing federal jobs and health care guarantees. It would also, according to proponents advance ‘social’ economic, racial, regional and gender-based justice and equality and cooperative public ownership.
“Let’s just take a moment to, like, say this is a good thing. This is a big challenge, and it deserves a big response. A lot of the details we’ll need to work through and sort out, but today’s a good day. We took a big step forward. And it’s only through aspiration and vision that we make progress, so I’m excited,” she said. 2
Steve Milloy reports, “Carol Browner was a commissioner in Socialist International. This revelation has been ignored by the mainstream media and blithely dismissed by her supporters. Socialist International is precisely what it sounds like—a decidedly anti-capitalistic political cause. Founded in 1951, its organizing document rails against capitalism, asserting that it ‘has been incapable of satisfying the elementary needs of the world’s population..unable to function without devastating crises and mass unemployment..produced social insecurity and glaring contrasts between rich and poor..(and) resorted to imperialist expansion and colonial exploitation..” Socialist International also asserts.” 3
According to its own principles, Socialist International favors the nationalization of industry, is skeptical of the benefits of economic growth and wants to establish a more ‘equitable international economic order.’ In true Marxist form, it asserts that, “the concentration of economic power in few private hands must be replaced by a different order in which each person is entitled—as citizen, consumer or wage earner—to influence the direction and distribution of production, the shaping of the means of production, and the conditions of working life.”
Steve Milloy concludes, “You know, one might get the impression that there’s actually something wrong with, and embarrassing about a key White House adviser advocating the undermining of a basic principle of our economic system.” 3
All of this sounds like the words of Green New Deal Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proponent’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti, who admitted recently that the true motivation behind the Green New Deal is to overhaul the ‘entire economy.’ “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as how do you change the entire economy thing,’” he said. 4
Mekhi James, a 3-year-old boy, cried, “It hurts”, after he was shot in Chicago.
Then he died.
Sincere Gaston, a 1-year-old boy, was also shot and killed in Chicago. A 3-year-old girl was shot in the chest while playing in the front yard with other children. She was among the four toddlers shot in Chicago in two weeks. Older children are also being shot. An 8-year-old girl was grazed in the head, and a 5-year-old boy in the buttocks.
Natalia Wallace, a 7-year-old girl described as “quiet and sweet” was shot and killed on the sidewalk.
“Where is the outrage? Our babies are being shot. These are our babies,” Chicago PD’s Chief of Operations Fred Waller, who is African-American, asked.
The question ought to be directed to Black Lives Matter as the BLM Effect fuels shootings and deaths around the country. And the most vulnerable of the BLM Effect’s victims are black children.
Eight children under the age of 10 have been shot in Chicago in the past few weeks. The cause of these shootings is an upsurge in crime from the Black Lives Matter riots that have devastated the country.
The Black Lives Matter riots are killing black people, and particularly black children, in two ways.
Chicago murders are up 83% in June, while arrests fell 55%, street stops 74%, and traffic stops 86%. If you want to see what defunding the police looks like, just stop by Chicago and bring a bulletproof vest.
John Catanzara, the president of the Fraternal Order of Police, blames a new Ferguson Effect in the George Floyd era where officers, “pause and say: ‘I want to go home today safe. I want to make sure I keep my job. And I want to make sure I don’t go to jail.’”
Mayor Lightfoot argues that it’s due to the police being tied up by the Black Lives Matter protests.
And they’re both right. The BLM Effect has a dual function.
The protests are tying up large numbers of cops, leaving gang members free to fight their battles, and the dismantling of proactive policing and the scapegoating of cops makes the police less proactive.
Alderman Chris Taliaferro, the African-American chair of the Chicago City Council Committee on Public Safety, said, “Our police officers don’t want to be the next headline.”
Even as Democrats around the country endorsed Black Lives Matter and championed defunding the police, Chicago’s black political leaders rushed 1,200 cops to the streets for the July 4th weekend.
African-American Police Superintendent David Brown ordered sweeps of street corners for gang members and pleaded with the courts to keep them in jail for at least the weekend.
“Our endgame is arrests,” he said, vowing to break, “the pipeline for shootings and murders in Chicago.”
A white ACLU official warned that would, “drive a wedge between the CPD and communities of color.”
While Democrats, their leftist leaders, and the media insist that the real threat to black people comes from police officers and white ‘Karens’ who try to defend themselves, the truth is in the hospitals.
Not just black people, but black children are being shot across America because of the anti-police riots.
In Detroit, a 9-year-old boy and 10-year-old girl were shot while shooting off fireworks.
In Washington D.C., a world away from where Democrat and Republican politicos sell out children like him by conspiring on “police reform” and “criminal justice reform”, Davon McNeal, an 11-year-old boy, was shot and killed while grabbing a phone charger and earbuds before heading to a July 4th BBQ.
Mayor Muriel Bowser offered her “thoughts and prayers”. But the little boy shot at the Frederick Douglass apartments didn’t need thoughts and prayers recited on Twitter, he needed the police.
The boy’s mother was a community D.C. Violence Interrupter and his grandfather is a Guardian Angel. He was surrounded by alternatives to police, including a city initiative that spent $10 million on community activists that were supposed to somehow ‘interrupt’ violence, but don’t stop bullets.
“We’re protesting for months, for weeks, saying, ‘Black Lives Matter, Black Lives Matter.’ Black lives matter it seems like, only when a police officer shoots a black person,” John Ayala, the boy’s grandfather, said.
“What about all the black-on-black crime that’s happening in the community?”
In St. Louis, a 4-year-old boy was shot in the head over the July 4th weekend. He was one of 4 children shot on the Fourth of July in the city and one of over 60 children that have been shot there this year.
St. Louis Children’s Hospital’s ER has seen more children with gunshot wounds in May than any previous month in its history.
An 8-year-old girl was shot and wounded on July 4th in Cleveland. A 15-year-old boy was among three people who were shot in Boston in 24 hours. In Delano, California, an 11-year-old and a 12-year-old girl were shot and killed at a party. The girls were Latino and their lives don’t matter at the moment.
But in New York City, TreShawn, an 11-year-old boy was wounded while playing outside his home.
There’s a 44% increase in shootings and a 23% rise in murders in New York City. Call it the BLM Effect.
“More people not in jail,” NYPD Chief of Department Terence Monahan said, explaining the rising violence. “Rikers Island in New York is empty. Between Covid, between bail reform, the protests caused animosity towards the police, which took us out of neighborhoods that needed us the most.”
In Rutherfordton, North Carolina, Aaliyah Norris, a 7-year-old girl, was shot and killed by Shaquille Francis. Her 9-year-old older sister won’t sleep and won’t eat after the murder.
Royta Giles Jr., an 8-year-old boy, was shot and killed in a Birmingham mall. Another girl was wounded. A 5-year-old boy was also shot and wounded in Birmingham while riding in a car.
Royta will receive a tiny fraction of the media attention and leftist outrage that Rayshard Brooks did. When a movement cares more about a violent thug than a little boy, that sums its moral compass.
A 6-year-old girl was shot and killed in Palm Bay, Florida. Two children were shot in a drive-by attack in Baton Rouge. A 5-year-old and a 12-year-old were shot during a gun battle in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Clarity Coleman, the 5-year-old, was shot in the leg while being pulled on a wagon.
“I didn’t even know that I got shot until I started feeling the pain,” Chyesha Smith, the 12-year-old, said.
70 children were shot in Philadelphia this year. A 43% rise. 96% of the child victims of violence are black.
This is what Black Lives Matter looks like in the real world.
In Minneapolis, where the city council has voted to defund the police, 50 kids from a youth football team, some as young as 5 years old, ran for cover as shots were fired by rival thugs in a park. Elsewhere, a 7-year-old boy was shot in the foot. 116 people were shot in June. That’s a 400% increase.
Sasha Cotton, who heads the city’s office of violence prevention, blamed angst and trauma from Floyd’s death. Her office’s plan to prevent the violence is to urge the victims not to retaliate.
Coach Thompson, who is black, said, “It was crazy to have 50 to 60 rounds fired and no police presence.”
But he’s considering supporting the defunding of the police.
The BLM Effect is taking black lives across America. In Milwaukee, shootings are up 95%, in Hartford, they’ve risen 36%, and in New York City, shootings are up 142%. In just one week, an extra 37 people were shot. That excess capacity can be credited to Black Lives Matter and all of its supporters.
While Democrat leaders grappled with taking down statues of the great explorer and possibly even renaming the city, Columbus, Ohio is experiencing one of its deadliest years.
Cincinnati is headed toward its deadliest year in over two generations. Murders are up 65%. The average murder victim is black. Only 4 were white.
“Each of those lives matter and the majority of those who have lost their lives this year, last year and the year before that are African Americans. It’s unfortunate to say it is at the hands of other African Americans,” Christopher Smitherman, the black head of Cincinnati’s public safety committee, said.
Smitherman is the former president of Cincinnati’s NAACP.
Black Lives Matter falsely pretends that black people are mostly endangered by police, when in reality, in some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the country, they’re protected by police officers.
And those police officers are increasingly black.
Black Lives Matter declared war on the police on behalf of criminals. The death toll in black lives is shocking. And the toll in the lives of black children is even more heartrending. When the police leave, the criminals take over, and the hospitals and morgues pile up with the black victims of gang violence.
That’s the BLM Effect.
Supporting Black Lives Matter means not only supporting criminals over the police, it means enabling the mass deaths of black people and black children that inevitably follow in the wake of the riots.
If you support Black Lives Matter, you’re killing black children.
Like Biden, Harris is trying to play it in-the-bag safe.
‘Kamala Harris’ Wikipedia page scrubbed of information amid veepstakes, igniting online fight’ (Fox News, July 6, 2020.)
“An online battle has erupted over the Wikipedia page for Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., with a significant uptick in edits that reflects a pattern that’s been seen ahead of past vice-presidential announcements and led Wikipedia to put the page under “discretionary sanctions.”
“The trend was first reported last week by The Intercept. According to the revision history of the Harris article on Wikipedia, there have been 500 revisions to the page since May 9, most of which have been made by one highly prolific editor.
“That editor first started significantly changing the article in April, making additions that led another editor to say on the Kamala Harris “talk” page, “[y]ou seem to have gone through a database of press releases from Harris’ office, cataloging every single one and adding it to the article. That is not how we write encyclopedic articles.”
“That user also removed information that was critical of Harris, with some other editors on the “talk” page objecting to changes regarding Harris’ relationship with former California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown that were allegedly made “without adequate justification.” Users also objected to changes related to Harris’ record as an aggressive prosecutor, with one editor making a change on July 2—after The Intercept published its story— saying they were “restoring more scrubbed well-sourced content. Just because it may be ‘unflattering’ doesn’t mean it needs to be censored.”
“I’m not a Democratic operative, I do this for free because I’m sick of misinformation about Kamala Harris,” he said on the Harris “talk” page.
“Harris has widely been seen as one of the favorites to be the running mate for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. But her record as a prosecutor, which dogged her during the initial stages of the Democratic presidential primary race last year, could be even more of a liability now as a wave of anti-police sentiment has swept the nation, especially among the left wing of the Democratic Party.
“It’s unclear that the edits to Harris’ page, which have been much more frequent than those for other potential Democrats involved in the 2020 “veepstakes,” signify anything more than one highly dedicated individual wanting to make the page reflect more positively on Harris. But the attention brought onto the issue by the media last week appears to have led other editors to place the page under more scrutiny, aiming to ensure that it includes both flattering and unflattering information on the senator.
“Multiple editors on the “talk” page have argued that the one prolific editor should “recuse himself from editing the Kamala Harris page.”
Another added: “I am concerned that Wikipedia not be turned into a campaign website for Kamala Harris.”
And you thought that Kamala Harris could only be seen in online dance moves!
While Wikipedia editors are fighting it out among themselves, Harris has come out of the Democrat barn, adding a new twist to the Party’s all-out mission to make the 2020 election a complete Mail-In Vote:
“Kamala Harris just released a massive Voting Rights Bill with an INNOVATIVE new idea: Drive-Thru Polling Locations.(Stop-Republicans.org email, July 6, 2020)
“MAKE VOTING EASY:
LET PEOPLE CAST THEIR BALLOTS WITHOUT LEAVING THEIR CAR (VERY VERY SAFE OPTION)
“Listen—Kamala Harris just came up with an INCREDIBLE plan to keep Democrats safe to vote in the 2020 Election:
“A National System of Drive-Thru Voting (SO SMART)
100,000 CITIZEN CO-SPONSORS NEEDED IN JULY: Will you add your name to co-sponsor Kamala Harris’ drive-thru voting bill?
“We must ensure that it is safe to vote in the 2020 Election.
“We need to make voting accessible for Every Democrat—or Trump will win re‑election.
“But with Trump’s cronies like Mitch McConnell in control of the Senate, Kamala Harris’ plan is in DANGER. He knows that the GOP would be in shambles if elections were actually fair!
“That’s why we’re calling on a MASSIVE wave of 100,000 citizen co-sponsors to PASS Kamala Harris’ drive-thru voting bill
“PAID FOR BY STOP REPUBLICANS PAC
“Stop Republicans, an accountability project of Progressive Turnout Project, is a grassroots-funded effort dedicated to resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right wing agenda. “
Conclusion: The Democrats, under cover of the Coronavirus, are pressing voting masses to vote for a completely digital presidential candidate in a drive-thru vote where you don’t have to step out of your car!
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Australia's Front Line
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Intelligence with Integrity
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: email@example.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Featuring Socio-Economic-Financial News Topics Followed by Martin Hladyniuk
"Feel free to associate..."
Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever
Empowered with Insperational Qoutes,Spiritual Qoutes, Prayers and laughter.
Conservative Christian and Political Opinion Site. exposing corruption in the church and politics.
Inspiring the world